[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 130 (Thursday, September 25, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H7879-H7889]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




DEPARTMENTS OF COMMERCE, JUSTICE, AND STATE, THE JUDICIARY, AND RELATED 
                   AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1998

  The Committee resumed its sitting.


                Privileged Motion Offered by Mr. Becerra

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

       Mr. Becerra moves that the Committee do now rise.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the privileged 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 103, 
noes 281, not voting 49, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 454]

                               AYES--103

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Berry
     Bishop
     Bonior
     Borski
     Brown (OH)
     Carson
     Chenoweth
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Coyne
     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
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (WI)
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kilpatrick
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lowey
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Martinez
     McCarthy (MO)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Mink
     Moakley
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Rangel
     Roybal-Allard
     Sanchez
     Sawyer
     Serrano
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Snyder
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Waters
     Waxman
     Woolsey

                               NOES--281

     Aderholt
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bono
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capps
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Christensen
     Clement
     Coble
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (IL)
     Deal
     DeLay
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Fawell
     Foley

[[Page H7880]]


     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
     Herger
     Hill
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kildee
     Kim
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lucas
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Manton
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Meek
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Packard
     Pappas
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Paxon
     Payne
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Redmond
     Regula
     Reyes
     Riggs
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryun
     Sabo
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Schumer
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Adam
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Stump
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Thomas
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     White
     Whitfield
     Wise
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--49

     Archer
     Armey
     Ballenger
     Bliley
     Bonilla
     Coburn
     Collins
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Davis (VA)
     Diaz-Balart
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Ewing
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Gonzalez
     Hansen
     Hastings (FL)
     Hilleary
     Johnson, Sam
     Kleczka
     Largent
     Lazio
     Linder
     Manzullo
     McDade
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Oxley
     Parker
     Pelosi
     Rahall
     Rogan
     Salmon
     Sanders
     Scarborough
     Schiff
     Smith (OR)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thornberry
     Wamp
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Yates
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  1945

  Mr. GUTKNECHT changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no''.
  Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye''.
  So the motion was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Hefley 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I join the chairman of the committee in rising in 
strong opposition to the Hefley amendment to cut $90 million from the 
funding provided for the Economic Development Administration.
  I know of no other agency, no other program in the Federal Government 
more critical to the economic development needs of communities around 
this Nation than EDA. EDA programs target funds to areas in need of 
assistance and respond to special needs of each individual town and 
city. EDA has programs which benefit communities in almost every stage 
of the development process.
  For communities experiencing structural economic changes, EDA 
provides flexibility assistance to help them design and implement their 
own local recovery strategies. For communities facing prolonged 
economic distress, EDA provides the funding necessary to repair 
decaying infrastructure and to develop new infrastructures needed for 
business growth.
  For communities faced with massive job loss associated with defense 
downsizing, EDA provides the funding to develop projects at the local 
level that support community revitalization priorities. EDA's grant and 
technical assistance programs really work. Any of my colleagues can 
look around their districts and point to economic success stories 
catalyzed by EDA funding.
  EDA's grant programs represent an investment in our Nation's future, 
the future of our cities, our towns, and neighborhoods. Over the last 
30 years, EDA has invested $15.6 billion in our Nation's distressed 
communities, creating more than 2.8 million jobs and leveraging almost 
$2 billion in private sector capital.
  EDA has a proven success record, with over 39,000 economic 
development projects completed under its programs. EDA makes good 
fiscal sense. More than $3 million in outside investment has been 
leveraged for every Federal dollar invested in EDA programs.
  In closing, Mr. Chairman, economic development is a local process 
with a specific appropriated Federal role. EDA, in direct partnership 
with the stressed communities, provides seed funding that promotes 
long-term investments that respond to locally defined economic 
priorities.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. It is 
easy if one is from an affluent area of America to say we do not need 
to invest in the poorer parts of our country. But the fact is that the 
Economic Development Administration is absolutely crucial to the 
investment needed in the poorest of our geographical areas of this 
country.
  We are talking about investment that not only is going to create 
jobs, but we are also talking about investment that is going to make 
these poor areas of America better places to live and work. We are 
talking about environmental improvement, as well. We are talking about 
improving the lives of the people who live in this area and the 
families and the kids.
  In the last Congress, we had a vote on this issue; and in that last 
Congress, over 300 Members voted overwhelmingly to reject this 
amendment. Indeed, a majority of Republicans voted against this 
amendment. A majority of Democrats voted against this amendment. And 
for good reason: Because we need to have EDA investment in those areas 
of America which need to bootstrap themselves up.
  Indeed, Rutgers University recently released a study which shows that 
for every dollar of EDA money invested in a region, $10 of private 
money is invested. We cannot hardly get a better investment than that 
in America.
  So let us support EDA. Let us invest in America. Let us build 
infrastructure in the poorest of our geographical regions. Vote down 
this amendment. Support EDA. It is good for America.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Hefley amendment, 
which would eliminate about a quarter of the funding for the Economic 
Development Administration. The author of the amendment has said that 
there are some 62 agencies that overlap or duplicate the economic 
development efforts of this agency. Yet, this is the one that we all 
know as an effective agency. This is the one that my colleague chooses 
to try to eliminate.
  We all know that the Economic Development Administration supports 
communities that are in economic distress. We all know that modest 
economic development money can breathe new life into the communities 
that are facing financial hardship.
  In the years, only a little more than six, that I have served in this 
Congress, EDA has funded regional economic planning for small 
communities to maximize their job creation and development potentials, 
EDA has provided capital for small businesses, EDA has helped turn 
former military bases into centers for new business, and EDA has funded 
utilities and road construction to create industrial parks in some of 
the poorest communities in my district, communities like Gardner and 
Fitchburg and Pittsfield, MA.
  But EDA also provides emergency funds for communities in crisis 
situations. The town of Colrain, MA, was headed for an economic 
disaster here recently when its largest employer decided to close down, 
that it was going to simply close, thereby causing a ripple effect on 
the town's second largest employer, which was located on the same 
industrial site.
  The two companies shared electric power, waste water, and fire safety 
infrastructures. Faced with the need to

[[Page H7881]]

make huge capital investments to remain alone on site, the second 
company was about to move its manufacturing elsewhere as well.
  With my support, Colrain turned to EDA for emergency funding. And 
together with private, State, and local funding, and in this case no 
one of these could have done it alone, but they did it, they turned to 
the EDA for the emergency funds to finance the infrastructure 
improvement needed to retain a critical business and allow that 
business to grow. EDA answered Colrain's call for help. Colrain's 
application is moving through its final phases, and the serious job 
loss has been averted in my district.
  Let me stress again that in the Colrain, MA, case EDA funding is only 
part of a larger package of State and local and private funding. No one 
of those entities would have been able to go it alone. But EDA's, in 
this case, modest Federal half-a-million-dollar commitment had a major 
impact in securing and leveraging, as other people have already said, 
the other funding sources and the private monies that have to go into 
such economic development.

                              {time}  2000

  Mr. Chairman, I urge all of my colleagues to preserve the EDA funding 
and to reject the Hefley amendment.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Hefley]. I think it is a responsible 
amendment and long overdue. I refer to this as the Stop the Creep 
amendment. That is not an ad hominem remark. That refers to the fact 
that in 1995, this body voted to do away with this organization, and at 
that time the level of support was at about $350 million. I would point 
out to my colleagues, particularly those on my right, that we are now 
talking about an appropriation of $453 million, an increase of 29.4 
percent that most of the fiscal conservatives in this body voted to do 
something about just 3 short years ago.
  Mr. Chairman, 2 years ago a new majority was elected with a mandate 
to change the way Washington works. Instead of running up the tab on 
our kids, we pledged to make tough choices and prioritize our limited 
resources, and everybody cheered. This ambitious agenda was articulated 
in the House budget resolution which returned power to the taxpayer and 
eliminated wasteful departments. One of those that was pegged for 
elimination under the programs and agencies that were considered was 
the Great Society relic called the Economic Development Administration.
  So what has happened? While the EDA has failed very badly in its core 
mission of providing aid to distressed communities, its success in 
bringing home the bacon is unmatched, and we all know it. Of grants 
made in 1994, for example, the 17 States represented by the members of 
the relevant Senate and House subcommittees received $1.10 per capita 
compared to 68 cents for the rest of the Nation. Rational observers, I 
am told, are concluding that grants are being made based on political 
considerations, not true need.
  EDA proponents will serve up any number of creative defenses for this 
program, and I admit there have been some spots of success in it, but 
they are very few. But the supporters also ignore the fact, and here is 
a fact, the GAO was unable to find any study, any study, that 
established a causal linkage between EDA assistance and a positive 
economic effect in a community, the reason we have this program. It is 
not working.
  Fact: Nearly 90 percent of the Nation has been found eligible for EDA 
grants in the past, despite the fact the money is supposed to go to 
certifiably distressed communities. Is everything in America a 
distressed community?
  Fact: Proponents will argue that the EDA has been reformed, yet the 
agency has not been reauthorized since 1980. Translation: There has 
been no real reform. Despite years of promises that there would be some 
real house cleaning, it has not happened.
  Mr. Chairman, the Hefley amendment does not end the EDA. It does not 
end the EDA, however deserved that might be. It simply makes a 
responsible cut down to the Senate level. I want to repeat, this 
amendment does not end the EDA. It reduces it to the Senate level. It 
ends the cost creep.
  Last year the House-passed bill contained $348 million for EDA, yet 
somehow it emerged from conference almost $100 million heavier; $426 
million, to be exact, of taxpayers' money. A glance at the numbers 
reveals that we have increased EDA funding by 29 percent since 1995, 
the year that we pledged to end it altogether. What happened? Mr. 
Chairman, the present House bill not only exceeds the Senate level, but 
it is even higher than the President's budget request.
  I urge my colleagues to support this sensible reduction in the funds 
for the EDA back to the Senate level of $250 million, a quarter of a 
billion dollars, which is a $90 million savings for the taxpayer for a 
program that we do not think is working very well, and our agency, the 
GAO, has not been able to find a positive benefit from it. I think it 
is a reasonable amendment. I ask Members to consider it sincerely.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GOSS. I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, one of our speakers earlier talked about 
all of that matching money that came back. In September of 1994, a 
nonprofit corporation in Alabama was awarded a $750,000 grant to create 
a revolving loan fund, and the community matching funds were to be $1 
million, and the $1 million never showed up. The Inspector General 
investigated the nonprofit and found that they had not been meeting the 
matching fund requirement since 1986. So when we hear of all these 
matching funds, in theory that works, but in practice I could give my 
colleagues example after example after example where it simply has not 
worked.
  The theory behind EDA, which is what most of the speakers are talking 
about, is good. The practice is, it does not work.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. I do 
want to congratulate and commend the chairman of the subcommittee for 
the splendid job that he has done. The gentleman from Kentucky has led 
this subcommittee very ably, and has made the case, I think, very 
persuasively, and has worked with our authorizing committee, as the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster] indicated earlier, to sort 
out some of the problems, narrow the focus, target this program more 
effectively and more efficiently, reduce its staffing level, and I take 
issue with some of the numbers cited just a moment ago.
  The fiscal 1997 funding level for EDA, for this year, is $427 
million. The subcommittee has cut $65 million out of that level. That 
is not a cut in the growth. That is a cut from this year's level. That 
is a cut in the real program down to $361 million. The vote that my 
good friend from Florida referenced about eliminating EDA was not a 
vote on eliminating EDA. That was a vote on eliminating the Department 
of Commerce. It was part of the Republican reconciliation bill. EDA is 
included in the Department of Commerce. It is a stretch to say that we 
voted on eliminating EDA.
  Those who would say that, oh, 90 percent of the country is eligible 
for EDA funds, that is not true. Ninety-three percent of EDA funds go 
to the eligible areas, only those areas that qualify with a 1 
percentage point level of unemployment above the national average.
  EDA has been an extraordinarily effective program for the small 
communities of America and even for larger cities. I have been watching 
this for 25 years. The opponents of EDA come up here representing 
comfortable areas of this country and tell the poor areas of America, 
``You do not need this help. You do not need this lift up.'' Well, 
every dollar of EDA leverages $10 of private investment money. The 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster] cited the study that showed 
that there is a minimal cost of $3,000 of EDA investment per job.
  You want success stories? We have got them. During the time that I 
was privileged to chair the economic development subcommittee, we held 
hearings, we brought in all those who were

[[Page H7882]]

