Alan Mollohan

Mr. MOLLOHAN

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to address the ethics-related provisions that are in this package at the insistence of the Committee on Rules. I had the honor of serving as ranking member of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct in the last Congress. It was an honor to serve with the gentleman from Colorado (Chairman Hefley), as he always managed to chair the committee in a completely bipartisan manner. The headlines in this morning's paper say ``GOP Abandons Ethics Changes.'' It turns out that the headline is at best only half right. It is true that the most outrageous ethics undermining provision has been deleted from the rules package, but other provisions, provisions that would make major changes in the way the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct handles enforcements of the rules, they remain. There should be no misunderstanding that these provisions that remain would seriously undermine the ethics process in the House, both because of the changes they would make in committee procedures, but, and equally important, because of the partisan way in which they are being adopted. If there is to be a meaningful, viable ethics process in the House, it must be a genuinely bipartisan process. That point should be self-evident. How could there be a legitimate ethics process that is operated on a partisan basis? And to have a bipartisan process, it is absolutely essential that any major changes in the rules be made on a truly bipartisan basis. What is more, because of the importance and the sensitive nature of the ethics rules, it is also essential that any proposed changes be considered in a thoughtful, considered, and open way, with all Members being given the opportunity for input, Democrats and Republicans. Until today, the House recognized these fundamental points. Until today, the House has not attempted to make major changes in the ethics rules or the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct procedures in a slapdash way, with literally only hours of consideration, and on a party line vote. It will probably come as no surprise that the materials issued by the Committee on Rules that attempt to justify these amendments are based entirely on misstatements of the current rules. For example, under the benign sounding heading, ``Restore Presumption of Innocence,'' the Committee on Rules memorandum states, ``Currently, if the chairman and ranking minority member take no action on a properly filed complaint within 45 days, the matter automatically goes to an investigative subcommittee.'' Fine. But that statement is incomplete and, therefore, misleading. The rules that have been in effect since 1997 clearly provide that at any time that a complaint is before the chairman and ranking member for consideration, either one of them may place the complaint on the committee's agenda and when either one of them does that, an investigative committee cannot be established without a majority vote of the committee. Another example, Mr. Speaker. Under the heading ``Due Process for Members,'' the Committee on Rules memorandum states that, ``Under the current rule, the chairman and ranking member or the committee may take action against a Member without a complaint, notice, or the opportunity to be heard.'' This statement clearly implies that the committee may determine that a Member has committed a violation or impose a sanction without the Member having such rights, and that suggestion, Mr. Speaker, is flatly wrong. The rules are replete with the rights for Members who are accused of any violation. When you turn to the actual text of the ``due process'' amendments, you find that what these amendments are concerned with is not committee actions that impose sanctions or determine violations, but instead on committee letters or statements that ``reference the official conduct of a Member.'' It may be well that the rules should provide certain rights to a Member whose conduct is going to be discussed in a letter or statement that the committee issues publicly, but what should those rights be? They should be determined through a deliberative, fair, bipartisan process. But one specific right that this proposed rule provides to those Members is the right to demand an immediate trial in front of an adjudicatory subcommittee of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. But in the circumstances that the rule addresses, that trial would take place before the committee has conducted any formal investigation of the matter. No committee that is serious about conducting its business would allow itself to be put in that circumstance. So the effect of this amendment would be that whenever any alleged misconduct is brought to the committee's attention, the committee may be forced to choose between either launching a formal investigation of the matter or dismissing it entirely. Both of these rule changes lack careful consideration and, more seriously, are brought to us today through a partisan process. I'd like to address the ethics-related provisions that are in this package at the insistence of the Rules Committee. I had the honor of serving as ranking member of the Ethics Committee in the last Congress, and I also served on the committee for 6 years during another time of controversy in the late 1980s. It was an honor to serve during the last 2 years with Chairman Hefley, as he always managed the committee in a completely bipartisan manner. A headline in this morning's newspaper says, ``GOP abandons ethics changes.'' It turns out that the headline is at best only half right. It's true that the most outrageous ethics-undermining provision has been deleted from the rules package, but other provisions--provisions that would make major changes in the way the Ethics Committee handles enforcement of the rules--remain. There should be no misunderstanding that these provisions that remain would seriously undermine the ethics process in the House, both because of the changes they would make in committee procedures, and, equally important, because