Alan Mollohan

Mr. MOLLOHAN

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I would tell the gentleman, no. I thank the majority. We agree with it, and appreciate the opportunity to work it out. We are glad that we have worked it out, and look forward to further debate on the bill.

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

Mr. MOLLOHAN

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Is the gentleman not advancing the GAO position here? You are suggesting the UN owes us for in-kind contributions with regard to these operations, is that correct?

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding I can move to strike the last word and get 5 minutes under the agreement.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. The chairman has reserved his time. The chairman can yield his time to Mr. Gilman.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I join the gentleman from Kentucky, Chairman Rogers, in opposition to this amendment. I think it is really ill-timed and in a way comes out of the blue. For a number of years now, this committee and the chairman particularly has been at the forefront of trying to effect reforms in the United Nations through the only way really the United States Congress can effectively do that, through the appropriations process. We have been extremely effective at doing that, I think, and ratcheting up the pain on the United Nations to the point that we have seen a lot of good responsiveness from them. This year, the gentleman who offers the amendment cited Mr. Dole's request for a GAO study of this. I don't know about Senator Dole's request for a study and I have not seen the GAO study, but I do know the Senator has been very active as a part of a working group to put together a compromise with regard to UN arrearages, which is in place and which the authorizing committee is considering as we speak. This bill funds the first $100 million of that compromise that the authorizing committee is considering. Mr. Chairman, I would hope that this body would not favorably consider this amendment, because, as I say, it would be very ill-timed to take away the real incentive that we have to make the authorizing language work, and that is the $100 million, the first down payment on the arrearage. It is a phased payment, this is the first down payment, and it would be a real mistake to not fulfill that part of the obligation because the UN is being responsive to this approach.

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

Mr. MOLLOHAN

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Washington [Mr. McDermott]. (Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Edwards].

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey].

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, no objection.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi]. (Ms. PELOSI asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks and to include extraneous material.)

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I would point out that the authority for the Legal Services Corporation is statutory in nature, passed by the Congress, which Congress has authority constitutionally to do. I would just like to again reassure Members who are concerned about the various Legal Services grantees across the Nation violating, to the extent it happens, restrictions have been put in the bill. We are putting in sanctions. We are reaffirming the limitation on spending, so Legal Services Corporations cannot participate in the offensive activities. Then we are also adding sanctions, debarment sanctions, and sanctions against grantees competing for future grants where there have been violations. I simply say that because I sense that perhaps the gentleman is not aware of that, and I want to assure the gentleman that the chairman and the committee have been vigilant about trying to do that.

Mr. MOLLOHAN

Mr. MOLLOHAN. And we consider Mr. Hyde's amendment and not vote on it until tomorrow?

Mr. MOLLOHAN. We would consider Mr. Hyde's amendment tonight.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would continue to yield, it is my understanding that after general debate the gentleman from Kentucky will be asking unanimous consent to pass over Legal Services?

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, we have discussed this. I think it is a good way to proceed tonight, and I have no objection.

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

Mr. MOLLOHAN

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I understood that we were going to accept this amendment without debating it. In the process of accepting the amendment for the purposes of the bill being considered on the floor here today, I just want it understood that all of the characterizations that the gentleman has made are not agreed to in the process of our accepting the amendment.

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

Mr. MOLLOHAN

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Sawyer]. [Mr. SAWYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Dixon], a distinguished member of the subcommittee.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers], the distinguished chairman, for his kind remarks. I want to echo my remarks from the full committee markup regarding the fine job that our chairman has done on this bill. Chairman Rogers characteristically has done an exemplary job with regard to this bill. He has worked diligently, he has taken excellent testimony from the agencies, from outside witnesses, and he has put together a document at the same time, including the concerns of the minority and certainly our input. We are very appreciative of that attitude and that way of proceeding and think it is very constructive and thank him for it. I also want to commend at the beginning the fine work and hard work of some awfully good staff, Mr. Chairman. First of all, I want to note the excellent work that two members of my personal staff have done, Liz Whyte and Sally Gaines. I appreciate their tireless efforts throughout the fiscal year 1998 appropriations bill. It has been tremendous and the minority, we sometimes we work harder because we have less staff and they have done a tremendous job, both of my personal staff, and I am very appreciative. Likewise, I am especially appreciative to the minority appropriations staff, Mark Murray, David Reich, and Pat Schlueter, for the excellent job they likewise have done in conjunction with the hard working committee staff, Jim Kulikowski, Therese McAuliffe, Jennifer Miller, Mike Ringler, and Jane Weisman. The committee is certainly well served by all these dedicated staff personnel. Mr. Chairman, as the chairman has indicated in his remarks, much of which I associate myself with, there are a lot of things to like about this bill. Few will find fault with the robust funds that have been provided for the Department of Justice and law enforcement in general. Funds are provided in excess of those requested by the administration in many accounts. Clearly law enforcement is an important priority of the Congress. It is an important priority of this administration, it is an important priority of the Nation, and the bill certainly rises to the occasion. Members will be pleased to know that generous increases are provided over fiscal year 1997 spending levels for the FBI, for U.S. attorneys, for the U.S. Marshal Service, and for the Immigration and Naturalization Service. We have doubled the administration's requests for border patrol agents and provided more funds than requested by the President for the Drug Enforcement Administration. Such funds will enable us to continue our important work in combating terrorism, illicit drug trafficking, and illegal immigration. Of particular note with regard to curbing the flow of illicit drugs into the United States, funds are provided for both a Southwest border initiative and a Caribbean initiative. In the area of State and local enforcement, I am pleased to report that full funding is provided for the COPS Program and the Byrne grant program. We see no debate on those issues on the floor this year. Members of this committee will also be pleased to know the Violence Against Women's Act Program is funded above the President's request in this bill. I am happy to note that particular focus has been given to funding for juvenile justice delinquency prevention programs. We have provided a small increase above the President's request for juvenile crime prevention programs; $300 million has been provided for a new block grant program and funds for the local law enforcement block grant program are also included. With respect to our international commitments, this bill represents the beginning of a bipartisan effort to eliminate our U.N. arrearages, and I am hopeful we will continue on this track in the future. I know there are some amendments addressing this issue. I hope that they are not seriously entertained by the Congress and that they are defeated. Also, I want to mention that this bill provides increases over fiscal year 1997 for a number of State Department operating accounts. Lastly, I feel that this bill in most instances deals fairly with the Commerce Department. The chairman has continued his commitment to such important programs as the public works grant program, PTFP, manufacturing extension partnership program, trade adjustment assistance, and the International Trade Administration. Additionally, this bill provides more than the administration's request for the critical missions of the National Weather Service, being responsive to the concerns that were expressed during markup and during the summer and spring about the National Weather Service and its ability to perform its mission. As pleased as I am with the funding levels, Mr. Chairman, for these programs that I have just mentioned, I want my colleagues to understand that this bill, like everything else, is not perfect. There are several issues which I would like to improve. I wanted to mention just a few of those that stand out. First, although this bill provides more than the administration has requested for the 2000 census, I am deeply concerned with the restrictions placed on sampling, the most contentious issue in this bill, and restrictions on the Census Bureau in general. The gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays] and I plan to offer an amendment on this issue, which I hope my colleagues from both sides of the aisle will consider supporting. Sampling is the solution that the National Academy of Sciences has come up with to speak to the concerns expressed by many Members of this body after the 1990 census, when we were expressing doubts about the accuracy of the census. We asked experts to look at this issue and to recommend to the Congress how we could make the census more accurate, how we could count more people, how we could include more of the population in the process, and the answer was sampling. Sampling is not new in the census process. It has been used for a number of the censuses, I am advised going back some 30 years, but the sophistication of the process and the extent of incorporating it into the census would be new, and the Census Bureau, regardless of what we do with sending it to the courts or sending it to the authorizers for legislative disposition of the issue of sampling, we need to be able to plan to incorporate sampling in the process. Under the language in the bill, we cannot do that because of the delays inherent in the bill language. We would be so far into the process that the Census Bureau could not bring sampling into the census taking. We need to fix that, and the Mollohan-Shays amendment does it. If the Mollohan-Shays amendment is not adopted, Mr. Chairman, the President will likely veto this bill. This bill provides $185 million for the advanced technology program. While I am pleased that the chairman is providing some funding, it still is significantly below what was requested by the administration, and I hope we can increase that funding as time goes on. Finally, Mr. Chairman, I regret that a 50 percent reduction was made to the funding for the Legal Services Corporation. As many know, the Legal Services Corporation is the only place many impoverished individuals in our Nation can turn to in times of legal need. The funding level provided in this bill will ensure that many, many of our most vulnerable citizens will not have legal representation in times of crisis. That is unacceptable in America. I plan to offer an amendment later in the debate to restore $190 million in funding to this vital agency. We are going to destroy the language in the bill and replace it with the language in my amendment. This will also be a bipartisan amendment, Mr. Chairman. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox], who was a cosponsor of the amendment last year to restore funds to Legal Services, will also be the cosponsor on this bipartisan amendment. This list is not exhaustive, but highlights a number of areas which I hope can improve the bill as it proceeds. I want to thank the chairman for his cooperation, leadership, good faith efforts, and responsiveness to our concerns. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MOLLOHAN

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for yielding this time to me. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], and the distinguished ranking member, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley], for their fair consideration of the issues and for this rule. I am pleased that the Committee on Rules recommended an open rule for consideration of this bill that allows all Members on both sides of the aisle the opportunity to debate these serious issues thoroughly. Although this rule self-executes the Hastert amendment related to judicial review of the 2000 census, it also makes in order a substitute to be offered by myself and the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays]. While I am strongly opposed to the Hastert language, I appreciate the Rules Committee making the Mollohan-Shays amendment in order and providing for such a generous time for debate. Let me also thank my chairman, the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers] for supporting my request for the Committee on Rules. It is in keeping with his overall constructive approach to legislating. I will not address the details of the sampling amendment at this time; however, I do want to let my colleagues know that both Chairman Rogers and I worked diligently in good faith to try to reach an acceptable compromise on this issue. However, in the end we were unable to reach an agreement, and the Hastert language has at least two fatal flaws which have forced us to offer this substitute Mollohan-Shays amendment. It is important to note that the President's senior advisers will recommend that he veto this bill if it is passed in its current form. The new fiscal year is almost upon us, Mr. Speaker, and it is time that we pass this bill and send it to the President for his signature. If the Mollohan-Shays amendment is not adopted, we jeopardize the future of all funding provided in this important measure. The rule before us today also allows for a consideration of an additional amendment that I, along with the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox], intend to offer. It will increase funding for Legal Services by $109 million, and I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. It is very similar to the one that was proposed and adopted last year. In conclusion, this is a fair rule which allows for an open debate on the merits of sampling on the floor, and other important issues, and I urge my colleagues to support the rule, Mr. Speaker.