critics, we brought in those who benefited from the program. A Georgia 
development district received $3.1 million in EDA funds, matched by 
$3.1 million in non-Federal local private funds. That generated $142 
million in private investment, creating 2,238 private sector jobs. EDA 
cost per job, $1,000.
  Fort Holabird Industrial Park. Fort Holabird was shut down by the 
military. Baltimore was in distress. EDA granted a title 9 emergency 
grant to help rehabilitate that community, $11.3 million. The city 
matched it with $11 million. There was private investment of $42 
million, 1,000 new jobs. GM came in, made an investment in the 
community. They put in $258 million with the funds that EDA provided to 
stimulate water, sewer, road access to this park facility. 4,000 jobs 
were protected and retained.
  There is story after story of success. I do not want to belabor the 
body. I just want to quote from one of the witnesses when our committee 
went into Kentucky, southern Virginia, and West Virginia, a wise 
witness stood up and said, ``We are proud, conservative mountain 
people. We don't ask for anything that we don't give of ourselves. But 
you can't turn around 50 and 100 years of decay and decline in 1 or 2 
years of water and sewer grants. Give us a hand. Give us the 
opportunity. We have the energy. We have the youth that wants a future. 
We are proud mountain people. Give us the opportunity.'' EDA gives them 
that opportunity. I ask my colleagues, defeat this amendment. Give 
rural America an opportunity.
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise tonight to vehemently oppose this amendment. I 
come from rural Pennsylvania, a rural part of Pennsylvania that has 
been struggling economically. We look at EDA as the doctor who can give 
us a transfusion to help us maintain economic life.
  It has been interesting to listen to those who talk about this as 
pork, as waste. Let me tell my colleagues what happens in a small town 
in America when you lose the only factory, when you lose the only major 
employer. And I wish some of those that are proposing this amendment 
looked into the eyes of the people in the glass plant in Marienville 
when they knew their job of the last 50 years was gone forever and 
there were no other job opportunities within 40 miles. I will never 
forget the look on those people's faces, and I sure do not want to tell 
them that there is not an Economic Development Administration to help 
them.
  In State government, we had a lot of economic development plans. I 
was often critical that a lot of that money went to very affluent 
areas, went to areas that were fighting growth, who were growing faster 
than they wanted to. But EDA targets its resources. It targets it to 
our communities that are the most in need, communities that have lost 
their major employers.
  Tell the community in Jefferson County that their industrial park, 
the 70 new jobs, was not worthwhile. Tell the people in Centre County 
who purchased a rail line that would have taken rail service away from 
employers and has since created 1,000 jobs. Tell the community in Tioga 
County in Pennsylvania that repurchased a Conrail line that was going 
to remove 450 jobs from their community because they could not function 
without rail service.
  I am here today to tell Members that this is a program that if we do 
away with in these small rural towns, where are those people going to 
go? The unemployment lines, the welfare rolls. It is going to cost us a 
whole lot more money than this measly $340 million that helps 
distressed communities all across this country.
  Tell this to a community that lost a USX plant, a Quaker State 
headquarters, a Worthington Pump plant, a Van Huffel Tube plant, a 
Foster Forbes Glass plant, a Graham Packaging plant that we do not 
care. Tell them that, that we are not going to help them pull 
themselves up by their bootstraps.
  If we want to look for economic development funds, why do we not look 
at the International Development Association that does economic 
development around the world? If we give them a 26 percent cut, we 
could save $160 million. The USAID, Agency for International 
Development, if we gave them a 26 percent cut, we could save $130 
million. Aid to the former Soviet Union for economic development, if we 
give them a 26 percent cut, we could save $160 million.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a small program that targets its resources well 
to the poorest communities in America. I urge Members tonight to defeat 
this amendment and put it to bed forever, and let us work with a 
program that helps the poorest communities pull up their bootstraps.

                              {time}  2015

  Mr. WISE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment to cut 25 
percent out of the Economic Development Administration budget. Some 
have spoken about projects that they question. Well, let me give my 
colleagues some success stories, and I think that is very, very 
important.
  Let me talk to my colleagues about in the eastern panhandle of West 
Virginia, just an hour and 15 minutes drive from here, where a $2 
million EDA grant is helping to generate hundreds of jobs at the new 
Sino-Swearingen Aircraft facility. I calculated that for every Federal 
dollar going in between the EDA and ARC, which incidentally got $4.5 
million leverage, $133 million, that it would be repaid to the Federal 
taxpayer in workers paying income taxes in about 3 years. One real 
estate developer said, ``That's one of the best investments you can 
get.''
  So whether we are talking about the Sino-Swearingen plant in eastern 
West Virginia, whether we are looking at the jobs that are being 
generated at the Wood Technology Center at Elkins, WV, because of a EDA 
grant and the opportunities in the wood industry that it is making 
there, or whether we are talking about Jackson County, WV, where an EDA 
grant is helping create an estimated 350 jobs for the Jackson County 
Maritime and Industrial Center by constructing necessary water and 
sewer systems, EDA gets a return for the taxpayer.
  Also, those of us who have been from flood-torn areas know the 
importance of EDA as it has come to our rescue in rebuilding 
communities and providing flood assistance grants throughout much of 
West Virginia, but, yes, throughout much of our country.
  Let me just note that an independent study recently at Rutgers 
University evaluated EDA's public works program and found that EDA 
completed its projects on time, on budget, created and retained jobs at 
the minimum cost of a little over $3,000 of EDA investment per job, and 
leveraged $10 of private investment for every $1 invested, and every 
EDA dollar results in $10 returned to communities through an increased 
local tax base. That is a good return on the taxpayers' dollar; that is 
a solid reason to reject this amendment to cut the Economic Development 
Administration.
  Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WISE. I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida.
  Ms. BROWN of Florida. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I have a question as former 
chairman of EDA. I come from Florida, a community that has 2 bases to 
close, and I want to be clear what is EDA's responsibility as far as 
these base closures because, as we think about Florida, I want to be 
clear that my area of Florida supports the EDA grants and the mayor, 
the city council, the county commission, the State of Florida is 
working in partnership for these grants. Could the gentleman explain?
  Mr. WISE. The gentlewoman makes a good point that the Economic 
Development Administration is a linchpin in the base closing 
legislation that this Congress is passed and is often the lead agency, 
the one that communities contact first to assist as they plan how to 
deal with this economic loss and how to gain from it. And so that is 
why this Congress has put additional funds into the EDA from time to 
time, to assist in base closing legislation such as what the 
gentlewoman is experiencing in Florida.
  Mr. Chairman, I would urge the House strongly to reject this 
amendment; to recognize that the EDA has a vital function to perform 
for all our country and is performing it well.

[[Page H7883]]

