[House Hearing, 106 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
DEPARTMENTS OF COMMERCE, JUSTICE, AND
STATE, THE JUDICIARY, AND RELATED
AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2000
_______________________________________________________________________
HEARINGS
BEFORE A
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
________
SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE DEPARTMENTS OF COMMERCE, JUSTICE, AND STATE, THE
JUDICIARY, AND RELATED AGENCIES
HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky, Chairman
JIM KOLBE, Arizona JOSE E. SERRANO, New York
CHARLES H. TAYLOR, North Carolina JULIAN C. DIXON, California
RALPH REGULA, Ohio ALAN B. MOLLOHAN, West Virginia
TOM LATHAM, Iowa LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD, California
DAN MILLER, Florida
ZACH WAMP, Tennessee
NOTE: Under Committee Rules, Mr. Young, as Chairman of the Full
Committee, and Mr. Obey, as Ranking Minority Member of the Full
Committee, are authorized to sit as Members of all Subcommittees.
Jim Kulikowski, Jennifer Miller, Mike Ringler, and Cordia Strom,
Subcommittee Staff
________
PART 9
TESTIMONY OF MEMBERS OF CONGRESS AND OTHER
INTERESTED INDIVIDUALS AND ORGANIZATIONS
________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
57-159 WASHINGTON : 1999
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
C. W. BILL YOUNG, Florida, Chairman
RALPH REGULA, Ohio DAVID R. OBEY, Wisconsin
JERRY LEWIS, California JOHN P. MURTHA, Pennsylvania
JOHN EDWARD PORTER, Illinois NORMAN D. DICKS, Washington
HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky MARTIN OLAV SABO, Minnesota
JOE SKEEN, New Mexico JULIAN C. DIXON, California
FRANK R. WOLF, Virginia STENY H. HOYER, Maryland
TOM DeLAY, Texas ALAN B. MOLLOHAN, West Virginia
JIM KOLBE, Arizona MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio
RON PACKARD, California NANCY PELOSI, California
SONNY CALLAHAN, Alabama PETER J. VISCLOSKY, Indiana
JAMES T. WALSH, New York NITA M. LOWEY, New York
CHARLES H. TAYLOR, North Carolina JOSE E. SERRANO, New York
DAVID L. HOBSON, Ohio ROSA L. DeLAURO, Connecticut
ERNEST J. ISTOOK, Jr., Oklahoma JAMES P. MORAN, Virginia
HENRY BONILLA, Texas JOHN W. OLVER, Massachusetts
JOE KNOLLENBERG, Michigan ED PASTOR, Arizona
DAN MILLER, Florida CARRIE P. MEEK, Florida
JAY DICKEY, Arkansas DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina
JACK KINGSTON, Georgia CHET EDWARDS, Texas
RODNEY P. FRELINGHUYSEN, New Jersey ROBERT E. ``BUD'' CRAMER, Jr.,
ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi Alabama
MICHAEL P. FORBES, New York JAMES E. CLYBURN, South Carolina
GEORGE R. NETHERCUTT, Jr., MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York
Washington LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD, California
RANDY ``DUKE'' CUNNINGHAM, SAM FARR, California
California JESSE L. JACKSON, Jr., Illinois
TODD TIAHRT, Kansas CAROLYN C. KILPATRICK, Michigan
ZACH WAMP, Tennessee ALLEN BOYD, Florida
TOM LATHAM, Iowa
ANNE M. NORTHUP, Kentucky
ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama
JO ANN EMERSON, Missouri
JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire
KAY GRANGER, Texas
JOHN E. PETERSON, Pennsylvania
James W. Dyer, Clerk and Staff Director
(ii)
DEPARTMENTS OF COMMERCE, JUSTICE, AND STATE, THE JUDICIARY, AND RELATED
AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2000
----------
TESTIMONY OF MEMBERS OF CONGRESS AND OTHER INTERESTED INDIVIDUALS AND
ORGANIZATIONS
----------
THURSDAY, APRIL 15, 1999
SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
WITNESS
HON. CHARLES F. BASS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
NEW HAMPSHIRE
Mr. Rogers. The Committee will come to order.
We will now commence the hearing at which individual
Members of Congress will present their views on various aspects
of the administration's budget request for fiscal year 2000.
Your statements will be made a part of the record and we
hope you can summarize and keep your remarks within the 5-
minute frame. I think the first member on the schedule is the
gentleman from New Hampshire, Mr. Bass.
Welcome.
Mr. Bass. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I am glad to be here, and thank you for giving me the
opportunity to testify and I assure you that I will not take 5
minutes.
I am here to testify in favor of funding for a program
which was passed in a bill last year. The program is called the
Sex Offender Management Assistance Program. As you know, back
in the 105th and 104th Congresses we passed the Child
Protection Sexual Predator Punishment Act, and, Megan's Law,
which required that local communities establish procedures for
notification, publication of the names and addresses of sex
offenders.
And there was a provision in the law that, in essence, says
that if you fail to comply with the provisions of the law you
could lose up to 10 percent in Byrne program funds for your
state.
Now, a lot of states have been attempting to comply with
this very worthwhile and excellent law, Megan's Law, but they
have run into some expenses. There has been the legislative
process, of course, but then after that the problems of
implementation on a community by community basis.
I was able to get this little program authorized last year
at $25 million for fiscal year 1999 and 2000. I would urge the
Committee to consider authorizing this program for this fiscal
year.
For one reason it is the last year that the program is
authorized so that if you do not authorize any money this year,
I will have to go back for reauthorization. At that point, we
will want to reexamine the state of the implementation of
Megan's Law to ensure that these resources are still needed.
I would point out that Megan's Law is a great law but it is
indirectly, at least, an unfunded Federal mandate in that you
do suffer a penalty if you fail to spend the additional
resources required by Federal law to comply with Megan's Law.
I would hope that the Committee would consider giving this
small block grant program a chance to have funds appropriated
so that local communities all over the country can comply with
Megan's Law smoothly, equitably and in such a fashion so that
taxpayers at a local level are not unduly affected by this law.
So, I will end with that and answer any questions.
Mr. Rogers. Well, we certainly appreciate your support of
this law. And we will certainly give it very due consideration
for funding. We do not have our allocation yet, and do not know
where we are going to get some money. We know we are going to
be hurting for certain, but certainly this is on our list.
Mr. Bass. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and as a member of the
Budget Committee I feel your pain. [Laughter.]
Mr. Rogers. Well, some people say that you caused our pain.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Bass. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Congressman Bass.
[The information follows:]
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Visclosky.
----------
Thursday, April 15, 1999.
COPS PROGRAMS
WITNESS
HON. PETER J. VISCLOSKY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
INDIANA
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Visclosky, welcome. We will make your
statement a part of the record, and, we would welcome your
summary.
Mr. Visclosky. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Serrano is here simply to receive a portion of the
monies allocated to Mr. Dickey and I would be grateful for
that. [Laughter.]
Mr. Chairman, in all seriousness, you and the Subcommittee
were extremely responsible and extremely last year in fully
funding the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Program which was a
new program that is now up and running. And the administration
has put in a request for an additional $25 million and,
obviously, I am here, Mr. LoBiondo, I am sure will be
testifying before you, to support that request.
The other request before you is for a $9.3 million earmark
for the Northwest Indiana Anti-Crime Information System. One of
the communities I represent, Gary, Indiana, while we have made
great progress in reducing the homicide rate by 28 percent in
the last 4 years, still leads the nation in per capita
homicides.
The problem we are experiencing is we have a task force
from the sheriff department and other communities engaged in
operations not only in Gary but other communities and the
inability during operations for many of these departments to
communicate with each other as far as needs and backups. And we
would appreciate the committee's consideration as far as the
earmark.
Mr. Rogers. Well, first off, Mr. Visclosky, I want to
congratulate you and thank you for your initiative on the
Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act. You were the introducer
of the Act and we salute you. We thought it was so worthy, that
we fully funded that this current year and we will continue to
support that. That is a wonderful idea that you had.
On the other aspect that you have testified about, there
are, as you know, administrative grants that they can apply
for. The grants program that this subcommittee approved and
appropriated money for is in the balance of the COPS Program.
So, I would encourage you, pending this proposal that you
have, while you pursue this, I would also encourage them to
pursue a grant administratively through the Department of
Justice for the equipment that you are desperate for,
understandably.
At any rate, we will work with you and do all we can to
help you.
Mr. Visclosky. I appreciate that very much, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you.
[The information follows:]
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Gilchrest.
Mr. Gilchrest. I thought Mr. Dickey was next.
Mr. Rogers. We are trying to put him off as long as we can.
Mr. Gilchrest. I do not blame you then, Mr. Chairman.
----------
Thursday, April 15, 1999.
NOAA CHESAPEAKE BAY RESEARCH PROGRAM, OYSTER DISEASE RESEARCH AND
HARMFUL ALGAE BLOOMS, SUSQUEHANNA RIVER BASIN FLOOD FORECAST AND
WARNING SYSTEM AND THE NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARY PROGRAM
WITNESS
HON. WAYNE GILCHREST, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
MARYLAND
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Rogers. We will make your statement a part of the
record and invite you to summarize it.
Mr. Gilchrest. All right.
I have 5 critical areas. One of them is the NOAA Chesapeake
Bay Research Program. This is interconnected with the
Chesapeake Bay Program which started about 20 years ago to
restore the Chesapeake Bay to its vibrancy as far as a
fisheries industry is concerned and an enormous generator of
recreational dollars.
It is $1.89 million and it has been very successful over
the last 20 years. It provides not only the scientists with the
kind of information that they need to restore the Bay and
reduce the pollution and nutrients and bring back the health of
the fisheries, but it provides valuable, easily accessible
information to local and elected officials so that they can
more carefully manage the growth in the region and the
watershed around the Chesapeake Bay.
Oyster disease research, $3 million. And I would like to
say, Mr. Chairman, compared to the rest of the Federal budget,
when we put these few dollars into these programs, the enormous
benefits that result are pretty incredible.
Oyster disease. We have had two problems with diseases
called MSX and dermal. These two diseases likely came in on
ballast water about 50 years ago and they have been persistent
ever since.
One of the problems with our oysters that we have
discovered is that they can resist these diseases if they are
in a healthy procreation state. To be in a healthy procreation
state they have to be restored to the way they used to be when
John Smith came here, and that is, in large piles.
When you put them in large piles in their natural state as
opposed to dredging along the bottom, the procreation rate and
the health of the oyster is changed for the better
significantly. This came as a result of all of the research
that has been going on for a number of years.
The other thing is that if you have a healthy state of
oysters in the Bay along with a number of other filter-feeders,
certain kinds of fish, clams and things like that, they filter
out an enormous number of nutrients that come into the Bay.
And one last comment on oyster research. About 30 percent
of the overload of nutrients in the Chesapeake Bay comes from
air deposition: Automobiles, power plants and things like that.
And, so, you have more nutrients coming into the Bay, not to
mention what comes in on the land, and you have less of the
natural process being used to filter out these nutrients. So,
things tend to get a little worse and a little worse and a
little worse and so on.
But oyster disease, this oyster disease research money is a
small amount of money but it goes an awful long way.
The other thing, number three, is harmful algae blooms. You
have probably heard over the last couple of years about this
thing called pfisteria, which is a tiny little microorganism
which has been around, who knows, 300 million years and it has
23 different life cycles.
One of the life cycles which very rarely has erupted on
Planet Earth, let alone the Chesapeake Bay, is a toxic
lifestyle, but a toxic lifestyle that comes about as a result
of certain conditions: High nutrients, warm shallow water with
a brackish nature to it.
And not only is pfisteria bad for fish because it can kill
tens of thousands--in North Carolina, it literally killed about
a billion menhaden--and it has killed tens of thousands in the
Chesapeake Bay.
The other thing is pfisteria is dangerous to people. If you
happen to be in the water at the time that it is in its toxic
stage, you can have pretty severe neurological problems that
are persistent. So, we are asking for $17.5 million there.
The Susquehanna River Basin Flood Forecast and Warning
System is a system of several States, Pennsylvania, New Jersey,
Maryland, and it was created about 15 years ago because the
Susquehanna River has a tendency because of the geography of
its location, high mountainous region and a number of rain
events, mixed with snow events, it is one of the most dangerous
flooded areas in the country.
And, so, this is an early warning system for residents that
live along the river to tell them when the potential for a
flood is. You might have three feet of snow on the ground in
Pennsylvania and it could be 25 or 30 degrees and then a few
days later you might have two or three inches of rain and all
of a sudden this huge amount of water comes right down that
narrow channel and it is a way of predicting what nature is
going to do.
The last one is number five, National Marine Sanctuary
Program. This is a program that has two very positive--actually
everything I am saying here this morning, I am only bringing up
the positive things of these programs--two really very positive
things, the National Marine Sanctuary Program, and they are
around the country, whether it is the Atlantic, the Gulf of
Mexico or the coastal areas of California.
One is that it is like a water national wildlife refuge. It
is a place for the life of the sea to have some type of
sanctuary, where there is an effort to make the water pristine
and clean and that marine ecosystem benefit from it.
The other thing is marine sanctuaries, obviously, are along
the coastal areas of the United States. And in an economic
sense, 75 percent of the harvestable, commercial fish spawn in
the areas of marine sanctuaries. So, from the benefit of a
fisheries perspective, an economic perspective, and an
environmental perspective for the marine ecosystem that is also
a positive program.
That is all I have, Mr. Chairman, and the gentleman from
New York, and I appreciate your time.
Mr. Rogers. Well, this Subcommittee, as you know, has been
supportive of all 5 of these programs.
Mr. Gilchrest. Yes, sir.
Mr. Rogers. And have funded all 5 of your targeted
programs. And I see no reason why we would want to stop now.
You have been very persistent and persuasive----
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you.
Mr. Rogers [continuing]. In support of these matters and a
lot of what we have done has been due to your efforts. So, you
are very diligent and effective.
Mr. Gilchrest. Well, thank you very much and Mr. Serrano.
Mr. Serrano. Any forecast on the crab season this year?
Mr. Gilchrest. Unfortunately, the crab season seems to have
dropped and the forecast is that it is going go be minimal. But
I would, if the gentleman requests, make sure we get a bushel
of crabs in here. [Laughter.]
Mr. Serrano. I will take that when I advise the chairman on
your appropriation.
Mr. Gilchrest. Sometimes during the appropriations process
we will get a bushel of crabs up here.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Mr. Gilchrest.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The information follows:]
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Cramer.
----------
Thursday, April 15, 1999.
CHILDREN'S ADVOCACY CENTER PROGRAMS
WITNESS
HON. BUD CRAMER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ALABAMA
Mr. Cramer. Good morning, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Rogers. You are recognized. We will place your
statement in the record and if you would like to summarize it
within 5 minutes, we would appreciate it.
Mr. Cramer. I will do it within 5 minutes for sure and
perhaps even briefer than that. Mr. Ranking Member, welcome to
the Committee again, formally, though I have welcomed you to
the Committee in the past.
I am glad to be back again to talk about the Children's
Advocacy Center Programs, Mr. Chairman. And I have with me
Nancy Chandler, back here, who is the Executive Director from
Memphis, Tennessee, whose office is now in Washington, D.C. as
a result of the funding that this Committee has given to this
wonderful national network organization.
We have come a long way since we first obtained funding
from this Committee and for the Ranking Member's benefit, these
programs are child-abuse intervention programs. I was District
Attorney in my prior political life and we, in the system, the
child protective services system, we in the law enforcement or
criminal justice system, had kids coming through the system
that were having to be bounced from one agency to another. I
was interviewing kids on the 4th floor of the District
Attorney's office of a 10-story tall building in my moderate-
sized city there in North Alabama.
And we said, wait a minute. This 9-year old has got to go
to court on the civil side, maybe on the criminal side, as
well, in order to be rescued? And then mental health services
did not exist, medical services did not exist.
And we decided that we needed a one-stop service center
where the social workers, the prosecutors, the police, be it
sheriffs, be it city police, could leave where they work and
work together and train together to develop expertise about
what kids were saying. And then, in some cases, more
importantly, what to do with them or what to do with the
families that were torn apart by this kind of abuse?
So, we started off and are mainly still a child abuse
intervention program. We started with a pilot program there in
North Alabama. Now, we have at least 400 of these programs that
exist around the country.
In New York, alone, I visited the programs in Manhattan, in
the Bronx, in Brooklyn, as well. In Kentucky we have a program
in Louisville, a program in Lexington. We have done training
programs in Kentucky, as well, and in Alabama, a State that
does not have many resources, we have got 17 of the programs
that exist.
In 1992, we were a membership organization and we had 22
programs that were members and now we have 200 programs that
are full members, 100 associate members.
In the past year, though, we have come a long way. The
Congressional Spouses have adopted this program as their
principle program for the next year. The District of Columbia
finally opened a Children's Advocacy Center, but we are working
on a firehouse--I was talking to the new Mayor yesterday--a
historic firehouse over here, across the hill in front of the
Hyatt Regency. It would be a perfect location for an operating
District of Columbia Children's Advocacy Center on the first
floor, and then on the second and third floors our national
headquarters, as well.
The private sector mainly supports these programs as they
exist around the country. So, at a time when the public
agencies are overwhelmed with these cases, the private sector
joins with the public sector to help fund and create a place
and maintain a budget for these programs.
This past year, we intervened with 54,000 children around
the country. So, we think we are doing the kind of job that
makes sense.
We enjoyed $5.5 million in funding for last year. We are
asking to be considered for $6.5 million next year. Why an
increase during the still tough budget times? That is because
the numbers have grown in our program and I think that we have
come to the table with private sector support that would
justify these figures.
By the way, Mr. Chairman, the ``Barney'' children's TV
show, they are doing a 2-year road tour where Barney and
Company goes out and has concert performances around the
country. They have adopted this program as the program that
they will endorse. And they will create a little video that
will be used in the Center saying Barney wants kids to talk
about bad things that happen.
They are going to come into D.C. hopefully at this historic
fire center during the next several months when they kick this
tour off. And with the Congressional Spouses they are going to
have a ribbon cutting there and try to encourage the private
sector to do more to help these programs.
So, I think they are remarkable programs that are deserving
of the support, still deserving of the support of this
committee and maybe a little increase in funding. But most
importantly, on behalf of this national network organization, I
want to thank this committee, the staff of the committee as
well for the support and the reception that we have been given
over the years.
And I hope that we have returned that kind of opportunity
by creating a bigger network of programs that are rescuing kids
and making a difference in the lives of children and families
all over the country.
Mr. Rogers. The gentleman certainly has been a champion of
this program, and he is the reason why this Subcommittee has
seen fit to fund the program in the past. And it has now proven
itself, as you have said, and the problem that we have, of
course, is that we do not have any money.
In fact, we are going to have less than last year it looks
like. So, any increases for anything is going to have to really
be extraordinary. But, we are very well aware of the success of
what you and the program are doing.
Mr. Cramer. Thank you.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you.
[The information follows:]
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Dickey.
----------
Thursday, April 15, 1999.
SMALL BUSINESS ENTREPRENEURS AND EXCESSES BY THE EEOC
WITNESS
HON. JAY DICKEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
ARKANSAS
Mr. Rogers. We will make your written statement a part of
the record, and we encourage you to be brief.
Mr. Dickey. Are you talking to me? [Laughter.]
I want to thank the Chairman for allowing me to come today
and also for the colloquy that we had on the floor last year. I
am here on behalf of small business persons all over the United
States. And I want to give three examples of how the EEOC is
terrorizing small business even if they have not done it
actually, it is the fear that comes and the perception that
comes from three different circumstances.
The first is in Joe's Stone Crab in Miami Beach. It has
been owned for 85 years by a minority family. It has had
diversity practices long before it was required by law. It is
owned by a female. It has 22 percent female employees. But
their waiters, because they carry heavy trays of food long
distances, have been male.
And, so, the EEOC comes in without a complaint, without
anybody complaining, without the 300-day rule--that is
required--being complied with, and files a complaint because
the ladies were not there. Now, they have hired ladies since
that time.
They have to carry the trays on their arms and their
shoulders. And there is going to be, obviously, some injury to
their spine from doing this. But they are complying. They have
had to give over their hiring practices to the court.
And, so, where they used to advertise by word of mouth,
they now have to spend $125,000 on each application day to
notify people of the openings that are available. They have had
fewer than 22 percent people apply, who are female. So, what I
am saying is that this notification requirement does not stop
what is happening with this company.
They have spent over $1 million and 8 years of their time
with this investigation. They have a solid reputation but it
has been soiled a great deal by accusations that they are
guilty of discrimination. The court found Joe's Stone Crab
guilty of discrimination, even though it is a civil action.
They have received bad publicity. After the publicity of
having to notify of hiring practices and everything else, they
are still going.
Two other companies I would like to mention are Lily Rubin,
which is a clothing store. This is not in my statement. This is
an addition. Lily Rubin is a clothing store that used to be
nationally recognized.
The EEOC came in without a complaint and specified that
they wanted men in the dressing rooms where ladies had been
before. There had not been any men employees. This company
fought it and fought it and fought it and finally just gave in
and went bankrupt.
There is another company, a Korean company in Chicago that
had a cleaning business. And it was quite successful. The EEOC
came in and said, well, you are hiring only Koreans. They are
all minimum wage people. In their attempt to try to hire and
comply with all of the EEOC's regulations, they spent $200,000
in litigation expenses. They could not comply because the work
force was not there, and they went bankrupt because they could
not face that issue.
One last thing that I want to mention is the Attorney
General for the State of Florida. He is a Democrat. People have
described him as liberal and/or a moderate liberal. He had a
situation where the EEOC came in because of a complaint. A
black female attorney said that the blacks were getting paid
less and had more conditions put on them than the whites in the
attorney section of the Attorney General's Office.
The Attorney General then went in to complete an
investigation and found that out of all the State agencies they
were complying more than any of the others with this particular
practice, but this did not stop the EEOC.
They continued the process. They continued to say that
there had been discrimination. Failing, my point is, just
failing to admit that they were at fault. It is an obsessive
drive that they seem to have in all of these instances.
When the EEOC and the Attorney General's office had one of
their conciliatory hearings, the EEOC refused to send anyone of
authority. When asked why somebody of stature was not there
with the clerical person, they said the investigator refused to
summon a supervisor to the meeting. When a supervisor was
requested, the EEOC representative stated that the person was
too busy.
The Attorney General also asked who else was complaining.
They said we have had other complaints but we are not going to
tell you.
Going back to Joe's Stone Crab, the EEOC walked in without
anyone complaining. Now the EEOC is holding the complainants in
secrecy. Florida's Attorney General is now facing these things.
Here are his comments.
His name is Robert Butterfield. He has characterized the
EEOC investigation, investigative and conciliation process, as
replete with ``professional sloppiness, inaccuracies, improper
application of the law, and an absence of anything resembling
internal oversight.''
Now, I am saying that obviously the backlog, if any exists,
with the EEOC is not large enough. This must be the cause of
them filling this idleness with all this bedevilment.
I have been a small business person. I know what it is like
to have the threat of an EEOC investigation. But the unreason-
ableness of this is unbelievable.
Joe's Stone Crab is now on appeal. They lost their case and
they are in the process of appealing it.
Somewhere, somehow there needs to be a legislative relief
given to these people faced with this, but there is no way to
do it. I am just saying somebody needs to take a hold of this,
look at the EEOC, and say all of these things are going to be
grandfathered. We cannot un-bankrupt these people and we cannot
give them back their money because that would be something that
would be untenable.
Again, I just wanted to emphasize how important it is that
the EEOC get off of this tangent. The work that they do is
wonderful. As a small business person, I really appreciated the
ability to have an administrative hearing for the complaints
that we had rather than going straight to court. They are doing
great things, but somewhere in this thing they are just off on
a tangent.
I hope that you, this committee, would consider trying to
control that tangent so we do not have these abusive,
terroristic practices placed on our small businesses of this
nation.
Mr. Rogers. What is it about these cases that you have
mentioned that make them out of the ordinary; that, as you say,
that the EEOC was acting in an abusive fashion?
What is it about these that make them different from the
run of the mill charge?
Mr. Dickey. Well, I think overall they show a lack of
objectivity. They seem to be targeting certain places. In these
three instances, the EEOC has gone into these businesses. When
a reasonable explanation has been given for why there are not
female employees, why there are not males in the dressing room,
and why there are not anything other than Koreans in a Korean
neighborhood, they have ignored them and kept on going. These
businesses have met these inquiries with worthy explanations.
They are saying you have to hire people not in your
neighborhood, and you have to hire Chinese, Blacks, and Whites
and everything else all across the city instead of those people
close to your business.
Mr. Chairman, in one instance, the EEOC found that 22
percent of Joe's Stone Crab employees were female. When they
found out that this was the statistical figure within that
locality, they broadened the statistical base to 32 percent of
hires in the whole county were female.
In other words, they did not stay still. They do not have
enough to do. This is what I am saying. They are creating. They
are activists. They are creating these things, and it is
costing our economy.
Mr. Rogers. Well, they claim that they have an enormous
backlog.
Mr. Dickey. Well, I can see why. They are creating it. They
are spending all of this time on these cases and what is their
goal--excuse me for interrupting you. They are bankrupting
people. Is this what they do? Do they mark up on the wall
another one down, another one down, another one down?
This may be something that is worthy from their standpoint.
If it is, it should not be condoned. It should not be sponsored
by us.
Mr. Rogers. What I will do is request the EEOC to respond
to your charges on these three individual cases, respond to
this Subcommittee about the allegations that you have made and
ask for a full report.
Now, are all three of the cases on appeal?
Mr. Dickey. There are four.
Mr. Rogers. Four?
Mr. Dickey. No. The two bankrupt cases are gone. The
Attorney General is still pending. He says he is going to go to
court rather than put up with the EEOC, and the other is on
appeal. Joe's Stone Crab is on appeal.
Mr. Rogers. Administrative appeal?
Mr. Dickey. No, sir.
Mr. Rogers. Into the Federal Court?
Mr. Dickey. Federal Court.
Mr. Rogers. So, they have sued to enjoin EEOC or whatever.
Mr. Dickey. No. It is the other way around. The EEOC went
voluntarily into court with a cross-appeal.
Mr. Rogers. I see.
Mr. Dickey. And they have met them. They have gone through
all the administrative deals and now they are doing it.
Mr. Rogers. Why did the EEOC go to court? I thought they
won administratively, obviously, did they not?
Mr. Dickey. It says here that a complaint was filed by the
EEOC. Now, I do not know at what level. Do you want me to--I
will find that out.
Mr. Rogers. If you would. And what I----
Mr. Dickey. And the Attorney General, as I told you, there
really are four circumstances. And if you----
Mr. Rogers. What I would like for you to do is, if you can,
is summarize for us each of those four cases.
Mr. Dickey. Okay.
Mr. Rogers. The ones that you want us to check.
Mr. Dickey. All right.
Mr. Rogers. And what I would be interested in the summary
including a very concise part that backs up your allegation
that they were acting in an abusive or over-zealous fashion or
targeting a business for extinction or whatever.
So, that we have something specific we can ask them to
respond to.
Mr. Dickey. Okay. I will do that.
Mr. Serrano. Mr. Chairman, if I may?
I certainly, Mr. Dickey, understand your concern about
these complaints and I think the Chairman's request is a good
one. I would note, however, that I think that the deeper
question would be if it is a pattern at the EEOC--because as I
can see the Joe's Stone Crab situation starts in April of 1992,
so, it precedes this administration and that is something that
we should ask from EEOC--if this is a just a pattern of
behavior.
I must say, however, that while you single these cases out
and certainly I repeat that we will take a look at them, there
are some of us who think EEOC, in general, is a very necessary
agency. And I hope that in looking at these particular cases we
do not smear the whole agency with this.
Mr. Dickey. I understand and I am telling you that it was
such a benefit. I had 97 employees in and out in my restaurant
businesses and it was so good to go to the EEOC. I lost some of
them but we could get to them quickly. And I am in support of
the EEOC, I do not want to marginalize what they are doing in
that respect.
It is just that, Mr. Serrano, that they are going out and
no one is doing anything. In some of these things, the EEOC
ignored the rules such as who has complained and what about the
300-day rule? They just went right past it. There is a 300-day
rule that you have to abide by that is in this statement. They
shot right by it.
The Attorney General proved that his agency had more than
anybody else and they just kept on going. This is in Florida.
Mr. Rogers. If you would summarize for us, we would
appreciate it.
Mr. Dickey. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Mr. Dickey.
Mr. Dickey. Thank you for your time.
[The information follows:]
Mr. Rogers. Mr. LoBiondo.
We will include your statement in the record and we would
welcome your summary.
----------
Thursday, April 15, 1999.
COPS PROGRAM AND THE OYSTER INDUSTRY IN THE DELAWARE BAY
WITNESS
HON. FRANK A. LOBIONDO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
NEW JERSEY
Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I intend to do that. I want to thank you very much, Mr.
Chairman, and Mr. Serrano.
There are two topics that I wanted to discuss this morning,
Mr. Chairman. First, I would like to take the opportunity to
thank you and the committee for the work last year in
generously funding the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant
Program at its full authorization level of $25 million:
Certainly and clearly a plan that will save the lives of police
officers.
And I respectfully request that you continue to support
this critically necessary program by maintaining a level
funding of $25 million which is also incidentally the
administration's request for this Bulletproof Vest initiative.
The second issue, Mr. Chairman, that I wanted to bring to
your attention and ask you about is your assistance with the
Coastal Zone Management Report language, that in 1997, was to
have the effect of bringing much needed funding and resources
to the oyster industry in Southern New Jersey.
Now, by way of just a brief background, the area in my
district in Southern New Jersey where the oyster industry
actually operates is one of the poorest areas in the State and
probably in the nation. The unemployment rate is at terrible
double digit levels. There are transportation problems, there
are all kinds of problems trying to find and create jobs.
The oyster industry in that part of the State at one point
was the capital of the world for oysters. It was decimated in
the middle of the century by disease and they have been
struggling to find a way to come back with this.
In 1996, there were 307,000 bushels of oysters harvested
from the Delaware Bay. That is an incredible number, a big
number, a positive number, an uptake, which translates to
roughly $37 million boost for the local economy.
This is dramatic because few people expected edible oysters
to be harvested from the Delaware Bay again. But improved
planning, and cultivation techniques that were matched with
Federal, State and local efforts to clean the waters of the Bay
resulted in this big potential windfall for the part of
Southern New Jersey that has been very economically distressed
because of the loss of revenue, as I explained a few minutes
ago.
While giant steps have been taken in the last three years,
the industry is at a turning point. An influx of Coastal Zone
Management funding will be needed to enhance the development of
the oyster harvesting. This funding will translate into much
needed jobs and increased economic activity in the region while
this industry is reborn.
And while the efforts of local harvesters have begun to
bear fruit I am unhappy, very unhappy with the lack of
cooperation given by the State's coastal managers. As you may
recall, the Subcommittee included language in fiscal year 1998
CJS Conference Report which encouraged New Jersey's coastal
managers to use Federal funding where possible to assist in
oyster shell planting efforts.
Unfortunately, the language was totally and completely
ignored. The fiscal year 1998 report language was designed to
bring the coastal managers' attention to this very important
project: Moving under-utilized seed stock from upper reefs to
lower reefs and when completed allow oysters to rapidly grow to
market size.
Now, Mr. Chairman, last summer I took a tour, scenic tour
of the Morris River and had the opportunity to see and to
sample Delaware Bay oysters and I strongly believe that the
size and health of these shellfish are harbingers of the oyster
industry's revival in Southern New Jersey and the translation
into many jobs that will result once again.
And, incidentally, many of these jobs are in the minority
community.
Mr. Chairman, let me point out a crucial fact related to
the oyster industry. Every dollar spent on oyster harvesting
activities produces $7 in economic growth. It is a tremendous
return on investment.
This revival and associated economic growth potential
cannot happen without the involvement of the State's coastal
managers.
I am not here today to ask for earmark funding. Again, I
repeat, I am not asking for earmark funding in coastal zone
management section of CJS. However, I would respectfully
request the Subcommittee's assistance in helping me or in
finding a creative solution that will clearly demonstrate the
intent of Congress and which will bring much needed funding to
an industry that could revitalize local economies in my
district.
They, obviously, have ignored the efforts that we have made
in the past and I am hopeful with the creative thinking on this
Subcommittee that we can find some language that can be
incorporated which will clearly demonstrate the intent that we
have and move them forward in the right direction which will be
a win-win situation.
Mr. Chairman, I thank you very much for the opportunity to
come before the Subcommittee today and I look forward to
working with you in the future.
Mr. Rogers. Well, the gentleman has been persistent and
effective in trying to help his folks there. As you know, the
coastal zone management monies which we funded, I think rather
liberally, is a grant program, a formula grant program to
States. We give them the money and they decide what they do
with it.
And that is by law and we cannot change that at this point.
And, as you asked in 1997 and 1998, we did put report language
in encouraging the New Jersey people to pay attention to this
problem and they ignored it.
But what we can do is have your staff and the Committee
staff confer and we will see if there is some way creatively
that we can help within the law.
Mr. LoBiondo. Okay. I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Rogers. But the gentleman makes a very strong case and
I want to thank you for your initial sponsorship of the
Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Program which is working
wonderfully. We funded it fully last year and expect to
continue that.
