SPEAKERS CONTENTS INSERTS
Page 1 TOP OF DOC
DEPARTMENTS OF COMMERCE, JUSTICE, AND STATE, THE JUDICIARY, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 1999
TESTIMONY OF MEMBERS OF CONGRESS AND OTHER INTERESTED INDIVIDUALS AND ORGANIZATIONS
Thursday, March 12, 1998.
MEMBERS OF CONGRESSS
WITNESS
HON. ALFONSE D'AMATO, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Mr. ROGERS. The Subcommittee will come to order. We will now commence the hearing at which individual members may present their views on various aspects of the Administration's budget request for Fiscal Year 1999.
Your statements will be made a part of the record, and we hope you can keep your remarks within a five-minute time frame. We are pleased to have, first, the Senator from New York to testify. We are going to hear from the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe and we are pleased to welcome the Commission's Chairman, Senator D'Amato from New York.
We have also received a statement from the Co-Chairman, Chris Smith, which will be made a part of the record and because of the time schedule we hope that you can keep your remarks within five minutes.
Page 2 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Senator D'AMATO. Mr. Chairman, first of all, let me thank you for giving me this opportunity. I know there are some colleagues who are here waiting to testify and, therefore, I would ask that my full statement be entered into the record as if read in its entirety.
Mr. ROGERS. Without objection.
Senator D'AMATO. And then, Mr. Chairman, let me say that it has been a great honor to work with you and your Subcommittee. I believe that, overall, our Commission has one of the best records in terms of not only what we do but have done in confronting the important issues. We are going to have a hearing this coming week on Kosovo, on the events that are taking place, we are all deeply concerned, but that is one of the areas that we will be working on.
But the Commission has stayed within the same budget parameters for the last four years. We have never had an increase and this is the first time in four years that we will be asking for an $80,000 increase. So, we will be requesting an appropriation of $1,170,000 and that is because we can simply not meet all of our obligations keeping our staffing at the present level, without those additional resources.
Again, I have been very reluctant, nor, have I ever requested an increase. This increase is very, very modest. It is a 6 percent, first-time in, actually it would be, five years that we have come for a request.
Page 3 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
[The information follows:]
"The Official Committee record contains additional material here."
Mr. ROGERS. Now, is that just an increase for inflation or are you talking about more staff or program add-on?
Senator D'AMATO. No. Just to continue at the present staffing level. Yes, just to meet the inflationary needs.
Mr. ROGERS. All right.
Now, I understand that two of the Executive Branch seats on the Commission are vacant; the State Department seat is the only one that has been filled.
How long have the Commerce and Defense seats been vacant?
Senator D'AMATO. They have been vacant more than a year. I think that the Administration has not done what it can or should, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. ROGERS. Is that a problem?
Senator D'AMATO. Yes, it is. I do not think the Administration is too anxious to have Congress undertaking this vital work, to be quite candid with you.
Page 4 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. ROGERS. Are you still able to get the cooperation you need from Commerce and Defense despite the vacancies?
Senator D'AMATO. Yes, but it is more difficult. There is no one with the real accountability.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Mollohan?
Mr. MOLLOHAN. No questions, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. ROGERS. Thank you very much, Senator.
Senator D'AMATO. Mr. Chairman, let me thank you, good to see you.
Mr. ROGERS. Thank you, thank you very much.
Mr. Cramer?
Thursday, March 12, 1998.
MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
Page 5 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
WITNESS
HON. ROBERT E. CRAMER, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ALABAMA
Mr. CRAMER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I also have a statement that I will submit for the record and I will be brief. I am here, again, on behalf of the Children's Advocacy Center programs. It is a program that started at the front line when I was District Attorney in Alabama, back in Alabama back in 1985. The program with this committee's help has grown tremendously.
We are in your budget for $5.5 million and we were the subject of the uncontested motion to instruct last year and we thank you for that very positive attention that we received.
We are working with OJJDP, again, to administrator the program. There are 156 full member programs around the country; 77 associate members of the program; and another 100 potential member programs.
What this funding allows this program to do is to reach out on the front line and, frankly, it brings the public sector and the private sector together at a time when the public sector is overburdened with child abuse cases, and in a neutral based facility, these community-based child abuse teams do their intervention with children and families.
So, we think we provide the mechanism for successful prosecutions, for prosecutions that make sense, for the safety net that children and families should have; networking then with other treatment resources within the community and I think it is working just as you would want it to work.
Page 6 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
So, we thank you for the funding that you have given us in the past and, just in case you find any extra funding, we would be glad to take that as well.
[The information follows:]
"The Official Committee record contains additional material here."
Mr. ROGERS. You are asking for level funding?
Mr. CRAMER. That is correct.
Mr. ROGERS. That supports 300 local centers?
Mr. CRAMER. Yes.
Mr. ROGERS. Any questions?
Mr. MOLLOHAN. No, Mr. Chairman, I would like to compliment the gentleman on his leadership in this area. He deserves to be supported in his efforts with the agency as the program is developed.
Mr. CRAMER. Thank you very much.
Mr. ROGERS. Well, congratulations on your leadership.
Page 7 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. CRAMER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. ROGERS. Thank you very much.
Mr. ROGERS. Nancy Pelosi.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Pallone was here before me.
Mr. ROGERS. All right, Mr. Pallone.
Thursday, March 12, 1998.
MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
WITNESS
HON. FRANK PALLONE, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Mr. PALLONE. I will be brief.
Mr. Chairman, I have a full statement for the record, but I would just summarize, if I could ask that the full statement be included in the record.
Page 8 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. ROGERS. It shall be.
Mr. PALLONE. And I just want to briefly talk about some of the NOAA programs. I have a whole list of things that are mentioned in the full statement.
I represent the Jersey shore and I also co-chair our Coastal Caucus in the House. And we are interested, in particular, in a number of the NOAA programs and funding.
I think you know that the President had requested a major increase in funding for the non-point source pollution program which is the number one threat really to our water quality today around the country. And we sent you a letter on a bipartisan basis from the members of the Coastal Caucus basically requesting the Administration's level of $22 million in funding for NOAA to help protect our coastal waters and, particularly, with regard to the non-point source pollution program.
Some of this goes to the States in grants, some of it is used for Federal programs directly. Essentially it is a combination to try to achieve the goal of trying to improve the problem that comes from non-point source pollution.
The second thing I wanted to mention was the National Sea Grant College Program. Yesterday I went to the program's 30th anniversary year reception and I was a Sea Grant extension specialist in New Jersey and know the program is a very good program.
Basically we are trying to get continued funding for the program at a level of $64.8 million. This is the amount that is in the recently passed Sea Grant reauthorization bill. It is really an excellent program because of what it does in the community, I would say.
Page 9 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
And, third, I wanted to mention and this comes up every year, our fisheries lab, our NOAA lab in Sandy Hook, New Jersey, in my district. I am requesting that $2.25 million of the construction budget, NOAA's construction budget, be allocated to the lease for the James J. Howard Marine Science Laboratory. It was named after my predecessor, Jim Howard.
This was worked out with the State when the lab was constructed and on an annual basis the Federal Government will contribute a certain amount for the lease of the fisheries lab.
And, last, I wanted to point to the National Undersea Research Program, the NURP program, which is the nation's only program dedicated to advanced underwater research in the coastal oceans and the Great Lakes. We are requesting that the Subcommittee support $18 million in funding for NURP. This is a program that exists at a number of the universities around the country, including my own, Rutgers University.
And the President requested $4.1 million and I am asking that this be funded at the higher level of $18 million because I do not think that the $4.1 million that was requested really will be sufficient for the various programs that NURP provides. And this is something that we have talked about quite a bit in our Resources Committee and had hearings on it.
It really again is a very valuable program that I think that the subcommittee would support, hopefully, at that level of funding.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Page 10 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
[The information follows:]
"The Official Committee record contains additional material here."
Mr. ROGERS. Thank you very much.
I appreciate your coming.
Mr. PALLONE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Mollohan?
Mr. MOLLOHAN. No questions, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. ROGERS. Ms. Pelosi?
Thursday, March 12, 1998.
MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
WITNESS
Page 11 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
HON. NANCY PELOSI, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Ms. PELOSI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Mollohan.
Mr. Chairman, and Mr. Mollohan, first, I want to thank you very much for the opportunity to appear to discuss the Fiscal Year 1999 funding request for your very important Subcommittee but I also want to thank you for your past support for some of the requests that I have made, including Radio Free Asia, the Asia Foundation and other programs.
I thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for your support during the Fiscal Year 1998 conference for the provision based on legislation that I introduced to ensure that victims of domestic violence are not disqualified from eligibility for legal services based on the income of their abusing spouses and for including language to assist the San Francisco Juvenile Justice Action Plan. Thanks for that and thanks, generally, for your leadership in balancing the priorities to you and Mr. Mollohan in this very important bill.
As a former member, I recognize full well the breadth of this Subcommittee and the challenges that you have.
On the subject of Radio Free Asia, I understand the Administration has requested $19.4 million for Radio Free Asia. I respectfully request that the Committee consider at least that amount. In fact, I hope you will seriously consider providing $25 million for Radio Free Asia. As you may recall the authorization from last year was for $32 million.
Just to give you a mini-ten-second report, because I know you want to know if it is reaching the target. It is my understanding that Radio Free Asia is currently transmitting 18 hours a day in China; 12 hours in Mandarin, two of Cantonese, and four of Tibetan. We would like to bring that up to 24-hour service.
Page 12 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In terms of jamming, I thought you would be interested to know that in Vietnam and China the Radio Free Asia broadcasts are being jammed. In the case of Vietnam, jamming is almost total. In the case of China, some signals are getting through and RFA reports that it is receiving good feedback from all over China on the broadcasts that are getting through.
