THIS SEARCH THIS DOCUMENT THIS CR ISSUE GO TO
Next Hit Forward Next Document New CR Search
Prev Hit Back Prev Document HomePage
Hit List Best Sections Daily Digest Help
Doc Contents
Eventually I would urge the gentleman to recognize, and I think the
[Page: H4965] GPO's PDF
The majority has chosen to do the latter. That gets them to first base, it gets the bills out of the House, but it does not get them any further around the base paths. And until the leadership allows us to legislate rather than produce these ``let's pretend'' bills, we will continue to hear ``Well, we know these bills are inadequate, but we will do better in September.''
It would be much better if we did better now!
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I would just make this one point, that I think all of us who pay any attention to baseball understand that we cannot go from home plate to home plate. We have to go to first base first, and then we go to second, and then we go to third, and then we go home. We just cannot get there without passing first base.
Mr. OBEY. Taking back my time, I recognize that. But as the gentleman knows, these bills are all going to be vetoed, so they have not a prayer of getting home. The ball is never going to get out of the park on any of these bills.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. REGULA), a very valued member of our subcommittee.
(Mr. REGULA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, it is hard to hit a home run with 2 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the fiscal year 2001 Commerce-State-Justice and Judiciary appropriations bill. I certainly commend the gentleman from Kentucky (Chairman ROGERS) and the ranking member, the gentleman from New York (Mr. SERRANO) for bringing to the House a bill which was crafted under very tight budget constraints that governs the appropriations bills this year.
The bill does continue most programs at current levels, and recognizes high priority areas. I especially would like to thank the chairman for continuing the important partnership that has developed between the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in the Department of Commerce and the Jason Foundation for Education.
This unique partnership continues to make available important research data collected by NOAA to over 3 million students who currently participate in the Jason Project. The focus of the Jason Project is to excite and engage elementary and secondary students in the sciences, and to encourage them to continue their education in the field of science. We have a lot of emphasis on that now.
In addition to a yearly curriculum, students participate in annual, electronic, and interactive field trips led by preeminent explorer and scientist, Dr. Robert Ballard.
This year the electronic school bus took students to the NASA Space Center in Houston and NOAA's Aquarius Underwater Laboratory in the Florida Keys. Students studied research techniques and equipment that are used in researching the two extremes, outer space and under water.
One key to the success of the Jason Project is its teacher professional development program. This is a first-rate program which should be made available to as many students as possible. This is pioneering work in long-distance learning.
As we move through the process, I would also like to work with the chairman to find some additional funding for the United States trade ambassador to enhance efforts to ensure compliance with trade agreements. I think this is of particular importance with the recent vote in the House to grant China permanent normal trade relations. We must be sure that China meets its commitments under the U.S.-China bilateral agreement to enter the World Trade Organization.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, as the representative from the Bronx, home of the world champion Yankees, and keeping in line with our baseball talk, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. WATT), the star pitcher for the Democratic team.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for yielding time to me.
For the very reasons that the ranking member, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. OBEY) described in his statement, I have about ceased to come to the floor to debate appropriations bills because, especially at this stage in the process, we engage ourselves in a charade because we know this bill and many others are going to be vetoed.
Occasionally I pick up a bill and become so disappointed, indeed sometimes so outraged, that I just have to raise my voice. This is one of those occasions, because when we are dealing with Commerce, Justice, and the Judiciary, and matters of state, we do not have the excuse that many of my colleagues on the Republican side have when they are just beating up on poor people or trying to deny giveaways or welfare, or whatever their political or social agenda is.
This bill generally is about how we assure people who are trying to do right by the system that we give some presumptions to how we fund their programs and be of assistance to them in meeting their obligations in the democratic process.
So when I look at a bill that funds the Legal Services Corporation at a 50 percent cut or 60 percent below what the President of the United States has requested, I say, what are we saying to people? Should they take to the streets and try to get their rights redressed in the streets, or should they continue to have confidence in our legal process and go through the legal process? What obligations do we have as a Congress to encourage them to use the legal process?
When I look at no funds in this bill to help address the digital divide, I ask myself, what message are we sending to people who are not able to, because of their station in life, to take advantage of these E advances, this technology, this booming growth that we are taking advantage of as a Nation?
