Alan Mollohan

Mr. MOLLOHAN

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. (Mr. MOLLOHAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the very distinguished gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar].

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, we have just seen this language. Will the gentleman explain the purpose of this language? Why do you want to do this?

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

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, what is the gentleman wanting to achieve by this?

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, we have had this debate. Now let me get back to the gentleman from California. He is taking the $109 million that we took in offsets. Had he intended to offer this amendment prior to the legal services amendment?

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, let me reclaim my time and let me stipulate that some entities are set up. That gets back to this point. Any group, which for a lawful purpose sets up activities outside of these corporations, can do that. We cannot stop them from doing that here. But let me ask the gentleman, is there a commingling of funds?

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman gave them in debate.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I appreciate that. The gentleman from Indiana indicated that legal services corporations would set up separate entities. My response to the gentleman from Indiana is that this is America. Anybody can set up corporations anywhere for a legal purpose, which may or may not have been done. But let us focus here. This is funding for the Legal Services Corporation, created, I believe, in 1974 for this purpose. This is funding to them. They are not, at least based upon what I heard in the gentleman's debate, they are not engaged in activities that would violate these restrictions. We are talking about funding entities, the Legal Services Corporation, that are abiding by these restrictions.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would suggest to the gentleman that the legal services corporations are abiding by these restrictions. Now, Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Indiana, in his debate on the floor, when he would not yield to me on his time----

