Alan Mollohan

Mr. MOLLOHAN

Mr. MOLLOHAN. You disagree with that? Do you agree that more than 20 percent is going to the top 1 percent of American families?

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Minnesota for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the fiscal year 1996 Republican budget resolution. Before we vote today, I believe it is vitally important for the American people to understand just what this budget resolution really does, whose interests it really serves, and whose it abandons, whose taxes are cut on the one hand, and whose benefits are cut and eliminated on the other. Simply stated, this resolution proposes a major reallocation of resources among the people of America. If you are a middle- or lower- income American, can lose big under this resolution. If you are a high- income American, you win big under this resolution. First, the resolution would slash spending for discretionary programs by [[Page H5152]] $635 billion over the next 7 years, cut Medicare by $288 billion, and reduce Medicaid by $187 billion. That takes money out of the pockets of average Americans. And second, as if to add insult to injury, money taken out of the pockets of middle- and lower-income Americans is immediately used to pay for a tax cut for the wealthiest Americans. Mr. Chairman, when put in this perspective, it should become clear that the proposal we are voting on today would literally take from the poor to give to the rich. Let us talk about the spending cuts contained in the plan. The question is how seriously should they be taken? How seriously should we take those spending cuts? And the answer is very serious. Many vital programs will be eliminated if this budget resolution, the one we are voting on here today or tomorrow, is enacted, and many others will be cut as much as 40 and 50 percent. Imagine the average American family for a moment, if you will, husband and wife, both working struggling to make ends meet, two or three children. How will they be affected by the cuts proposed in this resolution? Well, if the children in this family are receiving nutritional subsidies at school, they will see large cuts due to this resolution. For college-age children in the family, this resolution proposes to increase costs for a 4-year college loan by $5,000. If the father or mother relies on mass transit to get to and from work, this resolution will, at the least, cause the fare to go up, and in rural areas across America, certainly in my State and, I imagine, many others, may even eliminate mass transit service. If either parent should be laid off or lose his or her job, this resolution greatly reduces the resources available for additional job training, and if there is an elderly grandparent, this resolution will make cuts, real cuts, to programs which fund long-term care. Believe me, Mr. Chairman, I could go on and on. And so while the Republican proposal may not impose a tax increase on middle-class America, it certainly eliminates many of the resources the average American family currently relies on and has available to it. And where do those resources go? To pay for a tax cut for the wealthiest Americans, Americans who do not need to take out loans to go to college, who do not depend on mass transit to go to work, who do not have children who rely on school lunches for their daily nutritional needs. If fact, the tax cut which is proposed under this resolution will cost the American people close to $400 billion over 7 years, $700 billion over 10 years, and 51 percent of that tax cut goes to Americans making over $100,000 a year. Mr. Chairman, where do those resources go? To pay for a tax cut for the wealthiest Americans. Americans who don't need to take out loans to go to college, who don't depend on mass transit to go to work, who don't have children who rely on school lunches for their daily nutritional needs. In fact, the tax cut which is provided for under this resolution will cost the American people close to $400 billion over the next 7 years-- $700 billion over the next 10 years. Fifty-one percent of the tax cuts in this Republican proposal will benefit those Americans making over $100,000 a year--with more than 20 percent going to the top 1 percent of families making over $350,000 a year. Well, this completes the picture--a major shift in resources from the middle and lower income folks to wealthy America. So each and every American must decide if this resolution--this Republican agenda--is in his/her own best interest. Someone will benefit from this proposal--it is just important to know who that someone is. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this resolution.

