Hal Rogers

Mr. ROGERS

Mr. ROGERS. Could we agree on, say, a 30-minute total with 15 minutes per side?

Mr. ROGERS. I yield to the gentleman from Vermont.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I know there are a number of speakers on this important matter on both sides. In the interests of time, Mr. Chairman, I wonder if we could talk about the possibility of capping the debate at, say, 20 minutes, 10 for each side, or some other figure. I am trying to find something that we can agree upon to somewhat cut off debate at some reasonable hour. If 20 minutes is too little, perhaps the sponsor would have a better idea?

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, we have examined the amendment and discussed it with the gentleman in detail, and we have no objection.

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

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, we have no objection to the amendment. As the gentleman from Wisconsin indicated, this needs to be discussed at some point before and during conference to be sure we are consistent on our policy. But we have no objection to this amendment and congratulate the gentleman.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for raising the issue. As the gentleman mentioned, we have included report language urging the USIA to refrain from assisting the Palestinian Broadcasting Corporation in any way which could further the restriction of press freedoms or the broadcasting of inaccurate, inflammatory messages. It is my understanding that the Department of State and USIA currently have a policy of not providing such assistance to the Palestinian Broadcasting Corporation, based on the types of behaviors that the gentleman has just described. I support that policy. As the bill moves into conference, I will be happy to work with the gentleman and other interested Members.

Mr. ROGERS. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania for the purposes of a colloquy.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman bringing up this problem. The increase in the bill is targeted at resolving the backlog of individual charges of discrimination, charges brought by actual individuals claiming discrimination. These are actual employers and employees who deserve prompt and fair resolutions. A major part of the increase is for alternative dispute resolution to avoid the costs and delays of litigation, which the gentleman has mentioned. At the same time, we have included report language that tells the EEOC to give priority to the backlog over litigation. The report language requires the EEOC to track and report the resources spent on litigation compared to resources spent on clearing the backlog, so we can make sure they are adhering to our guidance. I would be happy to work with the gentleman as the bill moves to conference and beyond.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word for the purpose of engaging in a colloquy with the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Dickey).

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to congratulate the gentleman for his input on this tragic and important matter. I look forward to working with the gentleman and our Senate counterparts to move towards the House position certainly on the COPS methamphetamine funding.

Mr. ROGERS. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.

Mr. ROGERS. I move to strike the last word, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to work with the gentleman and the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Dunn) on this legislation over the coming months.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman from West Virginia would yield, I would tell the gentleman, yes, of course I would.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentlewoman's concern for this very serious problem, and will be pleased to work with her as we move through the process to ensure that the Federal government is taking the necessary steps to be prepared for such a disaster.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) would yield, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutsch) is correct that the bill includes no less than $2.6 million in NOAA for this initiative, including $1.3 under the National Marine Fisheries Service to continue ongoing activities. In addition, the bill provides a $5 million increase for NMFS for high-priority programs. It is the committee's intention that NMFS consider using a portion of this increase to augment its activities in this area. Further, I will be happy to look at the issue regarding additional efforts for this initiative as we move to conference with the Senate.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. ROGERS. If the gentleman will yield further, knowing how important this matter is to the gentleman and others, I would be happy to continue to work with him and the other West Coast Members as the bill moves through the process.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, the gentleman is correct. I certainly appreciate the significance of salmon problems which exist on the West Coast. In fact, because of these problems, funding for endangered species programs has been increased by almost 200 percent over the last 3 years. Unfortunately, the administration's fiscal 1999 budget proposed to pay for additional increases in fisheries programs through controversial new fisheries fees which the Congress already has rejected. Given this problem, as well as the funding constraints faced by the committee, we did the best we could within the funds available.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I take this time for the purpose of informing Members of the schedule for the evening. We propose to proceed with the continuation and conclusion of the bill. There will likely be at least two more recorded votes, plus final passage; there could be three. We hope to speed the process to where we will get the Members out for a reasonably early evening, not too late a meeting. So we would say to the Members that we propose to roll these votes until final passage, so that hopefully they will come to the floor one more time for a couple of amendment votes, or perhaps three, then final passage, and hopefully be concluded.

Mr. ROGERS

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. Saxton, a limitation regarding foreign assets litigation, for 10 minutes; Mr. Holden, amendment numbered 23, for 5 minutes; Mr. Stearns, amendment numbered 35, for 5 minutes; Mr. McIntosh, either amendment numbered 50 or an amendment regarding the Standing Consultative Committee, for 20 minutes; and Mr. Kucinich, amendment 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. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, what I am asking is, could the gentleman agree that whatever the amendment is, that the time limit would be 20 minutes as the UC states?