  Mr. HOSTETLER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the amendment offered 
by the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Hefley] to decrease funding, 
decrease funding for the Economic Development Administration. The 
Economic Development Administration, known as EDA, which is part of the 
Department of Commerce, was created in 1965 to assist in the 
development of depressed areas and encourage increased employment 
through loans and grants to State and local communities. While this 
objective may appear to be quite exemplary, in reality the EDA has at 
times funded many projects that have nothing to do with jobs or 
economic development for depressed areas.
  As we struggle to balance the budget it is critical to target 
programs that waste millions of precious Federal dollars every year. We 
simply cannot afford to continue funding this program at such high 
levels. Therefore, I am supporting this amendment to fund the EDA at 
the Senate level, which is approximately $90 million less than the 
House Committee on Appropriations passed level.
  There are any number of examples of Federal spending for reasonable 
projects within EDA. We have all heard the stories of taxpayer dollars 
being wasted on the $800,000 spent on a golf course that washed away, 
or the $5 million that was awarded in 1976 to an economic development 
district that built a cash reserve of almost $2 million and wasted and 
misused over a million dollars. Must I remind us of the $850,000 that 
was awarded in 1987 to help fund a $1 million, 3-year industrial park 
expansion? Eight years later that project was barely started but 
$670,000 of the money, of the taxpayers' money, had been spent.
  I do want to take a moment to elaborate on the concerns I have over a 
statistic that was sent to my office in a fax that was urging 
opposition to this amendment. According to a May 1997 Rutgers 
University study of the EDA public works program, EDA programs are 
successful at creating jobs at a cost to taxpayers of only $3,058. I 
say ``only'' only because the information I received used the word 
``only.'' I am deeply concerned about any Federal program whose 
supporters would claim success over the fact that taxpayers are only 
paying over $3,000 for the creation of one job. I am even more deeply 
concerned that we in Congress would view a government program as 
successful if it creates jobs and that these jobs only cost taxpayers 
$3,000. Taxpayers in my district and around the country work very hard 
to make ends meet, and I am sure they too would be concerned if they 
were to find out about this so-called successful program.
  Resources are very limited, and it is time we evaluate a little more 
critically the success of many Federal programs. I would contend that 
cutting Federal spending and cutting taxes on all American taxpayers 
will prove to be much more successful at creating jobs, and not at a 
cost of over $3,000. We are simply not in a financial position to fund 
many of these programs, and every effort we make to curb wasteful 
spending is a positive step toward balancing the Federal budget.
  It is obvious the EDA has failed at its intended mission. Due to the 
budgetary constraints and the lack of a justifiable Federal role in 
these programs, it makes good sense to at least fund this program at 
the same level passed by the Senate earlier this year. The EDA has 
proven itself to be a failure at meeting its objective. This program 
has become a multimillion dollar drain on scarce and valuable Federal 
resources.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask for my colleagues' votes to strike $90 million of 
EDA funding in the fiscal 1998 Commerce-State-Justice appropriations 
bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
Colorado [Mr. Hefley].
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, unfortunately we are not as critical of 
this program as we would be of some of the others to see if it is 
really working well because it is too good for our reelection efforts. 
We live in a culture where we are judged by how much we are able to 
take back home.
  The Department of Commerce Inspector General issued a semiannual 
report earlier this year and could not even express a opinion on the 
financial position of EDA because it has too many inadequacies in its 
internal control structure. The I.G. also identified many specific 
examples of grants that either should not have been made or that just 
did not work the way they were supposed to, just did not work.
  So, yes, I do not have any illusions that this amendment is probably 
going to pass tonight; sometime it will, I think, but maybe not tonight 
because it is too good a bottomless pit for us to take money out of and 
take back home, whether it works or not.
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I would just like the Congress to understand the 
scenario which they are seeing here. In Florida we call it a snooker, 
and that is what it is, a monumental snooker, Mr. Chairman. What you 
hear here should be added to the new nomenclature of the language of 
the Congress, snooker, and what it means is people are substituting 
things for the real facts because of the emotionalism which we see tied 
into this reduction.
  Now first of all, this same group that we see here tonight, we have 
already cut EDA by 15 percent. So they are saying to my colleagues that 
the 15 percent which they have already cut EDA by is not enough. So use 
a little deductive reasoning, and what they are saying is let us cut 
out EDA. The same people we see talking about EDA this year were up 
last year with this same amendment.
  So now look, look back into the history. I always look at the names 
of people associated to an amendment; that is a good thing to do in 
this Congress. Then I begin to do what is called reciprocal innovation, 
and that means to be able to exchange some of the stuff that they are 
talking about and let them know that it is not true.
  First of all, why cut it any more? There are no earmarks in this, 
none at all. EDA does not have any earmarks in this bill. But it 
selects these economic development projects that help the most 
distressed communities, the most distressed communities, not in anyone 
of our means but because people have to really apply to EDA for these 
improved at their distress, and it offers them some success in creating 
jobs.
  Now another part of this snooker is this new welfare reform syndrome. 
My colleagues want to reform welfare. Well, I will tell them something. 
It is so simple: Got to create some jobs. It is so simple some of us do 
not understand it. My colleagues think it is going to happen overnight 
because they come to this floor and make some of these snookering 
statements. And the audacity of it, everybody should be able to see 
through it.
  What they need to say to my colleagues is, You're going to cut out 
the source of building these communities, putting some economic 
development into these communities and developing jobs.
  Now the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure has 
tried very hard, Mr. Chairman. They know about some of these abuses. 
They have worked it in such a way they are going to approve the EDA 
reauthorization, and it reforms these programs where they need 
reformation. But they are not going to bring in a snooker to try to get 
this Congress to cut $90 million from these funds.
  So then think about what would have happened to us in Miami if it 
were not for EDA. Eastern Airlines went out, 300 people without a job, 
more than that when we look at the long term effects of it. Opa-Locka 
went down, a small city there; the city of Miami is almost to go down 
if it were not for the economic development. This is a federalism which 
we need. There is federalism which we do not need, but we do need that. 
Homestead, a small farming community in my district, if it were not for 
EDA, what would have happened to Homestead?
  We have heard a litany of snookers here tonight. That litany would 
have us think a city like Homestead in my district that was wiped out 
by the hurricane, if it were not for EDA coming into that city, trying 
to help build new businesses, trying to help build new infrastructure, 
trying to help us come back, those people are still deprived, they are 
have not come back yet. If it

[[Page H7884]]

were not for EDA, we could not have gotten the help we needed. St. 
Petersburg, FL; I could go on and on, Mr. Chairman.
  But what I want to make clear to this Congress is that they just 
witnessed a monumental snooker, someone not in favor of the EDA trying 
very hard to cut it out. Let us stop them, let us oppose this amendment 
and kill it, Black Flag dead. Let us kill it.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Just very quickly to the gentlewoman from 
Florida: She is standing for Florida, I have heard people from the 
Midwest, I have heard the ranking member, I have heard the chairman of 
the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. It is a terrible 
shame in this budget cutting, welfare slashing, that when we talk about 
real jobs like the jobs being created in Houston with the renewal of 
Hargus College, making that a small business incubator successfully 
with city and EDA funds, that we would want to cut and slash and burn 
and not create jobs for Americans. We want to create them everywhere 
else, but we do not want to create them for America. I thank the 
gentlewoman for yielding to me, and I appreciate what has happened in 
Florida, but it is happening all over America, and we should oppose 
vigorously this amendment.
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from 
Texas very much, and I am glad she is helping to deflate that 
monumental snooker.

                              {time}  2030

  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, the author of this amendment has acknowledged that 
every year he comes to the floor and proposes a near identical 
amendment. When is he going to get the message?
  Every year this House has increasing support for the Economic 
Development Administration. Every single year the opposition is on the 
decline. Why is that?
  One of my colleagues, a previous speaker, said the American people 
send us here to make tough choices. Indeed they do. But they do not 
want us to make dumb choices.
  I will tell you what the Economic Development Administration is all 
about. It is about my favorite four-letter word, and you can use it in 
polite company. That favorite four-letter word is ``jobs,'' jobs that 
put Americans to work.
  Now, if you want to tell me that EDA does not work, I will take you 
to community after community around this country that has been 
devastated by the loss of a military installation. We are told that is 
a peace dividend, that we do not need as many military bases, and I can 
understand that.
  But what about those communities that one day face the loss of 
thousands of jobs? Where do they turn to? They look to Washington, and, 
fortunately, we have the Economic Development Administration to help 
these communities try to help themselves.
  What about those communities all across the country that are victims 
of cruel tricks played by mother nature, devastated by natural 
disasters? They look to us, those of us in positions of 
responsibilities, and say help. Thank God we have the Economic 
Development Administration to help.
  How about those factories closing? Where do those communities go? 
Someone earlier said, ``You know, it is $3,000 a job.'' Guess what? I 
will take you to community after community across this country that 
would gladly accept jobs if it only cost $3,000. It costs so much more. 
As a matter of fact, the rule of thumb for EDA is about $10,000 a job. 
And, guess what? The communities that desperately need them do not even 
have five cents, let alone $10,000. They lost their tax base. They have 
lost their employment opportunities.
  EDA is about hope. Now, I was here as a young staff member sitting in 
that gallery in August of 1965 when the Public Works and Economic 
Development Act was first passed. I remember that vividly, Republicans 
and Democrats joining to create an agency that offered some hope for 
distressed communities across this country, and through those years, 
those 32 years, the agency has had its ups and downs.
  But life has changed for me. Now I serve on the committee that has 
jurisdiction over the authorization of this program, and I have sat 
there as witness after witness has come forward, some telling us of the 
changes needed, and those changes have been made; some telling us that 
they have ideas for improvement, and improvements have been made. But, 
one after another, from communities all across this country, we have 
had local government officials come and say, ``Thank you for the 
Economic Development Administration. Please continue this important 
program, because where opportunity has been lost, hope has been 
provided.''
  This measure will pass overwhelmingly to continue the Economic 
Development Administration. It did the year before, and the year before 
that, and the year before that. This is a good agency. It is not 
perfect. I have never seen a perfect agency and unlikely never will.
  But the fact of the matter is basically this: In an economy that is 
beginning to move in the right direction, in an economy where more and 
more we are telling people from all walks of life that you have 
expanded opportunity, greater hope, there are still areas of distress. 
Those areas need assistance. And when that assistance is possible in 
the form of a loan or a grant from the Economic Development 
Administration, and we are part of the organization that makes that 
agency possible, I think it is a day's work well done.
  I would say overwhelmingly, Mr. Chairman, reject this amendment. 
Support the continued funding of the Economic Development 
Administration for all the right reasons, but, most importantly, for 
jobs for America.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I think there are a lot of people that are smoking on 
this. I am the ranking member of that subcommittee, and there are very 
few Members in the House I have more respect for than the gentleman who 
has brought this amendment.
  I want to say this to the gentleman: There is much merit to what you 
are saying, and if there are not some basic reforms I will vote with 
you next year.
  But there is a new administrator over there, Mr. Phillip Singerman, 
and he has done a fine job. I want the Congress to know this.
  In addition to that, we are beginning to move EDA from a giveaway 
program to a leveraged program. I have offered legislation, part of 
which has been included, and I would like the gentleman from Colorado 
to recognize what that legislation does.
  My legislation provides a fund of money that can only be used to buy 
down interest rates when a bank makes a loan. I think the problem we 
have had around here in economic development is we have thrown money at 
communities. Much of it has been easy money, and people with ideas come 
in without their own sweat and blood and have gotten money from Uncle 
Sam and ripped us off. I think our intentions were well meaning, but 
they were not successful.
  My language says, look, we use some of the EDA money, but we will 
only give that money as an incentive once a bank qualifies a legitimate 
project. Then we will use it to buy down those interest rates.
  We are making some basic reforms in the economic development program, 
and some of the shortcomings are being overcome. I took the floor to 
let the gentleman know that, because I believe that in the past the 
gentleman has been on target. This is an agency that has not lived up 
to the types of deeds and tasks it should have.
  Mr. Chairman, I think Mr. Singerman has done a good job and I think 
he deserves that chance, and I think we deserve the chance as the 
authorizing committee to refashion and to reform EDA, to make it more 
of a leveraging agency rather than a giveaway agency.
  I want to let the gentleman know we are doing that. I know the 
gentleman is going to go on with his program, and I respect that. I 
believe the gentleman, through his amendments, has kept EDA's feet to 
the fire, and we are making the improvements because of his efforts.
  I do not want to demean the gentleman's efforts. In fact, I 
appreciate his

[[Page H7885]]

efforts, and when we get a chance after this is all over, I would like 
to sit down with the gentleman and even like to incorporate some of the 
ideas and concerns he has.
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I have listened intently to the discussion and the 
debate. I rise in opposition to this amendment, and I do so because I 
have lived in severely distressed neighborhoods for the last 40 years.
  The community where I live in Chicago, the area where my office is 
located, is something called the North Lawndale community, which has 
been called the ``permanent underclass'' by sociologists and 
urbanologists. It has been called ``the place where there is no hope.'' 
And yet, because of an EDA grant, that community does in fact have 
hope.
  My community has lost more than 100,000 manufacturing jobs over a 30-
year period, Allied Radio, GE, Hot Point, Motorola, International 
Harvester, Sunbeam, you name them, Western Electric. They were once 
there, but now they are all gone.
  As a result of that grant, my neighbors and I have an opportunity to 
go to a bank that would not have been there had it not been for an EDA 
grant. We have an opportunity to go to stores that would not have been 
there had not it been for an EDA grant. There are small manufacturing 
concerns that have begun to come back that would not have been there 
had not it been for the EDA grant.
  So I tell you, if we are talking about rebuilding, redeveloping, 
reconstituting urban America, then we are not talking about taking one 
dime, one scintilla, one ion from this agency. If anything, we are 
talking about trying to find additional ways to put the needed 
resources of this country where they should go, to rural America, to 
urban America, to places that have made this country what it is and is 
redeveloping.
  Mr. Chairman, I would urge all of my colleagues, let us not cut; let 
us increase. Let us give hope to the hopeless. Let us bring help to the 
helpless. Let us make America the land that it has never been, but yet 
ought to be. Let us make America the America that it has the potential 
of being.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the 
amendment to H.R. 2267, the Commerce, Justice, State fiscal year 1998 
Appropriations bill that is being offered by our friend Mr. Hefley of 
Colorad--an amendment that would cut $90 million from the Economic 
Development Administration--the EDA.
  Mr. Hefley says he wants only to cut $90 million from EDA--down to 
$271 million--so that our bill will match the funding level in the 
Senate-passed bill.
  There is no magic, and no common sense either, in the Senate numbers.
  Last year, my colleagues, you joined 328 of your colleagues--
Democrats and Republicans alike--for continued funding of the EDA.
  I urge you to vote again to stop the push to gut the Economic 
Development Administration and its program funds that assist so many 
States and localities nationwide, but particularly in those areas 
suffering the most economic stress.
  H.R. 2267 already cuts the EDA by 15 percent below the fiscal year 
1997 level. There are no earmarks--these economic development projects 
are selected by the EDA on the basis of sending help to the most 
distressed communities in our Nation--helping people by creating jobs.
  I know that each of you are aware of the assistance EDA provides to 
your own district's distressed communities, whether they are urban or 
rural.
  This is vital seed money for local governments--for every $1 spent in 
EDA funds, local governments leverage another $10 from other sources, 
to help pay for these vital economic development programs.
  These local governments are hard pressed to respond to the needs of 
former welfare recipients as they are faced with finding ways in which 
to provide necessary jobs--gainful employment--for those families.
  A vote against the Hefley amendment to cut $90 million from the 
Economic Development Administration is a vote in favor of new jobs, for 
families in need, for communities suffering from the effects of natural 
disasters such as hurricanes, earthquakes and spring floods.
  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 ayes 
appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. ROGERS. 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 305, not voting 21, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 455]

                               AYES--107

     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bono
     Brady
     Burton
     Cannon
     Chabot
     Christensen
     Coble
     Coburn
     Condit
     Cox
     Crane
     Cunningham
     Deal
     DeLay
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Ensign
     Fawell
     Foley
     Fowler
     Fox
     Gekas
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Granger
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson, Sam
     Kasich
     Klug
     Kolbe
     Largent
     Leach
     Linder
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Paul
     Paxon
     Petri
     Pitts
     Porter
     Pryce (OH)
     Ramstad
     Riggs
     Rohrabacher
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryun
     Sanford
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Smith (MI)
     Snowbarger
     Souder
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     White