Mr. LoBiondo. That would not have happened without your
help, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you.
Mr. Rogers. It would not have happened without you
introducing the bill.
Thank you.
Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you.
Mr. Serrano, thank you.
[The information follows:]
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Roemer.
We will put your statement in the record, and we invite you
to summarize within our 5-minute rule.
----------
Thursday, April 15, 1999.
U.S. ADVISORY COMMISSION ON DIPLOMACY
WITNESS
HON. TIM ROEMER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF INDIANA
Mr. Roemer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
It is a pleasure to be with you today. I appreciate your
help and Mr. Serrano's help on this issue and a host of other
issues that I have come here before to appeal for your common
sense and your wisdom.
Today, Mr. Chairman, I am here to testify about an issue of
great importance to U.S. public diplomacy. I want to talk about
a decision made last year in conference to terminate the U.S.
Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy, an important oversight
body of the U.S. Information Agency.
Last year's State Department consolidation was a smart
reinvention of our foreign policy programs. I applaud this
commission's role in that process. However, this consolidation
abolished the only citizen's advisory body for public
diplomacy, the U.S. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy on
October 1, 1999, when USIA ceases to exist.
The consolidation retained the Advisory Commission to the
Arms Control and Disarmament Agency but it eliminated the
Advisory Commission to USIA, a much larger agency.
There was no vote on the Commission's continuance and I do
not believe that there was fair consideration of its future and
its value.
The Commission, Mr. Chairman as you know, is bipartisan and
Presidentially appointed, with the consent of the Senate and
its membership has included distinguished Americans like Father
Theodore Hesburgh, George Gallup, William F. Buckley, Frank
Stanton and James Michener who have all served without
compensation.
Currently, the commission has a budget of less than
$500,000 and it has returned--and I know you will like this,
Mr. Chairman--has returned an average of $75,000 to the
taxpayers in each of the last three years.
In this age of information and democracy, of globalized
free markets and the Internet foreign publics are more
important than ever before. As we are developing a new
diplomacy for the 21st century the commission is of even
greater constructive value to the Congress and the
administration.
If I could, Mr. Chairman, and Mr. Serrano, I would like to
cite an article from the Boston Globe just recently written in
February of 1999 and I quote. ``In the past year, three
separate groups of experts in Washington have issued studies
calling for an overhaul of America's diplomatic corps: The
Henry L. Stimson Center, the Center for Strategic And
International Studies, and the U.S. Advisory Commission on
Public Diplomacy which was created by Congress. The experts
agreed on the need for a new diplomacy in which the American
ambassadors around the world make their case not just to
foreign ministers but to civic groups, to Chambers of Commerce,
to college audiences. They have to sell American products and
sell American policy.''
Before USIA was created when the overseas information and
cultural programs were still located in the State Department,
Congress decided in the Smith-Mundt Act that distinguished
Americans be asked to provide a great constructive value to the
Secretary of State and the Congress in the best development of
public relations programs in the foreign relations of the
United States.
For 50 years the commission and its predecessor bodies
issued several intelligent and thoughtful reports in which
relevant public policy issues have been examined and
recommendations made. With the integration of USIA into the
State Department a citizens' board which represents the public
interest and provides policy makers with responsible oversight
on public diplomacy, strategic priorities and program
effectiveness is needed now more than ever.
I encourage, Mr. Chairman, this committee to support a
legislative provision repealing the abolition of this
Commission. Mr. Smith, in the authorizing committee has
incorporated our language into his recently drafted bill and I
thank him for his support.
In the 1980s, the commission broke new ground when it
released a special report, ``Terrorism and Security: The
Challenge for Public Diplomacy'' which recommended ways to make
the difficult balance between the need to protect our diplomats
and overseas installations and the need to reach out to our
publics.
It has done so again in the 1990s by focusing on a new
diplomacy for the new information age. Our country enjoys a
considerable edge in public diplomacy both in reaching publics
through advanced technology and in our message of democracy,
human rights, free markets, and ethnic and cultural diversity.
We should use that edge, Mr. Chairman. In the post-Cold War era
of instant global journalism and people power, foreign public
opinion is critical to the success of American foreign policy
initiatives.
Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, the new State Department we
are creating must be a responsive and flexible diplomatic
institution that can deal as effectively with foreign publics
as with foreign governments. We need the insight and experience
of the advisory commission to make this transition successful
and to achieve our foreign policy goals.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I would just say I recently
finished a book by Paul Nagel on John Quincy Adams. John Quincy
Adams, as you know, was the son of a President, was the
Secretary of State to James Monroe and developed the Monroe
Doctrine. He traveled extensively through Europe when he was
appointed to three commissions over there at the Hague, Russia
and England. And he sought out not just the ambassador to that
country but the public and tried to influence public opinion.
And that, I think, is the foundation I think that we are
looking at in, as you tried to reconstruct and reform and
modify the State Department--and I applaud you for doing that--
we also need to construct a new policy, a new way of
communicating with the foreign publics in other countries. And
this advisory committee does it inexpensively, it does it
without compensating the Republican and Democratic members, and
for less than $500,000 it has issued some very, very important
reports to our State Department and other bodies to help us do
a better job overseas.
Mr. Rogers. Well, the gentleman is a very effective
spokesman for his cause. You have done a very good job of
stating the case. John Quincy Adams had the great wisdom to
appoint as his Secretary of State probably the greatest
Kentuckian ever to serve in the U.S. Congress.
Mr. Roemer. I should have mentioned that in my statement,
Mr. Chairman. [Laughter.]
Mr. Rogers. Henry Clay, the greatest Kentuckian ever to sit
up here. But you make a very strong case for your cause.
Mr. Serrano?
Mr. Serrano. Yes, Mr. Chairman. As you know, I have an
interest in this issue. In fact, yesterday, I questioned the
State Department management team about their decision to
abolish it, and they were pretty strong in their belief that
this item was better served by the public sector. In fact, we
had an exchange where I found out that they support a
Commission on Salmon, a Government Commission on Salmon, but
they do not want Government involvement in this issue. They
want the public sector. I could not figure that out.
But I am very supportive of it, and I think you make an
excellent argument. The kind of budgets we have, less than
$500,000, returning $75,000 a year. So they are obviously not
trying to take any money from us, and I would hope that I can
convince all of us that this Commission should stay in place.
And I think the Chairman is the greatest Kentuckian to ever
serve in this House. [Laughter.]
Mr. Roemer. Henry Clay also helped John Quincy Adams get
elected when the election was thrown in the House of
Representatives. So he did many things to help----
Mr. Rogers. Andrew Jackson did not take to that very
kindly, though. [Laughter.]
Mr. Roemer. No, he sure did not. But he eventually came
back and won two terms.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you.
Mr. Roemer. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I look
forward to working with you.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you.
[The information follows:]
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Stupak.
We will make your statement a part of the record, but we
would like you to summarize it briefly for us.
----------
Thursday, April 15, 1999.
GREAT LAKES FISHERY COMMISSION, GREAT LAKES ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH
LABORATORY, COPS PROGRAM, BYRNE FORMULA GRANT PROGRAM, VIOLENCE AGAINST
WOMEN ACT, UPPER PENINSULA OF MICHIGAN FEDERAL JUDGE
WITNESS
HON. BART STUPAK, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
MICHIGAN
Mr. Stupak. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Serrano, and Ms.
Roybal-Allard. Thanks for having me here.
Mr. Chairman, as you know, my district borders three of the
five Great Lakes, so I would like to spend a little time on
some Great Lakes' issues.
First of all, the sea lamprey. This committee has always
been great in trying to help us fund the sea lamprey. Once
again, we have a $1 million line in the budget. To do the job
effectively on the sea lamprey control, we need $5.8 million.
Michigan has agreed to put up $3 million over the next five
years. We would ask if the committee could maybe boost that
amount a little bit. It is a five-year program. We need $5.8.
We are at about $4 million right now, with Michigan putting in
just over half the money. We had hoped that we could match
that.
Along those same lines, the National Sea Grant College and
the Great Lakes Environmental Research Lab actually is cut in
the President's proposed budget by $740,000. It does not sound
like a lot of money, but what that would probably do is wipe
out trying to control the zebra mussels in the Great Lakes.
Zebra mussels are now gone basically all over this country. As
you know, one zebra mussel can multiply a million eggs a year.
They are clogging all of our water intake pipes which is a huge
expense not just to our municipalities, but also to many of the
utilities along the Great Lakes, and I am sure the Mississippi
and even the Gulf coast now. So we would like to see the
funding restored for the Great Lakes Research Laboratory.
Mr. Chairman, you will see in the proposed budget, also,
and I am sure you are aware, the International Joint Commission
actually got an increase in their budget line, and that
increase was as a result of the problems we are facing
throughout North America, in the export of water. The
International Joint Commission is now looking at the export or
diversion of water. It is an issue that I have been advocating
for some time, and what has happened, we have a number of--
Canada issued a permit to allow the sale of Great Lakes water
to a Canadian company to ship it to Asia. We were successful in
blocking that idea. Up in Sitka, Alaska, there is a Canadian
company that has a license to ship U.S. water to Asia. They are
actually doing it right now in bottles, but they want to do it
in bulk tankers, and you also have it on the East Coast of
Canada.
So the International Joint Commission, which was set up to
mediate, if you will, boundary disputes of our waters under the
1909 Boundary Water Treaty, is actually studying this problem.
So the increased funding is for them so they can study and
determine what will the future be in this country about
exporting fresh water.
As you know, North America has 85 percent of the world's
fresh water. It is right now, according to the World Bank, the
second or third most sought after commodity in the world, and
by 2010 it will be the number one commodity in the world. This
country and Canada has to get some policies together to
regulate the sale or diversion of water, whether it be the
Great Lakes or whether it be the East Coast or the Alaskan
glacial waters.
Last, but not least, Mr. Chairman, the COPS program and law
enforcement--as you know, my role in law enforcement here in
the U.S. Congress.
It was interesting, yesterday, we were at a briefing by the
International Association of Chiefs of Police and, to that,
this committee has jurisdiction funding over the COPS program.
They would like to see that continue and the program be fully
funded at $1.275 billion in the year 2000. But they also made a
strong pitch to continue the Byrne Grant Program. And I know
this committee, and you, Mr. Chairman, have been very
supportive of that program in the past to allow local units of
Government to use monies that come from the Federal Government,
whether it is to run their jail operation or to do a multi-
jurisdiction drug task force or DARE program, whatever way
States would like to use it. And we would like to see that
funded at last year's level of $550 million.
So, Mr. Chairman, you can see in the Great Lakes there has
been some cutting in the programs which will probably hurt our
zebra mussel program and other aquatic nuisances that has
invaded our areas. In the COPS program and law enforcement, we
are asking for continued funding, and we have the new wrinkle
with the fresh water and the International Joint Commission,
and we would ask that the committee look favorably upon putting
funding in there.
On the last page of my testimony, I mention, because it is
not authorized yet, but I am sure in the future I will be back
before this committee, hopefully, to seek appropriations for a
judge up in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. The nearest
Federal judge is in Grand Rapids, which is some 400 miles away.
The Upper Peninsula of Michigan has most of the Federal land in
Michigan. And the issues with crossing between the Canadian
border, and Federal lands and other problems up there, even the
judges, we have magistrates up there, we have everything but a
judge. In order for a judge to come hear a case, they have to
go 400 miles. Or if the case is heard in Grand Rapids, then the
people from Upper Peninsula have to go 400 miles. We have
everything there but a judge. So we are going to ask the
authorizing committees to help us out there, and I just put it
on your radar screen for future consideration.
Mr. Rogers. Of course, we have nothing to do with that,
except pay them.
Mr. Stupak. Pay them, exactly.
Mr. Rogers. Well, the gentleman makes a very strong case
for all of the items that he has mentioned. The
Administration's new COPS-II program, which they are proposing,
is unauthorized, of course, and essentially they propose to
fund the renewal of the COPS program by eliminating the local
Law Enforcement Block Grant Program, which the Congress passed
over their objections. But they propose to take that money and
fund a new COPS-II program. That will not happen.
Mr. Stupak. I agree.
Mr. Rogers. They have also proposed to take the Juvenile
Accountability Block Grant. That will not happen. And they
would make a drastic reduction in the State Prison Grant
Program, and I do not think California would stand for that.
It is also proposed to be funded at the expense of program
increases in Federal law enforcement needs, such as the border
patrol agents. There is no money, by the way, in the
President's budget for border patrol increases, and that will
not stand. And they propose to cut the Byrne Grant Program, and
that will not happen.
So I do not know where we are going to find the money for
COPS-II because we are going to be short of money in the first
place.
And in the second place, we are not going to cut those
necessary programs to make room for COPS-II. As much as the
COPS program has done in helping communities hire police, we
predicted, at the time when it started, that communities would
not be able to afford this gradually increasing share of that
salary that they would have to pay; until now, it is 100
percent. And a lot of the communities are saying, ``We cannot
afford this. Our budget will not stand it, so we are having to
lay them off.'' We said so at the time, and that is the reason
we created the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant, which would
pay 100 percent of that salary for as long as the community
wanted to apply for it, and that was why we did that.
Now, on the GLERL, Great Lakes Research, the President's
budget cuts it, and that is nothing new. They do it every year,
and we always restore the money.
Mr. Stupak. Right. And you have been great to us on that.
Mr. Rogers. And I see no reason why we cannot. How would
anybody sell water from Lake Superior to Asia? How would you
get it there?
Mr. Stupak. Ship it; bulk ship.
Mr. Rogers. Bulk ship?
Mr. Stupak. Yes. It is a quite interesting concept. Right
now, when you pay for a gallon of water, I mean, in
supermarkets, it costs more than a gallon of gas. And there is
a great need for fresh water. Most water in the world, of
course, is not fresh water. And 80 percent of all water
consumed in the world is for agricultural purposes, and every
21 years, our world population doubles.
Therefore, you can see a demand for greater food
production. And to do that you need water, and you need fresh
water, and we have it all here. A couple of interesting
entrepreneurs have brought that forward as a way of doing it,
and it is economically feasible to ship from, let us say, Lake
Superior to Alaska. They had the contract. They had it ready to
go. The Province of Ontario actually issued a permit. We found
out about it, got with some Canadian counterparts, passed our
resolution last fall asking the President and the Senate to
start addressing this issue. They referred it to IJC. That is
how it started. Of course, IJC is Canada and U.S.
And then Canada passed a moratorium, no more shipments or
permits will be issued until the Canadian Government has a
chance to address it. In the meantime, we find Global
Corporation, which is out of Canada--I want to say Vancouver--
has this permit from Sitka, Alaska. What they are doing right
now is bottled water they are shipping to Asia right now in
containers; bottled containers, plastic, things like that. But
they are building a bottling plant in Asia, China, and they
envision, according to their Web page, shipping 445 tanker
loads a year from Sitka, Alaska, to Asia for water distribution
and water, and they want it in bulk, and they will use bulk
ships to do it.
Mr. Rogers. Where would Sitka get the water, from Superior?
Mr. Stupak. Sitka is getting it right from a glacier pack
just on the north end of the town. Sitka was an international
shipping port. I believe it was timber and paper. That paper
mill shut down, and this is the new lifeline for this community
which is water.
Now, our fear is this: When the first tanker of bulk water
goes, then do you trigger Section 11 under NAFTA, North America
Free Trade Agreement, and then all of our fresh water in the
United States and Canada becomes a commodity underneath NAFTA,
and we have a Pandora's box because there are no policies or
procedures or regulations of how we are even going to do this.
How much can we ship without hurting our environment, our
aquaculture in the Great Lakes and all parts of this country
and Canada.
And the issues, as we get into it, have become more and
more complex, and we need a little time, and we are probably
going to introduce another piece of legislation asking for a
moratorium until we have some policy in place between our two
countries, and I would, again, urge the administration and the
Senate to seriously address this issue because it is at our
doorstep now, and entrepreneurs are doing it.
And my fear is, once the first drop of water in bulk
container is shipped, we trigger NAFTA. I raised the issue in
1993, Mr. Chairman. Most people thought I had water on the
brain, but now they understand that maybe my worst fears are
true, and so we have got a real problem here that would have to
be addressed.
Mr. Rogers. How much of an increase are you asking in the
IJC's budget for that purpose?
Mr. Stupak. Mr. Chairman, off the top of my head, it was I
believe they had an increase of about a half a million, like
$500,000, to finish this study. They have to have their
preliminary study done by August or early September, and then
six months later they are going to have a final draft. I was
with some of the IJC last night, because it was their 90th
birthday, at the State Department, and they were telling me
that, while they made no decisions, they do not know how they
would--they urge us to get the legislative branch geared up
here because they are not a legislative body, they can only
make recommendations. It is going to have to be a legislative
branch to do it.
Mr. Rogers. What if a company started selling bottled
water, retailing bottled water out of Superior? Have you got a
problem with that?
