Hal Rogers

Mr. ROGERS

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution and commend my colleague, the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Lewis], the sponsor of the bill, and the Representative of the Second Congressional District, a job which Mr. Natcher held, of course, for many years. I also commend the chairman, the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Petri, and the ranking member, Mr. Rahall, for bringing this bill to the floor. Bill Natcher was a patriot, pure and simple; a statesman, in every sense of the word, and a dear, dear friend to many in this institution; in fact, I would say all. He also served as an example of what every Member of this body aspires to be. He was of the highest character and the most impeccable integrity, with the moral courage and compass to follow his beliefs, to follow his tremendous sense of right and wrong. He was a longtime member, of course, of the Committee on Appropriations, its distinguished chairman beginning in December 1992. Before that, he served tirelessly for 18 years as chairman of the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and his accomplishments there have served this Nation in ways beyond our ability to fully appreciate. There are many tributes that have been bestowed upon our State's former dean, and many more to come, I hope, but this tribute is especially fitting. Bill Natcher labored for years to build this bridge. When finished, the Natcher Bridge will be a daily reminder to his many beloved constituents of the tremendous service he gave to his district, his State, and the people of this Nation. Again, I want to congratulate the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Lewis] for sponsoring this memorial to one of our greatest statesmen in the House and the Congress, and I urge its adoption.

