Hal Rogers

Mr. ROGERS

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, we accept this amendment. We want to thank the gentleman for bringing it to our attention and hope the body will adopt it.

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

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

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker], chairman of the Committee on Science.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this substitute amendment adds $34 million to the NOAA programs, of great interest to Members from coastal areas of the United States and to Members from the Great Lakes region of the country. The programs are as follows: We add $20 million to the National Marine Fisheries Service, an increase of $20 million; the Great Lakes Environmental Research Labs, an increase of $4 million; the Coastal Ocean Science Program, authorized by the House Committee on Science, an additional $5 million; and the Coastal Zone Management Program, an increase of $5 million. The purpose of this substitute is to address concerns raised by a number of Members about coastal and fisheries programs. This substitute is paid for by three offsets. One, it reduces the NOAA Fleet Modernization Program by $12 million; two, it reduces contributions to international organizations by $12 million; and three, it reduces the Patent and Trademark Office by $10 million. Mr. Chairman, this amendment represents a compromise to the Mollohan amendment, which would have, in my opinion, made a number of unwise choices in the bill; namely, cutting the judicial system funding to offset increases in the Commerce Department. We realize how important fisheries, and coastal programs are to many of our Members. We also realize how important it is that we balance the competing priorities and important programs in this bill. Adjustments may be necessary as we proceed to conference on the bill. But I assure my colleagues that we will work diligently to address the concerns of all Members to the best of our ability. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. This amendment, Mr. Chairman, would take $35 million out of vitally needed resources to open new prisons. I am not talking about the merits of the gentleman's proposal to help EEOC. I am just talking about what it is going to do to us if we do this amendment. These are prisons that are almost complete and will be coming on line in 1996. Mr. Chairman, we have spend hundreds of million of dollars to build five new prisons and expand five others, all of which will be ready for occupancy in 1996. These facilities will not open if this amendment should pass. They will sit there empty. Meanwhile we have got crowded prisons all over the country. We are at 140 percent or so of occupancy in the Federal prison system, at least. And these 10 new facilities are absolutely vital to relieve the overcrowding that exists in the present prisons, not to mention the heavy influx of new prisoners that we expect in 1996. Here is an example of some of the facilities that will not open if this amendment passes: A low- and minimum-security facility in Beaumont, TX, a low- and minimum-security facility in Taft, CA, and a facility in Forrest City, AR. Five new expansions will not be available in Tallahassee, FL, in Milan, MI, in Lompac, CA, Fort Worth, TX, and Lexington, KY. As a result, nearly 9,200 more Federal prison beds will be sitting vacant and unused if this amendment passes. The Federal prison system is the second most overcrowded system in the Nation. Overcrowding would increase by 132 percent in 1996. We simply cannot tolerate this when the Federal prison system is housing the most volatile Federal inmate population in history. So I urge Members to vote ``no'' on this amendment. The gentleman, I am sure, has a legitimate argument to make on the EEOC question. I am just saying to my colleagues, this is something we cannot afford to take the money from. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, and I ask unanimous consent that the amendment and all amendments thereto be concluded in 20 minutes, and that the time be equally divided.

Mr. ROGERS. I think I have responded adequately.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I can assure the gentleman that it is our intent to continue enforcement of our environmental and tax laws, at least at the current rate. We state this in our report to the bill. I will carefully review the objections of the Justice Department and will remain open to working with the Department on this issue as we proceed on the bill.

Mr. ROGERS. I am opposed, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Gallegly] who is chairman of the House task force on immigration.

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

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, there is a reason why this bill refers to the Local Law enforcement Block Grant Program. These are law enforcement block grants. They are not education block grants, they are not family counseling block grants, they are not after-school program block grants, they are not nutrition block grants. These are law enforcement block grants. This is to enforce the law, not just to prevent crime but also to punish it after it takes place. There are hundreds of programs on the books of this Federal Government that provide moneys for those types of programs. In the Department of Education, in the Department of Health and Human Services, and so forth, there are all sorts of moneys available for those types of things. This money in this bill is for law enforcement and we have voted on this time and again, as recently as yesterday, to reject this type of an approach. I urge my colleagues to stay with the bill's provisions for providing local governments block grants to fight crime with a Local Law Enforcement Block Grant Program. Do not water it down with midnight basketball. We can do that elsewhere. I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia [Ms. Norton]. This bill reinstates a provision which was carried in the bill prior to fiscal 1994. That provision prohibits Federal tax dollars from being used to pay for abortions for Federal prison inmates. This amendment would strike that provision, that prohibition. The issue here is very simple and clear. The question is should taxpayers' money be used to pay for an abortion. Time and again, the Congress has debated this issue. Time and again the Congress' answer, and more importantly, the answer of the American taxpayer, has been no. I urge rejection of the gentlewoman's amendment, and urge that the bill be supported. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. It takes $200 million from the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant Program to fund crime prevention programs like midnight basketball, homework assistance, after-school programs, nutrition services, family counseling, job programs to prevent crime, grants for education, recreation facilities and so on and so forth. We have voted on these things now time and again. We voted yesterday on this. The House by a huge majority rejected this type of funding. These are the midnight basketball programs that are back with us again. We turned them down in the Mollohan amendment yesterday. They are back with us again today. I have no doubt they will be with us tomorrow and from here on to eternity. But nevertheless the House says ``no.'' How many times do we have to say no? I hope that the House will do short order on this and will vote down this amendment as it has repeatedly. What the amendment says is that we believe that Washington knows how local communities should spend their money to prevent crime. Instead of letting communities decide what they want to do with the money, this amendment spreads $200 million over a host of programs, tells them how much they can spend and for what purposes, whether they like it or not. We are back to the same old thing of ``one size fits all,'' all communities are just exactly alike, and Washington knows how to administer funds to all of them irrespective of their own peculiarities. Mr. Chairman, I urge the House to reject this effort, stay with us on sending money back to the local communities for them to decide how they would like to spend their money in preventing crime and in punishing crime once it takes place. I urge Members to reject again midnight basketball for the 18th time. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on this amendment and all amendments thereto close in 30 minutes and that the time be equally divided between the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia and myself.

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

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on this amendment and all amendments thereto close in 10 minutes and that the time be equally divided.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, I will be very brief, as the issue is starkly simple. Do we use Federal funds to pay for abortions? Time and again, Congress has said no. Time and again, the American people have told us to say no, that these moneys should not be used for that purpose. The amendment would strike the prohibition in the bill that prevents funds from being used for that purpose. I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ROGERS. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, I suggest to the gentleman that this amendment be withdrawn while he has a chance to discuss the matter with this Member, perhaps, to see what can be worked out.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to a point of order.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to a point of order against the amendment. Mr. Chairman, the amendment would increase the level of budget authority/outlays in the bill in violation of clause 2(f) of rule XXI. This rule states that ``it shall be in order to consider en bloc amendments proposing only to transfer appropriations among objects in the bill without increasing the levels of budget authority or outlays in the bill.'' The amendment would increase the level of budget authority outlays in the bill. We have CBO scoring which shows a net increase in outlays of $1,753,000. So, therefore, it violates a rule of the House. I ask for the ruling of the Chair.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California [Mrs. Seastrand].