Alan Mollohan

Mr. MOLLOHAN

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, my motion urges the House conferees to insist on the House position regarding the level of appropriations and the allowable level of fees collected by the Securities and Exchange Commission. The House bill, Mr. Speaker, provides for a total appropriation of $103 million. This level provides for the commission to operate at their fiscal year 1995 funding level after the collection of fees totaling $184 million plus an approximate $10 million carryover. Mr. Speaker, the Senate bill appropriates a total of $135 million, while allowing for the collection of only $123 million in fees. This means, in plain terms, that the Senate bill spends $32 million more than the House bill while at the same time it cuts the commission's operating level. I was suggesting this anomaly that the Senate appropriates more money than the House does but reduces the fee collection, which means, in plain terms, that the Senate spends $32 million more than the House bill but at the same time it cuts the commission's operating level by approximately 10 percent. There are substantive reasons why I oppose cutting the SEC's operating level, which I will discuss in a moment. But the Senate bill makes absolutely no sense from a fiscal standpoint. It provides $32 million higher spending levels to get a 10- percent cut in operations. It is not good fiscal policy. Mr. Speaker, the cuts to the SEC's operating level mean fewer investigations. It means delays in the review of legal disputes. They mean a lessened ability for the SEC to pursue fraud, and it means less of an ability to prosecute fraud when fraud is found. This would come at a time when American financial markets are expanding and the potential for fraud increases along with that expansion. [[Page H 10248]] There is no evidence that the incidence of fraud is decreasing. In fact, with the increasing complexity of financial deals and the instruments used to consummate these transactions, the SEC's missions are more and more vital. In addition, the Senate bill abolishes the SEC's office of investor education and assistance. This office is the only place where individual investors can get their complaints resolved without resorting to litigation. The steady rise in the stock market is due, in part, to the fact of an increasing number of individual investors placing their funds there. Do we really want to eliminate the only Government entity that offers these investors the ability to have their complaints resolved without costly court action? Part of the reason for the Senate action is given that it is based upon this notion that the States should perform this task, that the States should take over part of this responsibility. That is simply not practical in this context, and it is yet another example of piling additional responsibilities on States and not funding those responsibilities. Mr. Speaker, protecting the stability and the integrity of the American financial markets is of paramount importance. I do not think that the Members of the other body were fully aware of the impacts of their action when this bill was passed in a rather chaotic moment just before the last recess. Mr. Speaker, I believe that the chairman of the subcommittee is prepared to accept the motion. I have discussed it with him. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MOLLOHAN

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute, and I invite the gentleman from Texas to stay in the well. The gentleman from Texas indicated that one of the premises of your talk was that there would be a net loss to States as a result of this amendment. I would just like to point out to you that, indeed, there is a net loss only to one State. That is California. For every other State in the Union, it is a net gain. Let me explain why, and it is true. For example, Texas would gain approximately half a million dollars net. It is a close call for Texas. Under my amendment, Texas would get an additional $2 million, in Byrne grant money, with all the flexibility that represents, and they would get a decrease of about $1.5 million from the illegal alien assistance program, for a net gain of $500,000.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Levin] who worked so very hard on the Byrne amendment last year, the Super-Byrne program. He worked with our colleagues and created a real awareness for this program with the amendment. He did an excellent job. (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Hawaii [Mrs. Mink]. (Mrs. MINK of Hawaii asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from California [Mr. Mineta], a distinguished minority member of the authorizing committee. (Mr. MINETA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

