Hal Rogers

Mr. ROGERS

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. If the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Stupak] is interested in hearing the truth, here is what the State of Michigan will sustain under these comparative programs. Under the COPS Program Michigan gets $33,700,000. Under our block grant program Michigan gets about $74,500,000, and they can use it all on cops if they want to, or they do not have to if they do not want to.

Mr. ROGERS. The gentleman should not ask me questions if he does not want----

Mr. ROGERS. If the gentleman would yield?

Mr. ROGERS. If the gentleman would yield----

Mr. ROGERS. They can use it all.

Mr. ROGERS. They can use it all.

Mr. ROGERS. Does the gentleman realize that the State of Kentucky under the COPS Program gets $10 million, but under the block grant program would get $18 million, Does the gentleman realize that?

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

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman], the distinguished 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 such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Chabot]. (Mr. CHABOT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ROGERS. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula], who is a very hard-working member of our subcommittee. (Mr. REGULA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 289, I call up the conference report on the bill (H.R. 2076), making appropriations for the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1996, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I cannot sit here and let the gentleman from Michigan get by with saying that the Cops on the Beat grants that have already been made will be jeopardized. They will not be jeopardized. These grants have already been made. They are out there. What is being jeopardized, the gentleman should know, is, after 3 more years, all of the COPS grants will be gone. Those communities who now have received moneys will have to pay the entire cost of their cops. Under our program, they will still be going. The communities only have to pay 10 percent from here on. We pay 90 percent from here on out. If you want to have just cops, wonderful. If your police need bullet-proof vests, under our program they can get them. Under yours, they cannot. If cops need bullets or equipment, they will be able to do it under our program. Let the decision be made not in Washington by a bureaucrat, but by your police chief. If you cannot trust him, that is your problem, not ours.

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 conference report to accompany H.R. 2076 and that I may include tabular and extraneous material.

Mr. ROGERS. If the gentleman will continue to yield, he is correct, it does.

Mr. ROGERS. Yes, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is correct, it is.

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

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his generous grant of time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support, obviously, of this rule. This rule is appropriate, Mr. Speaker, because of the unusual approach taken by the Senate in adopting its version of this bill. Instead of amending the House-passed bill, the Senate attached its bill as a single substitute amendment to the House bill, and as a result, the entire bill was in conference. What we bring back to the House is a substitute bill based on the conference agreement. Under that fairly complicated scenario, it makes far more sense to waive all points of order, as this rule does, and I want to thank the Committee on Rules for moving us in this direction. The conference report, Mr. Speaker, contains some of the most important programs in the Government. Let me highlight one, the Nation's No. 1 domestic priority, the fight against violent crime. The bill provides major new resources to aid the fight against crime, $14.6 billion in total, an increase of 19 percent over the current year. Of that total, almost $4 billion from the violent crime reduction trust fund that was established last year will fund major new initiatives to enable our States and localities to wage that war against violent crime: $1.9 billion of the money is for the local law enforcement block grant passed by this House in February, to give our cities and towns, in their discretion, the additional resources they desperately need to help make our citizens safe in their own homes; $617 million for the new State prison grant program to allow resources from the Federal Government to go to the States to provide the facilities to make violent criminals serve most of their time; and $175 million for Violence Against Women Act grants, $50 million above the House-passed level, and the full amount that the President requested for these new programs to address child abuse and domestic violence, problems that have been crying for attention and resources. The bill includes funding for a $300 million increase over last year for the Immigration and Naturalization Service to regain control over illegal immigration, and an increase of $571 million over the current year for Federal law enforcement, nearly $200 million above the House- passed level, for Federal law enforcement: FBI, Drug Enforcement Administration, U.S. attorneys and the Federal prisons. As this debate unfolds, Mr. Speaker, I am sure we are going to hear complaints from the other side. They will not like the fact that the conference report includes language, in response to a Senate amendment, to rein in abusive and frivolous lawsuits by prisoners, language that the Administration generally supports. They will not like the fact that the conference report includes language to target prison grants to States that move forward toward making prisoners serve 85 percent of their sentences. They will not like the fact, Mr. Speaker, that the conference report includes language that moves away from a Washington- based cookie cutter grant program in crime control to a program that allows communities to use funds at their own discretion for their own particular needs. For every one of these items, the language was worked on by the Committees on the Judiciary of the House and the Senate jointly, and includes the text that was agreed on by those committees. Mr. Speaker, this is December. We have been debating these issues all year long. This bill passed the House in July. It passed the Senate in September. The Administration has not said one word to me or to this subcommittee or to the full committee or to the House, about what they would like to see done in this bill. We have waited. We have asked for their assistance and their cooperation. They have refused. We have no choice now but to move forward, like it or not. Unless we pass a bill and find a way to get it signed, none of these resources can become available to our communities. If the programs in this bill are important to the Members, if the fight against violent crime and illegal aliens is important to the Members, if it is important to Members to help stamp out violence against women, then vote for this bill. Step forward. Make your move. Let us send this bill to the White House, get it over with, and get on with the business of the country. Mr. Speaker, I urge a vote for this rule and for the conference report.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the very distinguished 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. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, we are pleased to bring to the floor this conference report. When this bill passed the House on July 26, I described it as being tough on crime and even tougher on spending. The conference report we bring to the House today is, if anything, even tougher on crime and even tougher on spending. Overall, the conference report provides $27.3 billion, $315 million below the House-passed level. There is $315 million less in spending than when this bill left the House. The bill includes $22.8 billion in discretionary spending, $300 million below the House-passed level; it is $700 million below last year, even after rescissions; and $3.7 million below what the White House requested. The bill also includes $3.95 billion in the violent crime reduction trust fund. That is $1.6 billion above last year. In general, the conference report is similar to the bill that passed the House on July 26. The major changes from the House-passed bill are: First, funding for law enforcement is $200 million above the House level; second, it is offset by rescissions of prior year funding totaling minus $200 million; and third, there is a decrease in State/ USIA funding, $370 million below the House level due to a lower 602(b) allocation. Overall, for law enforcement programs, the conference report includes $14.6 billion, which is a 19-percent increase over 1995. More than half of the funding in this bill is for our No. 1 domestic priority, to fight crime and drugs and control illegal immigration. More than half. The $3.95 billion in crime trust funds provides major new initiatives to help States and local authorities fight crime. This includes $1.9 billion for the local law enforcement block grants, much discussed here in this body, passed by the House in February as a part of the Contract With America, to give cities and towns the resources they need to fight crime as they see fit to do it--to do what they deem wise, not what we in Washington deem wise for them. The major difference between this block grant and the COPS Program is not whether there will be more police on the Streets. Both programs put more cops on the streets. The difference is about control, whether we want a Washington-knows-best cookie cutter program or a local empowerment program. This conference report chooses local control. There is $671 million for the new State prison grant program, based on truth-in-sentencing, which rewards those States that keep prisoners locked up for 85 percent of their sentences. We will give them the money to build the prisons to put those violent criminals behind bars for most of the time a jury sentences them to. We put $535 million for Byrne grants for locals to use to fight against crime. For the first time, Mr. Speaker, we are funding $175 million to help with the fight against violence against women; $50 million above the House level and the full amount of the President's request. I cannot believe the President says he wants to veto a bill that funds violence against women grants to the exact penny he requested of us. More than 100 Members of Congress have written in favor of that program on both sides of the aisle. If Members vote against this conference report or if the President vetoes this bill, they will be voting and fighting against funding for these programs. Mr. Speaker, the conference report carries two legislative provisions added by the Senate. The authorization for that truth-in-sentencing prison grant program and a provision to stop abusive, frivolous and expensive lawsuits by prisoners in jail. The conference report continues the House bill's emphasis on enforcing our immigration laws. It includes a $300 [[Page H 14088]] million increase over 1995 for the immigration service to hire 3,000 new personnel, including 1,000 new and redeployed border patrol agents on the border to stem the tide of illegal immigration. And, we are reimbursing States for the costs of jailing criminal aliens who commit crimes in their States. This is of major importance to the States of California, Texas, New York, and Florida especially. And if the President should veto this bill, he is saying to the people of California and to the people of Texas and to the people of Florida and New York, ``We don't care about your expenses. You go ahead and pay the bills for these people who are breaking our boundaries and committing crimes in your States. We are not going to pay you.'' That is what he is saying when he vetoes this bill. Most importantly, Mr. Speaker, this report provides increases of $571 million over 1995 for Federal law enforcement, the FBI, the Drug Enforcement Administration, U.S. attorneys, and Federal prisons, to sustain the current personnel and to provide enhancements to help them do their job. Overall, this is the toughest anticrime, antidrug legislation this Congress has ever produced. But as tough as the bill is on crime, it is even tougher on spending reductions in lower priority areas. The Department of Commerce is funded at $3.4 billion, a reduction of 15 percent and below the House-passed level. The conference report funds manufacturing extension centers at $80 million, but doesn't fund Advanced Technology Program. There are significant reductions throughout Commerce, including: EDA, down 21 percent to $348 million; MBDA, down 27 percent to $32 million; and Department Administration, down 20 percent to $29 million. NOAA is funded at $1.8 billion, $58 million below 1995. The conference report includes a provision requiring funding to reflect Commerce Department reorganization, upon enactment of that legislation. We conform in this report international spending to budget realities, reducing the State, USIA, and Arms Control accounts from $5.7 to $4.8 billion, a 15-percent decrease below last year, while preserving their core functions. And we zero out the agency of the United Nations called UNIDO, an agency that the administration the other day said the United States would withdraw from; a good thing because we are not going to give them any money for it. It is zero in this bill. We keep the House funding level for Legal Services at $278 million compared to the Senate's $340 million, but we restrict those funds so they are not abused by that agency. We reduce funding for the SBA by 35 percent. We prohibit expansion of the Vietnam Embassy construction unless the President certifies that Vietnam is fully cooperating on MIA-POW issues. Those are some of the highlights of the bill, Mr. Speaker. We have no choice but to move forward. The administration has refused to confer with us for these months and all of this year on what they want in the bill. They simply sit back and say we are going to veto it unless we get our way on COPS. They are sort of in a pique about that one. It is a political thing. It is sort of, I guess, his version of getting off Air Force One last. I wish he would get over this pique and get on with the business of legislating and protecting our country against crime and drugs. That is what this bill is all about. So I urge all Members who care about issues in this bill, from violence against women programs to small business assistance, to help move this process forward and pass this conference report. I want to thank the members of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Kolbe], the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Taylor], the gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. Regula], the gentleman from New York [Mr. Forbes], the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Skaggs], the gentleman from California [Mr. Dixon], the full committee chairman, the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], the ranking member, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], and especially the ranking minority member, the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan], a friend and colleague, a tremendous advocate, and a great assist to me on this bill. I want to thank staff, Jim Kulikowski, our chief of staff, Sally Chadbourne, Theresa McAuliffe, Kim Wolterstorff, Mac Coffield, Jennifer Miller, and on the minority side, Mark Murray, Liz Whyte, and Sally Gaines, for long, long and hard dedicated work. [[Page H 14089]] TH06DE95.000 [[Page H 14090]] TH06DE95.001 [[Page H 14091]] TH06DE95.002 [[Page H 14092]] TH06DE95.003 [[Page H 14093]] TH06DE95.004 [[Page H 14094]] TH06DE95.005 [[Page H 14095]] TH06DE95.006 [[Page H 14096]] TH06DE95.007 [[Page H 14097]] TH06DE95.008 [[Page H 14098]]

