Alan Mollohan

Mr. MOLLOHAN

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to join my colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fox), in offering an amendment to increase funding for the Legal Services Corporation. Simply stated, the Mollohan-Fox amendment increases funding for the Legal Services Corporation from $141 million to $250 million. As my colleagues may know, the Legal Services Corporation, LSC, has provided legal assistance to many of the neediest, most vulnerable of our citizens for 24 years. These are people who have little means and, therefore, no place to go for legal help. Some are in life-threatening situations, such as domestic abuse, many. The largest percentage of cases closed by LSC attorneys in 1997 was in the area of family law, comprising about 36 percent of the 1.5 million cases closed in 1997. There are many success stories associated with the work of Legal Services Corporation. In my own State of West Virginia, for example, the Legal Aid Society of Charleston was contacted by a woman after her husband had forced her and her 2-week-old baby out of their house. With the help of Legal Aid she was able to obtain a permanent restraining order against her husband, sole custody of her child, child support, and basic health benefits for the child. Then there was a 47-year-old woman in Wheeling, West Virginia, in my district, whose only income was from Social Security disability. She had total renal shutdown and was on dialysis and medication. These expenses were being covered under a Medicaid waiver. The woman was told her waiver would be revoked. She did not have the funds to pay for this treatment. So, in effect, revocation of the waiver was a death warrant. The Legal Aid office got her waiver reinstated. Many of my colleagues will recall that in fiscal year 1996, our subcommittee, under the leadership of the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), put in place a number of restrictions to increase accountability at the Legal Services Corporation. A competitive bidding system has been adopted for all grants and contracts, and all grantees are now required to provide audited financial statements. A number of prohibitions on Legal Services' grantees are in place. Any Legal Services Corporation grantee is prohibited from participating in redistricting litigation, class action suits, welfare reform advocacy, prisoner representation, lobbying, abortion litigation, illegal alien representation, and collecting attorneys' fees. Last year the Congress provided for debarment of grantee organizations that violated these restrictions. All this is by way of saying that the Legal Services Corporation has gone a long way to address the concerns many had raised with some of its past practices. The fact is the Legal Services Corporation has, in good faith, implemented these reforms. I would like to point out to my colleagues that the Mollohan-Fox amendment does not seek to change a single one of these restrictions. This amendment simply increases funding for grants to basic field programs by $109 million. Offsets for the amendment are as follows: Bureau of Prisons, $60 million; the Judiciary $20 million, State Department Diplomatic and Consular Affairs, $10 million; USIA Radio Construction, $9 million; Maritime Administration, title XI loan guarantees, $10 million; a shift of $40 million from the counterterrorism fund to the Office of Justice Programs to gain needed outlays. This does not in any way affect the amount of funds available or their use. I filed a more detailed description of these offsets in the record so that my intentions on all of them are clear. To give my colleagues some idea of how dramatically we have decreased Legal Services' funding, Mr. Chairman, in fiscal 1995, we appropriated $415 million for this purpose; 323 grantees provided services to almost 1.7 million clients from 1,100 locations across the Nation. If the Legal Services Corporation funding level falls to $141 million, as proposed in this bill, the number of clients would fall from 1.7 million in 1995 to less than a million. Neighborhood offices will decrease from 1,100 in fiscal year 1995 to about 550. Half. No aid will be available in thousands of counties throughout this country. As many of my colleagues know by now, the Senate, in its appropriation bill, already has provided $300 million for the Legal Services Corporation. Frankly, as we move through the appropriations process, I intend to work hard to get as near to the Senate level as possible. The need is there, and especially so since the recent Supreme Court ruling that interest on lawyer trust accounts, IOLTA funds, are the private property of clients. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

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

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

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Dixon), a very able member of our subcommittee.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), who is an outstanding Member of our full committee.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1\3/4\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), a member of our full committee. (Mr. VISCLOSKY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MOLLOHAN

Mr. MOLLOHAN. I am sorry. I misunderstood that. It puzzles me how he can develop a position with his learned background that is so at odds with not only the National Academy of Sciences, which has had three panels look at this issue and in a very scientific way with lots of, I think the gentleman would concede, learned people, had a lot of learned people look at this and conclude after the 1990 failed census, when the Congress asked the National Academy of Sciences to look at it and come up with a better technique and they recommended scientific sampling, how the gentleman's position can line up against the National Academy of Sciences' three panels and about six or seven scientific statistic organizations on the issue, all of whom recommended using this new science in trying to count everyone in this country.

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

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding this time to me. Mr. Speaker, I would like to engage the gentleman from Florida if I might. I am very impressed with his credentials, and I appreciate his position in this argument and his learned debate. It does puzzle me, though, how the gentleman, and he is a member of the American Statistical Association?

Mr. MOLLOHAN. The gentleman, Mr. Speaker, is suggesting that the one panel was compromised in some political way. Is he suggesting that the other two at the National Academy of Sciences was politically compromised? And what about all these other organizations?

Mr. MOLLOHAN. It is quite a conspiracy.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon), chairman of the Committee on Rules, for his fair consideration of our requests. I also want to thank my good friend, the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley), the ranking member, for his guidance and advocacy of our interests in the development of the rule. Mr. Speaker, let me first say that I am pleased that the Committee on Rules recommended an open rule for the consideration of this bill, for the same reasons our chairman just mentioned. It allows for all Members on both sides of the aisle to debate the issues thoroughly. Mr. Speaker, I am also pleased that this rule makes in order my 2000 Census amendment, the ``Let's Count Everybody Amendment,'' and allows 2 hours of debate on the issue. It is a very complicated matter, and any less time would not have allowed for a meaningful debate. First, the 2000 Census is just around the corner, and what does this bill do? It cuts off funding for the census preparation in the middle of the year, putting at risk funding for the census preparation for the rest of the year. That is no way to do business. We cannot plan for a professionally run census with that kind of a funding scheme. My amendment fixes that. It guarantees funding for the whole fiscal year. Second, I must note the seriousness with which the administration takes its duty to make sure that the 2000 Census is as accurate as possible in accounting for everyone in America: the urban and the rural, majorities and minorities, adults and children, especially the children. During the 1990 failed census, one-half of those people who were never counted, the missed, the overlooked, the forgotten, were children. The administration is committed to veto this measure unless the Census Bureau is allowed to incorporate the recommendations of the National Academy of Sciences by employing scientific sampling in the conduct of the 2000 Census, so that those who were left out of the 1990 Census will be included in the 2000 Census. Everyone in our country. If the language contained in the bill is not amended, we will end up with a census that is not credible to anyone. I believe my amendment provides an equitable approach to this issue, and hope that it represents a compromise that at the end of the day, everyone can support. Our chairman, the distinguished gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) obviously disagrees with the merits of my amendment, but to his credit, he argued for my right to offer the amendment. The gentleman's friendship and bipartisan nature have made working on this subcommittee a pleasure and an honor and we thank him. The open rule, of course, also allows for consideration of an additional amendment I intend to offer to increase funding for the Legal Services Corporation by $109 million. For the last 2 years, the subcommittee has recommended funding the Legal Services Corporation at $141 million. Consequently, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fox) and I have offered an amendment in each of the last 2 years to increase funding to $250 million. We again find ourselves in a similar situation and I urge my colleagues to vote for that amendment. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would like to express my disappointment that this rule makes in order an amendment to be offered by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley). This amendment would in part prevent funds from being used to enforce an executive order prohibiting employment discrimination based on sexual orientation. Mr. Speaker, I think the gentleman's amendment is misguided. It plays to fears and prejudices, and I hope the debate on this amendment will not degenerate as it has on similar amendments in the past. In any event, this bill is certainly not the appropriate vehicle for this kind of an amendment. Additionally, I would like to note that my colleague, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley), testified before the Committee on Rules on two separate and unrelated amendments, and I regret that the rule makes them in order together. In conclusion, I think that this is a fair rule, and I urge its support.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Which organization is that?

