Hal Rogers

Mr. ROGERS

Mr. ROGERS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. Apparently the gentleman does not believe that a balanced budget is important. This Congress achieved a balanced budget for the first time in 37 years. Apparently the gentleman does not believe that cutting taxes to the American people is important. This Congress cut people's taxes. Apparently the gentleman does not believe that having the best economy in decades is not important. We believe it is. This Congress created the atmosphere in which we have got the best economy in decades. The gentleman apparently does not believe that having record employment is important. We believe it is. Under this Congress's policies we have had record employment for the last several years ever since this party has been in charge. We believe this Congress has been productive on the important matters for all of the American people. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ROGERS. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), a member of the committee.

Mr. ROGERS. If the gentleman will yield, I assume that the Speaker has suggested the offsets with which to pay for it. That is the way this place has to operate under the balanced budget agreement.

Mr. ROGERS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes. Madam Speaker, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior), whatever he calls the additional spending the President has requested, he has yet to tell us how he is going to pay for it. I mean, the budget agreement that the gentleman agreed to, the President agreed to, under which we are operating, sets caps for spending. We are spending up to the caps. Now the President says disregard the caps; give us more money for X, Y and Z. Well, we cannot consider that until we know how we are going to pay for it. Where are we going to cut spending in order to increase spending for something else so that we stay under the overall caps, under which this Congress operates and the White House agreed to and is operating? Now, as to whether or not there is a budget resolution, it makes not a hill of beans' difference. We are operating under the budget agreement that the parties and the White House agreed to a couple of years ago. We are spending in the appropriations bills every penny of those caps. Whether or not we have a budget resolution is irrelevant, because we agreed back in June, without the budget resolution, that we would spend up to the caps. We cannot spend more than the caps unless we change the law. So what difference is it if there is not a budget resolution, which only is an internal paper of the Congress anyway? So we are spending all of the caps that we are allowed to spend under the budget resolution, the budget agreement, that the White House signed off on and now wants to violate. I want to ask the White House, how come they want to violate the balanced budget agreement that led to the Nation's first balanced budget in 37 years and which they are so big about crowing about on television? Why do they now want to violate that balanced budget agreement? As long as there is a refusal to come up with the offsets to spend more in one category than we agreed to, it simply is a hollow demand.

Mr. ROGERS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes. As the gentleman has said, the process is to work between the bodies on the Hill and between the parties in this body and the other body to work out our differences, and, of course, work with the White House to try to achieve some degree of compromise to where the bills can be signed. And that is exactly the process that we are in and have been in for several weeks now. As far as knowing what the White House offsets are going to be so that we can know where the money is going to come from to pay for these extra frills that the President seems to want, we simply want to know what the cost is going to be and where the money is going to come from. When we go shopping at the store and the store shows us the goods that we would like to buy, they have to know that we have got the money to pay for it before we can strike a deal. And so we simply want to see the White House's money. If they have a way to pay for the frills that they are asking for, then that is a different story. But until this time they have simply refused to tell us whether or not they have the money to pay for the frills that they want to add to these bills. Now, we are in the process of working differences out between the bodies and the White House. That process is ongoing. The budget office from the White House has been here now for several days meeting with the leadership in the Congress, the Speaker, the majority leader, and the leaders of the minority party in both bodies. We are in the process of negotiating and working. We simply have not had time to meet the demands of the White House at this point in time. And I would urge that the White House be reasonable in their requests. We are trying to be reasonable. We are trying to find ways to do what the White House would like to do on all these bills. They are being a bit unreasonable at this point in time, and we simply are going to stay here until we get this job done. Now, the White House can take their campaign trips wherever they want. This body, this House, is staying in session until we get the job done.

Mr. ROGERS. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth).

Mr. ROGERS

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on the motion to instruct, and that I may include tabular and extraneous material.

Mr. ROGERS

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, as I read the motion, it indicates that the conferees should not take certain actions outside the scope of the conference which could have the effect of causing a government shutdown. As far as I know, no one, Mr. Speaker, has the intention to take any action to cause a government shutdown; certainly not on this side. We are determined to do our dead level best to keep this government operating. The Congress is not going to abdicate its responsibilities to legislate on behalf of the American people, but we will send bills to the President. If he chooses to shut the government down, that is his business. We are not going to precipitate that, so no one on this side is in favor of a government shutdown, and if additional time is needed to work out remaining issues, continuing resolutions will be proposed to assure that there is no government shutdown. Mr. Speaker, with that understanding, I have no objections to the motion. In fact, I would join in the making of the motion and ask for an immediate vote. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 4276) making appropriations for the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1999, and for other purposes, with a Senate amendment thereto, disagree to the Senate amendment, and agree to the conference asked by the Senate.