of the partisan way in which they would be adopted. If there is to be a meaningful, viable ethics process in the House, it must be a genuinely bipartisan process. That point should be self- evident--how could there be a legitimate ethics process that is operated on a partisan basis? And to have a bipartisan process, it's absolutely essential that any major changes in the rules be made on a truly bipartisan basis. What's more, because of the importance, and the sensitive nature of the ethics rules, it's also essential that any proposed changes be considered in a thoughtful, considered, and open way, with all Members being given the opportunity for input--Democrats and Republicans. Until today, the House recognized these fundamental points. Until today, the House has not attempted to make major changes in the ethics rules or the Ethics Committee procedures in a slapdash way, with literally only hours of consideration, and on a party-line vote. It will probably come as no surprise that the materials issued by the Rules Committee that attempt to justify these amendments are based entirely on misstatements of the current rules. For example, under the benign-sounding heading, ``Restore Presumption of Innocence,'' the Rules Committee memorandum states, and I quote: ``Currently, if the chairman and ranking minority member take no action on a properly filed complaint within 45 days, the matter automatically goes to an investigative subcommittee.'' That statement is incomplete--and therefore misleading. The rules that have been in effect since 1997 clearly provide that at any time that a complaint is before the chairman and ranking member for consideration, either one of them may place the complaint on the committee's agenda, and when either one of them does that, an investigative subcommittee cannot be established without a majority vote of the committee. Another example: under the heading, ``Due Process for Members,'' the Rules Committee memorandum states that, and I quote: ``Under the current rule, the chairman and ranking member, or the committee, may take action against a Member without a complaint, notice, or the opportunity to be heard.'' This statement clearly implies that the committee may determine that a Member has committed a violation or impose a sanction without the Member having such rights, and that suggestion is flatly wrong. The rules are replete with rights for Members who are accused of any violation, and because of the bipartisan makeup of the committee, Members are typically accorded rights well beyond those required by the rules. When you turn to the actual text of the ``due process'' amendments, you find that what these amendments are concerned with is not committee actions that impose sanctions or determine violations, but instead committee letters or statements that ``reference the official conduct of a Member.'' It may well be that the rules should provide certain rights to a Member whose conduct is going to be discussed in a letter or statement that the committee issues publicly, but what should those rights be? They should be determined through a deliberative, fair, bipartisan process. But one specific right that this proposed rule provides to those Members is the right to demand an immediate trial in front of an adjudicatory subcommittee of the Ethics Committee. But in the circumstances that the rule addresses, that trial would take place before the committee has conducted any formal investigation of the matter. No committee that is serious about conducting its business would allow itself to be put in that circumstance. So the effect of this amendment would be that whenever any alleged misconduct is brought to the committee's attention, the committee may be forced to choose between either launching a formal investigation of the matter, or dismissing it entirely. There would be no chance for an expedited resolution of the case, even in those instances in which the committee believes it already has all the basic facts, and the conduct involved probably does not warrant a formal sanction. Both of these rule changes lack careful consideration and, more seriously, are brought to us today through a partisan process. But the proposed amendment that raises even more concern is the one that provides for automatic dismissal of any complaint that is not acted upon within a period as short as 45 days. When the House last considered Ethics Committee procedures, in 1997, it rejected, on a bipartisan vote, an amendment that would have required the automatic dismissal of any complaint that is not acted upon within 180 days. The reason that amendment was rejected is that it was recognized that such a time limit would encourage deadlock on the committee, and partisanship among the committee members. Under a time limit, if one side or the other is uncomfortable about dealing with a particular complaint, those Members don't have to discuss it or otherwise try to deal with it--by their just doing nothing, the complaint will disappear. Yet now this provision for automatic dismissal has reappeared, and this time it has a far shorter time frame for committee consideration than the nearly identical provision that the House soundly rejected in 1997. I want to close by asking all Members, including all Members of the leadership on both sides of the Aisle, to give some serious consideration--not just today, but in the weeks and months ahead--to whether you genuinely want to have a meaningful ethics process in the House, and what we as Members, individually and collectively, have to do in order for such a process to exist. As I said at the outset, for this process to exist, it has to be a truly bipartisan one, and it has to be treated with seriousness and respect. It has to be recognized that the basic purpose of the process is to consider and address legitimate ethics concerns, and if Members are successful in using the process for partisan, political purposes, it is going to fail. The approval of these amendments would seriously undermine the process and, for that reason alone, this rules package should be defeated.

Mr. MOLLOHAN

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, a milestone anniversary is being celebrated this month at West Virginia University, in my Congressional District. Twenty-five years ago, the National Small Flows Clearinghouse first opened its doors. It was established by Professors Willem Van Eck and Raul Zaltzman, who wanted to help smaller communities find the best technologies to meet their water treatment needs. Today, the Small Flows Clearinghouse is a highly successful program of the National Environmental Services Center (NESC). Since 1979, this organization has evolved into a national leader in combating pollution and assisting small communities on water issues. NESC is an expert resource not only on wastewater, but also drinking water, environmental training, infrastructure security and utility management. From its offices in Morgantown, NESC helps to protect public health and the environment in communities all across the country. The organization will celebrate its 25th anniversary with an open house on July 26 at the university's Evansdale Campus. In marking the occasion, Mr. Speaker, I would like to offer my congratulations to President David Hardesty, Vice President for Research and Economic Development John Weete, and the NESC team: Executive Director John Mori, Director of Program Development Pam Schade and the entire staff, both past and present. Their commitment to the health of our people and communities has achieved real results, and I wish them the very best as they begin NESC's next quarter-century of service.

Mr. MOLLOHAN

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to congratulate Mr. Timothy M. Vetere of Morgantown, West Virginia for his award-winning entry in the Veterans of Foreign Wars' Voice of Democracy contest. His script is entitled ``My Commitment to America's Future.'' I submit for the Record the text of his entry and commend the VFW for making the Voice of Democracy scholarship program available to students across our Nation. My Commitment to America's Future I was walking along the sidewalk downtown one day and I passed by a large storefront window and caught a quick glimpse of myself. I have to admit that the first thing I thought was, ``Hey, I look pretty good.'' I even stopped to take a second look. And as I stared into my gorgeous baby- blue eyes, I began to realize that my reflection was superimposed on an American flag, which was hanging in the display case. As I looked closer, I realized that the edges were frayed and its colors faded and I thought, hmmm, I wonder how it got that worn? What stories would it have to tell if it could talk? I began to envision it in battle somewhere or draping the coffin of a Vietnam War veteran, or, it looked pretty old, maybe even a World War II veteran. What if someone's grandfather had passed it down to his son and that man passed it to his son who was now honoring the memory of his grandpa by hanging that flag in his storefront window. Or did this flag fly outside of an elementary school where children of the SOs lined up in the courtyard to pledge their allegiance to the flag and sing ``My Country 'Tis of Thee.'' My eyes drifted to the 50 stars and I began to realize how hard each state must have fought to gain a spot on this symbol of American Unity. As a person, I'm one among millions, but as an American I am an integral part of the greatest nation on earth. The stripes of the flag represent the purity in the American heart and sacrifices made by men just like me. I look back on the giants of history and feel my own insignificance. I am humbled knowing my own inability to measure up to their achievements. I may never command American men in battle on foreign soil and, I pray to God I never command them on American soil. I many never land on the moon. I may never discover a cure for cancer. My name may never be used to inspire school-children to greater heights. I may do nothing more than mean it when I say the pledge, sing the words of the National Anthem at a ball game, or feel the country's collective sadness when a soldier's flag-draped coffin is shown on the evening news. But when I say the pledge maybe one other of my classmates may see my sincerity and share in it as well. When I sing the anthem at a ball game, those around me may hear the words clearly and be inspired to believe in the power behind the lyrics. I may never become a giant in American history, but if I can in some small way influence others to feel the love I feel for America . . . if I can live my life as an example of heartfelt patriotism . . . If I can raise my children with strong American values, then I will have made America stronger. When you are the one looking at your own reflection in a store window, or in a mirror, who will look back at you? Will you be able to say, ``Yes, I am an American citizen.'' We are all united under the American flag and its symbolic colors. We can be separate individuals or we can work together to make America stronger, one citizen at a time.