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

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Reclaiming my time on that point, indeed I am sure we can get individual academicians and statisticians to come up with any view. The thing that impresses me so much is that these associations have come up with a consensus position supporting sampling. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. MOLLOHAN

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. This amendment would end U.S. participation in the international Space Station program. Once again as we do year in and year out, we find ourselves debating whether or not to continue U.S. leadership in this vital space initiative. Opponents of this program ask you to focus on cost. But any cost analysis must also involve a benefit analysis. The benefits to be gained from research and technological leadership reverberate far beyond space exploration and will be shared by all Americans. The international space station will serve as a research laboratory for present day advances in medicine. Information gained will lead to enhanced drug design and better treatment of diseases. Technology developed for the space station will also lead to advances in numerous fields, including environmental systems, communications, and computer technology. Micro technologies and robotic systems developed for the space station are just two areas where businesses are already reaping benefits. More gains will follow. New technologies will allow for the expansion of existing businesses and the creation of new businesses. Advances gained through NASA programs have been, and will continue to be, an important source of commercial development. Just as the race to the Moon propelled the United States to the world leadership role in science and technology in the second half of the 20th century, the space station will guarantee the United States remains the leader far into the 21st century. While the full participation of our partners remains a concern, NASA has taken concrete steps to plan for any contingency. NASA is proactively addressing these problems--establishing the Russian program assurance budget to provide contingency planning funds, and initiating development of an interim control module should the Russian service module be delayed. With the first components of the space station planned for launch in the next several months, now is not the time to retreat from our commitments. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and continue support for our Nation's space program.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment of the gentleman. This amendment would override several provisions of the VA-HUD report, and I would like to speak to two of them. First, the amendment of the gentleman would roll back a much needed report on mercury emissions, language that will direct EPA to complete the scientific research it needs to make informed regulatory decisions. EPA recently settled a mercury-related lawsuit brought by the National Resources Defense Council. In that settlement, it promised to decide by November 15 of this year whether more stringent controls on mercury emissions are needed. What is the problem with that settlement? The problem is that there are large gaps in our scientific knowledge about mercury. Most scientists agree that a certain amount of mercury is safe to ingest. However, EPA and the other government agencies do not agree, do not have a common understanding about what the levels are. So it is perfectly reasonable, it seems, to ask EPA to step back and work toward some inner-agency agreement before issuing mercury regulations that, in all likelihood, will be more stringent than necessary and which has real job consequences. Therefore, this VA-HUD language would simply require EPA to work with federal agencies, like the Food and Drug Administration, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, and the National Academy of Sciences. Together these agencies will, under this language, complete several ongoing studies on mercury transport and safe levels of mercury ingesting, giving EPA the sound science needed to reach common sense, informed regulatory determinations. Mr. Chairman, secondly, in addition, I would like to comment on the regional haze provision of the amendment offered by the gentleman from California. I am a bit unclear if this portion of his amendment would have the effect which he intends. But recently many States raised concerns about EPA's regional haze implementation schedule. It appeared as though EPA was going to use its regional haze program to accomplish what it had agreed not to do under the new particulate matter implementation schedule. However, these concerns were addressed in the recently enacted ISTEA reauthorization. Language in that legislation linked the PM 2.5 implementation schedule to EPA's regional haze program, and the effect is to prevent EPA from taking any action to implement the regional haze program before it implements the 2.5 standard. Nothing in the VA-HUD report can change that or does. It is for this reason that I do not understand the purpose of this portion of the amendment of the gentleman. The language in the VA-HUD provisions only does one thing, direct money for EPA to establish up to eight regional visibility transport commissions, VTCs. The organization of these VTCs will fully engage the States and the program, and this fulfills the Clean Air Act provisions that give the States the lead roll in addressing regional haze. To date most States have not been able to take part in these. Only one has been established. The Grand Canyon VTC was formed in 1990 as a model and a model that, for whatever reason, has not been duplicated. The language in the VA-HUD report would do nothing more than correct this. For these reasons, with regard to these two provisions of the gentleman's amendment, I urge my colleagues to oppose the Waxman amendment.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, first I would like to pay special thanks to the chairman of our committee, the very distinguished and gracious gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), for making available this time here tonight to pay special tribute to another very fine member of this institution. Mr. Chairman, I rise to pay special tribute to the gentleman from Ohio, the ranking member of our subcommittee, its former chairman, and a true pillar in this House. As other speakers have noted, this is the final VA-HUD bill that Mr. Stokes will help bring to this body. That saddens us all, because when Lou Stokes retires at the end of the 105th Congress, after three decades of faithful service to the people of the Cleveland area, this institution will lose one of its most passionate and principled representatives. Lou Stokes is a man of keen intelligence and solid integrity who has blazed many new trails and risen to key leadership positions in this House. As chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus he dedicated himself to advancing policy issues critical to minority communities. As chairman of the House Select Committee on Assassinations he completed historic investigations into the deaths of President Kennedy and Dr. King. As chairman of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct he handled the most delicate of cases with unfailing fairness. As chairman of the Committee on Intelligence, he helped shape policies vital to our national security. And as chairman and now ranking member of our VA-HUD subcommittee, he has exhibited a deep understanding of complex issues and has been extremely responsive to the interests and concerns of each department, each agency, each subcommittee member, each member of this House, and each constituency group within our jurisdiction. Clearly, Lou Stokes has been given a diverse group of special assignments. But there is a common thread, Mr. Chairman. They all serve as a measure of the trust and respect, real respect in which he is held by the Members of this body. He is held in equally high regard at home. The people of Cleveland feel a deep gratitude for Lou Stokes' lifetime of service. They know that he has always fought for their best interests with great energy, skill, and far more often than not, success. On a personal level, Mr. Chairman, I am deeply grateful to have had the opportunity to work with Lou Stokes over the years. In doing so, it has been my honor to carry on a family tradition. My father and Lou served together for many years in this House, and my father has always held him in the highest esteem. So do I. I deeply appreciate the counsel, support, and friendship that he has accorded me. Lou Stokes is a bright, skilled legislator, a hard-working representative, a great friend, and along with his lovely wife Jay, a proud parent and grandparent. In his words and deeds he is a complement, a tribute to this House and he will be missed, while at the same time his influence on this institution will be indelible. Best wishes to you and Jay, Lou, as you leave this House for other adventures.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. (Mr. MOLLOHAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. MOLLOHAN

