Hal Rogers

Mr. ROGERS

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. What the gentlewoman and I have discussed, Mr. Chairman, along with the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Watts], is finding a place to find some more money for the EEOC, although not as much as the gentlewoman would originally seek in her amendment. What the modified amendment will do would be to take $8 million from another account within the bill so as to increase the funding level for the EEOC by some $7 million. I have discussed not only with the gentlewoman and with the gentleman, who is also very interested in this, but also the ranking member of the subcommittee, the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan], and we are all in agreement. So I would hope that we could support the gentlewoman's modified amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ROGERS. The gentlewoman, I think under the rules of the House, would be allowed to modify the amendment that she has pending in the nature of a substitute; is that correct?

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I have a substitute amendment being prepared. I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to offer a substitute amendment.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, as I said yesterday, the EEOC is handling the case load, the backlog, in a very efficient way. They are beginning to reduce that backlog, not as much as we would all like to see, but nevertheless the backlog is being reduced. We kept the EEOC at level funding this year while we were cutting most of the other agencies over which we have jurisdiction except the law enforcement agencies. But we held them harmless from cuts so that they could continue to make progress in working off that backlog, and they have made progress this year. We commend them for that. My problem with the gentlewoman's amendment is that it takes money from, as I have said before, the law enforcement functions that we are funding in this bill primarily. There would be moneys taken by this amendment from the war on drugs. We would see a reduction in the funding of the Drug Enforcement Administration. We would see reductions in the funding for the Nation's attempts to control its border. We could see a cut in the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the numbers of Border Patrol agents that we can put on the border. We would see a reduction in the FBI funding which is waging the war on crime and of course terrorism. We would see a reduction in the level of State and local law enforcement funding for those who are fighting crime, both drugs, youth and all other crime, in our communities and neighborhoods. We would be cutting moneys from the Federal judiciary. We all know that they are swamped with cases and their funding levels are nowhere near where they need to be, even with the small increase in this bill. So those are some of the places where the money for this amendment would have to come from. We are very reluctant to agree to that, even though I think most of us realize the need for more money in the EEOC whenever we can find it. We did provide the level funding. We did not cut them from last year. So I would hope that the Members would stay with us on this and reject this amendment, even as they rejected the one yesterday. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I do.

Mr. ROGERS. So is the gentlewoman seeking to modify her pending amendment with the language that she is sending to the desk?

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I have no objection to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. Hutchinson], and commend him for it. I urge an ``aye'' vote.

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

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentleman for his efforts at cutting spending and saving money, but on this particular bill we are talking about cutting, with his amendment, things like the fight on crime. We will be cutting the Drug Enforcement Administration. We will be cutting the FBI. We will be cutting the Marshals Service. We will be cutting courts. We will be cutting the fight against violence by children and violence against women. All of the things that I think in a bipartisan way in this body, we are united to try to fight, this amendment would cut. It may be appropriate in other portions of the Government, it is not appropriate in cutting the crime-fighting agencies of the Government. It would also cut the Border Patrol. It would do damage to the Nation's effort to control our borders, to fight crime by teenagers, to fight violence against women. It would cut the funding to each of our States for moneys to help them build prisons to house State prisoners. I would urge the Members to reject the amendment on this bill. As the gentleman has said, this subcommittee has done a great job, in my opinion, on allocating scarce resources. We are not profligate spenders on this subcommittee. No one is going to say, I do not believe, that the law enforcement agencies of the Nation's Government are overfunded. Certainly I hope the Members will reject this amendment and keep intact the Nation's fight against crime, against drugs, controlling our border and fighting violence against women and by children. Reject the amendment. Vote ``no.''

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

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, may I ask the times remaining and who has the right to close?

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan], the ranking member of the subcommittee.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would reduce every discretionary appropriation in this bill by 1.9 percent. It has been offered on at least five prior appropriations bills and has been defeated on all of them. I would hope we would keep the string alive. This amendment would undermine the very initiatives we are trying to achieve in the bill. In the Department of Justice, it would undo the very things we are trying to do. One, in the Drug Enforcement Administration, we have increased funding to $1.03 billion, $167 million above last year, $20 million over the President's request, including a $75 million source country interdiction initiative and a $56 million Southwest border initiative where 70 percent of our drugs come into the country and goes to our teenagers. This amendment would remove the increase over the President and hurt the efforts to rekindle the war on drugs which this administration, I think, has allowed to dwindle. In the Immigration and Naturalization Service, the war on illegal aliens, the war to control the border, the bill provides $2.2 billion, $443 million over last year, $30 million over the President's request, and 1,100 new Border Patrol agents. Everyone says we desperately need them. This amendment would reduce the appropriation by $41 million, and take it below what the President requested of the Congress. The amendment would reduce the FBI by $52 million. This bill, Mr. Chairman, the very thrust of this bill is to control the borders, control crime, control drugs, and control teenage violence. This amendment does damage to those four initiatives. That is the reason I oppose it. It would reduce State and local law enforcement by $71 million, including the Byrne grants, which goes to local communities, as we all know, to help them fight crime in their communities and the local law enforcement block grant, a new program that Congress initiated to help local communities fight crime as they see it. It would reduce COPS and the truth in sentencing State prison grants to help States build the prisons and keep their prisoners in jail 85 percent of their sentence. In other areas of the bill where we have already taken reductions to make room for the increases in law enforcement, the additional percentage reductions would be very problematic. In the State Department, it would take an additional $84 million, which is double the reduction we have already taken in the bill for the State Department. Out of USIA, it would take an additional $20 million, with nowhere to take it except reductions in force and reductions in Voice of America, Radio Free Europe, Radio Marti, and Radio Free Asia. In the Commerce Department, it would take an additional $68 million out of NOAA and the Census and the International Trade Administration, all of which we have tried to prioritize as important for the Nation. In the Small Business Administration, a $2.5 million reduction would be had by this amendment, which translates into $125 million less in small business loans. Overall, this amendment undermines the initiatives we have tried to undertake in law enforcement, in the war on crime and drugs, and gaining control of our borders. In addition, it imposes much larger reductions in areas where we have already taken reductions, with serious impacts on our ability to carry on diplomacy and to carry out necessary functions like the census and our trade enforcement functions. As a result, I would hope the body would reject this amendment, and I ask my colleagues to do just that. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I do.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ROGERS. The gentleman is correct. The committee intends that NOAA make El Nino research a priority and use some of the funds within this account to expand the program to include regional application centers, like the proposal that the gentleman has mentioned and has been endorsed by the Florida delegation.

Mr. ROGERS. If the gentleman would continue to yield, the gentleman is correct. The bill includes an overall increase for the Climate and Global Change Program, which is intended to be used to expand both the El Nino research program and the Health of the Atmosphere Program.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I would be pleased to engage in a colloquy with the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Shaw].

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I have heard from several of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle who are concerned about funding for the State maritime academies. As the gentlewoman knows, there are 65 ships ready to scrap and if a way could be worked out to allow these ships to be scrapped, the State maritime academies would be the beneficiaries of 25 percent of the proceeds. In addition, if the Maritime Administrator's request is agreed to, with respect to the ready reserve force, there would be just three ships to support under this account. But as we move into conference with the Senate on this bill and we receive additional clarification about the availability of these and other resources for the State academies, I will work with the gentlewoman and with the other Members concerned on this issue to try to address their concerns and to see what we can work out with the Senate on this important issue.

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

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

Mr. ROGERS

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for that willingness to consider the project in conference as we proceed. Mr. Chairman, with that assurance, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman, is this something the chairman and the Members could consider as we proceed along in the future?

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.