Hal Rogers

Mr. ROGERS

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, now we know why the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug] is so opposed to the Appalachian Regional Commission. Is it the Carolina Panthers, in opposition to the Green Bay Packers, which motivates this gentleman to try to strike the entire Appalachian Regional Commission effort to end poverty in the most poverty stricken part of the country? Now we know the truth. The real truth is the Appalachian Regional Commission works to end poverty in the most poverty stricken part of our Nation. Let me point out to the body that the poverty in Appalachia is intractable. Income in these areas is still 17 percent below the national average. The region's poverty rate is 16 percent higher than the national average. In areas like mine, the poverty rate is over 25 percent. Even with ARC funding, Appalachian counties receive 14 percent less in total Federal dollars than the rest of the counties of the State of the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug], even with Appalachian Regional Commission funding. Many areas of the country have enjoyed the benefits of economic growth and expansion over many decades, but not Appalachia. Yes, on the edges there have been improvements over the years, and we are proud of that. That proves ARC works. However, there are still core counties in Appalachia that simply cannot make it without the work of the Appalachian Regional Commission. The ARC works the way I think the majority in this body would like for other programs to work. It is sort of like a block grant or Federal revenue sharing; local grassroots people involved in their problems getting their local officials involved first, then their Governor, then the Appalachian Regional Commission. All of the Governors support the ARC, Republican and Democrat, because it is the model for the future, a grassroots program with local, State, and Federal governmental involvement. Mr. Chairman, the ARC funding in this bill has been cut in half. The chairman, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Myers], and ranking member, the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Bevill], have done a superb job of reforming this agency. They cut the funding in half. Already ARC has been reformed. No. 2, Mr. Chairman, the budget that passed this body contains $40 million more than this bill does. This bill is under the House-passed budget resolution, $40 million under it. It is one-half the current level, so already we have reformed, and we have cut and made it more efficient. Mr. Chairman, please do not snuff out the life of this agency that is making so much of a difference in the lives of poor people, in a part of the country that has been ravaged by nature, by the loss of jobs in the coal and textile business, and others. Give us a chance. This organization works to help poor people help themselves from poverty. It works. Poverty rates have been halved in the region. Incomes have increased. High school graduates have doubled during this period of time. The dollars are targeted to the most severely distressed counties, putting the money where it is really needed, in drinking water lines, sewer treatment for families without indoor plumbing, even in this day and age, and in health care clinics and hospitals in places that had none before, in job skills training for workers displaced from coal mines and textile shops, since closed. Mr. Chairman, this appropriation bill continues the ARC, but as I have said before, it reforms it. It directs that the remaining moneys be focused on basic infrastructure and health needs. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], the chairman of the Committee on Public Works and Transportation, and the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest], chairman of the subcommittee, will later tell you that they have passed through the subcommittee a new authorization bill for the ARC. It will be authorized and modified and reformed. The facts speak for themselves. ARC works. It is a model of a conservative nature, in my judgment, that marries the best of the voluntarism in the country with local, State, and governmental help, in order to help us to walk up the stepladder on our own. That is what we most desperately want. I hope Members will oppose the Klug amendment. Help us keep the ARC alive. We have cut it in half. It is being authorized. It is underneath the budget resolution that has passed both bodies of the Congress now, House and Senate. Please give us a chance to help ourselves. Oppose Klug.

Mr. ROGERS. Does the gentleman's State benefit from a thing called the Central Utah Project?

Mr. ROGERS. Yes, I did. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman, it is not TVA, it is ARC. Does the gentleman realize that the budget conference that he voted for that came out of the Senate and House conference provided for $182 million for the ARC and this bill only has $140 million in it?

Mr. ROGERS. I am talking about the conference report that came back, the House and Senate conference on the budget that came to the House. [[Page H 6868]]

Mr. ROGERS. If the gentleman will continue to yield, does the gentleman realize that in that budget conference the budget allowed for $182 million for the Appalachian Regional Commission? Was the gentleman aware of that?

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I assume the gentleman voted for the budget resolution conference report that came back from the House and Senate conference, is that correct?