Mr. MOLLOHAN

Mr. MOLLOHAN. I am pleased to yield to the gentleman from Colorado, a distinguished member of the subcommittee.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, as a member of this side of the aisle that supported the superconducting super collider, I thought it might be appropriate to answer the gentleman from Texas who asked the question why we should not support the amendment offered by the gentleman from California. I think the real answer is that this program, clean coal technology program and the incredible investment we have in it over the years producing good results, allows us to burn coal cleanly. He rightly notes that natural gas is a clean-burning fuel. We are the Saudi Arabia of coal, if you will. We have coal reserves in the ground that can guarantee energy independence into the future. I support multiple fuel use; I support multiple, flexible, fuel use policy in this country, and I think that is the best way for us to achieve energy independence around the world in whatever circumstances. Keeping using that incredible reserve of coal is to keep going to fruition with the clean coal technology program, a program in which we have invested, as the gentleman rightly points out, considerable amounts of money. I hope he would see the advantage of supporting coal, as I see the advantage to supporting oil and gas and always have, and lament the fact that the superconducting super collider was terminated, as a matter of fact. I would also say to my friend from California that in a piece of legislation where California is benefiting mightily, it is a bit disconcerting to have a cut targeted so regionally when under this bill domestic discretionary is being hit, domestic discretionary being used from across the country and gathered up and targeted to help our friends in California. I would urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, that simply gives me an opportunity while we are on this subject to take my remarks one step further. I would like to speak more broadly to all the proposed rescissions in the commerce technology programs, both in this bill and in the rescission package accompanying the defense supplemental. I want to go on record as strongly opposing these proposed cuts in the advanced technology program, in the manufacturing extension program, and in the Office of Technology Policy. Of course it is relevant to comment on these cuts because the NIST internal labs support the other commerce technology programs.. This is part of the reason why we desperately need this funding. According to the charts contained in the World Competitiveness Report of 1994, the United States ranks 28th, behind Japan, Germany and all of our other major competitors in the percentage of government funding allocated to non-defense research and development. We rank fifth in total expenditure of R&D as a percentage of our GDP, and 19th in real growth of private sector R&D investment. Let's face it. Our competitors are heavily investing in programs similar to the commerce civilian technology initiatives. They are pouring funding into research and development of precompetitive generic technologies. They are funding programs similar to MEP, and we are just beginning to understand the importance of that. cuts in the rescission packages to those external civilian technology programs. Again, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the time allocated and urge the support of the Morella amendment.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking minority Member for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, back on the ranch, with regard to the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Maryland [Mrs. Morella], I rise in strong support of the amendment. It would restore $3 million of the $19.5 million in cuts for the internal laboratory research programs at the National Institute of Standards and Technology. For the record, Mr. Chairman, I would support a full restoration of that funding. I know the gentlewoman from Maryland was very interested in doing that also, and worked very hard on it. This was the compromise she was successful in achieving. I congratulate her for that. Before going on to talk a little bit about these programs and why we should support the Morella amendment, Mr. Chairman, I would like to note that I deeply regret that the offsets in this amendment are coming from the State Department's Foreign Buildings account. This is a big account, there is no question about it, but this account provides funds for over 12,000 facilities valued at over $10 billion. Right now, we have a $400 million plus backlog of facility maintenance and repair projects for our decaying facilities overseas. Mr. Chairman, this account has already taken two cuts as a result of the rescission process. It is a big account, an easy account to cut. However, it would really be penny-wise and pound foolish, because we are building up a great liability that we are going to have to address. And we have already cut $20 million in this bill and $28 million as a result of the Senate's action on the defense supplemental. I simply want my colleagues to know that continued hits in this account jeopardize our foreign buildings, as well as our new embassies. Mr. Chairman, I hope we would refrain from the temptation to cut this account simply because of its size, and slow outlay rate. While I regret this account is where we are getting the money to offset this amendment, I do support very strongly the NIST laboratories. They develop measurement techniques, testing methods, standards, and other types of infrastructural technologies and services that provide a common language needed by industry in all stages of commerce. They respond to the present and anticipated needs of U.S. industry and set priorities based on close consultation with industry. Mr. Chairman, to this end, this $19.5 million cut proposed in the rescission package would have a profound impact on U.S. industry's ability to compete in the worldwide high technology markets. There are two reasons why this cut would be particularly devastating. First, historically, up until a couple of years ago, the NIST labs were getting about half of their budget from other agencies in contract services. In other words, they were contracting out their services and those contracts were supporting NIST employees. The increases we see in the budget requests, and it has rightly been pointed out that NIST's internal laboratories have received increases, since that time represent a shift from this type of funding to a straight appropriation. They was a good reason for this. Mr. Chairman, this change gives the labs more stability to plan their activities from year to year. This has become increasingly important as industries become more sophisticated and technology changes more quickly. It is important for NIST to be able to set its own agenda, to have a budget which supports its FTEs. Second, it allows NIST to target resources to high priority areas, like advanced manufacturing and biotechnology and information technology.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. We are supportive of the gentlewoman's amendment.

