Page 1       TOP OF DOC


Thursday, March 12, 1998.




    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.


 Page 5       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC


    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.




    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.



 Page 11       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    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.


 Page 16       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC


    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.


 Page 19       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC


    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.

 Page 26       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC



    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.




    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.



 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.




    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.




    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.




    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.




    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?




    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.




    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.




    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




    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 will be completed in mid-1999. Following the study's completion, a national conference is being planned to bring State, county and local correctional and public health care officials together with members of Congress and Federal officials to review the findings of the study and work to develop effective strategies and policies for the nation's correctional and public health administrators related to correctional health care.

 Page 80       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    With this in mind, the National Commission is requesting that $250,000 be provided above the President's Fiscal Year 1999 request for the National Institute of Justice account to complete the study and to support a national conference to report the findings of the study.

    Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. Again, on behalf of the National Commission, I want to thank you for your continued support of efforts to address the problems associated with correctional health care.

    [The information follows:]
    "The Official Committee record contains additional material here."

    Mr. HARRISON. If you have any questions, I would be glad to answer any questions.

    Mr. DIXON. I have no questions.

    Mr. ROGERS. Thank you very much.

    Lawrence Sherman, with the Consortium of Social Science Associations.
Wednesday, April 1, 1998.


 Page 81       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Mr. SHERMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members. I am the chairman of the Department of Criminology at the University of Maryland speaking on behalf of an association representing over 100 social science organizations.

    I am here to speak on behalf of social science as the most useful tool for fighting crime and violence in the United States. The good news is that homicides committed by juveniles in cities over one million have been going down; the bad news is that they are still at historically high levels and that homicides committed by juveniles in rural areas have risen by 50 percent in the last five years.

    Even where crime rates are going down we do not know why. School violence is a good example of a problem that has been subjected to lots of solutions but precious little research showing what works.

    In a report mandated by the Congress that the University of Maryland submitted just a year ago to the appropriations committee, we reviewed comprehensively the $4 billion in Federal funding for crime prevention in terms of their documented effectiveness. And what we found is that the vast majority of these funds remain unevaluated with unknown effectiveness, and where studies have been done, we find that many of these programs failed to work and some of them actually increase school violence, as well as violence in other settings.

 Page 82       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    For example, a peer counseling program in Chicago put high-risk kids in more contact with each other and a documented increase in their violence resulted. A famous mentoring program in Massachusetts in the 1930s actually caused greater mental illness, early death and alcoholism than the control group.

    By the same token, we have a very positive examples of programs that do work such as the Big Brothers/Big Sisters program in which careful research has shown a capacity to reduce drug abuse on the part of the program compared to comparable kids who do not receive the benefits of the program.

    The problem is that until we fund social science evaluations of the vast array of crime prevention programs in this country, we will not know what works and what does not work. We will continue to be at risk of spending money on programs that actually increase violence and of failing to invest in those programs that are more cost-effective in the reduction models.

    The National Institute of Justice has received an extraordinarily low level of funding in relation to the years of life lost through violence-related causes. A 1993 study by the National Academy of Sciences, their panel on the control and understanding of violent behavior, estimated that approximately $700-to-$800 of Federal tax money is spent each year per life lost due to AIDS, due to cancer, due to heart disease. The comparable figure for years of life lost due to violence is about $25.

    And this is a direct reflection of the tiny levels of funding from the National Institute of Justice, currently proposed to be in the range of some $70 million a year, even though it is only funded in the current Fiscal Year of less than $50 million. And this compares to billions of dollars for health-related research and prevention evaluations.
 Page 83       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    I think that the track record of social science has been very encouraging. Many of the techniques used by the New York City police department and other major cities have been, in fact, developed by research funded by NIJ, especially the identification of hot spots of violent crime, the 3 percent of addressees that cause over 50 percent of all the crimes in American cities, as well as various techniques for problem solving and reduction of gun violence in those places.

    But, Mr. Chairman, we are merely scratching the surface and until we receive adequate funding for social science evaluations of crime prevention, I do not think our prospects for long-term winning the war on crime are very encouraging. With the requested increase for the NIJ budget this year, those chances will be substantially increased.

    Thank you.

    [The information follows:]

    "The Official Committee record contains additional material here."

    Mr. ROGERS. Well, thank you. I have a copy of the study before me, and as you have indicated, we requested this study last year on what works in preventing crime. The report was very well done and very helpful to us.

    Mr. SHERMAN. Thank you.

 Page 84       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. ROGERS. We thank you for an excellent piece of work.

    Mr. SHERMAN. I appreciate the opportunity to be here today.

    Mr. ROGERS. Thank you.

    Mr. Dixon?

    Mr. DIXON. No questions, Mr. Chairman.

    Mr. ROGERS. Sally Erny, the National Court Appointed Special Advocate Association.


Wednesday, April 1, 1998.




    Mr. ROGERS. Welcome.

 Page 85       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Ms. ERNY. Welcome, how are you?

    Mr. ROGERS. Fine. How are you?

    Ms. ERNY. Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee I am Sally Wilson Erny, today representing the National CASA Association and the 700 State and local CASA programs across the country. I am also a volunteer board member on the Kentucky CASA Association and we are proud today and this week of our Kentucky Wildcats winning the NCAA championship.

    Mr. ROGERS. Okay.

    Ms. ERNY. Take that off my time.

    Mr. ROGERS. Please proceed as long as you would like.

    Ms. ERNY. I appreciate the opportunity to be here today to request $9 million for CASA. This is the amount authorized by Congress under the Victims of Child Abuse Act and funded through the Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund.

    This $9 million goes to help startup and expand CASA programs across the country and to provide technical assistance and training to CASA programs through the national CASA Association.

    Recent figures released by the Department of Health and Human Services, I think, are alarming in what we know about child abuse and what we read daily but they confirm that child abuse is up by about 27 percent since 1990 and I think the most startling fact is about half of the victims are under six years of age and a quarter of them are under three years of age. It is an alarming problem across the country.
 Page 86       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    CASAs are citizen volunteers who act on behalf of the child and represent the child's best interests from a lay person's perspective to the court. They are fact finders, facilitators, monitors and advocates for those children and they speak out to the court and to the community for those child's interests.

    These volunteers are an outstanding core of folks who have decided to be part of the solution to the problem of child abuse and neglect across our country.

    I just want to give you an example of how CASA volunteers have been helpful and this is one of thousands of examples, across the country. There were four children who had been missing a lot of school and Child Protective Services intervened on behalf of these children removed them from the care of their parents. They also found an infant child who was not school-age who was being medically neglected and that child was removed as well.

    The parents were not open to receiving services from Protective Services, unfortunately, and declined support and really became belligerent. The court appointed a CASA volunteer and that CASA volunteer found the same circumstances. The family did not want to work with the volunteer but after a long period of relationship building, developing rapport got the family and the parents, in the best interests of their children, to accept the services and to shorten a long story, the children were finally reunited with their parents and are now thriving. And it was really the work of the CASA building the rapport and getting the parents to understand the importance of their work for their children that got that family back together.

    CASA has worked with children who are at home, in foster care and the main goal is that they achieve permanency for the child whether that be with their own parents or through adoption.
 Page 87       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    The capacity of the volunteer I think is really important. With the recent legislation on adoption and safe families, Congress has set down rules about how long children can remain in care and finding safe permanent homes quickly. And that will not help the number of children coming into the system, that number will not decline. What it means is that people are going to have to work faster and harder once kids get in the system to get them in safe permanent homes. And CASA certainly plays a very vital role in that way.

    There are currently 42,000 CASA volunteers speaking up for 165,000 children across our country. And, although, we are very proud of these numbers, it is only about 30 percent of the children who need our help. So, we are asking for this $9 million so that we can expand our services to reach more children and help prevent violent crime, juvenile delinquency, save lives and save dollars.

    So, I thank you for your time and I respectfully request that CASA be funded at $9 million in Fiscal Year 1999.

    [The information follows:]

    "The Official Committee record contains additional material here."

    Mr. ROGERS. We thank you for your testimony.

    Mr. Dixon?

 Page 88       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. DIXON. How many States are you operating in?

    Ms. ERNY. Fifty.

    Mr. DIXON. All 50?

    Ms. ERNY. Yes.

    Mr. DIXON. Thank you.

    Ms. ERNY. Thank you very much.

    Mr. ROGERS. Thank you very much.

    K.C. McAlpin, Federation for American Immigration Reform. Welcome.


Wednesday, April 1, 1998.



 Page 89       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Mr. MCALPIN. Thank you.

    Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify on behalf of FAIR. My name is K.C. McAlpin, and I am the Deputy Director of FAIR appearing for Executive Director Dan Stein.

    Mr. Chairman, on behalf of our members, I would like to thank you for your leadership in helping to provide badly needed congressional oversight of the INS and particularly of its politically inspired programs of rush to naturalization of over one million aliens in advance of the 1996 election.

    We believe it is time to make some fundamental clarifications about the INS' role and purpose. The first and most important service the INS can deliver to the nation is to enforce our laws competently and in the spirit of their intent.

    Second, it is a mistaken and dangerous illusion to infer that a customer relationship should exist between the INS and aliens who are the object and beneficiaries of it's activities. Immigrants are not the customers of the INS. We, the American, people are. Nothing should be allowed to dilute or compromise that principle.

    Before deciding whether the INS should be abolished, strengthened or reorganized, we suggest Congress should examine why it is failing in the first place. By failure, we mean the failure to carry out the democratic will of American people on immigration policy.

 Page 90       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    The basic reason the INS is failing is simple and straightforward. There is a lack of political will to enforce the immigration laws of the United States on the part of all three branches of Government, the Executive, Legislative and Judicial.

    The fact is we have all the technology and the resources we need to insist on the proper enforcement of our laws if we had the will to do it.

    The other fundamental reason the INS is failing is an outgrowth of the first, because the Government lacks the political will to enact the necessary reforms, the INS is being overwhelmed by the numbers it has to deal with in terms of both legal and illegal immigration.

    Consider first illegal immigration. In the early 1980s we warned that in the absence of an employment verification system to remove the magnet of jobs that amnesty for illegal aliens would do nothing but generate increased pressure on legal immigration quotas and serve to encourage future illegal immigration.

    Congress chose to ignore that advice and now 12 years later we have approximately 5.5 million illegal aliens in the country, almost double the number that were given amnesty 12 years ago.

    In 1994, the same solution was the near unanimous recommendation of the U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform but again, when considering legislation to strengthen immigration law enforcement two years later, Congress and the Administration chose to side-step this common sense reform.
 Page 91       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    The problems the INS is now experiencing with legal immigration overload are also directly tied to the sheer volume of immigration demand generated by specific Government actions. I have spoken about the down-stream effect of the 1986 amnesty. Congress also chose to increase legal immigration by 40 percent when it made major immigration law changes in 1990.

    The large numbers of immigrants that the country is now seeing and the secondary demand these measures are triggering for even greater numbers of new immigrants stem directly from these and other actions the Government has taken.

    Hereto, Congress and the administration have refused to accept the recommendations of their own panel of experts on the U.S. Commission On Immigration Reform. Those recommendations were to reduce the overall level of legal immigration, refocus immigration priority on nuclear family members, and eliminate the self-generating pressure for ever larger volumes of legal immigration by removing visa preferences for extended family relatives such as brothers or sisters.

    Mr. Chairman, any effort to reorganize the INS or its functions in the absence of reforms that would significantly reduce the volume of legal and illegal immigration are doomed to failure. It is foolhardy to expect the INS or any other Government agency to succeed in this mission under the adverse conditions that have been created.

    Should Congress, nevertheless, choose to proceed with a plan of reorganization we believe the following principles are important. We see no reason to separate enforcement from benefits functions. The INS does not deal in benefits, properly understood, but rather in the immigration adjudications and enforcement functions which are two sides of the same coin.
 Page 92       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    These are closely related activities that are most effectively administered within a single framework for internal communications and data base needs.

    We are completely opposed to any reorganization that would further isolate the INS' law enforcement activities within the Federal, State and local law enforcement apparatus.

    In our view, INS's law enforcement functions have suffered from a long process of bureaucratic isolation that, if anything, should be reversed.

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to present our views. I will be happy to answer any questions.

    [The information follows:]
     "The Official Committee record contains additional material here."

    Mr. ROGERS. What do you think of the recommendations of the Commission headed by Barbara Jordan?

    Mr. MCALPIN. We think in whole we were very pleased with those recommendations. And I am talking specifically about the recommendations to address illegal immigration problems and legal immigration reforms. The recommendations as I said, we have all these different things; if you are referring to the reorganization recommendations. We have laid out here the two things that—

 Page 93       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. ROGERS. Well, I know but what I want to ask you about is the Commission headed by Barbara Jordan. That Commission said that INS is an impossible agency with an impossible mission and it ought to be abolished and its functions reassigned: The visa matters to the State Department; the law enforcement matters to the Justice Department; the labor matters to the Labor Department.

    Congressman Reyes of Texas, a former Border Patrol agent has a bill that would create a border control agency, a single agency, not INS, Customs, DEA, FBI, Agriculture, whomever else is on the border now, but a single agency whose sole job is to protect the border and guard the border with all these other functions that they would perform, drugs, illegal customs and so forth.

    What do you think about those two proposals?

    Mr. MCALPIN. Well, we——

    Mr. ROGERS. Quickly.

    Mr. MCALPIN [continuing]. All right, quickly. I think we see some benefit in the unification of all the law enforcement functions, I mean the uniform border patrol and interior enforcement. What we are saying is we think that the whole thing should be, whether it is in a separate agency, the same agency, you know, in a cabinet level agency or what have you, we think there are benefits in having them together.

    I also point out in the Jordan Commission recommendations, Mr. Chairman, they identified one of the main problems for the INS is mission overload which is what we are talking about here.
 Page 94       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Mr. ROGERS. Yes. Okay, thank you very much.

    Mr. Dixon?

    Mr. DIXON. No questions, Mr. Chairman.

    Mr. ROGERS. Thank you very much.

    Mr. MCALPIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Mr. ROGERS. Ed Logsdon, American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators. Mr. Logsdon is a Kentuckian and a personal friend of the chair and a valued friend.

    We are delighted to have you with us again, Mr. Logsdon.     

Wednesday, April 1, 1998.



 Page 95       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Mr. LOGSDON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    To follow-up on the earlier comments about the Wildcats, when I left home yesterday they were trying to figure out the name of the coach that went to the Celtics.

    Mr. ROGERS. What was that guy's name.

    Mr. LOGSDON. Patina, I think, I am not sure.

    Mr. ROGERS. Oh, yes, that is right.

    Richard, was it not?

    Mr. LOGSDON. Yes, I think.

    Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I am honored to be here today on behalf of the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, AAMVA, to report to the subcommittee on our progress for establishing the National Motor Vehicle Title Information System, NMVTIS, and to request that the subcommittee provide continued financial support for this endeavor in the amount of $3.6 million for Fiscal Year 1999.

    As you know, AAMVA is an organization of State and provincial officials in the United States and Canada, who are responsible for the administration and enforcement of all laws pertaining to the safe operation of motor vehicles.
 Page 96       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    The National Motor Vehicle Title Information System is one of the most important means that all States are relying on to drastically reduce auto theft. The Anti-Car Theft Act of 1992 authorized the creation of this vehicle tracking system and directed States to begin utilizing this system as soon as possible as a means to deter trafficking of stolen vehicles.

    The intent of this legislation was to, one, close loopholes that make it much too easy for traffickers to title stolen vehicles; two, identify stolen vehicles; three, provide consumer protection by giving prospective used-vehicle purchasers access to brand data.

    The FBI crime statistics on motor vehicle theft nationwide show that they are slightly under 1.5 million thefts of motor vehicles per year reported at an estimated value of $7.6 billion. Since the passage of the Anti-Car Theft Act of 1992, the Association has reviewed the national implementation of this system as one of its highest priorities.

    In 1993, AAMVA conducted a survey to measure jurisdictional interest and cost data to participate in this national system. The result of that survey showed overwhelming support and indicated that the Federal contribution would average approximately $300,000 per State.

    Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I am very pleased to let you know that the projections compiled in 1993 remain on target at a total of $21 million in Federal funding. And once the system is fully operational, the National Motor Vehicle Title and Information System will be self-supported by user fees.
 Page 97       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    NMVTIS will allow titling jurisdictions to verify the vehicle and title information, to obtain information on all brands, and to obtain information on whether the vehicle has been reported stolen.

    The inability to accurately verify this type of vehicle data keeps the loopholes open for auto theft criminals. That brings me to the importance of this testimony today: To get the necessary appropriations to establish this system. Federal funding is needed to assist jurisdictions as well as AAMVA to accomplish the following objectives: To help the States defray some of the costs to change computer software and to assist AAMVA to defray some of the out-of-pocket costs in building the system infrastructure and to assist the jurisdiction with implementation.

    In Fiscal Year 1999, AAMVA is asking that the appropriation of $3.6 million be awarded for the continued national roll-out of the NMVTIS. These funds would allow an additional ten States to join the system at a cost of $3.1 million and build on the momentum that is currently in place. The remaining $500,000 would be used to defray AAMVA's costs.

    Currently, there are five participating States in the pilot program. They are Virginia, Florida, Massachusetts, Indiana and Arizona. The funding received in 1999, for which we owe a great deal of thanks to you, will enable five additional States to join the system. I fully expect the Commonwealth of Kentucky will be one of those five States. Kentucky's participation in this system will help to combat the thousands of motor vehicle thefts that occur annually. According to the FBI there were over 8,500 vehicle thefts in Kentucky. We want to do our share to continue to decrease the number of our citizens who are victimized by auto theft.
 Page 98       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    This system will help States across the country develop this powerful new tool to put a dent in the $7.6 billion crime industry. A gap in Federal funding in 1999 will threaten the national implementation of this system.

