Alan Mollohan

Mr. MOLLOHAN

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bentsen). (Mr. BENTSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), our ranking minority member.

Mr. MOLLOHAN

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, what happens when a crisis is not resolved, a crisis that is allowed to grow, both in scope and intensity? In time, that crisis will become a disaster. Such a time is near at hand for our domestic steel industry. We are in the third year of an import steel crisis. Our steel companies and workers are buckling under the weight of unprecedented, record-breaking foreign imports, much of it illegal. Thousands of our workers have been laid off. Six of our steel companies in the last 2 years have gone bankrupt. With this year's imports running higher than ever, the continued existence of a viable steel industry in this country is at risk. The only way to avert such a disaster is to cut imports, to reverse the trend which is threatening an industry that is vital to our economy and our national defense. That is why I join the gentleman from New York (Mr. Quinn) in introducing the bipartisan Executive Steel Defense Resolution. That is why I have joined the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky); the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula); the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney); the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Wise), from my home State; the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Klink); the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Mascara); and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Doyle) in the bipartisan effort to achieve relief against disastrous steel import levels. We call on the President to initiate a 201 proceeding, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. MOLLOHAN

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to offer my congratulations to Christine Martin, who was recently named dean of the Perley Isaac Reed School of Journalism at West Virginia University. Dean Martin lead the school of journalism in an interim capacity for 1 year before receiving a permanent appointment. In that short term, she has greatly contributed to a first-class faculty with the addition of award-winning journalists George Esper and Terry Wimmer. Mr. Speaker, in tribute to this talented, well-respected educator and journalist, and in recognition of her many achievements, I provide for the Record a recent newspaper article written on the occasion of her appointment as dean and extend my congratulations. Martin Selected As New J-School Dean (By Chandra Broadwater) Christine Martin, a West Virginia University journalism professor and interim dean of the Perley Isaac Reed School of Journalism, was selected as the permanent dean of the school last week. The selection of Martin formally concluded a nationwide search for the position. Martin was named to the post of dean after the search was narrowed down to three total finalists. ``I think that the school of journalism will be very well served with Chris as dean,'' Dean Bill Deaton of the College of Human Resources and Education and chair of the Journalism Dean Search Committee said. ``She's demonstrated through her progress as interim dean her ability to effectively work with different media in the school.'' Martin will be the first woman to lead the school and the sixth dean in its history. ``I've worked with Chris since I came to WVU in 1996 and I had also known her from a Pennsylvania paper that we both worked at,'' journalism professor and search committee member Leslie Rubinkowski said. ``I know her as being an excellent journalist and good editor. She brings a lot of these qualities to her job.'' Rubinkowski also acknowledges that Martin did a great job in getting projects within the journalism school started. ``Chris has spearheaded many projects in the last year,'' she said. ``Under her guidance, we are redesigning the journalism curriculum. The way that scholarships are awarded has been changed and Journalism Week, which faded away in the last five years, was revived.'' In addition to noting Martin's work in creating the Vietnam war correspondent women's panel, Rubinkowski ultimately felt that Martin was chosen as dean of the journalism school because of the respectable and likeable persona that she reflects. ``People like and respect her because she's a good journalist and leader.'' After coming to WVU in 1990 as an associate professor, Martin directed the school's writing program, chaired the news editorial sequence and coordinated its honors program. Before coming to WVU, she taught writing, literature and journalism at Washington and Jefferson College in Washington, Pa. Martin also worked as a reporter, education writer and news editor for the Pittsburgh Tribune Review and the Uniontown Herald-Standard. Martin is also a 1999 Freedom Forum Teacher of the Year, a 1998 Carnegie Foundation Professor of the Year (the only one in West Virginia), a 1997-98 WVU Foundation Outstanding Teacher and the 1996-97 Journalism Teacher of the Year. Martin also began a program that brings together WVU and state newsrooms called, ``Bridging the Gap: A Personnel and Resource Exchange.'' In addition to her work with WVU, she conducts writing workshops for newspapers across the state. Martin also co-directs the reporting and writing fellowship program for college graduates at the Poynter Institute in St. Petersburg, Fla. every summer. Martin earned her undergraduate degree in English from California University (Pa.). She also holds a master's degree from the University of Maryland, where she is currently completing a Ph.D. in American studies. Martin currently is in Vietnam, pursuing her interests in female war correspondents who covered the Vietnam War. She was unavailable for comment.