Without the leadership of you, Mr. Rogers, and Mr. Mollohan, Radio Free Asia would simply not exist. Thankfully, it does and it is making a difference and I and many others thank you for that.
The Asia Foundation is requesting $10 million and then the Administration added another $5 million for the Asia Foundation for a rule of law program in China. I come here with an unusual request. I have discussed the China proposal with the Asia Foundation. I still have some questions about it.
But I wholeheartedly support the $10 million, and this $5 million program would have more information for it. I would like you to consider it. If they got $10 million, there could not be $5 million for China and $5 million for the regular program. They need $5 million for the Asia Foundation.
The rule of law program in China will have to stand on its own and I would hope that if it is a good program that the Asia Foundation would be the entity. But I just wanted to make the distinction between the $10 million and the $5 million.
Onto the Justice part, this year I am requesting that the Subcommittee work with our office to develop report language to address a serious concern about insufficient INS staffing at the San Francisco International Airport. You will probably hear this from many members. Like many airports, the number of immigration officials employed at our airport currently falls far short of the staffing ceiling. We are in the process of a huge expansion at our airport, I am particularly concerned that travel to and from Asia greatly exacerbates the problem.
Page 13 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I would hope that the report language could address that serious insufficiency in terms of INS staffing at the airport.
State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance Program. Again, Mr. Chairman, thanks for your help in support of the San Francisco's Juvenile Justice Action Initiative in the Fiscal Year 1998 appropriation. This year, I hope the subcommittee will agree to provide $1.5 million in the Edward Byrne discretionary grants under the Department of Justice for the Delancey Street Foundation Criminal Justice Council Juvenile Justice Partnership.
If you had the time, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Mollohan, it would be worth a trip to San Francisco or we could bring the people here. The Delancey Street people are the most effective people that I have ever, ever worked with and they would be very worthy recipients of this funding and my full statement will have further information on this initiative, which I could go into now but, in the interest of time, I will not.
The National Maritime Sanctuary Program. Fortunately, many members will come before you about this, at least I hope so. The program is authorized at $18 million for Fiscal Year 1999. I urge the Subcommittee to increase funding for this important program, charged with the stewardship of precious ocean and coastal resources.
This is the Year of the Ocean, and I will go into that in a moment. Many salmon runs in California and the Pacific Northwest are in serious trouble. I hope that the Subcommittee recognizes the serious problem and addressed the deficiency that exists in the protected species budget for the NMFS. I would welcome the opportunity to work with the Subcommittee to develop some report language on the salmon problem.
Page 14 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Further, to the fisheries program, and the National Maritime Sanctuary Program, the Winter Run Chinook Salmon Captive Broodstock program. The initial commitment at NMFS was $500,000 and then zero. Given the difficult problems facing salmon in our region, it would be helpful to the completion of this program if NMFS would obligate funding in support of the species restoration project.
Additional research is required for the Pacific Groundfish stock. A $100 million industry in California and we have serious declines in the stock. A specific line item of funding for Pacific Groundfish in the amount of $2.25 million is required to conduct the minimal research to develop a plan for addressing the decline in this species.
This request is in line with the amount allocated last year by NMFS. Naturally, an increase in this specific amount would provide the necessary data for a faster pace.
I appreciate the Subcommittee's consideration of these important requests. You know, my city is very small, 42 miles square, but the issues about salmon and other fisheries, Groundfish et cetera are important to our whole region in California and, of course, to our country in terms of jobs and the environment and food. So, I hope that the Committee will give its usual serious consideration to this request.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Mollohan.
[The information follows:]
Page 15 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
"The Official Committee record contains additional material here."
Mr. ROGERS. Thank you very much, Ms. Pelosi.
I want to compliment you on your Radio Free Asia efforts. If there is a human dynamo in here that has been responsible for Radio Free Asia and its continued promotion, it is the Gentlewoman from California and we appreciate that work, among other things that you have worked on.
Any questions?
Mr. MOLLOHAN. No questions, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. ROGERS. Thank you very much.
Ms. PELOSI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. ROGERS. Ms. Waters?
Thursday, March 12, 1998.
MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
Page 16 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
WITNESS
HON. MAXINE WATERS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Ms. WATERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr. Mollohan.
I want to take a few moments today to talk about a serious aspect of the funding responsibilities that you have. We have a statement for the record. But I am really, really concerned about civil rights enforcement, and I thank you for what you have done in the past to ensure that we get at this serious area of concern in our society.
I think everyone is interested in doing everything that we can to ensure the civil rights of all of our citizens and with the President's Initiative and the work that everybody is doing, it is for naught unless we have enforcement.
And, so, the 17 percent increase that the President is asking for in the overall budget for funding year 1999 is very important, particularly, as we look at EEOC. We have about 80,000 complaints annually in EEOC and 60 percent of those complaints are what are known as Title VII-based complaints: that is civil rights, race, color, religion, gender. Currently we have a 65,000 backlog in EEOC.
Every time we have had an increase it has been important in reducing of the backlog. Past marginal increased funding reduced the backlog from 111,000 in 1995. Without additional funding the average time to resolve a claim is like 10 months and that discourages people whose civil rights have been violated from even filing claims when they have to wait that long.
Page 17 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Also, this increase would include $7 million in the Department of Justice Civil Rights Division; $2.5 million for the investigation and prosecution of hate crimes and police misconduct. I do not think I have to say a lot about that; it really speaks for itself and we all read the newspapers and we can see and feel what is going on and the need to increase funding in that area.
Secondly, let me just mention that I am very, very pleased and impressed with what I see going on with our drug courts. I had the opportunity to visit a conference that was put on by those who work in the drug courts. And I was very pleased to see that it is a cross-section of individuals working in the drug courts. Everything from social workers, to prosecutors, you name it.
What they have done effectively is created the ability to fully staff an individual who is guilty of nonviolent drug offenses and they can take an individual and work with them and help mainstream them through the work with the court by job referrals, job training; kind of looking at this individual and seeing what could be done to help someone with the desire to be helped to get on with their lives and get away from being involved in drugs.
I am very impressed. They are a hard working group. I have asked the Congressional Black Caucus to visit drug courts with me so that we can all familiarize ourselves more with the work that they are doing. I really do think that the drug court is the answer to some of the serious problems that we have with young people, particularly those who find themselves involved with drugs and in court for the first time.
Page 18 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Again, we will submit a written statement for the record and that is what I want to bring to your attention today.
Thank you very much.
[The information follows:]
"The Official Committee record contains additional material here."
Mr. ROGERS. Thank you very much for your nice statement. Any questions?
Mr. MOLLOHAN. No, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Ms. Waters.
Ms. WATERS. Thank you.
Mr. ROGERS. Next we will hear from Mr. Barrett.
Thursday, March 12, 1998.
MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
WITNESS
Page 19 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
HON. WILLIAM BARRETT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEBRASKA
Mr. BARRETT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Mr. Mollohan.
I appreciate your allowing members to come and visit with your Committee about some specific issues. I will summarize my rather extensive written statement, Mr. Chairman.
I have worked for quite some time without any results to increase the Immigration and Naturalization Service presence out there in my State of Nebraska. I have been very frustrated, however, with the unwillingness of those people in the INS to either provide sufficient manpower resources to that region or adequately respond to my concerns.
As a result, area INS personnel are not able to adequately perform their duties. The Omaha Area Office of the INS is responsible for about a 750-mile stretch of Interstate 80, and that happens to be further than a round trip from here to New York City. That is a long piece of concrete.
Over the past four years, arrests and removals in the Nebraska/Iowa region have increased from 423 to 2,529. That is a jump of almost 600 percent. During the same period, the national rate of increase has not nearly approached that level. In Nebraska it is also common knowledge that any vehicle stopped along Interstate 80, with fewer than 15 suspected aliens will not be detained for an INS status determination since the Omaha office does not have sufficient enforcement resources to investigate these cases.
Page 20 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. Chairman, I have a letter attesting to this problem from the Nebraska State Patrol, which I request will be made a part of this hearing.
Mr. ROGERS. Without objection.
Mr. BARRETT. During this past January, the U.S. Border Patrol conducted a one-week anti-smuggling operation along Interstates 80 and 70 in Nebraska and Kansas. During the operation the area was struck with a very severe snow storm which greatly reduced traffic along both of these routes. Nevertheless, the Border Patrol arrested 152 aliens during that seven-day period.
Given that alien smuggling is estimated to increase between January and the summer agricultural production months, the number of aliens that could be detained by a dedicated anti-smuggling unit is staggering.
According to the agency, and I quote, ''A return to the Grand Island area, coupled with a comprehensive employer's sanctions effort may result in significant illegal alien apprehensions.''
While I am somewhat pleased with the outcome of this operation, a permanent presence in the Nebraska/Iowa region is a more rational and certainly a more effective solution compared with the periodic Border Patrol operations. These facts have led me to the inevitable conclusion that additional personnel should be deployed to the region. In particular, INS staff in Nebraska mentioned to me their desire for an anti-smuggling unit to combat the sources of alien smuggling.
Page 21 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
And I have repeatedly contacted the INS over the past two years to request a redeployment of enforcement personnel to Nebraska.
Despite acknowledging the problem, and I emphasize this, the INS claimed supplemental resources would not be available unless additional funds were appropriated. And as I read your Fiscal Year 1998 report language, which mentioned a failure by INS to hire 111 authorized and appropriated positions during Fiscal Year 1997, I was incensed with that reply. And I ask that this response also be a part of the hearing record, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. ROGERS. Without objection.
Mr. BARRETT. I sent yet another letter in January expressing my disgust with their unwillingness to engage in a meaningful discussion of these problems; I cited the report language and I demanded a reply.
