Hal Rogers

Mr. ROGERS

Mr. ROGERS. The gentleman is correct.

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

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, what the substitute does and it has been discussed with the gentleman from New York [Mr. Schumer] and the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Schiff], is provide $10 million rather than $20 million for counterterrorism technology and take it out of the $20 million that is already available for technology programs under the local law enforcement block grant that is already in the bill. This is a sensible way to do it. Obviously there is a recognized need for this money. Both the fiscal year 1996 bill and this bill already include, as I said, a $20 million increase for National Institute of Justice programs from the local law enforcement block grant program. That is a 67-percent increase, by the way, for NIJ technology programs. As the gentleman is aware, this $20 million was an unexpected windfall for the NIJ as a result of the manner in which the law enforcement block grant formula was drafted. This money is available for a variety of technology initiatives, including terrorism-related technology. We ensure in this substitute by providing language, that $10 million of these funds will be used for terrorism. We will ensure that the money is available. Mr. Chairman, this substitute would provide that $10 million out of the $20 million that is available for technology programs from the local law enforcement block grant program will be available for counterterrorism. We agree to it and think it is a good idea.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment, I offer an amendment as a substitute for the amendment, and I ask unanimous consent that the amendment offered as a substitute for the amendment be considered as read and printed in the Record.

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

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, we would think that, from the debate from the other side, that we were shutting down the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. As I have said before, we give the EEOC the same amount of money in this bill as they have this year. They are making great progress on working off their backlog. I see no reason why that will not continue with the funding that is provieded in this bill. So they have adequate funding, while we cut practically every other agency in this bill. Ask the State Department, ask the Commerce Department, ask every agency, practically, within both of those organizations, that have been cut. They did not get requested funding, they were slashed in order for us to find money to keep agencies like the EEOC operating at uncut levels. So the EEOC has adequate funding. We made sure of that in this bill. No, they did not get an increase, but hardly anyone else did. But we think the money is adequate to satisfy the demand placed upon the EEOC so people will get reasonably adequate coverage. Mr. Chairman, where does the money come from if the amendment passes? Again, let me emphasize, they would take money from the Bureau of Prisons salaries and expenses account. That would keep us from possibly opening the five brand new prisons that are ready to open in 1997. They would sit there empty, gleaming behemoths, empty of the prisoners that are crowded in other prisons in this country. We would be in violation perhaps of the Constitution and the Supreme Court's edicts on overcrowding if we did not occupy these prisons that we have spent hundreds of millions of dollars to build. Please do not take that money. There is hardly anything more important than relieving the overcrowded Federal prisons we have and not being able to house the new prisoners that will be entering prison this year. These are convicted murderers and drug dealers and all sorts of heinous crimes that we need space for in these prisons. I urge the Committee and all the Members to reject this amendment.

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

Mr. ROGERS. Reclaiming my time, that is just not correct. We already have reduced the amount they requested by $70 million, as I said, for that very reason. Some of the prisons were slipping on the opening time. We are accounting for that. We reduced their budget by $70 million below what they wanted. We cannot take any more. The Mollohan amendment already takes $45 million. The gentlewoman would take another $14 million. We simply cannot accept that. We do not have the money.

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

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentlewoman's amendment. Mr. Chairman, the amendment would take $14 million out of vitally needed resources to open new prisons. The bill already reduces the amount requested for prisons by $70 million because we take into account slippages of activation of new prisons and carryover that the Bureau of Prisons has estimated. In addition, the Mollohan amendment that just passed reduced the Bureau of Prisons by another $45 million. There is simply no more there. The Bureau of Prisons will open five new prisons this coming year. We built five new prisons. They are waiting to be opened. Unless we approve the salaries and expenses portion out of which my colleague is taking this money, we cannot open those prisons. They will sit there empty. Is that what the gentlewoman wants? I submit that she should not. These five new prisons, for example, a high security; that is, maximum security facility in Beaumont, TX; a medical center in Butner, NC; medium and minimum security prisons in Edgefield, SC; detention facility in Seattle, WA; and a minimum and low security prison in Elkton, OH. Those new prisons will provide over 6,000 new prison beds that are vital to relieve the terrible overcrowding that exists in the present prisons, not to mention the heavy influx of new prisoners that are expected in 1997. The activations of some or all of these prisons would be jeopardized by the gentlewoman's amendment. Furthermore, the funding level of the EEOC is maintained at 1996 levels, like all other regulatory agencies in this bill. It is not treated differently. There are all sorts of regulatory agencies in this bill that decide people's rights and obligations. We could start with the SEC, the FCC, all of the Justice regulatory agencies. And portions of the Federal courts that are also in this bill. Yes, we do not have enough money to finance a good portion or all of these agencies, including the EEOC. But I say to the Members, we treated them fairly. We kept them at level funding in 1996, like all other regulatory agencies in the bill. Other agencies have been reduced below 1996 in order to provide increases for fighting crime and illegal aliens on our borders, and drugs. But we held EEOC harmless from those reductions. For that reason, Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on this amendment and all amendments thereto close in 20 minutes and that the time be equally divided.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on this amendment and all amendments thereto close in 10 minutes and that the time be equally divided.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that debate on this amendment and all amendments thereto close in 1 hour and that the time be equally divided.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the bill through page 12, line 18, be considered as read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any point.

Mr. ROGERS. I thank the gentleman for his interest and his hard work on behalf of these centers.

Mr. ROGERS. That is correct. The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 provided an extension of authority for the Trade Adjustment Assistance Program through fiscal year 1998.

Mr. ROGERS. I would say to the gentleman, yes, the committee will clarify that it is the position of the House to fund all EDA programs, including the trade adjustment program, at the fiscal 1996 level.

Mr. ROGERS. That is correct, Mr. Chairman. The gentleman will note we have included language within the manager's amendment which will allow the EDA to use funds available for the Trade Adjustment Assistance Program.

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

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, with respect to the $25 million included in the committee report under the formula funds of the Byrne grant program, it is my intention to see that these funds be made available under the formula distribution. Under the bill, States and localities decide their own priorities. Under this bill, these priorities may include drug testing. It is also my intention to see that those States seeking to encourage drug testing initiatives at the local level should establish a competitive grant program with interested local jurisdictions. It is my intention to work with the gentleman from Massachusetts and others who have an interest in the program to clarify this further in the expected conference with the Senate. I thank the gentleman for his comments.

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

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, this amendment provides funding for three important crime and security initiatives. First, it provides $7 million for Federal drug testing initiatives to address the use of illegal drugs by defendants who cycle through the Federal criminal justice system. The bill already provides $25 million under the Byrne formula grant program for State drug testing initiatives. The Federal drug testing program will augment current drug testing that is performed by the courts during pretrial custody and during probationary periods. It will ensure that prosecutors are aware of the drug status of the defendants they prosecute and that appropriate measures are taken before drug-using defendants in pretrial detention or probationary status are released back into the community. Second, the amendment provides $5 million for training of firefighters and public safety officials in order to better equip them to assist law enforcement officials in response to terrorist attacks. Funding for this training program was authorized in the antiterrorism bill. Third, the amendment provides $6 million in funding for court security under the Federal Judiciary to respond to concerns expressed by the judiciary that adequate funding be available to fully equip and staff courthouses that are scheduled to come on line in fiscal year 1997. This funding is provided by moving $16 million from nondefense discretionary spending to defense discretionary spending within funding provided for the FBI in order to free up discretionary funds for these important crime initiatives. Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of this amendment.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I offer several amendments, and I ask unanimous consent that they be considered en bloc.

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

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, this amendment represents a compromise reached with the authorization committee chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker], regarding the use of funding provided for the Advanced Technology Program under NIST. The bill funds ATP at $110.5 million, an amount sufficient to provide final year funding to close out commitments for awards previously made to small businesses under the ATP program. The amendment modifies language in the bill to clarify that funds are being provided only for this purpose. Specifically, the amendment adds language to the bill to clarify that, first, funds provided for continuation grants are only for small businesses and only for those small businesses who were awarded an ATP grant prior to fiscal year 1996 and, second, funds are being provided for the purpose of closing out all commitments for the ATP program. Under the rule, if my amendment is adopted, points of order will be waived against all provisions in the bill, including the Advanced Technology Program and the Technology Administration. The amendment further clarifies congressional intent regarding the ATP program and ensures that Congress will have an opportunity to fully consider and debate these programs. Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of the amendment.