Hal Rogers

Mr. ROGERS

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan] for the purposes of debate only, and I yield back 30 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, it is a sad day today, after the President has vetoed the largest crime fighting budget in the Nation's history, just one day after the FBI announced that crime rates are finally starting to drop. It is a sad day today, when all of the Federal employees in the Departments of Justice, State, and Commerce, the Federal Courts, and 20 related agencies, more than 200,000 of them, have their jobs left in doubt because the President refused to sign the full year appropriation for them. Two-thirds of the funding in this bill, Mr. Speaker, nearly $18 billion, would have gone to putting criminals behind bars. Think about the programs that will not go into effect because of this veto: $14.6 billion for law enforcement, a 19 percent increase, including $3.6 billion for state and local law enforcement to give them the resources to fight crime where it counts, on our streets. That is a 57-percent increase over last year. An $895 million increase to combat illegal immigration and secure the Nation's borders; $146 million more than the President requested, including 3,000 more INS personnel and 1,000 more border patrols on the border. We need to get these people hired and trained. Otherwise the money will be wasted. The bill includes $500 million for California, Texas, Florida, New York, and other States most impacted by criminal aliens, and the President is telling those states, ``tough luck.'' In the bill vetoed is also $175 million for violence against women programs, 7 times more than we provided this year, the full amount of the President's request. Now he is vetoing the money for violence against women. On October 15, the President accused the Congress of reducing domestic violence programs by $50 million, hampering ``our efforts to protect battered women and their children, to preserve families, and to punish those crimes.'' Well, Mr. Speaker, that $50 million is included in this conference report, plus $125 million more. We fully fund the program. And what does the President do? He says ``no.'' Why is he vetoing the bill? He says we do not spend enough money on some programs. Even while he is meeting now to reduce spending, he wants us to include and increase spending for things like the Ounce of Prevention Council, $2 million; the Globe Program, $7 million. Great international organizations he wants money spent for, and among the reasons he vetoed the bill, are things like the Bureau of International Expositions; and, get this one, the International Office of Epizootics. That is why he says he is vetoing the bill, and for corporate welfare programs he says we did not fund, like the Advanced Technology Program. That is corporate welfare. I think we were all determined to cut it and we did in this bill. And he is vetoing the bill, he says, because of his pique over the COPS program. As we have said so many times, this is not a debate over putting more police on the streets. The conference report fully funds the request of $1.9 billion, giving our local communities the resources to hire every single policeman on the beat that the President proposed, and then some, as the President says. The difference is over who controls the program. Is it a Washington-based, one-size-fits-all program, that the President wants; or do we empower local communities to decide what they need most to fight crime? We have heard the problems with the President's COPS program. According to the General Accounting Office, 50 percent of the communities do not participate because they cannot afford to participate. It costs them 25 percent of the total cost the first year; more in the second; and after that, they are entirely on their own. They simply cannot afford it. What we do in our program is make them put up 10 percent, and they can use the money for cops, if they want, or for cop cars, if they need that, or for other things. COPS is a discretionary grant program, so communities cannot predict whether they will receive funds or not. And the COPS program that the President wants, and here is the rub, requires a whole brand new Washington bureaucracy. In fiscal 1996, 236 positions; $26 million. They have rented a 10-floor, 51,000 square foot building where the rent alone costs $1.5 million. The block grant program, which we put in the bill, corrects all of those problems, but the President objects because Washington knows best. So for those reasons, not spending enough on lower priority programs, a dispute over who gets credit for putting more police on the streets, the President has vetoed the bill, the biggest crime fighting appropriation in the Nation's history, putting at risk the jobs of some 200,000 Federal employees. I wish the President would get over this pique, this political pique. We are not asking him to vacate Air Force one by the rear door. All we are saying is sign this bill; we sent you a good one. Every day these crime fighting funds are delayed because of the President's veto is a day wasted in the fight against violent crime, drugs, illegal immigration and violence against women. I regret the President's veto. I regret the fact that the White House never saw fit to sit down with us to try to work out an acceptable bill. I regret the fact that 200,000 Federal employees continue to be at risk of furloughs because the President puts his priorities ahead of theirs. But the bill has been vetoed. The only alternative we have, Mr. Speaker, is to send the bill back to the committee and start the process over. Congress did its job on this bill. It passed the appropriations for Commerce, Justice, State, the Federal Judiciary, and others for fiscal 1996. There is no bill in place now, not because the Congress did not act, it is purely because the President acted to kill a bill that would have funded the greatest crime fighting era ever in the Nation's history. 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 within which to revise and extend their remarks and that I be allowed to include tabular and extraneous material on H.R. 2076.

Mr. ROGERS

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent if the Chair lays before he House a veto message from the President on the bill, H.R. 2076 today, that the objections of the President be spread at large upon the Journal and that the message and bill be ordered printed as a House document; and that consideration of the veto message be postponed until tomorrow, December 20, 1995.

Mr. ROGERS

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, last week, many high schools around the Nation won high school State football championships. But, none were more exciting than Breathitt County, KY's 42-35, 2OT victory over Franklin-Simpson in the Kentucky 2A State football championship. The Bobcats, whose program is one of the strongest in the State, won their first State championship ever while fishing the first undefeated season--15-0--in the school's long history. And they won it in thrilling, heart-quickening style. Trailing by as many as 14 points, the determined Bobcats, led by quarterback Waylon Chapman, stormed back several times, climaxed by a 90-yard drive which tied the score in the game's final minutes. After matching scores in the first overtime, the Bobcats faced a fourth down play from the 16 yard line. After a scramble, Chapman's pass fell into the hands of a sliding Phillip Watts in the corner of the end zone. After a short gasp, the covering official signaled touchdown sending the Bobcats and their faithful into a frenzy. But, it wasn't over. Franklin-Simpson had one more chance to win. After two plays, the stiff Bobcat defense forced a fumble and recovered it to clinch the victory. and, then the real celebrating began. Stunned and emotionally drained, Coach Mike Holcomb captured his team's thoughts best. ``It's a great feeling for this community,'' he said. ``They poured their hearts out for this team.'' Yes, it is wonderful for this great community, but it is even a bigger accomplishment for the fine young athletes at Breathitt County High School. They never quit. Their determination, commitment and perseverance is something everyone in this country can respect with pride. Coach Vince Lombardi, in his immortal speech, ``What It Takes To Be Number One,'' said, ``I firmly believe that man's finest hour--his greatest fulfillment--is that moment when he was worked his heart out and he's exhausted on the field of battle--Victorious.'' The Bobcats have been to the top of the mountain, and as ABC's Keith Jackson would say, ``Oh Nellie,'' are we proud.

Mr. ROGERS

Mr. ROGERS. If the gentleman would yield, we know under the block grant program the dollar figure each State will get, and that is the figure I gave for the gentleman for the State of Michigan.

Mr. ROGERS. The awards are not made yet for COPS.

Mr. ROGERS. For 1996, the year we are talking about.

Mr. ROGERS. To answer the gentleman's question, the COPS Program, as it is now, is based on $1.3 billion in the first year. Our program is based on $1.9 billion.

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

Mr. ROGERS. The truth? Mr. STUPAK, I am interested in putting forth my argument. I have not interrupted the gentleman, and the gentleman has never yielded to me yet today, so I am not going to yield to him now.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Lightfoot], chairman of the Treasury, Postal Service Appropriations Subcommittee has expressed his concerns to me regarding the Organized Crime and Drug Enforcement Task Forces. As the gentleman from Iowa and I both know, there has been a [[Page H 14110]] long history of cooperation between the Treasury and Justice Departments on the Organized Crime and Drug Enforcement Task Forces [OCDETF], with nearly a third of the assigned agents coming from Treasury agencies. These task forces have been successful in part because of Treasury's specialized expertise in money laundering, financial crime, tax law and other matters. Treasury's expertise is particularly critical in drug racketeering cases, and can often clinch a case for a jury and make the difference between a conviction and an acquittal. The appropriation for these task forces has been reduced $15 million below the House level. As indicated in the Statement of Managers, the conferees intend that reductions be made proportionately among all law enforcement agencies, not just from Treasury and the Coast Guard, based on each agency's task force requirements and participation. The conferees will work to ensure funds are distributed fairly, and have required Justice to report back to the committee on the allocation of these funds.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time. [[Page H 14109]] Mr. Speaker, the gentleman portrays the idea that the COPS Program put more policemen on the beat than the local block grant will. Nothing could be further from the truth. If you want to know the answer to the question of which is best for our communities, let me refer you, gentleman, to the mayor of Columbus, OH, who happens to be the president of the National League of Cities who wrote a letter just yesterday to us, and I will submit it for the Record. He says, and we have lifted this portion from the letter: ``We believe your legislation,'' the block grant program, ``could lead to initiatives and programs that would put more, not less, officers on the street than current law. It would permit cities to purchase equipment, to move trained personnel onto the streets, and to take other actions to ensure more effective and efficient responses. Equally important, it is more balanced in meeting the needs of cities with disproportionately limited resources and higher crime and violence rates. These are critical issues to us.'' So says the mayor of Columbus, OH, and so says the League of Cities of the United States of America. The National Association of Chiefs of Police, the people who have to enforce our laws, says, please give us the block grant program. We need cops, yes. We also need bulletproof vests for those cops. We need police cars. We need radios, we need equipment. Let us decide where to put the money. Do not tell us from Washington with your cookie-cutter approach, one-size-fits-all, do not tell us what we need. Give us the money to fight crime in our cities, do not tell us how to use it. So we say to you, support this bill, reject the motion to recommit, and let us put those cops on the beat as the cities and communities want them. Vote against the motion to recommit and support the conference report. National League of Cities, Washington, DC, Hon. Bill McCollum, Chairman, Subcommittee on Crime and Criminal Justice, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing on behalf of the nation's 135,000 municipal elected leaders from cities and towns across the country to reaffirm our continued support for your leadership efforts to make the federal anti-crime partnership more efficient and effective in addressing local crime and violence. Rather than supplanting police officers, we believe your public safety block grant legislation would have the effect of enabling us at the local level to take initiatives to put more police officers on the street to enhance neighborhood safety. Just this last week, more than 4,100 of our members met at our Congress of Cities in Phoenix and voted unanimously to adopt national municipal policy urging greater flexibility for municipal officials to take steps to address public safety in our communities. No level of government has a greater stake in federal anti-crime and safety efforts, so the response from our members--Republicans, Democrats, and Independents--from cities and towns of all sizes, reemphasizes our support for the positive steps you are taking to address the public safety needs of cities. Our experience is that the kinds of approaches to and needs for public safety vary enormously from city to city, as do local resources. Consequently, we are apprehensive that any one-size-fits-all approach or one that requires a match irrespective of demands and local resources limits our ability and flexibility to meet local issues as effectively as possible. We are concerned that the debate between the existing cops program and your legislation is elevating form over substance. We believe your legislation could lead to initiatives and programs that would put more, not less officers on the street than current law. It would permit cities to purchase equipment, to move trained personnel onto the streets, and to take other actions to insure more effective and efficient responses. Equally importantly, it is more balanced in meeting the needs of cities with disproportionately limited resources and higher crime and violence rates. These are critical issues to us. Our members strongly believe that your proposal would make for a more effective and flexible partnership on one of the highest priorities of every municipal leader in America. We appreciate your efforts and look forward to positive action by the Congress. Sincerely, Gregory S. Lashutka, President, Mayor of Columbus.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum] who has been very active on the block grant program. (Mr. McCOLLUM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is correct. Any legislation dealing with the reorganization of the Commerce Department must be addressed in the authorization process. We have certainly taken a first step in this bill by terminating the Advanced Technology Program and taking significant reductions in many Commerce agencies and individual programs.

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

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Brownback]. (Mr. BROWNBACK asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady].

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

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman from Michigan knows, we have worked closely on these efforts this year, and I will continue to support the process that has been established.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Molinari], a leader in this body in the fight against violence against women.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the very distinguished gentleman from Texas [Mr. Smith], chairman of the Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. ROGERS. It is the same amount of money this year, however let me also say this to the gentleman: Under our proposal each community only has to put up 10 percent to get their 90 percent from us. Under the COPS Program, as the gentleman knows, in the first year the local community has to put up 25 percent; the second year, up to 50 percent, and so forth. That is----

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? [[Page H 14104]]

Mr. ROGERS. I will not. If the gentleman from Michigan is interested in hearing it from the horse's mouth, or whatever he wants to call it, I am giving him the truth. Michigan fares more than twice better under our program than the old COPS Program, and the old COPS Program grants will stay in effect. They are not going to lose any of the cops already on the beat under the program as it is now. But their communities will have in the future a chance for a lot more.

Mr. ROGERS. Not for the moment. We give the choice to local communities. We are going to give more than twice the amount of money to Michigan that they get under the old----