    Mr. Chairman, your continued support is not only important to our constituents in Kentucky but also to each and every motor vehicle administrator and enforcement personnel and the millions of constituents they serve.

    Thank you very much.

    [The information follows:]

    "The Official Committee record contains additional material here."

    Mr. ROGERS. Thank you, Ed, good to see you again.

    Mr. LOGSDON. If you need anything, holler at us.

    Mr. ROGERS. Thank you very much.

    Mr. REGULA [presiding]. If we could take out of order Mr. Tim Armour from the JASON Foundation.
Wednesday, April 1, 1998.
 Page 99       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Mr. ARMOUR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, my name is Tim Armour, and I am the Executive Director of the JASON Foundation for Education, a 501(c)(3) organization in Waltham, Massachusetts. I am here today representing the JASON Foundation and our partner, the Institute for Exploration, in Mystic, Connecticut, and the National Undersea Research Program, part of NOAA, hoping to bring the excitement of scientific discovery to millions of students throughout the country.

    Dr. Robert Ballard, the founder of JASON Foundation and of the Institute for Exploration, has submitted testimony and I am happy to be here to amplify on that for you.

    I would like to make a few summary points. First, I want to thank the Members of the Subcommittee for your support of $15.4 million for NOAA's National Undersea Research program in the 1998 Commerce, Justice, State and Judiciary appropriations bill.

    In particular, thanks for including $1.5 million for the NURP–JASON–IFE partnership for research, education and outreach. Let me describe that partnership briefly for you. NURP produces first quality research and tons of data. What JASON does is to take that research and data and put it in the context that is usable in the classroom, K-through-12 classroom, throughout the country. IFE's role in this partnership is to develop public outreach programs through state-of-the-art exhibitry in Mystic, Connecticut. This unique collaboration is proving successful already and points the way for an exciting and innovative public/private partnership for research and education.
 Page 100       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    We urge the Subcommittee to approve, first of all, full funding for NURP for Fiscal Year 1999, and make provisions for an expanded NURP/JASON partnership in Fiscal Year 1999.

    On behalf of the successful partnership and the millions of students it will serve, we are asking for $2 million to be directed to that partnership. An example of what can be done has just been completed out in NOAA's largest marine sanctuary in Monterey Bay, California, where we did 55 hours of live tele-presence broadcasts to over half a million students around the country. It featured use of the NOAA ship, McArthur; the NOAA ship, Biena from the Channel Islands; and a good number of world-class scientists including Dr. Ballard, Sylvia Earl and other researchers working for NOAA and others.

    Mr. REGULA. Is the only limitation on the number of students the matter of schools having equipment to receive this?

    Mr. ARMOUR. Equipment and our ability to train the teachers and get them curriculum, that is right. That is really the only limitation. Technology has caught up in terms of television and broadcasting and so on.

    Mr. REGULA. But this means that a student could be in the classroom and be observing the bottom of Monterey Bay with interpretation of what is being seen and the student could even ask questions from the classroom?

    Mr. ARMOUR. That is right, that is correct.
 Page 101       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Mr. REGULA. And you also, as part of your program, give teachers instruction so they know how to capitalize on this facility?

    Mr. ARMOUR. That is correct.

    Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I saw this in operation in a classroom, one of our very modern school buildings in my district and it worked extremely well. And it's potential is just unlimited almost. They did a program at Yellowstone National Park and then switched to Iceland to see the effect of thermals in power production or in the ways it is used.

    I call it the electronic school bus.

    Mr. ARMOUR. I think that is a good description, congressman.

    Mr. REGULA. They can take a field trip from their classroom to Monterey Bay. It is remarkable.

    I am sorry to interrupt your talk. I have go to and vote and I wanted to give the chairman our own experience in the 16th District.

    Mr. ARMOUR. Well, thank you very much.

    I appreciate it.
 Page 102       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Mr. ROGERS. We appreciate the testimony of both of you.

    Mr. ARMOUR. Any other questions?

    Mr. ARMOUR. I guess not. Thank you, much.

    Mr. ROGERS. Thank you.

    [The information follows:]

    "The Official Committee record contains additional material here."

    Mr. ROGERS. Our next witness is Doreen Dodson, American Bar Association.
Wednesday, April 1, 1998.

    Ms. DODSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Good morning, and although we have lost other members of the Subcommittee, my name is Doreen Dodson and I am a practicing attorney in St. Louis, Missouri and I am currently chair of the American Bar Association Standing Committee on Legal Aid and Indigent Defendants.
 Page 103       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    I appear here today at the request of Jerry Shestack, the President of the ABA, to voice the association's views with respect to the Fiscal Year 1999 funding for Legal Services Corporation. And secondly, for the Defender Services portion in the Judiciary's appropriation bill.

    First and most importantly, the ABA is requesting that Legal Service Corporation's funding be restored to its Fiscal Year 1996 funding level of $415 million. But, in any event, we would request that the appropriation should not be less than the $340 million figure which the corporation, itself, and the Administration has agreed upon.

    We want to commend the leadership of LSC, the corporation, for the responsible and diligent manner in which it has been carrying out its duties, particularly in light of the sweeping changes, Congressman Rogers, in the program that were mandated by the 104th and the 105th Congress.

    We believe that the new leadership of the corporation deserves your confidence and support and that is why we are here today requesting the increased funding in order that it can carry out its very important mission. Legal services to the poor is an essential component of our democratic system.     The first directive of our Constitution is to establish justice. Justice and fairness, we believe and I know you do, are bedrock principles of our democracy and they are nonpartisan principles.

    The justice system cannot possibly retain the respect and the citizen support that is to essential for its functioning if it appears that access to justice is dependent upon one's wealth or place of residence.
 Page 104       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    A comprehensive national system that provides civil legal services to the poorest of our citizens must be maintained and it must be strengthened. Nationwide, Federal dollars channeled through LSC account for about 60 percent of the funding of local programs to address the needs of the poor. The remaining 40 percent come from a variety of sources, from lawyer contributions, from foundation grants, court filing fees, State appropriations, and most significantly, from IOLTA, the interest on lawyer trust accounts.

    In addition to that, the private bar has made an enormous in-kind contribution through pro bono legal services. There are currently about 150,000 lawyers signed up in various pro bono programs that are formally affiliated with Legal Service offices. Many thousands of others and we have not figured out a way to count them all yet, contribute their time through other means.
    Collectively, those legal resources still meet only about 20 percent of the needs every year. Local Legal Service offices in your State and in mine are functioning pretty much like hospital emergency rooms, like a triage service. The situation would become even worse if the challenge to the constitutionality of IOLTA is upheld by the United States Supreme Court.
    That case which was argued January 13th of this year, Washington Legal Foundation versus Texas Legal Access to Justice Foundation, the decision in that is anticipated by the end of June. If there is an adverse ruling it would mean an immediate disappearance of $50 million to Legal Service programs throughout the country.
    Even if it is approved—and I might say that there is another $50 million from IOLTA that goes to support chiefly pro bono services—even if it is favorable all the legal needs of our citizens are not met.
    Secondly, I would like to urge the full funding of the Judiciary's appropriation request for Defender Services of approximately $360.9 million. That is a very modest increase over last year's appropriation of $329.5 million in order to provide the Government's fundamental responsibility for counsel to indigent defendants.
 Page 105       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    In addition, there is a request in there to provide for a $5 an hour increase to panel attorneys. There has been only one $5 increase in the last 10 years and in only 16 of the districts do the panel lawyers in indigent defendant cases even approach the cap of $75. So, we would ask for that modest increase.
    Mr. Chairman, we are here hoping today that this Subcommittee will look favorably on the corporation's request and at least fund it for $340 million.
    Thank you very much for your time and attention.
    [The information follows:]
    "The Official Committee record contains additional material here."

    Mr. ROGERS. I find it absolutely audacious that the American Bar Association would come here and tell us to put more taxpayers' dollars to pay for lawyers to represent poor people. I am a lawyer, used to be. And I practiced law and the court ordered me, as a part of my being an American citizen and having a good education, to represent poor people in criminal cases and civil cases.
    We all looked upon it as an obligation that we owed and we did it gleefully. Lawyers do not do that much today. And here is the lawyers' representative asking the taxpayers to pay lawyers to represent poor people. Lawyers ought to do that as a part of their obligation when they take the oath of office.
    And if we had lawyers today that felt their sense of obligation to the community and to the legal profession and to the rights of poor people they would represent poor people for free like we used to.
    Thank you very much.
    Kenneth Boehm, National Legal and Policy Center.

 Page 106       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Mr. BOEHM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I am Ken Boehm with the National Legal and Policy Center. Prior to joining NLPC I served as counsel to the board of directors of the Legal Services Corporation and have a fair amount of experience in the last 10 years analyzing both the strengths and weaknesses of the program. My group sponsors the Legal Services Accountability Project where we document, research abuses within the program.
    Today, in the brief time allotted, I would like to make three brief points. The first, the abuses are continuing. While the reforms are in place, many of the same abuses are continuing. We have documented over 300 of them in the last two years with many more that will be coming out because of the case disclosure amendment voted on the House floor last year.
    Second, there is widespread use of mirror corporations by Legal Services programs as a means to continue to practice the types of cases that Congress outlawed. While this would not be a problem if there was a wide gap between Legal Services programs receiving funding and the groups doing the prohibited practices, in reality that is not the case. They work very, very closely together, share resources and have a number of methods that raise a question as to whether Federal resources are still being used for prohibited purposes.
    Third, Legal Services lawyers are spending increasing amounts of money to litigate against the H–2A, temporary agricultural guest worker program. The effort includes trips to Mexico, to recruit clients, and at a time when the LSC waiting rooms are full of deserving poor clients, Legal Services lawyers are using direct mail, radio ads, foreign trips to recruit clients to sue farmers using the H–2A program.
 Page 107       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    One small change in the appropriation law that is now before this subcommittee could end all of those abuses.
    With respect to the abuses, themselves, Legal Services continue to do drug-related evictions. The restrictions that were put in do not stop all drug-related evictions, they still are doing quite a few of those. The only ones they do not do is when the actual client is a drug dealer.
    Secondly, they continue to attack policies that speed evictions of violent criminals from public housing and there are a number of those cases pending around the country right now.
    Third, they continue to sue for disability benefits for drug abusers and alcoholics, fighting on the opposite side of the drug war and very much hurting the people, really, they are supposed to be helping.
    And, fourth, they continue to be involved in high-profile legal cases against the Government such as the case against Orange County, California; when they sought to remove the bilingual education program which was failing the Hispanic students, they sought to overturn that program, even though a poll by the Los Angeles newspaper, the Los Angeles Times showed 83 percent of the Hispanic parents wanted their kids to learn English, did not want bilingual, and Legal Services sued to stop the ending of the bilingual program.
    Mr. ROGERS. Would you furnish to me the documentation for all those categories, the cases you just covered, the drug-related and so on.
    Mr. BOEHM. Yes, sir. We have both court cites and newspaper cites for each one of those. Some of them are listed in the paperwork that I supplied for the subcommittee but for each one of those we will have those to you within 24 hours.
    Mr. ROGERS. Okay.
    [CLERK'S NOTE.—This information is on file with the Subcommittee.]
 Page 108       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. BOEHM. And the reform that took place on the House floor last year to document for the first time which cases the Legal Services Corporation handled with public funds is a good reform. Justice Brandeis said, ''Sunshine is the best disinfectant.'' Whenever we have documented these hundreds of cases, Legal Services say they are isolated and anecdotal and if you looked at the real case file you would find that most of them are fairly benign.
    The fact of the matter is that they opposed this and, put simply, they do not want Congress and the public to know which cases are handled with taxpayer dollars.
    On the question of mirror corporations, the printed record has the problems. The problem in a nutshell is they are allowed to cooperate too closely with the Federally subsidized programs. So, there is a real question as to whether the Federal funds continue to be used for restricted activities.
    And finally, on the point that was raised at the February 25th hearing where Representative Taylor asked LSC why Legal Services lawyers from North Carolina were sending mailings to Mexico announcing a Mexican trip to discuss the H–2A program, the reason is that Legal Services is allowed to represent workers in the H–2A program. It is an exception or a loophole within the appropriations law, although the law says that people are supposed to be present in the United States at the time.
    Mr. Chairman, we have a videotape that I would be happy to turn over. We did videotape that meeting in Mexico showing Legal Services representatives, lawyers providing legal advice and soliciting clients. If we got them out of the H–2A program, farmers who are hard pressed with labor shortages would be able to practice unmolested and we would stop that kind of abuse.
    Mr. ROGERS. Well, you know, the H–2A program is not something that we wrote in, that this subcommittee wrote in. That is a specific statutory requirement in the Immigration Act.
 Page 109       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. BOEHM. I understand.
    Mr. ROGERS. Which takes an act of Congress to change. If you want it changed you need to get the Judiciary Committee working on that because it is something that is within their jurisdiction not ours.
    Thank you.
    Mr. BOEHM. Thank you very much.
    [The information follows:]
    "The Official Committee record contains additional material here."

    Mr. ROGERS. Gerald Lefcourt, National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. Welcome.

    Mr. LEFCOURT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    About an hour and a half ago, we just came from presenting the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers Highest Champion of Justice Award to Congressman McDade, the senior Member of this committee, because of his incredible work to try to rein in the immense and unchecked powers of Federal prosecutors.

    He sent out a Dear Colleague letter, which as of yesterday, has 46 signatures, and five Subcommittee Chairs on his bill to rein in Federal prosecutors, so that they are bound by the same ethical constraints as you are and I am when we go into the courts of our Nation.
 Page 110       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    He attached to his Dear College an op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal written by former Deputy Attorney General Arnold Burns, and under the Reagan administration, who called for Congress to look into the problems and the tremendous growth of prosecutorial power.

    In addition, just recently, Paul Craig Roberts last week, the syndicated columnist, pointed out that when you were practicing—I think this is your ninth term—20 years ago, there were probably a few hundred Federal prosecutors. There are now 7,000, and the laws that have been enacted by Congress, RICO, money laundering, sentencing guidelines, have made it so complicated, that only experts can go into our Federal courts and represent people charged with Federal criminal violations.

    So, I appear here, Mr. Chairman, because of the tremendous problem that lawyers for the poor under the CJA Act have with the rates that are in place, to even cover their overhead, to represent poor people. We now have death penalties for a variety of Federal offenses that did not exist some 20 years ago.

    To be a criminal practitioner today, you must be profoundly trained, and very expert in a complicated area of law. Over 10,000 decisions on sentencing guidelines alone. So we are asking for a rate increase that was authorized but not implemented because of cancellation language that has existed in reports of the appropriations committee.

    This is a strange time, and we appreciate, Mr. Chairman, your allowing the Hyde Amendment to an appropriations bill, recently, to correct, at least provide attorney's fees for those wrongfully prosecuted. We are at a place where we have a three-legged stool of the criminal justice system. Judiciary, prosecution, and defense. And one leg has gone way out of kilter, with Congress granting the wish-list to prosecutors for some 20 years now.
 Page 111       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    The defense function is cracking, and the judiciary is intimidated, and therefore, the only hope we have is a strong defense bar, and it is the CJA lawyers that represent about 85 percent of those Federal criminal cases.

    So while I was here, and heard what you said to the American Bar Association representative, and she was talking mostly in her remarks about civil matters, this is the unfortunate problem of criminal prosecutions, where we have an obligation to provide every citizen with the best defense possible, and the whole system is out of kilter today because of the tremendous increase in Federal prosecutorial power.

    So we ask that $450 million be allocated, so that the 1986 authorizations can be implemented in 1998, and that the 77 districts that have not increased their rates because of the comments in appropriations bills, be allowed to. I am very happy to answer any questions with respect to this issue.

    [The information follows:]

    "The Official Committee record contains additional material here."

    Mr. ROGERS. Do you think that lawyers are under some obligation to their profession, and the Constitution, to represent indigent defendants?

    Mr. LEFCOURT. I could not agree with you more except, in all honesty, a big-firm civil lawyer does not belong in the United States District Court in a criminal matter without significant training in——
 Page 112       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Mr. ROGERS. That is not the point. I mean, no one is going to ask that—what is Monica Lewinsky's lawyer's name?

    Mr. LEFCOURT. Ginsburg.

    Mr. ROGERS. Ginsburg. He is not a criminal defense lawyer.

    Mr. LEFCOURT. No.

    Mr. ROGERS. He is a big-time civil——

    Mr. LEFCOURT. Malpractice.

    Mr. ROGERS [continuing]. Malpractice lawyer, and it shows.

    Mr. LEFCOURT. I rest my case.

    Mr. ROGERS. I mean, he should not be required to represent a criminal defendant; but he should be required to represent a civil indigent defendant. You, as a criminal defense lawyer, should be required to perform some hours of service, I think, representing indigent defendants, even though you may not be a specialist in the area that is required, because not every case requires a specialist.

    Mr. LEFCOURT. Every criminal defense lawyer is called upon by the State laws to do that, and the problem is that we are talking about funding full-time Federal lawyers to represent the poor.
 Page 113       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Mr. ROGERS. And we should have that. We should have that. No one argues that. I am just saying that we would not need to do so much of it, if the private bar would take some of the load off the taxpayers. We should be paying for the specialists, the people that you cannot get off-the-street lawyers to defend in the run-of-the-mill criminal case. Where a specialist is needed, I think we should have a cadre of specialists that we pay for, like yourself, in the highly, technical criminal cases.

    And I am a lawyer, and I am saying this to myself. We, including you and I, owe an obligation. I think that we should pay back with our talent and our time representing poor people in civil and criminal cases, and we should not ask the taxpayers to do our work for us.

    Mr. LEFCOURT. I could not agree with you more, and I think a lot of lawyers do it; not enough, for sure. But the problem that we are talking about, of dealing with an 8-year, McDade, kind of RICO prosecution, that is something that we need to have Federal funding for, and we need it to a level that matches, in some minor way, to try to level the playing field with what Congress has done with prosecutorial power.

    Mr. ROGERS. I think you are right. Thank you very much.

    Mr. LEFCOURT. Thank you.

    Mr. ROGERS. Now Dr. Elizabeth Zinser with the National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges, and I am very pleased that Dr. Zinser is with us. She is chancellor of the University of Kentucky, Lexington campus, and I will bet you she is wearing a proud smile today.
 Page 114       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

Wednesday, April 1, 1998.





    Ms. ZINSER. Chairman Rogers, I know that you are wearing a proud smile also, and I thought if you would not mind, as one Kentucky colonel to another, I brought you your very own National Champion T-shirt.

    Mr. ROGERS. Oh, bless you. Thank you very much.

    Ms. ZINSER. That is there for you, now, today.

    Mr. ROGERS. Take as much time as you need.

    Please introduce your compatriot, also.

    Ms. ZINSER. In due respect of others that are going to do that, I will be as quick as I can, but this is an important topic, and Chairman Rogers, we are very grateful to be here today to provide this testimony, and I would like to indicate that we are here, of course, to talk about the fiscal year 1999 appropriations for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Extramural Research Program.
 Page 115       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    We want to begin by commending you and your colleagues for your efforts in outstanding leadership, and ensuring that NOAA has the tools to carry out its mandate.

    My name is Elizabeth Zinser. As you know, I am chancellor at the University of Kentucky, Lexington campus, and am providing this statement on behalf of the National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges.

    I serve as the incoming chair of the Association's Board of Oceans and Atmosphere, and with me is Dr. Leonard Pietrafesa. He is from North Carolina State University, and he heads the Department of Marine, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, and he is the immediate past chair of the board.

    We are very honored to be here, to present this testimony.

    Mr. ROGERS. Welcome to both of you

    Ms. ZINSER. Thank you.

    Mr. PIETRAFESA. Thank you, sir

    Ms. ZINSER. NASULGC, as you know, is the Nation's oldest higher education association, with over 190 member institutions, including historically black universities and tribal colleges. Member institutions are located all over the 50 States and enroll some 3 million students today.
 Page 116       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    The association's mission is to support top-quality public higher education through the assistance of member institutions in the modern context for their research, service, and teaching missions.

    The importance of extramural research is really our focus today. Our national commitment to Government efficiency and balanced budgets presents many opportunities for creative partnerships between the Federal Government and public universities and that is what we believe this is all about.

    These partnerships are a hallmark of our Nation's leadership and democracy, free enterprise, and knowledge creation for a sustainable and progressive world.

    Partnerships framed in the modern context can contribute significantly to the national goal of productive Government by providing policy makers reliable knowledge at reasonable cost.

    Competitive peer-reviewed extramural research is the foundation for new approach technologies, and for promoting economic prosperity in national security.

    We very much appreciate NOAA, because it is responsible for programs that undergird our understanding of life in the ocean and coastal resources, and our climate. It helps us to protect our life and property from severe weather. It allows us to describe and predict changes in the Earth's environment.

 Page 117       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    But it depends, heavily, upon continuing investment in scientific research. Mostly, we are proud that it demonstrates so well that sound public policy is based on sound science.

    NOAA carries out its mission and its work through tapping the best talent in the science community across the Nation, which is considerable, and by using a diverse array of working relationships to apply these to the public good. Relationships between NOAA and the universities include many varieties such as joint institute agreements and co-location of facilities, personnel exchanges, student internships, major cooperative ventures, and others.

    NOAA's value to the American citizen and impact on sustainable human development worldwide grows in proportion to our Nation's investment in academic science.

    Mr. Chairman, NASULGC believes that the FY 1999 budget request for NOAA does not fund the Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research, or its most important extramural research programs at the level necessary to serve the interests of the American public.

    This research program provides the scientific basis for national policy decisions in key environmental areas such as climate change, disaster control, air quality, non-indigenous species, and ozone depletion.

    It is a very important part of the program. It contributes to all line offices and supports all of their strategic planning goals.

    I would like to emphasize five key priorities. First, NASULGC recommends $65 million for climate and global change research. This year, it has become very clear that the public has shown a lot of interest in El Niño, and today we can predict El Niño events and effects with enough lead time, so that hundreds of millions of dollars could be saved in agriculture, fisheries management, and structural fortification of buildings, bridges and highways. This program makes those kinds of contributions.
 Page 118       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Second, we recommend that NOAA's contribution to the multi-agency United States Weather Research Program be $10 million. Such an investment would focus on producing new meteorological knowledge, and an aggressive information dissemination program to save lives and protect property.

    Third, we urge the Committee to provide the proposed increase of $1 million to the Health of the Atmosphere Program. Its focus is to understand ozone episodes in rural areas where crop and forest damage is of great concern. NASULGC recommends also $64.8 million for the Sea Grant Program in FY 1999, which is consistent with its authorized level.

    This program has always been very important as part of our marine counterpart of the land-grant college system. It is a very significant Federal peer-reviewed and highly leveraged program, and is virtually the only source of funding in the United States for activities in marine biotechnology.

    The National Undersea Research Program is our fourth proposal that we want to emphasize today. It recommends $18 million for the National Undersea Research Program which would bring it back to its funding level of three years ago. The Undersea Research Program is unique in that it places investigators undersea to conduct research not possible through a lab or on ships. I cannot help but point out that it is a little unfortunate, in retrospect, we did not get into participating in the ''Titanic'' filming. It might have been a real lucrative idea, in retrospect.

    In any event, this program promotes management of marine resources through research on chemical, biological, physical, and geological resources and processes for our global oceans. So we want to emphasize that program.
 Page 119       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Finally, we would like to emphasize our endorsement through NASULGC for the request of $17.8 million for the Coastal Ocean Program under the National Ocean Service.

    The research themes in this program include estuarine habitats, toxic chemical contaminants, fishery ecosystems, nutrient-enhanced productivity and coastal hazards.

    These research projects are fundamental to keeping our coasts healthy. These are our basic priorities and we are very pleased, again, to have had an opportunity to provide verbal testimony for you, in addition to the written material that we have provided.

    We urge you to continue to ensure that the integrity of NOAA's research programs is ongoing.

    Thank you, again, for the opportunity and we would be more than happy to respond to any questions that you may have.

    [The information follows:]

    "The Official Committee record contains additional material here."

    Mr. ROGERS. Well, we appreciate your being here. Thank you very much, both of you, for your testimony. It is very helpful.

    Ms. ZINSER. Thank you.
 Page 120       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Mr. ROGERS. And thank you very much for the T-shirt.

    Ms. ZINSER. You are welcome.

    Mr. ROGERS. I am proud, like you are. Thank you very much

    Ms. ZINSER. Thanks.

    Mr. ROGERS. We have a vote on the floor and the Chair will declare a 5-minute recess. We will finish the testimony, shortly.


    Mr. ROGERS. We are pleased to welcome Wayne Pacelle, the Humane Society of the United States. You are recognized.


Wednesday, April 1, 1998.


 Page 121       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Mr. PACELLE. Thank you. I jumped right into the batter's box, Mr. Chairman.

    Mr. ROGERS. Good for you.

    Mr. PACELLE. Again, my name is Wayne Pacelle and I am senior vice president of The Humane Society of the United States, and I am here representing our 5.9 million members and constituents in the United States.

    Mr. Chairman, I will not belabor our support for many of the programs of the National Marine Fisheries Service, and NOAA. We strongly support funding for and implementation of the Marine Mammal Protection Act and the Magnuson Act. So, in general, the tenor of our thoughts about this agency, and these agencies, is very positive. But I am here today to criticize one program, and one set of spending activities that NMFS has been responsible for, and it has to do with whaling.

    Mr. Chairman, I raised this issue last year at this hearing and I want to amplify my views this year.

    Last year, at the International Whaling Commission which occurred in Monaco, the 49th meeting of the IWC, the U.S. delegation pushed in favor of a proposal to allow a tribe in Washington State to kill gray whales, off of the coast of Washington State. This is the Makah tribe.

 Page 122       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    We opposed it as did many other organizations, and also many Members of Congress. Chairman Gilman opposed this as did Representative Chris Smith, and Representative Lantos. Representative Jack Metcalf led opposition to this proposal as well and got 50 colleagues of very diverse political positions to also oppose this Makah proposal.

    The U.S. delegation did not take on this issue directly, which would have required a three-fourths majority of the delegates at the International Whaling Commission. They folded it into a broader aboriginal whaling quota, that is granted principally to the Chukotka natives of Russia.

    Mr. Chairman, the Human Society of the U.S. does not oppose aboriginal whaling, and we have supported aboriginal whaling by natives in Alaska. We simply do not believe that the Makah, who have not hunted whales in more than 70 years, and who we believe are allied with Japan and Norway, in wanting to push for greater whaling opportunities, worldwide, simply meet the definition of aboriginal whaling.

    Yet, in spite of this, Mr. Chairman, NMFS has granted $260,000 in the last two fiscal years to the Makah Whaling Commission, before the IWC granted any sort of quota for whaling by the Makah. So they have been granted $260,000 to set up a Whaling Commission before a quota was granted.

    We are absolutely perplexed as to how this could have happened, and how this can happen. I just do want to emphasize, and it is contained as an attachment to my testimony, Chairman Gilman's letter to the International Whaling Commission, opposing the Makah quota for gray whales, and his co-signors were the Chair and the Ranking Democrat for the Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights, Mr. Smith of New Jersey and Mr. Lantos of California.
 Page 123       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Also attached is Mr. Metcalf's letter. Mr. Metcalf of course is from Washington State, and the northwest portion of Washington State, and all of the signatories on his letter. We really hope that your Subcommittee will stipulate in fiscal year 1999 National Marine Fisheries Service budget, that no discretionary or other funds be used to promote or otherwise support Makah whaling or the Makah Whaling Commission. This is still a legal muddle. There is a lot of controversy over whether the IWC, by folding the Makah proposal into a larger aboriginal subsistence proposal, has granted authorization for this.

    So that is my testimony, and we hope you will take that under advisement.

    [The information follows:]

    "The Official Committee record contains additional material here."

    Mr. ROGERS. We shall. Thank you very much. I appreciate your being here.

    Thomas Brooke and Gary Griswold. Mr. Brooke representing the International Trademark Association, and Mr. Griswold, the American Intellectual Property Law Association. Welcome.


Wednesday, April 1, 1998.
 Page 124       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC




    Mr. BROOKE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am Tom Brooke. I am an attorney with Gadsby and Hannah which is a firm here in town. I am the incoming Chairman of the INTA's U.S. Legislation Subcommittee.

    The INTA strongly opposes the Administration's proposed ''cap'' on the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office spending. We also oppose the subsequent diversion of $116 million to other agencies in the Federal Government. This money was raised through the payment of patent and trademark filing fees paid by patent and trademark owners and applicants.

    This diversion of funds amounts to a shell game with America's intellectual property owners, set up as unassuming marks. The diversion of these filing fees will severely hinder the ability of the PTO to promote economic growth, to protect our products in export markets, and to stimulate American innovation.

    For trademark owners and patent owners, who provide the bulk of funding for the PTO—in fact all of the funding for the PTO—this issue is of paramount importance.

 Page 125       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    The Administration has indicated that investment in intellectual property is a key to America's economic future, and of course the Vice President has made improving customer service at the PTO one of his priorities in the Reinventing Government Initiative.

    Therefore, it is ironic that the Administration would propose capping PTO funds and then diverting much-needed funds away to other programs. The Administration's proposals are examples of bad fiscal policy, especially when the Administration has publicly stated the need for fiscal responsibility across all agencies.

    Diverting funds provided by patent and trademark owners and applicants that are paid in today to provide for work to be done tomorrow, or in the future, will create a deficit, an increasing deficit at the Patent and Trademark Office.

    The question here is whether or not the Clinton Administration is truly investing in intellectual property to diverse these funds, and the answer is obviously no. Instead of a reinvestment, the Administration's proposed diversion constitutes a hidden tax on intellectual property owners. This procedure places a price tag on innovation.

    In conclusion, I would like to point out that the PTO should not be looked upon as a ''cash cow'' that is to be milked by unrelated Government agencies and programs.

    The PTO was established for the sole purpose of processing patent applications, and registering and maintaining trademarks, and these functions may seem mundane, but in practice, they are much more sophisticated, functions requiring highly trained personnel, complex automation tools, and they do not come cheaply.
 Page 126       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    If the employees of the PTO are to carry out the vital function of protecting America's intellectual property, they must have fiscal resources to do so. Working together, Congress, trademark owners, and intellectual property owners can ensure that America will continue to lead the world in protecting creativity and innovation as we enter the 21st Century. Thank you.

    [The information follows:]
    "The Official Committee record contains additional material here."

    Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Griswold.

Wednesday, April 1, 1998.




    Mr. GRISWOLD. I am Gary Griswold, I am president of the AIPLA and I am also the chief IP counsel for 3M. We won the other term at the NIT.

    Mr. ROGERS. Congratulations.
 Page 127       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Mr. GRISWOLD. Thank you. We have 10,000 members who practice all forms of intellectual property law, and the AIPLA wants the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to be the best Patent and Trademark Office in the world. A major hurdle to achieving this goal is obtaining adequate funding. Funding has different dimensions depending on whether you look through the eyes of the subcommittee, or through the eyes of the users who pay the fees and support the PTO.

    Since 1991, the PTO has been funded by a combination of the Patent Surcharge Fund, and the offsetting collections of user fees.

    However, the Appropriations Committees were not given credit for the Patent Surcharge Fund. Thus, greater demands on the appropriations committee led them to restrict funds to the PTO. From the perspective of the Appropriations Committee, they had not diverted PTO funds. They never had them in the first place.

    From the standpoint of users, however, it is a different perspective. The users were forced to swallow a 69 percent increase in patent fees, yet increasingly smaller amounts of the revenue raised were allocated to PTO. As the cost of patents go up, the constitutionally provided incentive to innovation is reduced. The authority to impose a surcharge will sunset this year. To compensate for this, the Administration is proposing to adjust the fees to keep them at the current level.

    This presents an opportunity for Congress and the patent community to limit the fee adjustment to the level the PTO is allowed to use in 1999. Users can then realize a $50 million savings by a reduction in fees. All other major patent offices are reducing fees.
 Page 128       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Also, rejecting a rescission in 1999 of $66 million carried over from 1998 will allow user fees to fund the products and services for which they were paid.

    We believe that it is vitally important for this Subcommittee to continue its oversight, to challenge the PTO and demand credible information and data on its operations to ensure that user fees are being properly spent.

    We believe it is totally inappropriate, however, to redirect these user fees to unrelated programs, depriving patent and trademark interests of the timely, high quality services for which they have been paid, and thank you for considering our comments.

    [The information follows:]
    "The Official Committee record contains additional material here."

    Mr. ROGERS. Thank you both very much for your testimony.

    Mr. GRISWOLD. Thank you.

    Mr. ROGERS. That concludes this morning's session. We will recess until 2 o'clock.     

Wednesday, April 1, 1998.

 Page 129       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC



    Mr. ROGERS. Good afternoon.

    This afternoon we will be hearing testimony from public witnesses for the fiscal year 1999 budget request. We are on a tight schedule and have a number of you to testify. We will need your cooperation to adhere to the five-minute rule for each witness.

    You will note the lights on the panel. These lights are part of the timer that we will use to notify you when your time is running out. The yellow light will appear when there's one minute left, and the red light indicates that your time has expired.

    We will put your written statements in the record, and we will ask you to spend your five minutes, or less, summarizing your written statement.

    We welcome each of you here today and we thank you for the time that you're taking to express your views to this Subcommittee.

    First is Virgil Allen, representing the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy Alumni Association. Welcome.

    Mr. ALLEN. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman.
 Page 130       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Mr. ROGERS. Good afternoon.

    Mr. ALLEN. On behalf of the 26,000 United States Merchant Marine Academy alumni, parents, friends and midshipmen, I want to thank you for recognizing the importance of the Academy with its funding for fiscal year 1998. My predecessor, Mr. Fred Sherman, has testified before your Subcommittee in past years, and has clearly articulated the continued strong national lead for the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy and the many ways Kings Point graduates serve our Nation.

    My written testimony details the national security, the economic and environmental protection rationale for continued support of the Academy. I would like to focus during my five minutes on the need for capital maintenance and our recommendation of $34.5 million for the Academy.

    The mandated cost-of-living Federal pay increases, combined with level operating funding, and even minor inflation, has forced the Academy to defer badly-needed capital and maintenance projects in order to maintain the academic programs.

    Mr. Chairman, the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy is 57 years old. Built during the frenzy of the 1940s with surplus materials, much of the infrastructure has been kept in service as the result of herculean efforts of a very small staff.

    By deferring capital maintenance, the Academy has experienced several consequences. For example, water pipes have burst in the library, causing damage to some books. A broken sewage line has led to unsanitary conditions in the barracks area, all of which had to be taken out to correct.
 Page 131       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    It is the Alumni Association's understanding that the Academy has at least a $10 million backlog of capital maintenance projects. Two of the largest projects are replacement of the World War II vintage barracks, the utility infrastructure, the replacement of a crumbling waterfront sea wall on the pier. The utility infrastructure I mentioned consists of water, steam and sewage pipe, electrical wiring, and ventilation systems.

    Since the Academy operates on an 11 month a year academic schedule, these large projects will have to be staged over a few years. We estimate that the Academy will need an additional $3 million per year for the next several years to accomplish this work.

    Mr. Chairman, the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy operates on a shoestring budget. Our estimate is that the Academy needs $34.5 million for fiscal year 1999. Funding at this level will allow the Academy to start these badly-needed capital maintenance programs.

    Inasmuch as the necessary capital maintenance must be addressed in the near future, continued level funding will eventually impact academic programs, a scenario our Nation cannot afford.

    Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you and the members of the subcommittee for your support of the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy. I hope you and your colleagues will visit the Academy and see first hand what a national educational asset this is.

    I am prepared to answer any questions you might have on the Academy.

 Page 132       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    [The information follows:]
    "The Official Committee record contains additional material here."

    Mr. ROGERS. I thank you for your testimony.

    You're right. The Academy does a wonderful job and we appreciate the work they're doing. We understand the need for more assets.

    Mr. ALLEN. I would be happy to yield back the balance of my time to expedite your schedule.

    Mr. ROGERS. That really makes it worthwhile for us. That's the most generous thing you could do to help us.

Wednesday, April 1, 1998.



 Page 133       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Mr. ROGERS. Admiral David Brown, representing the Maritime Colleges and Academies. Welcome.

    Admiral BROWN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    I would just like to use a moment of that extra time to congratulate the Wildcats on a wonderful victory, Mr. Chairman.

    Mr. ROGERS. Thank you very much. That's the second most important thing that you could do.

    Admiral BROWN. Mr. Chairman, as you know, I am David Brown, President of the State University of New York Maritime College, and with me is President Jerry Aspland of the California Maritime Academy. We also represent the State Maritime Academies of Maine, Massachusetts, Texas, and the Great Lakes Region, plus an additional 20 regional partner States with maritime interest. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the proposed Maritime Administration budget.

    The United States is a maritime nation, dependent upon waterborne commerce for the export, import, and internal distribution of raw materials and manufactured goods. Our national security and economy require a merchant fleet and shoreside support structure for both international and domestic shipping. The State Maritime Academies are the primary recruiters and trainers of the men and women needed for this industry and to provide the sealift capability essential for any military operation beyond America's shores.
 Page 134       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    We represent a successful State-Federal partnership which meets the Nation's need for trained professional mariners, we think in the most cost-effective manner. The Administration's fiscal year 1999 budget includes $7 million for State academies. This request, when supplemented by an additional $2 million from the Defense Department for our two Ready Reserve Force ships, represents level funding which has not changed since 1987. In real dollars, adjusted for inflation, our budget has declined by nearly 30 percent. The Federal Government continues to receive a full and very high return on this nominal investment, Mr. Chairman.

    Two-thirds of the Nation's licensed Merchant Marine officers are educated and trained by the State schools, with the students and State governments paying the vast majority of those costs.

    Five of the schools operate training ships, on loan from the Federal Government, to permit cadets to meet federally-mandated sea time requirements for licensing as Merchant Marine officers. As mentioned, two of these are Ready Reserve Force ships, maintained by the State schools at a 60 percent savings to the American taxpayer.

    State Academy graduates earn a one-hundred percent job placement rate—the majority in the maritime industry—and enviable record of transition from student to responsible citizen and taxpayer. They ascend to the most senior levels of their professions—ship masters and chief engineers, shipping company and other maritime industry executives, and as flag officers in the Navy and Coast Guard.

    The State Maritime Academies are fully-accredited colleges with outstanding faculty and modern classrooms, labs, and simulators. We are recognized worldwide as centers of excellence in maritime education and training. Our programs are essential to assuring our Nation an adequate supply of professional mariners to meet the increasingly stringent U.S. and international standards of training and professionalism.
 Page 135       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    America's maritime industry is robust and growing, contributing $780 billion to the GDP, and generating over 15 million jobs. While the American flag deep sea fleet has declined in recent years, the many other elements of the industry, both afloat and ashore, are thriving. From coastal shipping to Great Lakes and inland waters, from freight forwarding, chartering and marine insurance, to ship design, ship brokerage, and ship repair, our graduates are the industry leaders. Waterborne commerce still represents the most cost-effective method of transportation and will remain a necessary and strong segment of our economy. There will always be a need for the kind of well-trained, highly motivated young men and women who attend the State Maritime Academies.

    Our graduates pay their own way through school to obtain their degrees and Coast Guard licenses as Merchant Marine officers. The limited Federal funding received by the State Academies is returned many times over in terms of high quality, professional mariners, and hundreds of Navy and Merchant Marine Reserve officers.

    On that note, Mr. Chairman, we are very concerned about language in the Administration's budget calling for a four-year phaseout of the Merchant Marine Reserve Program and Student Incentive Payments, or SIP, beginning in fiscal year 1999. The elimination of the SIP program will have an extremely adverse impact on the Navy's Merchant Marine Reserve program and our students who are enrolled in it.

    In exchange for a stipend of $3,000 per year while they are in school, these students incur a six-year obligation in the Navy and Merchant Marine Reserve. They represent the core of the Navy's professional mariners and a cadre of trained officers available for a national emergency. Many of our students rely upon SIP funds to complete their education and become licensed Merchant Marine officers. This is a very small investment in return for a significant contribution to the Nation and our national security.
 Page 136       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    We urge the Committee to restore the SIP funds in the fiscal year 1999 budget or, as an alternative, provide language permitting the Navy to assume funding responsibility, which we understand they are prepared to do.

    It is important to note that all Federal funds appropriated to the State schools are used to meet Federal Government requirements or mandates for functions which directly benefit the Federal Government, or in the case of SIP payments, carry a Federal obligation for the recipient. No Federal funds are expended for school operating costs, for students or for vessels, not involved in a Merchant Marine officer training program. The Federal Government receives a direct return on every dollar spent on the State schools and their students.

    In summary, Mr. Chairman, the State Maritime Academy system is a cost-effective investment in education, jobs, and America's national security as well as our economic needs. Our schools have been called upon to meet these needs since 1874, and this $7 million budget in MARAD money, when supplemented by the $2 million in Ready Reserve Force and with SIP restored, is the bare minimum of funding we need to continue to perform our job.

    We appreciate your continued support, Mr. Chairman.

    [The information follows:]
    "The Official Committee record contains additional material here."

    Mr. ROGERS. Thank you very much. We appreciate your being here, both of you.
 Page 137       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
Wednesday, April 1, 1998.




    Mr. ROGERS. Greg Massey, representing Rural Enterprises of Oklahoma, Inc. Welcome.

    Mr. MASSEY. Mr. Chairman, I am a volunteer board member and current board chairman of Rural Enterprises of Oklahoma. My name is Greg Massey and I am President of First United Bank, a $480 million bank, in southeastern Oklahoma.

    I appear before you today on behalf of Rural Enterprises of Oklahoma to request appropriations for an export assistance center and to further the development of the organization designation of a national partnership as a one-stop capital shop. These are two of the missing links in REI's recent grant of authority to operate a general purpose foreign trade zone in rural Oklahoma. The appropriation request is $500,000.

    First I want to address the need of an export assistance center. Construction is underway for a foreign trade zone facility, but this facility does not include an export assistance center to help our rural businesses identify export markets, develop market entry strategies, and facilitate trade finance programs.
 Page 138       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    While there are Oklahoma export assistance centers, these are located in the metropolitan areas of Oklahoma City and Tulsa. REI's proposed center would serve as a rural arm of assistance and outreach for the Oklahoma City and Tulsa offices. By providing foreign trade assistance at the grassroots level, our proposed export assistance center will help ensure that even the smallest businesses have the same advantages and opportunities as our counterparts in metropolitan areas to enter into international trade.

    Secondly, our rural businesses also need convenient access to a business information center. The one-stop capital shop and business information center, located in southeastern Oklahoma, with a ten county service area, has difficulty reaching the majority of our clients in a 50 county service area. Because REI's service area is not a local concentration but, rather, a regional effort, and even statewide in the case of the SBA market loan program, SBA would, in fact, be creating the first statewide, one-stop capital shop and business information center with the appropriations being requested.

    REI services include financial assistance, technology assistance, and successful business programs. The organization's experience clearly indicates that providing capital is only the first move in a new and expanding business. Consistent business assistance and the most recent need to foreign trade and export assistance are just as important, if not more important, than providing the dollars that small businesses need.

    The solution to the economic struggles of rural Oklahoma is not bringing in large manufacturing firms or corporations; rather, the solution is for rural Oklahomans to grow in small businesses that will provide the economic stability for rural communities.
 Page 139       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    The export assistance center and business information center can be a big part of the solution, because these centers would be assisting small businesses in the daily grind of operating their entities and creating needed jobs. I can relate to these rural businesses because that's where my bank and branch banks are located. Small businesses make up a good portion of our customer base. I can testify to the needs of small business because we work with them on a daily basis, and these needs extend beyond business financing. They need assistance in expanding into international trade, and they need access to the services of a business information center through Rural Enterprises, an organization they're familiar with and have confidence in.

    In addition, REI is submitting written testimony for appropriations from the U.S. Department of Commerce, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, for a rural technology commercialization center to further facilitate the export and business information center herein proposed, which I request be included in the record at this point.

    We thank you for your consideration.

    [The information follows:]

     "The Official Committee record contains additional material here."

    Mr. ROGERS. Thank you very much. I appreciate your testimony.

    I am being called to the floor for a very brief period here, so we will have to recess the hearing briefly, and I will be back very shortly to hear the remainder of the testimony.
 Page 140       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC


Wednesday, April 1, 1998.




    Mr. ROGERS. The Subcommittee will be in order.

    We will now hear from Abe Padilla, the Alliance for International Educational and Cultural Exchange. Welcome.

    Mr. PADILLA. Thank you, sir.

    Just before I start reading part of this, I would like to say ''Go Cats'', go Georgetown College Tigers, NEIA National Champions, and go Scott County High School, Sweet 16 champions.

    Mr. ROGERS. Thank you. An expert.

    Mr. PADILLA. Yes, sir, central Kentucky.
 Page 141       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Mr. Chairman, I genuinely appreciate the opportunity to testify before you today in support of international exchange programs, funded by your Subcommittee. These programs are administered by the United States Information Agency. Many are implemented by local volunteers like myself.

    I am Abraham Padilla, a Toyota assembly line quality control inspector at the Georgetown, KY plant. For the past eight years, I have volunteered for Youth for Understanding, a nonprofit organization, which specializes in high school exchange. In addition to recruiting and conducting interviews of potential host families for Congress-Bundestag and other youth exchange programs, I have been host to seven international students in eight years. I am also active with the Georgetown Sister Cities International program, which is affiliated with Tahara, Japan. I have developed an exchange program supported by Toyota which sends nine Kentucky students overseas each year to develop language and international business skills.

    Youth for Understanding is one of 60 members of the Alliance for International Educational and Cultural Exchange, one whose behalf I am speaking before you today. We urge an appropriation of $210 million for USIA's exchange program budget.

    Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak for a moment about why I volunteer my time promoting exchange, both in the family and in my community.

    The importance of volunteering is something my parents always taught me, and the benefits of exchange to my children, to my neighbors and to our local community, are easy to see. I hosted my first student, a Brazilian boy, in 1989 because I wanted to expose my children to different cultures. That experience was so enriching that we have since hosted a total of seven other students from Germany, Japan, and Mexico.
 Page 142       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    As someone who first came to Kentucky to attend Kentucky State College in Frankfort, I have always been struck by the number of Kentuckians who have never ventured outside of the State. Bringing different cultures to Georgetown helps to expand the horizons of my community and opens us to new approaches and new opportunities. Several of our sister city exchange students are now teaching in Japan, as an example.

    People-to-people contact has been absolutely crucial to the success of Toyota's operation in Georgetown. The bottom line for me is that these people-to-people contacts are what matter most in our communities, more than some of the high-level political visits we see on the evening news. In a nutshell, that's why I support these programs.

    Mr. Chairman, international exchange programs make enormous sense for America and for Kentucky. As Kentucky continues its integration into the global economy, and as more of us look beyond our borders, exchanges of all types provide Kentuckians with the tools needed for the 21st century. With 7,700 foreign students in Kentucky, it also raises the cultural and global awareness of Kentuckians. It will also inject an estimated $55 million into the State economy each year, and an estimated $7.5 billion into the U.S. economy.

    As you hammer out the details of the exchange program budget this spring, know that the exchange community enthusiastically supports the Administration's proposed increase for Fulbright. The restoration of $5 million to the Fulbright program will help reverse the substantial 20 percent drop in the number of Fulbright participants in the last four years.

    At the same time, we are concerned that the $7.5 million in reductions proposed by the Administration for cultural and professional programs, and other valuable programs such as overseas advising, is extremely short-sighted. The Sister Cities program, one familiar to you, Mr. Chairman, is an example of the highly effective network that is very active in Kentucky which will be severely hampered by the Administration's budget.
 Page 143       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    The proposed reduction in cultural and professional exchange activities will erode the grassroots infrastructure and the private contributions which these exchange programs are so good at attracting. For every Federal dollar invested in an exchange program, private sources contribute twelve. This is according to the General Accounting Office. Cutting these grassroot programs, which democratize foreign affairs by involving thousands of Americans like myself, will erode our ability to meet the continuing challenges we face as the world's only super power.

    We in the exchange community recognize the difficult task before you in attempting to meet the needs of so many competing interests. Because of the enormous benefits of international exchange and the damaging consequences to local grassroots networking of funding shortage, we urge you to fund a modest increase for educational and cultural exchange programs. The Federal role in fostering people-to-people connections is crucial.

    We strongly recommend a fiscal year 1999 exchange program budget funded at $210 million.

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    [The information follows:]
    "The Official Committee record contains additional material here."

    Mr. ROGERS. Thank you very much. It was nice to see you here.

 Page 144       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
Wednesday, April 1, 1998.



    Mr. ROGERS. Dr. Richard Lariviere, Council of American Overseas Research Centers. Welcome.

    Mr. LARIVIERE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    I am here today as Chairman of the Board of the Council of American Overseas Research Centers. I am accompanied by Mary Ellen Lane, the Executive Director, and Mr. Richard Spees, our General Counsel.

    Mr. ROGERS. Welcome.

    Mr. LARIVIERE. I want to discuss two things with you today. One is the programs funded by the Education and Cultural Exchanges Account of the USIA.

    The Council of American Overseas Research Centers represents 14-and-growing number of American overseas research centers that serve hundreds of American universities and send thousands of scholars and others every year. We receive about $1.8 to $2.2 million from USIA every year.
 Page 145       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Two years ago, my predecessor, John Richards, from a university you may have heard of, Duke University—which didn't have anywhere near as good a basketball team as they've had in the past, I might add—appeared before this committee and testified in support of your longstanding policy not to earmark funds in USIA's budget. We believe that the current system of merit-based competition has worked very well, both at USIA and within the Department of Education's Title VI program.

    Now, I say that even though, at times, our own centers have not fared terribly well in that competition. But we do believe very strongly in this merit-based approach.

    As you are well aware, the Senate Committee on Commerce, Justice and State had a totally different policy last year. The Senate earmarked a number of specific programs at the exclusion of all others. The American Overseas Research Centers were not on that Senate list. We determined that the Senate Subcommittee, however, was unaware of the programs and activities of the center, and it was not the case that the Senate did not review the centers, only to find them lacking in merit, but they just didn't know about us. We had not kept the Senate informed about our programs, which was, in retrospect, obviously a mistake.

    Now, our request to you today is two-fold. By the way, I should add we are keeping the Senate informed about our programs now. Ideally, we don't favor earmarking, but if earmarking is the way of the world in this matter, then we request an earmark of—an allocation of $2 million for the programs of the Council of American Overseas Research Centers. This will allow us to maintain our operations at current levels, and it will also help USIA to fulfill its mandate to build those lasting relationships that we maintain for them overseas.
 Page 146       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    The second issue I would like to speak to you about today has to do with the cut in USIA's budget for overseas advising services. This is a budget of slightly less than $3 million. The services that are rendered by this agency save every university in the country thousands of dollars. They handle the requests from overseas students to come to the universities in the United States, and if they didn't handle the routine questions that they do, we would have to do it ourselves. I know the estimates at the University of Texas, for example, are that it would cost about $10,000 a year just to handle these routine requests. If you multiply that times the number of universities there are, this is a very wise investment, this million bucks. We would like to see that budget restored and increased slightly to about $2.95 million.

    I would be happy to answer any questions you may have.

    [The information follows:]

    "The Official Committee record contains additional material here."

    Mr. ROGERS. I don't think I have any. Thank you very much. I appreciate your testimony.     
Wednesday, April 1, 1998.


 Page 147       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Mr. ROGERS. Daniel Geisler, American Foreign Service Association. Welcome. Your written statement will be printed in the record and you're welcome to summarize it for five minutes or less.

    Mr. GEISLER. I will try to do it in less, Mr. Chairman. I am Dan Geisler, president of the American Foreign Service Association. We represent about 23,000 active duty and retired Foreign Service people from the State Department, USAID, USIA, Foreign Commercial Service and Foreign Agricultural Service.

    Mr. Chairman, I would like to make one point and raise three concerns. The point I would like to make is that we see that there is no substitute for American leadership in world affairs. We saw that recently in places as diverse as Iraq, Kosovo, Indonesia. And in my written statement I describe how we view America's diplomatic missions abroad as our forward deployment for the cause of peace. I am happy to see here that you have a map of where we have our bases.

    I also pointed out the need for adequate tools for us to do our job, especially information and communications technology. That is an area where the State Department has fallen far behind, Mr. Chairman. I think that if information is the lifeblood of diplomacy, the State Department is in desperate need of a transfusion.

    The issues I would like to raise, Mr. Chairman, are first, that there is a lack of workforce planning at the State Department, based on our future needs. Second, we are concerned about the inadequate funding for public diplomacy, like the two people who testified before me. And third, we have some concerns about the increasing burden of service abroad, especially the financial burden.
 Page 148       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    On the first point, Mr. Chairman, a world class diplomatic corps requires planning, recruitment and training. The State Department does not have any forward-looking, needs-based workforce planning tool. What they do is pretty static, looking at the present or at the recent past to determine where we should put our people.

