Jesse Jackson

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I am proud to yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne), the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Africa. (Mr. PAYNE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. I want to be very, very clear, Mr. Chairman. This amendment restores the President's request of $240 million to international peacekeeping activities. What this report, the bill that the Congress of the United States will be voting on in a moment specifically targets and eliminates peacekeeping in Africa. So it is okay to do peacekeeping in Europe, it is okay to do peacekeeping in other parts of the world, but we do not want you in Western Sahara, Sierra Leone, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, we do not want you anywhere else unless we will resubject this money to reprogramming and therefore, redefine all peacekeeping missions. As of June 2000, only 826 Americans, that is 791 civilian police and 35 observers are serving in U.N. peacekeeping operations. That accounts for only 2.3 percent of the 3,535,546 U.N. peacekeepers worldwide. There are currently no American military troops serving in U.N. peacekeeping operations. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver).

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Transportation.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano), the ranking member of the subcommittee.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I would like to inquire of the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee as to whether or not he was going to use any of his time, because I do have a number of speakers; and if he is not going to use it, I would certainly be willing to accept of it if he is willing to offer.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, let me just get some clarification.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, let me thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Obey), the ranking member and the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), chairman of the full committee for allowing me the opportunity to offer this amendment. It is my understanding, Mr. Chairman, under the ruling, we are entitled to 30 minutes on this side and the other side will have 30 minutes as well. Is that correct, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I am offering the Dixon amendment, it is the Dixon-Jackson-Crowley amendment, as his designee, Mr. Chairman. I believe it is Amendment No. 60, Mr. Chairman. Amendment No. 60 Offered by Mr. Jackson of Illinois

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, we concede the point of order.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. I thank the chairman for yielding.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. My understanding was that this request is not coming from the administration purely out of the context of requirements dictated by a compromise worked out between Senator Helms and Senator Biden, and that is presently our obligation, as required by law, is to fulfill 25 percent of the total cost of these operations; and that any failure by us to pay will affect the U.N.'s ability to effectively carry out all of the missions. I was just wondering if the chairman was aware whether the cap the chairman has placed on the amount from the House mark might indeed have broader implications for that understanding.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield for one final inquiry. The chairman is well aware that the Helms-Biden agreement dictated and requires the Congress to provide 25 percent of the total cost of these operations. Is the chairman aware of any implications the cap that is placed on this bill would have on the existing operations, and its impact on an agreement that was worked out between Senator Helms and Senator Biden?