Mr. ROGERS

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me and thank him for his work on the bill to which this amendment has been attached. Mr. Chairman, I hope not to consume the entire time because I think we have had a good debate and we have heard practically every point that conceivably could be made on both sides of the issue. Mr. Chairman, one could have thought by listening to this debate that there was an amendment on the floor to abolish smoking or an amendment that would have declared smoking to be the most dangerous thing one can do or an amendment that would have prohibited the big cigarette companies from deducting the advertising costs, or some such thing, because we have heard all of these arguments about whether or not smoking is good for us, which has nothing to do with the amendment. We have heard all of the attacks on big tobacco as if it was one big monolithic thing, and if we attack one part of it, we are attacking the whole thing. The gentleman maybe does not understand, that offered the amendment, what tobacco is, the industry, if we want to call it that; there is big tobacco, the cigarette companies, perhaps big cigar companies, perhaps big chewing tobacco companies and the like. They are big worldwide. Philip Morris is a huge corporation. Then there is little tobacco that is grown in the districts of these Members who have spoken. They are not big. It is a family. The average acreage is probably 2 acres on red clay on a 35-degree-angle farm, and they cannot grow anything else. They are trying; believe me they are trying. There are experiments on aquaculture, growing fish, and they are trying to grow other types of crops all over tobacco land. But right now these are poor dirt farmers. My colleagues are not attacking Philip Morris here with your amendment. They are not attacking big tobacco. They are attacking little tobacco. These are the most vulnerable people that we could possibly talk about when we talk about tobacco. I grew up on a hillside farm. We grew rocks on a very small farm. We also have a small patch of tobacco, and that was the only way that my father could raise this family, and send us to school, and buy the food on which we lived. That story is repeated 100,000 times around this country every year. We are not Philip Morris. We are not big tobacco. We are little. And we are poor. And we are scrapping, just trying to earn a living on 2 acres or 1 acre of tobacco. That is the average crop. We do not grow tobacco like they grow corn in Illinois, by the thousands of acres. There is no way to conceive of a scale when growing crops on that scale with a 2-acre patch of tobacco on a hillside in the hills of Kentucky or Tennessee or North Carolina or Georgia or wherever, 23 States. Yet, Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's amendment does not try to outlaw smoking. Perhaps he should try that. It does not try to outlaw the Tobacco Price Support Program which protects big growers as well as small growers. No, the gentleman just singles out the most vulnerable people that we have, the little tobacco people, and, yes, we are emotional about it; yes, that is the reason for encountering people who are fighting fiercely because we are trying to defend people who are defenseless but for us. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Illinois does away with this program for these small farmers, and ironically and paradoxically he is helping big tobacco. Only then will tobacco be grown by big tobacco, and they would love that. They have been trying to do that for years. But for us here, tobacco would be grown by the big companies, most of it imported, grown on patches or fields or plantations across the sea where they do not regulate what they can spray on the crop, and we will be bringing in poisoned tobacco for people to smoke here. People are going to smoke, they are going to smoke something for the time being. Maybe it is not good for them; that is not the question here. They are going to smoke. Question is: Who is going to grow it; the small growers or Philip Morris? The gentleman's amendment says Philip Morris. He may not intend that, but that is exactly what he is doing, believe me. The gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Rose] said it better than I do. Other speakers have said it better than I did. But that is precisely where the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin] is headed with this amendment. His amendment does not deny deductibility of advertising expenses to big tobacco, does not try to abolish the Tobacco Price Support Program which protects big growers as well as small, it does not deny crop insurance or agricultural advice to Philip Morris. No, it denies crop insurance to the poorest people, and the gentleman is allowing them to become the victims of the elements. Does not hurt Philip Morris. In fact, it probably helps them because they would grow what we cannot if the gentleman from Illinois knocks us out of the business. So I think the amendment is misdirected, Mr. Durbin. The gentleman ignores all the questions I have just asked, and he picks out the least among us, he tackles the poorest. He would cripple those who cannot help themselves by this amendment. He jerks away the only safety net, the crop insurance, for families, kids, children, and leave them to the mercy of the elements. The large corporate growers do not need crop insurance. The large corporate growers do not need expert agricultural advice which this amendment would deny. They do not need it. The only people that need it are the small growers, and those are the ones that would be impacted the most severely by the gentleman's amendment. By driving out small growers, as this amendment would do, putting them on welfare in the name of trying to harm big tobacco, ironically will help big tobacco because when the small growers are gone, big tobacco will do what they have long wanted to do, and that is grow and import tobacco. Last year the House realized this very point. We argued these types of things just last year on the floor of the House, and our colleagues wisely said, ``No, we will not do the Durbin amendment, it harms the people who we do not want to harm. It is misdirected.'' Last week the full Committee on Appropriations denied the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin] his amendment in full committee, voted it down 29 to 19 in committee. I ask our colleagues again on the House floor, ``When you vote in a few minutes, think about who you are harming.'' Think about the question that is not being addressed by this amendment. This is not a smoking issue. It is not a health issue. It is not a question of whether we are harming big tobacco. We are not. We are harming little tobacco. We are harming the people that none of us, I think, want to hurt. I urge Members when they vote again in a few minutes, vote ``no,'' and help the people who cannot help themselves.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I object.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I say to the gentleman that the ASCS advisers of the Agriculture Department help farmers, including tobacco farmers, with such things as preventing the use of illegal or dangerous pesticides, for example. If we take away that advice, these farmers are going to be on their own, and who knows what kind of dangerous health hazards that will cause. The intent of this amendment is to eliminate American tobacco production, make no mistake about that. It would promote cheaper foreign tobacco grown by who knows what kind of pesticides or other poisons on their crops, bringing poisonous tobacco into the country at dirt cheap prices, promoting smoking. It would drive down the price of cigarettes to no telling what level. It would drive onto welfare rolls these small farmers, in the South primarily, in favor of big tobacco companies who would then buy that tobacco from offshore. The jobs would go offshore. The prices of cigarettes in this country would go down, smoking would go up, and farmers would be on welfare. Is that what the gentleman wants? I say to the gentleman that the Congress said last year on this very amendment ``no.'' The full Committee on Appropriations just last week said to answer that question ``no,'' and I say to my colleagues again today, to the Durbin amendment say ``no.''

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, the Durbin amendment is the same amendment that this body rejected last year out of hand, it is the same amendment the committee just last week rejected out of hand, and it is the same amendment that today this body is going to reject again out of hand. I will tell you why. The Durbin amendment has nothing to do with smoking. It has nothing to do with the health hazards of smoking. It has nothing to do with whether or not you think you have the right to smoke or not. Smoking is not involved here. What is involved here is singling out by this sinister amendment small poor farmers who in the main have no other way to earn a living for their family. This amendment does not get at big tobacco companies. I will say that again. This amendment does not get at big tobacco companies as has been stated. In fact, it plays into their hands, because it would cripple the small growers in this country and favor the big companies who would love to grow the tobacco in this country and more importantly outside this country and ship it here and sell it for dirt cheap prices. So the Durbin amendment, I would say to you, favors big tobacco companies. They have been wanting this a long time, to run these small farmers out of the business. Without this program, small farmers will not be able to grow tobacco. The Congress has protected that right ever since we have been here almost. So this amendment plays into the hands of big tobacco. If you want to see cheap cigarettes, you bring in this imported tobacco, grown under no telling what kind of conditions, pesticides you would not dare let on crops in this country, you are going to bring in poisoned tobacco and you are going to bring in tobacco that is dirt cheap and you are going to drive down the price of cigarettes until everyone can say, even kids, ``Hey, I can afford to smoke now.'' So I say to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin], your amendment will promote smoking. It promotes big tobacco companies. We are standing here telling you that if you pass the Durbin amendment, you are singling out the very small, poor tobacco growers in this country to the favor of big tobacco companies and foreign growers all over the world. This amendment does not save you money. The no-net-cost program--and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin] knows this--passed through this Congress a few years ago that says the tobacco program will cost nothing to the American taxpayer. The gentleman says that in his amendment we will not let ASCS employees talk to a tobacco farmer. That tobacco farmer may also grow corn or soybeans or wheat, and what have you but the ASCS employee cannot go out there and talk to him because he grows tobacco. We may have to send a policeman out there with him to be sure that they never mention tobacco. But the tobacco program does not cost you. The no-net- cost program prevents that. Tobacco does bring into the coffers of your city, your county, your State, and your Federal Government $14.8 billion a year, and it results in $6 billion in American exports. This amendment discriminates against a legal crop. The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin] should go ahead and do what he wants to do and offer an amendment to declare tobacco to be an illegal product. That is what you really want. Go ahead and do that. Let us vote on it. But, no, you are going through these back doors trying to eliminate the tobacco program without declaring the crop to be illegal. What is next? I submit to the gentleman from Illinois that a lot of the corn grown in his district goes to fatten up beef. Beef has a lot of fattening in it. That is bad for hearts. Why, a lot of people say heart disease is the leading killer. That is caused by the fatty substances in the food that we eat, including beef. Let us get after corn, that is the problem in this country. That is the cause of the great health scare and the health problem in the country. It is corn that causes fat. And what about wheat, I ask the gentleman? Does he know that wheat goes into the making of Twinkies? And we all know that Twinkies are bad for us. They can cause all sorts of problems. Let us outlaw wheat.

Mr. ROGERS

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the 1996 Kentucky Boys High School basketball champions--the Paintsville High School Tigers. High school basketball holds a special place in the heart of every person in eastern Kentucky. This is especially true in the city of Paintsville. The 1995-96 Paintsville Tigers beat the odds and captured the State championship with hard work and determination. The Tigers began the year with a rigorous schedule against some of the toughest competition available. Head Coach Bill Mike Runyon and Assistant Coach David VanHoose guided the Tigers through a tough regular season which included Lexington Catholic, Harlan, and Boyd County. These regular season tests would prove critical in preparing the Tigers for their eventual showdown in Rupp Arena. Paintsville's road to the sweet sixteen was paved with hard-won victories. The Tigers defeated longtime rival Magoffin County to win the district crown. The two teams faced each other again in the 15th region final, with Paintsville winning again. After a trip down the Mountain Parkway to Lexington, the Tigers were ready to face Kentucky's best teams. Paintsville defeated Owensboro, Allen County-Scottsville, and Lexington Catholic to advance to the Saturday night final. The Tigers cruised to victory in the title game with a resounding defeat of Ashland. Paintsville's team was rich in talent and size. They were led by sophomore sensation J.R. VanHoose. The 6'10" center set a new, single- game, tournament record for rebounds--breaking the old record held by NBA great Wes Unseld. VanHoose was also named the tournament's most valuable player. Joining VanHoose were seniors Craig and Matt Ratliff, Todd Tackett and Josh McKenzie completed the Tigers' primary lineup. Other members of the varsity squad included: Danny Scott, Kyle Adams, Josh Greiner, Jason Conley, Kyle Kretzer, Devon Pack, Jeremy Watkins, Mike Short, Mikie Burchett, Mark Grim, and Eric Addington. Mr. Speaker, the Paintsville Tigers have made the people of Johnson County and eastern Kentucky very proud. They now have their own chapter in Kentucky's renowned history of high school basketball.