Just this past week I received a response to that letter which further clarifies that the interior enforcement exists not just in Nebraska and Iowa but nationally. On a promising note, Commissioner Meissner's letter of last week initiated a dialogue that will begin next week with a meeting in my office.
I am hopeful that this meeting will be productive but, frankly, this new-found responsiveness is just a little bit late in coming.
Clearly, Mr. Chairman, I think that you can understand my frustration. The problems of alien smuggling continue to increase and, with it, drugs and crime problems. But the INS has shown little or no interest in addressing that problem.
Page 22 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
So, I conclude, Mr. Chairman, by asking that the Subcommittee adopt the two-fold strategy of first maintaining and increasing, if possible within budget constraints, resources for interior enforcement. And second, I request the Subcommittee to do all within its power to ensure INS fills the appropriated positions in order to get the needed personnel out there into the field.
And I thank you again and members of the Subcommittee for permitting me this time and throughout the process I would be happy to offer any assistance I might be able to offer.
[The information follows:]
"The Official Committee record contains additional material here."
Mr. ROGERS. Well, I thank the gentleman for his testimony and I share your frustration. I have been on this subcommittee for 15 years and the biggest frustration I have had all the while, and it continues, even has increased to this day, is the Immigration and Naturalization Service. It is an organization that is out of control, with conflicting missions. We have poured money at the problem, we have shoveled money by the billions into that agency in the hopes that that would solve the problem, and it only made it worse.
They are absolutely unresponsive. It is an unmanageable organization. I find myself in the awkward position of being the chairman of the subcommittee that funds INS and preparing a bill, which I hope you will sign onto, to abolish the agency.
Page 23 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. BARRETT. I would be happy to. I am not sure what the alternative would be but——
Mr. ROGERS. Barbara Jordan headed up a Commission, before she passed away, that came up with the recommendations which I am following in preparing the bill, which is to abolish the agency and reassign its duties to the various agencies of the government that would otherwise be doing it anyway—Justice Department on law enforcement, immigration benefits, and the like; the Labor Department for preventing illegal aliens from working in the country; Agriculture for what they do on the border; and creating a single border agency that incorporates all of the other duties that are taking place now by separate agencies on that border. One can look under the hood but not check the trunk, one can check the roof but not the underside, one can do this, another can do that.
It is a circus out there and nothing is working. So, I would like to see all those agencies in one group on that border that has one boss whom we can hold responsible for enforcing the border laws as it relates to smuggling, drugs, illegals, what have you. But I will be happy to show you that bill that is being prepared now, and I hope you will co-sponsor it.
Mr. BARRETT. I would be happy to see it, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. ROGERS. I come to this very reluctantly. I really hate to do this, but I am convinced now after 15 years that there is no alternative. We have got a problem, we have got 5 million illegals in the country now, growing by 250,000 a year that we know about. We are granting citizenship to felons by the tens of thousands. It is an absolute mess.
Page 24 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. BARRETT. Well, when I mention this problem to some back here on the coast they think that the problems exist only on the coasts or Texas or California but this is a crisis down through middle America and Mr. Latham, I think, will corroborate that.
Mr. ROGERS. I was going to recognize Mr. Latham as he has been hammering on this with us for some time now and you may want to join in here.
Mr. BARRETT. I knew he was a good man.
Mr. LATHAM. Thank you.
My only comment is that I feel your pain. But part of the frustration—I know you are probably aware, I had an amendment back in 1996, for the Immigration Reform Act, to have INS set up some criteria to enable local law enforcement on a voluntary basis to be authorized to do some of the duties you are talking about out on the highway.
You know, that they can actually incarcerate and hold and they can transport. We are still waiting for the Immigration and Naturalization Service, two years later, to come up with the guidelines and the rules for that to happen.
Mr. BARRETT. Exactly.
Mr. LATHAM. And that is, you know, the hearing we have on the 31st of this month. It is something I hammered at last year at their hearing when they came to ask for appropriations and we will do it again. I mean they are making some steps but they are very tiny and very slow.
Page 25 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. ROGERS. You may be interested to know that last year in the conference report we directed the INS to submit to us by April 1st a report on how they planned to implement the reorganization that the Jordan Commission called for and the Attorney General has indicated that they will have something to us fairly soon but do not hold your breath.
Mr. BARRETT. I will not.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Mollohan?
Mr. MOLLOHAN. No, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. BARRETT. I think you feel my pain and I thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. ROGERS. Thank you, Mr. Barrett, you have made an awfully strong case.
Mr. Saxton was scheduled earlier and he is here now.
Thursday, March 12, 1998.
MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
Page 26 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
WITNESS
HON. JAMES SAXTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Mr. SAXTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Mollohan and Mr. Latham, my friend.
Mr. Chairman, let me just take this opportunity to officially thank you for the great cooperation that you and your staff have afforded to the Subcommittee on Fisheries, Conservation, Wildlife, and Oceans in the past for helping us to achieve some of the goals that, frankly, Mr. Farr and I have put together. I am not sure what Mr. Farr's testimony is but I can assure you that we work on a bipartisan basis and will, without having seen what he is going to say, say that I likely agree with it, as well.
Mr. Chairman, I just would like to say that I will shorten up my testimony and if I can submit the entire testimony for the record and save us some time.
But I would like to say, Mr. Chairman, that the Administration's Fiscal Year 1999 budget request for NOAA is $2.1 billion, an increase of $124 million. Unfortunately, the Administration request cuts $14.6 million from the NOAA wet-side programs; National Ocean Service, that is NMFS; and the Ocean Research Programs and proposes $20 million in new fees for fisheries and navigation programs.
The budget request increases NOAA's dry-side, on the other hand, programs such as NWS, NESDIS, and atmospheric research by $189 million and proposes no dry-side fees.
Page 27 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
It is pretty obvious where their concerns and their priorities lie. And I am not sure at all that I agree with their priorities. In fact, I disagree strongly with some of them.
Those of us who represent coastal districts find this proposal totally unacceptable, therefore, and I look forward to working with you and your staff on crafting a NOAA budget that can be acceptable to all members, including those of us who represent coastal areas.
Last week, the President signed a five-year reauthorization of the National Sea Grant College Program which I believe is an extremely important program. The measure authorizes $56 million for the bay Sea Grant program and authorizes $2.8 million for zebra mussel research in the Great Lakes, $3 million for oyster disease research including the health effects of oyster-borne diseases, and $3 million for Pfiesteria research which is obviously of extreme importance in this area.
Similar House legislation had over 100 co-sponsors and I hope that we can work together to fully fund these programs at their authorized levels.
I also urge you to fund the National Undersea Research Program at $17.5 million and provide an increase in the National Estuarine Research Reserve System which is a system which I think has unparalleled scientific significance.
Yesterday, the Committee approved H.R. 3164, the Hydrographic Services Improvement Act of 1998. This bill establishes authorization levels sufficient to update nautical charting and tide current programs over the next 20 years.
Page 28 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Incidentally, Mr. Chairman, these programs are today estimated to be 30 years behind and the program that we are in the process of authorizing would bring that from a 30-year deficit to something like a 17-year deficit. It certainly does not solve the problem but it moves it in the right direction.
We are failing also to capitalize on our economic and environmental benefits that the new chart technology could produce. Accurate charts are necessary for our nation's commerce and our first line of defense against marine accidents. We should not wait for a costly accident to turn our attention to this problem, we should address it now.
Also, over the last two years you have provided $800,000 to conduct population surveys for striped bass, and to study their interrelationship between striped bass, blue fish and their prey species.
Many questions remain about why the striped bass and blue fish populations wax and wane. We are trying to find out why. This year I urge you to provide $250,000 for population surveys as requested by the Administration and $800,000 for the other ongoing striped bass research programs.
That is my testimony, Mr. Chairman, and I thank you for the opportunity to be here.
[The information follows:]
Page 29 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
"The Official Committee record contains additional material here."
Mr. ROGERS. Well, I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for being here today. We have enjoyed a good working relationship with you and your Subcommittee on Fisheries, Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans. In fact, last year we provided a 15 percent increase, as you recollect, on the charting and navigation services and we will continue to work with you. You have been an awfully good chairman of that Subcommittee and easy to work with.
Mr. SAXTON. Thank you very much and we also want to make sure we save Mr. Latham's endangered species. What is it, the split——
Mr. LATHAM. The pallet sturgeons with the double whiskers.
And I appreciate the fact that you did get in a comment about your striped bass problem.
Mr. SAXTON. Thank you.
Mr. ROGERS. Thank you very much.
Mr. SAXTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Farr?
Page 30 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Thursday, March 12, 1998.
MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
WITNESS
HON. SAM FARR, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. FARR. Thank you, Mr. Saxton, before you leave, for those nice comments. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Latham, I appreciate—I am going to testify on a couple of things, but I just wanted to follow-up on a comment, that I do not know whether this Subcommittee realizes how key you are to where this country is headed in the issue of marine resources. This is an incredible year.
You know, this is the International Year of the Oceans. Portugal is having a big expo in Lisbon to celebrate the oceans. The President has declared a White House Conference on the oceans. Congress is dealing with ocean issues in legislation and in appropriations. This Committee has that jurisdiction and this is the first time that you really have had a focus on the oceans.
I mean if you look at the global warming issues, the implications of that, the oceans are the most affected, and coastal communities are the most affected. Seventy percent of America's population lives within 50 miles of a coastline. It is just a remarkable figure and the world population is the same thing.
Page 31 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
This Subcommittee has the jurisdiction that is going to, you know, either drive this in the right direction or the wrong direction. The reason it is so nonpartisan is because it is so important to the—I mean if you look at that map up there, and look at the blue on it, you realize it is the most part of the world and it is not politically owned, but it is politically managed.
And the management of the oceans and, in fact, the answers for our biotechnology are going to come out of the oceans. Pharmaceuticals, I will bet in 10 years from now, are going to be more invested in ocean animal research than they are in terrestrial. Because the oceans hold the answers, because they are millions of years older and there is just incredible opportunity.
So, it is very exciting that this national, international, political focus and I am before you to talk about some more mundane issues which are funding for a couple of the areas over which you have jurisdiction.
The first is this Tiburon lab relocation to Santa Cruz and your Subcommittee was very helpful with this last year. What we have in Santa Cruz and why the Federal Government is interested and Federal agencies are interested in moving to Santa Cruz is that there is a place in Santa Cruz that is already the home of the public/private world class marine research center called the Long's Marine Lab. Long, because Long's drug store invested their money in building that and it is run by the University of California at Santa Cruz.
The State of California found that there was such a great concentration of marine scientists there that when they located their oil-spill cleanup center for the State of California they located it there.
Page 32 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
And, now what the Federal Government is realizing is that we ought to capitalize on the infrastructure of talent that is there by locating the marine lab and this Subcommittee funded it.
I am requesting an $8.14 million support this year. That is $3.9 million more than the President's budget calls for but there is strong justification for the increase. The increase would support the infrastructure necessary to serve the site with the Federal building there, which are sewer, water services. These are fixed costs, cannot be down-sized.
Also, the development of the water system capacity. You have to meet the coastal mitigation requirements. This is a fixed cost. It cannot be down-sized to a smaller amount.
And then there is the restoration of the necessary equipment lost when the plan for the plant was down-sized. The equipment has got to be there regardless of the down-sizing.
There needs to be a permanent HAZMAT building, there needs to be a fume hood and there needs to be surge space. All of these items were lost when the down-sized version came in which you funded last year.
But since then, there has been also in anticipation of the consolidation of the Santa Rosa facilities which are up by Sacramento, and the La Jolla facilities which are down by San Diego, that those facilities according to the IG will have to be moved to Santa Cruz or should be moved for cost-effective purposes.
Page 33 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
So, the Santa Cruz site is unique. And also the reason all of them are there and the reason we have the Navy there and the Naval Postgraduate School and we have 18 other Marine institutions is that right below—and it is hard to see on that map—but in the Monterey Bay, which is the largest bay on the coast of California, there—you know, you think of San Francisco or San Diego, this is a half-mooned shape bay—right through the middle of that bay runs a canyon that is bigger than the Grand Canyon. It is the biggest, deepest canyon on the Pacific Ocean and it runs very close to shore. And that canyon runs down to 13,000 feet deep.
And, so, all the researchers do not have to go very far to get access to it and they get access to things we have never seen before. The fact that we can predict that there might be life in outer space is because that was what researchers have found in the sulfuric vents which do not have any oxygen, do not have any light, do not have anything that supports life, they find life forms in these caustic toxic environments.
And, so, they figure that if that can exist at the bottom of our oceans by the research that is coming out of here, it must be able to exist on other planets.
So, this science is getting a lot of attention. It is also an incredible educational tool for our kids. We just read in the Post a few weeks ago that American science is lagging on other developed countries. A lot of our science is not very exciting but they are making, exploring the frontier of the oceans which kids can identify with and Disney certainly has made movies about and that makes this ability to apply essentially to youth something that we have never been able to apply because now we have the technology coming out of this research.
Page 34 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
So, the issues here are really related to national priorities. And you might ask, well, why are you asking for this increase because last year was sort of like we thought we had done it all? Well, remember that there are a couple of unfinished issues and that is why the President has his budget.
But you also, just the Inspector General's report just three months ago, revealed the savings that would be realized by expanding the Santa Cruz site and infrastructure to those functions that are in La Jolla and it would save some $33 million in costs. So, the plan that we approved did not provide for this level of expansion.
I would be glad to answer any questions you might have on that and then I wanted to also, if this were the appropriate time, to speak on the National Marine Sanctuary and National Marine Estuary. I will follow your direction on that, Mr. Chairman. The first was on the National Marine Fisheries Lab.
[The information follows:]
"The Official Committee record contains additional material here."
Thursday, March 12, 1998.
MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
WITNESS
HON. SAM FARR, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Page 35 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Faleomavaega, who was scheduled to join you, I understand, is not going to be here. So you may want to proceed.
Mr. FARR. I will proceed on that, on the other two issues.
Thank you for that and I just wanted to mention the International Year of the Oceans and I had been asked by people to tell you that you are going to be the first member in Congress to receive this token. This is YOTO, this is from the Year of the Oceans, called YOTO, this is GILL, and GILL is the symbol of the Lisbon Expo in Portugal and you are going to be the first member of Congress to get this key chain.
Mr. ROGERS. I trust it is a token man?
Mr. FARR. It is a token man.
Mr. FARR. But because I am giving it to you and you are chair of this Subcommittee, it has special value and historical significance.
Mr. ROGERS. Thank you very much.
Mr. FARR. Now, that you have GILL looking over you, I wanted to talk about two issues. One is the National Marine Sanctuaries. The National Marine Sanctuaries, we have 12 in the United States, and they are all around coastal America. And I represent the biggest one right off our coast the Monterey National Marine Sanctuary.
Page 36 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
These are essentially the national parks of the ocean. There are only 12. They have been very popular. NPR Radio did a big series on it. And I am asking that and Mr. Faleomavaega and other Members of the Congress have written letters in support to ask for full funding, the authorized funding for this.
This program was started in 1974, I think. But we have never fully funded the authorized amount. These sanctuaries represent the largest protected marine areas in the United States. They encompass more than 4,000 square nautical miles of open ocean. There are positive impacts for the reasons that I indicated in the other testimony as well that these are the areas that scientists and the public can get access to.
And the beaches, they tell me, are number one tourist draw in the United States. More people visit the coast beaches than visit all the attractions put together. And there is no place where we sort of set off as beaches and water, kind of parks, except in the National Marine Sanctuaries.
So, this full funding is necessary for those 12 sites which are growing in popularity and interest, and need more management money for fulfilling the onslaught of popularity.
Lastly, in 1972, Congress passed not only the Coastal Zone Management Act, but to recognize the importance of preserving our nation's estuarian systems. These are where the ocean and the land meet. These are the nurseries for our fisheries. Since 1974, the system has grown from one 4,000 acre site in Oregon to a network of 22 sites in 17 States and Puerto Rico totalling 545,000 acres.
Page 37 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
This is the only system of its kind operating in a Federal/State partnership. And what I know in the estuaries in our State is that the Federal Government, NOAA contracts with the State Department of Fish and Game to be the on-site manager.
Unfortunately for these systems, they have not kept pace with the growth. NOAA has agreed to temporarily cap the program at 27 sites for the next five years to allow all of existing and currently proposed sites to achieve at least a minimal operating level for programs and facilities.
I have watched these estuarian programs be an incredible tool, again, for education. We have over 100 volunteers from the areas that I represent that go out on weekends and do the interpretation, the docent program.
So, this program is requesting to be funded at $7 million for Fiscal Year 1999, which is a very small increase over the 1998 funding.
In addition, the managers of the programs have requested $10 million in construction to deal with the necessary repairs and maintain and construct the facilities to support the objectives outlined.
And I would ask that any increase in the construction would be shared between National Marine Sanctuary Programs and the National Estuarine Research Reserve System to allow both programs to have funds available for long overdue, much needed construction and maintenance facilities.
Page 38 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
So, I thank you very much. I appreciate your dedication in the Commerce budget to essentially the Ocean agenda. It is, NOAA is, I think, a bigger percentage of the Commerce budget than the rest of the department. And it is one that we, in Congress, often overlook but I think if you look at the national security issues, the national educational issues that the ocean is going to be playing a much more important role for us than ever before in history.
And I am also going to be submitting testimony to these various issues on behalf of Mr. Curt Weldon and Mr. Delahunt.
Thank you very much.
[The information follows:]
"The Official Committee record contains additional material here."
Mr. ROGERS. Thank you very much.
Well, the great sea shores of Iowa and Kentucky are understandably important. I want to congratulate you on——
Mr. FARR. They eat those great corn that you grow in those areas.
Mr. ROGERS. Thank you for your testimony and your enthusiasm for these projects. You are a dynamo. Thank you very much.
Page 39 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. FARR. Thank you very much.
Mr. ROGERS. Any questions?
Mr. ROGERS. Chairman Gilman?
Thursday, March 12, 1998.
MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
WITNESS
HON. BENJAMIN GILMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Mr. GILMAN. Thank you, Chairman Rogers. I want to thank Congresswoman McKinney and Congressman Gilchrest to allow me to break into the schedule. Thank you.
We have a rally out front and I am trying to make that in time.
Mr. Chairman, I will be brief. I want to thank you for affording me the opportunity once again to appear before you on behalf of the budgetary needs of the United States Commission for the Preservation of America's Heritage Abroad.
Page 40 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
And the Commission requests a budget of $300,000 to continue to meet their legislative mandate for 1999. And that mandate includes obtaining, in cooperation with the Department of State, assurances from foreign governments that the monuments, the cemeteries, the historic buildings in Eastern and Central Europe that represent our cultural heritage be preserved and protected.
And, in that regard, the Commission, working in close collaboration with the State Department, has requested and received authority to negotiate and conclude agreements for the protection, preservation of certain cultural properties with 24 nations. To this end, the Commission has signed agreements with six countries, Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Romania and the Ukraine and they are currently negotiating with three other countries in the Balkans.
Regrettably, though the Commission is making substantial progress in signing and negotiating agreements, it is prohibited due to financial constraints from completing the surveys, and research and other procedures that are needed to protect our cultural heritage abroad as legislatively mandated.