Mr. ROGERS

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me. Mr. Speaker, I do not know what we will do around here for opinions when Jerry Solomon leaves. I suspect we will find a way to give opinions, but certainly the opinionated Mr. Solomon, the Marine that is still a Marine in this body is someone we are going to miss, all of us. You always knew where Jerry Solomon stood. He was not hesitant to let you know what his feelings were about a given topic, and that continues to this day. We need more of that around here, but certainly Jerry Solomon gave us during his tenure here his ideas and his passionate feelings about every issue that hit this floor, and that is what we admire about him. We admire his honesty and his truthfulness and his integrity because you knew exactly what he was telling you came from directly in the heart, and that heart was of course made of solid gold, molded during some of our Nation's most tumultuous times in Korea in combat and otherwise. So, Jerry, we are going to miss you. Your service, especially these last few years as the traffic cop of all legislation coming to the floor of the House, Chairman of the Committee on Rules, is a service that is a pretty thankless job, but we are all here to say thank you.

Mr. ROGERS

Mr. ROGERS. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise also to pay tribute to our friend, a true patriot, a true statesman, a man we are all proud to call our friend, the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Joe McDade. In his service for his district for 18 terms, a remarkable span of over 35 years, he has provided a source of inspiration for many of us, including this Member, in the initiatives and policies he has pursued and the way in which he has done so. Whether it was his focus to create new and better opportunities to the small businesses in his area, or his efforts to protect and restore the environment, or his pursuit to secure funds for hospitals, highways and schools, Joe McDade has led by example. Of particular interest to this member and the constituents I represent has been Joe's dogged determination to fund environmental infrastructure, providing millions of dollars for water and sewer improvements, flood control, abandoned mine stabilization and the like. Many of us take for granted these commonalities of clean water and modern wastewater treatment facilities, but I can tell you firsthand what a difference these initiatives make in people's lives. An effort such as these can literally turn the tide against unemployment, with good paying jobs, local citizens working better, and creating the environment that people are proud to call home. We could go on and on about Joe's accomplishments, but I believe his record speaks for itself. For me it has been within the inner workings of the Committee on Appropriations where Joe has served since 1965 that we have come to know him best. But whatever his subcommittee assignment, Joe provided leadership when we needed it in a bipartisan fashion. When compromise was needed, Joe was there to broker the deal. Likewise, when a firm hand was needed, Joe was there to throw down the gauntlet. Needless to say, Joe got things done. His latest accomplishment and example of his natural leadership came in the fiscal year 1999 Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill, just finished, where he serves as the Subcommittee Chairman. I can say that given the circumstances he had to endure this year, the 1999 bill was the finest we have seen brought to the floor. He certainly saved his best for last. In closing, I will simply say it has been an honor, a pleasure, to serve with the gentleman from Pennsylvania. He has given us leadership, he has given us courage, and an overwhelming devotion to the American people for nearly four decades, and this institution will not be the same without Joe McDade. Whatever his endeavors in the future, we know that it will always display the same compassion, understanding and devotion, as he always has here in this body. We wish Joe McDade and his family all the best, and we will truly miss him here.

Mr. ROGERS

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, the men and women who serve this nation as the employees of the federal government are sometimes the forgotten foot soldiers that keep our federal programs running day in and day out. Today, I want to pay tribute to one of these committed public servants, whose upcoming retirement will leave the Nashville District of the Army Corps of Engineers with tremendously large shoes to fill. Daniel Hall has been the Nashville District's Chief of Construction- Operations Division since 1992, but in October he will retire after 37 years of dedicated service to this nation. He began his career after he graduated cum laude from Vanderbilt University in 1961 with the Bachelor of Engineering degree in Civil Engineering. As a distinguished graduate of Vanderbilt's Army ROTC program, he was commissioned as a Second Lieutenant in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. His first assignment was as Platoon Leader and Company Executive Officer for the 299th Engineer Battalion in Hoecht, Germany. After active duty, Mr. Hall joined the Vicksburg District Corps of Engineers as a civil engineer intern and was later assigned to the Operations Division. In 1965, he transferred to the Nashville District, where he has been a tireless and ardent engineer. He was handed the honor and responsibility of Chief of Construction-Operations Division in 1992. Over the years, Mr. Hall has been recognized several times for his outstanding work and service. He received the Meritorious Civilian Service Award. He was twice selected as the Nashville District's Employee of the Year in the Engineer and Scientist Category. He was named Engineer of the Year by the Tennessee Society of Professional Engineers. He was decorated by the Secretary of the Army, who awarded him the Decoration for Exceptional Civilian Service for his exceptional leadership and technical abilities. Over the years, Mr. Hall has made an enormous impact in many of the communities in Kentucky's 5th Congressional District that are regularly flooded during times of heavy rains. He has worked on tremendous flood protection projects in Harlan, Pineville, Barbourville, Middlesboro and Williamsburg, which will help save people's lives, homes and property, and promote economic development in one of the poorest regions of the nation. Today, I want to commend Mr. Hall for his outstanding and effective leadership. His work with the Army Corps of Engineers has made a difference in the lives of so many people, who routinely face the mud and floods of Mother Nature's fury. I wish Mr. Hall all the best as he embarks upon this new phase of his life. Certainly, he has earned the right to retire, but he will be sorely missed.

Mr. ROGERS

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, throughout our nation's history, men and women from all corners of our country have stood tall in her defense. It is the bravery and honor with which these men and women have served that has helped keep America free and strong over the years. Today, I would like to commend one such individual: Gunners Mate 3rd Class Robert Estel England of Laurel County, Kentucky. Gunners Mate England served during the Second World War as a member of the U.S. Navy's Armed Guard. His first assignment was aboard the SS West Cheswald, which was charged with carrying arms, ammo and food to allied troops in Russia. During his service, Gunners Mate England fought bravely and honorably. Like so many others who served on ships, in the air, or in the trenches during World War II, Robert England and his fellow servicemen saw battle and fought bravely. Unlike so many of his fellow servicemen, England and the other members of the Navy Armed Guard have never been properly recognized for their outstanding service. The Armed Guard was created as a branch of the Navy during World War I to protect the merchant ships of the United States. During World War II the Armed Guard was reactivated in response to the German attack and sinking of merchant ships, event those of neutral countries, that appeared to be bringing goods to Allied Nations. The mission of the merchant ships was absolutely critical: they were the lifeline for many allied troops, delivering ammunition, food, weapons, clothing, and other badly-needed supplies. The men of the Armed Guard who helped protect these ships were heroes in the true sense of the word. They made tremendous sacrifices, and many died in the hands of an unforgiving sea. They endured torpedoes, gunfire, and bombs. They were the target of enemy destroyers, submarines and bombers. They fought off Japanese planes and German U- boats. They fought for freedom and democracy, and they made our nation proud. Mr. President, for too long the men of the U.S. Navy Armed Guard have not received the recognition they deserve, but, earlier this year the House of Representatives moved to correct this injustice. The Defense Authorization Act for 1999 contains a provision that recognizes the service, honor and bravery of the men who served in the Armed Guard. It expresses the appreciation of the Congress and American people for their service and their sacrifices. During their service, the men of the Navy Armed Guard served with honor, dignity, and courage. Nearly 145,000 men served in the Armed Guard on 6,236 merchants ships during WW II. Nearly 2,000 of these men made the supreme sacrifice by giving their lives in the defense of their country. It is time these men--men like Robert England--receive the appreciation of a grateful nation. It is time that these men receive the recognition they deserve.

Mr. ROGERS

Mr. ROGERS. It is being delivered to the gentleman as I speak.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, it is either numbered 50, or we understand there could be a different version of that that would be offered.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that during the further consideration of H.R. 4276 in the Committee of the Whole, pursuant to H. Res. 508: no amendment shall be in order thereto except for the following amendments, which shall be considered as read, shall not be subject to amendment or to a demand for a division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole, and shall be debatable for the time specified, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and a Member opposed thereto: Mr. Hefley of Colorado, the amendment made in order under the rule, for 20 minutes; Mr. Saxton of New Jersey, a limitation regarding foreign assets litigation, for 10 minutes; Mr. Holden of Pennsylvania, amendment numbered 23, for 5 minutes; Mr. Stearns of Florida, numbered 35, for 5 minutes; Mr. McIntosh of Indiana, either No. 50 or an amendment regarding the Standing Consultative Committee, for 20 minutes; And Mr. Kucinich of Ohio, numbered 49, under the 5-minute rule; And that the managers of the bill may make pro forma amendments to strike the last word for the purpose of engaging in colloquies.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, I would withdraw the unanimous consent request until a further time, but while we are in the full House, could I propose that the debate on the Hefley amendment be limited to 20 minutes?

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the unanimous consent request.

Mr. ROGERS

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

Mr. ROGERS

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

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on this amendment and all amendments thereto close in 15 minutes, and that the time be equally divided.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. For the purpose of trying to inform the Members of the evening's schedule so they may plan their activities accordingly, I am hoping that in a few minutes we can get a unanimous consent request to end the debate on the Hutchinson amendment with 5 minutes per side and then a vote on that amendment, which we would request be rolled until a later time so that Members would be able to attend the evening activities during the dinner hour. I would hope in due course of time, which we are now working with the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) and others on, to obtain a time limit on all remaining amendments, in which case votes could be postponed until around 8:00 at the earliest and give Members a chance to be with their families during the dinner hour. With that in mind, I would propose a unanimous consent request that all debate on the Hutchinson amendment be concluded in 10 minutes, 5 minutes per side, after which the vote would be taken on the Hutchinson amendment, but postponed if a recorded vote is requested, to a later time. And then I would hope that I would be able to discuss with the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) and others limitations on the other amendments that are attached to the bill.

Mr. ROGERS. That is correct.

Mr. ROGERS. The gentleman from West Virginia cannot agree to a time?

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, this gentleman would be amenable to such a request.