Alan Mollohan

Mr. MOLLOHAN

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. We have had similar debate earlier today in which I pointed out that the ATP program is the centerpiece of the administration's research and its strategy to maintain its competitiveness in the global marketplace. I also pointed out that this is in real competition with other countries around the world who are investing strategically, governments are investing strategically and far more deeply than the United States. Nevertheless, this program, however small relative to those other strategic investments by government and civilian technology research, it is an important program. It is a program that is getting better. It has listened to its critics who have expressed concern about too much of the money going to large corporations. The program has been reconstituted by the Secretary of Commerce, taking into consideration those concerns, so that the grantees of these monies are increasingly consortium groups, including academia, small businesses, increasingly, and, of course, large businesses also, all of it directed at precompetitive, generic technology development, which would not otherwise be undertaken by private industry. ATP is decidedly not corporate welfare. That is not what it is about. It is not about picking winners and losers. It is also not about product development. ATP is about funding the research and development efforts behind high risk technologies. While the government provides a catalyst, industry can seize, manage and execute along with academician and nonprofit sector partners, these ATP projects. These funds are risky. ATP funds are risky. They are precompetitive technologies, and they are strategically picked out to ensure America's competitiveness in core sectors. That has a big potential payoff for this country, as we are in competition with the world's economy. It is a program that was bipartisan in its initiation. Although it has become political, it has become a political issue, a partisan issue in recent years, less so maybe in the last several years, it was conceived in a very nonpartisan way under the President Reagan's administration and was authored by a former Republican member of Congress, the distinguished member from Pennsylvania, Don Ritter. I remember well his support for this program. He particularly appreciated the benefits of the government being a strategic partner in ensuring America's competitiveness by focusing in these strategic areas and providing some seed catalyst money by the government to make sure that these precompetitive technology research efforts went forward. I strongly support the program. I believe that the Congress increasingly is coming to support the program. I would hope that that would be expressed by defeating the gentleman's amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I stood up to support this amendment based upon the new estimates that there would be as much as $60 or $63 million carryover. I hope that that happens, and that that addresses some of the distinguished chairman's thoughts.

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

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time, and I rise in support of his amendment. I would like to compliment the gentleman on his fine work, both this year and in the past, on behalf of public radio and television. Our bill funds PTFP at last year's funding level of $21 million. The gentleman's amendment would provide an additional $5 million to help our public radio and TV stations convert to digital formatting. This is much less than is actually needed, but it represents a good first start. I want to again rise in support of the amendment, and compliment the gentleman for his good efforts.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant opposition to the Pallone amendment, reluctant because I strongly support the clean water initiative and would love to see $8 million more put into that account. Unfortunately, I cannot support the gentleman's amendment because of the offset, a $15 million reduction in NOAA procurement, acquisition and construction. Now, first of all, why would we be taking $15 million from NOAA procurement, acquisition and construction when we are only increasing the clean water grants by $8 million? It is because we have an outlay problem with regard to it, and it takes more money out of NOAA construction to get $8 million for clean water grants. So we are not talking about an $8 million reduction, we are really talking about almost twice that much, a $15 million reduction in these accounts. Mr. Chairman, these accounts can ill afford to be reduced. These are the NOAA weather accounts primarily. Ninety-eight percent of the money in NOAA procurement is for weather, either for satellites or for the Weather Service. We can ill afford to reduce that money, and this committee has already reduced the Weather Service by significant amounts, roughly $90 million below the President's request or thereabouts. We really cannot afford to take any more money out of there. Mr. Chairman, we have had a satellite failure. We need desperately to spend money on satellites. We are behind there already. And, in addition, the second part of the NOAA procurement account, which this $15 million would come out of, is for systems and equipment for the National Weather Service. This category includes continued development, procurement and acquisition of the AWHPS system, the weather forecasting and warning system, which I do not think can afford at all to have this money taken out. So, while the amendment is very worthy in terms of the account which it wants to increase, the offsets make it untenable, and I reluctantly oppose the amendment, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, likewise, I echo the sentiments of the chairman. The gentleman, who rightly has a very serious concern about the situation in his congressional district, has I think approached it in the appropriate way. The time frame in which he requested he gets a response from the Bureau of Prisons I think is appropriate, it is expeditious, and I think he is moving in a very smart way. So I support the amendment.