Mr. ROGERS

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I was not going to speak until my colleague on the subcommittee brought up some very touchy points. Now there is money in this bill for the Advanced Technology Program, as the gentleman well knows. There is money in title IV, $100 million for the Advanced Technology Program. All they've got to do is find offsets in other spending to pay for it, and it is there. The President can have the money just like that by signing this bill and finding the offsets. No. 2, this Congress has said heretofore under our leadership, that we are going to reduce the rate of U.N. peacekeeping assessment from 31 percent of the total that the United States has to pay to 25 percent. Unilaterally, we said that. There is money in this bill for that as well, to pay practically the 25 percent that we obligated ourselves to pay, provided the President finds offsets so there is not a deficit spending situation. That is all he has to do. The money is in this bill in title IV for that very purpose. Now COPS. We have debated this thing how many times this year? I think this is the fifth or sixth time we will have voted on this issue. Every time the Congress says it is a waste of money, and instead, let us fund the block grants to the local communities so they can have a say-so about how the money is spent, and yet they simply will not go along down at the White House. This is not a debate over putting more police on the streets. We have $1.9 billion in this bill for cops on the beat or other purposes that the local communities may want to put in. I will tell my colleagues what is wrong. According to the GAO, half the localities in America cannot afford the 25 percent match that is required. We do not require that in our program. Why does the President not understand that? These communities cannot afford to match this local share. In our bill, in our program, we provide $1.9 billion, and communities just do not have the 25-percent local match--it is 10 percent. Next year the COPS Program costs 50 percent, and the fourth year 100 percent. We charge 10 percent. This is a good bill; I urge its support.

Mr. ROGERS

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, this Balanced Budget Downpayment Act is an important step forward. Funding levels will now be based on the conference report funding levels for the fiscal year 1996 Commerce, Justice, State, and Judiciary appropriations bill. With a few exceptions, relating to issues that remain to be negotiated out, congressional priorities will be reflected from this point forward, both in terms of programs that merit continued funding and those where decreases are justified. For law enforcement programs, small business loans, passports, visas, diplomatic security, and the Judiciary, full-year funding has already been provided in the previous two targeted appropriations bills. In this bill, funding is being provided through March 15 for the remaining programs under the jurisdiction of the Commerce, Justice, State, and Judiciary Subcommittee at the fiscal year 1996 conference report levels, under fiscal year 1995 terms and conditions. This puts funding for these programs on the path that will lead to substantial savings--in the Commerce Department, for instance, the conference report provided levels that are a 16-percent reduction from fiscal year 1995, while providing substantial additional resources for the Nation's fight against crime. So this is an important change, from a formula that keeps funding tied to fiscal year 1995 levels as a minimum, to one that implements that fiscal year 1996 priorities which have been voted on and passed, in the case of the Commerce, Justice, State, and Judiciary appropriations bill, three times in this House. I support this Balanced Budget Downpayment Act, and urge all Members to vote for this legislation that will keep the Government fully functioning through March 15. I am including a short summary of the provisions in this legislation as they relate to the Commerce-Justice Subcommittee, and also a statement clarifying a number of issues. Commerce-Justice Subcommittee Provisions in First Balanced Budget Downpayment Act Provides FY 1996 conference level under FY 1995 terms and conditions through March 15, 1996, for all CJSJ accounts with the following exceptions: Any programs funded in the previous targeted appropriations bills. Advanced Technology Program is funded at 75 percent of FY 1995 level for FY 1995 and prior year continuation grants and program administration only, for the period covered by the legislation. Cops on the Beat program is funded at 75 percent of FY 1995 level, for the period covered by the balanced budget legislation. The Ounce of Prevention Council, GLOBE, and Drug Courts are also funded at 75 percent of the FY 1995 level. In addition, the following provisions are included: A provision allowing Departments and agencies expanded transfer authority to pay downsizing or closeout costs resulting from the funding levels in this legislation, subject to standard reprogramming procedures. A provision allowing funding for Legal Services Corporation to be obligated only at a rate to cover operations during the time period of this legislation. A provision withholding funding for Truth in Sentencing grant program, except for SCAAP and CAP funds, pending revision to current Crime Bill program. A provision allowing the USIA IG to continue receiving funds. A provision (section 209) keeping Securities and Exchange Commission registration fees at rate assumed in FY 1996 conference. A provision (section 211) applying FY 1996 terms and conditions to amounts provided in previous targeted appropriations for Department of Justice programs and enacting into law the Justice General Provisions in the FY 1996 conference report, except Truth in Sentencing authorization. A provision restricting travel expenses for all Cabinet officers (except State, the UN Ambassador, Defense and CIA) to 110 percent of the average for FY 1990-FY 1995. Statement of Hon. Harold Rogers The section of the Balanced Budget Downpayment Act that relates to the Commerce, Justice, State and Judiciary appropriations bill provides generally for funding at the fiscal year 1996 conference level under fiscal year 1995 terms and conditions, with certain exceptions that are spelled out in the legislation. All departments and agencies are expected to use the fiscal year 1996 conference report and statement of managers and the House and Senate reports relating to the fiscal year 1996 bill to the maximum extent in allocating resources under this legislation, because that guidance will, under all likelihood, become the final guidance for expenditure of fiscal year 1996 funds, and departments and agencies will ultimately be expected to have committed their resources in accord with the fiscal year 1996 guidance that the House and Senate Appropriations Subcommittees have provided. department of justice Office of Justice Programs: Funding is included for discretionary and formula grants under the Edward Byrne Memorial State and Local Law Enforcement Program. It is the Committee's intent that discretionary grants should be made in accordance with the joint Statement of Managers and that the Department of Justice should prioritize funding for requirements of State and local law enforcement related to the 1996 Olympic Games. Truth-in-Sentencing Grants/SCAAP: A provision is included that withholds funding for a new Truth- in-Sentencing Prison Grant program until details on revised legislation are worked out. However, funding that was included under this program in the Conference Report for reimbursement to states for the incarceration of criminal aliens is provided. A provision is included that applies terms and conditions of the 1996 Conference Report and Statement of Managers to amounts provided in the previous targeted appropriations legislation for various Department of Justice programs. Within these terms and conditions the Committee would like to clarify the following: Under the Interagency Crime Drug Enforcement Program, it is the Committee's intent that the Attorney General, in consultation with the Office of Investigative Agencies Policies, will allocate resources among agencies participating in Interagency Crime and Drug Task Forces based on current task force requirements. Furthermore, it is the Committee's intent that funding provided for the Federal Prison System includes the construction of new prisons under the terms specified in the Statement of Managers in addition to continued support for the National Institute of Corrections, both of which are critical to efforts to incarcerate prisoners. department of commerce Advanced Technology Program--The bill includes language providing funding for the Advanced Technology Program, only for program