Mr. Stupak. I do not have a problem with that, as long as
it is going in bottles.
Mr. Rogers. But not a tanker or a wholesale----
Mr. Stupak. Not wholesale, bulk sale of Great Lakes water.
In order for anyone to sell or divert water out of the Great
Lakes, the 1985 Great Lakes charter requires each governor and
each provincial head--because we share the Great Lakes with
Canada--to sign-off and to approve the plan. In the past, when
people have suggested we divert some of the water out of the
Great Lakes and maybe, let us say, to the southwestern part of
the United States, it has always been vetoed by the governors.
We are pretty protective of the Great Lakes.
But this water issue is more than just a Great Lakes issue.
It is a North America issue that we have to start to address.
So if anyone tried to sell it out of the Great Lakes for
commercial like that, I am sure there would probably be a veto
by one of the governors, at least, of the nine Great Lake
States.
Mr. Rogers. We will take your request into consideration.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Stupak. Thank you.
Mr. Rogers. Thanks for your work on the COPS program and
the law enforcement area.
Mr. Stupak. Thank you. Thanks for your help.
[The information follows:]
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Deal.
----------
Thursday, April 15, 1999.
INS BUDGET AND ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION CONCERNS
WITNESS
HON. NATHAN DEAL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
GEORGIA
Mr. Deal. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to address the Subcommittee--and thank you for
allowing me to be with you--on the issue of the budget of the
INS for internal enforcement.
My district has become an area that has a substantial
internal immigration enforcement problem. And as a result of
some changes that have been made internally in the INS, it
appears that they have made a decision to de-emphasize internal
enforcement and concentrate on border enforcement as their
exclusive effort to fight illegal immigration--unbelievable to
many people of my district. And North Georgia has become a
haven for illegal immigration. It is probably the number one
social issue, I would say, that is facing my district.
We have been told by Tom Fischer, who is the district
director for the Atlanta region of INS, which has
responsibility for my area, that the region's law enforcement
budget for nonmandatory provisions, which includes criminal
aliens, was cut by 50 percent in 1999 from the fiscal year 1998
levels. As a result of that reduction, it has affected such
things as they have just restricted vehicle use.
My district lies some 50 to 60 to 70 miles north of Atlanta
itself. They have delayed or canceled law enforcement
agreements with task forces in the two major cities in my
district. They have no operational funds to cover the Quick
Response Teams, which I understand were congressionally
mandated. They have delayed expansions of the county jail
initiatives under the National Criminal Aliens Removal Program.
They have gone to the point that they simply tell us that they
don't have the funds to even remove criminal aliens who have
been convicted of aggravated felonies, and that has created a
very serious problem with law enforcement in my district and
with the community as a whole.
As the Chairman alluded to just a minute ago, it is my
understanding that the President's budget for this year does
not include the funding for the thousand border patrol agents,
which I understood was congressionally required, and I assume
this subcommittee will probably be addressing that.
But I do not think that we can expect border enforcement to
be the only remedy for dealing with this problem. And the
effort to back off of internal enforcement I think is a
mistake. The Atlanta Division of INS says that they need an
additional $252,000 just to fulfill their minimal level of
responsibility for just their region. I do not know what that
translates into across the country for just their region. I do
not know what that translates into across the country, but I
wish to bring that to the subcommittee's attention. I do think
that some direction should be given by the House and Congress
as a whole to the INS with regard to not retreating from
internal enforcement.
Mr. Rogers. Well, the gentleman makes a strong case. He has
talked to me privately for some time about these problems. I
wish I could tell you that we had a good answer.
I am trying to abolish the INS. We fund them here, but they
are so inept that I have tried to abolish the whole agency and
reassign their chores to other agencies; law enforcement to the
Justice Department, and labor to the Labor Department, and the
visas and that type of thing to the State Department because
this agency is absolutely inept. It has been this way since I
came on this Subcommittee now 17 years ago, and it is the most
inept Federal agency that exists.
Money is not the problem. I mean, we have quadrupled their
budget in the last six years or so. We have just poured money
at them saying maybe that is the problem. But it just goes down
a rat hole and nothing ever happens. It is unresponsive. It is
disorganized. It is a nonpartisan, bipartisan problem. It is
not just a problem under the Clinton Administration. It was a
bigger problem under the Bush and Reagan Administrations. So it
is not that. They are an island unto themselves, and you cannot
regulate them. It is incredible. I have never seen anything
quite like it in my experience.
Mr. Deal. I support the Chairman's efforts in that regard
because I think the diversity of the responsibilities that is
assigned to the agency, they do make choices as to which
priority they give for a particular year. And internal
enforcement and the enforcement arm, as a whole, I think has
been de-emphasized.
Mr. Rogers. Exactly. Now, as a result of problems that you
brought to our attention and others, last year, we, in our
bill, mandated--we created a Quick Response Team in each State
to respond to local law enforcement officers who would call
INS's hotline and not get an answer for hours and hours and
hours. Meanwhile, they had arrested or stopped some illegal
aliens in their district and did not know what to do with them.
And so we created these Quick Response Teams, as a result
of the 1999 Conference Report, in 11 States for interior
enforcement--11 interior States--and they are in place right
now. In Georgia, you have three; in Dalton, Albany and
Savannah.
Mr. Deal. But Dalton being in my district they are now
saying they do not have funds to operate.
Mr. Rogers. And you know why? Because the Agency, through
another case of ineptitude, overhired in other areas and had to
take the money out of this account. I mean, they are absolutely
incredibly unresponsive. Do not get me started on this.
[Laughter.]
And we authorized a thousand more border patrol agents for
the fiscal years 1997 through 2001. They come in with a request
in their budget, not a single dollar for new border patrol
agents for 2000.
Mr. Serrano.
Mr. Serrano. Mr. Chairman, I find myself two days in a row
agreeing with you, and that is beginning to scare me a little
bit. [Laughter.]
Mr. Rogers. It scares me even more. [Laughter.]
Mr. Serrano. There is no love from this gentleman for the
INS. In fact, I have felt there is something inherently wrong
with an agency that both tracks down people, at times in a very
mean way, and then tries to make out of them good American
citizens at another time. There seems to be a conflict of
behavior. And we understand that Georgia has become, and many
people in the North have wondered why Georgia, but it has
become an area with this situation. You make a strong case, and
we certainly want to be joining the Chairman in looking at that
Agency over and over again, seeing which way we can make it
function better.
Mr. Rogers. The gentleman makes a good point. One of the
problems with INS is it has two conflicting responsibilities
that we gave to it. One is to grant rights and privileges to
people, such as visas and whatever, and also to prosecute them.
Mr. Serrano. Kick them out of the country.
Mr. Rogers. To kick them out and to take enforcement action
against people.
Mr. Deal. It is the worst kind of schizophrenia I think
that we have in a Federal agency.
Mr. Rogers. It is. And it has created an agency that is
schizophrenic and collapsing on itself and wasting $4 billion a
year.
Well, thank you, Mr. Deal.
Mr. Deal. Yes, sir. Thank you.
Mr. Rogers. We are going to work with you to try to help
all we can.
Mr. Deal. Thank you very much.
Mr. Rogers. Realizing we have got an agency that we cannot
control.
[The information follows:]
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Farr, glad to have you. We will make your
statement a part of the record, and we will welcome a summary.
----------
Thursday, April 15, 1999.
NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARIES PROGRAM, NATIONAL UNDERSEAS RESEARCH
PROGRAM, THE NATIONAL ESTUARINE RESEARCH RESERVES, SEA CAMP, THE
PACIFIC SALMON RECOVERY FUND, YEAR OF THE OCEAN
WITNESS
HON. SAM FARR, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA
Mr. Farr. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and members,
Mr. Serrano. I am delighted to be here today. On that last
comment, I spend, my office is a mini-INS office in Salinas,
California. I would love to sit down with you some day. I agree
with your concerns.
I am here to talk about oceans, and I thought that maybe
the best way to talk about oceans, for two people that are
sitting here today, is to remind the Chairman that if it was
not for the Eastern Kentucky hillsides, both the Ohio and
Mississippi River drainage system would not be able to provide
for the wetlands in that Delta area. So I think of you as the
headwaters for the Mississippi Delta, and you are, in that way,
related to the oceans.
And, for Mr. Serrano, you have Orchard Beach in your
district. In Orchard Beach, you have all of the summer
concerts, and nature walkways and you provide several
businesses charter services for fishing and diving trips.
Mr. Serrano. You have two shots with me. You could hit
Puerto Rico, too. [Laughter.]
Mr. Rogers. The gentleman must have been reading Dale
Carnegie's book.
Mr. Farr. No, I am just passionate about the subject, and I
do not know if any other members, although Elton Gallegly is
here to talk about another point, but I know he is also
supportive of the National Marine Sanctuaries.
My list is essentially in the budget, and it is a
recommendation that you support the increase of $15 million to
the National Marine Sanctuaries.
National Marine Sanctuaries is essentially a relatively new
concept to create national parks and Federal lands in the
ocean. We do not know where they are going, but I can tell you
we created one in our district, and just the logo of having it
attracts people. The irony is somebody comes and says, ``Well,
how do I get there?'' when they are standing on the beach, and
you say, ``Well, there it is, right in front of you.''
Eighty-five percent of the tourist revenues in the United
States are spent in the coastal areas. In a poll conducted in
1998 by Melman and this year by USA Today, showed that more
than half of Americans have observed the conditions of the
oceans and believe that they are worsening, and they really
want us to do something about it.
We are concerned. We all go to restaurants and eat fish.
The fish stock in the world are overfished. It is essentially
we just take from. It is not like we do with essentially
cattle, and chickens and other kinds of meat or hogs that we
raise them. We do not raise fish, except for limited
monoculture experiences. We mostly just take from the ocean and
do not put back. We need to know more about that. Seventy-five
percent of the endangered and threatened mammals and birds that
are listed are in coastal habitats. Americans are moving to the
coastline. They are exploding more than ever. By the year 2010,
75 percent of the U.S. population will live within 50 miles of
the coast.
And yet we, as a Congress, really have not demonstrated a
commitment to our oceans, as we have to our terrestrial
resources. We have the National Marine Sanctuary Program
receives less than 1 percent than we give our national parks.
Congress has created 378 national parks, 155 national forests
and only 12 marine sanctuaries. So I am representing one of the
12, and other members have indicated their support as well in a
bipartisan fashion.
But I am also here to speak for the National Undersea
Research Program, which is requesting $14.5 million, and the
National Estuarine Research Reserves. Those are essentially the
wetlands reserves that have become parklike areas in many
areas. We have created one in California, and I want to invite
the committee to come out and see some of these resources that
you are responsible for funding because they are really
exciting.
The Estuary and Research Reserve in our area is really big.
It is almost like a big park. It is a collaboration between the
Federal Government and the State Government. The State
Government Fish and Game manages it. All of the universities
and schools have adopted curriculum to get students out there
to learn about it.
We also have the initiative of the Year of the Oceans,
which many members of Congress went to Lisbon last year to
participate in that international effort. In the budget is a
request for $78 million to carry out the initiatives created
there.
We have a Sea Camp Program, very little money, $250,000.
Sea Camp is essentially an idea based around the Space Camp to
get kids involved in. If we are going to be a--a population is
going to depend on this sort of eco-zone between the ocean and
land, the whole future of science, and land management, and
recreation and tourism is going to be there, and so Sea Camp
essentially allows the kids to get a taste of that, just like
they have of Space Camp.
And, lastly, a program that is very necessary for the
Pacific Coast States is the Salmon Recovery Fund. We all eat
Salmon. We do not ranch salmon in America. They ranch it mostly
a little bit in Canada. They have had a lot of problems with
their ranching with diseases of the stock. They ranch it in
Norway.
We rely on wild salmon. That is how we raise and fish them.
And so the Recovery Program is essentially an initiative to get
that wild stock up. And the States of Washington, California
and Oregon are very involved in that. And the President has
requested $100 million for that, and I support that.
I would be glad to answer any questions you might have.
Mr. Rogers. We appreciate your testimony, Mr. Farr.
NOAA, overall, has fared very well by our hand here over
the last four years, despite the budget constraints that we
have been under. We appropriated $15 million over the last two
years for that new NOAA lab in Santa Cruz in your district, at
your urging.
Mr. Farr. I want you to come out and see it.
Mr. Rogers. And we want to, and we will.
In terms of 2000, the items you are requesting funding for
are areas where NOAA is asking for big increases. The problem
is that NOAA's budget is really unrealistic because they want a
$400 million increase, which is a 13-percent increase, and many
of the increases they ask for are not authorized even. There is
an overreliance on budget gimmicks, which are not going to
happen: fees, which the Congress is not going to pass; phony
trust-fund gimmicks, which are not in our jurisdiction; and the
like.
And, number two, we are going to have less money to deal
with this year than we had last year for anything. So we are
going to have to really go through that NOAA budget and
prioritize so as not to do harm.
On your Sea Camp for elementary school kids, that is
something that the Sea Grant Program, as you may not know, is
not authorized to do. Sea Grant is a university research
program. But what you may want to do is try under either GLOBE
or the National Science Foundation education programs and go
for a grant for that Sea Camp idea that you have, which I think
is a worthy idea.
So as a way of suggestion, I would, if I were you, maybe go
after GLOBE or the National Science Foundation, a grant
program.
Mr. Farr. Well, we will certainly pursue those. NOAA, as
you know in your Commerce role, it is about 50 percent or more
of the Commerce budget. And what my concern is that in that, if
you look at it, they have been spending a lot more on the space
side, on the atmosphere side, than they have on the wet side.
And the wet side is, essentially, the side that is going to
affect our lives, for all of the reasons that I have outlined.
So I appreciate that.
Mr. Rogers. But the big increases, though, that we have
directed to NOAA, in the last two or three years, have been on
the wet side, as opposed to the dry side.
Mr. Farr. That is why I appreciate your interest in this,
and I look forward to you coming out to the district.
Mr. Rogers. We look forward to that, too. Thank you, Mr.
Farr.
[The information follows:]
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Scott. We will make your statement a part
of the record and hope you can summarize briefly.
----------
Thursday, April 15, 1999.
JUVENILE JUSTICE PROGRAMS
WITNESS
HON. ROBERT ``BOBBY'' C. SCOTT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE
STATE OF VIRGINIA
Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Serrano, members of
the Subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to provide
testimony before you today.
I am a member of two subcommittees with juvenile justice
authority; that is, the Judiciary Committee, and I am the
ranking Democrat on the Crime Subcommittee, and also Education
and the Workforce, and I serve on the Early Childhood
Subcommittee, and we are both dealing with juvenile justice as
we speak.
I want to thank you for your funding for juvenile justice
programs in the past. Unfortunately, your funding that you have
done in this subcommittee has not been retained in conference,
and we have not been able to reauthorize the Juvenile Justice
and Delinquency Prevention Act, although I hope that we will be
able to do it this year.
Mr. Chairman, I come to you, today, to make again the case
for increasing Federal investment in prevention programs and to
do this by encouraging you to acknowledge that money spent on
prevention is more valuable in reducing crime than money spent
on prisons.
We have not fully funded the money for prevention
initiatives, such as drug treatment and family resource
centers, and we could put the money that is now in the Truth-
in-Sentencing Initiative Program into that funding. The reason
that the Truth-in-Sentencing provision is not as good an idea,
is because, first of all, all States do not qualify, and many
States that may qualify do not need the money. Virginia, for
example, has excess prison beds and is now leasing out prison
beds. I think the money for Virginia would be much better spent
in prevention rather than new prison beds.
Mr. Chairman, we can increase funds for building and
running Boys' and Girls' Clubs, in public housing and other
sites for at-risk youth. Boys' and Girls' Clubs have been shown
to be effective in reducing crime. Drug courts and drug
prevention activities have been very cost effective in reducing
crime. And there are a number of other programs that could
benefit from your support, such as court-appointed special
advocates, child abuse prevention training, delinquency
prevention programs, law enforcement, family support, all of
which will reduce family violence and child abuse and which
have been shown, in turn, to reduce crime.
I want to make a special note of a program in my district,
An Achievable Dream, which offers special opportunities,
education and direction to youth. It keeps them out of trouble
in the first place.
So, Mr. Chairman, and members of the subcommittee, I ask
you again to demonstrate your resolve in actually reducing
crime and choosing to make the investment in the areas which
can, in a cost-effective way, reduce crime, save money and make
a much better investment in our future.
Mr. Rogers. Well, we thank the gentleman for his statement.
This Subcommittee has been on the leading edge on juvenile
justice monies--crime prevention and programs. And one of the
biggest boosters of that is also in the room with us at this
time, Bill McCollum from Florida, who has been the leader on
this whole subject and has been out front in pushing the
Congress to put more money into juvenile justice and juvenile
crime prevention programs.
In fact, we funded Mr. McCollum's juvenile justice
programs. It was only when we got to the other body that they
were lax in their duties, in my opinion, and we had to revert
back to the existing law because they had not passed their
authorization.
Mr. Scott. Mr. Chairman, I think your attention had been
diverted. I did point out, and thank you for putting the money
in, and I pointed out that it got lost further along the line
in the Subcommittee.
Mr. Rogers. I know that. I did not mean to say that you did
not.
What I think you are saying is you would like to take the
money in the State Prison Grant Program and put it in juvenile
prevention, which has been the gentleman's advocacy for some
time, and it is a legitimate argument. It is just that the
Committee and the Congress has felt that the State Prison Grant
Program is a worthy program. There are certain States that have
large numbers of members in this body that I do not think would
let this happen, even if we wanted to.
Mr. Scott. I would point out, as a matter of fairness, that
a lot of States do not qualify, and if we could pass
authorization so that everybody can use their share as they
wanted to, I think the Appropriations Committee may not be able
to legislate that change on an Appropriations bill, but that
would make it fairer.
I would point out, Mr. Chairman, that the gentleman from
Florida and I are working extremely hard right now on trying to
reauthorize juvenile justice and delinquency prevention
legislation, and hopefully you will save a significant chunk of
money to fund that because there is a shocking possibility that
it might be a bipartisan bill.
Mr. Rogers. Well, we certainly welcome that. [Laughter.]
Thank you, Mr. Scott.
Mr. Scott. Thank you.
[The information follows:]
Mr. Rogers. Ms. Morella. Connie Morella.
We will make your statement a part of the record, and we
would welcome a brief summary.
----------
Thursday, April 15, 1999.
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY, NATIONAL OCEANIC AND
ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION, VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN ACT, LEGAL SERVICES
CORPORATION
WITNESS
HON. CONSTANCE A. MORELLA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE
OF MARYLAND
Ms. Morella. Thank you. I am sure that you would, Mr.
Chairman.
I am delighted to be here with you and Congressman Serrano
to testify on behalf of a few issues in your appropriations
bill. I want to thank you very much for providing me, as you
usually do, with this opportunity to testify on behalf of some
funding priorities. And I know the difficult job you have. I
know you have been here all morning. I know there are people
who still want to testify.
Thanks so much for your historic support of the laboratory
programs on the National Institute of Standards and Technology.
NIST is the Nation's oldest Federal laboratory. It was
established in 1901 by Congress, but actually it dates back to
well before that in the 1800s, when it existed as the Bureau of
Weights and Measures.
As part of the Department of Commerce, NIST's mission is to
promote economic growth by working with industry to develop an
applied technology, measurements and standards. It is the
Nation's arbiter of standards, and it enables businesses to
engage each other in commerce. And particularly in the global
marketplace, standards and measurements are critically
important for trade.
The precise measurements required for establishing
standards associated with today's increasingly complex
technologies require the NIST laboratories to maintain the most
state-of-the-art and sophisticated equipment and the best
scientists in the world. However, its infrastructure is failing
and needs repair and replacement.
NIST currently has a maintenance backlog of over $300
million. In addition, NIST requires new laboratory space that
includes a higher level of environmental control of both the
air quality and vibration than can be achieved by the
retrofitting of any existing facilities. And so to meet this
need, NIST must construct an Advanced Measurement Laboratory.
Mr. Chairman and Congressman Serrano, over the past two
years, your Appropriations Subcommittee has supported the AML--
you know it quite well--appropriating well over half of the
total needed to complete the project. And, actually, following
your lead, the administration has requested enough money to
complete funding for the AML and begin construction in fiscal
year 2000. We certainly want to invite all members of this
subcommittee to be there for the dedication of the building.
I strongly support beginning construction of the AML this
year and ask that you include $106.8 million, which is the
amount necessary that is requested by the administration.
In addition to construction and maintenance, I strongly
support fully funding this Scientific and Technical Research
and Services account, STRS. It not only funds all of NIST's
laboratory facilities, but also the Baldrige Quality Awards
program, which has been working. And under the President's
request, STRS actually declines slightly compared to its base
funding requirements for fiscal year 2000. So, at a minimum, I
believe that STRS base funding requirements should be met.
I also want to reiterate my strong support for the
appropriation of $10 million in fiscal year 2000 to begin the
first of a three-year effort to establish the Emergency
Services Advanced Technology Program. ESAT is an innovative
initiative that would take existing technologies that have been
developed for other applications and apply them in a way which
would benefit, tremendously, fire services communities across
the Nation. It is a collaborative research and development
project between the Fire Research Laboratories at NIST and Yale
Medical School. And it would really help to protect the lives
of our Nation's 1.2 million fire fighters and local emergency
responders. I believe it is well worthy of your funding.
I want to also mention NOAA, the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, is a vital component of Commerce.
It plays an invaluable role in contributing to the Nation's
economic and environmental health. Its budget request of $2.5
billion will allow NOAA to build on a number of significant
accomplishments, and I am pleased that legislation last year
preserved the NOAA Corps. The legislation provided a specific
five-year authorization for this valuable national asset, and
it would assure that a commissioned officer will lead the NOAA
Corps to the 21st Century.
Congress has relieved the hiring freeze for NOAA Corps
officers, allowing a continued service to our Nation. I want to
thank the subcommittee for doing that.
NOAA budget requests will allow the organization to perform
an essential role in a number of important initiatives,
including the Natural Disaster Reduction Initiative. In the
2000 fiscal year budget, NOAA requests an increase of $42.1
million to implement the second phase of the Department's
strategy to reduce and mitigate against the impacts of extreme
natural events.
So the budget requests will support NOAA's continued
efforts.
I want to also mention Violence Against Women. You have so
many things under your jurisdiction in your budget. I want to
again urge that you continue to fund, and thank you for what
you have funded, the Violence Against Women Acts at the
Department of Justice. Enacted in 1994 with strong bipartisan
support, it is up for reauthorization. It has made a big
difference. We can cite, within every State and nationally, the
difference it has made with hotline, shelters. It has improved
law enforcement on the local level, through STOP grants, to the
States for training police officers, victims' services,
implementing pro-arrest policies in cases of domestic violence,
and it has really helped communities deal with the problems of
teenage runaways and fighting child abuse.
Finally, with Legal Services, I have always supported the
Legal Services Corporation because I think it is important to
assisting the vulnerable people in our society, and women and
children certainly are among the most vulnerable, as well as
the elderly, and they sometimes find themselves in abusive
situations which they cannot control.So the impact of these
situations may result in homelessness, loss of necessary
financial resources, maintenance and health and, ultimately,
costs society far more fiscal burden.
It has also been invaluable in allowing impoverished people
to access the judicial system who might not otherwise have this
opportunity, and that is the American way. As an example, much
of the caseload, almost half of the caseload in Maryland, deals
with divorce, child custody, domestic violence, issues of the
family.
So, finally, Mr. Chairman, Congressman Serrano, I really
appreciate the opportunity to testify before you today, knowing
the challenge and the burden that you face. I wish you well. I
look forward to continuing to work with you. Go for it.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Rogers. Well, thank the gentlelady for her testimony.
We, in fact, have a NOAA hearing this afternoon at 2
o'clock. We will have the NOAA director here to testify about
his budget request. But their request is unrealistic. They are
asking for a $400-million increase, 13 percent, at a time when
we are going to have less money to deal with this year than
last. So we are going to have to go with NOAA through their
budget and try to prioritize with them. But you have been one
of the big boosters of the NOAA budget, and you have been very
effective in that, and I salute you for that.
On NIST, as you know, we have been banking the money for
the new lab there in your district for the last couple of
years, and we had to do that in spite of the fact the
Administration was sending us tricked-up budgets, for whatever
purpose I do not know. But, nevertheless, we did find a way to
bank money for that very expensive building, which is a $225-
million building.
The question is, this year, whether or not we are going to
have enough money to bankroll the final lump sum or whether we
will have to go two years at it. It is just a function of
whether or not they give us enough money to do this. So we will
be working with you on that.
The Violence Against Women Act, you know it has been this
Subcommittee that funded the efforts that you led on the floor
in creating VAWA. And the Administration, in 1998, did not
request enough money, and so we took the initiative and funded
Violence Against Women at a much higher rate than the
Administration requested of us.
On Legal Services, their request is for $340 million. We
funded them, this current year, at $300 million. Again, the
question is where can we find the money.
Ms. Morella. Mr. Chairman, I am one of your big fans
because I think you and the Subcommittee have done a terrific
job.
NOAA has so often been kind of, I guess, unacknowledged, in
terms of the kind of work it has done. It has needed more
advocates. But I know that when you have the hearing, you will
listen to what they say and question them accordingly because I
think they perform an excellent function.
For NIST, you have inspired the Administration to look to
the importance, and the Secretary of Commerce, the importance
of the AML building, and I thank you very much for that. The
concern was spreading it out; maybe that the costs will
accelerate as a result of that.
The Violence Against Women Act, I want you to know I have
traditionally said that do you know that actually that the
Committee has actually appropriated more than was even
authorized, and so I applaud you for that. But please know I
have been stating that throughout the last Congress.
Mr. Rogers. And the gentle lady has been an inspiration for
that, and we appreciate your dedication to it.
Thank you very much for your testimony.
Ms. Morella. Thank you.
[The information follows:]
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Gallegly, we will put your statement in the
record and invite you to make as brief a summary as you would
care to make because we are running late.
----------
Thursday, April 15, 1999.
INS PROGRAM FUNDING REQUEST
WITNESS
HON. ELTON GALLEGLY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA
Mr. Gallegly. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I will
make my comments brief.
I would like to, however, preface my remarks by saluting
you for your candor and your generous comments as it related to
the INS, and I am sure that your true feelings were somewhat
restrained in order to give the benefit of any doubt to the
agency, and you as well, Mr. Serrano.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, thank you very
much for this opportunity to appear before you today on a very
important request that I have. This is an issue that we have
talked about for a long time.
This year, I ask that you allocate $36 million in fiscal
year 2000 to the CJS appropriations bill to expand a successful
INS program that identifies criminal aliens in local and county
jails prior to arraignment, and holds them for deportation
after their sentences are served. These funds would allow INS
to expand the program to 40 countries.
In the 105th Congress, we overwhelmingly passed legislation
to expand the program. In fact, the vote was 410 to 2. It is
not often that we get that many members who can agree on what
day of the week it is. And then, subsequent to that, President
Clinton signed the bill into law on December 5, 1997.
This successful and important program began as a pilot
program in Ventura County, in my district, and during its first
2 years in Ventura County, INS officials identified more than
2,200 criminal aliens. Approximately 60 percent of all of those
screened were deemed to be illegally in the United States.
Many of them were violent criminals with a long history of
arrests and convictions. Without this program, many of those
criminal aliens would have been released back onto our streets.
Let me illustrate how important this program is in the
lives of our citizens. On November 5, 1996, one of my
constituents, Isabel Guzman, was working in her Santa Paula
restaurant when Felix Mendez Magana walked in. He had been
drinking. He brandished two handguns. He argued with another
customer. Isabel asked him to leave. Magana did, and then
returned a few minutes later, gunned her down and killed her.
Magana is an illegal alien. He had two previous arrests for
assault with a deadly weapon in the same district. Had this law
been in effect earlier, Isabel very likely would be alive
today. She was only 30 years old.
Needless to say, this program has unqualified support of
local police and prison officials. Mr. Chairman, this program
has proven its worth. I ask that you include the $36 million to
expand it to the other jurisdictions across the country. Mr.
Deal, who was here earlier, was speaking on this issue
indirectly.
As a part of the appropriation, I would also request that
you require the INS to screen for criminal aliens on a full-
time basis, including those times when the highest number of
arrests occur.
Furthermore, given the INS's reluctance to fully implement
this crime-fighting program, I request that the Subcommittee
include language as specific as possible that will lock the
money into a local jail program.
Thank you very much for all your continued support.
Mr. Rogers. This program makes so much sense and has been
so effective. No wonder the INS does not back it. [Laughter.]
Mr. Gallegly. Let me just add that the INS testified before
our committee aggressively in opposition to this legislation.
It passed the House 410 to 2, and it was passed under unanimous
consent on the Senate side.
Mr. Rogers. Thanks to the gentleman's efforts in 1998, we
increased the program by $6.8 million. In 1999, we increased by
$10 million the program for a local jail initiative.
I think there is about $20 million in the base for 1999.
Our problem is money. If we can find some money, this is
going to be at the top of the list.
Mr. Gallegly. I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman, and I would
ask you to look as hard as you can, but equally important to
the money is that we provide the language to lock this money in
so that we do not find it going to other places, as has
historically been the case.
Mr. Rogers. Yes, I agree with you, but the problem is INS
just does not pay attention to Congress. You can put money in
there, and it may wind up on the other side of the world. That
is why I am for abolishing the agency.
Mr. Gallegly. I would like to join your parade, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Rogers. I have a bill, by the way.
Mr. Gallegly. Sign me on.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you.
[The information follows:]
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Neal, we will make your statement a part of
the record, and if you can summarize briefly, we would
appreciate it.
---------- --
--------
Thursday, April 15, 1999.
OLD STURBRIDGE VILLAGE
WITNESS
HON. RICHARD NEAL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
MASSACHUSETTS
Mr. Neal. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I am here to speak to you and members of the
Committee today on behalf of what is truly a national treasure,
Old Sturbridge Village. It has been a tourist destination for
millions of Americans over the last 50 years, and essentially,
my specific request today is for the purpose of helping them to
construct a new threshold center at the entrance of Old
Sturbridge Village that would be part of the broad interpretive
success that the museum has had over these last five decades.
At this museum, Mr. Chairman, it is one that encourages
people to participate, not just to observe. It has been a
treasure for school children in particular across the New
England region and indeed from points much beyond.
What we are asking for is the opportunity to explore the
New England roots of this Nation be reinforced and highlighted
once again.
The specific funding request, Mr. Chairman, is for $1.8
million. I know as Republican members of the Congress, you will
be happy to hear that there has been an effort to raise the
other half privately, and my sense is that much of that has
indeed already been accomplished. I think of the $1.8 million
in private fund-raising, they have already secured $1.5
million. So that demonstrates the nature of the commitment that
has been made by the private sector in the central part of
Massachusetts.
At the center, people would be able to learn about the
early travel, the community life, and trace the history of
food, ways of cooking, and it would be used as well as an
opportunity for people to conduct symposiums and to speak to
the remarkable history that New England has given to the rest
of the Nation. We still treasure that sense of independence
that has been such a critical part of our collective history in
New England, and we believe that by once again enhancing the
role that Old Sturbridge Village plays not only from an
educational perspective, but just as importantly from a living
perspective that once again millions will benefit in the future
as they have in the past.
Mr. Rogers. Who owns the village?
Mr. Neal. It is privately owned.
Mr. Rogers. It sounds like a wonderful project, and the
gentleman is to be congratulated for promoting the project.
Again, as I have said before, our problem is with money, to be
able to work. I do not think we can pass these appropriations
bills with the budget caps that we are having to live with.
There is just no way. There is just not any money there.
In this Subcommittee, for example, we have got to find an
additional $4 billion to do the Census, and not to mention the
defense problems that are going on, but nevertheless that is
our problem, not yours.
We appreciate your testimony, and we will look at it very
carefully.
Mr. Neal. I understand, Mr. Chairman, of course, in these
sessions, this is like public confession. There will be an
opportunity for private confession as well. So I will be trying
to catch up with you.
Thank you all very much.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Mr. Neal.
[The information follows:]
Mr. Rogers. Lamar Smith.
The Chairman is welcome. He has been a warrior on INS
issues and is our collaborator on all of those efforts, and he
is our leader. So we welcome you here. If you can, summarize
your statement.
---------- --
--------
Thursday, April 15, 1999.
INS FUNDING REQUEST
WITNESS
HON. LAMAR S. SMITH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
TEXAS
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will do so, but let
me first say that I am particularly pleased to be here because
I believe it is important for the authorizing subcommittee to
work closely with the appropriating subcommittee that you chair
to ensure that the resource needs of the Immigration and
Naturalization Service are met in a manner consistent with the
policy priorities of the Congress.
Mr. Chairman, you and I share, as you just mentioned, many
concerns regarding the INS. The agency has seen an increase in
resources from $1.4 billion in fiscal year 1992 to nearly $4
billion for the current fiscal year 1999.
However, the agency has not produced the results that we
expected. I am sure that you are aware of Syracuse University's
recent Government Performance Project which studied 15 Federal
agencies. The INS received the lowest average grade of all 15
agencies. So it is obvious that money alone will not fix the
problems of the INS.
Also, the Administration's request for fiscal year 2000
does not address several key priorities. First, the
Administration requested no new Border Patrol Agents for fiscal
year 2000. This is incredible because the Illegal Immigration
Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 authorizes the
INS to hire 1,000 new Border Patrol Agents each year to fiscal
year 2001. To request no new agents is a flagrant disregard of
Congress' action in passing the 1996 Act by an overwhelmingly
bipartisan majority.
These additional Border Patrol Agents will not just help in
defeating attempts at illegal entry. They are crucial
participants in the war on drugs, and 70 percent of the illegal
drugs entering the United States come across our Southwestern
border. Except for a very small number of Customs and DEA
agents, the Border Patrol is our only line of defense.
Although the problems of our Southern border are well
recognized, drug smuggling, illegal immigration, and terrorism
are increasing at the Northern border as well, where there are
only 300 Border Patrol Agents for more than 3,500 miles of
border. The lack of resources at the Northern border mirrors
that at the South and jeopardizes our national security.
Every Texas Border Patrol Chief that we have talked to, as
well as those along our Northern border, have stated that they
desperately need more Border Patrol Agents. The only Member of
Congress who has served in the border patrol, Congressman
Silvestre Reyes of Texas, discounts as unfounded the
Administration's claim that the Border Patrol has grown too
rapidly, and inexperienced agents are a cause of concern. It is
obvious that the professionals with the most knowledge about
training support for more Border Patrol Agents. We have a White
House that wants to surrender the war against drugs, and in my
judgment an Attorney General who is waving the white flag.
I might point out that the administration's own drug czar,
General McCaffrey, has said we need 20,000 Border Patrol
Agents. We have only 9,000 today, which is one-third of the
number of police officers just in the City of Chicago alone.
Second, the detention and removal of criminal aliens should
be a priority for the INS. However, its budget request shows
that it is not. The problem is enormous. A quarter of all
Federal prisoners today are non-citizens.
The Justice Department tells us that 60 percent of all
released prisoners are arrested again for new crimes within 3
years. This threat can be significantly reduced by removing
non-citizen criminals from the United States.
The INS consistently fails to deport criminal aliens, which
endangers our families and our neighbors. Congress recognized
this when it passed and President Clinton signed the bipartisan
1996 immigration reform law. The law mandated detention of most
criminals until their removal.
The INS was granted an additional 2 years to implement the
law. Congress has doubled the funding for detention and
deportation since 1996 to $730 million. Yet, the INS is still
not ready to implement the law.
There are immediate steps the INS could take. It could free
up the 2,700 beds by moving long-term prisoners to Federal
prisons. A recent GAO report concluded that the INS could save
another 1,700 beds and $40 million a year by completing removal
proceedings before deportable prisoners are released.
Third, the INS has failed to develop a comprehensive
interior enforcement strategy to apprehend and remove illegal
and criminal aliens from the interior of the United States. It
appears that the INS intends to allow all 5 million illegal
aliens now residing in the United States to remain here. The
administration's request for fiscal year 2000 requests few
additional resources for interior enforcement.
Mr. Chairman, these facts lead us to the obvious conclusion
that the INS is not serious about enforcing immigration laws. I
hope that your subcommittee will question the administration's
commitment to enforcing existing law and find a way to provide
additional resources. Congress should act to reduce illegal
immigration and protect our citizens from illegal drugs even if
the administration will not.
I thank you again for the opportunity of sharing my
suggestions with you, and I want to personally thank you for
all you have done in the past to make sure that we have the
resources that we need to both reduce illegal immigration and
reduce the flow of illegal drugs and also stop terrorists from
entering the country.
Mr. Rogers. I thank the gentleman.
As I have said before, as Chairman of the Immigration
Subcommittee on Judiciary, you have been the leader in trying
to reform the INS. That was my attitude for the first 15 years
I served on this Subcommittee, and I came to the conclusion
that they are not reformable. So I concluded that the only way
to try to get at the problem that faces the country is to find
another agency to do it. So I would abolish INS and let the
Justice Department do the law enforcement, Labor do the labor
law enforcement, and the State Department do the other, and
failing that, to separate out the law enforcement from the
services portion of INS into two different agencies, as the
gentleman, I think, agrees.
Mr. Smith. Mr. Chairman, I was going to agree with you that
I think that that is a good idea, but I would also say just in
the last few weeks, we have heard from a number of Border
Patrol Sector Chiefs who all have endorsed the concept that you
have just mentioned that we do need to separate the two
functions of the INS, the enforcement as well as the
processing.
I know that you are active in trying to achieve that goal,
and you will have a bill shortly to do that. We look forward to
supporting it along the process.
Mr. Rogers. I appreciate that.
Mr. Serrano. If I may, very briefly, I think it is
important to note also that the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico has
asked for an increased number of border patrol. We do not think
the island is a border, but as you know, they have an influx of
people coming in by sea. At this committee, folks testified
that Puerto Rico has become--just the issue of drugs coming
into the island and just coming up to Florida and then to New
York. So I think we have to keep that in mind.
Then, once again, Mr. Chairman, this is a fine example of
some of the things that we were talking about before. The
gentleman and I have disagreed at times about how to deal with
folks who come into this country to wash dishes, and this harsh
treatment that is given to them by the Immigration Department,
but I have no problem with somebody who hits a little old lady
over the head and takes her wallet staying in the country and
enjoying the country. So, even there, I have my problems with
INS in that they seem to treat the dishwasher much rougher than
the treat the criminal.
Mr. Rogers. Yes, but that is INS. [Laughter]
On detention, which is the thrust of what you talked about,
the 1999 supplemental request was for $80 million. That amount,
plus an expected additional $31 million reprogramming request,
will likely cost about $150 million in fiscal year 2000. Yet,
the administration request to back up the supplemental? Zero.
Zero.
Then, to detain all of the criminal aliens on top of that
is another $150 million, but I am as frustrated with INS as you
are.
Mr. Smith. Mr. Chairman, I could not agree more. We hear
all of these words about the need to reduce the flow of illegal
drugs, the need to reduce illegal immigration, and we do not
get any requests for funds by the Administration, the same
thing on the detention. We know the desperate need there, and I
appreciate both of my colleagues saying that we do, and yet,
the Administration itself did not request the necessary funds.
So it is frustrating.
Mr. Rogers. Thanks so much.
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Serrano. Thank you.
[The information follows:]
Mr. Rogers. Chairman McCollum.
I am sorry to make you wait. We will make your written
statement a part of the record.
----------
Thursday, April 15, 1999.
FUNDING PRIORITIES FOR LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT
WITNESS
HON. BILL McCOLLUM, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
FLORIDA
Mr. McCollum. I will summarize as briefly as I can, Mr.
Chairman and Mr. Serrano.
First of all, I want to say thank you. I do not think that
there has been any more cooperation between any two authorizers
or appropriators than there has between this subcommittee and
your subcommittee. So it has been a good 4 years.
I intend to hold hearings in the Crime Subcommittee on the
next 4 years as to what should be the Federal funding
priorities for local law enforcement. We need to reexamine
that, and we are going to be doing that in the near term.
However, at the present time, there are a number of
programs that you are fully aware of that I have come before
you today to encourage you to continue, and with our
assistance, we will be glad to give it to you. We will get to
that authorization.
First of all, I think we now have, as Mr. Scott said
earlier, the opportunity to fully authorize for the first time
the Juvenile Accountability Grant, the program that you have
graciously put forward each time we have asked you to, without
our having been able to complete that deal, but it looks good
now.
I also expect to reauthorize in some form the local law
enforcement block grant program that will expire otherwise this
year. It is my recommendation generally that you maintain the
status quo with regard to fiscal year 2000 law enforcement
funding.
First of all, with regard to the block grants, that is, the
local law enforcement ones, I think the key there is the
flexibility that has been maintained in those. If you will
recall, in 1995, when this program came into existence, we had
an authorization intending $2 billion a year to be
appropriated. Actually, the appropriation has been just over
$500 million in each of the last 4 years, and that has proven
entirely adequate. So my request is that you simply continue
that $500 million for the next year.
I regret deeply the administration has zeroed out the
funding, as you know. They do not have any request at all in
here, and I think that is a huge mistake. And it is indicative
of the fact that they do not, and have not, supported this very
flexible local community, county, commission, city council
program.
Truth-in-Sentencing Grants. We may be nearing the end of
this program, but I think it should go on at least another
year. If you will recall, on this one, too, there was a
substantially larger authorization than the appropriations had
been allowed. It was designed originally to go up from $1
billion to $2 billion over 5 years. We have had a pretty steady
stream of $425 million a year, and I think that should continue
this next year.
The benefits have been really good. Nearly 30 States are
now requiring violent criminals to serve at least 85 percent of
their actual sentences, and 4 years ago, it was less than 10
States that did that. So I think the incentives and the reason
for that grant are there, and the benefit of locking up violent
criminals is there. So, if we can carry on at least another
year, I think we will pick up several more States. We will
never get to 50, as 30 is very good, and that is the objective,
is to assist them, but many of these States have a need, as I
understand it, because of the incarceration and because some of
the flexibility in this funding to be able to support what they
have already built. We certainly do not want them to go back to
the program of revolving doors.
Third, with regard to the money on juvenile accountability,
I think we would be very happy with the $250 million that you
put there last year, to give it again this year. The bill I am
going to produce--I think Mr. Scott will call for $500 million
for 3 years. I hope that you can increase a little bit, the
juvenile grants from 250, but that is going to be something you
are going to have to judge. I think when you see what we put
out in the bill, this is going to be an area where if there is
any shift of money in the area to increase anything, I would
encourage you to look at doing it in that area as opposed to
the prisons or the local block grants.
Technology support. You have been good about that. I just
want to make a word about forensic labs, criminal history
records, DNA analysis. They all need sustained funding. We do
not pound the table on that. They are not new bills, but it is
really important that they not be overlooked in the process of
your funding because that is the bread and butter that makes
these programs work.
One program bothers me a lot, and I would be very remiss if
I did not mention it to you. We are near the end of this Cops
on the Street program, the 100,000 cops, but there are some
very serious questions about the 100,000 Cops on the Street
program.
I definitely do not think we should expand it, as the
administration has requested, for another 50,000 police
officers. Maybe you saw, as I did, the editorial in USA Today
earlier this week in which they have roundly criticized the
100,000 cops program. It has not produced 100,000, and it has
not produced an efficient system.
In fact, there is an indication that the money is not going
where it should go, and it is going to other places. We are
going to hold hearings on it. It is a very important thing, and
I have just got all kinds of question flags on this program, as
I am sure you do.
Last on my list is DEA. I am really concerned about this
one, Mr. Chairman. DEA has requested 400 new officers and
agents to move through their Quantico program each year. The
administration has not proposed any new agents this time
whatsoever, not a single one. They have requested 200
intelligence analysts at DEA, and there are only 6 intelligence
analysts that the administration has proposed.
I do not know why they are trying to find the savings here,
but DEA is our bulwark, front line for drug fighting, and it
is, of course, a principal concern that I know you have shared
with me over the years, but this is just totally unacceptable.
I cannot imagine why there is no administration support, Mr.
Serrano and Chairman Rogers, for these additional agents, or at
least some of them. Good Lord, that is a huge difference from
zero to 400 or zero to 200 in the two different areas.
There is also no money in the administration's budget for
the proposed DEA Intelligence Training Academy at Quantico, and
I think that, too, is a big problem. So I would encourage the
subcommittee to find a way to appropriate monies for these DEA
programs, whether the administration does or not. I just do not
see how we win the war on drugs without DEA, and without giving
them some resources that they need.
So that is a brief summary, Mr. Chairman, and I thank you.
Mr. Rogers. On the last one first, on DEA, we are trying to
find out what happened to $330 million that we gave them.
Mr. McCollum. Fair enough.
Mr. Rogers. They cannot account for it.
For example, in the Bahamas, we had funded 11 new agents,
and as of about 2 weeks ago, none of them were there. This was
in the fiscal year 1997 budget. So we questioned that, and now
those agents are there.
In Puerto Rico, we cannot find out. They do not know. They
will not tell us. So I am frustrated with DEA right now. We
have funded DEA with large increases. We have doubled their
budget in 3 years, doubled the funding level in 3 years out of
this subcommittee.
Mr. McCollum. I know you have.
Mr. Rogers. And I am just frustrated because we cannot get
a handle on where it is going. We know it is not going to
agents, where we need them, and that troubles me very much.
Mr. McCollum. Mr. Chairman, I would be more than happy to
work with you on that. We will review things with you and try
to get them into shape because they are critical. You would not
have funded them like that if you did not share with me the
concern that their job is very, very important.
Mr. Rogers. It is very critical, and it is a good agency.
Administrator Constantine is a fine man. He brings to that job
the ``cop on the beat'' attitude, which I think it needs, but
we have got to have accountability in the dollars. Right now,
we are not getting that, and so I would welcome your help on
that.
I share your views, of course, on block grants. That is a
congressional creation. Block grants are 100-percent funding
for indefinite periods of time to localities, and they can use
the money as they see fit, not as we tell them how to use it,
which is what they need. Some places need equipment. Some need
salaries. Some need something else, and that is fine.
The COPS program, of course, is only for COPS salaries, and
it is a 3-year program. Increasingly, each year, the community
has to pay a bigger share of it, and now they cannot afford it.
They have reached the 100-percent level, and they are having to
lay those people off because their budget cannot stand it.
We told them at the outset that that would happen, all of
us did.
Mr. McCollum. That is right.
Mr. Rogers. That is the reason we created the block grant
program for that very purpose, to give more flexibility.
So I share your views on the block grants and the COPS
renewal and all of that, and as I have said before, the
gentleman is the father of the juvenile justice programs in his
subcommittee and the Congress. I wish you could convince our
brethren on the other side of the Capitol as you have convinced
us.
Mr. McCollum. I am optimistic, Mr. Chairman, this time.
Senator Leahy and I have reached an understanding and believe
that that bill would have been signed into law the last
Congress if it had not been for some Administration objections
at the end of the day, and it looks like with Mr. Scott's help
now that we are going to do it. I am really very optimistic.
Mr. Rogers. I congratulate you, and you do a great job in
your chairmanship over there.
Mr. Serrano. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
Just very briefly on two points. First of all, I would hope
that your problems of opposition to the COPS program is exactly
as I heard it, one about the management, and not necessarily
against the issue of more cops on the street because it is a
good program and we need more police officers.
On the other hand, I would hope that when you deal with
some issues over there in your subcommittee which end up
advising us on things to do that you look at this whole issue
of how we select, train, and assign police officers in this
country.
At 3:00 this afternoon in New York City, the largest
demonstration since the civil rights movement will take place,
people from all walks of life coming together, who have never
been seen together, to protest against the issue of police
brutality which has become a dividing issue in our city.
I am one of those who thinks that it is not intentional. It
is people who are never trained properly and other people who
should never be police officers and who fear people they are
supposed to police or dislike them or whatever. I would hope
you look at those issues as you deliberate.
Mr. McCollum. Mr. Serrano, I share your concern about
police brutality wherever it occurs.
I find the flip side of that for your city to be that it is
the model where community policing has worked.
Mr. Serrano. Exactly.
Mr. McCollum. I want to assure you that we will as a
subcommittee on the authorizing side be reviewing the whole
COPS program. I want to know what the local community officers
and local community leaders feel about these things. They are
very diverse in their views, and the criticisms, as you know,
are wide-ranging, but your city has been a prime example of
where it has been positive.
Mr. Serrano. Exactly.
Mr. McCollum. But there are other places where,
unfortunately, it has not been.
Mr. Rogers. We thank the chairman.
Mr. Serrano. Thank you.
Mr. McCollum. Thank you very much.
[The information follows:]
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Smith and Mr. Hoyer, I understand will
jointly appear. Is that correct?
We will make your written statements a part of the record,
and we would invite a brief summary. We would hope you would
not talk yourself out of your monies, which we always give to
you.
Mr. Serrano. He has a way with words.
----------
Thursday, April 15, 1999.
HELSINKI COMMISSION
WITNESSES
HON. CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE
OF NEW JERSEY
HON. STENY HOYER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
MARYLAND
Mr. Smith. I will be very brief, Mr. Chairman, and thank
you. Thanks for letting us both take part on the record.
Very briefly, the Helsinki Commission, as you know, was
formed by an act of Congress in 1976. It was formed to try to
ensure compliance with the Helsinki final act and all the
follow-up documents and agreements with the now-54 states that
make up the Organization for the Security and Cooperation in
Europe.
Our commission has 14 full-time staff. They have been below
the pay grades of other professional staff, and we have been
trying to rectify that in recent years.
Mr. Hoyer, the ranking member, and myself as Chairman--he
was Chairman in the past, and I have served as ranking member.
