Alan Mollohan

Mr. MOLLOHAN

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the gentleman's amendment to eliminate funding for the Technology Administration. The world is changing, Mr. Chairman, and technology is the driving force. Technology is changing the way we work, the way we live, and the way we compete in the world. If the United States is to maintain world economic leadership into the 21st century, we must respond quickly and precisely to these economic changes. The Technology Administration is the engine behind this critical effort. I do not know of any public servant who is more capable, more dedicated, more effective in the performance of her responsibilities than Under Secretary for Technology, Dr. Mary Good. The Technology Administration serves as an advocate for American industries, ensuring that government policies, government programs and regulations promote U.S. competitiveness. Additionally, the Technology Administration is the only Federal agency that analyzes the civilian technology activities of our foreign competitors, working to promote and protect the U.S. technology interests in global research and development efforts. While eliminating the Technology Administration will only have a negligible impact on the budget deficit, it will deprive U.S. industry of an effective advocate for technology innovation at a time of intensifying global competition. In fact, eliminating the Technology Administration in the heat of today's battle for global markets is like eliminating the Department of Defense at the height of the cold war. In an era where U.S. economic prosperity will largely be determined on our ability to develop and commercialize new technology, we cannot afford to eliminate this important advocate for American industry. To this end, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to join me and many others in this body in protecting U.S. interests, U.S. jobs, and economic growth by voting against this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, let me just quickly say I rise in opposition to the amendment, for a lot of the good reasons that the chairman of the subcommittee cited.

Mr. MOLLOHAN

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Is the gentleman familiar with the restrictions put there?

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Does the gentleman acknowledge, or is the gentleman aware of the restrictions put in last year that address some of the concerns he mentioned when he spoke in favor of his amendment?

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, there were some legitimate concerns raised about the activities that the Legal Services Corporation was engaged in in the past. I would suggest to the gentleman the clear victory last year. The gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers] put real restrictions in the bill. Is the gentleman familiar with the restrictions put in the bill last year? And I yield to the gentleman to answer that question.

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

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, in the debate, which was really on the Legal Services Corporation amendment, I actually tried to get the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton] to yield. If he is available I would be pleased to engage him in the discussion. I would be pleased to engage the gentleman from California likewise during my time on this issue. I want to thank the gentleman from California for yielding. I know some of the folks came around and told him not to yield, but I think it is really in the best interest of debate in order for him to do so. Why now is the gentleman offering this amendment and making these points when the debate occurred here just a while ago on this issue?

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would continue to yield, I think those arguments which were made during the last debate would probably be better focused at that because that is where the issue was formed about whether the body wanted to increase funding for Legal Services up, incidentally, to the $250 million mark that is contained in the authorization, which is not law but it is contained in the authorization. Mr. Chairman, I just would like to point out that that is where that debate occurred, and I am wondering why is the gentleman now participating in the same debate?

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I do not recall the gentleman participating in the debate on the previous amendment. Did the gentleman?

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

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue yielding, getting back into the substance of the debate, I just wonder if the gentleman is aware that last year it was actually this subcommittee, under the leadership of the gentleman from Kentucky, Chairman Rogers, that placed in the Commerce-Justice-State appropriations bill restrictions upon the Legal Services Corporation that the Legal Services Corporation is living under. Again, we have already had that debate, and the body just voted to take from the offsets that we have.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to make the point that the authorizing committee authorized $250 million for this program.

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

Mr. MOLLOHAN. I am pleased to assure the gentlewoman that the answer is yes.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Eshoo].

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

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that I be given 1 additional minute in this debate, and that the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Taylor] be likewise given 1 additional minute. The reason I want it is I have a colloquy that I would like to enter into which will take about 1 minute.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Maine [Mr. Baldacci]. (Mr. BALDACCI asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MOLLOHAN. They have.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California for yielding to me. Mr. Chairman, I take that quote at face value, but as a matter of fact, would the gentleman agree that those restrictions are in place and that they have been followed? I have not heard anybody say those restrictions to be put on Legal Services have in any way been violated. Would the gentleman agree with that?

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

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Olver]. (Mr. OLVER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt]. (Mr. SPRATT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California [Mr. Berman].