Mr. MOLLOHAN

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

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

Mr. MOLLOHAN. It is, Mr. Speaker.

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

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, engaging the chairman for a further understanding with regard to the postponement of the census debate, the chairman and I have discussed this matter, and I would simply like to confirm that understanding, that the census debate will be had after we have votes on those amendments that we are going to roll until tomorrow from debates we have tonight?

Mr. MOLLOHAN

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment to cut funding for the Public Communications Facilities Program, PTFP. This is not so much an increase in Weed and Seed, again which we think is an excellent program and well-funded, as it is a slap and a cut at PTFP. The Public Telecommunications and Facilities Program is extremely important and the bill provides $21 million for it, the same funding level as provided in fiscal year 1998. It is important to note $21 million is considerably less than is actually needed. In fact, America's public television stations are requesting $56.25 million in fiscal year 1999 for PTFP. This is year one in a four-year request totaling $225 million. Now, this significant investment would be used to help our public radio and TV stations convert to a digital system, something the FCC is requiring them to do by May of 2003 and which they are going to be extremely hard-pressed to do unless they have this funding. It is evident that indeed additional funds above and beyond the $21 million provided in this bill are necessary to begin this costly transition process. Many will have to build new towers, extremely expensive to do, at a cost of $1 million to $3 million each. These stations simply do not have the resources, many of them, to make that kind of investment. Others will have to modify their towers and antennas to accommodate the height and strength necessary to support new or additional antennas necessary for this new digital system. In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, PTFP is an extraordinarily beneficial program. We must fund it at a level which allows our public radio and TV stations to convert to digital. Cutting the program at this time is an extremely bad idea. If anything, we should be providing additional funds, additional resources. To that end, Mr. Chairman, I intend to support the amendment of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel), which will be offered later, I hope, which will increase funding, and certainly urge my colleagues to vote against this ill-advised amendment.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I have to assume that the ATP program is making its contribution in this strategic effort for the government to participate, and they must be competitive in the future, and I appreciate the gentleman making my point.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Do we have an ATP program?

Mr. MOLLOHAN. We are.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. I ask the gentleman to tell me.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. I yield to the gentleman from New Hampshire.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Bass amendment to eliminate $43 million from the Advanced Technology Program. I have listened to the gentleman's debate with interest. What is interesting to me is, again, the false choices he sets up. The programs that he lists, drug courts, a lot of the law enforcement activities, this subcommittee has robustly funded, and I think we are justly proud of the amount of money that we have put into law enforcement to fight crime and drugs in this country. The other point that I would make is that, again, his statement is interesting because of what it left out. And that is, as he talks about the large companies that are receiving money for the ATP program, he leaves out the fact that many, many, many of these grants, and I do not know specifically of which ones he speaks, but the ATP program is characterized by its ability to, number one, fund precommercial research and also to do it in partnerships with small companies, with academic institutions, bringing together these strategic alliances that would not be brought together if it were not for the program. Only if we philosophically believe that the Federal Government should not be making contributions for basic research in these core strategic areas should we even consider supporting the Bass amendment. The gentleman's amendment is meant to confuse the debate on this issue. He has chosen to take funds out of the ATP program and add them to a very popular grant program, the Byrne Grant program, because he knows this program is supported by a large majority of our membership. Well, I am a very strong advocate of the Byrne Grant program. Those funds help every State in the union to assist local communities in implementing comprehensive approaches to fighting crime. It is an excellent program. Byrne Grant funding has increased by $77 million since 1994, and no one has supported it more strongly than I. The administration has requested $552 million for the Byrne Grant program in 1999, and the bill before us today fully funds that request, which is a slight increase over fiscal 1998 funds. Let me state that again. The Byrne Grant program is fully and completely funded in this bill. It is a shame that my colleague has chosen to offer such an amendment. I, for one, am strongly in favor of both initiatives, ATP and these crime fighting programs, and there are adequate funds provided in our bill to support them. This amendment would cut $43 million provided in the bill for new awards under the ATP program, and this would, in effect, kill the program. So only if we are diametrically opposed to the program, only if we are philosophically opposed to the program, only if we would like to kill the ATP program would we vote for this amendment. I would like to summarize the reasons that I am a strong supporter of ATP, be a little positive here. First, the ATP program makes a very sound contribution to this Nation, maintaining a competitive position in the global marketplace. It is a sound contribution but it is still a small contribution relatively. As of right now, with the ATP program funded as it is, the U.S. ranks 28th behind all of our major global competitors in the percentage of government R&D invested in civilian technologies. While we sit here tonight debating an amendment which would cripple the ATP program, across the ocean our competitors, England, Germany, Australia, Portugal, are investing heavily in similar initiatives. In fact, the governments of the European Community, understanding the strategic importance of these kinds of investments and these partnerships of government with academia and private industry, this European Community is funding advanced technology research to the tune of $5.5 billion.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I invite the gentleman to come to my district. I refer him to a 1997 study of the public grant program conducted by Rutgers University and the New Jersey Institute of Technology that yielded the following results: for every million dollars of Federal funding from EDA's public grant program, 327 jobs are created, $10 million in the private sector is leveraged, increasing the tax base by $10 million. So I would refer the gentleman to that study.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, this is a point, I believe the gentleman from Indiana raised a question of the EDA grant program resulting in job creation. Did I misunderstand the point when he was asking the gentlewoman from Florida about that issue? Was his point that it does not create jobs?

Mr. MOLLOHAN. I was suggesting that Orson Swindle, to whom the gentleman alluded, I believe he headed EDA at one point in time.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I would suggest, first of all, that Mr. Swindle, who is a very fine gentlemen, had these very strong views about EDA before he came to, I believe, head the agency, did he not?

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

Mr. MOLLOHAN

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the gentleman from Indiana's amendment, and I echo the sentiments of our chairman, ``there you go again.'' Mr. Chairman, this amendment presents a truly false choice between the EDA and Drug Courts. It is the oldest game I guess in Congress, that if you want to cut a program and you are having difficulty making your case on the merits, then try to find a place to put that cut that will be compelling and bolster your argument because of the nature of the account that you want to increase. I know that our colleagues will not be fooled by that. This amendment would cut $21.579 million, almost, almost, the entire increase provided above last year's level, from the Economic Development Administration's grant programs. Additionally, it also cuts $3 million from EDA's salaries and expenses account. In considering this amendment, we must first examine why an increase for EDA was provided by the committee. In its fiscal year 1999 budget request, the administration proposed a new $15 million initiative within EDA, and they paid for it by decreasing funding for EDA's existing grant programs by $22 million and increasing total funding for the agency by $28 million. This new program was designed to provide assistance to communities adversely impacted by trade agreements. The committee considered this request and decided that while the intent of the new initiative was worthwhile, EDA's existing grant programs could achieve the best results. To this end, the committee accepted the administration's proposal to increase overall funding for the agency and allocated that increase to EDA's proven programs, which clearly have the jurisdiction and the ability to best assist trade impacted communities. This is a very worthwhile investment. In fact, a 1997 study of the public works program conducted by Rutgers University and the New Jersey Institute of Technology, among others, yielded the following results: For every $1 million in Federal funding provided for EDA's public works grants program, 327 jobs are created or retained at a cost of only $3,058 per job. For every $1 million in Federal funding provided through the grant program, $10.8 million in private sector investment was leveraged and the local tax base was increased by $10.13 million. I think those are pretty good results, pretty impressive results, on our investment. Mr. Chairman, I know of no other agency or program of the Federal Government more critical to the economic development needs of communities around this Nation than EDA. EDA programs target funds to areas in need of assistance and respond to the special needs of each individual town and city. EDA has programs which benefit communities at almost every stage of the development process. For communities experiencing structural economic change resulting from long-term deterioration in industrial sectors or the depletion of natural resources, as my area, EDA provides flexible assistance to help them design and implement their own local recovery strategies. For communities facing prolonged economic distress, EDA provides the funding necessary to repair decaying infrastructure and to develop the new infrastructure which business needs to grow. For the communities faced with the massive job losses associated with defense downsizing, EDA provides the funding to develop projects at the local level that support community redevelopment priorities. EDA's grant and technical assistance programs really work. Any of my colleagues can look around their districts and point to economic success stories catalyzed by EDA funding. So, does EDA warrant an increase? I say yes. Economic development is a local process with a specific appropriate Federal role. EDA, in direct partnership with distressed communities, provides seed funding that promotes long-term investments that respond to locally defined economic priorities. It is clear that EDA is in need of additional resources to deal with adverse economic effects on trade-impacted communities, among other things. That is what this money is for, and I urge defeat of this ill- advised amendment.