I have been on this commission now for nine of my ten terms in
the House, and it is probably one of the most under-heralded,
but one of the most effective especially in Europe--
organizations of government because our staff and members are
always interfacing with the heads of the various parliaments,
foreign ministers, on Helsinki issues, whether they be trade,
human rights, human dimensions, and we have held a series of
many briefings and a number of hearings in the Capitol.
So it is very much of an engaged hands-on type of
commission. We have asked for $1.25 million for this year. That
is the President's request, which can be found on page 40 of
his budget, and it does represent an $80,000 increase over the
appropriated level of 1999. But, again, that is to try to
rectify this shortfall that we have seen, through no fault of
anyone, over these many years with regards to our professional
staff.
We have a listing of all the staff and what their agendas
or portfolios are, and they are experts in the field. The
longevity of the staff has been that these people have
institutional memories that are just golden because they know
the issues. They know all the players, and they are a
tremendous source for the State Department, which calls on them
at all the ministerial meetings and all the follow-up meetings
that are held throughout Europe. There is one planned for
Turkey in the fall. The Helsinki staff here has just the
institutional memory that has been invaluable in promoting
these important issues.
Ben Nighthorse Campbell, the Co-Chair, could not be here
because of scheduling, but will submit a statement for the
record, and I would like to yield to Steny.
Mr. Hoyer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
You have been supportive. Obviously, you recognize the
growing importance of CSCE, that is, the Conference on Security
and Cooperation in Europe, which in 1990 in Paris, as you
recall, was changed to the Organization on Security and
Cooperation in Europe, indicating it had a much greater
operational role.
In fact, we had testimony just the other day. Chris called
a hearing. Ambassador Walker testified about the peace-keepers
who were taken out of Kosovo--but while they were there, at
least the atrocities were not occurring. The 2,000 or so were
under OSCE direction, as you know. So the OSCE has become very
operational. It is operational in Bosnia. Both the
Parliamentary Assembly and the Ministerial Council have become
very engaged in some of the most troubled spots in Europe. The
support of this Commission is very modest indeed when
confronted with the complexity of the world as we find it
today.
I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and the committee for
your continuing support.
Mr. Rogers. As you say, it is a modest amount of money. It
is $1.25 million. The requested increase is $80,000 over fiscal
year 1999. Is that just to cover inflation?
Mr. Smith. It would be to continue the slow and modest
increase for salaries.
Mr. Rogers. There is no additional personnel or equipment?
Mr. Smith. There is one new personnel hire. A former
Commission consultant/counsel for Property Rights has been
hired as a full-time staff member.
Mr. Hoyer. Mr. Chairman, I was just going to add, one of
the things I have seen, and it is unfortunate that the public
does not see, is that when Al D'Amato took over as chairman in
1985, there was a lot of pressure to politicize the staff of
the Helsinki Commission from people outside the Commission.
Senator D'Amato refused to do that, and, in fact, there was
a professional staff in place by 1985. Obviously, there have
been changes, but a lot of them still remain, and they were
selected by Senator Dole and by Dante Fascell back when they
were running the Commission. It is really a staff of which I
think all of us could be very, very proud, and it is a
professional staff, not a political staff.
Mr. Rogers. I want to thank both of you for your dedication
to this humanitarian cause. It is a thankless job for the most
part, but we thank you.
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hoyer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The information follows:]
Mr. Rogers. Ms. Hooley, I think, has stepped out for a few
minutes.
We will call Ms. Jackson-Lee.
Your written statement will be made a part of the record,
and we would hope that you can summarize briefly.
----------
Thursday, April 15, 1999.
INS DISTRICT OFFICES
WITNESS
HON. SHEILA JACKSON-LEE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
TEXAS
Ms. Jackson-Lee. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
First of all, let me thank you and thank Ranking Member
Serrano for your kindness.
My chairman said that if he had seen me in the corner
there, he would have said complimentary remarks about his
ranking member. That is Lamar Smith. As I listened to your
conversation, let me bring to the table at least a measure of
agreement on some of the problems that we are facing with the
INS.
It is my philosophy--and, Ranking Member Serrano, I have
heard your comments--that we are a Nation of immigrants, but we
are a Nation of laws. So we would like to see the laws enforced
against the criminal aliens, if you will, but we also want the
treatment, the decent and humane treatment, of those who come
and wash our dishes, but also come for an opportunity.
Mr. Chairman, if I might, I have not written this issue,
but if you would allow me, I am a new ranking member on this
particular committee and just wanted to add a word for State
USAID with respect to the refugee problem and hope that as the
supplemental appropriations come forward that we will look
kindly on the responsibility that they will have in building
encampments to house some of the refugees that are coming
across the border, and I just wanted to add that. It is not in
my statement, but I have been meeting with the State Department
on that issue.
Again, I would like to thank both of you. I have had an
opportunity to speak with Members of Congress about the INS and
have listened to their concerns. The concerns that I hear over
and over again from my constituents and from other Members of
Congress is that something must be done about the backlog of
casework with the INS district offices.
There is a lack of resources and technology to deal with
the overwhelming amount of casework that needs to be dealt with
the fiscal year 2000 budget, which contains funding provided in
1999 at a level of $124 million to decrease the backlog that
has accumulated.
However, I am told by the INS that these monies only bring
us up to speed, and an additional $15.6 million should be
included in the citizenship and benefits immigration support
program direction account. This will provide for 200
adjudicators and additional clerical support staff to be
brought on board to augment the completion of the
naturalization application.
This is in response to Mr. Serrano's comments in how people
are treated at the INS and also responds to, Mr. Rogers, your
continuing frustration, but whether or not they even listen to
us.
Let me cite for you a very tragic story. As I said, we are
a country of immigrants, but a country of laws, and when we ask
people to comply with the laws, why can't we get the job done?
The case of Azimi Atia of Israel, he had been living in the
United States in Houston for several years as a legal permanent
resident, a college graduate, employed with the Exxon
Corporation, and applied for a U.S. citizenship in early 1997.
He desperately wanted to become a citizen so that he could
receive a passport to travel back home to Israel to visit his
dying mother. Due to the backlog, he was not granted
citizenship in time before his mother died. Since then, he has
suffered from severe depression, and he is coping every day of
not becoming a citizen. This problem must be corrected, and we
must do it in Congress. The additional $15.6 million will do
just that.
The other issue that I wanted to bring to your attention is
the U.S. border patrol agents which has been discussed by
Chairman Smith. We realize that although there has been an
appropriations or an authorization for 1,000 border patrol
agents since 1996, this has not occurred. INS did not request
any additional agents in its proposed budget for fiscal year
2000.
I put on my investigatory hat to see what the problem was,
and the representation has been made that with the market as it
is, the lucrative job market, it has been difficult to secure
these much-needed border patrol agents, and also, of course, we
want to ensure that they are well trained.
The appalling number of 300 along our Northern border is
something that we cannot tolerate. The border patrol is not
able to recruit enough agents to meet this authorizing level.
Therefore, I would ask the committee to consider a $3.7-million
additional amount to raise the starting-salary level from GS-5,
which is $22,000, if you can believe it, for a college graduate
to come into the border patrol, which is one of their
requirements, to a GS-7 level, which will be slightly over
$30,000, but it will be comparable with other Federal law
enforcement agencies and certainly meets the responsibilities
of the border patrol agents.
Also, Mr. Chairman, the border patrol agency loses a lot of
its agents when they reach the GS-9 level. That salary level is
off about $33,000 because there is currently a ceiling on how
much they can earn.
So I would ask, Mr. Chairman, that we upgrade the grade
level for experienced border patrol agents so they are allowed
to receive salary increases. Right now, only 30 percent of the
border patrol agents benefit from any increase and are able to
move beyond a GS-9 and a GS-11 due to a very competitive
process. The border patrol agents must remain at a GS-9 for
life.
To lift this salary ceiling so that the majority of border
patrol agents can receive an increase and be allowed to advance
to a GS-11 would take an additional $43.7 million to the
Enforcement Affairs account.
I would simply say, Mr. Chairman, out of the frustration
that they do not listen, as I have heard you say, I believe
these resources would quickly be consumed by INS for the
purpose that we are trying to do, listening to the frustration
of the already-existing border patrol agents and slightly
knowing the reality of a good employment market or job market
so that the difficulty of getting people to areas where they
need, i.e., the Northern border, is a reality, in spite of the
INS and concerns thereof.
I would look forward, Mr. Chairman, as I move quickly to
two other points, to working with you on INS concerns. One of
the problems that I see is the general attitude and the service
operation and treatment of the individuals who come to that
agency. I should not say legally, but with legitimate purposes,
meaning that they legitimately have their papers. They are
legitimately in the process and the treatment that they get. I
hope that we will have the opportunity to collaborate.
Let me quickly juste thank you for the increase to the
Community Relations Service that you provided us last year. As
you well know, I come from Texas. So I was actively engaged in
the tragedy that occurred with the killing of Mr. James Baird.
If I can cite the CRS as being a productive unit of the
Department of Justice, let me tell you, Mr. Chairman, how
effective they were in Jasper, Texas.
Not only did they go in there, but they were actually
welcomed by the local citizens and businesses alike. The CRS
has been helpful in St. Petersburg, Florida; Leland,
Mississippi; Phoenix, Arizona; Brunswick, New Jersey; and
Portland, Oregon. They are not limited to Southern communities.
In fact, they have had a presence in over 190 communities
throughout the Nation.
We were able to raise their $5.3 million last year by
$500,000. I would simply ask both you and the committee to
consider the $2.1 million that has been asked for by the
administration, but I would look forward to working with you on
however we could assist them because they are now declining 40
percent of their cases.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, I chair the Congressional Children's
Caucus and note as a member of the House Judiciary Committee
that we have been seeing an increasing number of murder victims
who are under the age of 18, 2,100 in 1997, and 900 of those
were under the age of 13. More than two-thirds of those were
killed with a firearm, and we are seeing an increase in the
amount of women encountering the justice system at a young age.
In 1997, 748,000 young women were arrested. I would hope
that you would consider favorably the juvenile delinquency
prevention programs, which whenever you go to local
governments, they applaud enthusiastically. These are the
programs that deal with after-school efforts, and they work out
of the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
They are key to instructing and helping children understand
that there are different ways to lead their life. The
administration has asked for a $95-million request for
community prevention programs aimed at youth. However, I would
hope that, together, the authorizers and, of course, this
committee could look to these programs and provide the
necessary funding that would include mentoring, truancy
prevention, gang intervention programs, and many other such
programs.
Mr. Chairman, I thank you. I am trying to move with
deliberative speed. I hope that you will consider--I know that
you were engaged, as I was discussing it, but I would be very
open to answer any questions about the INS. I think there are
many ways of looking at this agency. What I have tried to do is
sort of bullet-point or hit some immediate issues that have
been brought to our attention over and over and over again
about the service element, but also our border patrol men and
women who serve so ably, but really with a salary scale that is
really not responding to their service.
Mr. Rogers. I was engaged in reading your statement as you
went along with it. So I was following you in your statement.
Of course, as the new ranking member on the Immigration
Subcommittee, you are right on target on many of your
Immigration Service points.
Barbara Jordan headed the commission that reviewed the INS
and came back with what I thought was a brilliant report. I am
just very sad that she is not with us still, but she rendered--
during, I guess, one of the last public service acts she did in
her life was this commission, which we then copied and tried to
enact into law, but it met a brick wall. But I still believe in
it.
Failing that, what do you think about the proposal that now
has come forward about reorganizing INS, to not go as far as
the Barbara Jordan Commission's findings, but to separate the
agency into two different functions? It is our fault, I think,
because the Congress gave INS these conflicting duties, service
on the one hand, law enforcement on the other, and those two
clash at times, most of the time, but the agency is
unmanageable for whatever reason, and we pumped money into it.
We have doubled their budget in the last 3 years. Money is not
the problem.
I am so frustrated about it. I know the gentlelady is now
ranking on that subcommittee with heavy responsibility. What do
you think about dividing the agency into two parts?
Ms. Jackson-Lee. Sylvester Reyes is a member of my Texas
delegation, and we have been engaged in this. I should not say
funny that you should ask. I would expect it, but just as you
had asked, I just leaned over to my staff to indicate, to let
us take a broad look at that proposal.
My position is that I remain open to solutions to making
INS work. In the short period of time that I have been a member
of the committee, and now ranking, the number of the issues
that suggest that INS needs fixing, I have certainly gotten my
plate full. I certainly see the need for addressing those
concerns, and I think the proposal of enforcement versus
services is one that should be seriously considered, and that I
will do such.
Mr. Rogers. If I am not mistaken, Sylvester Reyes' bill
last year would have done just that.
Ms. Jackson-Lee. I believe it would, and he is about to
drop another. That is the one we are going to be looking at.
Mr. Rogers. He is our resident expert on the border patrol,
especially, but wherever you look at the INS, whether it is
backlogs for naturalization, criminal detention monies, across
the board, their backlogs continue to just astound us.
We have given them money. They cannot spend it in the right
way. We cannot get a proper accounting for it.
I have been doing this on this Subcommittee now for 16, 17
years, and INS has been, for all that time, the most
unmanageable agency that we have through different
administrations. I am not talking politics here. This is an
agency that is out of control ever since I have known it.
I think it is our responsibility to our constituents that
we try to do something constructive about fixing the INS, and I
hope that we can all come to some bipartisan agreement on it.
Ms. Jackson-Lee. I think you have been a leader on this
issue, and it has been painful throughout the years.
One of the things I would like to say is similar to when we
all collectively had to take a good look at the IRS. I do want
to cite the good employees scattered throughout the Nation in
the INS service, the border patrol agents all trying to do our
best.
I would like one day for us to come up here on the Hill and
say isn't it great news, they are responding to Congress
persons. You do not know how I feel. Though it is a new
kinship, I obviously have a relationship with the INS because I
have been on Judiciary since coming to Congress, but to hear
Members of Congress say that they have sent a letter to the
INS, it is almost the death knell for any Congress person to
hear a constituent stand up in a town hall meeting and talk
about a letter that they sent that you did not respond to.
So it certainly is hurtful to hear and striking that many
Members of Congress have sent letters to that agency, and it is
6 months later and the letter has not been answered. That is
just indicative of some of the problems, but I do want to cite
the good employees.
Mr. Chairman, I hope that maybe with your staff, there are
elements of this that you would see, particularly in this
adjudicator's point, and the salary aspect might be of help on
a temporary basis.
Mr. Rogers. Yes, I meant to respond to that.
Ms. Jackson-Lee. All right.
Mr. Rogers. They put out an inaccurate press release from
which, I think, you may have gathered that information on the
2000 budget. They said in their press release that the 2000
budget contained funding at a level of $124 million. That is
inaccurate.
We already gave them that figure in this current fiscal
year 1999, and that included 200 adjudicators. So they got the
money for that. They corrected it later, and we gave them those
adjudicators in the current year.
They issued an inaccurate press release, which they have
not corrected, and you have probably picked up that earlier
press release.
Ms. Jackson-Lee. We have been in conversation with them for
the last couple of days. Let me clarify that because they have
indicated to us that they need additional adjudicators, and I
think we obviously do need to get on the same page.
Mr. Rogers. They have not requested it.
Again, that is the INS.
Ms. Jackson-Lee. As I say, we will get on the same page. I
would like to keep my request at additional levels of
adjudicators, but I would like to get back and further explain
that to you.
Mr. Rogers. Check it out and get back with us. We
appreciate your testimony.
Ms. Jackson-Lee. I thank you very much, and I look forward
to working you.
Mr. Rogers. Thanks for your work.
[The information follows:]
Mr. Rogers. Ms. Hooley, we will enter your statement in the
record.
---------- --
--------
Thursday, April 15, 1999.
JUVENILE DETENTION FACILITY, FORENSICS LAB AND CLASSROOMS, LEGAL
SERVICES FOR SPANISH-SPEAKING CLIENTS, ENHANCED LAW ENFORCEMENT RADIO
SYSTEMS IN CLACKAMAS COUNTY
WITNESS
HON. DARLENE HOOLEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
OREGON
Ms. Hooley. Thank you.
Mr. Rogers. If you could, summarize it briefly.
Ms. Hooley. I will.
Mr. Rogers. You do not need to read it to us.
Ms. Hooley. I am not going to.
Mr. Rogers. Welcome.
Ms. Hooley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your patience.
When you talk about the INS, you have hit some real hot buttons
with me. As a person that has dealt with that agency, I thought
the IRS was a problem, but it does not even compare to the INS.
Mr. Rogers. I agree. I agree.
Ms. Hooley. Most of the people have been talking about
general programs. Those general programs fund a lot of specific
programs in all of our districts, and let me talk about what
they do and some real needs.
One of my requests is for $3.5 million for a juvenile
detention facility. The reason for this request is that we have
four beds in that county, and 650 young people were held in
detention last year. When the beds were filled, which they
always were, it meant an hour drive to another facility.
Usually, that was full, and then they were released, but those
trips just alone, without counting the officer's time or the
lack of law enforcement on the streets when they were busy
driving a child someplace was $120,000.
The county is absolutely committed to this program. They
have raised $1.2 million to help stem their juvenile crime
problem, and they have set aside money for our land for the
building.
Second, I just wanted to talk briefly about a $4-million
project, and that is to build a forensics lab and classrooms.
This is at a university, a small university that specializes in
law enforcement and public safety programs. There is no degree
program anywhere in the area for forensics. As you know for law
enforcement, it is a growing field where we need to train
people. We need to also have a lab that all of the law
enforcement agencies would use. Again, this money is for a lab
and classrooms.
In that same small university, Western Oregon University,
we are also looking for $400,000 to work with the legal
services for Spanish-speaking clients. It is a region with a
large influx of immigrants, 10 percent of whom are not fluent
in English, and frankly, in Oregon's legal system, we do not
have enough bilingual lawyers, judges, or court personnel to
serve the Spanish-speaking community in my district.
Finally, another $4-million request for enhanced law
enforcement radio systems in Clackamas County. We are on a
1950's channel. It is hard for fire, police, ambulance services
to communicate with one another, where work is a larger part of
the Portland metropolitan region. We need to update our radio
system to an 800-megahertz.
So those are my four projects. Those are what those program
monies are used for.
Mr. Rogers. I thank the gentlelady for her testimony.
First, on the juvenile detention facilities, we do not
earmark in that category----
Ms. Hooley. Right.
Mr. Rogers [continuing]. But I would suggest that you try
for a Juvenile Accountability Block Grant. We have got a large
sum of money that we have provided in that account for the
current year.
Ms. Hooley. Okay.
Mr. Rogers. So you might try that route on that. That would
probably be the best way to go.
Ms. Hooley. Okay.
Mr. Rogers. As staff has pointed out, the prison grant
monies that goes to States is another place that you should
look.
On forensics science laboratory----
Ms. Hooley. Yes, laboratory and classrooms.
Mr. Rogers [continuing]. Our problem is the budget caps are
killing us.
Ms. Hooley. I understand.
Mr. Rogers. This is new money.
Ms. Hooley. This is new money.
Mr. Rogers. We cannot even pay the old bills, let alone the
new, but, anyway, if the caps are removed, then this might be
possible.
Ms. Hooley. Is there any category that that makes sense,
that currently is in the budget?
Mr. Rogers. For a grant?
Ms. Hooley. It is an area where we absolutely have to train
people. It is a growing field.
Mr. Rogers. Why don't you have your staff confer with the
Committee staff----
Ms. Hooley. Okay, we will do that.
Mr. Rogers [continuing]. And explore the possibilities.
Ms. Hooley. Okay.
Mr. Rogers. On your program at Western Oregon on legal
service professionals, you might want to check also the
Juvenile Accountability Block Grant area for that. That is
possible there.
Ms. Hooley. Okay.
Mr. Rogers. On your radio equipment, you may want to check
on the Local Law Enforcement Block Grants that this
Subcommittee wrote into the law a couple of years ago or so,
and it is funded at a large amount.
Ms. Hooley. Right.
Mr. Rogers. That might cover that area as well.
Ms. Hooley. I would be happy to work with the INS, I will
tell you. I have some stories to tell.
Mr. Rogers. I appreciate that.
Ms. Hooley. I have visited the agency several times.
Mr. Rogers. We are probably going to have a bill, a
bipartisan bill put together that would divide the agency into
two parts as a step in the right direction. I would invite you
to look at that when it comes out soon.
Ms. Hooley. Thank you. Thank you for your time and for
listening and spending all of your time listening to these.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you for a very effective presentation.
Thank you.
[The information follows:]
Mr. Rogers. Chairman Gilman?
---------- --
--------
Thursday, April 15, 1999.
COMMISSION FOR THE PRESERVATION OF AMERICA'S HERITAGE ABROAD
WITNESSES
HON. BENJAMIN GILMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
NEW YORK
CHRIS HILL, PROJECT OFFICER, COMMISSION FOR THE PRESERVATION OF
AMERICA'S HERITAGE ABROAD
Mr. Gilman. Thank you, and, Chairman Rogers, I want to
thank Congresswoman Capps for allowing me to go ahead of her. I
have a markup that I have to go back to my committee on.
Chairman Rogers, I am here on the request on behalf of the
Commission for the Preservation of America's Heritage Abroad,
and I submit my full statement for the record and would just
summarize.
I am making a request on their behalf for $350,000. They
are documenting some 500 sites in Romania, some 1,500 ethnic
and religious sites in Ukraine. They are assisting in restoring
a desecrated synagogue and establishing a new study center just
across the river from the infamous Auschwitz death camp, and
they are working to sign agreements with the Bosnian
government, beginning the process of renovating and preserving
a cemetery in Sarajevo, the oldest of its kind in Europe, and a
symbol of the city's rebirth.
Regrettably, the commission, while it is making substantial
progress, it is prohibited, due to financial constraints from
completing surveys, research, and other procedures necessary to
protect the cultural heritage with regard to these projects,
though it is embarrassing for our commission to negotiate their
agreements in the name of historical, cultural, and religious
importance, and then to forego any further meetings and surveys
and other protection due to the lack of money. That is why we
are asking for that amount. We would welcome the Appropriations
Committee, Mr. Chairman, to give them sufficient funding so
that they can move ahead in the good progress that they are
making.
Mr. Rogers. I appreciate the Chairman's advocacy for this
program which he does every year. You are the reason why we
fund the Commission to be frank with you.
I am confused. I am told that the 2000 request was for
$265,000. You say it is $350,000.
Mr. Gilman. I am asking that it be $350,000 because they
are undergoing financial constraints in meeting the needs for
their surveys and research.
Mr. Rogers. But is it not correct that they requested
$265,000?
Mr. Gilman. I think that that is the request.
There is someone in here from the commission. Would you
explain your request? Why don't you come on up to the table and
identify yourself.
Mr. Rogers. You will need to state your name for us.
Mr. Hill. My name is Chris Hill, and I am a project officer
with the commission. We are proud of Congressman Gilman's
support.
We asked for $265,000 for fiscal year 2000. So that is what
our request is for this current fiscal year. We certainly would
be greatful for any increase that we could receive from your
Subcommittee to further our site work and our surveys that we
are doing in several countries in Europe, and as well as move
forward with our agreements.
I apologize if the number is incorrect that you have on
your testimony here. That is what we asked for.
Mr. Rogers. That would be level funding.
Mr. Hill. Yes.
Mr. Rogers. We gave you that increase.
Mr. Hill. Right, that would be what we received last year.
Mr. Rogers. We gave you that increase in 1999 over 1998.
Mr. Hill. Right.
Mr. Rogers. So our problem is we are going to be short of
money, like everyone else at this time.
So, Mr. Chairman, we will give this thing every shot we
can.
Mr. Gilman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you very much for your advocacy for this
program.
Mr. Gilman. Thank you.
Mr. Hill. Thank you.
[The information follows:]
Mr. Rogers. Ms. Capps, we will enter your statement in the
record, and we would like for you to summarize, of course,
please.
----------
Thursday, April 15, 1999
NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION, NATIONAL MARINE
SANCTUARIES PROGRAM AND THE COASTAL NONPOINT POLLUTION CONTROL PROGRAM
WITNESS
HON. LOIS CAPPS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA
Mrs. Capps. Thank you very much.
Chairman Rogers, it is a pleasure to be able to testify on
behalf of your Subcommittee, and I am here to urge support of
two very important programs under the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, the National Marine
Sanctuaries Program and the Coastal Nonpoint Source Pollution
Control Program.
I know that Mr. Farr and Mr. Pallone, two of my colleagues,
have already presented testimony on these important programs.
These programs represent a crucial investment in our oceans and
coastal resources.
I urge the Subcommittee to support the Administration's
budget request for the sanctuaries and nonpoint pollution
control programs. Specifically, $29 million is requested for
the National Marine Sanctuaries Program and $17.5 million for
the Coastal Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program.
Mr. Chairman, you do not have to represent the spectacular
Central Coast of California as I do to know that our oceans are
the world's greatest resource. As I was waiting to speak, I was
drawn to the map on the wall. It is a beautiful map. The
proportion of blue with green indicates the vastness of our
ocean resources.
Oceans are key to the life support system for all species
and play a crucial role in the daily lives of all of us. Our
Nation must, and I believe, is poised and ready to take
responsibility to be good stewards of the oceans, and these two
programs are essential to that stewardship.
I want to explain from my perspective the importance of the
National Marine Sanctuaries Program and the Coastal Nonpoint
Source Pollution Control Program.
The National Marine Sanctuaries Program is vital to protect
and manage our Nation's outstanding marine areas. This program
does have strong support in Congress, and as you know, I have
written to the committee, along with 17 of my colleagues from
both sides of the aisle, in support of the sanctuary program.
The aquatic equivalent of our national parks, the National
Marine Sanctuaries Program identifies, designates, and protects
these areas of the marine environment deserving special
protection and recognition for their outstanding ecological,
cultural, historical, and educational qualities. I am proud to
have one of the designated 12 sanctuaries in my district, the
Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary.
As the only program designed to manage these important
ecologically sensitive areas, these sanctuary sites not only
protect our marine heritage for generations to come, but help
to sustain critical resources and vibrant economies for our
coastal communities and our country as a whole.
This year, the sanctuary program has undertaken a new and
exciting program, the Sustainable Seas Expedition, a 5-year
public/private partnership involving deep water exploration and
public education of the national marine sanctuaries, all 12 of
them.
The sanctuary program has achieved considerable success,
but that success risks being diminished by inadequate funding
levels. This partnership is dependent on the kind of
relationship that has been established.
Despite the remarkable ability to leverage additional
financial support from other governmental and non-governmental
programs, an increase in Federal funding for the sanctuary
program is not only fully warranted, but imperative so that
this program can fulfill its important mandate.
The other important program that I am here today to discuss
is the Coastal Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program.
Nonpoint source pollution is the Nation's number-one water
pollution program. Polluted run-off is responsible for closing
our beaches and contaminating our fish and shellfish. In my
district, it has been remarkable in the last few years.
The problem of coastal pollution and beach closures has
become so serious that local citizens have rallied together and
formed an organization called `Heal the Ocean' in Santa Barbara
to address the problem. Heal the Ocean has raised money on
their own, but it is not sufficient. They also do not have the
regulatory capacity, but they have the enthusiasm to deal with
this issue.
While the group's efforts are to be commended, it really is
the Federal Government's role to be a strong partner in this
kind of effort to protect our coastal waters.
The Nonpoint Pollution Program is of critical importance in
my locality. I can assure you of that. Modest investment in
keeping our coastal waters clean will bring a substantial
payback by improving water quality, protecting human health,
creating new jobs, and sustaining the current economy that we
enjoy.
In my district the ocean and coastal resources are at the
heart of the local economy through tourism, fishing, and
recreation, and these are all in jeopardy because of the
pollution issues.
I urge the Committee to recognize the importance of our
Nation's ocean and coastal resources and request that you put
your backing behind full support for funding these vital
programs.
I thank you for the opportunity to testify today, and I
hope that being last on your agenda does not mean that we just
get the leftovers. These programs are already in the
Administrations budget and I would be interested to hear your
comments.
Mr. Rogers. On the contrary, it is always common sense that
the last person has the last word.
Mrs. Capps. So you are going to leave with that fresh in
your mind. There is something biblical about that, isn't it?
The last shall be first.
Mr. Rogers. Yes, or the first shall be last.
Mrs. Capps. Or, maybe that, whatever.
Mr. Rogers. The gentlelady makes a very cogent statement,
and she represents one of the most beautiful districts in the
country. In fact, San Luis Obispo, I think, is the projected
West Coast aim of the new proposed I-66 Highway, which runs
through my district as well.
Mrs. Capps. Oh.
Mr. Rogers. In fact, we just got the first funding for a
stretch of that highway, which will be constructed in Kentucky,
but would link----
Mrs. Capps. It would run all the way across?
Mr. Rogers [continuing]. All across the country, and I
would advise the gentlelady to begin work on her end of the
highway--
Mrs. Capps. I had better do that.
Mr. Rogers [continuing]. To try to get us a highway built
out there so we can connect Somerset, Kentucky, with San Luis
Obispo, California.
Mrs. Capps. So you can come out there and check on the
beaches.
Mr. Rogers. Check on the beaches and check on the marine
sanctuary program.
Mrs. Capps. Thank you very much for your time.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you.
[The information follows:]
Mr. Rogers. The hearing is adjourned.
[The following statements were submitted for the record:]
M E M B E R S O F C O N G R E S S
----------
Page
Barrett, Hon. Bill............................................... 200
Bass, Hon. C.F................................................... 1
Bereuter, Hon. Doug.............................................. 200
Campbell, Hon. B.N............................................... 152
Capps, Hon. Lois................................................. 180
Cramer, Hon. Bud................................................. 14
Deal, Hon. Nathan................................................ 95
Dickey, Hon. Jay................................................. 23
Farr, Hon. Sam................................................... 100
Gallegly, Hon. Elton............................................. 122
Gilchrest, Hon. Wayne............................................ 7
Gilman, Hon. Benjamin............................................ 172
Hooley, Hon. Darlene............................................. 167
Hoyer, Hon. Steny................................................ 145
Hunter, Hon. Duncan.............................................. 203
Jackson, Hon. Jesse, Jr.......................................... 199
Jackson-Lee, Hon. Sheila......................................... 156
Lobiondo, Hon. F.A............................................... 71
McCollum, Hon. Bill.............................................. 137
Morella, Hon. C.A................................................ 115
Neal, Hon. Richard............................................... 126
Pelosi, Hon. Nancy............................................... 206
Roemer, Hon. Tim................................................. 76
Scott, Hon. R.C. ``Bobby''....................................... 107
Smith, Hon. C.H.................................................. 145
Smith, Hon. L.S.................................................. 131
Stump, Hon. Bob.................................................. 197
Stupak, Hon. Bart................................................ 86
Talent, Hon. J.M................................................. 186
Visclosky, Hon. P.J.............................................. 4
Waters, Hon. Maxine.............................................. 217
P U B L I C W I T N E S S E S
----------
Page
Alliance for International Educational and Cultural Exchange..... 219
American Bar Association......................................... 229
American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO............. 236
American Foreign Association..................................... 241
American Intellectual Property Law Association................... 251
American Oceans Campaign......................................... 257
American Public Power Association................................ 261
America's Public Television Stations............................. 267
Antarctica Project............................................... 274
Big Brothers Big Sisters of America.............................. 279
CAPE/PETE........................................................ 285
Carnegie Hall.................................................... 296
CASA............................................................. 301
Center for Marine Conservation................................... 304
City of Gainesville, Florida..................................... 309
City of Miami Beach, Florida..................................... 316
City of Newark, New Jersey....................................... 320
Coastal States Organization...................................... 329
Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission...................... 336
Columbia University.............................................. 341
Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon.... 347
Consortium of Social Science Associations........................ 353
Fairfield University--Information Technology Center.............. 359
Florence Immigrant and Refugee Rights Project, Inc............... 363
Florida State University......................................... 370
Global Health Council............................................ 374
International Community Corrections Association.................. 380
International Trademark Association.............................. 383
JASON Project.................................................... 389
Kids With A Promise.............................................. 392
Massachusetts Foundation for Excellence in Marine Sciences....... 400
Mayors of Upper Mississippi River................................ 405
MidAtlantic Employer's Association............................... 407
Middle Atlantic/Great Lakes Organized Crime Law Enforcement...... 412
Museum of Science and Industry................................... 421
National Congress of American Indians............................ 425
National Crime Prevention Council................................ 435
National Federation of Community Broadcasters.................... 442
National Legal and Policy Center................................. 446
National Public Radio............................................ 457
National Recreational and Park Association....................... 464
National Sheriffs' Association................................... 467
National Coordinated Law-Related Educational Program............. 469
The Nature Conservancy........................................... 476
Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission............................ 481
Pinon Community School Board..................................... 485
Rural Enterprises of Oklahoma.................................... 487
Sax and Fox Nation............................................... 490
Santa Rosa Memorial Hospital..................................... 493
SEARCH........................................................... 496
Suffolk University-Center for Juvenile Justice................... 505
SUNEI Weather and Climate Technical Advisory Committee........... 510
United Indians of All Tribes Foundation.......................... 512
United States-Canada Pacific Salmon Commission................... 522
United States Merchant Marine Academy............................ 526
University Corporation for Atmospheric Research.................. 533
University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey............... 536
University of Miami.............................................. 541
University of Southern Mississippi Institute of Marine Sciences.. 551
University of Tulsa.............................................. 554
Upper Mississippi River Basin Association........................ 556