                               NOES--305

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Combest
     Conyers
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Filner
     Forbes
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Gordon
     Graham
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Hooley
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hutchinson
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kim
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDade
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Ney
     Northup
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pappas
     Parker
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Redmond
     Regula
     Reyes
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Adam
     Smith, Linda
     Snyder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters

[[Page H7886]]


     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--21

     Ballenger
     Bonilla
     Collins
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Hansen
     Hastings (FL)
     Lazio
     McCrery
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rogan
     Salmon
     Scarborough
     Schiff
     Solomon
     Taylor (NC)
     Yates
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  2111

  Mr. THOMPSON, Mrs. SMITH of Washington, Mrs. CUBIN, and Messrs. 
GUTIERREZ, COYNE, and CRAPO, Mrs. CHENOWETH, and Mr. SMITH of Texas 
changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. LINDER and Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania changed their vote from ``no'' 
to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  (Mr. ROGERS asked and was given permission to speak out of order for 
1 minute.)


                          Legislative Schedule

  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, for the purpose of informing Members about 
the rest of the evening and the schedule that might take place, there 
have been numerous discussions taking place. We think we have an 
agreement worked out. It is being prepared now for us to peruse in due 
course of time. If the agreement is approved by both sides of the 
aisle, then there would be no further votes this evening in the body. 
The votes would be rolled until tomorrow.

                              {time}  2115

  However, it is still being pursued. I suggest that we proceed with 
one more amendment and ask Members to hang tight for a possible vote on 
that amendment while the agreement is being pursued, and we think that 
we will be successful.
  With that in mind, Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the 
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hostettler] be permitted to offer the 
amendment No. 12, notwithstanding that portion of the bill is not yet 
considered as read, with the understanding that during the process of 
that debate, the larger agreement will be pursued.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Kentucky?
  There was no objection.


               Amendment No. 12 Offered by Mr. Hostettler

  Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 12 offered by Mr. Hostettler:
       Page 49, line 9, insert ``(reduced by $175,100,000)'' after 
     ``$185,100,000)''
       Page 49, line 10, insert ``(reduced by $74,100,000)'' after 
     ``$74,100,000''
       Page 49, line 12, insert ``(reduced by $500,000)'' after 
     ``$500,000''.

  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.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Kentucky?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, in all this talk about a balanced budget agreement 
about how Democrats and Republicans, the President and Congress want to 
cut wasteful Government spending to reach a balanced budget, I would 
like to talk about one of those costly and troubled Government programs 
that was not protected in the budget agreement and should have been 
eliminated.
  The Advanced Technology Program, ATP, gives direct subsidies to 
private corporations to support their research and development budgets. 
These cash handouts usually go to the Fortune 500 companies such as 
IBM, AT&T, GM and the like, which already have billion-dollar R&D 
budgets and billions in annual revenues.
  Not only did the budget agreement reject the President's proposal to 
protect ATP funding, the Commerce Department recently issued a report 
chock full of planned structural changes. But the administration's plan 
falls far short of addressing the real problems with ATP, which are too 
fundamental to be fixed by minor adjustments.
  The fundamental problem is what many Members of Congress and even ATP 
grantees already know, ATP does not have the ability to effectively 
promote its goals of advancing high-risk technology research and 
promoting U.S. competitiveness.
  Technology development in most industries simply changes too quickly 
to depend on slow-moving congressional budgets. In short, ATP is 
corporate welfare. Given our budget constraints, we cannot afford it. 
And after watching the program for seven years, ATP does more harm than 
good.
  If we dare venture to read the Constitution, we find that the program 
is unconstitutional. Mr. Chairman, we must eliminate funding for ATP.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, last night we had a similar debate on the ATP program. 
During that debate, those who spoke in opposition to the ATP cuts 
amendment refuted most of the points made by the gentleman from Indiana 
[Mr. Hostettler], who is offering this amendment.
  Let me simply say, and a lot of it is in repetition, that the ATP 
program is not a partisan program. It was initiated under the Bush 
administration, and it has continued as a centerpiece of President 
Clinton's competitiveness program to this day.
  One can have a philosophical difference and take the position that 
ATP, the Advanced Technology Program, is corporate welfare, whatever 
that means. In fact, it is the core of the country's competitiveness 
program as we move into an era of increasingly internationalization of 
our economy and in real competition with particularly the developed 
nations around the world.
  These countries recognize the importance of collaborative 
relationships between their country, between the academic community, 
and between private industry in order to be strategic in developing not 
product but developing pre-commercial research and development 
discoveries that lead to advancements that allow industry to pick up 
and be on the cutting edge. We are into a high technology era, and 
these strategic relationships are recognized as being instrumental in 
making us competitive.
  Such countries as Japan, England, Germany and Australia are investing 
heavily in these kind of initiatives, far more heavily than the United 
States. For example, Japan is spending about $9 billion a year on pre-
competitive technology development. And the European Community 
recognizes the importance of these kind of strategic relationships. It 
is funding their equivalent to the Advanced Technology Program to the 
tune of $5.5 billion a year. ATP funds pre-competitive generic 
technology development. It does not fund product development.
  Mr. Chairman, simply, we have a philosophical difference of how the 
country should relate to industry and what role is appropriate for the 
Government to play in commerce. I draw the line at the Government not 
helping getting product into the marketplace. No, that is the private 
sector's responsibility.
  But when increasingly high technology is important to economic 
competitiveness, this pre-competitive, the Government incentivizing 
companies in these partner relationships to get involved in areas that 
have a future that we are in direct competition with is extremely 
important.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Royce].
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, the private sector and deregulation are the 
principal engine of this country's $8 trillion economy. It is not 
Government handouts. Government cannot claim credit for the personal 
computer phenomenon, cannot claim credit for the Internet, cannot claim 
credit for Microsoft or Bill Gates. The way a market system works, as 
opposed to a corporatist or socialist system, is that if there is a 
profit entrepreneurs will