Mr. ROGERS

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. I share the gentleman's sentiments. I know that we both agree with the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith], the sponsor of the amendment, emotionally, in that we want to provide as much aid as we can. However, I think this amendment is counterproductive in that we have already cut the State Department personnel account furiously. As a matter of fact, the administration's request would have required a reduction of 350 people from the State Department's personnel accounts and the closing of 21 posts around the world. That was before we got hold of it. Our markup of the State Department accounts reduced the President's request another $40 million. And we are looking at double the proposed reductions. So if you want to administer this refugee and migration account, it ought to be done internally, because we just do not have the resources in the State Department to manage that kind of an operation. Neither do we have the authorization. So I would hope that the gentleman would reconsider his amendment because, if it is successful, the only other place that the salaries and expenses to run this program could come from would be out of the State Department regular accounts; and we have already slashed them unmercifully and perhaps there is even more to come. The amendment would transfer the costs of 90 employees from where they are now to the State Department to an account that is already requiring reductions of five times that number of people. The money is not there. It was not requested there. It was not appropriated there. And there is no room there for anything more. So I would say to the gentleman from New Jersey, that if we want to ensure that there are enough people to run the migration and refugee program, we ought to leave the funding right where it is, in the program account, under the jurisdiction of the subcommittee whose bill is before us today. Otherwise, there may be a well-funded program but nobody to run it. So I support the chairman of the Foreign Operations Subcommittee, the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan]. I commend him for looking out as well as he has for the refugee programs, and I would hope that we would reject this amendment.

Mr. ROGERS

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, the Army Corps of Engineers, our southern region and the nation lost a humble servant, war hero and good friend when Mitchell ``Stoney'' Merriman died last week from complications of an inoperable brain tumor. Originally from White County, Tennessee, Stoney wrote the book on public relations--literally. A published author, newsman and writer, Stoney had such a creative and innovative style that he wrote a how-to book for the Corps that is used nationwide today. Since 1987, he managed the Army Corps Nashville District's public information, media relations and community relations program in a 7- State area. I cannot think of anyone who knew how to promote an event better. In Corps events and groundbreakings in my district, Stoney always amazed us with something new, creative and exciting. His style blazed a trail for all to follow and his legacy will be long remembered. Stoney was more than just a top-notch public relations man. He was a veteran newsman, and even more importantly, a war hero. During his 23 years of service in the U.S. Marine Corps, he served two combat tours in Vietnam, where he served as a combat journalist. Among his awards were two Purple Hearts, Legion of Merit Medal, Meritorious Service Medal, the Bronze Star with Combat ``V'' Medal and several other awards. As a newsman, Stoney started in the military, but carried on his tradition of excellence at the ``The Smithville Review'' and then as publisher and editor of the ``Carthage, TN Courier.'' I am proud of Stoney Merriman. He was committed, honest and hard working in everything he did--whether it was a Corps event placing his life in harm's way to protect and defend his country. He was a joy to be with, and his service must always be remembered.

Mr. ROGERS

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 350, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. ROGERS

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 349, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. ROGERS

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, I am deeply saddened by the death of my good friend, Herman ``Vance'' Mills. My family and thousands of others throughout Knox County and Kentucky are devastated by this terrible and sudden loss. Our community has lost a topnotch businessman, an active church leader, an inspiring civic and community volunteer, a political leader, and a good Christian friend. He helped everyone he could and always was willing to sacrifice his time for others. Vance's businesses employed dozens of local people and his high- energy, friendly style is what always stood out most. One of Knox County's most prominent citizens, he was a man who always was known for taking care of business. In 1992, Vance received the Daniel Boone Festival Award for Outstanding Citizen because of his outstanding work for our community. At 15, Vance started drilling wells alongside his father, Kail. In the 60's, Vance became a partner in a gas distributorship. He also owned gas stations, a rock quarry, a concrete company, a bank, and two hotels. Vance was a man who could see the future for Barbourville, Knox County and southern and eastern Kentucky. He also had the drive and resourcefulness to make his vision a reality. These improvements meant more jobs and a better economy for the region. Vance Mills was a great leader and a good man. He offered hope to many people in Knox County, and he will be sorely missed.