Mr. MOLLOHAN

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking minority member. Ladies and gentlemen, I really do not know what the majority speakers who have argued that this does not represent real cuts for real people mean. Because it does take away from real people's programs. In my remarks on the rule, I commented that the bill sets up a face off between the emergency supplemental needs of States experiencing disasters and domestic critical discretionary programs. It ravages discretionary spending and sets up an unfortunate model for funding into the future whenever we have disasters. We are cutting programs which benefit the most volunerable in this country under this legislation. We should be, Mr. Chairman, looking at these programs more carefully. We should be sympathetic to California disasters. But if we do not want to fund California disasters as emergencies, we should find some other formula. Maybe we should start an insurance program for disasters. But to us this as an excuse for making cuts in discretionary spending, in child nutrition, in youth summer programs, in homeless assistance grants, in community development, to cut housing $7.3 billion, is absolutely unconscionable. Now, what we are funding for the disasters is $5.3 billion. What are we going to do with the other $12 billion not associated with the California disasters? Is it associated with a tax cut? I suspect it is, and I suspect that this bill includes rescissions to pay for high income tax cuts by devastating domestic discretionary programs.

Mr. MOLLOHAN

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, the good news in this rule and this bill is we are funding disaster relief to California. the bad news is that we are taking money from across the country to fund it, instead of treating it as an emergency supplemental as we traditionally do. We are taking money from roads in the country, to pay for road reconstruction in California; from low-income housing across the country, to repair housing in California. The rule and the reason why we oppose it is it prohibits the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes], who is the ranking minority member on VA-HUD, whose subcommittee is funding $7.2 billion, one-third of this, it prohibits him from offering an amendment to restore with offsets some of that housing money, and prohibits the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Montgomery] from trying to restore the $206 million from veterans programs. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule for those reasons.

Mr. MOLLOHAN

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I find myself in a difficult position here today. On the one hand, I readily acknowledge the necessity of this Defense Department supplemental because it is important to assure our military readiness. On the other hand, the rule which I just voted against--but which passed--couples this supplemental with domestic rescissions, and that is not acceptable. Given the current budget climate, and shrinking discretionary caps, our domestic discretionary funds are all the more precious. Paying for increases in defense spending by taking money away from important domestic programs sets a dangerous precedent--one that I cannot support. Particularly when this is only the first in a series of dips we will make this year into the domestic discretionary accounts. I oppose the domestic rescissions package proposed here today based on the policy choices it reflects. For example, the proposed $107 million rescission from the Advanced Technology Program--an initiative at the core of President Clinton's competitiveness agenda. I welcome this opportunity to tell you about the merits of the ATP Program--the successes it can claim and its importance to our Nation's future manufacturing capability. But first I want to focus in on one point--U.S. competitiveness. In today's global economy, our Nation is lagging behind in terms of dollars spent on research and development. In fact, in terms of civilian research and development, the U.S. ranks 28th out of 40 nations in the percentage of government funds allocated. And U.S. business investment in research and development is not making up the difference. It too is declining. And while we sit here proposing to rescind funding from the ATP Program, across the oceans our competitors-- Japan, England, Germany, Australia, and Portugal, just to name a few-- are investing heavily in similar initiatives. For example, Japan is strategically targeting more than $600 million in resources to a government-private sector cost-shared program very much like ATP. They also sponsor several other programs aimed at developing basic technologies for industry. And why are they spending precious Government dollars on these programs? Because they realize that it will increase their competitiveness in the global marketplace. They understand the changing dynamics of the global economy and the importance of technology in that context. Investing in the ATP Program will help us to achieve this end. It is market-oriented. While Government provides the catalyst, industry conceives, manages, and executes ATP projects. The ATP also emphasizes cost-sharing--ATP recipients pay more than half the total cost of the research and development. This helps ensure that companies have a vested interest in the success of projects and in timely commercialization. Some would assert that if the technology was worth developing, the private sector would do it themselves. This is simply not true. ATP projects focus on precompetitive, generic technologies. Those that industry cannot afford to develop on their own; those that will push them beyond state-of-the-art in technology development for the future. Additionally, the report accompanying this package suggests that a rescission of $107 million in fiscal year 1995 will not do harm to the ATP Program, that it allows for funding all of our commitments. The real issue is that while a substantial amount of the ATP's appropriation for fiscal year 1995 has not been obligated as yet, essentially the entire appropriation has been committed. If this rescission package is approved, ATP will have to cancel about half of their existing competitions. Companies that have formed joint R&D ventures and that have typically invested tens of thousands of dollars in good-faith proposal writing efforts will be faced with a government which is unable to honor its commitments. Companies will conclude that the ATP Program cannot be relied on, and they will be reluctant to submit proposals in the future. This could have a devastating impact on the program. I think as a nation it is time for us to face facts. We have underinvested in technology development. What we need now is to work to build our manufacturing capability and increase our competitiveness in the global marketplace. This goal will not be served by rescinding money from programs central to our competitiveness agenda. In fact, it would have the opposite effect. In a way, Mr. Chairman, rescinding money from ATP is very much like eating our economic seed corn. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill.