Not only is it embarrassing for our nation under the direction of the Commission to negotiate these kind of agreements in the name of cultural importance to our nation, only then to forego any further meetings, surveys and other cultural protection due to the lack of funds.
What we are saying to these countries and to our fellow citizens, we are telling them that, on the one hand it is extremely important for you and the United States to negotiate an agreement due to the importance of our cultural heritage yet, on the other hand, it is not important enough for us to proceed forward once these agreements are reached. And is that truly the message we want to send abroad?
Page 41 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
To correct that perception, I strongly urge, Mr. Chairman and your Subcommittee, the Commission's request for Fiscal Year 1999 of $300,000 be favorably considered. Not only will that request allow the Commission to proceed forward but it will permit the Congress to continue its efforts in providing cost-effective solutions in our budget process. By allowing the Commission to administer a certain cultural project to completion from agreement to site protection, we will be saving budgetary dollars in the out-years. It will cost Congress more to fund the Commission if it has to stop projects only to restart at a later date when money is appropriated.
Accordingly, I do urge the subcommittee to favorably support their budgetary request.
I thank you for the opportunity to appear before you and I thank my colleagues for allowing me to proceed.
[The information follows:]
"The Official Committee record contains additional material here."
Mr. ROGERS. Well, I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your dedication to this cause. You are tireless in your pursuit of this program and we will give your testimony great weight.
Thank you for the great job you are doing as Chairman of your Committee.
Page 42 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Gilchrest?
Thursday, March 12, 1998.
MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
WITNESS
HON. WAYNE T. GILCHREST, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND
Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to come and testify before the Subcommittee and I was going to make a comment about the Coastal Zone Management Act in reference to the State of Iowa, but Tom left, so, I do not think I will bring that up.
Mr. Chairman, there are five basic things that I want to go over today and they all happen to do with funding levels. We would like the NOAA Chesapeake Bay Office's level funding to be secure at $1.89 million. The NOAA Chesapeake Bay program is fundamentally a research program to understand the nature of the mechanical structure of the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Ecosystem.
Page 43 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Now, that is a big mouthful. But just one example. One hundred years ago compared to today, there was 99 percent more oyster production. We are down to about 1 percent of what it was in 1898.
Now, there are a lot of reasons for that. And in 1898, there was an author that was quoted as saying, ''we better do something about the oysters because we are catching fewer of them.''
So, what NOAA does is understand the natural ecosystem and how it is impacted by human activity. If we are to retain the quality of the Bay, the economic impact that continued misunderstanding of the Bay will have on our particular region, is profound.
So, it is a small amount of money, comparably so, $1.89 million but it goes a long way for their research in understanding the issues from non-indigenous species being brought in on ballast water, to when you dredge one harbor and you place it for beneficial use by creating another island, what is the impact to the ecosystem, non-point source pollution. There is a whole range of things. Even air disposition, about 30 percent of the problem in the Chesapeake Bay is caused by air disposition from as far away as Ohio.
Mr. ROGERS. What percent of the reduction can be attributed to over-fishing?
Mr. GILCHREST. That is a debatable question where some people will say it could be as much as 40 to 50 percent of the problem with the oysters. There is a problem with two diseases, called MSX and Dermo, that have come in most likely through ballast water that has affected oysters in the saltier regions of the Bay at about the third year of life, which is about the size that you would want to harvest them.
Page 44 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Some of the problem is siltation of the bottom, due to runoff because of farming, development, a whole range of human activities and the oysters adhere to a hard structure and not to a soft bottom. So, you have that problem. You have the problem of murky water which means that you are not going to have the grasses grow, which means the water is not clear enough to let the sun shine through, so, the water quality is down. There is a whole range of things.
Over-harvesting is one of them but the State of Maryland and Virginia, as well, has a vigorous program to only allow harvesting in certain regions of the Bay. And there are areas that are protected so the oysters can grow.
But the impact of the whole range of things have reduced their procreation.
But NOAA does all those things and they are very beneficial to understanding the nature of the problem. And $1.8 million for the NOAA Chesapeake Bay Office.
Sea Grant, which is another part of the NOAA program, the Sea Grant people, there are 29 Sea Grant institutions around the country, and we are asking for the authorized level of $56 million to continue. Sea Grant are the Ag extension agents of the marine community.
These are the people that go from the universities to communities to talk to people like county commissioners, town council, planning commissions, about how to understand the nature of some of the problems that over-development causes.
Page 45 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
It is not an enforcement arm, it is an educational institution just like Ag extension agents educate the farmer to improve farming practices.
Also in here, are $3 million for oyster disease research. That is the MSX and Dermo part of this. And also $3 million for Pfiesteria research. The Pfiesteria, as you may have heard, is a tiny micro-organism that grows and prospers when there is nutrient-rich water. And this little critter has 24 different life cycles and one of them is toxic.
That is what causes the large numbers of fish to become neurologically unstable. They stop in the water, this little critter goes up and eats them. If a human being happens to be in the water at that particular moment, it stays toxic from about 12 hours to 24 hours, then people can be neurologically affected by this disease, as well.
The disease has shown outbreaks all over the world but, in particular, in the Chesapeake Bay, North Carolina waters and areas of Florida.
The next is the Susquehanna River Flood Forecast and Warning System. We are asking for $619,000 for this program which includes the National Weather Service, the Army Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Geological Survey Team. It is my understanding that about 10 percent of the flood damage in the United States occurs along the Susquehanna River drainage basin.
And what we are asking for here is for this program to continue because it is an early warning system using satellite data of the region, a picture of the region, along with information about rain fall, drainage so people have an early warning system about the potential problem of floods.
Page 46 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
There is a small community in my district called Fort Deposit that in the last few years, when there was not a warning system available, these people had about 10 minutes before they knew that the water was going to rise from six to sometimes 10 feet, when they open up too many, all of the gates in the dams going up to the Susquehanna River.
The next one is the NOAA Corps. Sam Farr was just explaining a good deal about the problems of our understanding of what the planet is mostly made of and that is 70 percent of the world is oceans.
NOAA, in general, has an understanding or tries to do research for us to understand the nature of the climate and how it is impacted by the global forces which are directly impacted by the oceans.
Something else that is important that NOAA does is that if you look at a map of the United States foreign ships and U.S. ships travel in and out of our ports, hundreds or thousands of times a day. And they navigate with maps showing them what is on the bottom of the ocean and how they can avoid problems with shoals and all the other different features that make up the ocean bottom.
The Administration wants to privatize the activity of hydrography, that is to make maps of the ocean floor. Now, it is my strong impression that there are some things the government should not do and there are some things that the government has a responsibility to do.
Now, to ensure that the navigation is fluid and accurate and these maps are timely I think it is the government's responsibility to maintain a corps of ships, through NOAA, to continue this mapping.
Page 47 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
One of the reasons I feel that way is because if it is privatized or contracted out, if the contractor does something wrong, what will his liability be to a large oil tanker or a container ship from some foreign port? If the U.S. Government is responsible for this, the liability equation is vastly different.
Now, the Administration wants to privatize the NOAA Corps but what we are asking is to—and they have basically zero funding for the corps vessels which I think have become efficient in recent years, the expertise we do not want to lose—so, I am asking us to proceed with caution on that particular aspect of NOAA appropriations.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I did have an oyster fritter to present to you but the dog ate it. So, I do not have any gifts.
[The information follows:]
"The Official Committee record contains additional material here."
Mr. ROGERS. Thank you, Mr. Gilchrest.
Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. ROGERS. Ms. McKinney.
Page 48 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Thursday, March 12, 1999.
MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
WITNESS
HON. CYNTHIA A. McKINNEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF GEORGIA
Mr. ROGERS. By the way, your written statement will be made a part of the record, and we hope that you can summarize in five minutes or less, even.
Ms. MCKINNEY. Okay. I think I can take that, Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for letting me make this presentation. I have three issues that my testimony covers.
One is the Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice which is operating currently at over 200 percent capacity. And we just received a letter from the Justice Department criticizing overall its function and its lack of, its overcrowding and the way the children are being treated there.
What we are coming to ask you for, of course, is money, sort of the bottom line, so that we can improve the situation that our children who are at-risk and troubled face. Currently I am told that there is only one—in the area of mental health, which this department is also charged with serving the needs of the mentally troubled young people—that there is only one psychologist, is it, on the entire staff.
Page 49 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
And they have to serve, that one psychologist serves all of the children as well as the adult population as well. So, we are in desperate straits and looking for some relief for the children who are at-risk in Georgia.
The second matter that I would like to bring to your attention is the Greater Atlanta Data Project, which currently is trying to get funding for a mapping system that would allow all of the jurisdictions of metropolitan Atlanta to work together to suppress crime. Unfortunately, crime does not stop at the county's border or the county's edge. And what we are saying is that because of the jurisdiction situation we are not able to utilize effectively our police services. And, therefore, this is the kind of system that would allow us to have information about criminal activity in the entire metropolitan Atlanta area and then our police departments would be able to use that information so that they could target that criminal activity better and suppress crime, hopefully.
The final issue that I would like to bring before you is a problem that continues to plague the State Department. And, unfortunately, the State Department now is fighting a lawsuit that has been filed by African-American foreign service officers rather than actively trying to settle it.
And we have submitted an amendment to the State Department authorization bill which was accepted onto that bill. What we would like for you to do is to accept our amendment onto the appropriations bill. And this amendment merely asks the State Department to track its applicants, black applicants and to report the applicants who take the foreign service exam, the oral and the written exam, the percent who pass and then those who are admitted into the Foreign Service.
Page 50 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Obviously, there is a problem. This problem has been documented by the fact that there is a lawsuit outstanding. The State Department, in my opinion, should be trying to settle this lawsuit and bring more African-American and minorities, in general, into the Foreign Service.
[The information follows:]
"The Official Committee record contains additional material here."
Mr. ROGERS. Do they not have that information now?
Ms. MCKINNEY. No. No. And we——
Mr. ROGERS. They cannot tell you how many applied and how many succeeded?
Ms. MCKINNEY. They can give us the information, they give us information for women, they can give us the information, because of the lawsuit, they are trying to satisfy now. But as far as minorities and African-Americans, that information is not readily available.
Mr. ROGERS. Why?
Ms. MCKINNEY. I do not know. That is why we are asking for it. I do not know.
Page 51 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. ROGERS. On their application form do they have a place to denote African-American or other?
Ms. MCKINNEY. That I cannot tell you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. ROGERS. That may be the problem. It is funny that they could not furnish this to you.
Ms. MCKINNEY. That they cannot provide the information.
Mr. ROGERS. Let us see if we can track that down. That should be a fairly easy thing to do.
Let us see if we can work on it.
Ms. MCKINNEY. Okay. Thank you very much.
Mr. ROGERS. The Undersecretary for Management for the State Department is coming up to testify before us next week, and that will be a person we can ask.
Ms. MCKINNEY. Good, good.
Mr. ROGERS. If you want to be here, you are welcome.
Page 52 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. MCKINNEY. Okay, great. You can let us know.
Thank you.
Mr. ROGERS. Thank you very much.
Ms. MCKINNEY. Okay.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Stupak?
Thursday, March 12, 1998.
MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
WITNESS
HON. BART STUPAK, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN
Mr. STUPAK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear today. I want to talk to you a little bit about two issues, the Great Lakes and law enforcement issues. First, the sea lamprey and the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, Mr. Chairman, which administers the sea lamprey control program. As you know, the sea lamprey is an eel-like creature which has basically sucked the life out of our $4 billion Great Lakes fishing industry. The sea lamprey is responsible for about 54 percent of the death of all lake trout.
Page 53 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Unfortunately, in past years, we have fallen behind in funding. Even though we obtained a pretty good reduction in the sea lamprey population in the rest of the Great Lakes, in Lake Huron and others, we have been going backwards. And that is where our best sports fishing is right now in Lake Huron.
So, therefore, I would ask the Subcommittee to provide $15.1 million for the Great Lakes Fishery Commission for the sea lamprey.
Next, Mr. Chairman, along with aquatic nuisances, is the zebra mussel, as you know, was a Great Lakes issue when it showed up in the Great Lakes, but now is starting to spread across this whole nation. Twenty-some States have zebra mussels from Louisiana to California and in the President's budget request the National Sea Grant College program, he reduced it by $5.9 million. So, we would like to see that money re-put back in there, the $5.9 million for zebra mussel research.
In the last five years they have spent over $120 million a year trying to combat zebra mussels and it has cost another $30 million per year. And the power industry, electrical utilities they estimate they will spend over $3 billion in the next ten years just to control the zebra mussels. And, of course, the zebra mussels also disrupt the lower food chain and deplete valuable Great Lakes fishing stock.
And, as I indicated earlier, they are found all over the country because one zebra mussel can produce as many as one million eggs. So, it has been a major problem and we would like to see that problem refunded.
Page 54 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Now, Mr. Chairman, you and I have agreed a little bit on the COPS program and I am a big supporter of the COPS program, as you know, and I would recommend that the President's funding of $1.4 billion for Fiscal Year 1999 be upheld for that one. I do believe it is a cost-effective way of stopping crime and actually about 87 percent of all the American public have been served by additional police officers through the COPS program.
But another sort of interesting program or issue that has come up off the COPS program, Mr. Chairman, and we certainly would look for your insight and guidance on this, is after the program expires after three years, is there going to be an extension of any type of program not necessarily for more police officers.
But with 100,000 more police officers on the street we have put pressure on other parts of the criminal justice system and I would look for your leadership in trying to find a way to maybe alleviate some of that and maybe a different type of program and we certainly look forward to working with you on that.
Fourth, Mr. Chairman, the Byrne Grant formula. If I remember correctly you have been a strong supporter of that program because it allows the States to use Byrne Grant funds. And $500 million is the request for different uses by the States in 21 to 23 different programs.
And in Michigan, we use a lot of ours for undercover drug teams. It has been very helpful in small, rural areas like my own, where one time we had five State Troopers to cover 40 counties and now we have a number of teams up there. And they are doing a tremendous job and drug arrests have increased by 400 percent and some very difficult drugs have made their way not only from Canada but also from our urban areas in Southern Michigan, up to the Upper Peninsula of Michigan.
Page 55 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Last but not least, Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak on the law enforcement issue. We have the Juvenile Justice bills moving through both the House and the Senate. And H.R. 3 was the Juvenile Crime Control Act and in the Senate, I believe, it is Senate bill number 10. The Senate is currently doing some work on it. We expect to see it sometime this spring.
In there is one of the requests for the Juvenile Crime Control and Prevention Program at the Department of Justice. There was a request there for $283 million and we would hope that would be funded.
And if I can jump one more time, Mr. Chairman, back to the Great Lakes. NOAA is proposing a National Marine Sanctuary for Thunder Bay which is a number of ship wrecks off of Port Huron. Governor Engler just yesterday faxed a letter around which basically indicates his support for moving this project.
They have one more year to go before they issue a final report. The governor is working with them to take a look at other under-water preserves on the Great Lakes. This would be the only one in the Great Lakes.
They have asked for $18 million at the authorized level just to keep the National Marine Sanctuary Program moving not only in Michigan, but throughout this nation, Hawaii, Florida, California and the rest of them.
With that, Mr. Chairman, that is a quick summary of my testimony, I appreciate the opportunity to be here today.
Page 56 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
[The information follows:]
"The Official Committee record contains additional material here."
Mr. ROGERS. Thank you very much.
One of the problems we are having to look at is whether or not the addition of Lake Champlain as a Great Lake is going to dilute available funding. What do you think?
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, well, that is no doubt. That was for the Sea College Program to get direct access as opposed to indirect access as has been going on in the past with the funds.
I would hope that the Senator would understand that if he wants to be a Great Lake then he would have to abide by all the laws that deal with the Great Lakes such as any diversion of water, such as any use of the Lake, not only his State but also surrounding States and Canada. That is where the head-waters of the Lake are found.
Mr. ROGERS. You mean that maneuver had something to do with money?
Mr. STUPAK. Well, that is what rumor is anyway, and, you know, there are a lot of rumors around Washington these days. But that is one of the rumors.
Page 57 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. ROGERS. That would be the first time a Senator ever did something like that.
Mr. STUPAK. That is why we have the House, to block that kind of malarkey, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. ROGERS. Thank you.
Mr. STUPAK. Thank you.
Mr. ROGERS. Ms. Holmes-Norton?
THURSDAY, MARCH 12, 1998.
MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
WITNESS
HON. ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, A DELEGATE IN CONGRESS FROM THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Mrs. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I must begin first by thanking you for the strong support you have given me and others as we have striven to adequately fund the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
I am here this afternoon to testify in favor of the President's request for $279 million for the Commission at this time.
Page 58 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I come today because I am a former chair of the EEOC and remain familiar with its chronic problems, and interested in what I could do to alleviate them. When I became chair, it was experiencing one of its great crises, great instability. There had been people fired at the highest level—the chair and general counsel.
And the Agency at the time was best known for a backlog of 125,000 cases.
We instituted ADR, Alternative Dispute Resolution, and brought the backlog down. It remained backlog free for my time at the EEOC. And we thought that ADR was there to stay.
What was lost on the Commission was that efficiency in processing cases is necessary not only to keep the accumulation of backlog from occurring and reoccurring, but the prompt, early attention to cases while the evidence is fresh is the only way to assure remedy in worthy cases.
I have really come not simply to ask for money for the EEOC. I feel a special obligation for the Agency, having served in the Agency, and I have come to make a suggestion for a more permanent solution to the Agency's chronic backlog problems.
The EEOC is a high volume agency. So whatever you do there are always going to be more cases. So you have an approach to funding the agency that says every time you get more cases you get more money. Then we are into a never-ending cycle of a need for more money.
Twenty years ago when I came to the Agency, I had had the good fortune to be able to experiment at a miniature EEOC in New York City, where I was chair of the Commission there.
Page 59 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
As I began the top to bottom reform of the agency, I asked for a sizable appropriation, and then I said I will not be back. I will not be back based on the number of cases, new cases that come in. I said I want this money so I can put in place a system, structural changes in the Commission so funding will not be driven by inevitable increases in the number of discrimination charges.
I did not come back, Mr. Chairman, and I broke the cycle—at least during the time I was there. The system that we used we simply called Rapid Charge Processing. Today, essentially what it is is ADR, or Alternative Dispute Resolution, that we now use throughout the Federal Government. Anybody in his right mind tries to settle cases these days rather than take them to litigation. EEOC, as a young agency, thought it had to litigate everything.
Using ADR, we brought the time to process a case down from two years to two and a half months, and at the same time, interestingly, we brought the remedy rate up from 14 percent to 43 percent, because we settled most cases early.
Business strongly approved the settlement approach even though of course they were sometimes settling cases they might have won after two years. They figured that staying in the system for two years, however, and winning was losing.
And so they decided to do what they do with torts, with contracts, and with the rest of it, and EEOC got rid of its backlog and kept backlog free. That was 1978, Mr. Chairman, and EEOC was perhaps the first agency in the Federal Government to use ADR systematically.
Page 60 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Since then, EEOC has lost much of the momentum of ADR and has floated back into periods of heavy backlog and low remedy rates. I recommend that the Subcommittee press the EEOC further to do more ADR, to do it more efficiently, to achieve more fair settlements, and to devote what resources are necessary to litigation and to pattern and practice cases.