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 3814. Although imperfect, this bill is a vast improvement over that which we considered last year. I commend the chairman, the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers], as well as his able staff, Jim Kulikowski, Therese McAuliffe, Jennifer Miller, Mac Coffield, in addition to Pat Schlueter, the minority staffer. Chairman Rogers has conducted the affairs of this subcommittee in an exemplary manner. He has acted in an open and fair fashion toward all members. I want to express to the chairman, Mr. Rogers, my gratitude for his openness and our ability to work together on this bill. There are parts of this bill where we are in agreement, particularly in the crime-fighting and law enforcement area. I would like to take this opportunity to remind my colleagues that this is the real crime- fighting bill. This bill provides extremely robust funding levels, $1.6 billion more than the appropriations for the current fiscal year, for the Department of Justice and its law enforcement functions. If Members like law enforcement, they are going to love this bill. Let me give Members some appreciation for just what I am talking about. First, let me say that President Clinton's requests in the justice area, the law enforcement and crime-fighting area, the law enforcement and crime-fighting area, were very strong, very generous. This bill provides a bit more funding. We can anticipate, that the Senate side, if pattern holds, will provide more funding than is in our House bill. In other words, this is a game of up-the-ante. But that is fine, because in the end we really do end up with strong funding for law enforcement efforts. This bill provides $7.1 billion for drug enforcement initiatives, including a 21-percent increase over fiscal year 1996 funding for the Drug Enforcement Administration. The bill also provides funds for 1,100 more border patrol agents; 2,700 additional detention beds for safe holding of illegal aliens until deportation, a $51 million increase is provided for U.S. attorneys, a $37.5 million increase is provided for the Marshal Service, and $255 million in increased funding is provided for the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Of special note, I want my colleagues to know that $1.4 billion is provided for the COPS program, the cornerstone of the President's crime-fighting strategy. Let me take a moment to address specifically the COPS program. As many of the Members know, during his 1994 State of the Union address, President Clinton pledged to put an additional 100,000 police officers on our Nation's streets. Authorization was provided, $8.8 billion over 6 years, in the 1994 crime bill. The COPS program is now a reality, with funding now approved for over 44,000 cops on the beat. Mr. Chairman, I think everybody in this body and everybody across this Nation understands what a significant accomplishment it has been to get the President's COPS program up, and operating. I commend the President for his leadership in this regard. The impact of community policing has been strong and swift. Crime is down, Mr. Chairman. That is the good news. There is not doom and gloom about crime statistics. Crime is down. Members can spin these statistics any way they want, but the bottom line is, crime is down. We can take a category, we can look at a spike. It is absolutely true that in the last year or so drug use in juveniles is up. That is a matter that everybody is concerned with, and all of a sudden, everybody is turning to focus specific attention on that issue. We have to fight it. This bill does it, and this administration supports that effort. Preliminary crime figures released by the FBI in December 1995 show a dramatic decline in serious crime in the first half of 1995, compared with the same period in 1994. In New York City, for instance, overall crime has dropped by 14.5 percent, according to FBI figures. Just last month it was reported that the COPS program is providing dollars for an additional 500-plus new cops on the beat. That is significant. It is difficult to argue with results like this. Simply put, community policing works, it works well, and I am pleased that the bill before us provides funding to continue our march down the road to 100,000 more cops on the beat, in accordance with the President's program and his commitment. We are ahead of schedule. Mr. Chairman, I want to compliment our law enforcement agencies for the good job they have done in managing and applying the new resources we have given them, and also I want to compliment the unprecedented level of cooperation going on between our law enforcement agencies. I know of no time, certainly during my service, when, for example, the FBI and the DEA and the other Federal law enforcement agencies are working more closely together. They are cooperating, they are focusing, they are sharing information, and it is having a wonderful effect in crime-fighting. Mr. Chairman, I would also point out to my colleagues that substantial funds are provided in this bill for State and local law enforcement assistance and juvenile justice programs. The Violence Against Women Act programs are fully funded at $197.5 million. I want to compliment my chairman, the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers] for that funding. He does express concerns about the fact that the Violence Against Women grants are not already out there. Perhaps, in a way, that is a fair consideration. We are all impatient as appropriators that this money get out and get expended. I would add, however, that we could have helped those who were managing those grant programs last year if we did not have some 10, 12, 15, or however many continuous resolutions. No administrator can develop a grant program for a 2-week continuing resolution, and I do not think the Congress would want them to try. In addition, the States could not respond to grant applications for a 2-week continuing resolution. After 2 weeks that money expired, and we went into another continuing resolution. In other words, there was considerable legislative instability that the administration and the States were trying to work successfully within last year. This perfectly well explains why the Violence Against Women grants were not let out. Mr. Chairman, the good news is that since obtaining their fiscal year 1996 appropriations, the Office of Justice programs has mailed out application kits to all the States in this Violence Against Women Program. They were due back July 1 of this year, and awards will be made on a rolling basis within 30 days of receipt of the applications. Most of the Violence Against Women grants will be awarded by August 15, within 4 months of the signing of the omnibus appropriations bill, making those funds available. That is timely, and I know they have been working hard to make sure those grants do get out to fight violence against women. I am very pleased with the very generous funding levels with the Department of Justice. However, Mr. Chairman, I must note the areas in this bill with which I have serious concerns. First, I am extremely concerned with the level of funding provided for the programs under the Department of Commerce. This bill would cut the Department by $756 million below the administration's request and $119 million below the level provided in fiscal year 1996. The bill does not provide adequate funding for the Department of Commerce' technology initiatives. The most egregious example is the advanced technology program. There is only $110.5 million for the ATP in this bill, not nearly enough for the Federal Government to fulfill its obligations in prior-year grant awards. In other words, there is not enough money in this bill to meet obligations already incurred by the Government. While I realize there is a philosophical difference of opinion regarding the advanced technology program, this program is a critical part of the President's competitiveness agenda, and deserves to be funded robustly. While I am pleased with the increases this bill provides for the NIST internal programs, it is simply not a substitute for ATP. I also regret the majority's decision to zero out NIST's construction account. The current laboratory facilities are woefully inadequate to today's mission, and such an action only serves to perpetuate the problem. Also in Commerce, I want to make note of the funding level available for the Census Bureau. This bill provides a funding level which is $60 million below the President's request. It does not provide much-needed funding increases for the current economic statistics, and cuts in half the requested increase for the ramp-up for the 2000 census. I know every American is concerned that the census is done accurately, done properly, done on time, and we are cutting money in that vital area. There are several other areas for Commerce's budget which this bill does not fund adequately, Mr. Chairman. With regard to the Small Business Administration, this bill does not provide the requested and needed increase for the 7(a) loan program. I am concerned that without necessary changes to the program's subsidy rate, this bill may limit capital available to small businesses. I plan to work with the chairman during the conference to increase funding for this vital agency. In addition, while I am pleased that the bill offers a first step at reducing our peacekeeping debt, I am concerned that it does not go far enough and will put us further behind in the long run in meeting this international obligation. My colleagues will be pleased to know that the committee has remained firm in its resolve to seek continued reform at the United Nations. This is an issue that Chairman Rogers has worked on for many years and he has been successful in bringing the United Nations to a reform posture, or at least in providing incentives to bring them to a reform posture. My only concern is not with the incentives, but the fact that we are not funding peacekeeping arrearages enough. I think we could do much more and still maintain the momentum with regard to reform at the United Nations. Further, I must take a moment to express a reservation about reductions in USIA's accounts, especially in salaries and expenses and educational and cultural exchanges. At the same time, I have serious concerns about providing additional funds for Radio Free Asia. The Broadcasting Board of Governors has not produced an operating plan or provided any meaningful operation about transmission or other operating costs and, in addition, the newly assembled Radio Free Asia staff either is unable or unwilling to provide the committee with estimates of just how much Radio Free Asia Pacific broadcasting will grow to cost in the out years. In addition, I express concerns about the funding for Radio and TV Marti, some of which we have addressed in the full committee. I have saved my biggest concern, Mr. Chairman, about this bill for last, the shameful cut made to funding for the Legal Services Corporation. I will at the appropriate time be offering an amendment to increase funding for this account, so I shall not spend time now detailing my concerns. I will do so during consideration of the amendment to increase funding for legal services. Mr. Chairman, this list by no means represents every deficiency in the bill, but with limited time here I wanted to highlight my biggest concerns. I intend to work hard with the majority to make improvements. Let me emphasize again that the chairman has labored hard, with scarce resources, to come up with a fair bill. I am most appreciative for his hard work and for his attitude of cooperation as this bill has been drafted and moved to the floor. I look forward to that kind of relationship as we finalize this legislation through the process. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MOLLOHAN

