Hal Rogers

Mr. ROGERS

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 reserve a point of order against the amendment.

Mr. ROGERS

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes. Mr. Chairman, I urge opposition to this amendment. I hope the House will once again defeat the Hefley proposal to eliminate the Economic Development Administration. If we do not vote this amendment down we will deprive hard-hit communities, all over the country, of the vital assistance provided by the EDA which was created to help our Nation's poorest areas raise their standards of living, or to help communities recover from sudden economic disasters. I say to the Members, it has worked in my congressional district and virtually every other. EDA provides basic infrastructure in poor counties so they can attract the private investments that lead to long- term jobs. EDA is the cornerstone of our efforts to help local communities rebound from the loss of a military base or defense downsizing. In fact, EDA has helped 151 communities hard hit by base closures over the last 3 years alone. These areas are converting bases to provided long-term jobs to the people that depended on them for decades. Today new communities, facing another round of base closures, need EDA to help their families bounce back, but like other good programs, EDA must be streamlined and reformed and targeted, and this bill does that. First, we cut EDA dramatically, a 21-percent reduction in grants, a full one-third reduction in staff, almost $100 million in cuts. Second, we have worked closely with the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster] and the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest] of the Committee on Transportation, who are pushing the most significant overhaul of EDA programs in 15 years. Our reforms provide fewer funds and put them in areas that need help the most. They provide greater local and State control over project decisions. No longer will Washington pick and choose the projects. Our Governors, our local officials, our communities will decide. If our local factory pulls out, EDA monies will help our town create new opportunities for its workers. Mr. Chairman, if NAFTA or the GATT treaty pushes our industry to Mexico or overseas, EDA will be there if Members vote down this amendment. If Members have any of the 50,000 defense jobs potentially being eliminated in this year's base closure process, their communities will need this program more than ever. Let me repeat. In this bill, we cut EDA by 21 percent. We say ``No more bloated Washington bureaucracy,'' and we targeted these very limited dollars to communities and families that simply cannot afford to cope with disasters and job loss. They need our help. Give them our vote. Vote down this amendment.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I will yield half of my time to the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan] in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, we accept this amendment and think it is a good one and hope that it is approved.

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

Mr. ROGERS. I thank the gentleman from California [Mr. Dornan] for bringing this to our attention.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is absolutely correct. As I have stated to the gentleman previously, it is my intention to strongly urge that the Attorney General use a portion of the Byrne Grant Funding Program for the purposes that you have described.

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

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, I want to say that this amendment, however well intentioned, would have a devastating effect on the prison activation program that we are entering into for 1996. We have 10 new prison facilities that will be ready to open in 1996. This amendment, if it passes, will prevent us from opening those facilities. We would be at 132 percent of capacity next year. A result of this amendment would be that 9,200 more Federal prison beds will be sitting vacant and unused and in empty, new or expanded buildings. I do not think the Congress wants that to be printed in the newspapers, that is, pictures of those empty prisons when we have overcrowding in the others. I urge Members to vote ``no'' on this amendment. If this amendment passes, new prisons will not open in Texas, California, and Arkansas; expanded prisons will not be allowed to be opened in five other States. I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. ROGERS

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman I yield myself such time as I may consume. Now, Mr. Chairman, let us be straight about this. The bill includes almost $2 billion for local law enforcement block grant applications. It replaces the President's COPS program. The President's COPS program is a top-down Washington based program. It requires local communities the first year to put up 25 percent of the cost, the second year 50 percent of the cost, the third year 75 percent of the cost, and the fourth year 100 percent. Local communities say, if I had 25 percent to match, I would hire a cop today on my own. I would not need the Federal match. Our program, Mr. Chairman, only requires the local communities to put up 10 percent, and they can use the money not just for cops but for cop cars and cop radios and cop supplies and other needs of the local law enforcement community. Whatever they say they need. That is the beauty of this program. The Mollohan amendment puts its money on the Washington-based crime fighting strategy of the President. We put our trust in local communities' abilities to decide on their own where and how they want to spend the money to fight crime. I want you to know, Mr. Chairman, and my colleagues, that midnight basketball is back if the Mollohan amendment passes along with other Washington prescribed crime prevention programs. I received a letter yesterday, Mr. Chairman, from the National League of Cities. It is signed by the current Democratic president, Carolyn Long Banks, and the incoming Republican president, Gregory Lashutka. It is a bipartisan response to the local law enforcement block grant program. Here is what it says. ``We are writing on behalf of 135,000 municipal elected leaders from cities and towns across the Nation to express our strong support for provisions in the fiscal year 1996 Commerce, State, Justice appropriations bill requesting $2 billion to fund the House passed LNC supported local law enforcement block grant.'' They say, We urge all Members to vote in support of your efforts to fund a strengthened Federal local anticrime partnership.'' They go on to say, ``The types of crimes and violence and the appropriate responses to them vary from city to city. We know that no one-size-fits-all approach directed by Washington could work nearly as effectively and efficiently as providing local discretion and responsibility to local elected officials.'' That is the quote, Mr. Chairman, from the president of the National League of Cities, Carolyn Long Banks, [[Page H 7637]] who happens to be a member of Mr. Mollohan's party, but it is also signed by the Republican incoming president, and so this is bipartisan support for the local law enforcement assistance grants. I would put my money and we are putting our money in this bill on local communities any time, day or night, over providing the President his prescription from Washington for how local communities should act to fight crime in their community. We put our faith in local communities, in local elected officials, in local law enforcement people. The Mollohan amendment puts its faith in the White House. I strongly urge our Members to vote ``no'' on the Mollohan amendment and I hope that the Members will stay with us on the bill, because we provide almost $2 billion for local law enforcement, not Washington- local law enforcement. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that debate on this amendment and all amendments thereto close in 1 hour and that the time be equally divided.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Hastings].