Mr. MOLLOHAN

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, the modern day pharmaceutical marketplace was established by passage of the 1984 Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act. The act, commonly known as the Hatch/ Waxman Act, gave brand companies longer patent periods to provide them with financial incentive to innovate. The act also gave generic drug companies a streamlined approval process, so they could bring less- costly versions of drugs to market quickly after patents expired. The Hatch/Waxman Act worked well. Brand companies introduced hundreds of new drugs and grew to become the most profitable industry in the world. Meanwhile, generic companies were able to provide the public with drugs that cost significantly less. Unfortunately, the brand drug companies were not satisfied with their astounding success. They are now using loopholes in the Hatch/Waxman Act to file frivolous administrative and legal challenges to keep generic competitors out of the marketplace. For example, brand companies are exploiting loopholes in the act to keep generic versions of drugs such as Taxol for cancer and Losec for ulcers out of the marketplace. Each day the brand companies succeed in delaying generic competition, they reap windfall profits at the expense of patients. The Hatch/Waxman Act is a good law that will be made great when the loopholes are closed and fairness returns to the pharmaceutical marketplace.

Mr. MOLLOHAN

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I have no objection to that.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, we discussed this very clearly. It would be a total of 20 minutes on this amendment No. 48, 10 minutes to a side on that; on the other two amendments the gentleman would be able to speak for 2 minutes just to talk about the amendment and then to withdraw them and not to exercise a point of order with regard to them.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding me this time. I would like to, in part, associate myself with the remarks of the gentlewoman from Colorado. While I do not agree with her ultimate position, I would suggest that the reason we are in this tough position is because of the budget that the majority has come forward with and the stingy allocation that it results in for not only this subcommittee, but for all appropriation subcommittees. That is what the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member, has spoken to so eloquently throughout this process, the fact that we have a budget agreement supported and written by the majority which is totally unrealistic and totally inadequate when we come over to the other part of the budget process, and that is the appropriation process. That is why we do not have enough money in this bill for vouchers and for NASA and for science research. That is the problem that we are really confronted with; and we all can only hope that as the process moves forward, we will get additional allocation, and money will come; and certainly with the performance of the economy, that is justified. We do not need to starve domestic discretionary programs in this time of prosperity. We do not need to have people in need of housing; we do not need to have homeless that are not being cared for. We do not need to choose between Space Station and the science programs and housing or any other programs. So I wanted to agree with the gentlewoman. Except, making the distinction that in our committee, given our allocation, I really do want to compliment the chairman for doing the very best job he could; and I know he looks forward to the day that we might get additional allocation. Mr. Chairman, I do not know how much of my time I have used in speaking to that, but I want to suggest that I have no disagreement with the gentleman's objective of adding funding for incremental section 8 housing vouchers, housing assistance vouchers. I know that the chairman has supported that; and hopefully, as time goes forward and we get that additional allocation, we can be more responsive to that. Unfortunately, my disagreement with the gentleman stems from his proposition to cut the appropriation for human space flight. This is the account that funds the Space Station and the Space Shuttle, and it is hard to see how a cut of this proportion will not have a severe impact on both of these programs. His offering the amendment and the concerns expressed by the gentlewoman from Colorado are just expressions of the frustration we are all having in having to deal with a totally unrealistic budget resolution. The inadequacies reflect themselves when we come to the appropriations process. So unfortunately, I am going to have to rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment, while still being supportive of the objective of the amendments.

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

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, pursuant to an agreement that we reached earlier in the day, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) only for purposes of discussing his amendment No. 7.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) for a colloquy between himself and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis).

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), my final speaker.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for yielding time to me. First let me compliment the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt). In a very short period of time in the Congress he has distinguished himself as an expert in the area of government-sponsored research, and also has been its strongest advocate. I want to say that it is particularly appropriate that he is the author of this amendment because of the reputation that he is establishing in this area. We appreciate the gentleman's efforts. Mr. Chairman, let me also compliment the chairman of my subcommittee for being able to find money for a 4 percent increase in the NSF budget. In this budget allocation that we were given in our committee, that is quite a feat. It is in fact a recognition of his attitude towards how important basic funding research is. But it is not enough. Our economy, our new economy, demands that we invest more in the National Science Foundation in basic research. That is why I strongly support the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indian (Mr. Roemer) for the purpose only of speaking on his amendment No. 8.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green). (Mr. GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Cramer).

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland, (Mr. Hoyer).

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes. Mr. Chairman, let me express appreciation to my dear friend and colleague, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Cramer) for his assistance in working on this amendment and working on NASA issues generally. The gentleman is a real champion for NASA funding and he has a passionate concern for the underfunding of some of the accounts that we are trying to address here today. I just want to give a special note of appreciation to him for his assistance. This amendment, Mr. Chairman, would accomplish a simple goal: to bring NASA's long-reduced budget up to the President's requests. After years of repeated cuts the administration has proposed a modest increase for NASA, only 3.2 percent, but it is a modest increase and barely takes care of inflation. Indeed, the gentleman from New York (Chairman Walsh) has done his best to fund NASA in this bill, and we express appreciation for him for those efforts. Let me briefly explain why I think there are some accounts that deserve funding. The so-called Living With a Star Initiative that would help us understand the Sun's behavior, extremely important, Mr. Chairman, when to expect sun flares, when to expect these abnormalities affect us here on Earth. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would provide $16.5 million to that end. Secondly, the bill before us completely eliminates funding for the space launch initiative, extremely important, including funding for advanced technology research on the next generation Space Shuttle, as well as ongoing work on two experimental vehicles, the X34 and the X37. My amendment, Mr. Chairman, would provide $260 million for this purpose, which represents $30 million less than the President's requests, but it at least gets significant amounts of money on those very important projects. Thirdly, my amendment would provide $39.1 million to the aviation system capacity program for a total of $49.2 million. This important ongoing program of research and development has the goal of improving air traffic control and reducing airport and aerospace congestion. Finally, my amendment provides $7 million for the small aircraft transportation system, to develop technology for use in improving utilization and safety of general aviation airports and aircraft, which have the highest accident rate of all modes of transportation, Mr. Chairman. This is an area that we desperately need to put these additional funds. Let me restate that by offering this amendment, I am in no way intending to criticize my chairman, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) for his hard work in crafting this bill. We simply did not have enough money to go around and hopefully we will as we move forward. We have, however, I think, with this amendment, put important resources back into NASA's programs that were underfunded so that it can carry out these important responsibilities. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, once again we are faced with an amendment to kill the International Space Station and once again I rise in the strongest possible opposition to that amendment. Last year, I said that the time for debate on this issue had passed. It was true then, and it is certainly true today. It is even more true today. All of these arguments that are being advanced against the International Space Station were applicable a long time ago. We have now a functional Space Station in Earth's orbit. We have a team of astronauts who have just returned from a resupply, repair, and reboost mission to that station and by the end of this summer, the launch of the long-awaited Russian service module will allow the station to be inhabited by humans. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Indiana would throw all of that away, flushing literally tens of billions of dollars down the drain, money invested by the United States and also money invested by our international partners, yes, by Russia, Canada, Japan, Italy, and France to name just a few. Pulling out of the joint effort at this stage is, in my judgment, irresponsible. Mr. Chairman, we have had a number of recent votes on this issue. I think from 1992 to date, a series of maybe eight or nine votes on this issue. In each instance, the body has expressed its solid support and increasing support for the International Space Station. There is simply not much else to say in this debate. It has all been said so many times before during those years. But let us be honest. This amendment is not really about anything else other than killing the Space Station, however attractive some of the accounts are to where the money is spent. This debate has been decided in the past. I urge defeat of the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Science. (Mr. HALL of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I agree with the chairman and have no objection. I compliment the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings) for bringing it up.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. I appreciate the gentleman's yielding to me. Mr. Chairman, I also share the gentleman's concerns. We can certainly try to address this issue in the conference with the other body, and I appreciate the gentleman raising the issue. It is particularly poignant, and it certainly does need to be addressed; and I hope we can address it in conference. I appreciate the gentleman bringing it to our attention.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Michigan has spent a considerable amount of time on this issue during the last 3 years, beginning with the conference report on the 1999 VA-HUD appropriation bill. The gentleman mentions today the necessity for clarity with regard to this issue, and suggests that there is a certain lack of clarity. I would like to speak to that issue, because I respectfully disagree that there is anything unclear about the issue or about the agreement associated with the issue that was achieved in the context of the 1999 VA-HUD conference. In that conference it was made clear, to put it in simple turns, that the EPA or the United States Government could not, would not, under the terms of that conference report, and they acknowledged that they would not if there was nothing in the conference report, try to implement the Kyoto Protocol prior to its being ratified by the United States Senate, meaning that they would not engage in a rule-making proceeding to establish standards for American industry out of any requirement, any agreement, flowing out of the Kyoto Protocol. In that agreement, Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Michigan was very much a part of that negotiation. Subsequent to that, he has worked in the report language to modify that original report understanding. His modifications, unfortunately, would muddy the original agreement and would breach the ability of the Environmental Protection Agency, or any agency of the United States Government, to engage in international conferences and discuss this topic, this global warming topic, in a very general way or in a specific way. Now, that does muddy the water, because that was never intended. We do not want to gag the Environmental Protection Agency. We do not want to prevent it from engaging developing economies around the world and encouraging them to incorporate increasingly strict emissions standards in their countries as their economies develop. We want to encourage them to do that. Under the gentleman's language, unfortunately, he challenges the ability of any government agency to engage in those agreements. That is why the language of the gentleman from Massachusetts is clear, because it returns the understanding as it is set forth in the 1999 bill and report and eliminates all of the confusion created by the gentleman from Michigan's efforts subsequent to that time. We want to prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from implementing, from engaging in any rule-making activity under Kyoto, and they do not want to do it anyway. We want them also to engage the world in this topic, so that the world can improve its environmental standards.