Alan Mollohan

Mr. MOLLOHAN

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah), a distinguished and hardworking member of the subcommittee.

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

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), distinguished member on the Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes. Mr. Chairman, I want to begin by thanking our excellent chairman, the gentleman from New York, for the work that he has done in crafting this legislation, the many hours that he has spent involved in it. Throughout the development of the bill, he and his staff have been accessible; and they have made every effort to accommodate the concerns that the minority have presented to them. As I know he will tell you, we have not seen eye to eye on nearly all the issues in this bill. But the communication necessary for a cooperative effort has occurred and that is certainly very much appreciated. The departments and agencies that are funded in this bill all deserve adequate funding, but the allocation that we have been given simply does not make that possible. Congress has been operating under unrealistic budget constraints fashioned for the purpose of justifying a huge tax cut. Many concerns were raised during the consideration of that tax cut, most importantly the concern of ensuring the solvency of Social Security and Medicare. While Members from both parties professed that these funds were sacred, as we await the Congressional Budget Office's mid-term reestimates of the government finances, including projections for fiscal year 2002, which are due out in mid-August, it is becoming clear that the tax cut might well invade the Medicare surplus. This is exactly what Democrats were concerned about. This is not fair to our seniors, and it is not good fiscal policy. It is that same tax cut that is forcing the Committee on Appropriations to make do with fewer resources than are needed. This has resulted in an inadequate allocation to this subcommittee. This has forced the gentleman from New York to engage in a balancing act. While he has been able to do many good things, he has by necessity had to underfund some important accounts. First, let me mention two specific accounts where the gentleman from New York has markedly improved upon the administration's request. The National Science Foundation is provided $4.84 billion, an increase of $414 million over last year. This represents a 9 percent increase rather than the 1.2 percent increase that the President proposed. NASA, an account that has been flat funded for the past several years, is in need of funding increases. NASA would receive an increase of $641 million over last year's funding for a total budget of $14.9 billion. Importantly, the bill and report also begin the process of addressing the cost issues associated with the International Space Station. It provides $275 million toward the Crew Return Vehicle, a vital station component that President Bush would eliminate. This funding is conditioned on NASA reporting back to this committee its plan to address the Space Station cost overrun issue. In addition, NASA is charged with ensuring that research is not compromised in the solution. To underscore the point that research continues to be a principal justification for the Space Station, the chairman's mark includes an additional $35 million for Space Station research. Further, the chairman's amendment includes an amendment that I proposed to the chairman that will add an additional $25 million. Once again, this bill reflects the strong support that science enjoys among the members of this subcommittee. But ensuring adequate resources for science is only one of the many important responsibilities that needs to be fulfilled by this legislation. The funding levels for several of the accounts are clearly inadequate. For example, to his credit, the chairman has increased discretionary funding to the Veterans' Administration by $1.6 billion over last year's level. While this is a large increase, it falls significantly short of the medical care need as outlined most recently by the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, the authorizing committee. Programs within the Department of Housing and Urban Development are cut and several receive no funding at all. These include public housing capital funds, drug elimination grants, rural housing and economic development, empowerment zones, and shelter-plus-care homeless renewals. The Corporation for National and Community Service is zero-funded and the Community Development Financial Institutions fund is sharply reduced from last year. I know that the gentleman from New York shares my concern about most of these accounts and that he would provide more resources to them if he could. Today, amendments will be offered addressing some of the problems in the bill. However, even if adopted they will not remedy all the funding shortfalls in this legislation. Resources are simply not available to address the larger issues. We need more money. From veterans, to housing, to water and sewer needs and even science, more needs to be done, Mr. Chairman. I hope that as this process moves forward, additional resources will be made available allowing us to properly fund the many needy, deserving programs in this legislation. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Meek) who is a very effective, hardworking member of our subcommittee.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the distinguished ranking minority member on the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I have one remaining speaker. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time, 2 minutes, to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders).

