Hal Rogers

Mr. ROGERS

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's comments. His amendment would maintain the program in fiscal year 2000, and I certainly have no objection to the amendment.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, we have no objection to this amendment. In fact, this program was one that was begun by this subcommittee some time back, and this would augment that program. I want to thank the gentlewoman for offering the amendment.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the amendment.

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

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I wish to address the body about the schedule for the balance of the evening. Mr. Chairman, so that Members will have some general guidance about the balance of the evening, let me attempt to generalize about the schedule. And if any of the leadership finds me speaking the wrong way, they can interrupt me. But as I understand it, this is the way we intend to proceed: I would hope, as soon as we get back to the Coburn amendment, that we could get a unanimous consent to limit the debate to 30 minute, 15 per side. We will do that appropriately at the right time. At which point, if that is agreed, we would then proceed to the three votes that are stacked up, including Coburn; in which case, at the conclusion of those three votes, my understanding is the Committee would rise and take up the Emergency Steel, Oil, and Gas Loan Guarantee Act conference report. Following that, I do not know. But at least I think we can have some period of time after these three votes that Members would have, while the conference report is being debated, for perhaps some private time. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on the Coburn amendment and all amendments thereto close in 30 minutes, and that the time be equally divided between the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano) and the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn).

Mr. ROGERS. And so that is why I had no choice, and leadership in consultation agreed there was no choice here.

Mr. ROGERS. If the gentleman would continue to yield very briefly, when that happened, and the budget numbers were given to the full Committee on Appropriations, there was no money in that allocation for a budget, and so when my allocation was given to me on the Subcommittee from the full Committee, likewise there was no money allocated for the decennial census.

Mr. ROGERS. Well, I can assure the gentleman that it did.

Mr. ROGERS. Do not be sorry for that. Does the gentleman agree, though, that the 1997 budget deal that was voted by this body ignored any expenditures for the 2000 census?

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman, I believe, was on the Committee on the Budget, maybe still is.

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

Mr. ROGERS. And does the gentleman also admit that the current-year budget resolution that was passed by this body also did not anticipate a single penny being spent for the decennial census in 2000?

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, it has been said that if we spend this money on an emergency basis that it will come out of Social Security funds. Let me remind the body that just today the majority whip said on the floor, and he is correct, this comes out of the on-budget surplus; it does not come out of Social Security. The emergency declaration that we have, the $4.5 billion that we are talking about on the census, comes out of the on-budget surplus, not out of Social Security.

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

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, did the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) support the 1997 Balanced Budget Agreement?

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

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield further, I ask the him, did he vote for it?

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, if we really want to create a crisis, an emergency in everyone's definition, then we will support this amendment and force us to go back and cut the FBI, the DEA, the weather service, foreign embassies and the like 15 percent, which will practically shut down the courts. We have to find the money somewhere if we take this money out of the bill. I do not want to be responsible for that, and I would hope that the Members would not agree to take that money out. If we want to ensure that we meet our constitutional duty to provide for the census and maintain funding for these other critical agencies in this bill, I trust and hope that we will support the bill that is before us today and reject the amendment that would prohibit and preclude the conduct of the decennial census in the year 2000. Now, it has been said this is some sort of a gimmick. People on that side of the aisle have said this is some sort of a gimmick. Well, when the President set up his budget request earlier, Mr. Chairman, his budget request included $42 billion worth of budget gimmicks, user fees, and emergencies all through that budget request. We have rejected those. But many in this body, most in this body who voted for those budget caps in 1997, now are saying, ah, this is a gimmick to get around the budget caps, but you have to do the census and you have to maintain funding for the law enforcement agencies. My colleagues, we cannot have it all ways. We have to make a choice here. We have to choose. Do we want the census or not? That is the question. I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, this amendment, let us be plain about this now, if this amendment passes, there will be no census. Pure and simple. If that is what the body wants, vote for this amendment. I cannot put it any plainer than that; the amendment would strike $2,753,253,000, which would strike at the heart of conducting the decennial census, which we are obligated by the Constitution to do. Now, why is this declared an emergency? Let us just lay it on the table. It is simple. The 1997 bipartisan budget agreement that the White House and the Congress, the House and Senate, agreed to, and most of us voted for, never anticipated a penny for the 2000 census. They should have. It was a bad mistake. Whoever was in the negotiations at that time should have known that in the year 2000 we would have this enormous expense, 1-year principally, of conducting the decennial census. This final figure, which is $6.5 billion, is two-and-a-half times the cost of the 1990 census. But the budget agreement anticipated not a penny, and no plans were made for it. Now, what are we to do? The budget resolution we passed earlier this year for the fiscal year 2000 again ignored the needs for the decennial census money in the year 2000. While the caps imposed in 1997 for this year and for 5 years made adjustment for other extraordinary items, such as U.N. arrears, they either exempted some of these items or accommodated them. That was not the case for the census. They simply ignored it. Nothing was done. Of course, everyone knows the census happens every 10 years. It is in the Constitution. Someone forgot to tell the White House and the Congress in 1997 that we would face this very moment, this year, in anticipating and finding the money to do the decennial census. It simply is not in the budget resolution. There is no way we could plan for it. And in just 2 short years, Mr. Chairman, the cost of the census has exploded by over 60 percent and likely will grow even more. Just last year the administration said the cost would be $3.9 billion. When they sent their original budget this year, that had grown to $4.9 billion. And then the Supreme Court came along and said their plan was illegal. And just 7 weeks ago, 7 weeks ago, after I had pleaded with them for 2 years to give us the estimated cost for us to anticipate, which they refused and refused and refused, hearing after hearing; then finally 7 weeks ago, they came in and said, okay, it is going to cost you $6.5 billion; 60 percent more than they told us 2 years before, two-and-a- half times the cost of the 1990 census. And 70 percent of that cost has to be funded this year in this bill. So here we are on the eve of the 2000 census, spending caps that did not allow for a census at all, skyrocketing costs that this committee and the Congress could not have expected, and only 7 weeks ago they give us the total figure. That is why it is an emergency. We have no choice. This is a temporary expense, a one-time cost, but it is vital, it is required, it is mandatory, and it is necessary that we do it. And that is what we do in this bill. This bill is a very restrained bill, as we have all agreed. We cut spending by $833 million below current spending. We have managed to keep critical functions in the bill, law enforcement, the INS, the weather service, our embassies overseas, at close to their operating levels. It has been a tough job. There were tough choices, but we have made them.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition. Mr. Chairman, the provision in the bill that this amendment seeks to strike, Mr. Chairman, does one thing only. It prohibits Federal tax dollars from paying for abortions for Federal prison inmates, except in the case of rape or the life of the mother. This is a longstanding provision, one that has been carried in 10 of the last 11 Commerce-Justice-State and Judiciary appropriation bills. The House has consistently rejected this amendment, this very amendment to last year's appropriations bill by a vote of 148 to 271; in fiscal year 1998, by 155 to 264; 2 years ago by a voice vote; and 3 years ago, by a vote of 146 to 281. It has been consistent, the House has, in rejecting this amendment. Time and again Congress has debated this issue of whether Federal tax dollars should pay for an abortion. The answer has been no. I urge a no vote again.

Mr. ROGERS. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman for his efforts on this issue. I will work with the gentleman and the ranking member of the subcommittee to maintain this $500,000 for the School Resource Officers Clearinghouse in conference.

Hal Rogers

Speeches

Manage analytics