Mr. MOLLOHAN

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, a child abduction is every parent's worst nightmare. Yet all too often, we hear chilling stories of boys and girls taken from their rightful guardians; stolen by strangers or even by members of their family. Today, I want to recognize a program in my district that is working to prevent these awful occurrences. In Weirton, volunteers have organized an initiative that is called WINK: Watching Its Neighborhood Kids. This two-part program is bringing the community together to help keep children safe--and to help recover them if they should ever be lost or taken. Under the WINK Program, safe houses are being established across the city. These are homes and businesses, screened by the Weirton police, that volunteer to open their doors to children who are lost, hurt or threatened. The goal is to eventually have one on every block. The approved safe houses are given a logo sign to post in their windows. They also are given information on helping children in danger. Children are told about the program in school, and parents are encouraged to show them where safe houses can be found in the neighborhood. Mr. Speaker, this kind of vigilance and communication is a good way to protect our children. But sometimes, no matter how careful the precautions, young people are lost or missing. That is why the second part of this program is vitally important as well. In addition to the safe houses, WINK has established a child identification program. It sponsors free registration events across the community. Parents bring in their children for digital photos, for fingerprints or footprints, and for a DNA mouth swab. All of these items--these key identification tools--are given to parents to take home, and keep close at hand. Experts tell us that when a child is missing, an immediate response is the best response. It helps to increase the odds of a successful recovery. Thanks to the child I.D. program, parents have up-to-date information ready to give to police should the unthinkable happen. Mr. Speaker, the safety of children is a concern that we all share. Today, I am pleased to salute a special group of people who truly take this concern to heart, and have channeled it into real community action. I ask the House to join me in recognizing the caring volunteers who are behind Weirton's watching its neighborhood kids.

Mr. MOLLOHAN

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take my Special Order time at this time.

Mr. MOLLOHAN

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and honor Jay S. Pifer, a businessman and friend, as he plans his retirement after more than 40 years with Allegheny Energy Company, an integrated energy company with a balanced portfolio of businesses. At a time when too many corporate leaders are failing in their obligations to their customers, employees, investors and community, it is a rare privilege to be able to honor a man who demonstrates on a daily basis what integrity and leadership truly mean. Mr. Pifer, who began his tenure with Allegheny as an apprentice engineering technician, was named interim president and CEO before being named chief operating officer in June. Like many in the energy production and distribution business today, Allegheny has suffered significant erosion in its financial health which has resulted in a virtually completely turnover in the company's management. During this time of turbulence and upheaval, Jay served to hold the company together, facilitating the transition from the old management team to the new. Further, he agreed to stay on to help the new team while it got its bearings. During this period, Allegheny faced ice, snow and thunderstorms capped recently by Hurricane Isabel, and Jay and his crews performed spectacularly with speed and grace. Financial troubles notwithstanding, Jay Pifer and Allegheny led the industry in customer satisfaction, named recently as second best on the East Coast. His dedication to his employees, customers, and community served by Allegheny is legendary, and we hate to see him leave. However, his dedication to his family and his faith is even greater, and we understand his desire to spend his time with those who have supported him during these 40 years. Jay has held many leadership positions with the company, including president of Allegheny Power energy delivery subsidiary, which supplies power throughout the State of West Virginia, as well as Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Ohio. During that time, J.D. Power and Associates recognized Allegheny Power as the second best company in customer satisfaction in the East, and 10th best in the Nation with improvement in each of the last 10 years. In addition to his service with Allegheny, Jay has been involved in many civic and community activities, only a few of which include serving on the boards of the United Way, the Business Round Tables of West Virginia and Pennsylvania, and the West Virginia Education Alliance. His commitment to young people includes a long association with the Boy Scouts of America, and he currently serves on the advisory board of the northeast region of the Boy Scouts. He is also an ordained lay Pastor in the United Methodist Church. In what was described in the Washington Post as perhaps an unprecedented effort to showcase a new approach to conservation, Jay oversaw the sale of a large tract of Allegheny Power land to the Canaan Valley Institute which included one of the largest wetlands east of the Mississippi River, which will now be preserved as a habitat for threatened and endangered wildlife, as well as public recreation. Land and stream management practices are being developed on this land as part of the Canaan Valley Institute's land and water stewardship education program. Jay was instrumental in the expansion of the Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge, the Nation's 500th national wildlife refuge. On February 14, 2002, he once again demonstrated his commitment to conservation by engineering the sale of 12,000 acres to the refuge. I was honored to work with Jay on these land transfers which will benefit generations to come. Mr. Speaker, it would be impossible to catalog here tonight all of Jay's accomplishments and contributions, yet these few examples illustrate what an outstanding gentleman Jay Pifer is. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring Jay S. Pifer.

Mr. MOLLOHAN

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, This House will suffer a true loss next month. Eve Butler-Gee, our Chief Journal Clerk, will be retiring at the end of August after 20 years of dedicated service. I want to join my colleagues today in recognizing her contributions to this chamber. Eve began her career here in the House. She then went to work in the private sector. Fortunately for us she returned, and in 1987 was named as minority enrolling clerk of the House. Eve served as an Assistant Enrolling Clerk for 8 years. Then, in 1995, she was appointed as Chief Journal Clerk. This institution has benefitted greatly from her knowledge, her talent and her commitment to the people's business. Eve and her hard-working staff are responsible for memorializing the proceedings of this House; ensuring the accuracy and timeliness of the official record of each legislative day. It is a serious responsibility, and it is carried out with true professionalism by Eve and her team. We will miss her, and we will miss her outstanding work. Mr. Speaker, as we thank Eve for her dedication, we also wish her the very best for a happy retirement--with much time spent with her husband, Tom; her daughter Lora and Lora's husband John Williams and their son Evan; and Tom's son Sean. I am proud to also note that Eve has a number of family connections to West Virginia, Mr. Speaker and it is my hope that her travels will bring her to our state often. It is a pleasure to help recognize the career of one who has served this House so very well. Thank you, Eve, and all the best in the days to come.

Mr. MOLLOHAN

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment, but I rise in support of the amendment. (Mr. MOLLOHAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) The amendment would add $1.8 billion in additional funding to VA medical care. It is demonstrably true that veterans' medical care is in need of additional funding. More than 235,000 veterans are currently waiting six months or more that for initial appointments. Veterans in certain areas of the country have reported waiting two years to see a doctor. The VA has now reached capacity at many health-care facilities and has closed enrollment to new patients at many hospitals and clinics. The VA has even taken the step of placing a moratorium on all marketing and outreach efforts. These problems are all symptoms of a larger illness--the VA consistently is not provided enough funds to provide all the benefits that are authorized for all veterans--not even in the area of medical care. The Chairman without a doubt did the best he could by veterans in this bill. However, the fiscal year 2004 Budget Resolution did not allow the VA-HUD Subcommittee to have an allocation that would permit the promises the Republican leadership made to be kept. I know that this amendment will be stricken on a point of order, but I was to express my support of it because we need to do more for veterans medical care. The gentleman's amendment rightly points out the need for more funding for veterans medical care and is providing an invaluable service by allowing the House to debate the consequences of irresponsible budget agreements and tax cuts to millionaires. Consequences such as not being able to adequately fund promised services to the most deserving among us--our Nation's veterans. I yield back the balance of my time. Point of Order

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's amendment shines the light on the problem we have in this bill: to provide additional funds for one account, you have to raid another account. There has to be an offset. That is why so many of the account funding levels are very similar this year as to last year. In this case, the amendment seek to add funds for EPA Superfund clean-up efforts. It is a good thing, certainly. I think that all of us or at least a great majority of us support the Federal Government playing an important role in providing some of the resources that communities across this country need to ensure that former industrial sites are not a health risk and are reclaimed and reused. The funds permit EPA to not only provide resources for removal and remedial actions, but also to ensure that primary responsible parties contribute to the clean-up of the site, all very good things. As an indication of the support for these efforts, the bill as presented provides $1.275 billion for the hazardous substance Superfund. This represents a small increase of $10 million from the current year's funding. The amendment would add a further $114 million to the account in bringing the funding level to what the administration requested, but at what cost? To allow for the increase the President proposed, cuts and program elimination throughout the bill would be the cost. The gentleman has a different offset in mind. He would look to a NASA program, Project Prometheus. NASA is an agency that as many of you know has been essentially flat-funded for most of the past decade. This program started last year would develop radio isotopes, thermo-electric generators, and nuclear propulsion for planetary exploration space craft technology. And this is technology that if developed would make the exploration of different planets cheaper and more reliable. The bill provides the budget request for the program, $279 million. A reduction of $114 million would cause a severe disruption to this program at a time when NASA cannot afford budget cuts and should be receiving additional resources. The bill contains funding for $1.275 billion for Superfund activities. That is a slight increase over last year's level. The funding the amendment would add represents an increase of less than 10 percent. However, the cut proposed for the NASA initiative is roughly 40 percent of that program. If the bill before us had reduced funding for Superfund, I might be in a different position, might be; but as it stands, that account is treated as well as any in this bill. One account should not be gutted to provide funding for another when this bill has been as delicately balanced by the chairman as it has been.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, first let me express my appreciation to the gentleman from New York (Chairman Walsh) for his hard work and very capable efforts in putting together a very tough bill. I would like to express my appreciation to him. He has always been courteous. He is extremely capable and very responsive to both the substantive and procedural issues associated with moving this bill forward. That is greatly appreciated. I want to join the gentleman in expressing our appreciation to our very capable staff. He has mentioned them all. Let me associate myself with his remarks. Both the majority and the minority have done a tremendous job under very tough circumstances. Mr. Chairman, the appropriations bill being considered today provides appropriations for a broad array of Federal agencies. While our allocation of $112.7 billion, of which $90 billion represents discretionary spending, sounds large it is, in fact, not adequate to meet the varied needs of these important Federal agencies. It is a stretch to fund the growing number of veterans newly eligible for health care coverage, the renewal of long-standing housing commitments, and the necessity to increase investments in our Nation's research activities. Many accounts in this bill have been flat-funded for too long a period of time. Yes, this bill could use more money. The veterans medical care increase of $1.3 billion is far short of the $2.4 billion increase provided last year. The Hope VI program is funded at a mere $50 million, down from the current year's $570 million. The EPA Clean Water Revolving Fund is $150 million below the current year. And the CDFI fund is only provided the President's request of $51 million, down from $75 million. I do intend to work with the Chairman to improve these accounts as the bill moves forward. Of particular concern, Mr. Chairman, are the veterans accounts. They need attention. There were representations made by those who passed the budget resolution which created expectations that the budget resolution itself did not provide the allocation to meet. Those expectations are fairly out there, they were produced by the budget resolution. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I think the point is not that the chairman and the subcommittee has not increased funding for veterans in this bill. We certainly have done that. I think the point is that the expectation with the budget resolution, with the advertising the increase in veterans benefits in the budget resolution which the majority passed was significantly higher than the actual allocation that we were able to deal with in the appropriation bill.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, we have no objection to the Kirk amendment.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas. (Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I certainly agree with that. As has been expressed here on the floor, expressed through the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards), expressed with the gentleman from Wisconsin's comments, I agree that should funds under the VA-HUD allocation increase, VA medical service would most definitely be one of our first priorities.