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

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas [Mr. de la Garza]. Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, the reason for EDA was to help with infrastructure, to help underdeveloped areas, and to help with jobs. That is the name of the game, Mr. Chairman. In my area, I can point to a foreign trade zone, I can point to a shrimp boat harbor, I can point to all of the areas where we have developed with the help of EDA in cooperation with the local communities. I do not know that we need any more than strong oversight by the appropriations subcommittee and by the committee of jurisdiction. I know that there are some practices that need to be changed. Maybe there are some people that need to be replaced. But I can say that my experience with EDA has been very positive and we have worked together. I would like to mention Joe Bailey Swanner, who was the regional director for EDA when I first came to the Congress. He was a professional amongst the professionals. He did what needed to be done. The jobs are there, the infrastructure is there. I can say, ``Thank you, Joe Bailey Swanner. Thank you, EDA.'' All of the other things can be corrected by oversight, yes, maybe they need to change some practices and change some people. Otherwise, I think they do not deserve the fate that is pronounced for them here. EDA has served my area well and I am happy to support them.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Brown], the very distinguished ranking minority member on the Committee on Science. (Mr. BROWN of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the gentleman's amendment and think it is a very unwise one, I certainly do not share his sentiments. This world is changing. We are increasingly becoming a smaller international community. It is becoming very apparent to everyone that we are going to have to be increasingly competitive in the technology areas. The Department of Commerce generally, Mr. Chairman, is the department that is strategically focusing on these issues, trying to promote international trade, and at the same time promote technology development in key areas, targeting areas that will be growth sectors into the future. The Technology Administration is the place that looks at these issues. It is not a lot of money. It is a very small investment to have this kind of strategic thinking. I think this elimination amendment is extremely unwise. The Technology Administration works with American industry to maximize the technology's contribution to economic growth. Mr. Chairman, I really hope that the body will not move on this issue in this appropriations bill. If there is some effort to reconstruct the Commerce Department, to look at Commerce generally, to look at its role into the future, the authorizing process is the proper place to do that, not here today. We have not had any hearings to suggest elimination of the Technology Administration during our appropriations hearings. We simply do not have a factual foundation to intelligently make this kind of a decision. The facts we do have are that increasingly this is a competitive international community. Our opposition, our competitors around the world, Europe, Japan, the emerging nations, are all focusing strategically on technology development. Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote on the gentleman's amendment for all of those, I think, very good reasons.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from California [Mr. Farr], who has been extremely interested in these issues.

Mr. MOLLOHAN

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I will not take 5 minutes. I want to echo the sentiments of our chairman. We appreciate the hard work of all the members of the committee and the patience of the Members here today. We urge passage of the bill upon disposition of the amendment. We want particularly to thank the efforts of the chairman who has worked long and hard here today, and we appreciate the indulgence of all Members.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. We have no objection to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words, and I have no objection, Mr. Chairman.

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

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Brown], the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Science. (Mr. BROWN of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas [Mr. Doggett].

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Tanner]. (Mr. TANNER 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 Massachusetts [Mr. Olver]. (Mr. OLVER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Skaggs], a distinguished member of our subcommittee.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would like to read from Mr. Bromley, President Bush's Science Adviser: In the Bush administration we made a start towards more effective use of our technology strengths as, for example, in the successful Advanced Technology Program in the National Institute of Standards and Technology, and I am pleased to see that the program is expanded. There is much that remains to be done, however, and the Clinton administration has emphasized its intent to make technology one of its major thrusts.

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

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage the distinguished chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania, in a colloquy. Did I understand the gentleman to suggest that there was not support for this program in the Bush administration?

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment to strike language in the bill which prohibits funds under the NIST Industrial Services account from being used for the Advanced Technology Program. Mr. Chairman, this program has been in existence for 4 or 5 years. It was initiated under President Reagan's administration. One of the prime sponsors was a former distinguished Member of this body, Mr. Ritter, who served on the Republican side of the aisle from Pennsylvania. It was an expression of his strong interest and, as well, the Reagan administration's interest, in this country being strategic about approaching technology development and understanding its importance in making the United States competitive vis-a-vis our world competition. The rule today did not permit me to offer the amendment I would like to offer, Mr. Chairman, which was to restore funding to the ATP program. In this bill funding is eliminated in 1996 for any new ATP grants. There is carryover money allowed in the bill to fund grants made in 1994 grants and before. However, Mr. Chairman, the funding is not adequate. My amendment today would strike the language in the bill which is contained on page 43 which states that none of the funds made available under this heading in this or any other act may be used for programs of carrying out additional program competitions under the Advanced Technology Program. This amendment does not restore any funding. It simply eliminates that prohibition. Let me say a few words about the ATP program, which I think is extremely valuable. Some would say, Mr. Chairman, that the Advanced Technology Program is corporate welfare. I would suggest that nothing is further from the truth. Let me make it clear that ATP is not an entitlement program. It is a competitive program. In fact, industry funds more than half of the total R&D costs for ATP projects, and most of the awards of this program go to small and medium-sized businesses. Many of these businesses are in partnerships with universities, with foundations, with research organizations, as well as with larger corporate partners. That is hardly corporate welfare. Additionally, ATP does not pick winners and losers. This program does not even address technology when it is at the commercial state. It is pre-competitive. Mr. Chairman, I urge support for our amendment to remove this limiting language.