Mr. JACKSON

Mr. JACKSON. Mr. Chairman, I am honored and privileged to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, let me also add that I want to thank the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley) for his support of this amendment.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee). (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I am honored to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the distinguished ranking member of the full committee.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, let me first begin by commending the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Dixon) for bringing the amendment that has been offered to the committee's attention. The CJS appropriations bill reduces the administration's contributions to international peacekeeping activities request of $739 million by $241 million, almost one-third. The committee report is not amendable on the floor, the report does did not include funding for following peacekeeping missions in Africa: MINURSO in Western Sahara; UNAMSIL in Sierra Leone, Ethiopia, Eritrea populations; and phase 2 of the MONUC in the Congo. The report languages for this bill singles out peacekeeping missions in Africa by failing to provide funding for these missions, unless it is reprogrammed for other missions. In this bill, the committee has underfunded the contributions to international peacekeeping activities and has directed the State Department, and I quote ``to take no action to extend existing missions or create new missions for which funding is not available.'' This amounts to a direction to veto U.N. peacekeeping missions. The requests by the President of $739 million would provide 25 percent, that is the U.S. portion agreed to last year, in the Helms-Biden compromise of the total estimated costs of the 15 current U.N. peacekeeping missions. The amount approved by the committee for fiscal year 2001, $498 million, is frozen at the level appropriated for fiscal year 2000. Our distinguished chairman, the gentleman from Kentucky (Chairman Rogers), argues that the administration and the U.N. must live within the appropriation and approve no new missions; however, this ignores the realities of international conflict, of wars and conflicts that are unpredictable and that can erupt at any given time. Mr. Chairman, I find it quite interesting that of all of the U.N. missions, the report language, which I already indicated is unamendable on the floor, specifically singles out all of the peacekeeping missions in Africa. It does not deal with the U.N. force in Cyprus, U.N. operation in Georgia, the U.N. mission in Tazikstan, the war crimes tribunal in Yugoslavia, while funding the war crimes tribunal in Rwanda, U.N. transitional administration in East Timor, U.N. mission in Kosovo, but specifically looks at peacekeeping missions in Africa. Mr. Chairman, with the balance of our time, I hope that during the course of this hour, we have a very informed debate to find out what is behind why African life in this report and in this bill is being treated differently than life of Europeans. We will discuss that at great length. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, let me first begin by congratulating the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) for what every member of this subcommittee knows to be the truth, that no one in this Congress has had a greater commitment to expanding and increasing NIH funding than the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter). If the entire House were present during this part of the debate, I would ask at this time for all of them to stand and give the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Porter) an outstanding round of applause for his interest and for his commitment and dedication in this area. I would say to the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Porter), we have enormous respect for his efforts in this particular area, and I certainly rise to salute the gentleman. Let me also indicate that this is the first time since I have been in Congress for 5 years that I am not going to dispute any of the facts that were offered by the majority in the brief demonstration that we had here from the chairman. But I want to make it very, very clear that the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Porter), if he had been dealt the appropriate hand in this particular allocation, that we would be looking at increases in NIH consistent with the effort to double resources as consistent with our 5-year objective. Mr. Chairman, this amendment raises our investment in biomedical research at the National Institutes of Health. Fiscal year 2001 is the 3rd year of this ``doubling NIH in 5 years'' initiative. For 2 straight years we have agreed to provide NIH the 15 percent increases needed to double the budget. This year, the House fails to do so. Staying on track to double NIH's budget requires a $2.7 billion increase for fiscal year 2001. The House bill provides the increase, then takes it away in a general provision and reduces that increase to the administration's request. Mr. Chairman, it is one thing in an era of deficits to say we cannot afford to invest additional resources in these programs; but now that we are in an era of surpluses, we no longer have that excuse. All we need to do to pay for this amendment is to scale back the size of the tax cut for the wealthy by 20 percent. We can leave the middle-class tax cuts alone, just scale back the tax cuts for the individuals at the top 1 percent; and we can do just that.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, this $600 million amendment adds $400 million to States through the substance abuse block grant program. It adds $200 million to local communities through competitive grants for critical substance abuse treatment services in collaboration with the States. That is what this amendment is about. It is very, very clear that these resources are necessary. Now, what is also a bit confusing is that during the emergency supplemental markup the President of the United States requested of that committee $1.6 billion for the Colombian aid package. We sought during that hearing to add a comparable amount of money, not just on the supply side of the narcotics problem, but also on the demand side, because we know that to reduce cocaine consumption, funds invested in drug treatment were 23 times more likely and more effective than source country control, that they were 11 times more effective than interdiction and 7 times more effective than law enforcement in reducing cocaine consumption. So we sought to match that on this side. Now during the course of that discussion, the majority added money for agricultural products, $4 billion, several billion in increased defense spending above the $300 billion appropriation, more than the Defense Department was even asking for, and the emergency supplemental for $1 billion on crop eradication in Colombia became a $14 billion bill in emergency supplemental that I believe is still stuck in the Senate. Mr. Chairman, all we have sought to do under regular order, which the chairman of the full committee asked us to do, was to offer an amendment on the demand side of the problem in our own country. That amendment was flatly rejected by the full committee; and we are here today, Mr. Chairman, raising similar concerns to show the American people, but also to show the full committee, Mr. Chairman, that there are Members of Congress who want to do something not only on the supply side but also on the demand side. I congratulate the gentlewoman for offering her amendment.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I concede the point of order.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I have a sound and sensible amendment that adds $1.25 billion to skills programs at the Department of Labor. Specifically, this amendment adds $93 million to restore the President's request for adult skills training. It adds $389 million to restore the President's request for dislocated worker assistance. It adds $200 million to restore the President's request for youth opportunity grants. It adds $254 million to restore cuts in the summer jobs program resulting from the implementation of the Workforce Investment Act. It adds $61 million to restore the President's request for reintegration of youth. It adds $30 million to restore the President's request for incumbent workers, $50 million to restore the President's request for employment services, $154 million to restore the President's request for one-stop career centers. It adds $5 million to restore the President's request for homeless veterans, and it adds an additional $14 million to restore the President's request for disability initiatives. At the dawn of a new century, Mr. Chairman, America must close the skill gaps and open the doors of opportunity. This amendment invests in skills training that America's workers need to compete and succeed in the new economy. Some have argued that since the economy is so strong, we can afford not to invest in skills training programs. I would argue that we cannot afford not to invest in skills training programs. An essential ingredient to sustaining the strong economy is to provide the skilled workers that businesses need. As Robert Kuttner, the BusinessWeek economist stated in his May 15, 2000 column, ``what's holding back even faster economic growth is the low skill levels of millions of potential workers.'' This strong economy gives us the rare opportunity to bring skills and jobs to individuals and communities that have for too long been left behind. The demand for skilled workers means that the 13 million Americans in the untapped pools of potential, young people, displaced workers, individuals with disabilities, veterans and people who want to get off of welfare, have a chance to get and keep good, family-supporting jobs. Since January 1993, the unemployment rate has fallen 7.3 percent to 3.9 percent, its lowest level in 30 years. Over 21 million new jobs have been created. Employment-population rates are at record highs. Yet, all have not prospered. Many Americans are being left behind. Pockets of extremely high unemployment, pools of untapped, underutilized workers exist; and the risk of becoming a dislocated worker remains high. In April 2000, there existed 13 million untapped and underutilized Americans: 5.2 million who are unemployed, 4.4 million who are out of the labor force but want to work, and 3.0 million who work part time but want to work full time. The booming economy has led employers to say that their growing inability to find skilled workers that they need has generated upward pressure on wages, translating into higher consumer prices. Concern is mounting that the broad-based skills shortages are putting our boom in jeopardy. Furthermore, it is inconsistent for Congress to disinvest in American workers at the very same time that we are debating the expansion of the H1-B visa program to offer job opportunities to foreign workers. The workers we need to keep our economy growing are right here. They are in our cities and in our rural areas. They simply need us to invest more in skills training, as the President proposed, not less, as the House bill proposes. This Congress passed bipartisan legislation in 1998, the Workforce Investment Act, to establish a workforce system, with One-Stop Career Centers as its cornerstone, that would provide employers with skilled workers they need and provide information and assistance for jobs and people seeking those jobs. This is the first year of implementation of the new system and the House bill will gut the investments critical to implementation of WINA as envisioned by Congress and the administration. This amendment, Mr. Chairman, very specifically places top priority on developing the skills of American workers, raising the participation of people with disabilities, strengthening the skills of youth and former welfare recipients, providing income support and training for dislocated workers, reintegrating ex offenders into the mainstream, and removing barriers, for example, childcare, that make it difficult to hold a job. The bill before us today puts our expansion in jeopardy and will prevent unprecedented prosperity from being even more broadly shared. Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge my colleagues to support this amendment. We have never been at a more crucial time for investing in the skills of all Americans. If we do not take advantage of the opportunities this economy is providing right now, not next week, but right now, then we will, indeed, undermine our own potential as a Nation.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?