Mr. MOLLOHAN

Mr. MOLLOHAN. I thank the gentleman for his leadership in this area and for yielding. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of America's steel industry, steelworkers and steel communities. Just 7 days remain for the President to issue his decision on the future of our domestic steel industry. To his credit, the President requested that the International Trade Commission conduct a section 201 investigation to determine if steel imports injured the domestic steel industry. Last year, the ITC held a lengthy hearing process in which it heard testimony about, and concluded that, serious injury had been caused to the steel industry by imports. The ITC ruled that sharp increases in 16 product categories have injured, or could seriously injure, U.S. steel companies. Various tariff levels were recommended by the ITC. Now we await the President's response and the President's action. For 4 years now, our domestic steel industry has been engaged in a brutal fight for survival. Foreign steelmakers have flooded our markets with their products, much of it illegally subsidized. These imports have pushed 31 of our steelmakers into bankruptcy and forced our workers into the unemployment lines. We desperately need relief that restores prices to reasonable levels. This decision that we await from the President is our domestic steel industry's last chance for survival. As my colleagues know, the overwhelming majority of commissioners at the ITC recognized that substantial tariffs of 20 to 40 percent must be imposed in order to address the steel import problem and return prices to their normal, pre-crisis levels. In this market environment, however, 20 percent tariffs simply will not be enough. I join my colleagues in asking the President to impose the highest level of tariffs, 40 percent, because it is the only way to ensure the future of our steel industry. And, further, any section 201 remedy must be enforced for at least 4 years to demonstrate the seriousness of the administration in addressing excess capacity. Lastly, a tariff-based remedy must be applied across all flat products, including slab. If the remedy is different for different products, the imports will just shift to the product with the lowest tariff, and the remedy will be gutted. I would like to take a moment to address one particular problem, tinplate. The district that I serve is home to Weirton Steel and Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel. Both have a significant stake in tinplate production. In fact, probably no district in the Nation has a higher concentration of tin mill production than the First District of West Virginia. Unfortunately, it is one of the many segments that has been staggered by rising imports and falling prices. Imports of tin mill products have increased by 200,000 tons. Prices have fallen by $65 per ton. Imported tin mill products jumped 50 percent from December, 2001, to January, 2002, a monthly record. The ITC's vote on tin mill products was a three-to-three tie. Of the three who voted that the domestic industry was injured by imported tin mill products, two voted for tariffs of 40 percent, 38 percent, 36 percent and 31 percent; and one voted for tariffs of 20 percent, 17 percent, 14 percent and 11 percent. Because of the tie, the law states that no remedy recommendation can be made to the President. However, even without a tin mill products recommendation, the President can still enact a remedy if he so chooses. If the President provides tariff relief on other products but not on tin mill products, other nations will likely offset their losses and flood the U.S. tin mill products market. This is called product shifting. I urge the President, in the strongest terms, to include tariff remedies for tin mill products in his remedy decision. We are truly at a crossroads in the steel industry. The cause of our steel crisis is, simply put, massive foreign overcapacity. The ITC's section 201 investigation provided overwhelming evidence that the industry is seriously injured. Six commissioners unanimously agreed that the increase in imports was a substantial cause of serious injury. In fact, last Tuesday, the U.S. Bureau of Census released preliminary data showing that all steel imports rose from 2 million net tons in December to 2.5 million tons in January. So even in the face of possible tariffs, foreign countries continue to dump steel in our market. More than 325,000 American jobs are at risk if serious, swift and decisive action is not taken. According to calculations based on measurements by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the U.S. Department of Labor and independent economic analysts, every job in the basic steel industry supports at least three other jobs in other industries. Without significant tariff remedies, our steel industry, our steelworkers, and our steel communities will be decimated. I join my colleagues in asking the President to issue strong tariff remedies for our steel industry.