And I believe that once you settle cases, you are going to be left only with what litigation is necessary.
The EEOC now has new, very complicated jurisdictions. If it does not settle these cases involving the Americans with Disabilities Act, if it doesn't settle sexual harassment cases, it is going to have the kind of backlog that never goes away.
We had some such cases when we didn't have any ADR. We certainly had some sexual harassment cases, but these folks now are facing enormous challenges, and they need to be pressed to do what it takes to streamline their operations so that they are not going at this on a case by case basis, but are settling cases.
J.C. Watts and I sponsored and amendment in 1996, and I appreciate that you, Mr. Chairman, helped us get $7 million in additional money for the agency at that time. And last year Congresswoman DeGette and I wrote to you asked for $3 million more in money, and we got that money.
The problem with that approach is that it is driven entirely by backlog, and in essence it encourages the agency to understand that if it gets more backlog, it gets more money. What I am asking is that they be given an amount that is sufficient to enable them to put permanently in place ADR, that they be told that together with the authorizing Committee you are going to monitor them to see whether or not they have put in place systems that enable them to process cases without coming back every year for increases based on the number of cases.
Page 61 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I think they deserve the appropriation they've asked for. I think they must have it, or they're going to be buried. But I think giving them this amount and requiring them to engage full throttle in ADR will break the cycle of backlogs and break the handout for more money to handle the inevitable increases in cases that come with this kind of agency.
[The information follows:]
"The Official Committee record contains additional material here."
Mr. ROGERS. Well, I am glad to hear your testimony in that respect. That is constructive and it is helpful and it is in the right direction.
I have been frustrated for a long time on this Subcommittee because we seem to keep throwing money at this agency, and the backlog, in fact, increases. And I have been impressed that they do not use modern techniques or machinery to work this backlog down.
What I wish that you and Mr. Watts and anybody else that you see fit would do would be to give us concrete requirements of that Agency, and a timeline that we could monitor, and pull the plug if it is not being done. Because I am unwilling to throw more money at the problem as long as the procedures are ineffective. I mean, I think it would be wasted money. So I would be very interested in finding, particularly from you, as the former chair, concrete, specific requirements and timelines that we can test to see if they are doing what we hope they would do.
Mrs. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I would be very happy to do that. I want to say that I am very pleased that the Speaker came forward to indicate that this appropriation was necessary, and that Chairman Casellas, who has since left the Agency, has taken the Agency back into ADR.
Page 62 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I will work with Mr. Watt to in fact indicate the kind of timelines I think are necessary, and quite concretely what they are. I think they need this appropriation in order to put in place——
Mr. ROGERS. Well, I am not at this point convinced that we need to put this additional money in. If we can see a concrete plan that you think will work, and they agree to do and they think will work, we can talk about it.
But no one at this stage, the Speaker or anybody else, has talked to me about this, and at this point in time I am not on board on the increased dollars.
Mrs. NORTON. I have in mind how to hold them accountable. The one thing I would want to leave you with, Mr. Chairman, is at some point during the 1980s they literally went back to processing every case. These folks get, you know, sixty or seventy thousand cases a year.
Obviously the average case is not going to be for litigation, and obviously the average case, frankly, isn't even a worthy discrimination case. The average case is not.
This is an Agency, Mr. Chairman, where Congress has designed it just right. You come in and you can file a complaint simply by alleging discrimination. Well you have to be able to ferret out cases, to try to settle some, and if they do not look like they can be settled, to throw them out.
Page 63 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
What they did at periods during the 1980s was to get rid of ADR altogether. The one thing it seems to me this Subcommittee should do is to say you will never get any money if you do not do ADR, and press them to keep doing it.
Let them slide back into saying, well, we think we need to do more litigation. The way to do litigation is to settle the cases which you cannot possibly take to litigation, because you should not waste your resources on cases that are not really humdingers, and settle most of these cases.
And if you have to take them anyway. You cannot turn them away at the door. You have to take them. Some of them are not worthy, but speak to anybody who is at the EEOC when I was there.
And, Mr. Chairman, I will tell you, you are talking to everybody from small businesses to IBM, and they embraced it, even though they often were settling cases that they could have won, if they were willing to have us go through their records for two years, and show that there was no discrimination.
Now, the way in which they deal with that if somebody files a contract complaint against them is to say we do not owe this money. But they may decide that as the cost of doing business, if it is going to cost them two cents now, to get rid of it.
This is not a perfect solution. But it is a whole lot better than a backlog.
Page 64 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. ROGERS. Well, give us some concrete requirements and timelines, and dollar figures. At this point $279 million is way out of the question. I mean, they were at $242 million. We increased them $3 million last year.
But $279 million is too big an increase. I have to see what we are going to try to do, first. But if you can get that back to us, we would appreciate it.
Mrs. NORTON. Thank you so much.
Mr. ROGERS. Thank you.
Mr. ROGERS. Ms. Morella.
Thursday, March 12, 1998.
MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
WITNESS
HON. CONSTANCE A. MORELLA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND
Ms. MORELLA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your giving me the opportunity to testify before this Subcommittee.
Page 65 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. ROGERS. You honor us.
Ms. MORELLA. You have such a difficult job. When I think about how these appropriations bills are crafted, and you have so many difficult subject matters all encompassed within one.
I wanted to briefly try to touch on a number of the issues that you will be facing that I think are of great import—first of all NIST. I just love NIST. And I think the whole country should love NIST, and you have done a great job with appropriating funding for it.
I am especially grateful for the $95 million appropriation for NIST construction which should enable NIST to move forward in the near future with its principal new facility requirement, the Advanced Metrology Laboratory.
And I do not need to take you back on what you did in 1997, which was great. Everything worked out very well, and we all know, and I know this Subcommittee knows full well what NIST does provide, the vital role that they play.
I think you also probably know that we did have a Nobel Prize laureate from NIST, Dr. William Phillips. And he won the 1997 Nobel Prize for Physics.
And then just recently there was an article in the paper about another doctor, Tim Foecke, a scientist in NIST's metallurgy laboratory. He discovered a startling revelation about the sinking of the Titanic. It was in the paper last month.
Page 66 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
He discovered that, after analyzing rivets, salvaged from the Titanic, that faulty fasteners, not bad design, caused the Titanic's skin to split after hitting the iceberg. And although Hollywood might not like it, as long as NIST is around and fully funded, we do not have to worry about another Titanic disaster.
I just want to point out, too, that among NIST's many important functions, two accounts deserve particular attention—continuation of their vital national mission in terms of all of their laboratories, which we call Scientific and Technology Research and Services, and continued funding of the construction account, to assure that the AML, Advanced Metrology Laboratory can be completed in a timely fashion.
Fully funding the STRS, the lab program at the House level of $292 million will enable NIST laboratories to continue their important work and allow for some small expansion of the Baldrige National Quality Awards into the fields of education and health care.
Also, modernizing NIST's aging infrastructure is a priority. Last year your conference report included $95 million for the NIST construction account, and this was a significant down payment on that AML that I mentioned.
Building on last year's appropriation, I look forward to working with you, Mr. Chairman, to assure that the AML's construction can move ahead expeditiously.
The NOAA Corps—I think I came in when my colleague, Mr. Gilchrest, was talking about that. I simply want to point out that it is important that we insure the continued safe operation of NOAA's ships and aircraft. And I believe that further downsizing or elimination of the NOAA Corps will only have a negative impact.
Page 67 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We must not risk our hurricane research and reconnaissance efforts. So I urge Congress to take control, direct the Administration to relieve the hiring freeze, allow the NOAA Corps to recruit a maximum number of 283 officers to allow the NOAA Corps to function properly while fulfilling its statutory mission.
With regard to the Census, Mr. Chairman, I just hope that there are no riders to restrict the ability of the Census Bureau to carry out its 2000 Census. I also want to point out what I think is the benefit of the long form.
I have talked to a lot of people in State government. Beyond the Federal Government, the largest non-Federal uses of the long form information are local governments. The National Association of Counties adopted a resolution calling for a Census Long Form, because they need that demographic information.
The private sector is a secondary but also important beneficiary of long form data. When you realize all the information that is on there, and how it is utilized in so many different ways to actually save us money, and to enhance the luster and strength of our economy, I think the long form is critically important.
I also, jumping ahead—Legal Services Corporation. They do a darned good job, because they help these people who are the most vulnerable, women and children, who cannot—find themselves in abusive situations, and cannot get out of it without some kind of assistance.
Page 68 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Without something like Legal Services, they feel that they are victimized twice—by the crime that was committed against them, and by a court system they do not understand with nobody to help guide them through.
In addition, Legal Services has been invaluable in allowing impoverished people to access that system in support of their just claims—not just women and children, but others, too.
Much of that caseload—and almost half of the caseload in Maryland—deals with such issues as domestic violence, child custody and divorce.
I want to thank you also for the Violence Against Women funding. Boy, I'm proud of that. And I tell everybody about it. This morning I addressed the National Conference of State Attorneys General, and they came up with a resolution with regard to praising Congress for the Violence Against Women Act, and what has been done with that.
So I think you have proof of how these funds have helped communities and States throughout the Nation to assist those people who have been the victims of domestic violence.
You know, 3.3 million children watch their father beat their mother, and think of what that does in terms of our youth.
So In conclusion, and I think I abbreviated it pretty well, I want to thank you for the opportunity to testify, and again I reiterate, I do look forward to working with you on all of the issues that I mentioned, and any other issues.
Page 69 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
[The information follows:]
"The Official Committee record contains additional material here."
Mr. ROGERS. Well, thank you very much.
As you pointed out, it was this Subcommittee that increased the funding for Violence Against Women.
Ms. MORELLA. Yes. You sure did.
Mr. ROGERS. Several hundred percent. It was a huge increase because we realized that that is a major problem that was not being adequately addressed.
We also, parenthetically, made those Violence Against Women grants available for local Legal Service charters to get at. So although Legal Services is not funded as highly as a lot of people would like, for the first time those local chapters can apply for Violence Against Women grants.
And over half of Legal Service cases are violence against women.
Ms. MORELLA. Right.
Mr. ROGERS. So there is a new pot of money for them to go after that is aimed directly at violence against women problems. And so I hope that word gets out.
Page 70 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. MORELLA. I am going to check on that, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. ROGERS. Check it out. And I would point out to you, that with the Census, there is no such thing as a long form when you sample. It is only when you actually talk to somebody that you get actual data that goes on that long form. You cannot get that by sampling.
Ms. MORELLA. Because you are not sampling everybody.
Mr. ROGERS. You are not sending the long form to everybody. You only send that long form to one out of four.
Ms. MORELLA. Right.
Mr. ROGERS. Thank you very much.
Ms. MORELLA. Think of that information that is on there, though. Housing depends on it.
Mr. ROGERS. Oh, sure.
Ms. MORELLA. So many things.
Mr. ROGERS. I agree with you. The information is invaluable. I just think the form has been so boringly put together that a lot of people throw it in the trash can.
Page 71 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I have been pushing the Census Bureau to make that long form more interesting for people to fill out, more colorful and interesting.
Ms. MORELLA. Maybe they could do that. Maybe they could use some fancy graphics.
Mr. ROGERS. And they have. They have—thanks to our prodding—come with up, I think they call it the Rogers form, which we helped them set up, which has color, and it is organized much better, and asks basically the same information, but we think in a more attractive way.
Ms. MORELLA. Does it really? Ancestry and all that?
Mr. ROGERS. Well, it's essentially what they were asking before.
Ms. MORELLA. I would love to take a look at it.
Mr. ROGERS. Okay. Thank you very much.
Ms. MORELLA. That's great. I am proud of you. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Metcalf.
Page 72 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Thursday, March 12, 1998.
MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
WITNESS
HON. JACK METCALF, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
Mr. METCALF. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. ROGERS. We will put your written statement in the record, if you would like to summarize.
Mr. METCALF. I have a pretty short statement, if that is all right.
Mr. ROGERS. All right.
Mr. METCALF. Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak about the Commissioned Corps of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the NOAA Corps.
Since 1994 there has been a hiring freeze on the NOAA Corps. Since that time, the Corps has cut nearly 150 officers, or 36 percent, to its present size of 259. I am advised that by the end of the current fiscal year there will be less than 235 officers in the Corps.
Page 73 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
This reduction is not only beyond that originally proposed by the National Performance Review, it is also below the 283 officers provided by the appropriation for the fiscal year 1998.
Most importantly, I am concerned that this reduction means that NOAA may not have enough personnel for effective and safe operation.
In the way of brief background, the NOAA Corps has the only uniformed hydrographers within the U.S. and the only pilots qualified to penetrate hurricanes at low altitudes.
In addition, the NOAA Corps is the only entity that can conduct hurricane reconnaissance over Cuba.
Should the Corps be diminished, NOAA's capability to provide accurate hydrographic charts, vital to our Nation, will be in serious question. It is unimaginable that this critical NOAA function would be compromised. International commerce, fishing, law enforcement, military operations and recreational boating would all be affected. Accurate charts are fundamental to navigation.
Now, on a personal note, I was the skipper of a patrol boat in Alaska in 1948, and, you know, we had the charts and went ahead and followed them. I was going into a bay at an extreme low water, a remote bay in Southeast Alaska, somewhere south of Ketchikan, and I saw a seal out there, you know, in the water, looked liked on a log.
Page 74 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
And so I was heading full speed over to him. I got over to him, and he was sitting on a rock. The chart said nothing about any rock anywhere near there. But this rock stuck up, in this extreme low water. It was about this far out of the water, and the seal was on it.
And, I'll tell you, it gave me sort of a start, because I had been trusting those charts totally, and after that I was little more careful. I kept watching all the time.
Also disturbing is the serious risk to our hurricane research and reconnaissance efforts. In this regard, the Administration has not provided any assurance that these critical services will continue.
Based on NOAA's current complement of ships and aircraft, there are currently 70 NOAA Corps officers assigned to ships and 36 officers assigned to aviation. The seagoing officers spend a third of their career assigned to a shift, while aviation officers spend two thirds of their career in flight status. This is higher than the Navy and the Coast Guard.
Personnel are stretched thin in the Corps. A minimum of 264 officers is critical to NOAA's overall mission.
At this minimum level there is a substantial cost advantage over the alternatives of privatization. This was the finding of both Arthur Andersen and Hay Huggins.
A reduction in the Corps below the minimum of 264 officers would, in my opinion, be inadvisable. It means that rotations would push duty time beyond the one-third and two-thirds of dedicated time. Officer burn out could or would become a problem. Operating costs would increase for training and recruitment. Civilian overtime would increase costs further. Expertise might be lost as well.
Page 75 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In summary, further reduction in the size of the NOAA Corps, or the replacement of the Corps with civilian employees, as now established by numerous cost studies, will only be more expensive. An operational minimum of 264 NOAA Corps officers will enable the Agency to carry out its statutory mission.
Accordingly, it seems to me that it is time to call off the hiring freeze, and let the NOAA Corps begin recruiting the number of officers needed to insure the continued safe operation of NOAA ships and aircraft.
We must also allow the NOAA Corps to function properly, and allow NOAA to fulfill its statutory mission. And I'll leave a copy of my testimony.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
[The information follows:]
"The Official Committee record contains additional material here."
Mr. ROGERS. Thank you very much, Mr. Metcalf. We appreciate your testimony.
If there are no further witnesses, the hearing will be adjourned.
"The Official Committee record contains additional material here."
Wednesday, April 1, 1998.
Page 76 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
PUBLIC WITNESSES
NATIONAL COMMISSION ON CORRECTIONAL HEALTH CARE
WITNESS
EDWARD A. HARRISON, PRESIDENT
Mr. ROGERS. The Subcommittee will come to order.
The Subcommittee this morning will hear testimony from public witnesses on Fiscal Year 1999 budget request for programs under our jurisdiction. We are on a tight schedule, as you can tell, and, so, we will need the cooperation of all who will testify to adhere to our five-minute time limit or less, even.
You will note the panel of lights on the table. These lights are part of a timer which we can use to alert you to when your time is nearing completion. The yellow light will appear when you have one minute remaining and the red light indicates your time has expired.
We will insert your written statement into the record and you can use your allotted time to summarize the issues that you would like to highlight. We welcome each of you here today and we thank you for taking the time to express your views.
The first witness is Edward Harrison of the National Commission on Correctional Health Care.
Page 77 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Please, proceed.
Mr. HARRISON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee. On behalf of the 37 supporting organizations that comprise the National Commission on Correctional Health Care I want to thank you for allowing me to come before you this morning and present testimony relevant to the Fiscal Year 1999 Commerce, Justice, State, Judiciary and Related Agencies Appropriations bill.
In the time provided or less, I would like to talk about the National Commission's recent activities related to a National Institute of Justice-sponsored study on the potential health risks of soon-to-be-released inmates.
Additionally, I want to take this opportunity to request that $250,000 be provided to NIJ in Fiscal Year 1999 to support activities toward completing the study and disseminating its findings.
The need for the study is more important than ever. This year, approximately 12 million releases will occur from correctional facilities throughout the nation. The growing population of inmates and the large number of persons released places considerable pressure on the health care system within correctional facilities to diagnose and treat serious health conditions within this high-risk population. Undiagnosed and untreated diseases, such as tuberculosis, HIV and AIDS, hepatitis B and C, and other chronic illnesses may pose a serious threat to the health and well-being of not just inmates but of individuals working within correctional settings who come in and out of these facilities on a daily basis.
Page 78 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Moreover, absent effective intervention, the released individuals pose a threat to the public health of the general community.
In response to the problems confronting State and local, correctional and public health officials with respect to the potential public health risks of soon-to-be-released inmates, this Committee provided $500,000 in Fiscal Year 1997 and Fiscal Year 1998 respectively, to the National Institute of Justice to support a national study on this issue. Subsequently, the National Commission entered into a cooperative agreement with NIJ to initiate the study.
In the summer of 1997 expert panels were developed to frame the issue areas for the study. The panels were made up of recognized leading experts from the fields of corrections and medicine.
These issues focused on the high rates of communicable disease, chronic health problems and mental illness in our nation's correctional facilities. The University of Louisville School of Medicine was subcontracted to serve as the data resource collection center for the project.
Overall, this study will determine A, the extent to which these serious health problems exist in our prisons; B, the extent to which inmates who have these conditions are being released; C, the extent to which prisons have not identified these problems in soon-to-be-released inmates; and D, the public health and economic cost to the State and local governments resulting from these policies.
Page 79 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Upon identifying the objectives, issue areas, scope of work and time needed to adequately conduct such a study, research under the cooperative agreement between the National Commission and NIJ began in November of 1997.
This year the Commission has surveyed Federal and State prison systems to determine their ability to report on the health conditions of their inmate population. In addition, the prisons were asked to report on the prevalence of certain diseases and other health problems within their population.
Surprisingly, preliminary indications are that many States do not have answers for some of these basic questions. As the survey results are tabulated, national protocols for the treatment of diseases are being compiled and a comparison will be done comparing the extent to which these protocols are being followed.
From these data we will conduct further research checking the validity of the self-reported data. With pre-established benchmarks we will begin to project the impact on the public health stemming from the health status of soon-to-be-released inmates.
It is anticipated that the study