Hal Rogers

Mr. ROGERS

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I seek the time in opposition and I yield half of that time to the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan] and I ask unanimous consent that he be permitted to control that time.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that debate on this amendment and all amendments thereto close in 20 minutes and that the time be equally divided on the issue.

Mr. ROGERS. I appreciate the gentleman's concerns and I assure him that we will provide similar favorable consideration when we conference this bill with the Senate, as we provided last year, for additional funding for the Boys and Girls Clubs of America.

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

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman has gone a long way to bring to the attention of this body and the subcommittee the problem of missing and exploited children. As the gentleman has indicated, Congress has made it a national priority to help States in the safe recovery of endangered children, and in addition to the $6 million in funds already provided as an earmark under the justice assistance account for the missing children's program in this bill, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention has established a Federal agency task force for Missing and Exploited Children and provides research, training, and technical assistance to prosecutors, law enforcement, and child protective services personnel. In addition, the Criminal Division and the FBI also dedicate significant resources to this problem, including forensic expertise, violent crime analysis, behavioral science profiling, trial preparation, and prosecutorial strategies. But as the gentleman points out, additional training is still necessary to ensure that State and local law enforcement authorities have the ability to respond to this problem using the Federal and national resources available to them. This can be done through a combination of additional funding earmarked directly for the Missing Children Program and increasing efforts within resources already available to the FBI and the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency. I will assure the gentleman that I will work during the conference on this bill to provide additional resources for this important program. I commend him for his work.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, may we be able to move on and do pending business?

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, what is pending before the body?

Mr. ROGERS. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. ROGERS. Let me commend the gentlewoman for bringing this matter to the attention of the Congress, a matter of great importance to so many around our country, and the gentlewoman again, as she has in the past, has put her finger on a very severe problem in this country, and I hope that her efforts will be rewarded.

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

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I compliment the gentleman for his perseverance on this issue. He knows this issue better than anyone else does. He has been very helpful in constructing the portions of the bill that relate to digital telephony. We have no objection to the amendment that he has offered. In fact, we commend him for it. We urge its adoption.

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

Mr. ROGERS. Can the Chair inform the Members how late the session will be going this evening?

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I know that. I am trying to do a little song and dance while we wait for them to get to the floor. Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the Chair could inform the Members what the procedure is for the evening. The Chair has been rolling votes. I would assume that at some point in time we will be resuming the votes and taking those rollcalls that have been reserved; is that correct?

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, we have Members who have amendments that have been filed in this portion of the bill that are not the floor at the moment, having been called to other duties. I hope that they would be allowed to offer their amendments at the appropriate time.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I would also point out that the Scott amendment, taking a half billion dollars out of this program, is money all of our States would no longer have available to them. We could not fund the Truth in Sentencing Act that the Congress passed last year if this amendment passes. No. 2, we have already got $180 million plus in our bill for juvenile justice programs. That is $30.5 million more than President Clinton requested. And so there is plenty of money in this bill available for juvenile justice programs that the gentleman from Virginia wants and that we all want. I just do not want the gentleman to gut a very effective violent crime fighting program that we fund in this bill, that will get the violent criminals, adults as well as juveniles, around the country, off the streets. I urge the defeat of the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for his leadership in this area. He is the author of the Truth in Sentencing Act, which we passed in this bill last year and which is the parent of the State prison grant program. It is perfect because it takes Federal dollars and says to each State if they will jail their violent criminals up to 85 percent of the sentence they get, we will give them money with which to build prisons and buy the beds to keep them in jail. We will pay the bill. That is an effective way to get at violent crime, and I think it is going to have tremendous payoff down the way.

Mr. ROGERS. I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum], the chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime and also the author of this law that we passed last year.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment, which would eliminate $497.5 million from the State prison grant program to increase funding for juvenile justice programs. I would point out to the Members that the State prison grant program is a formula program. Every State would receive moneys under the prison grant program. This is a half a billion dollars that States will not get if this amendment is successful. While the gentleman's intent to increase funds to address youth violence is a laudable one, the bill we have before us already provides a $30.5 million increase over what the administration requested to provide additional grants to States that are implementing get tough prosecution policies for juveniles who commit violent crimes. The bill already is a ``macho man'' on violent crime, I would say to the gentleman from Virginia. The Scott amendment would increase that amount $497.5 million at the expense of the State prison grant program, which would be eliminated and which would have provided funds to States to ensure that violent offenders, including violent juvenile offenders, are locked up. Last year this Congress passed a significant reform to the State prison grant program, which the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum] pursued, which would ensure that funds would be available to States that are getting tough on crime and keeping violent criminals locked up. This program was designed to address the frightening fact that violent criminals in State prisons serve an average of only 38 percent of their actual sentence. Convicted murderers are given an average prison sentence of 20 years in length, but they serve only 8\1/2\ years. And for rape the sentence is 13 years, but the time served is only 5 years on average. States are enacting laws that require violent criminals to serve longer sentences and in some cases at least 85 percent of their sentences. They deserve the support of this Congress to ensure that adequate bed space is available to maintain those policies. The State prison grant program provides that support, and the gentleman's amendment would take it away completely. The prison grant program is one of the most effective deterrents to crime. It provides the assurance that if an individual commits a crime they will serve time. Without the prison grant program, the result of increased law enforcement and prosecution will not be real. Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote on the Scott amendment.

Mr. ROGERS. We will do the right thing.

Mr. ROGERS. Let me get this straight. Is the gentleman asking me to guess what the Senate is going to do on this?

Mr. ROGERS. I think it is pretty plain.