Hal Rogers

Mr. ROGERS

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I will be brief. I have no objection to this motion to instruct the conferees, to insist on the House position on the Securities and Exchange Commission. I believe it will help resolve this issue in conference. The House position maintains overall funding for the SEC at the fiscal 1995 level, $297 million, instead of a 10-percent cut as proposed by the Senate. The House maintains the current fee structure while the Senate reduces fees. As a result, the Senate appropriates $31.5 million more than the House and yet reduces overall funding by 10 percent. In short, the Senate bill pays more to get less. The House position, on the other hand, is a bipartisan position that has resulted from extensive cooperation among the Committee on Commerce, the Committee on Ways and Means, and the Committee on Appropriations. It represents a coordinated approach to sustain the SEC while gradually reducing reliance on fees. The House approach was most recently endorsed by the Washington Post in an editorial last Sunday. So I will support the motion offered by the gentleman, my colleague, and I would urge its adoption.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table 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 with a Senate amendment thereto, disagree to the Senate amendment, and agree to the conference asked by the Senate.

Mr. ROGERS

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the distinguished chairman of the full Committee on Appropriations for his great leadership in bringing about this step forward that we are making today, along with the help of the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], the distinguished ranking Democrat on the committee. These two gentlemen should be congratulated by the entire country for the work that they have done, their yeoman's work over the last several days in trying to avert the shutdown of the Federal Government. Mr. Speaker, shortly I will offer a technical amendment to the bill to assure that international broadcasting operations under the United States Information Agency are covered under the terms of this continuing resolution. What the amendment does is waive the provision in the 1994 International Broadcasting Act which says that no appropriation can be provided unless previously authorized. Since there is no authorization in place, no appropriation could be provided for the next 43 days without this waiver, and international broadcasting operations would have to shut down. There are already waivers in the continuing resolution for all the programs at the State Department, the Agency for International Development, the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, and other programs at USIA, but it was not until last night that their lawyers discovered that in the 1994 Act, a requirement was inserted applying to international broadcasting that requires a separate waiver. Since then, the Director of USIA has called requesting this; the Office of Management and Budget says it is necessary; the chairman of the Committee on International Relations has requested it; and the ranking minority member of the committee has concurred. amendment offered by mr. rogers Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment, and I ask unanimous consent that it may be considered at this point, and that the previous question be considered as ordered on the amendment and on the joint resolution in accordance with House Resolution 230.

Mr. ROGERS

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2274, the National Highway System Designation Act. I commend the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee for the leadership and commitment it has displayed time and again to creating a strong, viable transportation infrastructure to foster our Nation's economic development. Infrastructure is the key to economic development, particularly in rural areas like mine. Without continued commitment to an adequate road system, the economies of areas like Southern and Eastern Kentucky will fail to improve. The National Highway System fulfills this commitment. My district, located in the heart of Appalachia, continues to be poor relative to the rest of the Nation. Most of the area is located among mountainous terrain which, for years, has hindered access to my communities, resulting in geographic and economic isolation. Moreover, the mainstay of many of these counties' economies--the coal industry-- has fallen on rough times, resulting in hardship that can only be reversed through investments that take many forms. One form of investment, highway infrastructure, may be the single most important to our future. Therefore, I am delighted to see Southern and Eastern Kentucky has a strong presence on the National Highway System, a system that will serve us into the next century. I commend the U.S. Department of Transportation and the Committee for recognizing the needs of my region. I strongly support their recommendations to designate several corridors in Southern and Eastern Kentucky as part of the proposed National Highway System. These corridors include: U.S. 27; I-75; the Daniel Boone Parkway and KY 80; U.S. 25 E east of I-75; the Mountain Parkway and its extension, KY 114; KY 15; U.S. 23; U.S. 119; and, U.S. 460 from Salyersville to Paintsville, KY. Further, I commend the committee using this legislation, H.R. 2274, to take the next critical step forward on the East-West Transamerica Corridor--I-66. I thank the committee for working with me to designate the I-66 route from Virginia to Kansas, and for including provisions to designate of the Kentucky portion of the corridor through Eastern and Southern Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, this legislation signifies a commitment to the transportation and economic development needs of this Nation. I urge all Members to support H.R. 2274.