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I must rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. However well-intentioned, the gentlemen's turbine research offset is unfortunate. In 1992, the Federal Government entered into a commitment with the Nation's gas turbine developers to develop a new generation of turbine. It would break through the temperature barriers that limit today's turbines; it would be more efficient, it would be more economical, and it would be much cleaner, so clean that it could be placed in the most environmentally constrained regions of the country. Together, government and industry took the risk, and it is about to yield terrific results. The United States is on the verge of having turbine technology that no competitor can touch. In the coming year, the first prototypes will be assembled. In the year 2000 they will be tested, fulfilling the government's 1992 commitment. By 2001, the United States will be building and using a turbine that will be superior to any other in the world. Once that is done, our Nation will have a large share of what is expected to be a huge and growing market for advanced turbine technologies. As the program has progressed, the developers who moved forward have been expected to pick up larger and larger shares of the costs. As the concepts have matured, industry's cost-sharing has exceeded 60 percent. Although industry now provides the major funding, our government's commitment must be honored. If Congress withdraws its support, U.S. leadership in this field will be jeopardized. It is possible the program can be completed without government backing, but no one knows how long that would take, and we would run the risk of having this program caught up, passed up by foreign competition. But if we honor our commitment, when the program is completed, we will have the best turbine in the market. Government support is still a critical part of this program. It is still a part of our commitment of 1992, and therefore, I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.

Mr. MOLLOHAN

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the time that the ranking member has given me to make a few comments on this bill, and I rise to generally express my satisfaction for the bill in the main. First let me compliment our chairman the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Stokes) for the quality of their contribution to this bill. Year in and year out, through the process of marking up this bill putting it together, these two gentlemen, real gentleman, work extremely hard applying their very formidable talents to coming forth with an extraordinary piece of legislation under the circumstances that they find themselves and under the allocations that they are given. This is I will note, and I will have more to say on it later, the last bill of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Stokes) the last time he will be bringing this bill before the full House. And we are terribly appreciative of his wonderful service over many, many years. Every year, the Subcommittee on VA, HUD and Independent Agencies works to strike the right balance in funding what is really an eclectic mission of vital services and programs to our people. I hope that every Member of this House appreciates not only the difficulty of that task but also the sense of fairness that the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Stokes) bring to it. Their conscientious approach is certainly evident in the bill that is before us now. And in review of it, I am especially pleased with the increased funding for Veterans Affairs regarding medical and prosthetic research that we are committing major resources to HUD, funding the important Community Development Block Grant and Public Housing Operating grants, that we are increasing money to the EPA for science and technology research, including research on particulate matter, and that we are giving greater resources for water assistance grants, which are so critical to the health of our local communities. Of course, no appropriation bill can be all things to all people. Everyone here accepts that fact. But today we have been asked to accept something more, and it is very unfortunate that extraneous legislation has been made in order by the rule. Our appropriations bill is not the place for it, and that is why I join so many of my colleagues in opposing the rule. But this appropriations bill is a good bill, and I look forward to working with the chairman and ranking member in making it better by increasing funding to underfunded programs as we move the bill through the process.

Mr. MOLLOHAN

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, it is an honor for me to rise today with my good friends and colleagues, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall) and the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Wise) in tribute to a fine gentleman and faithful advocate of the people of West Virginia. I am speaking, of course, of Senator Jennings Randolph, whose lifetime of distinguished service came to an end just 11 days ago. We all mourn his passing, and certainly we send our deepest sympathies to his family. Our thoughts are with them in these difficult days. While recovering from such a loss is a painful process, we hope they find comfort in the legacy he leaves behind, for it truly is a remarkable one. On the day after Senator Randolph's death, newspapers across the State recounted his inspiring story, the story of a young journalist who was elected to Congress as a New Deal Democrat and would become the last member of the storied class that served in the first 100 days of FDR's presidency. He was thrust into the House during an extraordinary time in our Nation's history, a time of despair, sorrow, and suffering, and he was a part of the extraordinary solution, the package of reforms that revised our Nation, bringing sustenance, opportunity, and hope to millions. Jennings Randolph never lost that passion for helping those who needed help the most, especially the poor and disabled. The young New Deal Democrat would become a mature hand in the great society, never wavering in his belief that government can and should play an active role in solving people's problems, and he worked mightily to better his home State of West Virginia. Senator Randolph was a champion of the interstate highway system, the Appalachian Regional Commission, local airports, and countless infrastructure projects that brought the basics to our people. That is how he thought of himself, once saying, ``I essentially am a West Virginia senator. I'm not what you'd call a national Senator or international Senator.'' It is true that Jennings Randolph was an effective, tireless advocate of West Virginia. But if my colleagues think that he did not have an influence on this Nation, they would be badly mistaken. After all, it was Jennings Randolph who authored the constitutional amendment that gave 18-year-olds the right to vote. And in so many other areas, his work and support was crucial to policies that advantaged citizens from coast to coast. Throughout his service in the House and then in the Senate, he was a model of courtesy, of grace and professionalism. As the Senate historian said so well, ``Very few senatorial careers were as full as his. He always struck me,'' the historian, ``as the image of a Senator's Senator, a teacher within the institution who would take young Senators beneath his wing and lecture them, sometimes gently and sometimes not so gently, about the importance of etiquette.'' Mr. Speaker, with Jennings Randolph passing, the people of West Virginia have lost a great friend and representative. We salute his lasting record of achievement and honor his memory as a passionate, dedicated public servant.

Mr. MOLLOHAN

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California [Mr. Berman].