administration and continuation grants for ATP projects originally awarded in fiscal year 1995 or earlier, at a rate of operations of up to 75 percent of the final fiscal year 1995 appropriated level. This provision will not allow any new ATP grant competitions to be held during the period covered by this Act. Closing Costs Provisions--The bill includes language similar to a provision included in the Conference Report on the FY 1996 Commerce Justice Appropriations Act requiring that costs associated with personnel actions resulting from funding reductions included in this subsection to be absorbed within the total budgetary resources available to each Department or agency. The provision would allow each Department or agency to transfer funds between appropriations accounts as necessary to cover costs associated with program closeouts or downsizing of agencies. This transfer authority is provided in addition to the authorities available under FY 1995 terms and conditions, and is subject to the Committee's standard reprogramming procedures. This closing cost provision allows Departments and agencies the flexibility to fund only the costs associated with personnel actions resulting from agency or program termination or shutdowns. department of state and related agencies With respect to Title IV of the CJSJ bill, covering the Department of State, United States Information Agency and Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, funding at the conference level generally provides an operating level above what has been in effect under the previous continuing resolutions. For Contributions to International Organizations and Contributions for International Peacekeeping Activities, the amount of funds available to be obligated is intended to be no higher than the proportionate amount of the full year funding level that corresponds to the number of days covered by this legislation. Under the United States Information Agency, continued funding for the Inspector General has been provided for the term of this legislation. The funding is to be derived from the conference level of funding for the State Department's Inspector General, because that level of funding anticipated the merger of the USIA IG office into the State IG office. Both IG offices are to continue to prepare for the merger, which is fully anticipated to occur during this fiscal year. With respect to Educational and Cultural Exchange Programs, the statement of managers language in the conference report concerning the Tenth Paralympiad should be carried out on an expedited basis, and sufficient funds should have been appropriated under previous Continuing Resolutions and this current legislation to permit this issue to be addressed during the period in which the current legislation is in effect. related agencies Federal Trade Commission.--The Committee expects that amounts provided in the bill for both the Federal Trade Commission and the Justice Department's Antitrust Division will allow these agencies to function at the full operating levels assumed in the conference report on H.R. 2076, based on offsetting collections of $48,262,000 for each agency. Legal Services Corporation.--The funding included for LSC is interim funding for basic field programs until a new competitive grant program is implemented. The Committee expects LSC to begin a competitive grant program on April 1, 1996 and to be prepared to implement restrictions outlined in the conference report. Small Business Administration Disaster Assistance.--The Committee is aware that funding levels provided for the SBA Disaster Loan Program subsidies and administrative expenses may be insufficient to continue the program for the full fiscal year, particularly considering the rate of disasters thus far this fiscal year. The Committee notes that there are two primary reasons for the shortfall. First, the request for subsidy amounts for the loan program was based on proposed legislative changes modifying the interest rate on SBA disaster loans. While the full request for loan subsidies was appropriated, these proposed legislative changes were not enacted into law. As a result, the appropriated subsidy amount of $34.4 million allows new loan program authority of only $122.5 million instead of $407 million as proposed. Therefore, the shortfall is the result of lack of action on proposed legislative changes, which is not under the jurisdiction of the Appropriations Committee, and the fact that the Administration, as a result of no action on the changes, has not amended its budget request to provide additional resources or identified the offsets necessary to provide those resources. The second reason for the shortfall is the failure of the Small Business Administration to adequately budget for the appropriate level of administrative costs for even a ``normal'' disaster year in the appropriate account for this program. Instead, the SBA requested the funds for the administrative costs associated with disaster loan making under a proposed emergency contingency appropriation which would have been outside the budget caps and cannot be considered by the Congress under current budget policy. The Committee expects SBA to reprogram funding to cover the base requirements for disaster loan making within the funds provided under this Act. The Committee further expects that future budget requests for administrative expenses under the disaster loan program account will fully cover the costs of providing the services required to manage the loan program level assumed in the budget request. The Committee recognizes the severity of disasters such as the devastating flooding in Pennsylvania and other mid- Atlantic States following recent storms, and is confident that SBA will be able to respond appropriately and responsibly to these dire situations within the resources currently available under the Disaster Loan Program during the period covered by the Balanced Budget Down Payment Act. The Committee recognizes that additional funds for the SBA Disaster Loan Program may be required prior to April, and believes that if additional resources are needed, they can be provided through the reprogramming process to assure continuation of the program through March 15, 1996. The Committee will work with the Administration to determine the appropriate level of funding for this program as well as potential sources of funding offsets. Small Business Development Centers.--The bill provides funding for the SBA Small Business Development Center program at the FY 1996 conference level. This will allow SBA to continue to make funding commitments with State resource partners in the SBDC program based on the full conference amount.

Mr. ROGERS

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor my good friend Alfred ``Alf'' Kidd who recently passed away at the age of 81. My family and thousands of others throughout McCreary County and southern Kentucky are deeply saddened by this tragic loss. Our area has lost a top-notch businessman, an inspiring civic and community volunteer, a political leader, and a good friend. He helped everyone he could and always was willing to sacrifice his time for others. Alf's many accomplishments and activities showed his outstanding commitment to the betterment of McCreary County. He helped start the McCreary County Economic Development Council to improve our businesses, as well as helping us to hire an economic development director. That led to McCreary's designation as a `'Federal Enterprise Community.'' Alf helped start the McCreary County Industrial Development Corp. where his leadership was instrumental in the creation of thousands of jobs. He was a founding member of the McCreary County Chamber of Commerce, helped renovate and restore the Stearns historic community, worked as chairman to the local housing authority and was a founding member and past president of the Pine Knot Kiwanis Club. His list continues on an on, all to help the people of McCreary County. We will long remember Alfred Kidd because he cared about all of us. My heart goes out to Alf's wonderful family. His long legacy and excellent record of service will stand as a tribute to his life. Alf was a great friend and a good man, and he will be sorely missed.

Mr. ROGERS

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, I think the gentleman has done a wonderful job and I commend him for it.

Mr. ROGERS. And if the gentleman will continue to yield, if the President files a 7-year balanced budget amendment, just files it, we do not have to act upon it, just file it, we will open up the entire Government?

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, do I understand the gentleman to say that the second resolution that will come up this afternoon will, in effect, say we will fund the entire Government; that all the President has to do is file his balanced budget amendment; is that correct?

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

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman in the well be willing to include the White House travel office in that proposal?

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the right to object.

Mr. ROGERS

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor a real hero. A man, who while driving his truck down a dark interstate far from home, had the courage to stop and lend a hand to save lives. Mr. Speaker, I speak of Clay County, KY truck driver Ronnie Brown--a man who did just that at 4:40 a.m., December 16. While traveling down Interstate I-40 in Winston-Salem, NC, the 43- year-old trucker and part-time minister saw a glowing blaze just off the interstate. With quick and decisive action, Brown called 911 and contacted truck drivers in the area. The truckers collectively laid on their horns to make as much noise as they could. With horns a-blazin', Brown then lept from his truck, scampered across a six-lane highway, jumped a fence and ran into the apartment building, pounding on doors. In the end, the 24 residents of the building escaped unharmed and Brown's heroics garnered the praise and thanks of the residents and management of the apartment complex. Lawrence Berry, manager of the complex, wrote, ``We have classified Brown as a hero for his gallant efforts and would like to thank him personally.'' Brown has a reputation as a Good Samaritan. He often can and will help stranded motorists or people in need--including running into burning buildings. Ronnie Brown is a real American hero. It is everyday people like Brown who make this country great, and hearing others praise his heroics makes me and all of our great State very proud.

Mr. ROGERS

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a great friend, teacher, and leader for our children and community in Wolfe County, KY. For almost 30 years, Jim Lacy has served the students and families of Wolfe County as a teacher, administrator, and county superintendent. As a teacher for more than 24 years, he taught almost every class and knew every student. He also served as the high school's basketball and baseball coach, teaching our children not only the value of education, but of physical fitness, competition, and sportsmanship. After 2 years as the principal of the Wolfe County Middle School, Jim was hired by the board of education to become superintendent of schools. During his 4 years of service, he has been a strong supporter of our schools and the need for constantly improving our education system. In addition to educating our children, Jim also worked closely with the Kentucky State Conservation Service to help our communities. He has served as an excellent representative in visits to Washington, DC, Frankfort, and other States as an advocate for eastern Kentucky. Jim Lacy is a leader. He has molded our children as a role model and example of leadership for a long time. And now, as he teaches and leads a second generation of students--the children of his former students-- Jim Lacy will always stand out because of his commitment to excellence. Many of his students have enjoyed their time with Jim Lacy. For his loyal service, we are all grateful. Good luck, Jim, and may your retirement be long and enjoyable.

Mr. ROGERS

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] has pointed out, this resolution says, in effect, there are certain things that we need to fund irrespective of whatever else happens in the fight with the White House on a balanced budget. We are saying in this resolution the fight against crime and the fight against illegal immigration are above and beyond the political debate that is going on in balancing the budget. So consequently, in this bill there is complete funding for the fight against crime at the conference level of the appropriations bill that has passed the House and Senate conference and gone to the White House and been vetoed. Those activities that are funded in this bill at the full level for the rest of the year include: Funding for all activities of the Federal judiciary. We simply cannot let the courts lapse. We have to pay them. Funding for the law enforcement agencies at Justice, for the following purposes: investigation and prosecution of criminal and civil offenses; national security; apprehension, detention, and removal of illegal and criminal aliens; the incarceration, detention, and movement of Federal prisoners and detainees; and the protection of the Federal judiciary. The law enforcement agencies funded at the conference level include the FBI, the Drug Enforcement Administration, Federal prisons and prisoner detention, U.S. attorneys, U.S. marshals, and prisoner detention, U.S. attorneys, U.S. marshals, and the Immigration and Naturalization Service, including the Border Patrol. Finally, funding to provide security of our embassies and our diplomatic missions overseas and of the facilities there, to protect our people overseas. I think we can all agree on both sides of the aisle we need to fund these activities irrespective of any other fights that we have. I would hope that we would have unanimity in support of this portion of the bill, which, by the way, is a significant portion of the entire bill.

Mr. ROGERS. Yes.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, I would tell the gentleman that the legislation provides for the payment of all activities related to the Federal prisons. So if it is a contracted-out supplier of food, that will be paid. If it is done by employees of the Bureau of Prisons, that would be paid. So it taken care of in this legislation.

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

Mr. ROGERS

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me. Mr. Speaker, we have had enough of the blame game on who is to blame for shutting down the Government. You say it is our fault. We say it is your fault, the President's fault. This resolution settles it all. This is the end game here. What this resolution says is regardless of who caused the shutdown, we are prepared to end it, Mr. President. All we want to do, as we have been doing for months now, is just put your offer on the table. How can you make a deal for a piece of land if you go to the owner and say, ``I am willing to pay you $1,000 an acre,'' and he says, ``I want to sell it to you,'' and you say, ``How much do you want for it,'' and he says, ``I am not going to tell you.'' How can you negotiate if you cannot get the other party to put some offer on the table? All this resolution does, Mr. Speaker, is to say we are willing to open up the entire Government, business as usual, provided, Mr. President, you tell us what your balanced budget proposal is. It does not matter how you come up with it so long as it balances in 7 years using CBO numbers. Then we can negotiate. As it stands now, we simply cannot negotiate with you. You will not tell us what you want for your acre of land. So this resolution is calculated to finally decide who is at fault with keeping the Government shut down. We are saying open it up entirely, and all you have got to do to do that, Mr. President, is just lay on the table your proposal for a balanced budget in 7 years so that we can negotiate in good faith. We are asking for good faith, Mr. President, and this is the only way we know how to do it. If there is a better way, please tell us and we will try to do that.

Mr. ROGERS

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, let us get it straight. Who is saying that, ``If I do not get it my way, I am going to shut the Government down''? It is the President. In his veto message he says, as I have said, ``I will not sign any version of this bill that does not fund the COPS initiative as a freestanding, discretionary, grant program as authorized.'' ``If I do not get my way I will shut the Government down, and I vetoed the bill,'' and so there it is. The President vetoed the bill that funds the State Department, the Commerce Department, the Justice Department, the Judiciary, 20 independent agencies, and said, ``So there.'' We are saying to our colleagues on the other side, This is your time, Members of Congress. If you want to put 206,000 American workers in the Government back to work, vote yes on this bill. If you want to keep them out and deny them paychecks, vote no. But now is your chance. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues on the other side have all made speeches right here: ``If I had the vote, I would put them all back to work.'' Mr. Speaker, my colleagues have got it right now. Vote ``yes.'' Put them back to work. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter]. (Mr. BEREUTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California [Mr. Horn].