Alan Mollohan

Mr. MOLLOHAN

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentleman for his effort and yield to the gentleman from Colorado.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the gentleman's amendment. I have listened to the sincerity of the debate on both sides. And I simply want to note at the beginning that I do not think that the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart) really meant to characterize the efforts of the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Skaggs) as being a jihad against anything, really. At least, if he did, I consider it to be a really unfortunate characterization. I think the Skaggs amendment is nothing more or less than a sincere effort to cut funding this year, some 9.4 million in this bill, for a program which really has little demonstrable effect, however well intentioned. I believe, if I am not mistaken, this has been the fifth year that the gentleman has offered such an amendment to cut TV Marti. And for those who are concerned that he is initiating this effort in an untimely way, that TV Marti has not had an opportunity to fix the technical problems, I would suggest that if within 5 years we cannot fix the technical problems associated with broadcasting TV Marti to Cuba, then perhaps it is time to stop funding it. Also likewise with regard to the administrative problems associated with the program, administrative and managerial and programming problems, the gentleman made comparisons that it took 40.6 FTEs to produce a unit of broadcasting versus some much smaller, how much, with regard to radio, 8 for radio for other similar kinds of broadcasting. That suggests there are some real programmatic inefficiencies, at least, in this program. And, again, this has gone on for a long number of years, 5 years, I know, that the gentleman has undertaken this effort. And if in that time we cannot fix these technological, these programmatic and these administrative and managerial problems that are associated with TV Marti, perhaps it is time to call it quits and consider applying this $9.4 million to some of the programs that the distinguished ranking minority member alluded to, or other programs in this very tight budget, such as drug courts or bulletproof vests or school security personnel. There are lots of worthy programs in this bill, lots of efforts that could be funded across this Nation with this $9.4 million.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, we are strongly in favor of drug courts, and we think that the gentleman has crafted his amendment in the way it would be acceptable to us. We have no objection.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I would note that it is a bit of technicality to suggest it is not a cut because it already has not passed. This legislation is about become law, and if the gentleman's amendment were passed, it would be a significant cut in the 1999 appropriation.

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

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I object. We can get the gentlewoman time, but these other speakers have been waiting. Under the five-minute rule they have a right to strike the last word and have their own time.

Mr. MOLLOHAN

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, my intentions were good but I just did not have enough time.

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

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the distinguished chairman of the committee for yielding me this time and appreciate his very strong statement in opposition to this amendment. He is in a good position to make a strong statement on this issue because he has been at the forefront in trying to affect reforms at the United Nations, and has been very effective in doing so. I am pleased to have supported, as has been the minority on our committee has been pleased likewise to support him. This is a very ill-advised amendment for two immediate reasons. First of all, we owe the money. We owe the United Nations money. Now, it is over a billion dollars, or less than a billion dollars, depending on how we count it. But we certainly owe the money, and we owe them as much money as is appropriated in this bill, $475 million, which is the subject of the gentleman's amendment. Unless we want to be total pikers in the world community, we need to pay this money. Now, that is just what it boils down to. Are we going to be responsible partners in this international organization and pay the money, stand up, meet our obligations; or are we going to be pikers and not pay it; welch on our debts? That is what this amendment asks us to do. Now, it is perfectly appropriate for the Congress of the United States, that holds the pursestrings, to say, yes, we owe this money; yes, we want to participate in this international organization, but international organization, United Nations, we have concerns about the way you operate and we think, in many ways, you are irresponsible and you need to reform. So here is what you have to do in order to receive money from us. That is using our leverage, exactly the power of the purse that the United States Congress has, to effect reforms in this case or to effect policy in this country and as we relate to the world through this organization. That is very appropriate, and that is what we are doing here. We have a bipartisan agreement which the Secretary of State, the United Nations ambassador, have worked extremely hard on during the last 2, 3 and 4 years. They have worked with Members of Congress, both on the House and the Senate side, both Democrats and Republicans, to effect this agreement. The linchpin is the leverage we have with withholding funding and doling it out in response to the United Nations being responsive for our demands for reforms. That is all responsible. What is not responsible is for us to say we are just not going to pay it. The gentleman argues, as I understand his argument, that our contribution to peacekeeping efforts or to our military operations ought to offset this debt. Well, that is not a part of this deal. Countries that participate in this way militarily, in the ways we have, do not offset those military contributions against these peacekeeping and other U.N. funding programs. So I simply say, this is the second year, and I think the gentleman was unsuccessful last year and I hope he is unsuccessful this year, it is just a totally irresponsible amendment to come here and suggest we should withdraw. We do not have a authorization so this is subject to an authorization. This funding is subject to an authorization. We are effecting reforms at the United Nations, which is what we ought to be doing with our money, leveraging our payment based upon their performance for reforms. Then we have achieved assessment rate reductions and this money is also contingent upon their accepting that. I do not know how much more you can ask but what you cannot ask is for the United States of America to be pikers on this debt and the Members of the United States Congress to be accomplices in reneging on the obligation.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. The gentleman talks about substance when he gets into this issue, and I just want to clarify that what he is asking from the Trade Representative is that they have an exhaustive study and investigation of this. He is not asking for a particular result to come out of this.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I want to compliment the gentleman for withdrawing the amendment. I think it was a bit heavy-handed and I think that they made their point. I just want to clarify, in all this, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) is trying to affect process here, not substance, as I understand it. Is the gentleman satisfied with the responsiveness?

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record a letter from the Trade Representative on this subject to clarify her position. The letter referred to is as follows: U.S. Trade Representative, Washington, DC, August 4, 1998. Hon. Alan Mollohan, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State and Judiciary, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Representative Mollohan: I am writing to express my strong opposition to the amendment filed by Rep. Collins, and any other proposal, to reduce appropriations for the Office of the United States Trade Representative for the next fiscal year. This amendment is ill-considered and would severely impair our ability to open markets around the world for U.S. workers and companies. The amendment filed today is an effort to pressure USTR into reversing a recent decision involving complex factual and legal issues regarding the application of the U.S.-Japan Insurance Agreement. The dispute over this question has divided the U.S. insurance industry. The amendment is prompted by a single American insurance company that disagrees with the Administration's decision. The underlying dispute in question involves three American insurance companies that compete against each other in the ``third sector'' of the Japanese insurance market, which has been set aside largely for U.S. and other non-Japanese firms. The disagreement concerns whether a subsidiary that is 90- percent-owned by one of the American companies should, despite its overwhelming American ownership, be deemed to be a Japanese company and whether the activities of this company therefore violate the U.S.-Japan insurance agreement. For obvious reasons, compelling evidence would be needed to find that a 90 percent American-owned subsidiary is in fact Japanese. USTR conducted an extensive review of the arguments made by the parties and of all of the facts presented. Moreover, USTR made certain that the arguments were presented to and the matter reviewed by the interagency process. The evidence provided did not demonstrate that the subsidiary in question is Japanese, and the decision the Administration reached reflected that fact. Separate from this decision, the Administration told the Japanese Government that it has failed to comply with key aspects of the Agreement regarding access to its largely closed insurance sector (the so-called primary insurance sector). As a result, we have told the Japanese that they may not invoke those provisions of the Agreement that would otherwise have opened the third sector of the Japanese insurance market on January 1, 2001. It would be highly inappropriate for USTR's funding--which we use to secure export opportunities for all of America's workers and firms--to be reduced based on the urging of one company, regarding one issue, in a single sector of one foreign market. This is especially true given that the U.S. insurance industry is split over the issue and that USTR has taken strong steps just this month to hold Japan to its commitments under the Insurance Agreement. Moreover, the General Accounting Office will shortly be undertaking a review of the operation of the entire Insurance Agreement, including the disputed issue. In addition, at the request of interested Members, we have reconvened the interagency process to again review the matter. If enacted, the amendment introduced today would impair USTR's ability to reduce trade barriers around the world and to enforce the agreements we have already negotiated, including the Insurance Agreement itself. This Administration has a strong record of opening markets and enforcing our trade agreements. The Insurance Agreement is no exception. The Insurance Agreement already has provided enormous benefits to the U.S. insurance industry, and USTR has worked diligently to make sure that Japan abides by the commitments it has made. Sincerely, Charlene Barshefsky.

