Alan Mollohan

Mr. MOLLOHAN

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

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Edwards].

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

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Foglietta].

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Flake]. (Mr. FLAKE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Missouri [Ms. McCarthy]. (Ms. McCARTHY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm].

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

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, we support the amendment.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time, 1 minute, to the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers] so that he may yield it to the gentlewoman from Maryland [Mrs. Morella].

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

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Blumenauer].

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey].

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

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. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Skaggs], a member of the subcommittee.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to join my distinguished colleague from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox] in offering an amendment to increase funding for the Legal Services Corporation. Simply put, the Mollohan-Fox amendment increases funding for the Legal Services Corporation from $141 million to $250 million. As many of my colleagues know well, the Legal Services Corporation was created in 1974 as a private, nonprofit corporation. Since then, the Legal Services Corporation has worked to ensure access to our judicial system for Americans unable to afford assistance with their civil legal problems. The Legal Services Corporation, for many of our poorest, most vulnerable citizens, has helped make the most basic tenet of our judicial system, equal justice under the law, a reality. About 34 percent of the cases closed by Legal Services Corporation attorneys in 1995 were in the realm of family law, 22 percent were housing related, 16 percent were related to income maintenance, and 10 percent were consumer problem oriented. The Legal Services Corporation provides grants to about 280 programs operating over 900 neighborhood law offices serving every county in the United States. In 1995, Legal Services Corporation handled over 2.1 million cases across this Nation. I cannot stand before my colleagues today without acknowledging the fact that in the past the Legal Services Corporation has not been without its share of problems, some of which have occurred in my own home State of West Virginia. But over the last year, the Legal Services Corporation has undergone major changes. The omnibus appropriations bill, which included the fiscal year 1996 appropriations for legal services, contained many new legislative requirements for the Legal Services Corporation. This bill contained restrictions on legal services which were more or less agreed to on a bipartisan basis, although not unanimously. For example, a competitive grant process was put in place, and grantees are now required to provide audited financial statements. They must also maintain strict timekeeping records. Many restrictions are in place governing the type of cases that the Legal Services Corporation lawyers can work on. These restrictions prohibit cases in many areas. Many of these areas go to the core of the major concerns of most Members of this body about Legal Services Corporation. They include restrictions on legal services lawyers taking such cases as drug-related evictions from public housing. Legal Services Corporation lawyers now cannot take class action litigation. They cannot deal with abortion-related activity. Legal Services Corporation cannot deal with redistricting questions or political demonstrations. Legal Services Corporation cannot get involved in strikes or union organizing activities. They cannot get involved in litigation to influence welfare reform initiatives. Those are just a few of the examples of the restrictions that we placed on Legal Services Corporation and under which their lawyers operate today. I note to my colleagues that the Mollohan-Fox amendment does not change in any way a single one of these restrictions. They are still in place and will be in place after the passage of this amendment. The Mollohan-Fox amendment simply increases funding for grants to the basic field programs by $109 million, raising the total funding for legal services for fiscal year 1997 to $250 million. Mr. Chairman, it was an excruciatingly difficult exercise to go through and find the offsets for this $109 million amendment. The offsets for the amendment are as follows: Department of Justice, assets forfeiture fund, $14 million; Bureau of Prisons, $45 million; Patent and Trademark Office, $34 million; Court of Appeals and District Courts, $12 million; Diplomatic and Consular Affairs, $14 million; Securities and Exchange Commission, $25 million; and the National Bankruptcy Review Commission, $10,000. I would now like to take this opportunity to turn to the issue of what happens if we do not pass this amendment. What happens if funding remains at the level of $141 million as provided in H.R. 3814? What needs, Mr. Chairman, go unmet? Without increased funding, it is expected that the 2.1 million clients served in fiscal year 1995 will fall to about 1.1 million. The number of neighborhood offices will decrease from 1,100 in 1995 to 550. Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of this amendment. The harm will be to the most needy for legal services, and it will be great if our amendment is not adopted.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 12 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox], the co-author of this amendment, and I ask unanimous consent that he be permitted to control that time.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak on the gentleman's amendment. This amendment is the result of an agreement reached among Chairman Rogers, Mr. Walker, the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Science, and myself. Mr. Chairman, I have an extended statement that I will submit for the Record. I only want to say that I support this amendment, but I stand here today as a staunch supporter also of the Advanced Technology Program. I will only vote in favor of the amendment because it is the only alternative to zero funding for ATP as this bill moves forward in this process. So I ask my colleagues to join me in support of this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak on the gentleman's amendment. This amendment is the result of an agreement reached among Chairman Rogers, Mr. Walker, the distinguished chairman of the Science Committee, and myself. If this amendment is adopted, the funding contained in the bill for the Commerce Department's Advanced Technology Program and the Technology Administration will be protected from a point of order. Without this amendment, funding for these critical initiatives will be stricken from the bill. I agree to support this amendment only as a means to protect funding for ATP and TA, not because I agree with it in principal. In fact, I am extremely opposed to placing any additional restrictions on the funding provided for ATP. I believe this program should be a national priority. ATP is about investing in our Nation's competitiveness in the global market place. It does nothing more than put U.S. industry on a level playing field with our major global competitors. As we sit here today foolishly placing more restrictions on ATP and severely cutting the program's funding, our foreign competitors are pouring money into similar initiatives. The European nations are accelerating investment in commercial technologies. Japan has plans to double its government science and technology budget. And China is planning to triple its investment in R&D by the year 2000, targeting computers, software, telecommunications, and infrastructure. Simply stated, the United States is in a battle for global markets, where the spoils are jobs and national prosperity. And we are in a dead heat. Funding ATP helps give us the competitive edge we need. I realize that some of you on the other side of the aisle are ATP skeptics. But I continue to assert that ATP is critical to our Nation's long-term competitiveness. And although the program is young, there are already numerous success stories. For example: As a result of an ATP grant award, a small company in Woburn, MA, has developed a cost-effective method for inactivating viruses in human blood plasma products. Currently, there are no commercially available technologies for inactivating protein-encased viruses in biological products. You can imagine the impact this technology will have in both economic and human terms. Aphios Corp., has gone from employing only 2 people to providing jobs for more than 20 virologists, molecular and cell biologists, and biomedical, chemical and mechanical engineers. That is pretty impressive high-technology job growth. But--contrary to what a few of my Republican colleagues would have you think--the commercialization of this technology will not be financed by the Federal Government. The CEO of Aphios predicts it will take an additional $5 million to get the technology to the commercial phase. This will be private sector money--leveraged by the initial investment made by the Federal Government. Another success story--X-ray Optical Systems, Inc., a small company in Albany, NY, has developed a new type of lens that focuses x-rays in a concentrated beam. It allows users to control where the beam is directed. Using infusions of private capital, that it was able to leverage as a result of its ATP award, the company began sales of neutron-focusing optics and x-ray optics for material analysis. According to officials at the company, ATP has provided about a 5- to 8-year jump on the technology development and allowed it to stay in the United States. These are just two of many success stories resulting from ATP grant awards. So, I stand here today a staunch supporter of the Advanced Technology Program. However, I will vote in favor of this amendment. It is the only alternative to zero funding for ATP as this bill goes to conference. I ask my colleagues to join me in my support of this important initiative.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Wise], my good friend and colleague, to close for our part.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Meek].

Mr. MOLLOHAN

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

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, if I might say, the gentleman has stated his position well, and I would like to associate myself with his comments in support of this program, and I am pleased the chairman is going to accept the amendment.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Wise].