Mr. ROGERS

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, the people of Kentucky and the Nation lost a war hero and humble servant when Air Force Maj. Gen. Glenn A. Profitt II died tragically in a plane crash in Alabama on April 17. A native of Corbin, KY, General Profitt was director of plans and operations for the Air Education and Training Command at Randolph Air Force Base in San Antonio, TX. Profitt was in charge of jet pilot training, survival training and combat training for airlift, fighter, tanker and special operations crews. During his 31 years of service in the Air Force, he served in Vietnam and Desert Storm receiving numerous awards and decorations, including the Distinguished Service Medal, the Distinguished Flying Cross with six oak leaf clusters, Legion of Merit with two oak leaf clusters, Meritorious Service Medal, Air Medal with 29 oak leaf clusters and a bronze service star, the Air Force Commendation Medal, and the Combat Readiness Medal, and the National Defense Service Medal. In Southeast Asia, General Profitt flew nearly 500 combat missions, serving almost 4 years in the region. And, in Desert Storm, General Profitt was commander of the 15th Air Division, where he is credited with designing and implementing the most destructive air strike in history. Shortly after his successful tour in Desert Storm, he was promoted to Major General in 1992. Reserve Officer Training Corps program at Purdue University in 1964. He also received a masters degree from Webster University in Missouri and degrees from the Armed Forces Staff College and the prestigious National War College in Washington, DC. General Profitt's father, Glenn Profitt, served as the city manager of Corbin in the 1970's and many of his relatives still live in our area. I am proud of Maj. Gen. Glenn A. Profitt II. He placed his life in harm's way to protect and defend his country. Then, he led a new generation into battle nearly two decades later. He gave his career to the United States Air Force, and his service must always be remembered.

Mr. ROGERS

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan].

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, let me explain simply what the gentlewoman's amendment does. The 1995 appropriations act out of our subcommittee included $265 million for the National Institute of Standards and Technology's internal laboratory research programs. That amount was $40 million over the fiscal 1994 figure, an 18 percent increase, and deservedly so, because these labs do a wonderful job. The committee rescission in this bill that is pending before us would rescind $19.5 million from that amount and reduce the 1995 figure to $245.5 million for fiscal 1995. That is still a 9.5 percent increase over the 1994 level, even after the rescission is taken. The NIST internal program will not lose money. They will just simply get as much of an increase as the 1995 bill had given them. They will still be able to employ more people, even with this rescission. The gentlewoman from Maryland has made a very powerful case to this gentleman and the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan], the ranking minority member on our subcommittee, of the importance of the NIST program over and again to us. I have to compliment the gentlewoman from Maryland [Mrs. Morella] for her tremendous persuasiveness about the effectiveness of NIST and its programs. She has convinced us that it would be wise to cut back on the rescission in a fairly modest way but a significant way. This amendment she offers would restore $3 million to the NIST internal research program to enable them to continue the build-up that was started a few years ago to bolster our Nation's ability to compete by transferring technology to our Nation's industries and businesses. I do not think anyone in this room needs to be convinced of the efficacy of the NIST programs. This is one of the government's good programs. These are dedicated scientists and economists and people who understand business and exports. These laboratories at NIST already have a 90-plus-year history of working closely with small and large companies coupled with a reputation for neutrality and technical excellence. That is why NIST was selected by the Congress in 1987 and 1988 to tackle added assignments. Today we provide services through four major programs that make up a portfolio of technology-based tools: One is the competitive advanced technology program which provides cost-shared awards to industry to develop high-risk technologies. Two, a grassroots manufacturing extension partnership helping small and medium size companies to adopt new technologies. Three, a strong laboratory effort planned and implemented in cooperation with industry and focused on infrastructural technologies. And, four, a quality improvement program associated with the Malcolm Baldridge National Quality Award. The NIST laboratories are an invaluable asset of our government in assisting American companies to be more competitive in the world market. Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, we do not have enough money in our bill to do all we would like to do. The monies that we restore tonight we will have to find in 1996 in order to keep these added employees on the line. None of us can guarantee that. We have got a tough year coming up in 1996. But for the moment, the gentlewoman from Maryland's amendment has been persuasive. I want to again congratulate her on being able to convince a number of us to restore this amount of money to the NIST program. I reluctantly have agreed to the amendment, and I will be voting for the Morella amendment and urge our colleagues to do the same. With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. ROGERS. I only have one speaker remaining, and I think it is our right to close; is that correct, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker].

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is offered by the gentlewoman from Maryland. I yield 6 minutes to the gentlewoman from Maryland [Mrs. Morella] to explain the amendment and its modification.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, at the behest of the original offeror of the amendment, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be modified by the form the gentlewoman from Maryland [Mrs. Morella] has placed at the desk.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendment No. 6.

