Alan Mollohan

Mr. MOLLOHAN

Mr. MOLLOHAN. The gentleman really answers the question why should we even consider it here. You say, why should we not use this? That is exactly why this ought to be considered by the authorizing committee. We ought to have testimony taken by the authorizing committee to explore the questions why we should not jump to this simple solution to a very complicated problem. The gentleman's question, I think, is proof in and of itself of why we shouldn't be considering this question here on the floor today.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I also rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, this is a simple solution to a complicated problem that is being worked on at a number of different levels. I know that the authorizers, which you just heard from in the authorizing committee, they are very supportive of the implementation of the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative and they are working hard on that. Because it is a complicated problem, we have experts not only in the House of Representatives and the United States Senate in the legislative branch but also in the executive branch; and they are working to accommodate this problem to all of the real needs out there. The U.S. military, Federal agencies, travelling, they are working on identification processes. This amendment, for example, would preclude the use of secure identification issued by the U.S. military and Federal agencies that would not be accepted under this amendment. It would be extremely unfortunate as all this work has been done in order to ensure that we can have quick access across the border and perfectly adequate, secure identification and do it in a way that accommodates all of the needs. Finally, I would like to say, this is an authorizing issue and really not an issue appropriately considered here on this appropriation bill. It is complicated, as the gentleman has mentioned. It is too simple a solution and not appropriately considered in this forum.

Mr. MOLLOHAN

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Reclaiming my time.

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

Mr. MOLLOHAN. I yield to the gentleman.

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

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Yes, I would be pleased to work with the chairman and the gentlewoman; pledge to work to increase resources for the State Department's economic bureau to enhance their ability to improve enforcement of intellectual property protection.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Not in 5 minutes, unfortunately. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the distinguished gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon).

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. Just the fact that the gentleman from Massachusetts has spent so much time explaining what his amendment means I think is the best proof that it is so vague that we don't really know what we are not funding with this amendment. There is $3.9 billion in the Constellation Systems account. Conceivably, the amendment could prevent any of that spending. All of it, it could be argued, relates to a manned space mission to Mars. The amendment is so vague that I think that is why everybody is really concerned about it. It is absolutely true that NASA is having problems. There is no question about it. The President has proposed a space exploration initiative. He calls it a vision, in some ways of course it would be if, if, it were genuinely funded. My concern is that it is not genuinely funded. There are a lot of problems with NASA funding, but it all has to do with not enough funding to do everything that we want to do. That is evidenced by the myriad of science programs that are either cancelled or cut in the President's budget. It is terrible. Every scientist that is at all concerned about operating in the NASA camp has expressed how opposed they are to the NASA funding. But this, to me, is not the way to get at that. What we do need is more money in NASA, and NASA, I think, frankly needs to come forward with a budget that is more specific, one that we can deal with, instead of coming up with these operating plans. That really is a very imperfect way to fund an agency.

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

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

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

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee). (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to reclaim my time.

Mr. MOLLOHAN

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I would simply point out that this organization operates in a part of the country that has suffered probably the most from government policies, particularly our trade policies, but also our environmental laws; and whatever arguments you could make for our, our free trade policies, they are in large part insensitive to the disproportionate negative impact they have on certain segments of our economy and certain geographical areas of our country. The basic industry areas of the country where this organization operates have suffered. It is one of those areas that has suffered disproportionately. The steel industry was a thriving industry there 20, 30 years ago. The Mon Valley, which is close to our area, is devastated and was practically the first steel industry to suffer. There is no steel industry in that area now. In addition, environmental laws had negative impacts on the burning of fossil fuels. This general region was very prosperous producing the Nation's energy and has suffered greatly because of the impacts of environmental laws. I am not arguing the environmental law issue at all but just simply talking about the economic impact. Well, these earmarks are contained in the Small Business Administration account, and that is the purpose of the Small Business Administration account, is to help small business. So the purpose of this funding is to look at workforce development, where there is tremendous unemployment as a result of trade laws, environmental laws, and government policy that have had a negative impact This is self-help. This organization looks at workforce development, assisting in training needs for displaced workers, pursuing funding for mechanisms for training, assisting displaced workers, and working with the training facilities and the colleges and the universities to address those very difficult, midlife retraining challenges that the Trade Adjustment Assistance Program speaks to and that an organization like this can be very helpful in implementing. The Incubator Project, is the other side of the coin. That is the development and diversification of small business. It is really pay me now or pay me later. As the previous gentleman from Pennsylvania said, you are either going to address the unemployment condition and try to retrain and try to get people back into the community, into the workforce through retraining, and at the same time promoting new industries, new small businesses for those people to work in, or you are going to be paying unemployment and you are going to be dealing with the issues of a deteriorating community. This funding, which goes to all of those purposes, certainly is in keeping of the mission of the Small Business Administration.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. I appreciate the opportunity to speak in opposition to this amendment. You know, it should be understood that a lot of those earmarks go to help those who are in the greatest need of help. I am struck by the good fortune of the gentleman and his congressional district and his State, as recounted by the ranking member just a few moments ago. You are indeed very fortunate to have these large defense contractors, Raytheon and General Dynamics, and these large Federal installations like Fort Wachuka in your State. That is a real blessing. It is particularly a blessing in an economy that marginalizes and that is not nurturing to certain sectors. But certainly I think the gentleman can understand that in the last 20, 25, 30 years, our economy, because of the increased internationalization of it, has been extremely harsh on certain segments and certain geographical areas, as I mentioned earlier. Those areas that were steel manufacturing areas, those areas that were coal producing areas, those areas that were basically manufacturing, microcosms if you will, for rust belt America were particularly hard hit during this period; and the need in these areas is for economic diversification. And the gentleman may not have been engaged in that much, but this is a very difficult, hard thing to do. Federal Government assistance, this appropriation, these earmarks, if you will, in the Small Business Administration go directly to help rejuvenate economies, creating a broader, a more flexible, a more dynamic economy through diversification. It is not an easy process; and if you have not been involved with it, the gentleman probably is not sensitive to that as he might be. But current economic trends in these areas, in these kinds of areas indicate that the sectors that do have potential growth are the heritage, tourism, regional travel; and this program works with the West Virginia Department of Education Travel and Tourism to promote what is the fastest-growing segment of the economic base. So that is the purpose of the earmark, and I strenuously oppose the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California for a colloquy with the chairman.

Ms. MOLLOHAN

Ms. MOLLOHAN. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

Mr. MOLLOHAN

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

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from California.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson- Lee).

Mr. MOLLOHAN

Mr. MOLLOHAN. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. I appreciate the gentleman yielding time. I rise in opposition to the amendment as well. Obviously, cuts of this kind in the science accounts anywhere in order to transfer money over to other science accounts is just robbing Peter to pay Paul. I think that illustrates where we are with the allocation that we have in this bill. One of the real purposes of consolidating the science accounts into this subcommittee was to be able to look at science across the board and be able to fund it adequately. Well, it hasn't turned out to be that way, and this amendment is a great example of why. Here we are trying to take money from one science account and move it over to another science account. I support the funding of the gentleman's amendment. I have to oppose the offset of the gentleman's amendment. In all of NASA's accounts, it was science that was hurt most. Program after program after program, I don't have it at the moment to recite it, but the President has either eliminated or cut seriously science programs, one right after the other in the NASA account. Well, we are very proud of increases to the National Science Foundation. Although we haven't met the authorization targets, we are very proud about increasing funding to the National Institutes of Health, and that has been funded very robustly over the last number of years. But there are those science accounts and, particularly, NASA, a great science agency, that is not getting adequate funding now. That is about $500 million, I believe, short of where it should be.

Mr. MOLLOHAN

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas to speak in opposition to the amendment. (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)