    Large companies look forward when they plan and we think that the State Department should, also. This kind of planning should form the basis for systematic intake, training and allocation of our Foreign Service people.

    Mr. Chairman, I meet all the Foreign Service people that we recruit and I can say that we continue to attract some of the most talented and motivated people that America has to offer. But since we do not have any kind of forward-looking workforce planning, we do not have a very clear idea of where we want their careers to go.

    When we get them, we turn them into world-class diplomats by training them. That is what we are supposed to do with the training that goes on throughout their career. But since we do not have any kind of workforce planning, we do not have any clear idea today how we should be training them to meet our needs tomorrow.
    Second point, Mr. Chairman, we are concerned about the continuing decline in funding for public diplomacy. Public diplomacy affects current public opinion abroad and it shapes long-term attitudes toward America. We think that is very important. As you know, since 1994 funding for USIA has decreased in real terms by 29 percent and in the Administration's FY99 request USIA is the only foreign affairs agency that gets fewer resources: $6 million less than in FY98. We think that in FY99 USIA funding should be maintained at least at its FY98 levels.
 Page 149       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    You have heard, Mr. Chairman, I am sure, of the Administration's plans to integrate public diplomacy into foreign policy. Ever since that announcement, we in the American Foreign Service Association have received only limited information about how agency consolidation would be carried out, despite the impact that it would have on our employees. We want to make sure that the final institutional arrangements are such that public diplomacy is thoroughly integrated into foreign policy, that it is not just a rearrangement of organizational boxes.
    And finally, Mr. Chairman, I would like to mention to you the increasing financial burden of service abroad. Foreign service families face declining health benefits abroad. They have experienced steadily decreasing levels of hardship and danger duty incentives. And because we lose D.C. area locality pay, most people, in essence, take a cut when they are assigned abroad in their pay.
    We are concerned about this trend and we urge you to consider it when you deliberate on the appropriation for the State Department.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    [The information follows:]
    "The Official Committee record contains additional material here."

    Mr. ROGERS. Thank you very much. We appreciate your testimony.
    Dr. Mohammed Akhter, American Public Health Association. Welcome.
Wednesday, April 1, 1998.
    Dr. AKHTER. Mr. Chairman, I am very grateful for the opportunity to be here today to testify before you in support of the President's 1999 budget.
 Page 150       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    My name is Mohammed Akhter. I am the executive director of the American Public Health Association, which has 55,000 members throughout the United States. We are also headquarters for the World Foundation of Public Health Associations and I am here on behalf of 25 public health and health-related organizations here today.
    I have already submitted our written testimony. In the interest of time, I would like to summarize briefly and make three points.
    Mr. Chairman, the first point is that all the association's organizations, 25 of them in this country, very strongly support our participation in the World Health Organization and they support our continued funding of the World Health Organization because they are doing such a wonderful job because we recognize that the world has become a very small place.
    27 million people come every year from a Third World country to the United States by air alone and there are 30 different diseases that we have identified in 25 years, and some of them are very serious ones, like Eboli virus, a new strain of flu viruses, and any one of those diseases could come to our country.

    So we in the public health community believe that what we need to do is to really get involved way over there when the diseases just start, rather than to wait for them to come to our borders. Then we need to fight, community by community, throughout the United States to control these diseases. It is prudent for us to build a fire hydrant before our house catches on fire. And these new diseases will continue to emerge and we need to have somebody out there looking out for our interests.
    The second point, Mr. Chairman, I want to make to you today is that both the World Health Organization and the Pan American Health Organization do a wonderful job of bringing people together—191 countries, six more than in the United Nations. Their health authorities are linked together with the expertise of the universities, research centers, private organizations so that whenever there is a problem in the world, not only do we share information but we can directly take our expertise over there to make a difference, contain the disease right where it starts.
 Page 151       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    And my last point, Mr. Chairman, is that we as Americans have the responsibility and we need to show the leadership because we have our vital interests at stake and the most vital is the security of our men and women who go overseas, either to fight a war or to keep a peace. We need to know what kind of challenges, what kind of danger they face so that we can prepare them appropriately, either by providing them the right amount of vaccines, providing them with the right kind of treatment or be prepared, at least, to address the problems they might face. Only by being part of the world community can we keep that thing afloat.
    Mr. Chairman, I have been a public health physician, a doctor, a professional person and I want to tell you that controlling the communicable disease is no longer possible by simply concentrating within our own borders because the viruses and the bacteria know no borders. They cross freely, transparently. Sometimes you do not even know.
    And the only way we can do it is by participating in the World Health Organization, by funding them fully, because they have the know-how, the expertise to carry it out.
    Mr. Chairman, the last point I want to make is that I had the opportunity to meet with the sole candidate for the director-general's position, Dr. Brundtland. She is going to be elected, we hope. We are supporting her, the United States government, during the World Health Assembly in Geneva. She is U.S.-educated. She has been prime minister of Norway. She has the knowledge, expertise and the know-how to carry out the reforms that we all have wanted for a number of years. She is very dedicated to make sure that it will happen.
    And last but not least, I conclude, before the red light comes on, by giving you an example. The example is, Mr. Chairman, that in 1918 the Spanish flu killed 20 million people, 20 million people. In 1957 the Asian flu killed 11 million people. In 1968 the Hong Kong flu killed 700,000 people. Last year when the flu started only six people died and that was because of the leadership shown by the World Health Organization, to gather around 101 expertise centers, to make sure it will not spread.
 Page 152       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. Chairman, facts speak for themselves. I hope you will support the funding request. Thank you very much.
    [The information follows:]
    "The Official Committee record contains additional material here."

    Mr. ROGERS. A very eloquent plea. I appreciate it very much. Thank you for your testimony.
    Dr. Charles Krueger with the Great Lakes Fishery Commission. Welcome.
Wednesday, April 1, 1998.

    Mr. KRUEGER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Charles Krueger and I am chairman of the Great Lakes Fishery Commission. I was first appointed to the Commission in 1988 by President Reagan and I was reappointed by President Bush. I am also a professor of fishery science at Cornell University.

    On behalf of the U.S. Section, I am pleased to convey the significant environmental and economic benefits of sea lamprey control on the Great Lakes. I am also here to communicate the commission's fiscal year '99 funding requirements and to share exciting news about a substantial monetary contribution from Michigan.

    I have a statement which I will summarize and that I request be inserted in the record.
 Page 153       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Sea lamprey is a parasitic primitive fish native to the Atlantic Ocean. Sea lampreys invaded the Great Lakes in the early part of the century through shipping canals constructed by the federal government. By the 1940s, sea lampreys had established large populations throughout the Great Lakes. Sea lampreys are truly the vampires of the Great Lakes.

    In its lifetime each sea lamprey, by attaching to fish and feeding on their blood, can kill up to 40 pounds of fish. This is how a sea lamprey attaches to a lake trout and this just shows some of the damage to the side of the fish that can be caused by a sea lamprey.

    By 1958, lamprey predation had devastated the fish populations of the Great Lakes. In 1955, Canada and the U.S. signed a treaty which created the Great Lakes Fishery Commission and set into motion a highly successful system of international fishery management on the Great Lakes.

    Sea lamprey control is the Commission's most visible program and it is thus the focus of this testimony. The success of the commission's control program has been remarkable. Lampreys have been reduced by 90 percent in most areas of the Great Lakes. More than 5 million people fish the Great Lakes. The fishery generates up to $4 billion annually and the fishery directly supports 75,000 jobs.

    The benefits in the Great Lakes fish communities that we enjoy today remain completely dependent upon the sea lamprey control program. I will repeat that: remain completely dependent upon the sea lamprey control program.
 Page 154       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Without sea lamprey control, management agencies could not stock fish. There is, however, a major trouble spot in the Great Lakes in the program and that is the St. Marys River, which is the river between Lake Superior and Lake Huron. This river produces more parasitic sea lampreys than all the rest of the Great Lakes. More fish in Lake Huron and Lake Michigan are killed by sea lampreys than are caught by sport, tribal and commercial fishermen.

    Fortunately, after a decade at work, the Commission has now the technology to deal with this problem. By combining several sea lamprey control methods, an 85 percent reduction in parasitic sea lampreys will occur. With this control we shall set the stage to again have a fishery to pass on to the future generations.

    Mr. Chairman, the President's fiscal year '99 budget with its proposed funding of $8.3 million does not allow for control of the St. Marys River. $15.1 million from the U.S. would be necessary to carry out a full program that includes control of the St. Marys River.

    Now the exciting news. The State of Michigan recognized the dire need to do something about the St. Marys River. To that end, Governor John Engler proposed and the state legislature approved a one-time unconditional, unprecedented contribution of $1 million per year for three years to fund sea lamprey control in the St. Marys River. Governor Engler cautioned that this one-time financial contribution is a challenge to the federal government to increase its contribution.

    I must stress that funding for the Commission has been, since 1955, a federal responsibility. Michigan was under no obligation to provide these funds. And I submit for the Committee's consideration a letter from Governor Engler to the President which explains Michigan's contributions.
 Page 155       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, according to the American Fishery Society, sea lamprey control is perhaps the most popularly supported and productive federal natural resources program in the Great Lakes. The Commission's program is pivotal to the success of the Great Lakes fishery to the economy of the region and to millions of people who enjoy the benefits of a healthy Great Lakes environment.

    The Commission's effort and the need for control of the St. Marys River are recognized as a top priority by scientists, environmentalists, members of Congress, acting through the Great Lakes Task Force.

    Michigan has recognized the urgency of the program. The people of the Great Lakes region rely on this Subcommittee to provide funds required for an effective program.

    Thank you for considering my testimony. I would happy to answer any questions you might have.

    [The information follows:]

    "The Official Committee record contains additional material here."

    Mr. ROGERS. Thank you very much, Dr. Krueger.

    Richard Williams, who is the fire chief of the City of Gainesville, Florida, accompanied by his very effective Congresswoman. Would you like to introduce him?
 Page 156       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

Wednesday, April 1, 1998.


    Ms. THURMAN. Actually I would, Mr. Chairman. Then I will move out of the way so that they can take their seats.

    Mr. Chairman, let me first of all say to you that we know how valuable everybody's time is and trying to get out on break, I cannot begin to tell you how much we appreciate the fact that you are taking the time to listen to people around this country who have some concerns. So we appreciate your effort in doing this.

    I have with me today our sheriff, Stephen Oelrich, and also our fire chief, Richard Williams, who actually are coming here today to discuss what I think is a unique opportunity and something that I hope that more areas would actually do. That is the collaboration and the efforts that they have done with the City of Gainesville and Alachua to enhance public safety in the region.

    This is bringing law enforcement agencies, fire rescue services, ambulance services, hospitals, schools and colleges, the regional transit system, airport authority, utilities, nine municipalities and multiple county agencies who will be on the same telecommunication systems to coordinate joint operations and to respond to emergencies. That is significant to say, that they can pull all of these groups of people together and I am going to let them tell you a little more about it.
 Page 157       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    The City of Gainesville and Alachua County are also seeking some federal funds for a comprehensive regional juvenile justice crime prevention/intervention initiative and regional juvenile assessment center project to serve an 11-county area, again unique in the fact that we are pulling all of these folks together. We are going to be serving more than one, so what they are asking for really services a major part of the upper part of the northern part of our state.

    They are also looking to the Department of Commerce, the city is seeking federal funding for a business incubator project to promote economic development in East Gainesville, which is an area that has worked very hard in pulling their economic development together and even where some of these other projects would be a real benefit to them.

    I just wanted to let you know that I support enthusiastically what they are trying to do and would hope that we would have the opportunity to work with them over this year's budget. And I thank you.

    Mr. ROGERS. And your support obviously is very, very important to all of this. It will be noted that you are supporting this fully.

    I want to ask you, before you leave, to convey to our common friend, John Fitzwater, the publisher of the newspaper there, who is a personal friend of mine, from the same town in Kentucky where I am from and a very close personal friend—please convey to John Fitzwater my regards.

 Page 158       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Ms. THURMAN. And I have to tell you, Mr. Chairman, I just found out that the sheriff's wife actually was born in the county that——

    Mr. OELRICH. Harlan County. You do not mess with that woman.

    Ms. THURMAN. So now I have two allies with me besides these two guys.

    Mr. ROGERS. Harlan County is in my district and you are right, you do not mess with them.

    Ms. THURMAN. So you can see the dilemma I am in.

    Mr. ROGERS. Anyway, Chief Williams, are you the spokesman?

    Mr. WILLIAMS. I am first and I will have part of the allocated time and the sheriff will have the remainder.

    Mr. ROGERS. All right. We will turn on the light.

    Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the City of Gainesville, I appreciate the opportunity to present the written testimony to you. The City of Gainesville is seeking federal funds in fiscal year 1999 from Commerce, Justice, State and Judiciary's Appropriations Bill for the following innovative projects the city is undertaking: a communications enhancement initiative to improve public safety; a business incubator project to promote economic development in East Gainesville.
 Page 159       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    The city is seeking $10 million for a computer-aided dispatch and radio communications project to enhance public safety. The city and county are planning the creation of a joint communications system for the future. The impact for the entire region is considerable, since this county serves as the regional center for much of rural North Florida's medical care, disaster management and criminal justice services.

    The need for this system is partially driven by the federal government's refarming of radio frequencies through the Federal Communications Commission. The requirement to replace more than 20 different radio systems presents an opportunity for us to create a single telecommunications infrastructure to serve all the emergency transportation, utility, support and administrative agencies in the area.

    The project consists of building and equipping a dispatch and communications facility, which will cost $4 million, providing a trunked telecommunications system, which costs $2 million, purchasing and installing an advanced software to manage the multiple agency operations and records at $2 million, and purchasing the individual user devices for connecting to the system, which is an additional $2 million.

    The agencies involved in the project are Alachua County government, which has 14 internal user agencies, Alachua County sheriff, including the corrections facility and civil division, and nine other cities in our community for a population served of over 200,000.

    The City of Gainesville operates its own facility now. The county operates their own facility. This combines both of those into a single facility having this control, as well as bringing utility workers, gas, electric, water and waste water.
 Page 160       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    The opportunity to consolidate all these communications functions into one has been an important feature of this project. The area is over 900 square miles. The expected result of this project will be the ability of all the agencies to communicate internally and across all agencies when the need arises to coordinate joint operations and it will also allow us to not duplicate the infrastructure that is necessary for all of these agencies to have effective communications.

    There are 11 fire rescue services, an ambulance service, three hospitals, 31 schools and colleges, a transit system and, as I said, nine municipalities in the network.

    The federal government's reallocation of radio spectrum is somewhat the trigger of this and the effect has been that when one door closes another one opens and it opened for us by saying if we all have to replace our radio systems, we all ought to join hands together and see if we cannot do it together. The problem obviously is that, that is a very large amount of money to come up with in a rural, somewhat economically disadvantaged area of our state.

    The second project that I wish to speak to you about, sir, is the incubator development project in East Gainesville. The key components of the enterprise assistance center are that there be real estate acquisition for the purpose of establishing the incubator center, which would cost about $1.2 million, and $1 million to renovate the facility as a business incubator.

    This is on the east side of our community, which is the most economically depressed side of the community, and we are working in collaboration with the University of Florida, North Florida Technology Innovation Corporation, Santa Fe Community College and Small Business Development Center and Chamber of Commerce to develop this business incubator for the purpose of letting small businessmen have the opportunity to coalesce together and branch their businesses off in a period of about three years into viable economic businesses in our community.
 Page 161       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    With that, I will turn it over to the sheriff, who has some additional information about some crime grants.

    [The information follows:]

    "The Official Committee record contains additional material here."

    Mr. OELRICH. Mr. Chairman, this gives us a unique opportunity as a community to hold hands on two different projects that we think are crucial. What the chief did not relate to you is that this particular joint communications center is going to go in an area that needs some economic boost and 100 jobs will be brought into there and it will be sitting on a site that we are building a brand new sheriff's office in there and renovating an existing shopping center for 55,000 square feet. So it is really kind of a shot in the arm for a particularly depressed area.

    One of the things that I wanted to talk to you about was the second project, and that is the juvenile assessment center. What we have a problem with is police officers, deputy sheriffs, when we pick up a young person 14 years old, 11 years old, that sort of thing, we literally have no place to take them. We are looking for some funds to help us jump-start a juvenile assessment center, a place where our deputy sheriffs or police officers can take a young person and they can get directed in a particular area. If it is a criminal offense, then they can get introduced into the criminal justice system; if it is just a runaway, truants, those sorts of things.

 Page 162       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Right now we are really between the devil and the deep blue sea as far as a place to take them. We need some assistance here because this will be an 11-county area that this will serve, some 400,000 residents. A little bit more than half of that are in an urban area but the other half are spread out over the other 10-county area, which we are really in need of that.

    So both of these projects are worthy projects. We are really holding hands on the whole thing. And next time I am at church and see John Fitzwater, I am going to tell him you said hello.

    Mr. ROGERS. Please do.

    Well, congratulations on an exciting proposal here. It is, I think, a tribute to your leadership and the community's willingness to work together to serve a larger area, and it is obviously desperately needed.

    We appreciate your testimony. We would like to be of help to you.

    Mr. OELRICH. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

    Mr. ROGERS. John Calhoun, National Crime Prevention Council. Welcome.


 Page 163       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
Wednesday, April 1, 1998.




    Mr. CALHOUN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much for this opportunity to share with you the results of your investment, and I will hopefully be just under the five-minute time.

    The deputy chief in Fort Worth said it is really a new day. It is a sea change. He said residents know we are out there to help. We are doing youth programs. We are getting the violence out of the community, even worrying about speed bumps and people who used to give my officers obscene gestures are now waving at them.

    I am here to share with you that crime prevention does work. The City of Boston has had but one juvenile homicide in almost three years. Public/Private Ventures reports that mentoring does work. Kids get in trouble less. Columbia University studies show that Boys and Girls Clubs in public housing reduce crime. And Head Start works.

    The chief of police in Columbia, South Carolina has stabilized many rough neighborhoods by convincing almost half his force to live in once-abandoned and now refurbished housing. St. Paul, Minnesota cut truancy and thereby cut daytime crime and burglary.
 Page 164       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Many teens throughout the country have rolled up their sleeves and gotten involved in crime prevention projects. And communities across the country report that when you get businesses, churches and law enforcement together, you can indeed reduce crime.

    America, when it wishes, can do the amazing. There is an extraordinary statistic, Mr. Chairman. Our rates for burglary and robbery are comparable to or less than major cities—London, Amsterdam, Paris and Sydney, Australia.

    Our core mission, which you helped fund, is best summed up by the U.S. Attorney in New York, Liz Glaser, who said, ''I can keep busting people again, again, again and again, but unless I build resistant communities, I am not doing my job.''

    You have helped fund probably the most successful public service advertising in history. We are again number one last year, $90 million worth of free public service advertising. One of your dollars produced about $100 worth of free advertising.

    Our material ranges from comic books for kids—this went out to about a million—to reproducible material which turns into brochures that we have seen cosponsored by DAs, attorneys general—this one on community-based policing, this one on victims. The AG of Arkansas actually called us on this kit, which they got just a little while ago and he is going to reproduce some of this material for the citizens of that state.

    We respond to particular issues. This one is on local laws, which will abet local crime prevention. And this one is how the built environment, how architecture can help change crime patterns.
 Page 165       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    This newsletter goes out to about 100,000 people. West Virginia's Office of Criminal Justice reports that this material is terrific and they spread it immediately to the crime prevention and law enforcement community throughout their state. So there is free literature for parents, police, youth workers, schools, et cetera.

    We also train hundreds of police officers, civic leaders, people in city government who, in turn, train others. And our Crime Prevention Coalition is 117 agencies—the AGs, the U.S. Attorneys and others, AARP. If they like our material, they spread it to their constituency. They are a terrific source of ideas and partnership. For instance, with the Boy Scouts we developed a crime prevention merit badge with the National League of Cities joint training.

    We have designed demonstration programs in tough neighborhoods, with cities, and we extract the learnings and get them out.

    The National Charities Information Bureau, which rates nonprofits, has us up there at the top with such groups as the American Red Cross.

    So, in essence, we work in partnership with Justice, with Juvenile Justice. At your suggestion last year we are working with JJ on an advertising campaign called ''Invest in Youth.'' And I think what you are really funding, at the root, is stopping crime and building community, if you will, giving Americans hope. Thank you very, very much.

    [The information follows:]
 Page 166       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    "The Official Committee record contains additional material here."

    Mr. ROGERS. Thank you for your testimony and for your work. I appreciate it.

    Luie Fass, U.S. Commercial Fishing and Seafood Industry Coalition.

Wednesday, April 1, 1998.




    Mr. FASS. Mr. Chairman, I want to recognize that there are some colleagues in the room joining me.

    Mr. ROGERS. You may name them if you would like.

    Mr. FASS. Well, there is Mr. Acheson from New Jersey and Mr. Fletcher from North Carolina. They have all been in the seafood business for a long, long time, as I have.
 Page 167       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    I am not here, Mr. Chairman, to ask for any money. I hope that makes you happy.

    Mr. ROGERS. Call the newspapers.

    Mr. FASS. My name is Luie Fass. I am vice president of International Seafood, Hayes, Virginia. I represent the U.S. Commercial Fishing and Seafood Industry Coalition, an organization that includes interests and members from the Atlantic, Pacific and Gulf coasts involved in the seafood and fishing industry.

    I am here today to speak about the severe economic crisis facing the commercial fishing and seafood industry. The crisis has been precipitated by overregulatory actions and scientifically flawed fishery management quotas by the National Marine Fisheries Service and the Department of Commerce. Current policies and program implementation plans for the National Marine Fisheries Service are causing extreme economic hardship to the commercial fishing industry.

    Many in the industry feel they will not be able to survive in the industry beyond this year. This is due to the overzealous implementation by the National Marine Fisheries Service of the Sustainable Fishery Act of 1996. Even the Senate authors of the legislation have written the Department of Commerce expressing their strong concerns of National Marine Fisheries Service actions.

    Two recent court cases on management quotas for different species found that the department had not conducted the required economic impact analysis when setting quotas. Both judges questioned the science underlying the management quota determinations. The department cannot set quotas based on inaccurate and flawed science.
 Page 168       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Another chief concern of ours is that representatives of the industry are not involved in any part of the decisions being made that govern their economic livelihood. While the authorizations for the National Marine Fisheries Service stress industry participation, it is, at best, minimal.

    We have met recently with the director of the National Marine Fisheries Service and most recently with Secretary Daley to express our concerns. The Secretary was attentive and sympathetic but admitted that he knew nothing about the industry.

    We have some specific recommendations to remedy the problem in the short term. Until the appropriate science can be employed to develop the correct elements and assumptions that must be factored into the preparation of economic impact analysis for species under current management quotas, we recommend for the fiscal year 1999 and for the remainder of fiscal year 1998, through the Supplemental Appropriations Act, a funding limitation be imposed on programs implemented by the National Marine Fisheries Service and funding for the National Marine Fisheries Service be made available only if the following actions are taken.

    One, suspend current fishery management quotas until better science is employed. Quotas will be set at those utilized in 1993. Two, devise cooperative methods with the industry in developing better science. Three, conduct economic impact analyses in conjunction with the industry, based on improved science. And four, ensure appropriate industry involvement in future regulatory and management quota decisions.

    I thank you for this opportunity to outline our plight and to recommend these actions. I would like to enclose a paper from a local crabber from North Carolina that sums up the industry's position. I think you will find it very, very interesting. I request this statement be put on the record to accompany my written statement.
 Page 169       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to add, I think, one more thing if I might. I would like to read you just a couple of paragraphs from this gentleman's letter, which we just received, by the way. His name is Murray Fulcher. He starts off by saying, ''Commercial fishing is one of the oldest professions in the world. Fishermen, especially those with a family heritage in fishing, have an inborn belief that to work hard and to persevere with dignity is enough to get through life.''

    ''This belief is being destroyed by regulatory agencies that should be working with fishermen to improve our fishery resources. Instead, these agencies, be they federal or state, are destroying this work ethic by restricting the fishermen to so few days to fish and destroying their dignity by forcing the fishermen to receive help from government.''

    ''Fishermen feel disgraced to have to stand in an unemployment line or to have to accept welfare.''

    ''Most regulatory committees are made up of well-meaning people,'' he goes on to say, ''but for the most part the committee members know little or nothing about our fishery resources except what they read in a book. They know nothing about how different weather conditions, water currents, water temperatures, the food chain or predators affect different species.''

    I can promise you, Mr. Chairman, that if they take the time to go out with fishermen all over this country, they would find that the real world is something different than the world that they envision. Thank you very much.
 Page 170       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    [The information follows:]

    "The Official Committee record contains additional material here."

    Mr. ROGERS. Thank you very much for a very effective testimony. Thank you.

    Mr. Bill Frank, Jr. of the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission. Mr. Frank, you are welcome. Your written statement will be made a part of the record and you can summarize it in five minutes or less. We will turn the yellow light on when you have a minute left.

Wednesday, April 1, 1998.





 Page 171       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. FRANK. First of all, I want to congratulate you on your success in basketball.

    Mr. ROGERS. Thank you very much. That is very nice of you. We are proud of them.

    Mr. FRANK. We were all watching it at home.

    Mr. ROGERS. Where is your home?

    Mr. FRANK. State of Washington. We live in the Puget Sound. I live 50 miles south of Seattle, in the Puget Sound. I represent the 20 tribes in and around the Puget Sound and on the Pacific Coast. We are all Pacific salmon fishermen and our salmon travel all that whole thousands of miles journey out and back home.

    So I am here today, Mr. Chairman. I am happy that you allowed us to testify here before your Subcommittee. It is kind of a first time for us, and we really appreciate that because we are fishery managers. The tribes in the Northwest, over the last quarter of a century, through the courts and through recognition in the United States Congress, are co-managers, along with the State of Washington, along with the federal government, the National Marine Fisheries Service.

    We are partners. We are partners in all kinds of different ways of managing that salmon. And it is very important that we communicate with one another and support the funding. I have with me Jim Anderson, executive director of our commission, and Bob Kelly is on the Northwest Indian Fish Commission, one of our commissioners so I will let Jim get into the details of our funding.
 Page 172       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Mr. ROGERS. All right.

    Mr. ANDERSON. I will try to summarize the request. We support the additional $7.3 million that the President has included in the budget for the National Marine Fisheries Service for West Coast salmon rescue activities that is over and above their 1998 base.

    As you may know, numerous Endangered Species Act listings have occurred in the Pacific Northwest, creating a very interesting complex and dynamic situation, and additional monies for National Marine Fisheries Service is extremely important in order for that agency to continue to effectively address salmon restoration activities.

    We are also requesting additional monies in the budget directed for the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission and our member tribes. There are two elements to that.

    The first one is what we call a tribal ecosystem management initiative. This would be for $3.1 million to the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission for our member tribes. It helps the National Marine Fisheries Service fulfill its federal obligations, both in terms of the Endangered Species Act, as well as their trust obligation to the tribes of the Pacific Northwest that were part of the treaties that have been affirmed through the federal court system.

    We are also seeking $2.5 million for the member tribes for their active participation in the various Endangered Species Act regulatory activities. National Marine Fisheries Service has a fairly complicated process that they must follow under the Endangered Species Act.
 Page 173       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    The tribes, as co-managers and as a regulated entity, if you will, have obligations to participate in the biological reviews, the decisions to list, the recovery planning efforts, consultations to allow for fisheries and the like. And additional monies in the form of $2.5 million for the tribes is extremely important in order for the tribes to stay up with the various tasks. That money would go for new staff, new personnel to allow the tribes to fulfill—to have treaty fisheries that are protected by the law and it would make for a more efficient and effective system.

    [The information follows:]

     "The Official Committee record contains additional material here."

    Mr. ROGERS. Thank you both very much for your testimony. Thank you.

    Gene Feigel, American Society of Mechanical Engineers. Your statement will be made a part of the record. You are invited to summarize it. And if you need the full five minutes, we will warn you at the yellow minute when you have a minute left to go.     

Wednesday, April 1, 1998.


 Page 174       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC


    Mr. FEIGEL. Good afternoon and thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    The NIST Task Force of the Council on Engineering of the Council on Codes and Standards of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers is pleased to have this opportunity to testify before you today on the NIST FY99 budget request.

    As you noted, my name is Gene Feigel. I am senior vice president, codes and standards, of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers and a member of the NIST Task Force.

    NIST has served critical functions in many areas that are significant to ASME's activities, both international and domestic. In my statement today I plan to discuss several NIST programs that are important to ASME. I will then focus on the critical importance of standards and the voluntary consensus process of the U.S. economy.

    The FY99 budget request provides almost $260 million for the Measurement and Standards Laboratories, a $17.4 million increase over last year. The task force supports this level of funding. The laboratories provide U.S. industry with critical technical information through their work in developing new measurement methods, testing techniques, data evaluation and standards.

 Page 175       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    The NIST Task Force also supports cooperative technology programs such as the ATP and MEP, which have been powerful catalysts in bringing government, industry and universities together to enhance the economic competitiveness of the nation.

    These programs are needed to improve the transfer of new discoveries in science and engineering to innovative technologies and global quality practice. The ATP and MEP are good for the nation's economic well-being, the health of U.S. science, engineering and technology enterprise.

    The ATP provides cost-sharing funding to industry for high-risk research and development projects with potentially broad-based economic benefits for the United States. The task force supports the FY99 budget request for an additional $67.4 million over the FY98 funding level for ATP. The task force also supports the $106.8 million request for MEP.

    The second area of critical importance to ASME is standards. In the United States, voluntary consensus standards are developed by private sector standards organizations such as ASME. These standards are used by industry and frequently adopted by government agencies as a means of satisfying regulatory requirements.

    NIST performs a key role in overseeing the implementation of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1996. The act calls for utilization of private sector voluntary consensus standards and conformity assessment activities by federal agencies. Adherence to this provision by federal agencies provides a mechanism to address regulatory issues with direct input from interested parties through public consensus.

 Page 176       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    NIST and the Department of Commerce also play a vital role in promoting acceptance of U.S. standards in international commerce. Standards can either facilitate or inhibit trade. At stake is the competitiveness of U.S. industry in the global marketplace and the ability of the United States to have an effective voice in international standards negotiations.

    In the United States, standards development is largely the province of private sector organizations. In contrast, the governments of many of our key trading partners are investing significant resources, in the millions of dollars, to promote acceptance of competing standards in the global marketplace.

    Therefore it is essential that the U.S. government, in partnership with the private sector standards development organizations, strengthen its commitment to ensuring adequate representation of U.S. interests in international standards negotiations.

    There are two major non-treaty international standards organizations: the International Organization for Standardization, ISO, and the International Electrotechnical Commission, IEC. At the present time, all member bodies of ISO and IEC, except for the United States, receive financial support from their governments to participate in these organizations.

    In order for the U.S. industry to compete in today's market, we must ensure U.S. technology and products are not disadvantaged or entirely excluded from ISO and IEC standards.

    As the influence of non-U.S. regional and national standards bodies within the ISO and IEC structure continues to grow, the support of the U.S. government is needed to assure appropriate levels of U.S. participation.
 Page 177       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    The American National Standards Institute is the U.S. member body to ISO and IEC. Last year ANSI's administrative cost for participation amounted to $4 million, half of which consisted of membership dues to those two bodies. This amount is simply an entry fee and it does not include the cost borne by the private sector.

    The U.S. government, through NIST, needs to allocate funding for U.S. entry into ISO and IEC to ensure U.S. interests are represented. This would free private sector funding to directly support technical committee participation.

    ASME strongly supports the efforts of NIST Director Raymond Kammer to elevate the effectiveness of U.S. participation in international standards negotiations. We urge Congress to augment the NIST budget by $4 million to support such participation. This financial support would be consistent with Section 413 and 415 of Title IV of the Trade Agreement Act of 1979, which calls for adequate representation of U.S. interests in international standards activities.

    Thank you for the opportunity to present our views on the FY99 appropriations for NIST and I would be happy to respond to any questions.

    [The information follows:]

     "The Official Committee record contains additional material here."

    Mr. ROGERS. I thank you very much, Mr. Feigel.
 Page 178       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Mr. R. Max Peterson, International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies.     

Wednesday, April 1, 1998.



    Mr. PETERSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You have my statement. If you will accept it for the record I will summarize it for you.

    Mr. ROGERS. So be it.

    Mr. PETERSON. As you know, Mr. Chairman, I represent an organization with a long name that actually represents the 50 State fish and wildlife agencies. We have the word ''international'' in our name because of the waterfowl that fly from Canada to Mexico and some other things that we deal with.

    Today I am here to testify on the National Marine Fisheries Service budget. As you heard already from some previous testimony here, at one time we thought the ocean resources were sort of inexhaustible, so we fished them from all kinds of countries. Now we find we have at least 86 stocks that are stressed or overfished and the question is when do we do something about it? The longer we wait to do something about it, the more the impact is on the fisherman.
 Page 179       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    So one of the things in this budget that we support is some increase to really implement that Sustainable Fisheries Act, the amendments to the Magnuson Act of a couple of years ago, because unless we have reliable data on those fisheries stocks, which is done cooperatively with the States and with the National Marine Fisheries Service and with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, we simply will not have the technical information to make the best decisions. And it is important to fishermen. It is important to the economy of the States. It is important to all of us that we have good data to make those decisions.

    There is also a need for research in several places to find out why certain stocks are decreasing rather rapidly. Is it entirely due to overfishing? Is it related to changes in ocean temperatures? Is it related to pollution? What is it related to? Because in order to, as you know, go about devising a solution to a problem, you have to understand the dimensions of it. So we are very much in support of the development of additional research capability.

    We are concerned about the federal user fee that is a part of the National Marine Fisheries Service budget simply because that really was not discussed with the States or anybody else who is impacted. We recognize there is need for some additional funding. We think that Congress ought to recognize that that is a new proposal and ought to ask for some time to work with the different States and with industry and others to work out what is an appropriate way of financing the additional money that obviously is needed to do the job.

    We are also concerned about the councils, the various councils like the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Council and so on that have an important role to play in this whole thing representing the States and particularly the coastal States throughout the country have a large stake in what is happening to these fish that know no boundaries.
 Page 180       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Unless there is a high degree of cooperation between the States and the National Marine Fisheries Service, we will not have a program that works very well. So we believe that we need to continue adequate funding for the councils.

    With that, Mr. Chairman, I will recognize that we have made several suggestions in our statement that I am sure you will have an opportunity to read, but basically we do support the Administration's proposal for the National Marine Fisheries Service with a couple of small changes. Thank you.

    [The information follows:]

    "The Official Committee record contains additional material here."

    Mr. ROGERS. Thank you very much. I appreciate it, Mr. Peterson.

    Wendell Hannigan, Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission. Mr. Hannigan, welcome.


Wednesday, April 1, 1998.


 Page 181       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC


    Mr. HANNIGAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to congratulate Kentucky on the NCAA victory.

    Mr. ROGERS. Thank you.

    Mr. HANNIGAN. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for inviting the Commission to testify on the National Marine Fisheries Service budget and its significance to our member tribes. I would like to summarize my testimony and request that my written testimony be placed in the record.

    My name is Wendell Hannigan. I am a member of the Yakima Indian Nation Tribal Council and chairman of the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission. Our concern with the NMFS budget centers on the use of federal monies for the Mitchell Act, the law that authorized the construction and operation of a series of mitigation hatcheries on the Columbia River.