Mr. ROGERS

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 450, the Regulatory Transition Act of 1995, but I would like to make clear what this bill does and does not do. First, what the bill does do. This legislation will place a temporary hold on regulations which are currently under promulgation by Federal agencies. These regulations--which number more than 65,000 pages per year--are literally choking the economic growth of the Nation and must be looked at. Again, this is a temporary hold. We are simply saying that the redtape machine needs to stop for a few months so we can see if these regulations are helping or hurting the American people. I would bet that many homebuilders, roadbuilders, and oil and gas entrepreneurs in my district would say that the red-tape of regulation is definitely hurting. However, there are clear limits to what this bill applies to. For instance, the bill explicitly states that no regulations ``which would prevent an imminent threat to health or safety'' would be affected by this legislation. In fact, I spoke to the chairman of the committee that wrote this bill, the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Clinger, to ensure that these provisions were part of the final package. But in order to ensure that critical safety regulations pending at the Mine Safety and Health Administration [MSHA] would not be affected, I will vote for an amendment during floor debate which will exempt such actions from the bill. These include important rules requiring better ventilation to avoid buildup of methane gas and restricting the use of diesel equipment to avoid coal mine fires. I simply feel that protecting the health and safety of our miners requires this added protection. Again, Mr. Chairman, I am supportive of efforts to put a hold on the regulation steamroller known as the Federal Government. I only wanted to clarify for my colleagues that important rules regarding health and safety would not be impacted.

Mr. ROGERS

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a special friend to Prestonsburg, Floyd County, and all of eastern Kentucky, John M. Stumbo. John, who served as judge-executive of Floyd County since 1983, passed away recently at the age of 67. A World War II veteran in the Army, Judge Stumbo was a leader who was concerned with our young people and worked to achieve a better way of life in eastern Kentucky. Nicknamed ``Lightning,'' an obvious contrast to his slow-talking, deliberate manner, Judge Stumbo entered Floyd County's political scene in the early 1950's as a member of the county board of education. He held that post for 31 years, serving the last three decades as the board chairman. After his service as board chairman, he was appointed judge-executive by then-Governor, John Y. Brown in 1983, following the death of Judge Larry Lafferty, Jr. He was reelected in 1985, 1989, and again in 1993. Weathering many storms during his 44 years in the public eye, Judge Stumbo was a recognized force in eastern Kentucky politics. As Floyd County's leader, he led the effort to develop a countywide network of fire hydrants, which served as a model for other counties. Also under his leadership, Floyd County became one of the first counties in the State to enact mandatory participation in a solid waste disposal system. And, at the time of his death, a new county jail is under construction and a new courthouse in the planning stages. He promoted our region's strength, twice heading the Kentucky Coal Council, pushing the natural resources that bless eastern Kentucky. And, as chairman for the Big Sandy Area Development District for 4 years, he showed his devotion to economic development by playing an instrumental role in building the Big Sandy Regional Airport. Finally, his appointment of a county-financed economic development authority in the late 1980's was unique to eastern Kentucky. We will miss Judge John M. Stumbo. He committed five decades of his life to public service in Floyd County and eastern Kentucky. His legacy will long be remembered.

Mr. ROGERS

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, the American people said loudly and clearly that they want Washington bureaucrats out of their hair. This is especially true in the hardworking, patriotic areas of eastern Kentucky. Well, I agree with these citizens, and that is why I rise today in strong support of H.R. 227, the Interstate Waste Act of 1995, and urge its immediate passage by the House. I firmly believe that local citizens ought to have the right to make decisions regarding their lives. As we return power to our communities, we should start with the regulation of out-of-State trash. Simply stated, local citizens should have the final say whether their town becomes a national garbage dump--not the Supreme Court or Washington know-it-alls. H.R. 227 is the way to accomplish this goal. It says that, and I'm quoting from the bill. [E]ffective January 1, 1996, a landfill or incinerator in a State may not receive for disposal or incineration any out- of-State municipal solid waste unless the owner or operator of such landfill or incinerator obtains explicit authorization from the affected local government to receive the waste. What a concept. Local people making local decisions. In Kentucky, we call this horse sense. Washington could sure use a strong dose of that, Mr. Speaker. But seriously, this is a fundamental right of our local communities, and they have waited far too long for us to give them that right. We were close last year--the House passed the bill unanimously in the 11th hour of the session. But unfortunately, the session ended before the Senate could take action. But we are moving again this year. I have spoken to my good friend and colleague, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Oxley], who is the chairman of the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Hazardous Materials which has jurisdiction over this bill. He has assured me that this legislation will get a fair hearing in the subcommittee and he is confident that we can bring it before the full House for floor consideration. Mr. Speaker, this is a critical issue that we must deal with and I am committed to seeing that H.R. 227 is acted on this year. We need jobs, clean water, and good roads in Kentucky--not tons of trash from Florida.