Mr. MOLLOHAN

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this subcommittee was ably led for many years by Chairman Boland, who recently passed away. I would like to acknowledge what a pleasure it was for me to serve under Eddie Boland, and what an outstanding job he did leading this subcommittee, as well as his leadership in Congress. He served for many years, and he was an outstanding member of the body. As we consider this bill, which would have been his bill, we would like to note his passing with great sadness. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), a distinguished member of the Massachusetts delegation, and the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity, who served many years with Mr. Boland.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner).

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in support of the 2002 VA, HUD and independent agencies conference report and all of its fundings. I want to begin by thanking Chairman Walsh who, as usual, has done an excellent job with this legislation. We appreciate his courtesies and the opportunity for input in the bill throughout the process. He has had an especially full plate this year, managing this bill with restricted allocations and at the same time providing leadership in the appropriations process to ensure that New York receives adequate funding to address its emergency needs arising out of the September 11 terrorist attacks. I want to begin by thanking the majority staff, Frank Cushing, Tim Peterson, Dena Baron, Jennifer Whitson, Jennifer Miller and Ron Anderson, for their hard work and openness during the development of this conference report. I must make particular note of their generosity in sharing their Capitol office space with the minority staff during the time that Members and staff were prohibited from occupying our office buildings. I also want to thank my excellent staff, Mike Stephens, Michelle Burkett, Angela June Ohm and Gavin Clingham, for their hard work during this process. All staff have really done an excellent job on a very difficult bill. Given the resources, Mr. Speaker, that this subcommittee was allocated, we were forced to work together in a constructive manner to reach reasoned compromises. No Member got everything that they wanted, each sacrificed on issues of importance, to us and to our caucuses, but we have produced a conference report worthy of the body's support. The bills passed by the House and the Senate were not significantly different in allocation but did contain significant substantive differences. In each case, a middle ground was sought and improvements have been made. I want to take a minute to discuss a few of the programmatic numbers in this conference agreement. Veterans remain a top priority of the members of this subcommittee. We have provided $21.3 billion for the medical care account. This is $350 million over the President's request, an increase of $1.5 billion over the current year, and almost $50 million over what was in the House bill when it left this body. We also increased the medical and prosthetic research account by $20 million over 2001 funding. Important to members of my caucus, we were able to improve the House- passed funding levels for the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Environmental Protection Agency, and provide the Corporation for National and Community Service funding comparable to its fiscal year 2001 funding. The Public Housing Capital Fund was increased $290 million from the House-passed funding level, and we maintained the $250 million increase in the operating fund that was contained in the House bill. Funding to renew all existing Section 8 vouchers is included, as is funding to provide 18,000 new Fair Share vouchers and 7,000 new vouchers reserved for the disabled. Within EPA, we restored the Clean Water State Revolving Fund to the funding levels of past years, $1.35 billion, and provided an overall increase of $75 million over this fiscal year, nearly $600 million over the administration's request. These improvements have not come at the expense of scientific research. The National Science Foundation will receive an increase of $362 million, an 8.2 percent increase over 2001, an increase that is distributed broadly by research category and includes adequate funds for major new science initiatives. For NASA, a 3.5 percent increase is provided. While I continue to have concerns that we are not providing NASA the resources needed to undertake the missions that have been identified for that agency, I would suggest that this minimal increase is a recognition of the budget constraints we face. I believe that we as a Congress should look closely at NASA in the next year and provide additional resources to that agency. This conference report is the product of a balancing act, and I believe that we have done a good job ensuring that the needs of each agency are met. I ask for the body's support. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior), the minority whip.