[[Page H7887]]

risk investing in order to reap the profits.
  For example, I share with my colleagues the pharmaceutical products 
that come to market. On average, it costs $400 million, takes 8 to 10 
years to bring them to market. And yet, if there is a profit to be 
made, entrepreneurs will act with or without government handouts, as 
they do in these cases, to bring these things to market.
  Most of my colleagues here voted for this last year. We passed this 
out of this House, this very amendment to eliminate this program, and 
it was passed out of the Senate. It was subsequently curtailed because 
of other problems.
  But, basically, between 1985 and 1986, the Department of Commerce, 
which oversees ATP and MEP issued $1.23 billion in loans and loan 
guarantees through various programs. Not even half were paid back. The 
American taxpayers lost $650 million, and those loans still carried on 
the books are of questionable value.
  For example, the Economic Development Administration at Commerce, 
which lent $471 million some 20 years ago, has recovered only $60 
million and sought congressional approval to sell off some of its bad 
loans for less than 10 cents on the dollar.
  Let us take some examples from Europe and Japan. High-definition TV 
is one of the clearest failures of the Government's targeted handouts. 
The Japanese businesses, with subsidies that totaled $1 billion in the 
late 1980's, sought to help HDTV using existing analog technology. The 
French did the same. One billion dollars in their government went to 
that.
  Here in the United States, luckily our administration at the time 
took a pass on investing $1.2 billion in subsidies to compete with 
these foreign rivals. As a result of being denied massive subsidies, 
American companies were forced to develop an alternative, and the 
alternative that AT&T and Zenith developed was a fully digital system 
that made analog Japanese and European systems obsolete. Before they 
were ever put into production, they lost $2 billion overseas because 
they were pushing these subsidies.
  We relied on the market, and again it showed that the market works. 
Many businessmen do not support this corporate welfare. I am going to 
quote one who appeared before committee, Dr. T.J. Rodgers, president 
and CEO of Cypress Semiconductor Corp., who told us before the 
committee that, ``I am here to say that such subsidies will hurt my 
company and our industry because they represent tax-and-spend 
economics.''
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Michigan [Ms. Stabenow].
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. Chairman, first I would like to thank the 
gentlewoman from Maryland [Mrs. Morella], the chair of the Committee on 
Science Subcommittee on Technology, who has worked so long and hard to 
put together an effective Advance Technology Program that we now have 
in this budget for continuation of funding for the next year.
  I also would like to thank my colleagues who voted overwhelmingly 
earlier today against an amendment to cut $74 million from the Advanced 
Technology Program. This is in fact an amendment that would be a larger 
cut than the one that was overwhelmingly voted against earlier today. 
Important misperceptions about this program continue to be repeated 
over and over again.

                              {time}  2130

  This is not a program that is about corporate welfare. This is about 
creating American jobs and creating technologies that will be on the 
cutting edge, that will allow us to compete with other countries. The 
majority of dollars in this program go to consortia and partnerships 
where universities frequently are the ones receiving the dollars to do 
research in partnership with our businesses, large and small.
  Almost 50 percent of the businesses involved in these consortia are 
small businesses that on their own would not be able to be involved in 
higher-risk, long-term kinds of research. We are talking about those 
kinds of research opportunities that research systems in Michigan, we 
have a wonderful program that has been highly successful to look at how 
we create a more competitive auto industry, a system. The Big 3 do not 
normally sit down together and plan and problem-solve about quality 
issues. But with the leadership of the ATP program and the Federal 
Government, we have been able to bring them together.
  I would urge my colleagues to reaffirm our earlier vote today and 
again vote no and allow us to continue this important program about 
jobs.
  Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Miller].
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise today as an opponent of 
corporate welfare and in support of this amendment to eliminate funding 
for the Advanced Technology Program. Since I have been in Congress, I 
have worked diligently to eliminate Federal subsidies to corporations 
that do not need them. I took on, for example, the sugar daddy of 
corporate welfare, the sugar program, which because of the way the 
program operates, it cost the American consumer $1.4 billion, but 42 
percent of the benefits of this corporate welfare program go to only 1 
percent of the sugar plantations. That is corporate welfare. And so is 
the Advanced Technology Program.
  I have cosponsored several amendments this year to eliminate 
subsidies, and the ATP program is one of the most egregious examples of 
corporate welfare we have today. I am glad to be able to continue to 
support this effort. This program subsidizes big multinational 
companies. It gives hard-earned taxpayer dollars to companies such as 
AT&T, Shell Petroleum, DuPont and IBM for them to conduct research on 
risky ventures. If these companies want to engage in risky ventures, 
they should be required to find private funding.
  Supporters of the ATP program claim that it is essential for research 
and development. Yet in 1993 the GAO estimated research and development 
spending nationwide to be approximately $150 billion. The ATP program 
at $185 million represents a mere, if not unnecessary, drop in the 
bucket.
  Private funding for these ventures is available. The GAO report found 
that from 1990 to 1993, half the applicants who were denied ATP funding 
found alternative private-sector funding for their research. What is 
more disturbing is that 63 percent of the ATP applicants did not even 
bother to seek private funding. They just went straight to the 
government for funding. After all, why should these firms have to 
compete if they can just go to the public trough?
  Americans should not be forced to spend their hard-earned tax dollars 
to fund high-risk research projects for some of America's largest 
corporations. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Maryland [Mrs. Morella].
  Mrs. MORELLA. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak against corporate welfare and against 
this amendment, because ATP, the Advanced Technology Program, is not 
corporate welfare. The ATP is a competitive, peer-reviewed, cost-shared 
program with industry. It is really what we are all about, public-
private partnerships. And it is working. ATP is designed to develop 
high-risk, potentially high-payoff technologies that otherwise would 
not be pursued because of technical risks and other obstacles that 
discourage private investment.
  The House-passed authorization for NIST reforms ATP to further 
emphasize this point. The authorization bill included language to 
reform the grant process by requiring that grants can only go to 
projects that cannot proceed in a timely manner without Federal 
assistance. This should ensure that all ATP funds go to high-risk 
projects that could not receive private backing. The bill also 
increases the match requirements for ATP grant recipients to 60 percent 
for joint ventures and nonsmall-business single applicants.
  Further, terminating ATP would amount to the U.S. Government turning 
its back on its obligations to small business. The problem is that ATP 
funds long-term 5-year research grants, and the funding for the 
remaining years of those 5-year grants is termed a mortgage.

[[Page H7888]]

