[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 148 (Friday, October 16, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Page S12669]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




           THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION REFORM ACT

  Mr. STEVENS. I would like to ask the Chairman and Ranking Member of 
the Committee on Environment and Public Works a question regarding S. 
2364, the Economic Development Administration Reform Act, which passed 
the Senate on Monday. As they are aware, the State of Alaska, while 
rich in resources, also has communities that suffer serious economic 
distress. EDA assistance can make a difference to many of these 
communities. Thus I am pleased to support the efforts of my friends to 
reauthorize this important agency; and indeed, I am a cosponsor of this 
bill.
  Let me ask specifically about an issue that is very important to 
Alaskans, especially those in Southeast Alaska. Under this bill, EDA 
programs are available to aid distressed communities with both public 
works and economic adjustment assistance. In Southeast Alaska, many 
communities have faced economic adjustment problems, such as high 
unemployment, as a result of Federal regulatory changes with regard to 
timber harvests. If these communities meet the definition of 
``distressed'' as outlined in the bill, would a situation such as 
theirs qualify as eligible for EDA assistance?
  Mr. CHAFEE. Yes, we expect it would. The situation the Senator 
describes is exactly the type of situation that we would expect could 
be addressed by EDA. In fact, I would direct the senator's attention to 
the bill's new Section 2(a)(1), which specifically references areas 
that are affected by Federal actions. The language notes as possible 
distressed areas those that suffer dislocation as a result of ``certain 
Federal actions (including environmental requirements that result in 
the removal of economic activities from a locality).''
  Mr. BAUCUS. I agree. In fact, many areas of the country, including 
Montana, face similar situations. We included that phrase intentionally 
to ensure that such distress may be addressed by EDA programs. It is 
our view, and it is a view shared by EDA officials, that such 
communities should be eligible to apply for EDA aid.
  Mr. STEVENS. With regard to the criteria used to determine 
eligibility, Section 301(a)(3) refers to communities that experience 
special needs arising from severe unemployment or economic adjustment 
problems resulting from changes in economic conditions. Could my 
colleagues tell me whether EDA has flexibility in applying this 
criterion to areas--such as these timber-affected Alaskan communities--
that are requesting EDA assistance?
  Mr. CHAFEE. Section 301(a) sets the basic eligibility requirements 
for economically distressed areas. These criteria are intended to 
ensure that EDA assistance is targeted to truly distressed communities. 
The third criterion, which you mention, is intended to allow the 
necessary flexibility to address other situations of serious distress 
that, for a number of reasons, may not fulfill the first two criteria 
but that clearly would be considered by the Secretary and Congress as 
deserving of assistance. Thus, the bill before us provides the 
Secretary with sufficient flexibility in this regard.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Again, I agree. We recognized that flexibility is 
required to ensure that EDA may address the varied causes and types of 
economic distress nationwide. Therefore, in his efforts to ensure that 
EDA assistance go to the communities of greatest distress, the 
Secretary is allowed some flexibility in making determinations for 
awards of assistance under this Act.
  Mr. STEVENS. I thank my colleagues for making these important 
clarifications.

                          ____________________