Alan Mollohan

Mr. MOLLOHAN

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the distinguished gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Maloney].

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California [Ms. Waters].

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 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. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Meek]. (Mrs. MEEK of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Lofgren].

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Skaggs], a very excellent member of the subcommittee.

Mr. MOLLOHAN

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, that is obviously the question in debate here, ``Where is our priority? Do we want to eliminate a program that is extremely important for our competiveness position as we move forward with this internationalization of our global economy, or not, and do we believe that this program contributes to that?'' I do. On a bipartisan basis, administrations have. And I hope that the body's majority does.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, if that would be true, what is the point of the gentleman?

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, there is money here for new grants.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn].

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, while I too would be the first person to admit that juvenile justice programs should be given the priority in this Congress, we have in fact in this bill made them a priority. If the purpose of the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn] is to ensure that this program is funded robustly, let me assure him that the committee did it for him. In fact, the bill before us today provides $237.9 million for this line item, an increase of $55 million over the funds provided in fiscal year 1997 and $7.5 million above the administration's budget request for fiscal year 1998. Let me repeat. We have funded juvenile justice delinquency programs very robustly. On the one hand, we funded juvenile justice very robustly. We appreciate the interest of the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn] in juvenile justice programs. But taking it from the ATP Program, if my colleague does want to increase juvenile justice, is not the right place to take it. I would like to summarize my reasons for supporting this important ATP initiative. ATP is paramount to our Nation's global competitiveness. We are entering an era where global competitiveness is the way we really are going to compete in the world. Funding this program does nothing more than put us on a level playing field with our major competitors. Right now, Mr. Chairman, the United States ranks 28th, 28th behind all of our major global competitors in the percentage of government R&D invested in civilian technologies. While we sit here debating an amendment that would cripple the ATP Program, across the oceans, our competitors, Japan, England, Germany, Australia, and Portugal, are investing heavily in similar initiatives. Japan is spending about $9 billion a year on precompetitive technology development, and the European Community is funding advanced technology research to the tune of $5.5 billion annually. Second, ATP funds precompetitive, generic technology developments which would not otherwise be undertaken by private industry. The ATP is not corporate welfare and it is not about picking winners and losers. The ATP is also not about product development. It is about funding the research and development efforts behind high-risk technologies. While the Government provides a catalyst, industry conceives, manages, and executes ATP projects. ATP funds risky, precompetitive technologies that have the potential for a big payoff for our Nation's economy as we compete with those competitors that are investing so very heavily in similar programs. Third, ATP was conceived as a bipartisan initiative. Although the ATP Program has become a political issue over the last several years, it did not start out that way. It did not start out that way. It had bipartisan beginnings. ATP was started under President Reagan's administration and was authorized by former Republican Congressman Don Ritter. In fact, D. Allan Bromly, President Bush's science advisor, had the following to say about the ATP Program: ``In the Bush administration, we made a start toward more effective use of our technology strengths as, for example, in the successful advanced technology program.'' It is important to note that while the Clinton administration feels strongly about the merits of the ATP, the issues and concerns raised by my Republican colleagues have not fallen on deaf ears. In fact, in response to Republican concerns, the Commerce Department recently completed an extensive review of the ATP Program. To allow for broad public input, the Technology Administration solicited public comment over a period of 30 days. The Commerce Department received 80 responses to this notice predominantly from individual firms and professional trade associations. Based on this review, Secretary Daley has decided to make several important changes to the operation and policies of ATP, changes that will result in a stronger, more viable program. For example, he plans to shift the priorities of the program by putting more emphasis on joint ventures and small- and medium-sized single applicants and less emphasis on individual applications filed by large companies. Additionally, the Secretary plans to increase the cost-share requirement for large, single-applicant companies, I think addressing legitimate concerns that have come from the other side. It is a strong program. It is getting stronger. I urge my colleagues in this competitive international environment not to support the amendment of the gentleman.

Mr. MOLLOHAN

Mr. MOLLOHAN. I thank the distinguished gentleman and chairman. I appreciate very much his making possible this special order. Mr. Speaker, I thank you for allowing me to take the floor today for this fitting tribute to our distinguished colleagues from Alabama, Tom Bevill and Glen Browder. I am pleased to add my personal words of appreciation for their contributions to this House and to offer my best wishes to each of them as their terms come to a close and as they look to their future. I had the great pleasure of serving with Glen on the Committee on the Budget. He is particularly distinguished, bright, makes a wonderful contribution to that committee and brings a lot of common sense to the process. I know that he will prosper as he leaves the House and I certainly wish him well. Naturally as a member of the Committee on Appropriations, I will acutely feel the absence of the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Bevill] and the leadership that he has provided to that committee as chairman and the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development. He is one of the most respected members of our Committee on Appropriations and the entire U.S. House of Representatives, and it saddens me greatly to see him go. For a long number of years, my father, who served in this body, served with Tom Bevill, and dad always considered him to be as close as you could come to the ideal of a Member of Congress. Since taking up the responsibilities of representing the First Congressional District here, I have found that dad is absolutely right. Tom Bevill is bright, he is disciplined, he is full of integrity, and not only courteous but he is kind. These are the qualities that have made him an effective, popular Representative of the people of Alabama's Fourth Congressional District. They are the same qualities that have made him a widely admired Member of the House. Of course, he has made his mark through his years of leadership of the Energy and Water Development Subcommittee. That can be a tough job. There are so many worthy projects brought to the attention of this subcommittee, real needs, urgent needs in communities all across the Nation, yet even in the best of times there are simply not enough resources to go around. Being able to take up as many of them as possible and blend them into a thoughtful national policy, well, that is a real legislative art, and Tom Bevill is the master of it. Mr. Speaker, I doubt there is a district anywhere that has not benefited in some measure from Tom Bevill's commitment to meeting America's energy and water development needs. His good work will be remembered long after he leaves this body. So, too, will his gracious manner and the good will he has consistently shown to Members on both sides of the aisle. That is a real hallmark of his service. In fact, he has worked hand in hand in a real bipartisan spirit with another very distinguished and retiring Member of this House and of this committee, the gentleman from Indiana, John Myers. John Myers has been equally an outstanding servant of the people. They are both wonderful men and a powerful legislative team. Tom Bevill is a true gentleman, as well as a distinguished legislator, and he will be missed sorely. Thank you, Mr. Bevill, and thank you, too, Mr. Browder, for your faithful service to this House and to the people of West Virginia, and my best personal best wishes go with you. I also want to share with you the great expression of appreciation from the constituents of the First Congressional District of West Virginia for all your consideration of their needs over these many years. God bless.

Mr. MOLLOHAN

Mr. MOLLOHAN. I thank the distinguished gentleman and chairman. I appreciate very much his making possible this special order. Mr. Speaker, I thank you for allowing me to take the floor today for this fitting tribute to our distinguished colleagues from Alabama, Tom Bevill and Glen Browder. I am pleased to add my personal words of appreciation for their contributions to this House and to offer my best wishes to each of them as their terms come to a close and as they look to their future. I had the great pleasure of serving with Glen on the Committee on the Budget. He is particularly distinguished, bright, makes a wonderful contribution to that committee and brings a lot of common sense to the process. I know that he will prosper as he leaves the House and I certainly wish him well. Naturally as a member of the Committee on Appropriations, I will acutely feel the absence of the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Bevill] and the leadership that he has provided to that committee as chairman and the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development. He is one of the most respected members of our Committee on Appropriations and the entire U.S. House of Representatives, and it saddens me greatly to see him go. For a long number of years, my father, who served in this body, served with Tom Bevill, and dad always considered him to be as close as you could come to the ideal of a Member of Congress. Since taking up the responsibilities of representing the First Congressional District here, I have found that dad is absolutely right. Tom Bevill is bright, he is disciplined, he is full of integrity, and not only courteous but he is kind. These are the qualities that have made him an effective, popular Representative of the people of Alabama's Fourth Congressional District. They are the same qualities that have made him a widely admired Member of the House. Of course, he has made his mark through his years of leadership of the Energy and Water Development Subcommittee. That can be a tough job. There are so many worthy projects brought to the attention of this subcommittee, real needs, urgent needs in communities all across the Nation, yet even in the best of times there are simply not enough resources to go around. Being able to take up as many of them as possible and blend them into a thoughtful national policy, well, that is a real legislative art, and Tom Bevill is the master of it. Mr. Speaker, I doubt there is a district anywhere that has not benefited in some measure from Tom Bevill's commitment to meeting America's energy and water development needs. His good work will be remembered long after he leaves this body. So, too, will his gracious manner and the good will he has consistently shown to Members on both sides of the aisle. That is a real hallmark of his service. In fact, he has worked hand in hand in a real bipartisan spirit with another very distinguished and retiring Member of this House and of this committee, the gentleman from Indiana, John Myers. John Myers has been equally an outstanding servant of the people. They are both wonderful men and a powerful legislative team. Tom Bevill is a true gentleman, as well as a distinguished legislator, and he will be missed sorely. Thank you, Mr. Bevill, and thank you, too, Mr. Browder, for your faithful service to this House and to the people of West Virginia, and my best personal best wishes go with you. I also want to share with you the great expression of appreciation from the constituents of the First Congressional District of West Virginia for all your consideration of their needs over these many years. God bless.

Mr. MOLLOHAN

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I want to join my colleagues in support of the direction taken by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on the Cluster Rule for the pulp and paper industry. On behalf of my constituents who are employed by the paper and forest products industry--one of West Virginia's five major economic sectors--I urge the EPA to promptly finalize a Cluster Rule. I am very pleased that on July 15, 1996, the EPA published in the Federal Register information on two technology options for final guidelines for bleached papergrade kraft and soda mills based on best available technology under the Cluster Rule. In this notice, the EPA stated that complete substitution of chlorine dioxide, identified as Option A in the proposal, should be given the same consideration as oxygen delignification coupled with complete substitution of chlorine dioxide, identified as Option B. In fact, the EPA stated in this proposal that ``both options appear to reduce dioxins and furans in wastewaters to concentrations at or below the current analytical minimum levels.'' In the first district of West Virginia, about 900 people are employed at the Luke Pulp and Paper Mill. Luke, which meets the requirements of Option A, is one of the Nation's largest paper mills. I understand that Option B would cost this mill, which in the past 5 years has spent over $45 million on environmental protection improvements, an additional $100 million. I compliment and thank the Agency for the direction they have taken to provide for the fullest possible protection of the environment while at the same time ensuring that the final rule will not place on unreasonable cost burden on the pulp and paper industry. This approach demonstrates regulatory flexibility at its best. I rise to join my colleagues in an endorsement of Option A.

Mr. MOLLOHAN

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I seek time in opposition.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute and 40 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Tanner].

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. I thought there was someone on the majority side that wanted to speak and I was going to yield them time, but they have not arrived. I will close, Mr. Chairman, by saying I think this is a very ill- advised amendment. The Commerce Department generally, and Dr. Good's office specifically, is the headquarters for strategic thinking about how we deal with the new economic challenges facing this Nation. The gentleman from Colorado talked a lot about trade, and that is certainly a dimension to the strategic effort; however, Dr. Good does not focus on trade advocacy. Dr. Good focuses on technology development advocacy, identifying core areas where the United States has to be particularly competent if we are going to be particularly competitive into the future. Again, I urge opposition to this very unwise amendment, and hope that the body will defeat it.

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

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, I really appreciate the Members from Florida raising this issue. I think it gives us an opportunity to point out that one of the really strong aspects of the COPS Program is the wonderful way in which it has been administered, the expeditious way in which these grants have been let out across the Nation, getting these cops on the beat, getting policemen on the beat. Also, I think the gentlewoman's interest raises a very real strength with regard to the COPS Program. That it has flexibility, and the ability to adapt to different environments and provide additional law enforcement resources to local communities. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I regrettably rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. I do not dispute the critical mission of the National Weather Service. I too, would like to see it funded more robustly. However, I cannot support the amendment's offsets, and I rise in opposition.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I want to compliment the gentleman on his leadership in this area. The problem that he addresses is certainly one that needs to be addressed and that we need to be successful in working. He has provided considerable leadership in this area. I personally am concerned that in its present form there might be a possibility that it would encumber the COPS Program, and we do not in any way want to do that. I hope that we can assess that possibility, that concern, as this process moves forward, and achieve the desired result in a way that accommodates certainly every goal of the COPS Program and also the very worthy underlying goal of the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I likewise rise in opposition to this amendment and echo the sentiments expressed by a number of speakers. This simply is not the appropriate bill. This is not the appropriate forum to decide this issue. In response to the last speaker, whether it is a simple issue or a complex issue, I do not know whether that is really the point. The fact is, it is a very controversial issue and should best be decided by the authorizing committee. I am advised--and again because this is an appropriations committee, not an authorizing committee and we do not get into these things in substance like this-- that there are very serious concerns raised by representatives of the biotech industry and other areas in industry about the effect that this amendment could have on the incentives which our system now has for innovative new research procedures. In any event, all of those issues are for consideration by an authorizing committee, and because controversy does surround it, I think that is the better forum.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I rise in opposition to this amendment. I want to begin by expressing appreciation to the gentleman from Minnesota, the author of the amendment, for his compliments to the chairman and to the committee in trying to go through this and be discerning about how we treat all of the respective accounts. I want to assure the body that the chairman, the distinguished gentleman from Kentucky, has certainly provided leadership in doing that. As a matter of fact, he, myself, the staff, every member of the committee have spent hours going over this bill in a very discerning sort of way, choosing between accounts, making judgments, making value judgments about programs and trying to come up within our allocation with the very best funding scheme that we could. It has certainly been consciously done. The problem I have with the gentleman's amendment is that it is not particularly careful. It is not discerning. In one sense only, it is not conscious; that is, we do not consider every account carefully. That is not the way to treat an appropriations bill, particularly at a time of shrinking resources when the pie is smaller. We need to approach these very carefully. With regard to the distinguished gentleman from Oklahoma, who asked the question, can we not take a certain percentage out of any bill? Can we not take a certain percentage out of our own accounts or our business? I would say no to him, because I question the underlying premise. The underlying premise to that question is these accounts are adequately funded to begin with, and we can squeeze more out of them. I want to assure him these accounts are not adequately funded. We could use more money for crime fighting in this Nation, and this committee has tried to give every penny to crime fighting we can at the expense of the other accounts in the bill. Consequently, the other accounts in the bill are all shortchanged. No, we do not have additional money in this bill, because the accounts are not now adequately funded. So, for all those reasons, Mr. Chairman, I join my chairman in opposing the amendment and would ask that the body oppose this nondiscriminating amendment.

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

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I just really want this time to express appreciation to the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers] for being responsive to this request. There have been a number of efforts on the floor to increase this account, and they have been really in good faith, they have worked extremely hard, and I think this is a fine result, and I know everybody is appreciative to the gentleman from Kentucky for his understanding with regard to this matter.