Hal Rogers

Mr. ROGERS

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, here we go again. This is an amendment to drastically cut the Economic Development Administration, and I strongly urge a ``no'' vote. We debated the issue of EDA on this bill last year and the year before and the year before, and on and on. Last year 328 Members of this body, a majority of Republicans and Democrats, voted resoundingly to support the work of the EDA and to reject this cut. I urge the House again to defeat the Hefley amendment. If we do not vote this amendment down, we will be depriving hard-hit communities in every State in this country of the vital assistance these programs provide. EDA gives our poorest urban and rural areas the tools to raise themselves up by their own bootstraps, to create new jobs, expand their local tax base, and leverage private investment. It gives them a hand, not a handout. If one's town is hard hit by sudden and severe job losses when a plant shuts down, EDA is the place to go. If one's community has been devastated by a natural disaster, like the recent floods this year in the Midwest, EDA is the place one can turn to. If one's district has suffered from cutbacks in the defense industry, EDA is the only Federal program dedicated to helping your community retool its economy. If my colleagues do not believe me, ask California. Critics of the program fail to recognize that the EDA has been reformed, reduced, and streamlined over the last 3 years. This bill cuts EDA funding by 15 percent below the current level. Due to the congressional oversight by both the authorizing committee of this body and the Committee on Appropriations, EDA's grants are truly targeted to the most distressed areas. The development and selection of projects has been moved out of Washington and back toward the local and State levels, and EDA's bureaucracy has been cut by over one-third in the last 2 years. In addition, since the vote last year, the House has continued to demonstrate its support for EDA programs. Our colleagues in the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure will soon approve an EDA reauthorization bill that reforms the programs and responds to the past criticisms of this program. Mr. Chairman, clearly, there are communities that do not need help. They have infrastructure, they have industry, they have access to education, and all the requirements for a healthy regional economy. Other areas, that must rely on us and EDA to help them cope with job loss and defense cuts and other economic disasters, need us. They are the ones that need our help. They are the ones who are turning to us for our vote. So I urge Members to do as they did last year and the year before and the year before by an overwhelming margin. Vote down this amendment.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on this amendment and all amendments thereto close in 20 minutes, and that the time be equally divided.

Mr. ROGERS. I would regret that. I would hope that we could proceed with the business of the House and cease the endless motions to rise and the like. I would hope that we can accommodate the Members and let everyone have a few minutes of time perhaps for other duties.

Mr. ROGERS

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, the glue that holds this body together is comity and fairness on both sides of the aisle. The gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders], in my opinion, has a legitimate complaint procedurally, about not being able to offer his amendment. In the spirit of fairness and comity, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders], be allowed to offer his amendment and that debate on the amendment be limited to 20 minutes, 10 per side.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, this is new law. This is a new procedure. We are trying to respond to the criticisms that LSC has had in the past that they did not have the authority nor the interest in debarring and taking away the contract of a grantee that violates the House-passed laws. So this is new. It does have teeth. It can be enforced and should be enforced, and we are going to insist that it be enforced. So I think that is of interest to everybody, particularly those who have been critical of LSC for not disciplining their own grantees, and debarring from further LSC activities a grantee who violates the House- passed rules. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. ROGERS

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the managers on the part of the House may have until midnight tonight, Thursday, September 25, 1997, to file a conference report on the bill (H.R. 2203), making appropriations for energy and water development for the fiscal year 1998, and for other purposes.

Mr. ROGERS

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from Maryland [Mrs. Morella].

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the bill through Page 70, line 7 be considered as read, printed in the Record and open to amendment at any point.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, we have inspected the amendment and have no objection.

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

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Bartlett].

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith].

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman].

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, the bill currently states that payment of U.N. arrearages is subject to passage of an authorization. If the Bartlett amendment fails, that will be the position of the House going into conference. It is my intention to press for the House position in conference.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman], the Chairman of the Committee on International Relations. (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ROGERS. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Maryland. Mr. Chairman, there is only one true constituency for reform at the U.N., and that is the United States Congress. For years many of us have argued that the U.N. is a bureaucracy smothered under the weight of inefficiency, that the United States pays too much and other countries pay too little, that the United States does not get reimbursed for expenditures in support of U.N. operations, that programs and offices continue indefinitely after their mission is obsolete, and on and on. For the past several years we have conditioned our current year assessments to the U.N. on achievement of reforms, and we have made progress, the establishment of an Inspector General as an example, the enactment of a no-growth budget by the U.N., and reductions in personnel, to name just a few. There appears to be one thing and one thing only that captures the attention of the U.N., and that is money. It is clear that we have captured the U.N.'s attention. The issue that is now the focus of debate at the U.N. is reform, from the proposals of the Secretary General to the proposals now being advocated by the United States representative largely at the urging of this Congress. We are at a crossroads. If we are willing to begin paying arrearages contingent upon the kinds of reform that are pending in the Helms- Gilman authorization bill, we stand a chance of obtaining the kinds of reforms that many of us have been arguing for for many years. If we are not willing to begin paying arrearages, we assure that reform will not happen and that the most significant chance we have had in recent history to achieve reform will go by the wayside. One of the changes we are seeking to make is to the very problem that the gentleman from Maryland complains about, that the United States is not adequately reimbursed for the in-kind contributions and support that we provide. The Helms-Gilman authorization bill, which must pass if the money for arrearages in this bill is to be released, requires that the United States seek credit or reimbursement for its in-kind contributions and support. I am not in disagreement with the gentleman from Maryland. We should be credited for our in-kind contributions. In the last Congress Republicans tried to enact a law to make that happen, and it was opposed by the administration. The language in this bill states that we will make a payment on arrearages, but only if from this point forward we obtain reimbursement. That is our position. We have a chance to achieve exactly what the gentleman from Maryland desires. Mr. Chairman, what this bill does is to provide first year funding for payment of arrearages at the level set by Congress, not by the U.N. or by the State Department, if and only if an authorization bill is passed that makes payment contingent upon a series of real and substantial reforms at the United Nations. No money, unless an authorization is passed that contains reforms, and no release of funds unless the administration certifies that those reforms have been achieved. This is our best shot at U.N. reform. I urge my colleagues to vote against the Bartlett amendment.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of title II be considered as read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any point.

Mr. ROGERS. The gentleman is, of course, entitled to request any information of the State Department that he sees fit. If it is helpful to him that I join him in his request, I would, of course, be willing to do so.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I am well aware of the gentleman's concerns on this issue, and he raises valid points. As the gentleman is aware, I have been working to improve the efficiency of the State Department, and this is another example where the State Department could do a better job. I am not aware of any information that indicates the magnitude of the problem.

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

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer].

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone].

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I am offering the amendment on behalf of our colleagues the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey] and the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] and, in addition, to address an issue of concern to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton]. The amendments are combined in this manager's amendment and provides $3 million for the National Ocean Service to address the problem of Pfiesteria and $1 million for the Nonpoint Source Pollution Program. This amendment has been worked on from the outset by the colleagues that I have mentioned, and they have put much time and effort into the proposal that we are offering here this evening. Mr. Chairman, I yield as much time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey].