Hal Rogers

Mr. ROGERS

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman brings a very somber and important point to the body, and he has crafted this amendment which we think is appropriate and are prepared and willing to accept. I congratulate the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) for having the wisdom and the fortitude to persevere to be sure that there is something in this bill dealing with a very, very tragic problem in his State but potentially a problem in all the other States. I congratulate the gentleman on bringing the amendment.

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

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the additional 2\1/2\ minutes that is allotted to this provision.

Mr. ROGERS

Mr. ROGERS. The gentleman is correct, there are five.

Mr. ROGERS. If the gentleman changes his mind between now and then and wants to do other amendments, that will be fine.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, that would be my understanding, that we will continue proceeding this evening; that Members, after the four votes that have been called tonight, those four votes will take place immediately, after which there would be no further recorded votes for tonight, and we will proceed tonight with amendments and role those votes until tomorrow, in which case those votes would be taken tomorrow morning, and then proceed directly to the census amendment, if that is the gentleman's desire.

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

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; the remainder of the bill through title 6 be considered as read; and 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. Traficant of Ohio related to a prison study for 5 minutes; Mr. Collins of Georgia for a colloquy for 10 minutes; Mr. Sanders of Vermont related to SBA offsets for 5 minutes; Mr. Engel of New York related to PTFP for 10 minutes; Mr. Royce of California, to strike ATP for 10 minutes; Mr. Rogers of Kentucky related to NOAA for 10 minutes; Mr. Pallone of New Jersey related to NOAA for 15 minutes; Mr. Callahan of Alabama related to NOAA for 10 minutes; Mr. Farr of California related to NOAA for 10 minutes; Mr. Callahan of Alabama related to a general provision regarding fisheries for 20 minutes under the rule; Mr. Gilchrest of Maryland to strike section 210 for 15 minutes; Mr. Bartlett of Maryland regarding UN arrears for 15 minutes; Mr. Stearns of Florida regarding UN arrears for 15 minutes; Ms. Millender-McDonald of California regarding SBA for 5 minutes; Mr. Talent of Missouri regarding SBA for 10 minutes; and Mr. Mollohan of West Virginia regarding the census, made in order under the rule, to title 2 be in order at a later point in the reading of the bill, notwithstanding that title 2 may be closed.

Mr. ROGERS

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

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

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of the time to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the very able chairman of the House Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield I minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts).

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the able gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The provision in this bill the amendment seeks to strike 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. The bill requires that the Bureau of Prisons escort inmates to a private facility if they want abortion services. The provision that we have in the bill, Mr. Chairman, is a long-standing provision. It has been carried in nine of the last 10 bills that we have brought to the floor of the House. The House rejected this very same amendment to last year's appropriations bill by a vote of 155-264, the previous year by a voice vote, and two years ago by a vote of 146-281. Time and again, the House has debated this issue of whether Federal tax dollars should pay for abortion. The answer has always been ``no.'' I urge the House to say ``no'' again. I urge rejection of the gentlewoman's amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I rise to oppose the amendment. Mr. Chairman, there is some misunderstanding about what is in this bill. We do not fund the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. We do not fund the Public Broadcasting System. None of that is in this bill. What this bill covers is funding for your home State towers, for facilities locally, and not the national programming here in Washington that has been described. So this bill does none of that. What we do provide in the bill is funding for your State public broadcasting facilities, towers, equipment, that type of thing, on a grant basis through the MTIA program. The bill provides a total of $40 million for the Weed and Seed Program in the Justice Department, which is a $6.5 million increase over the current level and the full amount that was requested, and at the same time the bill freezes the MTIA's Public Telecommunications Facilities Program, PTFP. We freeze that level at the 1998 spending level. This amendment, I think mistakenly, would cut PTFP by 29 percent below the freeze level. And, as I say again, it would not touch PBS or the Corporation for Public Broadcasting because we have no money in this bill. That is in another bill. While I certainly support the Weed and Seed Program, we have provided very healthy increases for Weed and Seed in the bill already, Mr. Chairman. At the same time, the PTFP program has been frozen due to our budget priorities, despite the fact that the need for the program has grown as public television and radio are struggling financially to try now to convert to the new digital telecommunications environment that will be with us in a matter of months. In addition, I might note that because of our budget constraints over the last 3 years, total funding for the PTFP program has been decreased by 28 percent, and this amendment would cut it another 29 percent. So I think the gentleman perhaps is misguided in his amendment, and I would encourage him to take on the PBS and the CPB in whatever bill he would like, but this one does not have any funds in it for those two systems. All as we have, as I say, is money for our State and local public broadcasting facilities, not salaries or anything else. So I urge defeat of the amendment.

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

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment because it basically takes $105 million from the State prison grant program. Regardless of where the money would go, that is the thrust of this amendment. That would cut the resources that we have provided in this Congress to build and expand much needed prison space. Show me one State in the Nation, I say to the gentleman, that is not overcrowded in their prison space, and I want to look at it very carefully. Even the Federal prison space is overcrowded.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, there are numerous speakers on both sides. I think all of us have heard most of the arguments. I ask unanimous consent that we limit debate, further debate, to 10 minutes, to be divided evenly between the sides.

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

Mr. ROGERS

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, there he goes again, and here we go again. An amendment plain and simple to severely cut funding for the Economic Development Administration. I strongly urge a no vote on the gentleman's amendment. Mr. Chairman, this is not a vote about whether or not you support the Drug Court program. We support the Drug Court program in this bill at an unprecedented historic level. We already provide tremendous increases for Drug Courts. In fact, the bill includes a 43 percent increase above current level spending, and well above the Administration's request for the Drug Court program. In fact, a few minutes ago there was an amendment that passed this House with our approval that increased Drug Courts even more, another $3 million, by the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Ensign). Make no mistake about it. What this debate really is all about is whether or not you support EDA. This debate we have had over and over again, year after year on this bill, and every time this House has stood fast with those who want to help the most distressed portions of the country, even in these good times. Once again, last year, an overwhelming majority, 305 Members to be exact, voted to support the work of the EDA. Again this year, I urge the House to continue to show support for this important program and again vote to defeat the Souder amendment. If we do not vote this amendment down, we will be depriving hard-hit communities in every State in this Nation of the vital assistance these programs provide. EDA gives our poorest urban and rural areas the tools with which to raise themselves up by their own bootstraps to create new jobs, expand their local tax base and leverage private investment. It gives them a hand, not a handout, and, Mr. Chairman, this program works. If your town is hard hit by sudden and severe job losses when a plant shuts down, it is EDA that is there to help. If your community has been devastated by a natural disaster, like the recent floods this year in the Midwest, EDA is there. If your community is suffering because your local factory has shut down because it cannot compete in the global economy, EDA can help your community. And if your district has suffered from cutbacks in the defense industry, EDA is the only federal program dedicated to helping your community retool that economy. Critics of this program fail to recognize that the EDA has been reformed, reduced and streamlined over these last 3 years by actions of this Congress. Due to this Congressional oversight by both the authorizing and appropriations committees, EDA's grants are truly targeted to the most distressed areas. The development and selection of projects has been moved out of Washington and back towards the local and state levels, and EDA's bureaucracy has been cut by over one-third since 1995. In addition, since the vote last year the House has continued to demonstrate its support for EDA programs. On July 23, your colleagues in the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure approved an EDA reauthorizing bill that reforms the programs and responds to past criticisms of the program and tracks this appropriations bill. Mr. Chairman, clearly there are communities that do not need help. They have infrastructure, they have industry, they have access to education, all the requirements for a healthy regional economy. But other areas, Mr. Chairman, like my area, must rely on us and EDA to help them cope with job losses, defense cuts and other economic disasters. They are the ones that need our help. They are the ones who are turning to us for this vote. So I urge Members to do as they did last year and the year before and the year before and the year before, and turn down this amendment by an overwhelming margin. Vote down the Souder amendment.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the gentlewoman be given three minutes to yield as she sees fit.

Mr. ROGERS. The gentlewoman has three speakers?

Mr. ROGERS. I am prepared to accept the amendment. I think it is an excellent amendment and would be prepared to accept it, but I would hope that we could do that very quickly, because we do have much more business to attend to. Can we agree and let this be the end of it?

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

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, this has been a worthwhile program, as the gentleman has indicated, and I will be happy to work with the gentleman to consider a possible increase in money within our budget limits, which as you know are very tight.