Mr. MOLLOHAN

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I would not hold myself out as an expert on EDA, but we do an awful lot of EDA projects in our district, unfortunately because we qualify under the criteria. Just standing here right now, I cannot think of one EDA project we have going where we could have gone to the Tennessee Valley Authority.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. That duplicated the authorization.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that he had these strong views about EDA before he came to the job. I just remember that. The gentleman mentioned the Tennessee Valley Authority and the Department of Agriculture as agencies one could go to who had duplicate programs with EDA. I would ask the gentleman, what were the other agencies?

Mr. MOLLOHAN

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

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to compliment the distinguished gentleman from Indiana for his work on this issue, which is poignantly important, as we saw so tragically here right close to home in the Capitol last week. Police officers are at risk, and his work is certainly appreciated by all of them across the country and all of us. I want to compliment him.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. McKinney).

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

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

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I just noticed from the chart that the gentlewoman is emphasizing the National Academy of Sciences in her presentation, which makes the point that after the failed 1990 census, this Congress asked the National Academy of Sciences, the most respected body that we call on time and time again to give us nonpartisan advice, we called upon them and asked them, how do we do the 2000 decennial census in a way that takes care of the problems that resulted in the 1990 census being a failure? The National Academy of Sciences came up with scientific sampling as the way to make sure that we counted everybody in this country. I just want to compliment the gentlewoman for her excellent work on this issue and think that this is the right starting point to emphasize that organization, which has such credibility in this country.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I want to take this opportunity first at the beginning of this general debate to compliment the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), our chairman, on the fine job he has done in putting together this bill. How I appreciate his willingness to consider my views and minority views on the issues as we have processed this legislation, and I want to take also an opportunity to commend our staff: Jim Kulikowski, Jennifer Miller, Mike Ringler, Cordia Strom and Janet Stormes with the Committee on Appropriations' majority, and Mark Murray, David Reich and Pat Schlueter with the minority, and Sally Gaines and Elizabeth Hall with my personal staff. They all have done an excellent job, worked tremendously hard on this bill and are indispensable to its success. Before discussing the bill I would like to take a moment to recognize the fine contributions of a very distinguished member of our subcommittee, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Skaggs), Mr. Chairman. The gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Skaggs) is one of our subcommittee's most active, involved members, focusing in particular on NOAA and on the international accounts, and in our subcommittee, as the entire Congress, he works in a true bipartisan fashion. He always strives to elevate the debate. The gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Skaggs) also acts very much according to his conscience, at times even pursuing issues beyond this body and into the courts. I have a great deal of respect for him, a sentiment that I know is shared by colleagues on both sides of the aisle, and just as the people of Colorado appreciate his hard work in regard to education, to the environment, to parks and to wilderness protection, we appreciate his service to this institution and his contributions to policy debate. So, Mr. Chairman, it is with real regret and fondest best wishes as we look to his retirement, we wish him and his family all the best in the years ahead and again appreciate his fine service and friendship to this institution. Mr. Chairman, there are a lot of things to like about this bill in addition to the contributions of the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Skaggs) to it. Few will find fault with the robust sums provided for the Department of Justice and law enforcement. I am particularly pleased with the funding level provided for community policing. The COPS program has been extraordinarily successful. It has thus far put 76,771 policemen on the beat. The President is to be applauded for his leadership in proposing the COPS program. His vision has paid dividends. Proof positive of this program's success lies in the fact that violent crime across this country is down. Some were initially skeptical of the ability of a program run from Washington to significantly impact local crime in a positive way. Some thought a better way was to send the money