When I look at a bill and see that the Equal Opportunity Commission is cut by 10 percent when people are trying to get equal justice and equal access to jobs in a growing economy, I say, what message are we sending to the people of the country?
I could go on and on and on, because this bill is simply inadequate. We should reject it and quit participating in this charade.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. WAMP), the only gentleman in the body that last year struck a home run in that infamous ballgame.
(Mr. WAMP asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
[Time: 14:45]
Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Kentucky for those kind words and for yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, this is a very important bill. I think few people realize how important this appropriations bill actually is to security, peace, tranquility, justice in this country. It, pound for pound and dollar for dollar, may be the most important appropriations bill of all 13.
Over the last 2 years, we have had approximately 23 hearings each year. I have attended virtually all of those hearings, and I have to tell my colleagues I am so impressed with the leadership of the gentleman from Kentucky (Chairman ROGERS). No one in this body knows their business and their subject matter better than the gentleman from Kentucky (Chairman ROGERS).
If the term limits for subcommittee chairmen rule holds, and, frankly, I hope in certain cases it does not, if it does hold, this may be his last presentation of the Commerce, Justice, State and Judiciary mark. He deserves great credit. As he hosts those hearings and interrogates our witnesses on critical matters around the globe, he knows his issues so well.
Attorney General Reno, Secretary Albright, Secretary Daley, Louis Freeh
[Page: H4966] GPO's PDF
That is why the gentleman from New York (Mr. SERRANO), our ranking member, speaks with such respect about the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. ROGERS). I thank him for being sensitive to the little issues as well.
It is no longer a little issue, as the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. LATHAM) and I both know very well, the issue of methamphetamine production in rural America, where in east Tennessee we have got a bad, bad problem, and kids are dying and lives are being destroyed. This bill funds the remedy for fighting methamphetamine production, and it is so critical.
It is a balanced bill. We do not have as much money as we would like. But I will tell my colleagues this is a very responsible prioritization of resources within the limits that we face.
Today I come to the floor hoping that this is not the last subcommittee mark of the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. ROGERS) that goes through the full committee and through the House for the first time but hope, in fact, that he can stay. But if, in fact, this is his last mark, I thank the gentleman from Kentucky for his leadership, I thank him for all that he does for the United States of America. A job well done.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. DAVIS), one of those few States with two baseball teams.
(Mr. DAVIS of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from New York for yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this bill for several reasons. First of all, it cuts the request by the Department of Justice for its civil rights division by $11.8 million. It cuts the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission by $31 million. This bill cuts the Department of Justice's community relations service by $2.35 million. It cuts the Civil Rights Commission by $2.1 million.
Finally, I cannot support this bill because it seriously cuts the Legal Services Corporation to a level that will effectively shut down basic legal services for the poorest and most vulnerable members of our society who are seeking justice.
When we are serious about improving race relations, relationships between law enforcement and communities, when we are serious about reducing racial profiling on our streets and roadways, in our airports and in our courtrooms, when we are serious about the real pursuit of justice for all of America, we will vote down this bill and restore the resources necessary so that everybody will have an opportunity to bridge the gaps between those who have and those who have not.
Mr. Chairman, I urge that we vote against this bill so that we can, in fact, ultimately move towards justice for all.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
Mr. Chairman, I hope the Members will realize that when Members come here and speak at talking about cuts that they recognize that the speaker, for the most part, is talking about cutting from the amount requested of the Congress and not from the current levels of spending.
For the most part in this bill, as I have said, we maintain agencies at least their current levels. The Legal Services Corporation is an exception to that. But most of the other agencies are either increased or kept at their current levels. Very few, if any, besides Legal Services, are actually cut in this bill from current levels.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. LATHAM), one of the hardest working Members of our subcommittee, who all the while is concerned with the interests of his district at home especially.
(Mr. LATHAM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Commerce, Justice, State bill, the appropriations bill for fiscal year 2001, as this bill addresses so many of the priorities that are very, very important to all Americans. This bill covers, I think, the broadest jurisdiction of an appropriations bill that we will address this year.
