Action Continues on Fate of Commerce Department

Since returning to work after Labor Day, Congress has focused a lot of attention on the Department of Commerce. Authorizing committees in both the House and Senate debated the fate of the department, while the Senate Commerce Appropriations Subcommittee marked up its funding bill.

While the Budget Resolution passed this spring called for abolishment of the Commerce Department, the House provided funding for the department in its FY 1996 Commerce appropriations bill, albeit at a reduced level (see FYI #103). However, the department is not out of danger in the House. Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA) has promised Republican freshman that a floor vote will be held on some version of a proposal to abolish Commerce, either as a stand-alone bill, or possibly as part of the reconciliation bill Congress needs to pass this fall to provide details on how to reach their Budget Resolution goals.

Proposals have been floated in both chambers to do away with the department. On September 6, the House Government Reform Subcommittee on Management heard from Rep. Dick Chrysler (R-MI), sponsor of H.R. 1756, a bill to abolish the department, followed by testimony from Commerce Secretary Ron Brown. While Chrysler claimed his bill would save approximately $7.7 billion over five years, Brown charged that this estimate contained errors and did not include the costs associated with terminating or transferring programs, or the cost of the next census. Brown claimed that Chrysler’s proposal would actually cost taxpayers an additional $1.542 billion. Members of the subcommittee expressed mixed feelings about the proposal. Tom Davis (R-VA), argued that the goal should be to save taxpayers money. “We need to be sure it’s being done smartly,” he said, and “I’m not sure I’m in total agreement” with the bill’s provisions. Charles Bass (R-NH) reported that he had “yet to receive any significant amount of mail...from people who say they can’t live without” the department.

Brown stated at the hearing, and reiterated at a Commerce Department briefing later the same day, that Chrysler’s bill “demonstrates no real savings.” At the briefing he added that the department has data “we’re very confident in” that shows a net cost to the taxpayer. Brown also pointed out that the House Commerce Appropriations bill “demonstrates that savings are possible without dismembering the department,” (although he criticized the appropriations bill for its elimination of NIST’s Advanced Technology Program.) He claimed that doing away with the technology-assistance programs would “result in something tantamount to unilateral disarmament” in global economic competition. If the Chrysler bill just transferred some of Commerce’s functions, Brown said, “someone help me understand how that makes government work better?” In his briefing, Brown stressed comments made by subcommittee members about input from constituents: “You’re the ones who can deliver the message much more effectively than we can.”

Yesterday, the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee marked up S. 929, a Senate proposal to abolish the Commerce Department. The committee chairman, William Roth (R-DE), proposed a bill that would first eliminate the Commerce Department, then establish a bipartisan commission to look at downsizing the rest of the Executive Branch. Ranking Minority Member John Glenn (D-OH) charged that Roth’s bill was “going to eliminate a department, then going to study whether we should have done it or not.” Carl Levin (D-MI) compared it to saying “ready, fire, then aim.” Joseph Lieberman (D-CT) supported Commerce’s technology programs, saying they were not a way for the private sector to “ride on the back of government, [but] a way for government to ride on the back of the private sector...” and to leverage private investment, particularly in sectors like defense, “where the government used to pay it all and can no longer afford to do so.” William Cohen from Maine, a Republican, praised Secretary Brown and said that while he supported bringing the bill to the Senate floor, he hoped to see some changes.

Glenn offered an amendment to establish a commission without first abolishing Commerce. His amendment was voted down 6-8, with Roth arguing that it is important to the public “that we take action” now. A number of additional Democratic amendments also failed, and Roth’s bill passed on a 5-3 vote.

Also yesterday, the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee responsible for funding the Commerce Department marked up its FY 1996 bill. The version offered by subcommittee chair Phil Gramm (R-TX), while not abolishing the department, would have cut its programs significantly. However, full committee chairman Mark Hatfield (R-OR), concerned about the bill’s ability to pass his committee and veto threats by President Clinton, proposed a substitute version that restored $76 million for ATP, as well as funding for the Economic Development Administration and other programs. Hatfield’s alternate passed, with Gramm the only subcommittee member voting against it. The Commerce Appropriation bill is scheduled to go to the full Appropriations Committee on September 12.