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I add to the chairman's sentiments.

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

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, we are in agreement with the chairman with regard to this amendment, understanding that this amendment relates to funding only. It increases, I believe, from $5 million to $9.3 million funding for this account. That does not mean, I hope, the committee is any less concerned about the expenditure of these funds and the development of a rational feasibility plan prior to the expenditure of the funds. This concern is spoken to in the report at page 118, and I would just note that the International Broadcasting Act of 1994 mandated that the new Broadcasting Board of Governors submit to Congress a plan concerning the feasibility of establishing an independent Radio Free Asia. In addition, we have requested an operating plan, an implementation plan. The committee has not yet received that and we certainly expect to see that, understand how this program will be implemented, what are the cost estimates projected into the outyears prior to the expenditure of this increased funding that the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] has worked so hard on. Mr. Chairman, I will commend the gentleman. He has been excellent on the subject. He is knowledgeable and very concerned. My concern really goes to the expenditure of the funds in a responsible way, and I look forward to working with him and with the chairman as this process moves forward.

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

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

Mr. MOLLOHAN

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule. However, actions taken yesterday at the Rules Committee hearing almost precluded my support for this measure. The authorizing chairman had asked that two programs extremely important to the administration not be afforded protection by the rule. As a result, the rule before us today does not protect the Commerce Department's Advanced Technology Program or Technology Administration from points of order raised during floor consideration. These programs are not authorized--but then again neither are most programs in our bill. Because the rule would have allowed the striking of funding provided for these programs--$110.5 million for ATP and $5 million for the TA--I intended to speak today in opposition to this rule. However, I now understand that an agreement has been reached which accommodates the concerns of the authorizing chairman. I would like to express my appreciation to Chairman Rogers and to Chairman Walker for their efforts to reach a reasonable resolution of this matter. As a result of this agreement, I am acting under the assumption that an amendment will be offered to the bill to allow funding for the ATP under different conditions and that the TA will be protected from points of order. In its current form, the bill restricts ATP funding from being used to hold new grant competitions. The agreed upon amendment would add bill language stating that all funds must be used only to fund fiscal year 1995 and prior year grant awards which involve small businesses. Additionally, it would add report and bill language stating that the funding provided in the bill is to be used for ``close out commitments.'' Obviously, I personally do not agree with these new as well as the old restrictions. However, restricted funding for ATP is better than no funding at all. And funding for the Technology Administration is extremely important. Both ATP and the Technology Administration are critical components of President Clinton's competitive agenda. The Technology Administration serves as an advocate for American industries--ensuring that Government policies, programs, and regulations promote U.S. competitiveness. Additionally, TA is the only Federal agency that analyzes the civilian technology activities of our foreign competitors, working to promote and protect U.S. technology interests in global research and development efforts. Similarly, ATP is about investing in our Nation's competitiveness in the global marketplace. It does nothing more than put U.S. industry on a level playing field with our major global competitors. As we sit here today placing additional restrictions on ATP, our foreign competitors are pouring money into similar programs. In fact, the European nations are accelerating investment in commercial technologies. Japan has plans to double its government science and technology budget by the year 2000. China is planning to triple its investment in R&D by 2000, targeting computers, software, telecommunications, pharmaceuticals, and infrastructure. And the Republic of Korea has considerably boosted its R&D efforts in key technology areas and is actively acquiring foreign technologies. 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. Investing in programs like APT and the Technology Administration will make all the difference. So, with reservation, I ask my colleagues to support the rule before us today. While the agreement reached will place further restrictions on the ATP Program, it will ensure that at least some funding is provided for this important initiative.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I simply rise in support of the rule and express appreciation to my chairman, Mr. Rogers, for the hard work that he has put into this bill and for the spirit of cooperation that he has approached it. We appreciate his accommodations in a number of areas.