Mr. ROGERS

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, as the dean of the Kentucky delegation this year, I am honored today to rise and strongly support this bill and praise my most immediate predecessor as the dean of the delegation, our friend Ron Mazzoli. Kentucky, Mr. Speaker, has been blessed with many outstanding Representatives in the Congress during the 20th century. The names are in history. Carl Perkins, Tim Lee Carter, John Sherman Cooper, and of course the unparalleled Bill Natcher, to name just a few. There have been many others of an outstanding nature as well, but Ron Mazzoli is another Member who distinguished our State and certainly this body. First elected in 1970, Ron served nearly a quarter of a century in the Congress, representing Louisville and most of Jefferson County. As many of my colleagues know, Ron retired last year to return to Louisville to spend more time with his wonderful wife, Helen, and their children and grandchildren. He was and still remains a great man, admired at home and certainly here in Washington. Ron, as the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar] has said, was a very conscientious and very determined legislator. He stood fast to his beliefs and dealt honorably with supporters and adversaries alike. If he made his mind up to vote a certain way on a bill, it did not matter who was President or who was Speaker or who was chairman of this or whatever, Ron Mazzoli would vote his conscience regardless of the consequences. That is what made him a very valued and valuable Member of the U.S. House of Representatives. Even in the heat of battle, Ron's principled manner drew nothing but cooperation and respect from all Members of this body. He pursued with intelligence and vigor the different issues of our Nation's immigration policies as chairman of that subcommittee on Judiciary. He became the foremost expert, in fact, on immigration, something completely unrelated to his district in Louisville, but it was his responsibility here in the Congress that was assigned to him, and he did it to the utmost ability that he had, which was great. And so he became the foremost expert on that very arcane subject and his work is reflected in the major laws that govern immigration in this country to this day. Ron was also a sentry for the disadvantaged, working on any number of issues for more than 20 years of service on the Committee on the Judiciary. First and foremost, however, he worked for the Third District of Kentucky, for the people who honored him with their many years of devoted support. In Ron's last speech to the Congress on November 29, 1994, he said, ``This is the kind of day that is steeped in nostalgia, as we look backward, but also look forward to new lives.'' That is Ron Mazzoli. Always remembering the good times with a warm heart but looking forward to new challenges and new opportunities with a smile. I am very pleased to join Ron's many friends here in this body to this day. I know of no Member who made more friends across that aisle than did Ron Mazzoli. I am very pleased to join many of them here today as we seek to pass this legislation to name the Federal building that has been designated for our friend Ron Mazzoli. It is an honor he has earned through his years of dedication and service for the people of his district, for Kentucky, and for our Nation. So I hope today we pass this legislation as a symbol of the respect that Ron Mazzoli earned along the way. [[Page H 13960]] Mr. Speaker, I am here to help us pass our bill, and that bill is a large one indeed that we owe to Ron Mazzoli for service to his Nation.

Mr. ROGERS

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, just this week, the Nation's football fans enjoyed a passing of the torch, or the football, in the National Football League. Miami Dolphins Quarterback Dan Marino, who recently became the NFL's all-time yardage leader, surpassed Fran Tarkenton's touchdown passes record. The day before Marino's recordbreaking day, Kentucky's own recordbreaking prep quarterback struck again, too. Leslie County High School's Tim Couch, a legend at the prep level, threw his 133rd touchdown pass to become the all-time high school touchdown pass career leader. Tim's 1-yard pass to Jonathan Morgan on the last play of his high school career broke Bobby Lucht's national record in dramatic fashion. Like Marino, Tim Couch had already become the all-time high school passing yardage leader by shattering Josh Booty's national passing record the week before. Couch completed his illustrious high school career with 12,092 yards. He also is the all-time leader in completions (872) and completed an outstanding 63.6 percent of his passes. Recently featured in a two-page Sports Illustrated article, Tim Couch has given Leslie County, eastern Kentucky, and all of America's football fans something to stand up and shout about. Tim, who is an A-B student, is also a standout basketball player (he averaged more than 36 points per game last year) and part of the wonderful community spirit and pride of Hyden and Leslie County. Not only did this community of 375 rally around their favorite son, they brought out the best in their team (an 11-3 record) and the entire region. Tim Couch's success provides hope not only for every aspiring young football player, but for his community and everyone who knows this very talented young man from the mountains with the desire and ability to make it big. He has set a standard of excellence for Leslie County, its young people and the entire Nation. I know that Tim will continue to be an excellent example for all to follow. Congratulations on your standout prep career, Tim, and good luck in your future. Let's hope you are the one removing Dan Marino's name from the NFL's record books.

Mr. ROGERS

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 may include tabular and extraneous material on H.R. 2076, the matter just considered.