Mr. MOLLOHAN

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I hope that all Members of this body are really listening carefully to this debate. And what really is at stake here is how much money, what additional resources, each and every of your respective States are going to receive under each of these proposals. States are starved for resources to fund prisons, both construction and for operating those prisons. We have a number of States right now, as we sit debating this issue, that do not have enough money to operate the empty prison beds that they already have. Some States it is not a question of building the prisons. They do not even have enough money to operate the prisons, so the real question is under which version of this bill do we get the State money for prison construction and operation. Under which provision, which proposal do we do that? And I submit to you, and I rise in support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York which gets the fastest, the most money to all of the States to operate and build prisons. Now, under last year's bill, my colleagues, every State was eligible for prison funding, for construction or operation, meeting those dire needs, every single State in the Nation under the general provisions. Under the proposal offered in the majority's bill, as it appears in our legislation before us, that is not true. So which one of your States is not going to receive any money under this legislation? Which ones of your States are going to suffer, are going to have money that is under current law available to them, which ones of your States are going to have that money taken away by this legislation? You better look at that, each one of my colleagues, because your constituents are going to be looking at it. Your constituents are going to ask the question, ``Did you vote for legislation that took money that was already available to us away?'' Second, I think you need to ask, after you get beyond that, under which of the two provisions before us today are your States going to get more money? And I submit to you it is under the block grant amendment offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Schumer]. Every State is going to receive dollars and more dollars than in this bill or even last year's bill for prison operation and construction, and that is the need. You can get esoteric about sentences and incentives, but the real question is for resource-starved States, under which proposal do they get the money, do they get it faster? It is under the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Schumer]. I would like to engage the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Schiff] in a colloquy if he would accommodate me, please, because I really am not sure, under the general grant provisions here, any State is going to be eligible for resources under the gentleman's legislation, and I just read to you, and what does this mean, it says: That a State or organization shall submit an application to the Attorney General that provides assurances that such States, since 1993, have more violent offender sentencing time, increased the sentences, and increased the percentage of the sentences served. Which States have, since 1993, met those qualifications and would receive any funding under this provision? Could you tell me?

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Reclaiming my time a moment, every State was eligible under the general grants provisions for dollars.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. That is the key question. I would ask my colleagues consider carefully under which provision is their State most benefited.

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

Mr. MOLLOHAN. I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. My question is, which State right now would qualify for money under general grant provisions?

Mr. MOLLOHAN. What language applies to the general grants program?