Hal Rogers

Mr. ROGERS

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

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, the point is well taken, but again it is the same effort. It is the effort to eliminate TV Marti funding. This year the bill includes $9.4 million for TV Marti, which represents a continuation of just basic funding. The gentleman's amendment would delete the entire amount. Despite the continuing difficulties that the gentleman cites in TV Marti, terminating this program, Mr. Chairman, is not the answer. Termination is not the answer. Providing accurate and objective news, as we know, helped bring about change in the former Soviet Union as well as Eastern Europe, and we are now broadcasting, as we all know, for the first time into Asia and other parts of the world. It can play the same role in China and in Cuba as well. We are all frustrated by the difficulties of reaching a large audience with TV Marti, but we should not let those difficulties bar us or prevent us from trying. I, for one, am unwilling to give up and give in to Fidel Castro. Deleting the money for TV Marti is running up the white flag to Fidel Castro. Mr. Chairman, I do not possess a white flag. We have a duty to press for more freedom in the prison that lies so close to our shores and with such strong historical ties with the United States, so I support continued funding. We will encourage the USIA and the Broadcasting Board that oversees these programs to bring us some more creative and realistic proposals to increase the reception of these broadcasts in Cuba, but I think we should continue to try. The aerostat that is being used as the antenna for broadcasting TV into Cuba is a shared aerostat with the Department of Defense. Our Nation's defense rests upon this so-called balloon. That is the way the DOD communicates. We are using the Department of Defense balloon, or aerostat, for reaching an audience in Cuba. Yes, we have had difficulty in reaching into Havana, but we are still reaching portions of Cuba. And so I urge the defeat both of the perfecting amendment and the gentleman from Colorado's amendment, and hope that the House will not run up the white flag on this proud building.

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

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition. The perfecting amendment and the amendment both would do away with the funding for TV Marti. The gentleman from Colorado, a friend and member of our subcommittee who has served so well in this Congress and in our subcommittee, has led a long and determined effort to kill funding for TV Marti. This is the most recent chapter of a long book, and the gentleman is to be commended for, if nothing else, his persistence and a well- reasoned argument, but the full committee again this year rejected his amendment in full committee. It has been rejected in subcommittee. It has been rejected in full committee for several years running.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to continue to work with both gentlemen on this issue, and I commend the gentleman for bringing it up.

Mr. ROGERS. Let me thank the gentleman from Washington for raising this issue and for his work on the Drug-Free America Task Force. The committee received a request from the task force on the day of our subcommittee markup for significant funds to expand the DARE program into middle schools and I have worked to provide additional funds for the DARE program. I will continue to work in conference with the Senate to see that DARE's curriculum continues to be improved and, to the extent, appropriate access to additional funds be made available.

Mr. ROGERS. I am pleased to engage in a colloquy with both the gentleman from Washington and the gentleman from Ohio.

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

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, this amendment increases drug courts by $3 million. That is on top of the $10 million increase that we already have in the bill for a total of $43 million for drug courts, which is about a 33 percent increase. I agree with the gentleman, the drug court concept is working, and as more States and localities find out the benefits of the drug courts, more and more are applying for moneys. Consequently, that is the reason that we included a hefty increase already in the bill. But the gentleman's amendment, I think, is well placed and I am prepared to accept the amendment and so do at this time.

Mr. ROGERS. Then I am not so sure we need to agree to this amendment. If there is going to be an objection on the time allocation of this strict a nature, then perhaps we need to renegotiate the whole thing, so I withdraw my approval of the amendment.

Mr. ROGERS

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

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Washington.

Mr. ROGERS. Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that debate on this amendment be limited to 20 minutes to be divided equally between the sides, 10 on each side.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, we have no objection to the amendment and support its adoption.

Mr. ROGERS. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, and the gentleman will have his time, the gentleman's amendment is an attack on a very important crime policy that passed this Congress, the policy that requires persons who commit crimes to be held accountable by serving prison time that fits the crime. If a State wants to take advantage of those funds, then they can do so, including my own State. I would hope that they would. The gentleman has offered amendments the last 3 years that would do nothing more than undo that policy. The point he is trying to make is that prisons do not work. I think that is what he has said in the past. A lot of us disagree. His attempts have failed before here because it is recognized that crime is reduced when violent criminals are locked up and off the streets, which this policy does for the Nation. Before Congress passed the violent offenders truth-in-sentencing law, violent offenders were serving only about 43 percent of their sentences. That means in 1994 murderers with an average sentence of 16 years were released after serving only 7\1/2\ years. Rapists sentenced to 9 years were released after serving less than 5 years, Mr. Chairman. When we passed this legislation as part of this bill in 1995, only 12 States were truth-in-sentencing States. Now more than half of all States lock up their offenders for at least 85 percent of their sentences, what the juries in those States gave the criminals. This program is the only source of funding to help States build prisons. With this money States build prisons, jails, juvenile facilities. They have developed tougher sentencing policies, policies that assure offenders serve at least 85 percent of the jury-imposed sentences. They deserve the support of Congress to ensure that adequate bed space is available to maintain those policies. While the gentleman's amendment would increase funding for other important crime programs, the bill already provides substantial increases for those programs. For example, we already provide a $9 million increase for Violence Against Women Act programs, $9 million more than the President asked us to spend. We provide $63 million for the State prison drug treatment program. We already provide $40 million for drug courts, a $10 million increase over the current fiscal year. We added another $3 million earlier today, for a 43 percent increase in the funding for drug courts, which all of us agree are good things. The gentleman's amendment would also earmark an additional $56.5 million in funds from the local law enforcement block grants for Boys and Girls Clubs, for which the bill already provides a $20 million boost. This would take away much needed funds for locally driven crime priorities, such as law enforcement personnel, overtime pay for police, technology for police, equipment for police, safety measures in schools, and drug courts. Crime is down across the country because we have provided a full arsenal of anticrime measures: more police with the tools and equipment they need, more prison space to make sure that criminals are held accountable for their crimes and are not rearrested by these police after they are released prematurely, and quality prevention programs designed to reduce risks, after their release. We cannot afford to lose the ground we have gained. Last year, Mr. Chairman, 291 Members, Republicans and Democrats, voted to support the prison grant program and defeated the gentleman's amendment, which would have gutted the program. I urge the House again to defeat this amendment.

Mr. ROGERS

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes. Mr. Chairman, I think the Members know that I am no patsy for the United Nations. I believe the United Nations is a bloated organization, in need of terminating obsolete and duplicative functions, ridding itself of unneeded positions and unproductive employees, trimming its budget, reforming its procurement practices, crediting the United States for off-budget contributions, decreasing the lopsided amount of U.S. contributions, and burying any ambitions to be some kind of world government. I have tried to use every piece of leverage at my disposal for years in this subcommittee, including conditioning payment of our assessment to insist on overall budget reductions, personnel reductions and the creation of an Inspector General to become an independent watchdog to sniff out waste, fraud and abuse. And that is exactly what the funding of arrearages in this bill, again, is meant to do. Not one penny of the $475 million for payment of arrearages in this bill will be spent, not one penny, unless and not until a series of conditions is met by the United Nations. The first condition is: The State Department authorization bill by this Congress must be passed and signed into law. The United Nations' reforms that are contained in that regulation include: Reducing the U.S. assessment rate, reducing the number of personnel, reimbursement for U.S. goods and services, writing off arrears that the U.S. disavows, sunsetting U.N. programs, merit-based employment, a code of conduct, and a cap on payment to international organizations. That is just the first condition, Mr. Chairman. Condition two: The United Nations must actually implement those reforms. Once an authorization bill gets signed into law, still not a penny goes out. The U.N. has to implement these reforms. First, the assessment rate has to be reduced, sunsetting of U.N. programs has to be agreed to, and so on. Condition three: The U.S. assessment rate must be reduced at least to 22 percent and 25 for peacekeeping, guaranteeing lower payments by our taxpayers from here on out. This $475 million is provided subject to authorization and subject to achievement of these reforms. It will be spent if and only if we get the kind of reform we want from the United Nations, and the money may never be spent. But the choice will be up to the administration and to the U.N. There is one and only one true constituency for reform at the U.N., and that is this body: The United States Congress. This is our best chance to change an institution that all of us believes desperately needs changing. This is no time to refrain from being bold. We must stick to our guns, and for that reason support this bill and reject the Bartlett amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan).

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan).

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English). (Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, again we salute the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) for bringing this matter before us, and we want to be of assistance in trying to solve a problem that the Federal Government is a part of in a big way. I congratulate the gentleman. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins).

Mr. ROGERS

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

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. ROGERS. And is that what is in this bill?