Mr. MOLLOHAN

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. I rise in strong opposition to the Walker amendment to reduce funding for fossil energy research and development and transfer these funds to the National Park System, Indian programs, and the budget deficit. I wish that I did not have to stand here today in opposition to an amendment that would increase funds for our national parks. Unlike my colleagues on the other side of aisle, I have a history of supporting our parks. The 360 or so units of the National Park System are among the Nation's most precious natural areas, cultural resources, and recreation sites. These parks belong to the people, not just today, but in perpetuity. The Republican cuts to the National Park Service have greatly undermined our parks. In fiscal year 1996 House Republicans thought it sufficient to provide a budget for the Park Service that would be $69 million less than the President's request. And this year they apparently believe that $1.13 billion, $290 million less than the President's request, is sufficient to sustain our Park System. Perhaps Republicans now realize that their cuts have gone too far, and they are trying to compensate by attacking an important program like fossil energy R&D. A program which stands for the development of clean, efficient, low-cost fossil energy technologies. I say: raise funds for the park service--just don't take it out of fossil energy R&D. The Walker amendment effectively eliminates the Federal-private sector partnerships that are within 2 to 3 years of reaching their objectives--after 20 years and hundreds of millions of dollars of joint Government and industry investment. This bill will cause scores of private companies, who signed on with the Federal Government to cost- share high-risk, high-payoff research, to see the Government renege on its agreements. In all likelihood these companies will either abandon their research or look for foreign interests to pick up the cost-share. It is particularly ironic that the Walker amendment comes at this point in time. Throughout the world, our economic competitors are expanding their government-industry partnerships, modeling their R&D arrangements after the public-private cooperative efforts which were pioneered here in the United States. In spite of a flat economy, Japan has nearly tripled its funding over the past 5 years for advanced coal combustion technology--the technology most in demand in the growing global marketplace. In fact, the governments of Germany and Japan are increasing their cooperative efforts with their private industries to develop technologies for global sale. Why? Because a $1 trillion market for advanced coal and other power-generating equipment awaits them in the 21st century. The Walker amendment would unilaterally put U.S. developers at a distinct disadvantage against the combined arsenals of other governments. It is also ironic that the Walker amendment comes at a time when an unprecedented restructuring of our domestic energy market has caused private industry's investment in energy R&D to drop by 35 percent since the mid-1980's. The U.S. energy industry involves more than $500 billion a year in sales and about 8 percent of our gross national product. Some 85 percent of our energy consumption comes from fossil fuels--coal, petroleum, and natural gas. With this kind of impact on our economy, the development of clean, efficient, low-cost fossil energy technologies should be one of the Nation's--and this Congress'--top priorities. The Walker amendment turns its back on the future of technologies that supply 85 percent of the energy in this country. It turns its back on technologies that are within 2 to 3 years of crossing over the threshold to private sector deployment. It turns its back on today's energy industry where U.S. private sector investment in R&D is already declining. The Walker amendment turns its back on hundreds of millions of dollars in public and private investment--provided in good faith--to develop clean, efficient, low-cost technologies that can be used here at home and can be marketed to customers overseas. I strongly oppose the Walker amendment to cut funding for fossil energy R&D by $137.8 million in the fiscal year 97 Interior appropriations bill. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Walker amendment.

