[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.

____________________