  Quite frankly, if we terminate this program, it would amount to our 
turning our back on our obligations, because the 5-year research grants 
would mean that we have not fulfilled our obligation, which would be 
mortgages over $100 million. The early termination would especially 
hurt small businesses which receive almost 40 percent of ATP grants. 
Small businesses, unlike their larger counterparts, cannot afford to 
have the Federal Government suddenly drop out of the technology 
development partnership.
  The appropriations bill cuts ATP by $40 million from last year's 
appropriated level, and the appropriation in this bill is identical to 
the authorization level passed by the House this spring. Let us 
remember what we did today. We refused to reduce the ATP program on a 
vote of 261-163. Surely we are not going to destroy this program that 
is working. So support a reasoned reform of ATP and reject this 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would remind the Members that the gentleman 
from Indiana [Mr. Hostettler] has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining. The 
gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan] has 1\1/2\ minutes 
remaining and the right to close.
  Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
New Hampshire [Mr. Bass].
  Mr. BASS. I thank the gentleman from Indiana for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I think it is important that we understand what we are 
talking about here tonight. What we are talking about having is the 
taxpayers of this country financing research and development from some 
of the wealthiest and largest corporations in this country.
  We have heard tonight that ATP develops technologies that private 
sector corporations and venture capital groups will not develop. First, 
this assertion contradicts the findings of the General Accounting 
Office study that addressed whether, in the absence of ATP funding, 
corporations or consortia would carry out the research anyway. 
According to the GAO survey, nearly half of the near winners continued 
their projects even though they were not awarded ATP funding. Of the 
entities granted ATP funds, 42 percent admitted that they would have 
continued their R&D project without Federal assistance, while 41 
percent said they would not have.
  We have also heard that without ATP funding, American businesses and 
start-up companies will not have sufficient capital to conduct R&D into 
cutting-edge technologies. Mr. Chairman, we have heard many times; in 
1996 the venture capital industry in this country pumped more than $10 
billion into new ventures, and last year alone companies raised more 
than $50 billion from initial stock offerings.
  Let me also point out that the top four winners of ATP grants 
invested more than $20 billion of their own corporate resources into 
research and development. Remember, we are talking about $185 million 
versus $20 billion. That is twenty thousand million dollars that the 
private industry is putting in, and we are talking about $185 million.
  Mr. Chairman, when do we end this business of the Federal Government 
giving something to everybody in this country? Let us get our 
priorities straight. Let us support the pending amendment before us 
this evening.
  Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, this discussion has given credence to the old axiom 
that says that nothing is so absurd that if said often enough, people 
will start believing it. Those people who say that ATP is not corporate 
welfare I think are wrong. When you give hundreds of millions of 
dollars a year to multibillion-dollar corporations who have 
multibillion-dollar research and development budgets, that is corporate 
welfare, Mr. Chairman. I would urge that this body follow the 
precedents of last year and defund the ATP.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentlewoman from Oregon [Ms. Hooley].
  Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to 
this amendment. This, frankly, is an attempt to kill a good program 
that is having a positive impact on the American technology industry 
and the economy as a whole.
  There is a small company, not a billionaire company, in my home 
State, called Planar America that is working to establish a United 
States presence in the flat panel display industry. Partly as a result 
of the ATP program, Planar has developed a means of refining the color 
in a remarkable technology called active matrix electroluminescence, 
which could rapidly become the display of choice in commercial video 
and military applications. But they are competing directly with 
companies in Japan working to beat them to the technology. The ATP 
program has played a key role in speeding up the development of this 
technology in an industry where timing is critical to future profits. 
In addition, Planar has invested more than an equal share in this 
effort as required by the program.
  Let me be clear. The ATP is not a corporate giveaway. The government 
has a role in giving our Nation a jump start on certain high-risk 
innovations, and we have a responsibility to employ foresight in making 
our decisions. Obviously our economy and our workers stand only to 
benefit from this very nominal investment. I urge my colleagues to 
support our Nation's research and development and vote no on this 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to this amendment. This, 
frankly, is an attempt to kill a good program that is having a positive 
impact on the American technological industry and the economy as a 
whole.
  ATP is not, as some of my colleagues will tell you, a hand-out to big 
American corporations. It is an investment that otherwise may not be 
made without the good sense and forethought of Members of this body. 
This is not about subsidizing individual companies; this is about the 
broad effects of the program on the United States economy.
  The purpose of the program is to benefit entire industrial sectors 
that, in turn, create good jobs for U.S. workers in the future. 
Furthermore, it's a program that largely provides grants to small U.S. 
businesses. In fact, 47 percent of the current recipients are small 
businesses, with 75 percent of those businesses employing under 100 
people.
  For those who are less familiar with this program, let me give an 
example of how this program is making a difference for a particular 
industry, largely involving small companies. The flat-panel display 
industry has become one of the principal battlefields of international 
competition in electronics. While our Nation has dominated technology 
development in the computing industry, most of the flat-panel display 
technologies have come from foreign countries, especially those 
relating to color displays.
  Computer manufacturing has been one of the most valuable industries 
for our Nation's economic growth with booming exports of personal 
computers to international markets. Yet we're allowing one of the most 
important components of that growth to be performed outside of the 
United States. The market for flat-panel displays is expected to reach 
$14 billion by the end of the decade. Our Nation can't afford to sell 
off this technology to foreign countries that are willing to adequately 
invest in its development.
  One recipient of an ATP grant in my home State of Oregon, called 
Planar America, is working to establish a United States presence in 
that industry. Partly as a result of the ATP program, Planar has 
developed a means of refining the color in a remarkable technology 
called Active Matrix Electroluminescence, which could rapidly become 
the display of choice in commercial video and military applications.
  But they are competing directly with companies in Japan working to 
beat them to the technology. The ATP program has played a key role in 
speeding up the development of this technology in an industry where 
timing is critical to future profits. In addition, Planar has invested 
more than an equal share in this effort, as required by the program.
  Let me be clear. The ATP is not a corporate giveaway. The Government 
has a role in giving our Nation a jump start on certain high-risk 
innovations, and we have a responsibility to employ foresight in making 
our decisions. Obviously, our economy and our workers stand only to 
benefit from this nominal investment.
  I urge my colleagues to support our Nation's research and development 
and vote no on this amendment.
  Mrs. KENNELLY of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong 
opposition to this amendment which would eliminate funding for the 
Advanced Technology Program.
  The ATP program facilitates the development of technology that would 
benefit the U.S. economy. This is done by using a combination of 
Federal funding and industry funding to support research on high-risk, 
promising technologies that have the potential to significantly

[[Page H7889]]

impact the Nation's economy. In today's highly competitive environment, 
the ATP program enables industry to pursue cutting edge technologies.
  You might be interested to know that although U.S. software and 
computer companies lead the world in developing advanced, highly 
integrated systems for manufacturing; U.S. manufacturers as a whole 
trail their major foreign competitors in adopting these technologies. 
In my own State of Connecticut, United Technologies Corp. is working 
jointly with a number of other major industrial firms in an experiment 
on how our companies can adapt to new technology in a more efficient 
manner.
  The ATP program lets modest Federal investments reap impressive 
rewards and keep America competitive in the global marketplace. Ending 
ATP would deny these companies the tools to expand our economy. And it 
would turn back the efforts of Democrats and Republicans who have 
helped the government help small business through these programs.
  Everyone says they support a vibrant economy and an effective 
government. Let's show we match our rhetoric with action, and oppose 
this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hostettler].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 177, 
noes 235, not voting 21, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 456]

                               AYES--177

     Aderholt
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Barton
     Bass
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bono
     Brady
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Coble
     Coburn
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Deal
     DeLay
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Ensign
     Everett
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Ganske
     Gillmor
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kingston
     Klug
     Kolbe
     Largent
     Latham
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Luther
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Pappas
     Parker
     Paul
     Paxon
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Redmond
     Riggs
     Riley
     Rohrabacher
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Upton
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf

                               NOES--235

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Bartlett
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Burr
     Calvert
     Camp
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cook
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Goode
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Hooley
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hyde
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kim
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith, Adam
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weldon (PA)
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--21

     Bonilla
     Collins
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Hall (OH)
     Hansen
     Hastings (FL)
     Lazio
     McCrery
     McDade
     Oxley
     Quinn
     Rogan
     Schiff
     Schumer
     Smith (OR)
     Taylor (NC)
     Yates
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  2233

  Mrs. ROUKEMA, Mrs. NORTHUP, and Mr. BRADY changed their vote from 
``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
LaTourette) having assumed the chair, Mr. Hastings of Washington, 
Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, 
reported that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill 
(H.R. 2267) making appropriations for the Departments of Commerce, 
Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and related agencies for the fiscal 
year ending September 30, 1998, and for other purposes, had come to no 
resolution there.

                          ____________________