Mr. ROGERS

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, the Reverend Bob Browning, who offered today's opening prayer as the guest House Chaplain, is my hometown pastor, friend, and personal counselor. He is the pastor of the First Baptist Church in Somerset, KY, a church of some 2,000 members. Although a young man, Brother Browning has packed into his years an impressive career in service to God and his people. He just last year finished two 1-year terms as president of the Kentucky Baptist Convention, a sure sign of the esteem felt for Brother Browning by his peers and religious leaders throughout Kentucky. But, no wonder to us, his home church members, we have watched his leadership abilities grow and develop since he came to us in 1982 following pastorships at three other Kentucky churches and receiving his doctorate degree at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville. In addition to various responsibilities with the State association, he has been called upon by the entire community. He serves on everything from the YMCA board to the county solid waste advisory committee. He is a trustee at Cumberland College. He has worked as a volunteer in Africa, Brazil, and Russia. Brother Bob and his wife Jackie are the parents of three wonderful children: Jason, Amy, and Joshua. Jason is a marine, based in California. Brother Bob is a wonderful preacher. But his greatest gift is his ability to counsel, one on one. I can personally testify to the warm and caring love he imparts to those who are so fortunate to be in his care. He has been of enormous importance to me and my family in recent months, especially. Welcome Brother Browning to the people's House, your House.