    The member tribes of the commission are parties to treaties by which we ceded millions of acres of land in return for promises by the United States that it would secure our right to take fish on our reservations in all usual and accustomed fishing places. The Mitchell Act, since its implementation in the late 1940s, has been used to violate that promise in a number of ways.

 Page 182       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    First, the Mitchell Act provided the mitigation for hydroelectric development below our salmon fisheries rather than in the areas where our fisheries occur. In other words, the hatcheries moved the fish that are the substance of our treaty rights to areas below where we fish; that is, below Bonneville Dam. Only about 4 percent of Mitchell Act production is released above the Dallas Dam, the next higher dam on the system.

    Second, for many years the non-Indian fisheries below the dams focussed on catching the abundant fish produced by the hatcheries without regard to the impact that these mixed stock fisheries in the ocean and lower river had on the naturally spawning stocks in the rivers and streams of our ceded territories where we hold our treaty rights to fish.

    The results of these impacts was that the up-river stocks were severely diminished by fishing impacts and the impacts of the dams and other development to the point where they were listed as threatened or endangered and our fisheries were severely cut back.

    However, the listing also meant that the ocean and lower river fisheries were cut back to the point where the hatchery abundance was no longer available there, making the Mitchell Act hatchery production less useful as mitigation, even for the non-Indian fisheries.

    That caused non-Indian fishery managers to look for another way to harvest hatchery production and that method was mass marking. We call it mass mutilation, whereby a fin is clipped off hatchery fish and such marked fish can be kept by fishers where nonmarked naturally spawning fish are shaken off the hook, some to die because of the damage done to their insides, others to return to spawn. The tribes oppose mass marking chinook, as does the State of Alaska.

 Page 183       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    This series of actions is madness, especially when related to the promises that the United States made to us in return for our land. Tribes have a better way. Artificial propagation is a method used around the world in connection with habitat improvement to restore and rebuild endangered or threatened species.

    The Endangered Species Act itself includes the use of live trapping, transplantation and propagation as conservation methods. Our tribes have successfully used propagation and habitat improvement to rebuild certain upriver runs on the Umatilla, the Clearwater and the Hanford Reach of the Columbia and the Yakima. Nonetheless, NMFS resists the use of hatcheries for restoration based on an untested scientific opinion while doing little to improve habitat or modify the dams.

    NMFS, as a federal agency, cannot have it both ways and still carry out its ESA obligations and its trust responsibility to the treaty fishing tribes. The use of the Mitchell Act facilities for supplementing natural production in the Upper Columbia River is an essential element in the rebuilding of our runs affected by the dams and we call on this committee to restrict the use of Mitchell Act funds to the restoration of upriver naturally spawning populations that are the subject of its ESA listings.

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your attention to this matter.

    [The information follows:]

    "The Official Committee record contains additional material here."

 Page 184       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. ROGERS. Thank you very much. I appreciate your testimony, Mr. Hannigan.

    Robert Breese, Trade Adjustment Assistance Center sponsors. Welcome.


Wednesday, April 1, 1998.




    Mr. BREESE. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit my written testimony for the record and try to focus, hopefully briefly, on some key points.

    My own role is president and CEO of a group called the MidAtlantic Employers' Association, founded back in 1903. About 800 companies are members. I am here today to speak for the Trade Adjustment Centers, of which MidAtlantic Employers' Association is one of 12 sponsors.

    I would like to focus on three critical points. There is quite a demand, very tremendous demand, for the trade adjustment assistance. There is also a unique program that we are dealing with, and I think that is worth pointing out. I understand you are familiar with it. And finally, there are some interesting side effects I think that even point out or highlight the value of the program.
 Page 185       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    First of all, the demand. Right now the trade adjustment program is about $10.5 million behind the needs of the various companies that have been certified for trade assistance. That demand is increasing. The effects of NAFTA and now the potential effects of the problems in the Far East are going to create additional demand for the type of adjustments or aid that we can provide.

    This morning, for example, I met with 12 company presidents, three of whom are already bringing up, in terms of their own business, seeing the effects of the crisis in the Far East and are saying that this is beginning to affect their business.

    Beyond that, the trade adjustment program is quite unique. It is the only program there is that provides direct assistance to manufacturing companies that are affected negatively by manufacturing competition offshore. There is no other program that does this.

    Since 1993, I believe 544 companies have been assisted. The cost of that to the federal government has been $56 million. The effect, however, has been either the saving or the creation of somewhere in the area of 78,827 jobs. If you boil this down to the return on investment of about $712 per job and you figure that these jobs are worth roughly $25,000 a year, simply in taxes alone, federal and State taxes, the return is almost 1,000 on that $712 investment. So the effect is very, very positive.

    We are working to make it more efficient. We have been working with the Department of Commerce through the Urban Institute to study our methods, to study our communications and the like as a process of continuous improvement so that despite the fact that I think we have a very effective program, we are working to make it even more effective.
 Page 186       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    There is also what you might call some very important side effects of the program in the area of community and economic development. I talked about the positive effect in terms of the return on investment. Another way to look at this is every time a job is lost and, even more importantly, every time a company may have to shut down because of offshore competition, the cost in terms of the economic impact on the community, as well as the cost of possibly welfare, food assistance, retraining is a highly negative cost.
    Having said all that, we appreciate the support that you have given. We are in the President's budget this year for, I believe, $10,500,000. What we would like to suggest is that another $1,500,000 would create a very positive impact. It could allow us to reach perhaps 20 to 30 more companies in need of assistance. So we would really encourage you to consider the idea of supporting an additional $1,500,000.
    Thank you very much for your time and for your support.
    [The information follows:]
    "The Official Committee record contains additional material here."

    Mr. ROGERS. Thank you.
    Dr. Joel Myers, AccuWeather, Inc. Welcome.
Wednesday, April 1, 1998.
    Mr. MYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am founder and president of AccuWeather, one of the world's largest commercial weather information and forecasting companies. We provide weather forecast data and graphics to business, industry, government and the general public. Our weather forecasts can be heard and seen on over 600 radio and television stations and appear in 400 newspapers. Each day over 40 million newspapers hit the streets with the AccuWeather forecast. Our information is on many of the most popular news and weather websites, accessed by millions. We believe over 180 million Americans recognize the AccuWeather name.
 Page 187       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. Chairman, it has been stated that 85 percent of the weather forecasts getting to the general public come from commercial weather companies. Much of the weather forecasts needed by business, government and industry originate within the private sector. Yet the National Weather Service is spending hundreds of millions of dollars a year by continuing activities that are no longer needed, by issuing general forecasts to the public, even though they are free and are usually rejected in the marketplace in favor of forecasts from private companies.
    Absent the competitive intrusion by the NWS into the weather marketplace, the commercial weather industry could and would produce 100 percent of this country's routine daily weather forecasts for the public and specialized needs.
    Accurate and timely forecasts are demanded by almost every sector of the U.S. economy. Without a vibrant and healthy commercial weather industry, the cost of producing all these products might fall to the government, with a price tag that would greatly eclipse the current cost of the NWS budget and operations.
    Therefore, a strong weather industry is vital to the U.S. economy and is the key to both the future downsizing of the National Weather Service and improvements in their vital severe weather warning capability. Now, this may seem like a contradiction, to downsize the NWS and yet improve weather warnings, but it is not. Let me explain.
    The preparation of daily forecasts can and does distract government forecasters from the detection of severe weather in preparation of warnings. There is no doubt that routine activities take resources away from the critical functions of tornado, hurricane and flood warnings. The forecasting focus of the NWS should be on these severe weather events that threaten both lives and property.
    The National Weather Service of today is a creature of the Organic Act of 1890. It might have made sense 108 years ago to give the NWS a broad charge that included making forecasts for the public and selected industries. After all, in 1890 there was not a single commercial weather company. Yet today there are over 100 such companies in the U.S. and many more abroad.
 Page 188       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    The U.S. government has spent many hundreds of millions of dollars to modernize the NWS, to develop AWIPS and NOAA Port, to put satellites in orbit and establish the NEXRAD radar network, yet little effort has been given to modernize the NWS's charter to consider its function vis-a-vis the commercial weather industry and to take advantage of the opportunities created by the unimagined changes over the past 108 years.
    Officials of the NWS have acknowledged in various forums that their charter is vague and so they attempt to be all things to all people. The marketplace has already privatized much of what the National Weather Service does but the NWS continues activities that are no longer needed. These activities are carried out and carried out well by the private sector.
    A staged and systematic pullback by the NWS is needed in three areas. They are user-specific services, services targeted to specific industries and daily public forecasts, such as partly cloudy today, high in the mid 60s. These are services that the government need not provide. A substantial portion of the NWS budget for personnel and related activities is devoted to these routine and duplicative services.
    In the fiscal year '99 request to the subcommittee they are seeking, under O&R in line item ''local warnings and forecasts,'' $463 million, but the NWS has not broken this money out between forecasts and warnings, and I do not think they know themselves how this breakdown occurs.
    NWS budget cuts should be targeted to duplicative and competitive areas, not critical ones, like the Hurricane Center. Spontaneous new, unbudgeted products, such as those recently put out on the Internet that appeared with disclaimers of unreliability, should be prohibited.
    The core responsibilities of the National Weather Service are and clearly should be one, taking weather observations and gathering data; two, operating and improving the computerized weather models which predict storms and the future state of the atmosphere; three, the predicting, locating and tracking of severe weather and the issuing of severe weather advisories and warnings to the public.
 Page 189       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Doing away with other programs and forecasts which people and businesses have become accustomed to may cause some expressions of concern; however, these services are available at modest cost and in many instances are free from private companies supported by advertising.
    With a private supplier, the customer has many advantages that the government cannot provide, including control over the timing of the services and the tailoring of the services to their own specialized needs. Taxpayers should not be asked to fund routine daily forecasts of partly sunny with a 30 percent chance of showers.
    Focussing the NWS on its core mission will yield significant economies within the federal government, contribute to the congressional initiatives to reduce the size of government, bolster an industry that employs people and pays taxes, and, best of all, enhance severe weather warnings for all Americans—better flood prediction, better tornado and hurricane warnings.
    In fact, if the NWS mission was redirected, the United States could have a severe weather warning system that would fulfill everyone's desires and the NWS's budget could be reduced.
    [The information follows:]
    "The Official Committee record contains additional material here."

    Mr. ROGERS. Thank you very much. We appreciate your testimony.
    Our next witness is Dr. Frank Calzonetti, and I yield to my colleague from West Virginia, Mr. Mollohan.


 Page 190       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC





    Mr. MOLLOHAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman and colleagues, I am really pleased to introduce to you our next witness as a special guest from my home State of West Virginia, Dr. Frank Calzonetti. Dr. Calzonetti is a leading citizen in the West Virginia research community, Mr. Chairman. He serves as director of the State EPSCoR program, as senior college and university research development officer for the Governor's Office of Technology, and he is a professor of geography at our State's flagship institution, West Virginia University.
    He has directed the West Virginia's EPSCoR program since 1993. It is a multi-million-dollar statewide activity with Dr. Calzonetti himself serving as the principal investigator on $10 million in National Science Foundation awards over the past five years. Through his service with the Governor's Office of Technology, he is working to improve the instruction of our young people and what they receive.
    He is a good fit, Mr. Chairman, because Dr. Calzonetti has spent his career committed to research and to education of young people through the positions at the Wayne County Community College in Detroit, the University of Oklahoma and, since 1978, West Virginia University.
 Page 191       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Frank, welcome to the hearing.
    Mr. CALZONETTI. Thank you very much.
    Mr. ROGERS. You are recognized for five minutes.

    Mr. CALZONETTI. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Congressman Mollohan. I am here to discuss the Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Technology, EPSCoT, being developed by the Department of Commerce. As you know, this Subcommittee last year provided $1.6 million for this effort and the budget request for fiscal '99 is $3 million.

    Perhaps a little background would be useful. The EPSCoR program was developed by the National Science Foundation in 1978 to provide assistance to a selected number of States to improve their science and research infrastructure. The program operates in 18 States and Puerto Rico. Kentucky and West Virginia are EPSCoR States.

    The EPSCoR States have almost 20 percent of the U.S. population but receive only about 7 percent of the more than $12 billion spent by the federal government on R&D in colleges and universities.

    The program is operated through State EPSCoR committees, which contain not only representatives from the university research committee but representatives from State government and from the private sector, as well. These committees identify focus areas which are important to the State and to the institutions within it.

    Just as EPSCoR States have received limited amounts of funds from federal R&D programs, they have also received limited amounts from the commerce technology development efforts. Also in many of these States, much more research is done in the academic community than in the industrial community, a characteristic that sets these States apart from other States with a larger industrial base.
 Page 192       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    In recent years, as a result of EPSCoR and other R&D programs, many of our academic institutions began to develop linkages to local industry. We came to realize that many of our businesses, even the very small ones, were increasingly affected by global markets and that there were activities in the federal government and the Department of Commerce, such as the ATP program and the SBIR program, which really do not address the special needs and concerns of EPSCoR States.

    At that point the EPSCoR coalition approached Dr. Mary Good, who was at that time the Undersecretary for Technology, and asked for her help in creating an EPSCoR-type program in the Department of Commerce.

    The concept was simple—to build on the EPSCoR program, which already was providing a research base in these States, to use this base to stimulate new technology and to expand upon a number of technology development and technology transfer activities already under way.

    The points are as follows. First, this would be a research and technology transfer program in the EPSCoR States. It would focus on the scientific, engineering and technical support needed by new, existing and emerging industries. It would accelerate the movement of academic research results into the commercial marketplace.

    There should be a tie to the research priorities identified by the States and already supported through the EPSCoR and related efforts.

 Page 193       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Third, there should be consultation with Commerce programs, such as the manufacturing extension programs and the advanced technology programs.

    Fourth, approval of grant proposals should be done through a peer review process, which includes reviewers who have expertise in the EPSCoR programs.

    And finally, the State EPSCoR structure should be used. This is a structure which is in place and which is already involved in the research and technology transfer programs to be expanded by the EPSCoT effort.

    Let me tell you briefly how this could impact West Virginia. Under the leadership of Governor Cecil Underwood, West Virginia has made major moves to coordinate research and development initiatives statewide. The governor salvaged the Office of Technology in 1997 and the West Virginia EPSCoR program joined this office this past year. This was done to provide the State with the ability to use the State's colleges and universities to link into the State's economic development initiatives.

    This year Governor Underwood created the PROMISE program, which provides seed funding to encourage a small business owner to work with a university faculty member to develop SBIR proposals. The West Virginia Science and Technology Advisory Council has set three priorities for the State: information technologies, identification technologies and workforce development. The EPSCoR State committee also endorsed these three areas. And we would like to see the EPSCoT program also endorse these areas and move into the related areas with the industrial community.

 Page 194       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    The importance of creating technology-based development is critical in rural States such as West Virginia, which lack a network of related industries, R&D associations and other support mechanisms found in larger States. The proposed EPSCoT program provides a mechanism to craft programs which use the new ideas produced from the university.

    I would like to thank you for this time and want to voice my support for a strong technologically-oriented EPSCoT program that can allow us to use the university research programs that the EPSCoR program has developed to support State industrial development. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

    [The information follows:]

    "The Official Committee record contains additional material here."

    Mr. ROGERS. Thank you for your nice testimony. We appreciate it.

    Mr. MOLLOHAN. Thank you, Doctor.

    Mr. ROGERS. David Dickson, Center for Marine Conservation, welcome.

Wednesday, April 1, 1998.
 Page 195       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Mr. DICKSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Mr. Chairman, the Center for Marine Conservation appreciates this opportunity to share our views regarding the President's budget request for the Marine Conservation Programs of NOAA. The Center for Marine Conservation is committed to protecting ocean environments and conserving the global abundance and diversity of marine life.

    In this, the Year of the Ocean, we commend Congress and, in particular, this Subcommittee, for the commitment shown to the protection of our marine ecosystems in the appropriations bill enacted for this year. We urge the Subcommittee, at a minimum, to continue this commitment by providing funding for the base activities of the marine stewardship programs of NOAA requested by the President.

    We also urge you to provide additional funding to pay for congressional priorities in the form of earmarks and add-ons and for the additional needs described in our written statement.

    While we appreciate the Administration's seeking needed increases in areas such as fisheries management and protection of marine wildlife and water quality, we are very concerned that the President proposed cuts in important congressional initiatives to offset these increases.

 Page 196       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    One such initiative is the National Marine Sanctuary Program. We urge the Subcommittee to provide $18 million for this important program, the current authorized level. We are extremely disappointed by the President's proposed cut of $800,000 from the $14 million level you provided for this year. Often referred to as our national marine parks, the 12 sanctuaries around the country encompass almost 18,000 square miles of the nation's most significant marine resources.

    Yet in last month's issue of National Geographic, when referring to the program's budget, the magazine said, ''The typical sanctuary must take care of an enormous area with a staff that could fit in a broom closet.''

    On March 19, Undersecretary for Oceans and Atmosphere Baker stated before the Resources Committee that the current budget for the sanctuary program is approximately one-third of its manager's estimated need.

    We also urge the Subcommittee to provide for NOAA's portion of the Administration's clean water action plan; in particular, the $12 million slated for the development and implementation of State coastal nonpoint source pollution control programs. These programs were authorized by Congress under Section 6217 of the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990.

    Nonpoint source pollution or polluted run-off is the largest source of pollution to the nation's coastal waters. It is the leading cause of beach and shellfish bed closures, fish consumption warnings and massive fish kills. Additional funds are essential so that 29 coastal States and territories can complete their programs and begin to implement management measures to reduce the impacts of polluted run-off to our coastal waters.
 Page 197       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    For fisheries, essentially we urge the Subcommittee to provide for the President's requested increases for basic program activities within the Resource Information and Fisheries Management Program line items. These increases are fundamental to NMFS and the regional Fishery Management Councils being able to rebuild America's depleted marine fisheries under the provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act.

    The marine fishery resources of the United States are in serious trouble. According to NMFS, for the stocks under its jurisdiction whose status is known, 36 percent are overutilized and another 44 percent are fully utilized. NMFS estimates that restoring fisheries will have a benefit to the economy of $12 billion in total.

    Additional funds are essential to conduct needed stock assessments on which NMFS is woefully behind, as well as to implement the critical new provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.

    We also urge the Subcommittee to provide additional funds above the President's request to pay for important congressional priorities. Otherwise, essential programmatic work will be impaired, as it was somewhat this year.
    On marine wildlife, we appreciate the increases for ESA recovery plans. However, while the President's budget invests heavily in Pacific salmon recovery, he falls far short of what is needed for other threatened and endangered species, including the northern white whale and sea turtles.
    He also severely short-changes the implementation of the Marine Mammal Protection Act. We also urge the Subcommittee to fully fund the Marine Mammal Commission.
 Page 198       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    And finally, we urge the Subcommittee to maintain funding for the National Underwater Research Program and reject the President's proposed $11.4 million cut. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    [The information follows:]
    "The Official Committee record contains additional material here."

    Mr. ROGERS. Thank you. Perfect timing.
    Barry Rogstad, American Business Conference.
    Mr. ROGSTAD. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. ROGERS. How are you?
    Mr. ROGSTAD. I am fine, sir. Thank you. Barry Rogstad, president of the American Business Conference but I am here this afternoon in my capacity as chairman of the Board of Overseers of the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award and I am very pleased to have the opportunity to present my views and those of the board on the unique and important role that the Baldrige Award plays in strengthening America's competitiveness and the compelling arguments for expanding the award to include education and health care categories.
    Congress created the Baldrige National Quality Award in 1987 and we believe that it proved a major milestone in restoring U.S. business competitiveness. The award process itself has inspired the dissemination of best performance practices to tens of thousands of U.S. companies who use the quality criteria to strengthen their competitiveness.
 Page 199       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Based on this experience and that track record, the business community wants Baldrige categories in health care and education. Starting in 1990, representatives of the business community requested creation of Baldrige Award categories in both education and health care. They believed then and I think it is safe to say that they feel even stronger about it today, that creation of these categories would improve education and health care quality, would control costs to businesses associated with worker health care and lost work time for remedial education, and would allow the transfer of knowledge from business processes and improvements in management systems to the education and health care sectors.
    But I think a point I want to urge to you is this is not just a business-driven issue. Of equal importance for your consideration, I think, is the significant demand within the health care and education communities themselves for Baldrige Award categories. Education and health care are today where American businesses were 12 to 15 years ago. They are being challenged to meet more demanding performance standards and higher customer expectations and deliver quality services, all at lower costs, and are increasingly being held accountable for their performance.
    Therefore, education and health care leaders are searching for improvement strategies that will work, and I think that is why they are turning to Baldrige.
    The business, education and health care communities all want that process and that award process to be administered by the Baldrige Office in the National Institute of Standards and Technology because it is an external source of reputation and it is respected as an outside arbiter for excellence. It embodies the image of high standards and objectivity, sir.
    We are seeking the Congress's approval for the $2.3 million requested in the Commerce Department's budget for the extension to health care and education. Through this action, the Congress will be able to create what I would say is the greatest amount of positive momentum for performance excellence in these sectors at the lowest possible cost to the government.
 Page 200       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Four points. I think this expansion would one, forge local partnerships and enable partnerships between parents, teachers, administrators and employers, health care managers and civic leaders to improve their community institutions, empowering thousands of local professionals to enlist their enormous assets in achieving higher performance.
    We in the business community view Baldrige as an external change agent and a catalyst that can provide a proven yet fresh approach and fresh perspective to our colleagues who run school systems and health care facilities.
    I think secondly, it will propel a momentum for excellence and quality performance to all school and health care organizations in the country at virtually no cost to the government in a national roll-out campaign.
    Thirdly, I think that this award guarantees that the $2.3 million federal commitment to expand the award will leverage $15 million that is now being contributed to the Baldrige Foundation for this project. This foundation is also reaching out to leaders in the health care and education communities to make sure that they are part of this effort.
    Finally, this is an effort that is galvanizing the strong underlying support that exists within all the major national business organizations, including my own, their underlying constituencies, education associations, teachers unions, health care organizations.
    Their views on this subject are very strong and very positive and they are now communicating their views to this Subcommittee and to other members of the Congress and I trust that you will find this evidence compelling.
    In short, I think that for all of these reasons, we strongly support the proposed expansion to enable education and health care to take advantage of the proven Baldrige infrastructure and to act on the reality that improved performance is not limited to business but is important to all organizations.
    I thank you for your consideration.
 Page 201       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    [The information follows:]
    "The Official Committee record contains additional material here."

    Mr. ROGERS. Thank you, Mr. Rogstad. We appreciate your testimony.
    Dr. Edward Eyring, Gospel Rescue Ministries of Washington. Welcome. Good to see you again.
    Mr. EYRING. Thank you. I appreciate your invitation, members of the Subcommittee, to address you this year. Previous support of $190,000 via Weed and Seed has been most appreciated by Gospel Rescue Ministries.
    As an update, I can tell you that we are almost through the permitting process and we hope to be able to start construction within eight weeks. We have already started an extramural program of identifying women to be candidates for participation and we are working with them outside where they live and also with our central facility.
    My purpose today is not to ask for a specific appropriation but rather to cast a vision for you to see how we might make optimal use of another one of the District's assets to help the poor and the needy of the District.
    If you think the vision is viable, I would like to ask you and your staff to do two things. First, I would like some direction and support in putting together a more specific plan, and secondly, perhaps financial support and again perhaps next year for specific aspects of the project which might involve the Department of Justice directly.
 Page 202       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Consider what would happen if a number of agencies could come together in a single place to provide basic rescue needs, such as food, shelter, clothing and primary medical care, to identifiable groups of the poor and needy, such as substance abusers, people just getting out of prison, women with children and families, and do this at a fairly reasonable cost.

    What if crime could be reduced, the undereducated could be made literate or computer literate, the unemployed and underemployed people could be placed on career paths of substance not just jobs? This would be a grant opportunity to combine a continuum of care model, which is what we talk about, with genuine cooperation among faith-based providers and others.

    Now, within the District of Columbia there is a campus called the McKinley High School campus, which also includes Langley and Emory. This dream actually could become a reality. What a valuable asset we have here. With an enlightened use of this asset we could demonstrate that the federal government, the District of Columbia, the private sector could work together with socially concerned nonprofit agencies and foundations to create a center for the poor and often hard to reach folks of our District as an example to the rest of the country of how to transform lives of poor and needy persons.

    We would love to help develop a plan to bring effective cooperation into reality. Gospel Rescue Ministries is already a contributing participant of the North Capitol Collaborative, the Community Partnership, COHOO, the Ministry Assembly and many networks. We have entered into productive dialogue with the Departments of Justice and Labor, HUD, the U.S. Congress and many foundations.

    The transfer of the Fulton Hotel to Gospel Rescue Ministries through Weed and Seed alone represented the fruit of three years of negotiating with various groups. I believe it could be said that Gospel Rescue Ministries has a substantial and clear understanding of the issues related to the working together of government and faith-based organizations.
 Page 203       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Operational costs would be substantial. We really do not have an accurate budget but it would be in the millions. But whatever the specific cost, we are convinced that this vision could be implemented for a third of the cost of similar government programs and provide better outcomes, consistent with our performance to date.

    Now, we realize that impressive hurdles exist in the areas of zoning, permitting, assignment of space, et cetera, but we are persuaded that the need and the potential gain to the poor will amply justify the risk. Such a bold plan would be revolutionary and possibly complicated—no doubt complicated. We in Gospel Rescue Ministries believe that we are a government of the people, by the people and for the people and we would want to be a part of the demonstration of that truth.

    This is an opportunity for all of us to make a profound difference not only on the lives we touch here in Washington but also similar lives throughout the nation. I believe that together we can provide the vision and resources necessary to bring people together to transform the lives of thousands of citizens.

    I realize there is a general plan for highest and best use of this and other abandoned sites in the District. I am concerned that this will end up meaning either just the highest financial return or a segmented use of properties where they are sold off piecemeal to agencies that will not work together.

    Thanks for listening. I want to remind you that your invitation to come and have salmon with us is still open and it is getting better all the time. I also wanted to introduce David Treadwell, who is the executive director of our sister rescue ministry, Central Union Mission, and to comment that we are working to do everything we can to work together to solve these kinds of problems. Thanks so much.
 Page 204       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    [The information follows:]

    "The Official Committee record contains additional material here."

    Mr. ROGERS. Thank you for your testimony. I had lunch with members today and Tony Hall told me you were to be here. He was speaking highly of your efforts. He and I agree with that.

    Mr. EYRING. Well, he served dinner there on Christmas day.

    Mr. ROGERS. Did he? Well, thank you for your testimony.

    Ron Allen, Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe.

    Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, my friend Mary Pavel, who is the last witness on your list today, is on a tight time schedule to catch a flight. I would be willing to change places with her if it is okay with you.

    Mr. ROGERS. That is nice of you. Thank you.

    Mary Pavel, Northwest Intertribal Court System.


 Page 205       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
Wednesday, April 1, 1998.




    Ms. PAVEL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Mr. Chairman, my name is Mary Pavel. I am a member of the Skokomish Tribe in Washington State and a practicing attorney here in Washington, D.C. with the law firm of Sonosky Chambers Sachse and Endreson.

    I am pleased to be here to present testimony on behalf of the Northwest Intertribal Court System, an organization that my mother helped found in 1979, concerning the administration of justice on small Indian reservations in the Northwest.

    NICS is a consortium of 10 member tribes and one affiliate tribe in Western Washington. The consortium assists participating tribes in the development of their individual justice systems and provides an integral component of the broader goal of moving toward greater tribal self-determination and self-governance.

    The most immediate and practical solution to the growing pressures on individual tribal court systems in 1979, when NICS was created, was the creation of a circuit court for the member tribes, and thus NICS was born. Beginning with a single judge who provided judicial services, NICS has expanded over two decades to include prosecutorial, defense, juvenile, code-writing, mediation and training services.
 Page 206       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    We are very proud of the contributions that we have made over the last 19 years in improving the efficiency and effectiveness of tribal court systems. However, much work needs to be done. There have been extraordinary reductions in federal Indian programs in recent times, almost to the point where a virtual emergency exists in Indian Country.

    Almost one-third of Native American people now live below the poverty line. Coupled with increased poverty has come an explosion of the illegal drug use and gang activity, resulting in an alarming escalation of serious and violent crimes on our reservations.

    We urge this Subcommittee to work with tribal governments to reverse this downward trend in our societies. Only with this Subcommittee's support for adequate funding can the federal government fulfill its trust responsibilities to Indian tribes and ensure that every American receives equal justice under the law.

    I would like to highlight one particular aspect of the President's budget request. It is the Department of Interior and Department of Justice Joint Law Enforcement Initiative concerning Indian Country. In particular, we would like to strongly support the $10 million aspect of that for technical assistance and training funds, in addition to grants for strengthening tribal court systems.

    There is a significant and great need for tribal courts. In 1993, Congress acknowledged this and authorized the appropriation of $50 million annually for tribal court systems. That act, the Indian Tribal Justice Act, has never been funded. This is one step toward the funding of that act and the goals of that act. I would urge this Subcommittee to support that request. Thank you.
 Page 207       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    [The information follows:]

    "The Official Committee record contains additional material here."

    Mr. ROGERS. Thank you very much.

    Now, Mr. Allen, Ron Allen, James S'Klallam.


Wednesday, April 1, 1998.




    Mr. ALLEN. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. I am pinch-hitting here today. I normally do not do the testifying for the issue that I bring before you.

    I am the chairman for the Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe located in Western Washington State. I am also the commissioner representing the 24 tribes in the Pacific Northwest in the U.S.-Canada Pacific Salmon Treaty in that forum, trying to deal with the fisheries from Alaska to the Oregon Coast and up the Columbia River.
 Page 208       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    I am here testifying on behalf of our request for the fiscal support for the Department of Commerce NMFS programs and the Department of State programs that fund this particular activity.

    As you are probably aware, back in 1985 we established this treaty with Canada to try to help improve the management of the five species that swim the waters of the coast in the Pacific Northwest. It has been quite challenging for us, for the last 13, 14 years, and these last couple of days we have been in town basically negotiating with Canada to try to resolve some impasses that we have had in that treaty.

    This budget is essentially the budget that provides the resources for us to implement the treaty, to deal with the scientific responsibilities of the fisheries in each of the stocks and the complexities of the stock. The Administration has asked for a continuation of the budget from last year. In our opinion, there is no shortfall, so we are very supportive of that and encourage the Congress to be supportive of that.

    There is a specific complexity in this effort and that is with chinook, which is a particular stock that is very complicated in terms of a set of stocks of one species that originates from Alaska and British Columbia and the Columbia River and the Puget Sound and we have had a very difficult time managing that fishery and coming to terms with Alaskans and with British Columbia.

    Well, we came up with a letter of agreement on managing this effort that we think is more effective in terms of managing it on what we call a stock abundance approach. That requires us to do some additional work in terms of improving the scientific mechanisms that we can politically accept in terms of the allocation of these fisheries.
 Page 209       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Last year we asked for $1.8 million—I think it is actually 1.844—and the Congress appropriated $1.5 million. This year the Administration did not ask for any additional money and we believe that that work has to continue on and that we would ask the Congress to consider reinstating that number back to the number that we had requested for the work that is necessary.

    The other issue that is of concern to us is the money that goes to the Department of State and the number that was appropriated last year was $1.4 million. We had asked for the $1.6 million for '99. We believe that that number is necessary. That is the money that is used to pay for all of the policy people and the technical people that implement this program. It has gotten a little more expensive in the last couple of years because we have had countless more meetings trying to reconcile differences between the two countries and the on-going negotiations are taking place right now that we are constantly struggling with that.

    We would ask your consideration of just bumping it up that extra $168,000 to cover those costs. We are hopeful that that will cover our needs and bring this thing to a conclusion.

    It is very important to the Northwest. I cannot begin to underline it enough, how important it is to that industry out there and to the tribes, to non-Indian constituents, et cetera.

    I appreciate your time and appreciate your consideration.

 Page 210       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    [The information follows:]
    "The Official Committee record contains additional material here."

    Mr. ROGERS. Thank you. You have made a very strong case.

    Mr. ALLEN. Thank you.

    Mr. ROGERS. Jeri Swinton, Big Brothers/Big Sisters of America. I understand you are with the Kentucky State Association. Welcome.

Wednesday, April 1, 1998.




    Ms. SWINTON. Thank you. Thank you for letting Big Brothers/Big Sisters come again this year to address you concerning the JUMP funding.

    As you said, I am with the State Association of Big Brothers/Big Sisters. I am the executive director of Big Brothers/Big Sisters of the Louisville Big Brothers/Big Sisters agency.
 Page 211       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

     I don't know if you are aware that Big Brothers/Big Sisters of America is a federation of over 500 agencies nationally and serves over 100,000 children. 1,000 of those children are from the State of Kentucky that we serve in our seven agencies in the State.

    As you know, children in Kentucky and everywhere are facing greater problems than they ever have before—drug abuse, substance abuse, violence and, as you know, in Kentucky we are all too aware of violence that happens in the schools. And we are working at Big Brothers/Big Sisters, we are working very hard to meet those challenges.

    In fact, an outside research study done by Public/Private Ventures shows that children who are involved with Big Brothers and Big Sisters are 46 percent less likely to use drugs. They are 27 percent less likely to turn to alcohol. They are 52 percent less likely to skip school, 33 percent less likely to hit someone, to resort to violence as a solution to a problem. And this is compared with children who are like them but who are not matched with Big Brothers and Big Sisters.

    Big Brothers/Big Sisters played a lead role several years ago in the drafting of legislation which encouraged the development of mentoring programs through JUMP, the Juvenile Mentoring Program. This provides local educational agencies, mentoring programs, law enforcement agencies an opportunity to collaborate and to provide services to children in high crime areas who might not otherwise be served through mentoring programs.

    In 1995 the Department of Justice awarded the first JUMP grants to 41 sites and then last year another 52 grants were awarded. However, there were over 500 requests, applicants for that money. In fact, in Louisville, Kentucky we applied for some of the JUMP funding and the competition was so heavy we have yet to receive funds but we hope to.
 Page 212       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    I have also heard from folks in the family resource centers in Eastern Kentucky, such as Martin County, who have contacted me and are desperate for mentoring programs but do not have the resources that some in the larger urban areas have to provide mentoring programs. So especially in the rural areas, JUMP funds are really critical to getting mentoring programs going.

    The request for JUMP funding this year is $23 million. We realize in the mentoring community that the Subcommittee wants to see a greater return for their investment and we think that it makes sense to put funds in a program like Big Brothers/Big Sisters that has proven results.

    One of the reasons that we have those proven results is because of the intensive screening that we do of volunteers, the training that we do, that even when Rick Patino five years ago became a Big Brother, even he had to pass through all those processes before we would match him with a child in our programs.

    The dollars for mentoring may come in small amounts but we feel that they provide real hope for America's youth and are especially critical in areas that do not have other funding sources.

    I thank you for the opportunity and would be glad to answer any questions.

    [The information follows:]

 Page 213       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    "The Official Committee record contains additional material here."

    Mr. ROGERS. Well, I thank you for being here and I appreciate your testimony. It is very convincing.

    Ms. SWINTON. Thank you.

    Mr. ROGERS. That concludes the session.

    "The Official Committee record contains additional material here."