back to the States to let them decide how it would be best spent. Our subcommittee took these views into consideration and responded by providing, in addition to the COPS program, a block grant to the States to permit local planning and local decision-making. The local law enforcement block grant program is again funded in this bill, and I believe that the combination of these two programs coming from both sides of the aisle is an approach the Federal Government can be proud of in terms of helping States and localities fight crime. A number of Members have expressed interest in assuring that adequate funds are provided for juvenile delinquency and other prevention programs. As my colleagues are all well aware, last year we followed the course outlined in the bipartisan House-passed H.R. 1818, the Juvenile Crime Control and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1997. We have once again tried to follow this path by providing 125 million for the juvenile delinquency prevention block grant. Moving on to the Commerce Department, Mr. Chairman, I feel this bill in most instances deals fairly with commerce. The gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) has continued his support for such important initiatives as the Public Works Grant Program, the Manufacturing Extension Partnership and the scientific research conducted by the National Institutes of Standards and Technology. Additionally, this bill provides needed funding increases for the critical activities of the National Weather Service. Also in NOAA this bill provides an increase for coastal zone management grants and robust funding for such popular initiatives as navigation safety programs, marine sanctuaries and Sea Grant. However, there are several areas in the Commerce title of the bill that need to be improved. For example, this bill provides only 180 million for the ATP program, significantly less than the amount requested by the administration. Additionally, I regret that the mark of the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) only provides 43 million for new awards. I am hopeful that we can improve these numbers as this bill continues through the process. Additionally, only 21 million is provided for the public telecommunications facilities program, much less than is needed to help public radio and television stations convert to digital systems. And finally with respect to Commerce I would like to express my opposition to the language included in this bill with regard to the decennial census. I intend to offer an amendment later during consideration of this bill to address this issue, however I think it is important to note at this time that the President has indicated he would veto this bill over the census language. As well he should, Mr. Chairman. This language is dangerously flawed and runs the risk of sabotaging the decennial census. As we move forward, I sincerely hope we can avoid this issue being a major stumbling block to getting this bill signed. I believe the amendment I will offer represents a compromise that should be agreeable to all parties. With respect to United Nations, funds are provided for payment of arrearages to the United Nations subject to authorization. The subcommittee, under the leadership of the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), has been on the forefront of demanding reform at the United Nations. We have made some progress in that regard. With regard to funding for regulated agencies under our jurisdiction, I just want to mention two where I have strong views. First, I am very concerned with the large cuts the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) has proposed for the salaries and expenses accounts of the Small Business Administration. I should say at the same time, however, that I understand his frustration over the gimmicks employed by OMB and budget crafting process, and I hope that this message does not fall on deaf ears. Second, I must express sincere reservations in the strongest terms about the woefully inadequate funding provided for the Legal Services Corporation in this bill. One hundred forty-one million is not even close to what is needed to provide legal, civil-legal assistance for our most vulnerable citizens. I intend to offer an amendment later in the debate to address this deficiency in our bill, and as mentioned earlier during debate on the rule, my amendment will increase funding for Legal Services from 141 million to 250 million. Mr. Chairman, I want to take this occasion to further inform my colleagues that even my amendment will not provide sufficient funding for this vital program, and I intend to work with other Members hard in conference to improve this funding level even further, perhaps approaching the $300 million mark that is in the Senate bill, and that is closer to the mark that we ought to have. This list is not exhaustive, Mr. Chairman, but merely serves to highlight a few key areas of the bill, some areas of the bill where the bill is strong and some where we have a lot of work to do. Again I want to thank the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) for his cooperation and his consideration of minority views throughout the process. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Skaggs).