Mr. ROGERS

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to read this outstanding article on welfare and the fine work of the Christian Appalachian Project in my State of Kentucky. Groups like the Christian Appalachian Project do yeoman's work to help families in need in southern and eastern Kentucky. They truly live by their motto, ``Helping people help themselves.'' I hope my friends will take the time to read this article. Not only is it a shining example of the hard work and dedication of our communities and volunteers, it provides hope for our future. [From the Mountain Spirit, May-June 1995] Welfare: Investing in People (By Margaret Gabriel) Apparently, when Jesus told his disciples they would always have poor people in their midst, he didn't necessarily mean the same people. Recent statistics from the U.S. Census told Kentuckians that the number of people living in poverty increased between 1989 to 1993, from 16.2 to 20.4 percent. There's evidence, though, that people who participate in welfare programs are not in a stagnant pool but a revolving door. The May 1994 editorial in St. Anthony Messenger cites statistics from the Children's Defense Fund, saying: ``. . . half of welfare recipients are off welfare within two years. Some occasionally return to welfare depending upon job situation, but the overwhelming majority do not live a welfare `way of life'; they use the program to get by between jobs.'' Christian Appalachian Project outreach caseworker Wanda Penman is a good illustration of exactly that use of federal entitlement programs. In 1987, Wanda, a graduate of Kentucky State University, was a single mother of one child. She and Tonecia lived in the home where Wanda had grown up and received Aid to Families with Dependent Children and food stamps. She had been working in a manufacturing job, but was forced to quit due to child care conflicts. ``It was good money; I didn't have to beg to get the bills paid. When I started on welfare, I was drawing $162 a month, plus about $115 in food stamps. I'd had a taste of what it was like not to have to struggle with the bills, and I wanted it back, if only for a little while.'' Wanda had the chance to stop that struggle for a little while, when she was offered six weeks of work at CAPRICE, CAP's training program for adults with disabilities. She took the job, even though doing so meant giving up her welfare benefits, including government-paid medical insurance for Tonecia and herself. ``I'm not a person to remain idle for days on end. The life of leisure suits me for about a week. It drives me crazy to be sitting around not working,'' Wanda said. ``I really had to think about giving up that medical card, but it was worth it.'' The six-week job with CAP became a six-month job, then part-time and finally a full-time position. However, she had no insurance or Medicaid while she was pregnant with her second child, and therefore had to pay for her pre-natal care. ``It took me six years to pay off those bills. It's no wonder that people are afraid to risk losing that card. It's sad to say.'' Until the fall of 1994 Connie Wagers managed CAP's Family Life Abuse Center, when she temporarily retired to take a position as a stay-at-home mom with her children, Lauren and Jonathan. Connie's experience with welfare dates to here childhood in Knott County, when her mother was widowed with seven children at home and the eighth in college. Her daddy had been disabled in a mining accident, then died suddenly. ``Mom had not worked outside the home and had very little education, so she had no choice but to go on welfare; there was no other way to feed her children. It would have been far easier for her to continue in the system, getting welfare, food stamps and the medical card, but she firmly believed that any person who was able to work should work. It's okay to take help to get back on your feet, but not long term. She worked at whatever she could find, cleaning houses and working in the school lunch room one day a week to pay for our lunches. I washed dishes during recess, too.'' Connie calls her mother her ``greatest hero,'' and says that from her she learned the value of hard work and the importance of depending on herself. ``Mom always encouraged all of us to get our education: she saw education as the key. At that time in that area, girls were not encouraged to go to college, especially if you weren't from a well-do-do-family. It was just assumed that you'd get married. Connie says she ran in the other direction as soon as any boy broached the subject of marriage, and with the help of grants and loans--and the encouragement of her mother--she worked her way through Sue Bennett College in London and Eastern Kentucky University, earning a degree in social work. She eventually married Jerry Wagers, who traveled with an oil company. When they decided to settle in Kentucky, a promised job fell through, and they had to sign up for food stamps for a couple of months, ``until he could get another job,'' Connie said. ``It wasn't terribly dramatic, but I felt totally humiliated, going to the grocery store and having to buy groceries with food stamps. I had a college education and there I was with food stamps. No one ever said anything to me, but I've heard people make comments about people using food stamps. If you happen to be one of the lucky ones who's not having to use food stamps, you'll hear it. And you see the looks on faces.'' Connie said that people who have been on welfare for extended periods of time feel the sting of public perception, too. ``I've hear the ladies in the shelter talking about it. They would feel humiliated, like people were looking down on them.''. As college graduates, Wanda and Connie have the skills needed to find jobs in an area of high unemployment. Such was not the case for Pete Laney. With the help of CAP's Community Health Advocates in Magoffin County, Pete recently attained certification as an emergency medical technician. In studying for the certificate, Pete was trained to transport people in Magoffin and surrounding counties to doctors' office and hospitals throughout the region. His wife, Wanda, is studying to complete the training, attain certification, and get a similar job. CAP met Pete and Wanda when Wanda studied to obtain her high school certification through a CAP adult education program. A native of Magoffin County and a high school graduate, Pete supported his family in the past with seasonal farming jobs; Wanda receives an AFDC payment for a child from a previous marriage. ``What we were taking in just didn't cover it,'' Pete said. ``We paid $80 in rent, a $70 electric bill, and in the winter we were out two or three hundred a month for coal. It ain't easy. People say they've got it made on welfare; I don't see how. There are people out there who would work, but you go down to the unemployment office and they'll have a list of jobs that long, but you have to have five years of experience. Now, how are you going to get a job if nobody will let you get any experience?'' Pete, too, brings up the issue of how risky it is to leave the welfare rolls for a low-paying job that does not include medical benefits. His work as an emergency medical technical pays him by the run, and when he's busy, the money's okay, he said. `'That''s the good side, but the medical card is gone, and I can't afford the medical bills if we were to have to go to the doctor.'' When she was very young Rose Mary Bailey dropped out of school to get married. It was not a difficult decision for Rose; she said she hated school. ``In the second grade they put me in special ed. I don't know why; I had straight A's in the first grade. They held me back in the first because I had missed some, so they told me I had to repeat. From that time on, I said I didn't like school. My grades decreased, my self-esteem decreased. I said what's the use of worrying about it, so I didn't.'' Despite her lack of education, Rose had an ambition not often seen in dropouts, and she began working in the many fast food restaurants in her native Salyersville. ``Working in fast food is a way to get off welfare,'' Rose said. Rose has no children, so she was not eligible for AFDC. Her husband, too, worked a low-paying job so they were eligible for food stamps. ``It wasn't enough income to live on, and I knew that if I was going to get out of this I had to get a better job. And I knew that if I was going to get anywhere I had to get an education. My friend told me there was a position at the bank and that it required a GED. That's one reason why I started working on it.'' Rose began studying for her GED, through a program she saw on Kentucky Educational Television, a public broadcasting station. She worked on her own for about six months, then finished her studies through CAP's adult education program. In the fall of 1994, Rose applied for and got a job at a bank in Salyersville, ``And I love it. I'm a phone operator, and I balance checkbooks, and I'm taking college level accounting courses at the bank.'' Rose, a special education dropout and former food stamp recipient, has set an ambitious goal for herself. ``I'm planning on going back to school. Right now, my goal at the bank is to become a loan officer, vice- president, and move on up. I'm working hard and studying to learn all I can right now. I try to pick up any information I can. I'm terrible for asking questions!'' Rose, Wanda and Connie have more than just experience working themselves off welfare in common. All spoke glowingly of the influence of their mothers, emphasizing the importance of family in shaping the values of young people. Wanda said she felt awful about herself while she was on welfare. ``But, Wanda has always been hard on Wanda. I have a college degree, and being an educated woman, it was hard for me to accept the fact that I was trying to survive on a welfare check. ``I wasn't raised in a family that lived on public assistance. My mother and father had 13 children, and I don't remember food stamps ever being in our home. What I can remember is big huge gardens that we all worked, and I can remember the variety of jobs my dad worked. When I grew up, we lived mostly off wild game and that garden. My mom took in laundry at home after working all day at the hospital or the school. We've always been a working class family. The thought of drawing welfare didn't set well with me.'' Connie learned from her mother that ``It's okay to take help when you absolutely have to have it, to help you get back on your feet. But she taught me that any honest work is noble, regardless of how little it pays. We have a responsibility to help ourselves.'' Rose credits her mother for encouraging her to dream dreams and achieve her goals. ``She's always told me I was smart and could do anything I wanted. That helped out a lot. When I was sitting at home doing nothing she told me I could do better, If not for her I don't think I would have tried. I didn't want to let her down.'' Other boosts in Rose's self-esteem came from Holly Rivers, the CAP volunteer who tutored Rose, and from other CAP workers she met. ``An organization like CAP has to be made up of people who care for people who want help. I came in here and expected, like anywhere else, to find snooty people who looked down on me. I always felt everyone was looking down on me, but everyone here treated me as an equal. They were friendly, and told me I could do it. After a while I saw that I could and knew I was as good as anyone else.'' Wanda, Rose, Pete and Connie agree that the welfare system needs reform, but they all expressed concern about the elimination of benefits with the start of any work rather than withdrawing them slowly. ```Supplementation is a real key to welfare reform,'' Connie said. ``You have to encourage people to at least try. If they're working a minimum wage job--obviously not enough to support a family--at least let them keep the medical card, something that encourages them to build up some self-esteem and some pride and not be so humiliated that they're taking handouts.'' Connie said that capping welfare benefits is especially unrealistic in the rural area because of the lack of jobs. ``If the jobs are not there to make a living wage, what choice do you have? We've had years and years of things the way they are that discourage people from trying. It's hard for a caring parent to give up a medical card and food for the children to go out and work minimum wage.'' A combination of jobs, education and better pay is crucial to meaningful reform, she said. ``I worry about people, but I know there are some people on welfare that are there just to be on welfare,'' Rose said. ``I believe if they can work, they ought to. But it bothers me to think of people that are unable to get a job. I've got a brother on welfare that's not able to work. What's he going to do? Some people are not able to work and are on welfare to get by until they can do better; it's not right not to help them.'' Wanda believes that the methods of welfare reform she's heard through the news media are unrealistic. ``You're not going to be able to please everybody, and whatever you do, somebody's going to suffer. My overall view is that people should be able to use welfare as long as they need to, but let it be because you need to. Like the mother with the three kids, who knows that to go out and get a job at minimum wage is not going to do it. Fine, use the system as long as you need to, but after that let's look to doing better.''

Mr. ROGERS

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, this Saturday, August 5, 1995, Judge Lloyd Tatum of Henderson, TN, will celebrate his birthday, matching the Biblical age of three score and ten. Judge Tatum is a highly respected west Tennessee lawyer, known throughout Tennessee legal circles for having served many years as a member of the Tennessee Criminal Court of Appeals. Upon his retirement from the active bench several years ago, he resumed private practice in Henderson with his son, Lloyd Rogers Tatum, while continuing to serve as a reserve judge. In addition to being the husband of my beloved deceased sister, Inadene, Judge Tatum is a mentor of mine. He is a brother-in-law who is as close to me as a brother. He inspired me to become a lawyer, to engage in politics and to muster the self-confidence to stand for Congress. We confer frequently about issues of the day, as well as our latest golf scores--such as they are--and I value his advice. Saturday, his four children and their spouses, many grandchildren, other family and scores of friends are gathering to wish Lloyd a joyous birthday. I hope that through his life, I can inspire just a fraction of the great number of people who have been inspired and encouraged by Lloyd Tatum. I wish for him many more productive years and thank him for all he means to me, my family, and hundreds of friends and admirers. Happy birthday, Lloyd.

Mr. ROGERS

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. LaTourette]. (Mr. LaTOURETTE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute and 40 seconds to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith].

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Scott amendment. The truth is that this amendment would eliminate what the Congress passed back in February in the crime bill. It would eliminate truth in sentencing grants to States and shift that money to local government law enforcement block grants. Now, we already provide in the bill 5\1/2\ times more for local crime programs than was ever provided in history by the Congress, and particularly 1995. They are going to have plenty of money to work with. What the gentleman would eliminate with this amendment, however, is a very critical part of the crime package that passed back in February as a part of the Contract With America, and that was to allow States to have grants if they lock up their violent criminals for a certain period of time. Convicted felons serve only 38 percent of their sentences now on average. This revolving door of justice is the heart of the crime problem. Truth in sentencing grants are a vital and sensible response to this problem. Lack of prison space is a national problem. It is appropriate for the Congress to respond by setting aside funds specifically for the purpose of increasing prison capacity on the State level for violent offenders. Local law enforcement block grants provide funding directly to local communities. States, not local communities, have the responsibility of building prisons. The Scott amendment would prevent States from receiving any funds for prison construction. The State prisons grant program ensures that States will have the resources to keep violent offenders locked up. Do not tear that from this bill. It will be a very critical part of the States' efforts and our effort on their behalf to fight violent criminals across the country. Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote on the Scott amendment. Stay with us on the crime package. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Barr].

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Weldon]. (Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ROGERS

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman has worked very hard on this issue, and has convinced certainly this Member that this is a worthwhile amendment, so we accept the amendment from our side and urge its adoption.

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

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I shall not take the full 5 minutes, because I think we have completed the amending process. But let me quickly do two things: First, we would like to note a correction in the report on page 31 under INS construction, $5 million has been provided for the INS detention center in the western region of New York instead of the northeast region, as currently stated in the report. Finally, Mr. Chairman, let me say a word of thanks for those who participated in this debate today. It has been a long day. We have done well. We have disposed of a lot of amendments. We have a good bill. We urge its adoption. Let me thank the members of the staff who have worked so long and hard on this bill, and you see them and you have watched them work today. We want to thank them. We want to thank the members of the subcommittee, especially my ranking member, the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan], who has been a real soldier on this bill. We urge its adoption. Let me thank the members of the staff who have worked so long and hard on this bill, and you see them and you have watched them work today. We want to thank them. We want to thank the members of the subcommittee, especially my ranking member, the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan], who has been a real soldier on this bill. We urge its adoption. We thank the Members for their help.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, we accept the amendment.

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

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

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman from California [Mr. Kim] not offering his amendment at this time and his willingness to give the State Department one more chance. In return, as the chairman of the subcommittee, I commit to raise this situation directly with Secretary of State Warren Christopher, and to relay the concern of the gentleman from California [Mr. Kim] that the State Department should be making this issue a higher priority. The Department is expected to do a much better job of making North Korea appreciate the role of Congress in determining the pace and scope of future relations and the seriousness of Pyongyang's insult to Congress. I fully support the choice made by Speaker Gingrich and the chairman of the Committee on International Relations, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman], of Mr. Kim to lead a bipartisan delegation to North Korea representing the House. Mr. Chairman, I see North Korea's rejection of this codel as a rejection of the House as a whole. Congress cannot cede its decisionmaking authority on Member travel to the Communist dictatorship of North Korea. Furthermore, Mr. Chairman, North Korea's direct snub of Congress raises serious questions about the sincerity of North Korea's other interactions with the United States, including Pyongyang's commitment to the nuclear agreed framework. Do they intend to only cooperate on some parts of the agreement and not others?

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

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, on this side of the aisle, we are prepared to accept the amendment, thinking it is a good one, and urge its adoption.

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

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

Mr. ROGERS

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, since there is not a rollcall vote on the Skaggs amendment, is the next vote the Serrano amendment, which would be number 5 in the normal order?

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.