Hal Rogers

Mr. ROGERS

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, at this time I will be the only speaker, and my intent is that the gentleman would use as much time as he desires, and then I would conclude with whatever remarks I have.

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

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.

Mr. ROGERS. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition. The provision that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano) proposes to strike has been a critical part of what we have been able to achieve thus far in bringing fiscal discipline and responsibility back to the United Nations. It is part of the overall approach the Congress has taken toward the U.N. since 1997, an approach that the administration has in turn adopted; that is, to establish zero nominal growth budgets at the United Nations and other international organizations. Then once those budgets have been adopted at the U.N., to insist on a discipline to live within the budget that they have adopted. Mr. Chairman, consider what this provision really does. Does it underfund the anticipated U.S. share of the U.N. regular budget? The answer is no. The bill contains the full $300 million for our U.N. assessment. Does the provision require that the U.S. reopen budget issues that the U.N. already has agreed upon? The answer is no. It accepts the budget that the U.N. adopted in December, even though that budget exceeded zero nominal growth, which is what I would have preferred. The provision that the amendment proposes to strike conditions only one-third of our dues on a simple certification by the State Department. They must certify to the Congress that the U.N. is living within the biennial budget that the U.N. members themselves adopted in December. In other words, any increase in the U.N. budget from this point forward should be accompanied by an equal offset in their spending, much the same as we are required to do here in the Congress. It is the same provision we carried in 1997, Mr. Chairman; the same one we carried in 1998; the same one we carried in 1999. It is a well- known U.S. policy and should not come as a surprise to anybody. In previous years, the State Department made these certifications and the U.S. paid its dues in full. No arrears were created as a result of this provision. Unless people at the U.N. are already planning to bust the current U.N. budget, which they agreed to only a few short months ago, the Department should have no problem making the certifications and paying the calendar year 2000 assessment in full. This exact, same amendment was defeated convincingly in the committee 18-34, 2 weeks ago. I urge that it be rejected again today.

Mr. ROGERS. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. ROGERS. I yield to the gentleman from California. (Mr. FILNER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate and thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray) for his devotion to this cause. This is a long-standing problem that is getting worse, and the gentleman has focused on this problem and devoted himself to trying to solve it. It is a vexing problem that crosses the international boundary line with Mexico and is a problem that has to be addressed really on both sides of the border, but the gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray) has indeed focused our attention on the problem. It is a matter that needs to be addressed; and this amendment, I think, will go a long way towards starting the effort to solve this long-standing problem. So I am very pleased to accept the amendment on our side as a beginning point for trying to solve this long-standing problem for the residents of the entire area around San Diego and the adjoining area in Mexico.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, reluctantly, I do make a point of order against the amendment because it is in violation of section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. The amendment would provide new budget authority in excess of the subcommittee suballocation made under 302(b) and is not permitted under section 302(f) of the Act. I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, before I make the point of order, let me say, the interest of the gentleman is appreciated, his long-term support of NOAA, but I must oppose the amendment. The bill provides for a whole host of coastal and ocean programs, including $25.5 million for the Marine Sanctuaries program, including $3 million for construction and maintenance, the same level as current year, with the exception of a one-time-only Senate project. Last year the bill included an enhancement of $8.6 million over the prior year. It also provides $12 million for the National Estuarine Research Reserve System and $59.2 million for the Coastal Zone Management Grant Program, the same level as in the current year. The bill provides $58 million for the Pacific salmon recovery efforts, subject to authorization, the same amount of funding in the current year. It provides an increase of $4.2 million over the current year for the West Coast Ground Fishery, including $2 million for a new beneficiary observer program and $2 million for stock assessments, almost doubling the program. The bill also provides $61.3 million for the National Sea Grant Program, an increase of $2 million over current year. What it does not include is a number of new unauthorized and undefined programs. But, overall, this is a very generous bill. We will work with the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr) and others as we go along to see what may be possible. With our tight spending constraints we are under, however, this is as far as we have been able to go at this time. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time. Point of Order

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the gentleman's amendment. It is important to remind ourselves that the amendment does not make further cuts in the budget of the FCC. It is intended to limit the funds spent by the Commission on media relations. Many in this Chamber questioned the involvement of the FCC in our debate over the Radio Broadcasting Preservation Act. Despite the FCC's efforts, that bill passed the House overwhelmingly by a vote of 274 to 118 back in April. Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentleman from Florida for his work and this amendment.

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

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I recognize the special problem the Commission faces, having funded a portion of the current year requirements with carryover funds. I would be happy to continue to work with the gentleman as the bill proceeds to ensure the necessary funding level for the Commission's important work.

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

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) is ranking member of the full committee and deals with these matters quite often. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman not agree that the way to establish a peace in Sierra Leone is through direct military assistance to Nigeria, the regional power, to establish the peace in Sierra Leone?

Mr. ROGERS

Mr. ROGERS. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is correct. I will work with the gentleman and others to see if there is some way we can find extra money for BEA. I realize the importance of it and that they are being squeezed by this funding level. So I will work with the gentleman to see if there is something we can do along the way. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ROGERS. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume to note that I am joined in opposition by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) of the Committee on International Relations, and by the chairman of the Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), in urging that we reject the amendment.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I reluctantly rise to oppose the gentleman's amendment, well-intentioned as it is. He wants to increase the funding for economic and statistical analysis at the Commerce Department by $4.35 million. I will be happy to work with the gentleman as we go through the process in conference with the Senate and further, but in the process this amendment would slash double that amount from the State Department's international exchange program. The funding level in the bill for exchanges provides only for wage and price increases, so any reduction to the level in the bill would be a cut into the meat of these programs, which include the Fulbright Scholarship Program and the International Visitor Program. Exchanges like these, Mr. Chairman, foster the international dialogue that is critical to American leadership in the world and to long-term peaceful and productive relations with other countries. Exchange programs are a vital tool to advance our foreign economic and security policies, and this amendment would cut them to below a freeze level. I do appreciate the gentleman's concerns about the economic and statistical programs of the Commerce Department, but this bill already provides funding for those programs at the current year level, which includes an increase over last year's for an initiative to update and improve statistical measurement of the U.S. economy and the measurement of international transactions. In addition, the Department of Commerce will be able to submit a reprogramming for additional funding for these programs if they feel it necessary. I would be happy to work with the gentleman to address his concerns, and the concerns of all of us, as we continue through the process; but the proposed offset would do real damage to the exchange program at State; and, therefore, I am constrained to urge that we reject this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano).

Mr. ROGERS

Mr. ROGERS. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word for the purpose of entering into a colloquy with the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton).

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's concerns. This is an issue that the Judiciary has been struggling with for a number of years. It gets worse. It is becoming more widespread. As the number of agencies that require professional expertise grows, we hear the same problem in connection with the SEC, FCC, the FBI, all agencies that hire lawyers and professional experts. We have to compete with the private sector, but we do not have the resources to match those salaries dollar for dollar, as the gentleman has so adequately pointed out. So we will work with the gentleman on this issue as we work through the process, hoping we can find some solution.