Hal Rogers

Mr. ROGERS

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

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate my colleague's interest, and also the work of our colleague, the gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs], who has been tireless in his pursuit of this issue, as has the gentlewoman. Both have contacted me about this already, and other programs related to the problems of the Pacific Northwest fisheries. In fact, the bill already provides significant resources to address these problems. However, the NEAP Program is not a program which has ever been funded out of this bill, and no funds have been requested by the White House in their budget request. However, knowing of the gentlewoman's interests, that of the gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs] and others, I will be happy to look further at the program as we proceed along.

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

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment.

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

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment that is under consideration in the conference on the State Department authorization bill that has migrated onto this bill. I understand that the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith] is opposed to the notion that people should have to pay for a telephone call to obtain information on passport applications. The problem was that the State Department did not have the personnel to be able to provide information, and that this was a way to try to improve service in exchange for a small charge. While I am willing to accept the Smith amendment, I believe there are many unanswered questions about the amendment. If the 1-900 number is banned on October 1, as the amendment would require, things will revert to the way they were before, where the service level was unsatisfactory. There is a contractor providing the 1-900 service, and if the contract is cut off, these people will be laid off, and there could be termination costs. The State Department indicates that if they have to switch to a different manner of providing service, such as a 1-800 number, assuming money is available to pay for that service, a contract would have to be recompeted, and it could take months before a contract could be awarded and a new service instituted. So in the short term, this amendment has the possibility of decreasing the availability of information to people trying to track their passport applications. So I am not convinced that the amendment is the final answer on the issue. But we are willing to work with the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith] and take the issue into conference and see if we can work out a solution that will adequately address the situation.

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

Mr. ROGERS. I am aware of the problems with alien smuggling in Nebraska and Iowa that the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter] has raised. It is for that very reason that the House report includes language directing INS to review the requirements of State and localities in the central and western region of the country when allocating additional personnel to apprehend, detain, and remove illegal aliens. I will continue to work with my colleague to find a solution to the problem during our consultations with INS on personnel deployment.

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

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, there is one other option that the gentlewoman and I have discussed. If the Attorney General and the administration does not take appropriate action in the immediate future before we go to conference with the Senate on this bill, there is always the option of the conferees on this bill with the House and Senate, taking further action in respect to the matter.

Mr. ROGERS. I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I state that I am in opposition only in a very technical sense in order to be able to speak to the gentlewoman's concerns. Let me say first off that the gentlewoman has raised a very troublesome matter to all of us. I think every person in this country, especially in this Congress, sympathizes with the plight of the people that the gentlewoman has mentioned, and want to be of help. We are trying to be of help. I have discussed the matter with the gentlewoman before the amendment was offered and have pledged to her my assistance in every aspect that we can think of, and that of my colleagues, in helping her and the others, to help these people. Under the present law, the Attorney General of the United States has certain prerogatives to intervene in this case and to prevent deportation and to help in any number of ways. The current law provides the Attorney General with authority to withhold deportation for humanitarian purposes and other circumstances. There are other remedies under current law that can be exercised for granting visas for witnesses, for example, who have information of critical value to the U.S. law enforcement officials, and this matter is under investigation, obviously, for perhaps criminal activity, among other things. So I pledge to the gentlewoman that we will all assist her in the effort to relieve the plight of these people. However, the gentlewoman's amendment on an appropriations bill would be unprecedented. We have never done what the gentlewoman is asking the Congress to do here, and I think it would set a terrible precedent for us to intervene in a particular individual's problem with the bureaucracy, before the bureaucracy has a chance to deal with it. So I would hope at the conclusion of our discussion, the gentlewoman might withdraw the amendment so that we can then proceed to help her administratively in the matter. We will ask the Department of Justice and the INS, about the custody and care of these people, any plans that are being discussed that may involve deportation, any options that they are talking about to provide relief from deportation based on the authorities already available to the Attorney General, and I pledge that we will work with the gentlewoman in a vigorous way.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, we have no objection to the amendment, and in fact support its adoption. I thank the gentleman for offering the amendment.

Mr. ROGERS. And, of course, we do not appropriate for the office of the drug czar in the White House. We appropriate for the Justice Department. Now if the gentleman has information that the Justice Department is studying the legalization or medicinal uses of marijuana, give that to me forthwith.

Mr. ROGERS. If the gentleman would yield, that is not the Justice Department. I am told that is the office of the drug czar in the White House.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I am not aware that the Justice Department is studying the medicinal uses of marijuana. If the gentleman knows about that, I will be very interested to know about it. But, Mr. Chairman, I have no objection to the amendment, and in fact support its adoption.

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

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my motion.

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

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman bringing the matter to our attention. Although the gentleman's amendment I think is out of order and he says he is going to withdraw the amendment, nevertheless, in spite of his withdrawing it and in response to his concern, I will be looking into the status of that issue with the INS and the Justice Department to see if there is some way we can resolve the matter, and I appreciate the gentleman's interest.

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

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I want to congratulate the gentlewoman for bringing the matter to the attention of the Congress and the country. She is to be highly commended for that, and it is too bad that the gentlewoman has had to resort to an extraordinary procedure here in order to gain the attention, I hope, of the Attorney General and the staff of the Justice Department and INS on trying to gain some relief for these people, and I pledge to the gentlewoman that we will help you in that regard.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I have no objection to the gentleman's amendment. It is my understanding that the amendment requires disclosure only of information that is already a matter of public record under court rules or applicable Federal or State law. I believe the amendment will merely facilitate appropriate oversight of federally funded LSC grantees. In fact, I appreciate the gentleman bringing this matter to our attention, and I am glad to support the amendment.

Mr. ROGERS

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the concerns of the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Lofgren] about the climate and global change research program. The bill provides $70 million for these research programs. This is a $2 million increase over the current level. I understand there is a difference in funding between the House and Senate. But I would be happy to work with the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Lofgren] as we move to that conference.