According to former Commerce Secretary Robert Mosbacher, the Department of Commerce (DOC) is "nothing more than a hall closet where you throw in everything that you don't know what to do with." The Government Accountability Office reported that DOC "faces the most complex web of divided authorities" of any government agency, sharing its "missions with at least 71 federal departments, agencies and offices."

In reality, DOC was created in 1913 when the Department of Commerce and Labor was split into two separate departments. DOC's mission is to promote U.S. business activities and international trade, as well as to protect patents and trademarks. DOC currently has a budget of $5.8 billion and a workforce of nearly 39,000 employees[1].

Close examination of DOC reveals that its components have little or no relation to the agency's purported mission. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is requesting $360 million of the department's budget in FY 2005. NOAA’s research activities on the air and water could easily be divided between the Coast Guard, the Department of the Interior, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and the Department of Agriculture.

DOC is also involved in many areas that would be better handled by other agencies.  For example, DOC's Export Administration could easily be transferred to the State Department. The tasks of the International Trade Administration, which is asking for $384 million in FY 2005, could be handled by the more professional International Trade Commission[2].

Another compelling reason to downsize DOC is because it's home to the nation's most notorious corporate welfare programs, including the Economic Development Administration (EDA), Advanced Technology Program (ATP), and Minority Business Development Agency (MBDA).

• The EDA was established in 1965 to generate new jobs, help protect existing jobs, and stimulate growth in economically distressed areas of the country. Unfortunately, as is typical in Washington, the EDA is another good intention gone astray. EDA grants have gone to cities such as Raleigh-Durham, N.C., and Fort Worth, Texas, even though their unemployment rates are far below the national level.  Not only is EDA money poorly targeted, past funds have been used to finance pet projects for influential members of Congress.  One of the most notorious examples was a $500,000 grant in 1995 to help build a practice facility for the National Football League's Carolina Panthers at the private Wofford College in Spartanburg, S.C. in what the local paper called "the most economically booming county in the state." In its March 2004 semiannual report, DOC's Inspector General (IG) noted that of 216 audits conducted by the IG, 61 (or almost 30 percent) of the IG's audits were of EDA grants. Several attempts have been made to eliminate EDA, but Congress has not been convinced. Taxpayers are currently paying an annual $394 million to keep this administration running[3].

• Established in 1990 to be a catalyst to support research to accelerate the development of high-risk technologies, the Advanced Technology Program (ATP) does nothing but provide welfare for techies. The program awards research and development grants to individual private companies, independent research institutes, and joint ventures. Funding began at $10 million in 1990 and has exploded to $195 million in fiscal 2004; since 1990, $2.2 billion has been appropriated for ATP.  ATP grants duplicate work already being undertaken by the private sector. According to The Heritage Foundation, more than 40 percent of ATP funding has gone to 40 Fortune 500 companies which had combined revenues of $1 trillion and profits of $11 billion in 2002.  “Program officials do not keep records of which projects are rejected and why . . . and their lack of market knowledge frequently causes grants to be awarded to projects the market does not demand.” The bottom line is that taxpayers should not subsidize the research of high tech companies, especially through a program that is so inefficient and wasteful.  President Bush’s fiscal 2005 budget proposes to eliminate the ATP.   

• The MBDA was created "to help minority-owned businesses to achieve effective and equal participation in the American free enterprise system and overcome the social and economic disadvantages that have limited their participation in the past." The MBDA has been a safe haven for earmarks. MBDA functions are also duplicated by other agencies and programs, such as the Small Business Administration, Small Business Development Centers, and by the private sector.

The Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) is another controversial component of DOC. Charged with processing patents and trademarks, PTO is currently moving 7,100 employees to a new headquarters four miles down the road at an astonishing price of $615 million. The sprawling new complex is adorned with lavish amenities including granite, hardwood, and marble surfacing materials; plazas, sculptures, and decorative fountains; walking and jogging trails; open-air amphitheaters; and a 220-foot atrium. Two of the three unions in PTO criticized the move, stating that the former space was adequate.

The evidence is indisputable. DOC is a prime candidate for reorganization and closure.