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

Mr. MOLLOHAN

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so that we can have an opportunity to vote on this critical amendment.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to oppose the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, the ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), will offer an amendment to the rule. The amendment will make in order the amendment offered at the Committee on Appropriations by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and also at the Committee on Rules. The amendment adds $1 billion for veterans medical care, for critical housing programs, and to partially restore funding for the Corporation for National and Community Service, some of the issues that have been spoken to here during the debate on the rule. The money would come from paring back the recently enacted tax cut in the top tax bracket from 38.6 percent to 39.1 percent. That is one-half of 1 percent from the richest Americans to help some of the most vulnerable Americans and communities. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment and extraneous materials at this point in the Record.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, the rule before us today is an open rule that allows all amendments provided for under the House rules to be offered. It also waives all points of order against provisions included in the committee-passed bill. Of particular importance and interest, it waives points of order against a provision offered in full committee by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay). This provision would provide $1.3 billion for the Federal Emergency Management Agency designated as emergency funding. We all know about the disaster that Tropical Storm Allison brought to Texas and the Gulf Coast. Other States, Mr. Speaker, have also recently experienced federally declared disasters. My own State of West Virginia is struggling to recover from recent flooding. Twenty-two counties have been included in the Federal disaster declaration and a recent estimate for West Virginia has placed the damage cost in excess of $175 million. We know that the storm season is just beginning, and FEMA has told us that they will need additional funding. We need to provide it to ensure that communities that suffer disasters are able to receive Federal assistance in a timely manner. While we in the minority would have preferred providing this funding in the fiscal year 2001 supplemental bill that was recently considered, the administration blocked that effort. However, in the statement of administration policy with regard to this bill, on the topic of emergency funding, they have indicated that they do not object now to the House including the emergency funding in this bill for fiscal year 2002. I am pleased that the Committee on Rules protected this provision. I am disappointed that the Committee on Rules did not grant a waiver making in order an amendment to be offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), ranking member of the full Committee on Appropriations. His amendment would have provided $1 billion in additional resources to adequately fund many of the accounts in this bill that are admittedly underfunded. As an offset, the amendment would have decreased the recently enacted reduction in the highest marginal tax rate by just .5 percent. While I might consider this a minor change, for those who supported the tax cut, it has the implication of shifting millions of dollars from the highest-income citizens in our land to benefit some of the neediest citizens and neediest communities in our land. Because this amendment was not made in order, I support efforts to defeat the previous question so that the rule can be amended to permit the Obey amendment to be considered by the House.

Mr. MOLLOHAN

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

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, is the gentleman suggesting that all of the money that we are funding in the Export-Import Bank is going to go to Boeing?

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's comments. The gentleman describes the situation, I think, inaccurately; and I would like to calibrate his comments a little bit. The gentleman suggests and uses the word ``cripple''; that the gentleman's amendment would severely cripple the Export-Import Bank. I would like to point out to the gentleman in the short time we have that the President requested $120 million in the subsidy account less than the House appropriated. We are taking $18 million from the House. So, therefore, there is about $100 million left more in this bill than the President requested to do the good things that the gentleman is talking about and that the gentleman from Washington is talking about so that the government can support Boeing in its efforts against Airbus around the world. We are not getting at the good things and the good jobs that are created by the Export-Import Bank. What we are getting at are the policies that undermine domestic industries that are extremely vulnerable at this period of time by financing projects that incredibly enhances capacity.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I am not sure how many votes the gentleman can get for it. Does the gentleman know how much money the committee is appropriating?

Mr. MOLLOHAN. I think the message is that you do not approve a loan guarantee that undermines an industry that is being already devastated by imports. A point that we made earlier in the debate that Secretary Mineta made when he was Secretary of Commerce to the Export-Import Bank on this very subject was that China has gone from 6,000 metric tons in 1997 of hot-rolled production to 450,000 tons, and they did not need any more capacity. In that same time period we had nine bankruptcies and 23,000 unemployed steelworkers. That is the message that we are trying to send.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman be allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.

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

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, we are not trying to protect the steel industry in the sense the Member has used. I think, to my understanding, he has used that phrase. We are trying to protect the steel industry from unfair foreign competition, on the one hand; and we are definitely trying to protect it from an agency that is funded with the people's money going out and empowering China, which has a tremendous excess capacity at this point, from developing greater excess capacity. Yes, we are trying to protect them from that kind of conduct and a major American agency that we fund being instrumental in making that possible.

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

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman should urge something else because he knows that is not going to happen. Maybe the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) should urge his colleagues who might support his position to vote with him.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman describes legitimate purposes and missions of the Export-Import Bank. What the gentleman may not understand if he did not hear the very beginning of the debate is we are going after with this amendment some egregious decisions made by the Export-Import Bank in subsidizing three of these small companies that empowers the Chinese.

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

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman just made our point. The lack of wisdom is in paying off these companies to support investments of the Benxi steel facility in China in order to enable the production of tremendous excess capacity in that plant. The gentleman just made the point.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I look forward to joining the gentleman in that effort.