Hal Rogers

Mr. ROGERS

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

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, we will be very interested to know the conclusions of the investigation.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield again, we do not have the investigative forces that would allow us the luxury of being able to delve into this matter in the way it should be. Perhaps another committee of the Congress would have more resources with which to deal with that, and I would like to know the conclusions of that committee that does it.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman has made a point of this, and we have read only the press accounts, some of the press accounts of this matter. It is certainly not a very good way to lobby for funds for an agency to treat the Congress in that fashion, if, in fact, that occurred. Certainly, we will keep all of these facts in mind as we finally come to a conclusion later this year on the adequate funding level for the State Department.

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

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because it provides an appropriation for an unauthorized program and, therefore, violates clause 2 of rule XXI, which states, in pertinent part: ``An appropriation may not be in order as an amendment for an expenditure not previously authorized by law.'' Mr. Chairman, the authorization for the COPS program on page 32 of the bill provides $268 million, which is the amount in the bill. This amendment would add $2.5 million over and above the authorized level and exceeds the authorization, so it does violate clause 2 of rule XXI.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve my point of order.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.

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

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott). Either the gentleman's amendment is not drafted properly or he intends to cut the local law enforcement block grant by 50 million, and that is a program that is critical to our State and local law enforcements' fight to reduce crime. The amendment cuts the funds available for the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant, State prison grants, and the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP), by 20 percent; and the Committee has received numerous letters by our colleagues' governors, their State prosecutors, their State prison officials, supporting the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant that it refers to be cut here, and the Truth-in-Sentencing grants and SCAAP, which this amendment cuts. Convicted felons, Mr. Chairman, serve only 38 percent of their sentences on average. Truth-in-Sentencing grants, which this would cut, which require violent offenders to serve 85 percent of their sentences, are a vital and sensible response to the problem that we face. While there may be several reasons for the recent drop in violent crime, the fact remains, prison works. The simple fact is that prisons incapacitate offenders. Incarceration, unlike probation or parole, makes it impossible for offenders to victimize the public as long as they are locked up. Historic figures show that after incarceration rates have increased crime rates have moderated, and I would submit to my colleagues that is exactly the case we face today as America right now is enjoying the lowest violent crime rate in recordkeeping history. On the other hand, imprisonment is actually used less frequently than are alternative sanctions. On any given day, seven offenders are on the street for every three who are behind bars. In 1991, 45 percent of State prisoners were on probation or parole at the time they committed their last crime. Together these parole and probation violators committed 90,639 violent crimes while under supervision in the community. That is 13,100 murders, 12,900 rapes, 19,300 assaults, and 39,500 committed by people on parole or probation. In 1992, over 40 percent of persons on death row were on probation, parole, or pretrial release at the time they committed the murder for which they are now on death row. The lack of prison space is a national problem. When we passed the legislation in 1995, only 12 States were Truth-in-Sentencing States. By the end of 1998, 27 States and the District of Columbia required violent offenders to serve at least 85 percent of their prison sentences. Another 13 States have adopted Truth-in-Sentencing laws requiring violent offenders to serve a substantial portion of their sentence before being eligible for release. The need for additional prison capacity remains. While some States may have excess prison capacity, other States are a long way from reducing their overcrowding problem, and I suspect the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime who I am sure will speak momentarily, will elucidate on these points. I would urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. This amendment, although it has a worthy goal of increasing funding for certain programs, unfortunately would cut the programs that are working in bringing down violent and other crimes in the country, and I would urge the rejection of this amendment.

Mr. ROGERS. If the gentlewoman will yield on that, that is not their story to me. If they are requesting more money or if they say this is not enough money, that is news to me because this is the amount they asked of us.

Mr. ROGERS. I appreciate the gentlewoman's bringing this matter to the body's attention. The fact is that last year, the current year, we provided $172 million for the purposes of trying to reduce that backlog of naturalization, which in most cases is now 2 years. The wait for an individual to be naturalized is 2 years. That is incredibly long. But we provided the big money this current year and we provided $124 million in this bill, which was the amount the administration requested for this purpose, and they assured us they would be able to reduce the backlog with this sum of money. Now, the gentlewoman knows that I am not happy with the Immigration and Naturalization Service. This is another reason why I think we need to think anew about how we handle all of the matters now dealt with by the INS. But for the moment in this bill, we have provided every penny that was requested of us for the purposes of reducing the backlog.

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

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I hold here in my hand a copy of a letter from 34 of our Nation's Governors who are urging us not to cut this program, and I would submit that for the Record, if the gentleman would like. July 20, 1999. Hon. C.W. Bill Young, Chairman, Committee on Appropriations, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Hon. Harold Rogers, Chairman, Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State and the Judiciary, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington,

Mr. ROGERS. I would be happy to, but I do not think the Chair will let me.

Mr. ROGERS. I do, Mr. Chairman. The amendment touches text not yet read for amendment and it results in an increase in outlays and does not warrant protection under clause 2(f) of rule XXI.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, in response let me say the problem is that this puts us over our allocation. It is not a question of whether I want to do it or not, it is a question of whether or not it is legal. The gentlewoman's amendment simply puts us over our allocation. Under the rules, we simply cannot do that.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because it would increase the level of budget outlays in the bill in violation of clause 2(f) of rule XXI. That 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. This amendment would increase the level of outlays in the bill because it comes from the INS Salaries and Expenses Account. The BA is $3.7 million. It is an 80 percent outlay, which means the first year outlay is $3 million. The object being decreased is the Prisons Buildings and Facilities Fund, which outlays at the same figure, 10 percent; and there are no outlays in the first year. So the net increase in outlays by this amendment is $3 million, in violation I think of the rule. Mr. Chairman, I would ask for a ruling.

Mr. ROGERS

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on the bill (H.R. 2670) making appropriations for the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2000, and for other purposes, and that I may include tabular and extraneous material.

Mr. ROGERS

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I understand the interest of the two gentlemen, including the ranking minority member. I will be pleased to work with them as we go through this.

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