I would like to join my colleagues in congratulating the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. ROGERS), our great chairman, for the tremendous job that he has done the last 4 years that I have been on this subcommittee and how sensitive and responsive he is and his staff are to my concerns and the concerns of the people in the district, and, also, the gentleman from New York (Mr. SERRANO) who started in this subcommittee this Congress and has learned very, very quickly and is really a tremendous asset, and we thank him and his staff for all their hard work.
We have real problems in my part of the country, and the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. WAMP) referred to it also as far as the meth problem. This bill really addresses what is an epidemic from the Upper Midwest with the methamphetamines that are coming in basically from the Mexican cartels, through California, up through the borders and is having such a dramatic effect on Iowans and especially our young people today.
In 1999, the DEA seized 400 meth labs in the State of Iowa. The Iowa Department of Public Safety seized an additional 500 meth labs. What people should keep in mind is that this is about 10 percent of the amount of meth that is coming into the district and into the State. This is why we have to focus on these problems, and this bill does this.
There are $523 million for local law enforcement block grants, $552 million for the Byrne, local law enforcement assistance grant program. The Community Oriented Policing Services is funded at $595 million, including $45 million which is targeted in places like Sioux City, Iowa with the Tri-State Drug Task Force that is doing such an outstanding job today on this problem that we are experiencing.
In Iowa, as well as the rest of the country, we are experiencing real problems that I am sure this will be discussed a great deal with the INS, the fact that, last year or the last 5 years, they have released 35,000 criminal aliens into the general population. This is absolutely outrageous. People convicted of crimes, aliens of this country, and they are released into our population. The failure to bring integrity into the system as far as naturalization and the benefits process that we have throughout the country. The problem that we have as far as pending applications in the past year has increased from $2.1 million to $2.7 million.
We have an INS that simply cannot handle the responsibilities. We are, in fact, putting more and more money into this agency to try and solve these problems. But many of us believe that it is systemic in the agency itself and question, quite honestly, the competency of the leadership in that agency. But we are doing everything possible to make our immigration services work as they should.
It certainly is not a case of enough dollars going into it, as those budgets have been dramatically increased, at least in the 4 years that I have been on the subcommittee.
Just in closing, I would again express my strong support for this bill to thank, again, the chairman and his staff for the tremendous job and the responsiveness and the sensitivity to the issues that are before us.
I think it is an excellent bill. It can, maybe, be made even better later on. But certainly, under the restrictions we have, we are doing an outstanding job.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I just want to address some of the comments that the gentleman from Kentucky (Chairman ROGERS) said. He made some comments about folks coming to the floor and saying that there were cuts, and he referred to them not as cuts, but, rather, turning down the full request that the administration has made. He is correct on that.
There are many parts of this bill where the amount the administration has asked for has been rejected, has not been adhered to. But we need to understand that those requests come about
[Page: H4967] GPO's PDF
Secondly, there are parts of this bill, and the glaring one is the Legal Services Corporation, where, indeed, it is a cut from current year funding. I mean, that is clear. So while I respect the use of words by the gentleman from Kentucky, I think that some Members on this side think their use of the word cut and cuts are not improper because that is, in fact, what they are.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield briefly on that point?
Mr. SERRANO. Certainly, I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, if I recollect correctly, the President's budget request was brought to the floor and voted on. Is it not correct that the House rejected the President's request by some 430 to 2. I ask the gentleman, what was the correct figure?
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SERRANO. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, the assertion of the gentleman from Kentucky is not correct. The President's budget was not brought to the floor. The majority's interpretation of what the President's budget was was brought to the floor, and that interpretation was disowned by the White House as well as those of us on this side of the aisle. My colleagues were essentially bringing a false product to the floor and asking us to assume it as our own, and we were not dumb enough to do it.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. ROGERS) fully understands not only what the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. OBEY) says is correct, but also the fact that we did respond or did not respond to the administration's requests as we knew them to be, not as any other interpretation. Both our staffers had correct numbers and we had a choice to accept it or not accept it.
THIS SEARCH THIS DOCUMENT THIS CR ISSUE GO TO
Next Hit Forward Next Document New CR Search
Prev Hit Back Prev Document HomePage
Hit List Best Sections Daily Digest Help
Doc Contents