Mr. MOLLOHAN

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, here we go again, I rise today to speak to that portion of the bill that deals with appropriations for the Departments of Commerce, State, Justice, Judiciary, and related agencies. I can only imagine, as I rise, that the Republican leadership is a bit uneasy about this, if not embarrassed, to still be dealing with last year's legislative business. This appropriations measure is 159 days late. That is, it has been 159 days since the beginning of fiscal year 1996, and the majority still has not passed all of the appropriation bills. This Congress has not yet gotten last year's business completed. We have got to get on with last year's appropriations bills, Mr. Chairman, or we are going to be another year behind. This, my colleagues, is a process gone awry and clearly shows bad process impacting substance. It is no way to run a railroad, let alone a legislative body. Specifically, this bill falls short of providing the resources for the United States to maintain its competitive and technological edge. If we are to remain competitive in the new world economy, we must be at the forefront in technological research and development. This bill slashes nondefense technological investment by eliminating funds for the Advanced Technology Program. In case my colleagues did not know it, Japan is very close to spending more money than the United States in absolute terms on research and development. Now that is a scary thought. Additionally, this bill forces the United States to renege, to renege on its international commitments, including peacekeeping commitments. This is irresponsible international citizenship. Last year the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers] was instrumental in providing leadership in the area of the United Nations reform and improvement. We all agreed that that had to be done. Because of Chairman Mr. Rogers' efforts an inspector general position is in place in the United Nations. Real progress is being made. Let us not impede the gains we have already made in this area, let us not be a piker. The United States made in this area, let us not be a piker. The United States must pay its bills. Let us fund peacekeeping. Lastly, Mr. Chairman, this continuing resolution kills the Cops on the Beat Program, kills the Cops on the Beat Program. President Clinton told the American people that he would help communities fight crime. He fulfilled that commitment. He proposed the COPS Program. It started in October 1994. In that short time period over 33,000 federally funded police officers are out in our communities serving 87 percent of the American public. The COPS Program is working both in urban and rural communities. Chicago, Atlantic City, Tampa, New Orleans, San Antonio, Las Vegas are just a few of the places where crime rates are down. Numerous police organizations and civic groups support the COPS Program, and so do communities all across this Nation. Proof lies in the fact that from 47 States, Mr. Chairman, representing 2,332 jurisdictions, are currently pending applications for COPS Program participation. Another 7,765 officers could be on the beat now if this legislation did not kill the COPS Program, and we could be adding another 30,000 cops to the beat in this next year. But the COPS Program under this legislation is killed. Mr. Chairman, we have got to ask why, why kill a program that is clearly working and that is clearly in demand. Is it because the COPS Program was brought to fruition by President Clinton? Is it because the majority did not create the COPS Program? Mr. Chairman, I do not know the answer to that, I do not know the reason, but I do know that the program is working all over this Nation, and I do know that the majority is trying to destroy it, and I do know that they have sought to replace it with an unfocused program called Local Law Enforcement Block Grant Program. Knowing, that, how can our colleagues expect the President to sign this bill? We know he cannot. He is committed to helping local communities fight crime. The COPS Program works. Our colleagues kill it in this legislation; he cannot fund it. In summary, let us get down to business. Let us keep the politics out of this bill.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking minority member for giving me an additional minute. I simply want to respond to my distinguished chairman, who I have great admiration for, a point about saying that there is money in this bill for the Advanced Technology Program, that there is money in this bill for peacekeeping. If there is money in this bill, it is funny money, it is more worthless than monopoly money. We cannot put money in an appropriations bill. The purpose is to appropriate money; it is an action activity; and make it contingent upon finding the money. We either have it in the appropriations bill or we do not. This appropriations bill does not fund peacekeeping, it does not fund the Advanced Technology Program, and it does not fund the COPS Program. That kills the COPS Program, and that is terribly regrettable and, I think, will guarantee its veto, as the majority knows, by the President of the United States.

Mr. MOLLOHAN

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to modify the motion at the desk to include the following amendment: ``At the appropriate place under section 101, insert the following new citation: Black lung benefits administered by the Department of Labor and the Social Security Administration and the related administrative costs.''

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule. Here we are in day 21 of what can best be described as a hostage situation. I wish someone from the other side of the aisle could stand up and explain the thinking behind all this, because frankly I do not understand what kind of games are really being played here. The situation is irrational. It is wasteful. Worst of all, it is hurting people; Federal workers and their families for sure, but citizens, senior citizens, underprivileged children, the disabled, and countless others who need Government services and depend on them for their basic needs. May I give the Members an example? Just today I heard from an out-of- work coal miner in my district. He was supposed to begin school to get a fresh start, but he cannot. Why? Because the Republican majority in this Congress is holding up the funds for his retraining. He is being held hostage, and so are countless other Americans. Now we are about to consider some kind of a continuing resolution, and if it comes to a vote, then sure, I will support it because it releases some of the hostages, but shame on those who will not release all of the hostages. Mr. Speaker, there is a better way. Let us pass a clean CR.

Mr. MOLLOHAN

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations.