Hal Rogers

Mr. ROGERS

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Latham], a very distinguished, hard-working member of our subcommittee who has contributed much to our cause here.

Mr. ROGERS. If a motion to recommit should pass, under the rules of the House, the bill would have to be reconferenced with the Senate, which means we would have to reconvene a conference with the Senate and bring the bill back at some future time. Now I am told that that may be difficult to do, because I am told most of the Members of the other body are not present in town at this time, which means that we would have to, I guess, go to next week or some other time to bring the House back in session and try to pass a bill at that time. Now, if the bill fails tonight, by the same token, we have to reconference and come back at some future time, so we would be here next week.

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

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield one-half minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox].

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] the very dynamic chairman of the full committee. (Mr. LIVINGSTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 11 minutes. Mr. Speaker, we are honored to be the last train leaving the station of this session. I am also here to tell my colleagues that this is the last time I am going to be the last train leaving the station, for a variety of reasons. But I am pleased to report and bring to my colleagues today the conference report on our bill. This bill provides $31.8 billion for the programs under the jurisdiction of the Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State, and Judiciary of the Committee on Appropriations. We have come a long way in addressing a number of very important issues, but we have not let up on our strong commitment to law enforcement and the fight against crime. That is what this bill really is all about. It is not about census. It is not about 245(i). It is mainly the fight against crime. Of the total funding in this conference report, the lion's share, $17.5 billion, is for the Department of Justice programs. That is an increase of $1.04 billion over fiscal year 1997 dedicated to continuing the war on drugs, making our neighborhoods safer for children and their families, bringing our borders under control, and boosting juvenile justice efforts to get kids on the right track and away from a life of crime. This Congress deserves credit for its leadership in reducing crime. The Nation's crime rate is lower today than in over a decade. Our commitment over the last 2 years has triggered a decline in the crime rate in each of those years. In 1996 alone, serious reported crime in the United States declined 3 percent, including an 11 percent decline in murder rates. For State and local law enforcement assistance, our communities, our sheriffs, and our police departments, the conference report includes over $4.8 billion. That is a $658 million increase to give our communities an arsenal of programs that target violent criminals, sex offenders, domestic violence, child abuse, and juvenile crime. And on juvenile crime, the hottest topic today in law enforcement, we hit the problem head on using both prevention and law enforcement initiatives. We provide a $489 million amount, triple the amount provided last year, for juvenile crime to build a hopeful future for America's youth. That is this Congress in action. While overall crime is down, our kids are committing violent crimes at an alarming rate. One out of five people arrested for violent crimes is under 18 years of age, a 70 percent increase in the last 10 years. The conference report provides $239 million for juvenile crime prevention, a 36 percent increase over last year, for programs targeting dangerous precursors to crime, like teenage drug and alcohol abuse and programs that steer troubled kids away from crime. We provide $250 million for a new juvenile crime block grant to States to encourage them to adopt reforms to stop the revolving door of juvenile justice and to ensure that kids know that they will be punished if they commit a crime. For the war on drugs, we provide another substantial increase, including an $84 million increase for the Drug Enforcement Administration, to target drug traffickers in the Southwest border and Caribbean drug corridors, and an $89 million increase to block the manufacture and distribution of heroin and methamphetamine. To control our borders, we provide a $228 million increase for the Immigration and Naturalization Service, including 1,000 new border patrol agents, double what the administration asked of us. We restore integrity to the naturalization process by ending the fingerprint scam that allowed felons by the thousands in 1996 to receive the most precious benefit this country can offer, United States citizenship. We are also requiring criminal record checks by law, no longer a policy, by law. The department did not follow their policy. They waived the policy last year and allowed felons to come into the country unchecked for their criminal records. No longer. And we address the personal hardships of families and employers that have relied on section 245(i) by allowing people who file for permanent immigrant visas and later certifications before January 14, 1998 to continue to adjust to permanent residency under this provision without having to leave the country. At the same time, by letting this provision sunset, we require future immigrants to play by the rules and respect them. For the Judiciary, $3.2 billion is provided, including a cost-of- living salary adjustment for justices and judges. Regarding the 9th Circuit of the Federal Courts of Appeal, the conference agreement provides for a study of all circuits that has a timetable of 10 months from the date of quorum to conduct necessary studies plus up to an additional 2 months to submit recommendations on alternative structures for the Federal Circuit Courts. On the Hyde provision, we have language that we believe is acceptable to all parties, that allows the recovery of attorneys' fees in criminal cases where the defendant is acquitted where the court finds that the prosecutor acted vexatiously, frivolously or in bad faith. For the Commerce Department, the conference report provides $4.3 billion, a $450 million increase, most of which is related to the ramp- up for the year 2000 decennial census. And on the 2000 census, we include provisions to provide for an expedited review by the courts on the legality and constitutionality of statistically adjusting the 2000 census. There is a legitimate question. I firmly and strongly believe that the Constitution requires an actual enumeration. Others in this Chamber, as honestly as me, believe to the contrary. We will let the courts decide that, and only they can decide it. They should have decided it in my judgment long ago, as members of the subcommittee requested. The gentleman from California [Mr. Dixon] and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Sawyer] I think in times past have thought the same. We also require the administration to plan for an actual head count in the 2000 census and to test that plan in the 1998 dress rehearsal. And we commission an 8-person bipartisan census monitoring board to oversee the whole process from the inside, so that everyone can be assured that it is being done in the proper way. We also provide $390 million for the decennial census, $35 million more than the President's request, an increase of $305 million over current spending. There can be no question of our willingness to spend what it takes for the most accurate census possible. For the international programs in the bill--State Department operations, the U.S. Information Agency, the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency--for all practical purposes, the bill level-funds them at $5 billion. A major new initiative is $35 million to fund the 24-hour broadcasting service to China through Radio Free Asia and the Voice of America, an initiative proposed by the Speaker and endorsed by the President. For international organizations and peacekeeping, we provide $33 million less than 1997. Within that reduced amount, $100 million is provided for United Nations arrearages, but only if an authorization bill passes and only if that authorization bill contains real and substantial reforms as a condition for release of the money. For Legal Services, we provide $283 million, the same level as 1997. The restrictions in last year's bill are retained, and added are new public disclosure requirements for grantees of the corporation. In summary, I want to thank the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan], the ranking minority member. No chairman of any subcommittee has a more able ranking member than I do. The gentleman from West Virginia has provided leadership for the things he strongly believes in. He has been able to work with us in every respect in constructing a bill that is best for the Nation. I want to thank the gentleman from West Virginia personally and profusely for his hard work and loyal dedication. I want to thank the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], our committee chairman, without whose help we would not be here tonight. He has been superb in helping us bring this bill through some really rocky shoals to this nice peaceful shore. And the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] the ranking minority member on the full committee, who has been helpful all the way through. And all the members of the subcommittee for their help and support. Most of all, I think I want to thank the staff, some of whom are in the room with me at this time. Others are absent from the room. But these are the people who really have stayed up all night, time and again. They were up all night last night reading this bill all the way through. The staff, we appreciate their dedication and their service beyond words. We could not do this without them. We appreciate them very much. This conference report shows the American people our commitment to continue our fight to make our streets safer and the future brighter for our children. I urge support for this conference agreement. [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TGRAPHICS/EH13NO97.000 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TGRAPHICS/EH13NO97.001 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TGRAPHICS/EH13NO97.002 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TGRAPHICS/EH13NO97.003 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TGRAPHICS/EH13NO97.004 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TGRAPHICS/EH13NO97.005 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TGRAPHICS/EH13NO97.006 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TGRAPHICS/EH13NO97.007 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TGRAPHICS/EH13NO97.008 Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on the conference report to accompany H.R. 2267 and that I may include tabular and extraneous material.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 330, I call up the conference report on the bill (H.R. 2267), making appropriations for the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1998, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. ROGERS. I thank the gentleman very much. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman be voting for the bill?

Mr. ROGERS

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would further yield. Number two, in the history of the United States of America, have we ever in the census done anything like they are proposing, sampling or statistical adjustment? Had we ever done that before?

Mr. ROGERS. Two questions quickly. One is has the Bureau of the Census and Department of Commerce and the White House all signed off on this proposal?

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

Mr. ROGERS

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Wisconsin and the chairman of the committee is correct. Just on the Commerce-State- Justice bill it will take 12 or 13 hours of staff time just to read through, to proofread, that one bill. So we need a lot of lead time. We have been trying to pre-read the portions that are more or less agreed to. But even in spite of that, it is going to take that long a period of time, just to read on the one bill.

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

Mr. ROGERS

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, to respond to the gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher], my dear friend, I think he and I more or less agree on what should be the final result: No permanent extension. I believe sincerely that the gentleman's motion, if successful, would prevent that. Otherwise, I would support it. My staff tells me that that is the case.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would continue to yield, the problem is this motion would preclude that. That is why I am opposed to it.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Texas, I think, has made an excellent statement. I would ask the gentleman if the conferees came back with a conference report that reflected the gentleman's recognition that we have to deal with those in the country who have relied upon 245(i) in the past, but repealed it for the future, is that something that the gentleman would agree with?

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

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, I think so. That is the reason. I am opposed for this reason. The gentleman's motion insists upon the House position.

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

Mr. ROGERS. That is right.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, my colleague on the committee is exactly right. The motion, if passed, would insist upon the House position, which is zip, nothing. In order for us to be able to compromise, the gentleman's motion should have been a motion to disagree with the Senate provision, with an amendment, allowing a compromise.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to instruct. I am opposed to the motion not because I support a permanent extension, far from it. I do not. In fact, we are opposing a permanent extension, which the Senate would like to do. I think we need to not extend the 245(i) provision in the future, but by the same token, I think we have to leave open for the conferees to work in a fair and equitable fashion on the equities of people who have relied upon 245(i) in the past and that are presently in the country, who came here with the expectation that 245(i) would be available to them. I think we have to be free to deal with the equities of families who are here now. For those in the future, however, who are thinking of coming here and trying to become citizens, they can know that in the future 245(i) will not be available. But for those here now, I think we have to be free to deal with them in a fair and equitable way. I agree with the gentleman on opposing permanent extension. This conferee certainly and others are fighting permanent extension as hard as we know how. By the same token, I would ask that my colleagues defeat the motion to instruct, to leave us some freedom to deal with those who are here who find themselves in an awkward situation not of their making. I would hope that the Members of the body would leave the conferees some flexibility on the matter and not vote for this motion to instruct. I would hope that we would vote ``no''. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from Florida [Ms. Ros-Lehtinen] and ask unanimous consent that she be permitted to control that time. The SPEAKER pro tempore [Mr. Camp]. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Kentucky?

Mr. ROGERS

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.