Hal Rogers

Mr. ROGERS

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

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speakers, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Fowler]. (Mrs. FOWLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

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

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Collins].

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Molinari].

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Gutknecht].

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman], the chairman of the Committee on International Relations. (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith]. (Mr. SMITH of New Jersey asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde], the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary. (Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula], a member of the subcommittee. (Mr. REGULA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, just a few minutes ago, the President took to the airwaves to say that we have workers in the Justice Department that are not able to go to work; we have workers in the Commerce Department that have been laid off; we have workers in the Federal Judiciary and the State Department around the world unable to go to work. He says it is because the Congress shut down the Government. I am going to make the President a real deal here today. We are going to give the President a chance to put these workers back to work. We have heard speakers in the well of this House, for the last several weeks now, saying we need to put these workers back to work. I am going to make you a real deal today. We are going to give you a chance to vote to put these workers back to work, because today we are going to give you a chance to vote to override the President's veto of this bill and put the workers back to work. Make no mistake, the reason the workers in these departments are not working today is not because the Congress did not pass a bill. We sent the President this appropriations bill for these departments several weeks ago. The President chose to lay them off. The President chose to close the Government for these agencies. The President chose to say to the American people, I am going to shut these agencies down because I do not like the bill the Congress gave to me. Well, I am saying to Members of this body today, here is your chance. You have been telling the folks back home, if I had a chance, I would put the workers back to work. If I had a vote, I would vote to require the workers to go back to work and to reinstate their pay. Here is your chance. Here it is, right square before you. The vote on the bill to override this veto by the President of the spending bill for these agencies is square before you. A ``yes'' vote will send these workers back to work. A ``yes'' vote to override the veto will mean that the guards in the prisons will also receive their pay, even today, as the prisoners are receiving their benefit checks. It is true. Today, prisoners are receiving money and the guards in the Federal prisons are not. Is that not something, Mr. President? Well, today you have a chance. Let us pay the guards in the prisons as well as the prisoners, Mr. Speaker. Let us put them all back to work. Vote ``yes'' to override the President's veto. Some of the most important agencies of the Government are shut down because of the President's veto. The Justice Department, the FBI, the Drug Enforcement Administration, U.S. Attorneys, the Federal prisons, all law enforcement agencies in the Justice Department are laid off or working without pay because the President chose to thumb his nose at the bill we sent to him. We bring to the floor the President's veto of the Commerce, State, Justice appropriations bill. You get a chance today to put more than 200,000 employees back to work and to end the crisis of the government to these major parts of our Government. The bill we sent to the President is a good bill. It is tough on crime and even tougher on spending. The bill provides the largest amount of funding ever provided in the Nation's history for the number one domestic priority, and that is fighting crime. But even more important at this moment, it represents our best opportunity to put over 200,000 Federal employees back to work, with pay, not just for a day, not just for a week, but for the rest of the fiscal year. This is what Members of this body can do, while the negotiators are down at the White House trying to work out a deal on a continuing resolution for a few days, here is the chance to short-circuit all of that. Here is the chance to override all of that. Our immigration patrol, the Border Patrol, fighting illegal immigration, laid off. Drug Enforcement Administration, fighting the Nation's scourge of drugs, laid off. State Department personnel around the world issuing passports, visas and the like, guarding America's diplomacy efforts around the world, laid off. Prosecuting criminals in the Federal courts, laid off. Here is the chance. Members have been saying in the well of this House in speech after speech, day after day, week after week, ``Give me a chance to vote and I'll put these workers back to work.'' Here it is, square before you. Vote ``no'' and you continue this shutdown. Vote ``yes,'' and you put our workers back to work. New Border Patrol agents, new FBI employees, new Drug Enforcement agents will be hired and put to work in addition to the ones already hired. The fundamental question, Mr. Speaker, is whether the President's objections to this bill outweigh the harm caused by the shutdown of these departments and agencies, harm to Federal employees and their families and to the American people that has resulted from the President's veto of this bill. In my view, there is no reason, no valid reason, to support the veto and vote against this effort to override the veto. Of course we have differences with the President. But they relate to just a handful of programs in this bill, and certainly do not justify shutting down these agencies. The President vetoed the bill, with one exception, because it does not provide enough money for several programs funded in the bill. And what compelling need caused him to prevent the Nation's war against crime from being funded and put 200,000 Federal paychecks in jeopardy? Listen to this. This is why: No funding for corporate welfare, he says. The Advanced Technology Program, he vetoed the bill because of that. That is corporate welfare. I thought we were out to eliminate it. Certainly the bill did. The President says, ``No, I don't like that.'' Another reason why he vetoed the bill, Mr. Speaker, listen to this one. There is no funding for the Ounce of Prevention Council, $2 million, an extension of the Vice President's office. Another reason he vetoed the bill was lack of funding for international organizations, like the International Office of Epizootics, Mr. Speaker. Is that enough to shut down the Government? Well, the President said so when he vetoed our bill. He would like to put more money in the United Nations and international organizations, and that is why he vetoed the bill. There may not be as much funding as he or even some of us wanted for individual programs. But we have set priorities, we had to, priorities we thought were the President's as well, the war on crime and drugs and the fight against illegal immigration. On no scale of right and wrong can you justify shutting down 3 departments, the Federal courts, 20 independent agencies, and depriving more than 200,000 Federal employees of paychecks because a handful of programs are not funded at a high enough level to merit the President's signature. Any yet that is exactly what happened. Look at the harm being done by the President's veto and the shutting down of these departments. Two-thirds of the funding in the bill, nearly $18 billion, is aimed at putting criminals behind bars. The bill contains $14.6 billion for law enforcement programs at the Department of Justice, a 19-percent increase over 1995 funding, including $3.6 billion for State and local law enforcement to give them the resources to fight crime where it counts, on our streets back home. That is a 57- percent increase over last year. It contains $2.5 billion, an $895 million increase, to combat illegal immigration and secure our Nation's borders, $146 million more than the President requested, including 3,000 more INS personnel, 1,000 more Border Patrol agents on the border. The bill includes $500 million for California, Texas, Florida, New York, and other States most impacted by criminal aliens, a $370 million increase, and the President's veto is telling those States, tough luck. It includes $175 million for violence against women programs, 7 times more than provided in 1995, the full amount of the President's request, one of the major initiatives of the bill, and now because of this veto those programs are sitting at zero. This is the largest crime-fighting budget in the Nation's history which the President vetoed. If you cannot justify shutting down these agencies because of funding levels for a handful of programs and you cannot justify the veto because of the harm it does to the Nation's fight against crime, what does it come down to, Mr. Speaker? It comes down to one policy difference. Instead of funding the President's COPS Program, the bill provides a $1.9 billion grant, full funding, to provide local communities the resources to hire every single policeman on the beat that he has proposed, and then some. It comes down to this, Mr. Speaker: The issue of who controls the program to help local communities fight crime--the President's Washington-based one-size- fits-all program which half the communities cannot afford, or the block grant approach in this bill to empower local communities to decide what they need most to fight crime in their judgment, tailor made to their community. This bill provides a better way. The President was willing to block the largest crime-fighting bill in the Nation's history and shut down 3 departments, the Federal courts, 20 independent agencies and more than 200,000 employees because he did not get his way on the COPS Program. Now the House has the opportunity to overturn that decision, to put 200,000 employees back to work for the rest of the fiscal year, to reopen Justice, State, the Federal judiciary, to put the war against crime back on track to fight illegal immigration, drug abuse and violence against women. I urge my colleagues to weigh the balance. The choice is to reopen the business in the Departments of Justice, State and Commerce, the Federal courts and 20 agencies, provide paychecks and jobs to 200,000 employees, fund the largest anticrime bill in history, or to shut them down, over a handful of funding issues and a matter of who gets credit for hiring police on the beat. I believe, Mr. Speaker, the choice is plain. Let us put them back to work. Vote ``yes'' to put America's workers back to work. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on the veto message of the President on H.R. 2076, and that I may include tabular and extraneous material.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan]. general leave

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this bill was referred back to the Committee on Appropriations when the veto message was received from the President. Consequently, any effort to override the veto must await a discharge of the bill from the committee back to the floor, and consequently, that is the purpose of my motion. I think the parties are prepared to yield back the time which otherwise would be allocated to us on the motion to discharge, so that we can get directly to the main motion. So if there is no request for time on the other side, I am prepared to yield back the time on this side on the motion.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], chairman of the full committee. (Mr. LIVINGSTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ROGERS

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, regular order.

Mr. ROGERS

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum], the chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime of the Committee on the Judiciary. (Mr. McCOLLUM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Staten Island, NY [Ms. Molinari].

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether I should thank the gentleman or not; at least a half a thank you. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Maryland [Mrs. Morella]. (Mrs. MORELLA asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, I offer a preferential motion and I ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], the great chairman of the Committee on Appropriations. (Mr. LIVINGSTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ROGERS

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor my good friend Napoleon ``Nip'' Perkins who recently passed away just shy of his 90th birthday. My family and thousands of others throughout McCreary County and southern Kentucky are deeply saddened by this tragic loss. Our area has lost a topnotch 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. Nip Perkins was a retired land agent and an engineer for Stearns Coal and Lumber Co., where his high energy, friendly style is what always stood out most. Politics was where Nip was most influential. Serving as a field representative for my two predecessors in Congress, Congressmen Eugene Siler and Tim Lee Carter, he has been a recognized leader for more than seven decades. Nip was also a great confidant for me, always keeping his ear close to the ground and my best interests at heart. He was wise, informed, and always positive. Nip served six terms as the McCreary County Republican chairman and was the first inductee of the Fifth Congressional District Lincoln Club Hall of Fame for his honorable and dedicated service. I could not think of a better person to be our first Hall of Fame inductee. In addition to his political service, Nip was a former McCreary County master commissioner and served on the County Selective Service Board. He was a 65-year member of the Orie S. Ware Lodge in Stearns and the 32d degree Mason in the Valley of Covington. My heart goes out to Nip's wife of 62 years, Evelyn Anderson Perkins, and his wonderful family. He was a great friend and a good man, and he will be sorely missed.