Date: 1981-06-24
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

Mr. President. I am pleased to rise in strong support of the amendment offered by Senator MITCHELL. of which I am a cosponsor. The amendment prevents the total elimination of the Economic Development Administration in fiscal year 1982 by providing for $200 million in budget authority and $20 million in outlays for the upcoming fiscal year. Basic economic stimulus programs are administered by EDA. Economic development is not smoothly and evenly distributed across all of the regions of our country. The Economic Development Administration was created in response to that fact. Private sector development is the key ingredient of EDAs programs. Three fundamental tools that EDA uses to promote economic growth are technical planning assistance. basic infrastructure support. and jobcreating developmental finance. EDA fills the gap between temporary. stopgap government programs and private sector initiatives. The assistance provided to localities by EDA is based on sound. longterm planning that stimulates the private sector without stifling it. Areas of high unemployment often lack the basic financial resources to maintain the economic wellbeing so necessary to the people there. EDA pro. vides grants to struggling areas like these for water and sewer systems. access roads. and industrial parks. In my own State of West Virginia. EDA has been a valuable and irreplaceable source of financial and technical assistance. Whether it is a grant to help complete construction on improvements to the water system in Fayette County. or a loan guarantee to help keep Wheeling.Pittsburgh Steel Corp. employees from losing their jobs. EDA has spurred private sector employmeht. The amendment offered by the Senator from Maine represents survival for the Economic Development Administration. Critics of the program have argued that EDAs reach is too broad. and that aid was easy to obtain inareas that did not really require it. This amendment addresses the concerns of those who view EDA as bloated or out of control. Approximately 37 percent of the funding available to EDA in fiscal year 1981 would be retained by the Mitchell amendment for fiscal year 1982. What agency or department. after absorbing a cut of 63 percent. could proceed to spend wildly out of control? I would venture to say that a cut of twothirds would severely diminish the activities of any agency. Therefore. I believe that the Mitchell amendment is not unreasonable. The Senate should not risk further degrading the economic condition of distressed areas in the hope that national economy recovery will trickle down and take care of everyone. Under the Mitchell amendment. EDAs activities would be sharply reduced. and perforce targeted to the regions most in need of assistance. That is much more fair and equitable than abolishing the agency. If those who would kill EDA think that too much of the country is eligible for assistance. what will they do with the areas of deep suffering and hardship when EDA is abolished? I fear that they will tell the people who live in such places "Dont worry. help is on the way! The National economy will trickle down and help you out." That is cold comfort. and no substitute for the targeted assistance and incentive that the Economic Development Administration provides. In order to promote jobs in areas where the private sector finds the going tough. I urge the Senate to adopt this amendment.