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the distinguished gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter].

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. LaTourette]. (Mr. LaTOURETTE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman has raised an important issue regarding actions taken by the Justice Department. I agree that this is an issue that warrants further discussion. I will be glad to work with the gentleman to develop the best approach to address that problem.

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

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Collins].

Mr. ROGERS. I assure my full committee chairman that I will look at this program again as the authorization moves toward enactment into law.

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

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the very distinguished gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], the hard-working chairman of the full Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time. A moment ago, Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Doggett] held a picture up of the 25 new police officers hired, he said, under the COPS Program in Austin, TX. I have got a better deal. Those 25 officers cost Austin, TX, and its taxpayers some 25 percent of the total cost. We are going to give it to them for 10 percent in our bill. That is all we require in the local law enforcement block grant program, which they can use for cops, if they want. It only costs 10 percent. Now next year those 25 cops in Austin are going to cost Austin taxpayers 50 percent of the cost. The third year it is going to cost them 75 percent of the cost, and after 3 years it is going to cost Austin taxpayers all of their salaries. In this bill, we will do it for 10 percent from here on, and they have the option to hire cops. If they need cop cars, they can use it for cop cars. And if they are out of radios, we will let them use it for radios. We will let them use it for whatever they want to do within reason. Now the Mollohan amendment also provides, and I want to emphasize this, also provides $230 million for those old programs I thought we got rid of when we adopted the House-passed bill in February. Remember midnight basketball and all of those crazy things we heard about? We voted those out in February by a large margin in the House-passed crime bill which we are funding tonight in this bill. Under the Mollohan amendment those programs are back upon us, midnight basketball and all. I urge the Members to vote as they voted in February. As a matter of fact, it was February 14, 1995, that a great majority of this body voted to pass the crime bill that supplanted the COPS Program. Our people back home told us we do not want those crazy programs. We cannot afford the local cost share for COPS. We want the local option on how we use our money. We want our sheriff, our police force, our mayor, our county executive, our local city council--we want them deciding where the money goes, not some bureaucrat in Washington, and especially the Congress of the United States, and the White House. So I urge the Members to vote as they did in February. My colleagues are on record as supporting an alternative to the COPS Program. Tonight we fund the alternative to the COPS [[Page H 7644]] Program, the local block grant for law enforcement officials to do the job of fighting crime in our communities recognizing the diversity of these towns and cities that we represent. What works in New York City may not work in Burnside, KY. In fact, I guarantee it will not work there. Give us the option of using the money as we need it in our local communities. Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote on the Mollohan amendment.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady].

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Chairman, let me repeat something that I said at the beginning of this debate. The bill language that we have now provides nearly $2 billion for a local law enforcement block grant program to replace the President's COPS Program. The COPS Program is Washington based-- Washington telling the local community what they can or cannot do with their money. The COPS Program requires local communities in the first year to provide 25 percent of the cost, 50 percent the second year, 75 percent the third year, and 100 percent in the fourth year. Local communities simply cannot afford that. The funds under the COPS Program can only be used to employ police men and women. It cannot be used for police cars or radios or equipment or perhaps another program that the local community thinks is more important than adding another policeman or policewoman. We say we are giving local communities, whether it be the police force or the county commissioners or the city council, the mayor or the county executive, we are giving them a local option. You might even call this a coption program; they can use the money for cops, if they want, and other options, their options, not ours. If you vote for the Mollohan amendment, you are putting a Washington straitjacket on local communities, cops only, and you have got to pay for it all after 3 years. If you vote for the program that is in the bill, your share is only 10 percent, local community, and we are going to let you decide how you want to use it. [[Page H 7641]] We are going to keep track of it; no longer will you be able to use this money in a wasteful or inefficient manner, and yet you have the local option to decide what program or programs work best for you. I urge our Members to continue to oppose the Mollohan amendment. Give the local communities a break. Give them the option. Do not let Washington again impose its will on local communities.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox].