Hal Rogers

Mr. ROGERS

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, the debate here has demonstrated what I just said. This is too complicated for us to deal with in an appropriations bill times 10. We have biotechnology involved, doctors' rights, medicine, and technical advice in every aspect. The gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Ganske] has succeeded, I think, in big measure here by bringing this matter to our attention. The chairman of the authorizing subcommittee says, ``Don't pass this on an appropriations bill; give us a chance to have our hearings, which we are doing.'' I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Deutsch].

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy].

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan].

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant opposition to the amendment, and I do so on a procedural basis. Mr. Chairman, there is a reason why there is a rule of this House that precludes an appropriating committee from authorizing during an appropriating bill. The reason for that is this type of an amendment. This is a very complicated issue that needs to have hearings and to work is way through the authorizing process of this body. Here we are on an appropriations bill, almost out of the clear blue, having to decide or vote on an issue that is extremely complicated about which I am not aware of any hearings. I have no factual basis upon which to make my own judgment about whether or not this is a good idea. It very well may be. But it needs to go through the process. Mr. Chairman, this is a policy issue, and should be decided through the authorization process, not this quick process, that is, the appropriations process. The Committee on the Judiciary of the House, the authorizing committee, is, I understand, studying the issue. It has already held hearings on the gentleman's legislation. The gentleman is really attempting to bypass the authorization process by tacking this legislation onto this appropriations bill. The chairman of the authorization committee and the ranking member of the authorization subcommittee as well as the administration, all oppose the Ganske amendment on the appropriations bill. I do not think it would be wise for the House to rush forward on such a very significant policy issue without proper study, discussion, and going through the regular channels. This is not the proper forum to address such a complicated and important policy issue. We need to let the authorizers do their job, and they have told me that. As an appropriations subcommittee chairman, I know there is one rule, unspoken almost, around here. When an authorizing committee chairman tells you, do not authorize in your appropriations bill on my subject, you do not do it. So I am standing here as the subcommittee appropriation chairman, with the authorization chairman sitting beside me saying do not let this happen, and I am having to stand here and say no. So I oppose the amendment for those reasons, although the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Ganske] has brought up a very important subject that needs to be addressed by the authorization committee, as is being done. I commend him for that. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California [Mr. Moorhead], chairman of the subcommittee on the Committee on the Judiciary with this subject matter in his jurisdiction.

Mr. ROGERS. I do, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation on an appropriations bill and therefore violates clause 2 of rule XXI. The rule states in pertinent part, ``no amendment to a general appropriation bill shall be in order if changing existing law.'' Mr. Chairman, on the face of it, the amendment proposes to make permanent changes to chapter 13 of title XXXI of the U.S. Code and therefore it is legislation on an appropriation bill.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I was under the understanding that we are under a set of amendment that are controlled by the rule of the House.

Mr. ROGERS. Point of order, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time, and I shall not take the full time. We have heard the arguments here. We have plenty of money in this bill for the information infrastructure grant programs for rural areas. I come from a rural area, and as chairman I saw to it there was sufficient funding in this bill for that purpose. We provide the same funding as last year, although we cut most of the other Commerce Department programs. Second, the gentlewoman's amendment would take the money for the increase that she seeks from the Federal prison building program which we desperately need, and this will put in jeopardy the building of two new prisons in the next fiscal year. So I urge a strong ``no'' vote to the gentlewoman's amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ROGERS. I yield to the gentleman from New York. (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentlewoman's amendment and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me say, I understand the gentlewoman's concerns about rural and underserved areas that they not be left off the information superhighway. I share that concern very deeply because my own district would qualify in that category. Recognizing the importance of the information infrastructure grants program for rural and underserved areas, we inserted in the bill funding for the program at the 1996 level. We did not cut a penny off the program from its current levels. At a time when most other programs were being slashed in the bill, including most of the commerce programs. We maintained the funding level for this program. This amendment would seek a 47 percent increase for this program at the expense of the Federal prison system and specifically the building of new prisons. Mr. Chairman, the need for new Federal prisons is clear. The Federal prison system is currently suffering from dangerous overcrowding: currently 23 percent overcrowded systemwide; 43 percent overcrowded at the high security facilities, obviously the most dangerous. By the year 2001, overcrowding at the high security facilities would exceed 50 percent as a result of the growing population of convicted criminals who are increasingly violent and subjected to longer sentences. We continue on a path of building two new prisons this year at the higher security levels where we most desperately need relief from overcrowding. This amendment would jeopardize that program and seriously threaten the safety and security of the prison system and surrounding communities where people obviously are residing. The accountability gap still exists at the Federal level. Repeat offenders continue to fill our prisons, and we want to ensure adequate space is available to ensure that these felons are off our streets. There is no parole at the Federal level, and therefore the need for prison space is absolutely critical. As much as I support the sentiments of the gentlewoman's amendment, I have to say to her that I am strongly opposed to it for the reasons I have said. One, we fully fund the information infrastructure grants program; two, the gentlewoman's amendment would jeopardized the Federal prison building program that we must continue. And so I urge a rejection of this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ROGERS. All right. I withdraw the point of order.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I assure the gentleman we will work with his concerns very deeply. I thank the gentleman very much for his help.

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

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I have no objection to this amendment offered by Mr. Deutsch, and I thank the gentleman for working with the authorizing committee to develop the language of the amendment and thank him for his work. I urge adoption of the amendment.

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

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Stupak]. (Mr. STUPAK asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. LaTourette].

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell]

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I have no objection to this amendment offered by the gentleman from Nevada [Mr. Ensign]. I thank the gentleman for working with the authorizing committee to develop the language of the amendment, and I congratulate him and his other colleagues for recognizing this as a major accomplishment and achievement.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for raising this point. It is a valid point, obviously. Certainly it is my intention that the agency have a very firm grasp of the costs and the numbers and the source of funds before beginning to put the move into effect. It is also my intent that this information be submitted to the committee as soon as it becomes available to the agency's managers. I do not see how a plan can move forward until there is a plan. So we would expect to see a plan right away.

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

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.