Alan Mollohan

Mr. MOLLOHAN

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I would note that I admire the gentleman's tenacity.

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

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, again my friend, the gentleman from Indiana, joined by the gentleman from South Carolina, has proposed to terminate the International Space Station. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to that amendment. In years past this has been an ideological battle: Do we or do we not want to have a permanent human presence in Earth's orbit? Time and again this body has answered that question with a clear and increasingly resounding ``yes.'' Let me quickly run through recent votes on virtually identical amendments. Reviewing these votes will, I believe, demonstrate the support which the International Space Station does enjoy in this House. On April 29, 1992, the gentleman offered an amendment to delete authorization for Space Station. That amendment was defeated 254 to 159. On June 23, 1993, the gentleman offered an amendment to terminate Space Station on the NASA authorization, the only close vote we have had on it, but that amendment was defeated 216 to 215. On May 30, 1996, the gentleman offered an amendment to the authorization bill to terminate Space Station and that was defeated 286 to 127. Again, on April 24, 1997, an amendment was offered to terminate the station and that was defeated 305 to 112. On July 29, 1998, an amendment to the appropriations bill was offered to strike funding. That was defeated 323 to 109. And, finally, on May 19, 1999, just this spring, the gentleman offered an amendment to delete the station from the authorization bill, and that was defeated by a rather resounding vote of 337 to 92. My colleagues, this trend is very clear. Support is growing for Space Station in this body, not subsiding. The time has passed when we should even be considering termination of Space Station. We have had this debate on authorization and appropriations bills in years past, and each time proponents of the Space Station have prevailed. At some point there must be some finality to the decision to proceed. Mr. Chairman, I think that time has come. We have already spent more than $22 billion on Space Station, and that investment is beginning to bear fruit. Further, we are not the only country who has invested great sums of money into the Space Station. In addition to Russia, our international partners include Canada, Japan, Italy, France, and a number of other European countries. We must not suddenly pull the plug on the Space Station and leave our investments and those of our partners to go down the drain. All that aside, Mr. Chairman, this is no longer simply an ideological debate. As of December 6, 1998, when a team of American astronauts and Russian cosmonauts connected the Russian Zarya module with the American Unity craft, we have a functional Space Station in Earth's orbit. What is more, the long awaited launch of the Russian Service Module will take place late this fall. Once it has docked with the existing structure, the International Space Station will finally be ready for a human crew. Once that happens, the Space Station will begin to fulfill its mission. As a scientific and as a technological platform, it represents the next logical step in our efforts to explore space by providing the necessary experience with building and operating large space-based structures and with measuring the effects on humans of long-term space travel. The Space Station will also provide a platform for important scientific research, particularly medical and materials science research that require a microgravity environment. And like any other major undertaking at the cutting edge of technology, Mr. Chairman, the Space Station has had and will continue to have important spin-off benefits in terms of new products, new technologies, and new industrial processes. Mr. Chairman, it is time to end this debate once and for all, and I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment and subsequent amendments to the Space Station.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul).

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment, not because I so much disagree with him as to the merits of the Selective Service system, but because I have great concerns about the programs that will be cut to achieve this increase. The Selective Service has the responsibility of ensuring the peacetime registration of young men to provide insurance that the armed forces manpower needs will be met should a crisis occur. Just as importantly, the Selective Service agency also preserves the capability of conducting a draft of doctors or nurses or medical technicians should their expertise be required in a war with mass casualties, or in any action with mass casualties. All that being said, Mr. Chairman, I must oppose the gentleman's amendment due to its offsets. First, what may seem to be a small and innocuous $5 million cut to FEMA's emergency management planning and assistance account will require reductions in response and recovery, emergency preparedness, fire prevention and important technology development. Likewise, my friend from California proposes to take $5 million from the emergency food and shelter program. The emergency food and shelter program, Mr. Chairman, is already severely strained, and such a cut would result in the following needs going unmet: Just over 1 million fewer meals would be served at soup kitchens across this country with that cut; there would be 168,000 fewer bed nights at shelters and 23,000 fewer bed nights through short-term vouchers at hotels; and over 7,000 evictions would not be prevented if the gentleman's amendment were adopted and these offsets imposed. Mr. Chairman, these are very real consequences that will be felt by very real people who happen to be in the greatest need in our country. That is not the whole story. This amendment would take $1.5 million from the Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board. This agency received its first year of funding just a few years ago and is already overburdened. In fact, I received a letter in late March from the Chairman of the Chemical Safety Board stating that the board does not have the resources to undertake further investigations this year. The 16 percent cut envisioned by the gentleman's amendment would ensure that this agency will not be able to meet the demands that it faces to fulfill its mission. Finally, Mr. Chairman, this amendment will take $5 million from EPA's science and technology account. Many of my colleagues know of my own personal differences with EPA on many policy issues, but never on the need for sound science. At a time when there is a debate on global climate change, arguably one of the biggest scientific challenges ever faced by this agency, we need sound science now more than ever. While I recognize the importance of the Selective Service system and do hope that we can restore funding in conference or as this process moves forward, I cannot support doing so here with these offsets. Therefore, I would ask my colleagues to oppose the gentleman's amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield all the remaining time to the distinguished gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Mr. MOLLOHAN

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Western Pennsylvania (Mr. Mascara), my neighbor. (Mr. MASCARA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Wise).

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Klink), who has worked so long and hard on steel issues. (Mr. KLINK asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar).

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner).

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky).

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall). (Mr. HALL of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks, and include extraneous material.)

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak). (Mr. STUPAK asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm).

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the distinguished gentleman from New York, for those very kind remarks. They are certainly appreciated. God bless.

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

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes. Mr. Speaker, first I want to express appreciation to our senior Senator from West Virginia for his interest and efforts in regard to the steel industry, which have been tremendous and consistent and effective, as this legislation which he is responsible for getting through the Senate evidences. Mr. Speaker, our steel industry and steelworkers are in trouble. Foreign steel imports are up dramatically across the board, from 30 to 41 million tons in 1998. Hot rolled steel imports, for example, are up a staggering 66 percent. Three countries, Korea, Russia and Japan, account for 78 percent of this increase, and much of it is illegal dumping, selling in this country at a price less than the cost of actually producing it. That is a violation of international trade law. Dumping has resulted in five of our steel companies in this country going bankrupt and 10,000 of our steelworkers losing their job, 800 of these jobs at Weirton Steel in my district. Five companies, Mr. Speaker, 10,000 steel jobs, all lost because of illegal dumping. The legislation before us today addresses the short- to medium-term financial problems created for steel companies by this illegal dumping. It establishes a program whereby the government will guarantee up to $1.5 billion in conventional loans, $1 billion for the steel industry and $500 million for the ailing oil and gas industry. The amount actually appropriated in the bill is $270 million, which represents the subsidy rate, and that is the amount of money actually estimated to be at risk should there be defaults. Loan guarantees are a tried and true approach to helping backbone industries get through troubled financial times. Remember when the Congress passed the Chrysler Loan Guarantee Act of 1980 which supported a loan guarantee program of up to $1.5 billion? Chrysler borrowed $1.3 billion, and successfully completed the program in 1983. Likewise, in 1981 Lockheed was the object of a federally backed $250 million guarantee program. Also New York City benefitted from a successful $1 billion loan guarantee program. Some refer to these programs as the Lockheed or the New York or Chrysler bailout. In fact, none of these programs were bailouts. All were guarantee programs, which allowed Lockheed, Chrysler, and New York to work through their financial crisis and, at the conclusion, pay off their debts. The government did not have to pay off one penny of those guaranteed loans. Steel manufacturing and oil and gas production industries are vital interests to our broad economic well-being, not to mention to our national security interests. It is perfectly appropriate for us to act reasonably to assist these industries using the loan guarantee model. I urge adoption of the legislation, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) to close the debate for our side, who has worked long and hard for the steel industry and so effectively.

Mr. MOLLOHAN

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I simply want to express my appreciation for the many kind comments that I have heard on the floor today from my colleagues on the passing of my father. I certainly appreciate those sentiments, both those that have been expressed publicly and those that have been expressed privately. They are consoling and important, and I very much appreciate those comments. In addition, I would like to express appreciation to the majority leadership and to my minority leadership for accommodating my schedule and bringing up this very important legislation, the steel, oil and gas loan guarantee program. I know they have accommodated my personal situation, and for that I am deeply grateful to both the majority leadership and to the minority leadership.