Alan Mollohan

Mr. MOLLOHAN

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from California [Mr. Becerra].

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to join my colleague the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox] in offering an amendment to increase funding to the Legal Services Corporation. Simply stated, the Mollohan-Fox amendment increases funding for the Legal Services Corporation from $141 million to $250 million, the same amount, by the way, Mr. Chairman, that we came off the floor last year in this bill with a similar amendment. What is the Legal Services Corporation? It was created in 1974 as a private, nonprofit corporation. It was specifically established by the Congress to provide civil legal assistance to the poorest, most vulnerable Americans, assuring that they receive equal access to our judicial system. What type of cases do Legal Services attorneys handle? The largest percentage of cases, Mr. Chairman, closed by the LSC attorneys in 1996 was in the area of family law, comprising about 35 percent of the 1.4 million cases closed. About 22 percent closed were housing cases, and about 15 percent related to income maintenance, cases associated with the poorest in our society. As many Members know, in fiscal year 1996, our subcommittee put in place a number of restrictions to increase accountability by the Legal Services Corporation. This was in response to the concerns of many Members about what Legal Services was up to. A competitive bidding system has been adopted for all grants and contracts. All grantees are now required to provide audited financial statements. In addition, we impose a number of prohibitions on LSC grantees. Any LSC grantee is prohibited from participating in redistricting litigation, prohibited from participating in class action suits, and welfare reform advocacy, and prisoner representation, lobbying, abortion litigation, illegal alien representation, and in collecting attorney's fees. Members will be pleased to note that this bill before us adds a new provision to allow for the recompetition of grants and debarment from competing for future grants by grantees who violate the restrictions I have just mentioned. It was this committee under the leadership of the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers] that imposed most of these restrictions. I would like to point out to Members that the Mollohan-Fox amendment does not seek to change a single one of these restrictions. This amendment simply increases the funding for grants to basic field programs by $109 million, virtually the same vote that we had last year. Offsets to the amendments are as follows: Bureau of Prisons, $42 million; court of appeals and district courts, $13 million; Federal Communications Commission, $10 million; Department of Justice Antitrust Division, $6 million; Federal Trade Commission, $6 million; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, $15 million; diplomatic and consular programs, $9 million; Department of Commerce general administration, $1 million; Patent and Trademark Office, $5 million; National Institute for Standards and Technology, $6 million; and economic and statistical analysis, $1 million. Because clause 2(f) of rule XXI limits amendments which move funding among multiple accounts in appropriation bills to transfers between appropriation items only, I was not able to designate precisely in this Mollohan-Fox amendment our intentions regarding FCC fees or State Department foreign currency gains. Doing so would have been a violation of the House rules. But if the Mollohan-Fox amendment passes, we will work to adjust the final bill to reflect these intentions of using currency gains at the State Department and increased fee levels for the FCC. Mr. Chairman, what happens if we do not pass the Mollohan-Fox amendment, if funding remains at the current low level of $141 million? Without additional funding, it is expected that the number of clients, the number of the poorest of our citizenry served, will fall from 1.4 million in fiscal year 1996 to less than 1 million in 1998. The number of LSC attorneys serving the poor will fall from about 4,871 in fiscal year 1995 to less than half of that, about 2,400. Millions of poor people will be unable to obtain legal assistance. And unfortunately pro bono services from private attorneys just cannot replace federally- funded legal services. Congress created the Legal Services Corporation because it recognized that Federal funding was needed to ensure that some minimum level of access to our judicial system would be available to everyone. What message are we trying to send to the American public today? Do you really want to tell those in our society who are the most helpless, vulnerable, least able to obtain resources that we are not going to give you access to the court system? Do not send that message. Support the Mollohan-Fox amendment. Mollohan-Fox Amendment to H.R. 2267--Specific Explanation of Offsets The purpose of this document is to clarify the intent of all of the offsets used in the Mollohan-Fox Amendment to H.R. 2267. The amendment increases funding for the Legal Services Corporation from $141,000,000 to $250,000,000. offsets Department of Justice--the Antitrust Division. -$6,000,000; The intent is to increase the fee carryover from $10 million to $16 million, and to decrease the direct appropriation by a corresponding $6 million. Federal Prison System. -$42,000,000 from the Salaries and Expenses Account. National Oceanic and Atmosphric Administration (NOAA). -$5,000,000 to be taken from Executive Direction and Administration, within the Program Support line item of the Operations, Research, and Facilities Account; and -$10,000,000 to be taken from the Polar Convergence Account within the National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service. Department of Commerce--General Administration. -$1,000,000. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO). -$5,000,000. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). -$6,000,000 from the Scientific and Technical Research and Services Account. Economic and Statistical Analysis. -$1,000,000 from the Salaries and Expenses Account. The Judiciary. -$13,000,000 from the Court of Appeal, District Courts, and other Judicial Services Account. Department of State. -$9,000,000 from Diplomatic and Consular Programs; It is the intent of the amendment that $7,000,000 of the $9,000,000 be taken from exchange rate gains in the International Cooperative Administrative Support Services (ICASS) account, with the remaining $2,000,000 coming from the regular Diplomatic and Consular Programs account. Federal Communications Commission (FCC). -$10,000,000; The intent is to increase the amount the FCC can collect in offsetting fees by $10,000,000 (per the budget request) and decrease the direct appropriation by a corresponding $10,000,000. On further clarification of the State Department and FCC offset--Because clause 2(f) of Rule 21 limits amendments which move funding among multiple accounts in appropriations bills to transfers between appropriations items only, the Mollohan-Fox Amendment was not able to designate precisely our intentions regarding FCC fees or State Department foreign currency gains. Doing so in the amendment would have been a violation of the rule. This statement is made to clarify the intentions of the amendment. Clearly it is not the intent of the Mollohan-Fox Amendment to reduce the total resources available to the FCC or to the State Department's operating funds. Federal Trade Commission (FTC). -$6,000,000; The intent is to increase the fee carryover from $10 million to $16,000,000 and to decrease the direct appropriation by a corresponding $6,000,000.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. If the gentleman would continue to yield, there were 1.4 million cases closed in 1996, 1.4 million cases.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. If the gentleman will continue to yield, Mr. Chairman, I just want to put this in perspective. The gentleman from California [Mr. Doolittle] cited six cases?

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I object.

Mr. MOLLOHAN

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

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers] anticipate that the EDA vote would be taken first and be a 15- minute vote and that the vote on this amendment would be taken second?

Mr. MOLLOHAN. I thought that was already in agreement. I thank the Chairman.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. But previous to that, we had an agreement on time, did we not?

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I thought we were proceeding under a time agreement, are we not?

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, point of order.

Mr. MOLLOHAN

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert]. (Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I thank the chairman for giving me this time here tonight, and I would like to give the opportunity for a couple of Members to talk about their amendment if they would like to. Mr. Chairman, these amendments are being included in the chairman's manager's amendment and this gives them an opportunity to speak to their amendments. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey].

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Reclaiming my time, I understand the gentleman's position, and I am getting to the point. The gentleman is suggesting that somehow the UN owes us for our contributions.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time. Amendment Offered by Mr. Rogers

Mr. MOLLOHAN. If I may reclaim my time, that is a point that I just disagree with. With respect to the issue that the UN somehow owes us for past peacekeeping operations, the gentleman is well aware of the facts of how UN peacekeeping is paid for. We pay our share of the assessed operations, and when it is in the national security interests of the United States, we support and pay for voluntary peacekeeping activities. Now, these operations are undertaken because of our national security interests, and other countries undertake under similar missions for which they are not reimbursed. If we disrupt this arrangement, you are going to bankrupt the United Nations, number one, I would point out, and, second, if that were to happen, I would submit that we would be undertaking incredible obligations on, because we would have to end up assuming all of this responsibility for which now we are contributing our part, along with other contributors to the United Nations peacekeeping operations.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer].

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, just on that, this committee and the chairman and the whole committee worked very hard to make sure that our share is being reduced. That, again, is a part of all of this negotiation, and also part of the authorizing bill that we passed several years ago.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, if I may reclaim my time, the fact that it is in response to a UN resolution does not mean we cannot voluntarily look at a situation and say it is in our best interest, our own national security interest, to make this contribution. That is what we have done. I do not think you can go around after making that voluntary contribution and say the UN owes us for it, particularly when it is obviously in our own national security interests.

Mr. MOLLOHAN

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Hefley amendment. Mr. Chairman, I join the chairman of the committee in rising in strong opposition to the Hefley amendment to cut $90 million from the funding provided for the Economic Development Administration. I know of no other agency, no other program in 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 special needs of each individual town and city. EDA has programs which benefit communities in almost every stage of the development process. For communities experiencing structural economic changes, EDA provides flexibility 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 new infrastructures needed for business growth. For communities faced with massive job loss associated with defense downsizing, EDA provides the funding to develop projects at the local level that support community revitalization 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. EDA's grant programs represent an investment in our Nation's future, the future of our cities, our towns, and neighborhoods. Over the last 30 years, EDA has invested $15.6 billion in our Nation's distressed communities, creating more than 2.8 million jobs and leveraging almost $2 billion in private sector capital. EDA has a proven success record, with over 39,000 economic development projects completed under its programs. EDA makes good fiscal sense. More than $3 million in outside investment has been leveraged for every Federal dollar invested in EDA programs. In closing, Mr. Chairman, economic development is a local process with a specific appropriated Federal role. EDA, in direct partnership with the stressed communities, provides seed funding that promotes long-term investments that respond to locally defined economic priorities.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, last night we had a similar debate on the ATP program. During that debate, those who spoke in opposition to the ATP cuts amendment refuted most of the points made by the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hostettler], who is offering this amendment. Let me simply say, and a lot of it is in repetition, that the ATP program is not a partisan program. It was initiated under the Bush administration, and it has continued as a centerpiece of President Clinton's competitiveness program to this day. One can have a philosophical difference and take the position that ATP, the Advanced Technology Program, is corporate welfare, whatever that means. In fact, it is the core of the country's competitiveness program as we move into an era of increasingly internationalization of our economy and in real competition with particularly the developed nations around the world. These countries recognize the importance of collaborative relationships between their country, between the academic community, and between private industry in order to be strategic in developing not product but developing pre-commercial research and development discoveries that lead to advancements that allow industry to pick up and be on the cutting edge. We are into a high technology era, and these strategic relationships are recognized as being instrumental in making us competitive. Such countries as Japan, England, Germany and Australia are investing heavily in these kind of initiatives, far more heavily than the United States. For example, Japan is spending about $9 billion a year on pre- competitive technology development. And the European Community recognizes the importance of these kind of strategic relationships. It is funding their equivalent to the Advanced Technology Program to the tune of $5.5 billion a year. ATP funds pre-competitive generic technology development. It does not fund product development. Mr. Chairman, simply, we have a philosophical difference of how the country should relate to industry and what role is appropriate for the Government to play in commerce. I draw the line at the Government not helping getting product into the marketplace. No, that is the private sector's responsibility. But when increasingly high technology is important to economic competitiveness, this pre-competitive, the Government incentivizing companies in these partner relationships to get involved in areas that have a future that we are in direct competition with is extremely important. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan [Ms. Stabenow].

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Maryland [Mrs. Morella].

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from Oregon [Ms. Hooley].