Hal Rogers

Mr. ROGERS

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

Mr. ROGERS. I would point out to the Chair that we are trying to expedite this bill and get it over with by 10 o'clock or so tonight. We are proceeding amicably and I think agreeably and very successfully. If all of the Members can restrain themselves, we can get through with this bill.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, is it proper for this Member to inquire of the gentleman the reason he might object to such a limitation?

Mr. ROGERS

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of title I be considered as read, printed in the Record and open to amendment at any point.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee do now rise.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on this amendment and all amendments thereto close in 20 minutes, and that the time be equally divided between the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia [Ms. Norton] and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde].

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentlewoman has brought up a very, very salient point. Her amendment is well-deserved. I am prepared to accept it.

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

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words and rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment which would reduce the State prison grant funding by $30 million. I have already stated the reason why we should not do that in the previous amendment. The money would be used to increase funding for drug courts, which is another important crime program. I am here saying that I agree that drug courts work, and that is the reason why we have already included funding for them in the bill. The gentlewoman's amendment is not necessary. In addition to the $30 million already provided in the bill for the drug court program specifically, the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Waters] should be aware that local communities can also use funding from the local law enforcement block grant for that purpose. Last year, in fact, localities chose to use $15 million of that money for drug courts. We include $523 million for the local law enforcement block grant, which the President's request would have eliminated. Localities with choose to use any amount of that money for drug courts, and I would encourage them to do that, because I agree with the gentlewoman that they are very effective. At any rate, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment, because the prison grant program is absolutely working.

Mr. ROGERS

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I am very sympathetic to the needs of Texas and other States that have the highest criminal alien incarceration populations and believe that the additional $100 million the House provides for in the program will alleviate most of the problems that my colleagues are encountering. I recognize the need for those affected States to have greater flexibility in using their staff reimbursements. If we are not able to provide them this additional funding, I will work with my colleague and others to find a solution.

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

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, let me compliment the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] for raising these concerns regarding law enforcement needs in the Northern Mariana Islands. We will work during the conference to include language to address the issue in the statement of managers.

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

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman has worked very closely with us on his amendment. We believe this program has merit and is a good amendment, and we have no objection to it and support its adoption.

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

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, INS at this very moment is processing 5,000 revocations of citizenship because they are criminals; 5,000, and they have just started counting. The gentleman is incorrect.

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

Mr. ROGERS. So we make it illegal for them to waive the criminal check by the FBI before they grant citizenship, as they did last year in at least 180,000 cases, and we have 10,000, at least, felons walking the streets of America today because the INS waived the policy against requiring criminal checks by the FBI before they grant citizenship. We make it law now in this bill, not just policy. It will be the law. No. 2, in this bill we also authorize and direct the Attorney General to fire on the spot any INS employee who violates the law or policy of the Department in relation to the naturalization process. We will not tolerate the selling of American citizenship for votes or anything else in this country, and this bill makes that plain. Mr. Chairman, I accept the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman has made a very interesting point, and I am prepared to accept the amendment, because it gives additional oversight of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, an agency that I think is out of control. I have to say this, if the gentleman will continue to yield. In this bill, in addition to the money that we hope is agreed to in the gentleman's amendment for additional oversight by the inspector general of the Department for INS, in the bill we make it illegal for the INS to waive the FBI criminal check before they grant citizenship to an individual.

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

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his statement, and for his concern for victims' rights. I realize the gentleman's commitment toward this cause and the background he brings to this body as a former prosecuting attorney from the State of Missouri as Attorney General. I agree that every effort must be made to ensure that victims are not forgotten in the criminal justice system. The measures included in this year's appropriations bill send us in the right direction to meeting the needs of victims of serious violent crime. The subcommittee provided funds for 74 new victim coordinators and advocates and the development of a national notification system. Mr. Chairman, I look forward to working with the gentleman during the conference deliberations on the bill to find additional monies for this very vital program.

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

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

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

Mr. ROGERS. I thank the gentlewoman for bringing this to the attention of the committee. I support community-based initiatives to crime prevention and urge the Department to give favorable consideration to continue funding this program.