Mr. ROGERS

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, we are not anti-United Nations, we are not anti- reasonable peacekeeping operations. There are some good peacekeeping operations, we have to say. There have been some bungled ones, obviously. Those are the ones we need to focus on. However, let me say this, Mr. Chairman, three points. There must be some fairness in the sharing of the burden of peacekeeping in the world. The Untied States is being overburdened in this process. The direct contribution that we make is, as has been noted, almost a third of the total cost, not to mention the extra costs of the Department of Defense and the others in support of those missions. It is reasonable to say we are paying upwards of 60 to 70 percent of the total cost of peacekeeping missions. That is unfair. That must be addressed by the United Nations. The only way to get them to address those kinds of questions is for this Congress to be obstinate on funding. That is what we will be doing. Two, the ineptitude of the United Nations operations, both its regular operations and peacekeeping. There are some 40,000 employees of the United Nations in New York alone. Until recently, only 40 of those people were trying to oversee 17 peacekeeping military operations with 70,000 soldiers around the globe, 5 days a week, 8 hours a day. It absolutely was inept; there is some improvement, but not nearly enough. Fairness to the Congress, fairness from the administration to the Congress. The administration votes for these peacekeeping missions in the United Nations. We do not know in the Congress how much it is going to cost, out, how we are going to get out, how we are going to pay for it. They simply--the United Nations--simply sends the U.S. Congress the bill, after the fact. In former years it was a fairly small amount, $40 million a year 5 years ago. Now it is $1.2 billion for 1995 plus another $672 million supplemental they have just sent up here, so that is $1.8 or $1.9 billion, not counting DOD expenses. That is a significant figure. We have to regularize this process. We simply cannot run the Government in that fashion. The Congress has to be in on the operation from the outset, so we can plan, at least financially, how to deal with it. Mr. Chairman, the $672 million supplemental they have just set up for what the United Nations says are 1995 cost overruns is not offset. The administration says ``We are not going to ask you to cut other spending, just give us out of the clear blue sky this money.'' I say, ``This must be offset. You have to pay for it. Then we will think about it.''

Mr. ROGERS

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the National Security Revitalization Act. This bill is an important first step in the Congress reasserting its constitutional prerogative to control the Nation's purse. Currently, the American taxpayer is footing over half of the United Nations peacekeeping bill. Last year alone, the American taxpayer paid $2.9 billion to U.N. peacekeeping--$1.2 billion in direct payments, and $1.7 billion in donations through the Defense Department. Well, Mr. Chairman, enough is enough. The United States can no longer afford to be so generous. We want, and demand more equitable burdensharing at the United Nations. This bill does just that, and I applaud my colleagues, Mr. Spence, and Mr. Gilman, for their leadership on this important issue. But, we must go further. Some people believe peacekeeping is an entitlement, and are treating it as such. The administration obligates us to a new mission, and sends the Congress the bill, with no concern over whether the funding is available. Just last week, at the same time the United States was voting for yet another peacekeeping mission, the administration requested that Congress provide a $672 million emergency supplemental for U.N. peacekeeping, without any offsets, because it had run out of money. Well, peacekeeping is not an entitlement. Peacekeeping, like any other program, must be based on the availability of funds to pay for the program. If the Congress has not already provided funds for the mission, please understand that there can be no assurance that the United States will be able to pay the bill. In 1945, the Congress passed the U.N. Participation Act on the understanding that we would be a full partner in financing decisions for the United Nations, as our Constitution provides. This bill represents an important first step in Congress exercising its constitutional prerogative to control the Nation's purse. And, I can assure my colleagues, that, as the subcommittee chairman responsible for U.N. peacekeeping assessments, we will not treat peacekeeping as an entitlement. And, we will continue to exercise our power over the purse as we proceed with the difficult task of matching domestic and international priorities with shrinking budgetary resources.