Hal Rogers

Mr. ROGERS

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

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Schiff].

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to a point of order.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California [Mr. Packard], a member of the committee. (Mr. PACKARD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Shaw] who is chairman of the Human Resources Subcommittee in the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to a point of order against this amendment under clause 2 of rule XXI. The Stupak amendment constitutes legislation on an appropriations bill, because it attempts to earmark $600 million for a program for rural areas which is not authorized in law. The amendment attempts to amend the local law enforcement block grant which is an unauthorized program that is permitted to remain under the rule. According to the ruling of the Chair on July 12, 1995, where an unauthorized appropriation is permitted to remain in a general appropriation bill, an amendment directly changing the amount in that paragraph and not adding legislative language of earmarking separate funds for another purpose is in order as merely perfecting. Clearly, this amendment does more than merely change the amount in the paragraph. It adds legislative language and earmarks a portion of the funds for a new purpose and so constitutes legislation on an appropriations bill. I ask for the ruling of the Chair.

Mr. ROGERS. The gentleman is one of the champions of border protection and has done more than anyone that I am aware of in this body to protect the borders of our country, and I am aware that the construction of barriers at certain points along our southern border has greatly enhanced the operations of the border patrol. I will work with the Commissioner of the INS and the gentleman in securing funding for those projects.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California [Mr. Berman].

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes. Mr. Chairman, I am in opposition to the Mollohan amendment. I agree that the State and local communities need more money to fight crime. My bill already provides more resources than ever before to all State and local agencies to fight crime. We have already increased Byrne grants by $25 million over 1995, and what the administration requested. Between the almost $2 billion local block grant program, and the $475 million Byrne formula grant program that I proposed, every State will receive approximately 5\1/2\ times more money to fight crime than they received this year; 5\1/2\ times more. But for some States and local communities, addressing crime also means addressing the serious problems of illegal immigration, because often illegal immigration brings along with it other illegal criminal activities. As my colleagues well know, along with addressing crime in our bill, we include a serious commitment to addressing the problem of illegal immigration. Our initiative is not only focused on controlling the borders; it is equally focused on addressing the growing population of deportable illegal aliens and is heavily weighted on the criminal illegal alien population. Mr. Chairman, I agree that we should not just give money to the States to reimburse them for the costs they are incurring without having a strong plan to address the underlying problem. This is a Federal responsibility and we are responsible for getting it under control. This bill, and the resources included in 1994 and 1995, provided during times when the subcommittee was under the watch of the gentleman from West Virginia, will significantly strengthen our ability to address illegal immigration. Our hope is that States' burdens will decline as our efforts are successful in dealing with this problem. My bill attempts to address the costs that States bear as a result of crimes committed by aliens. The Department of Justice tells me that these resources will be available to all States based on the level of incarcerated illegal aliens. Mr. Chairman, I oppose the Mollohan amendment and urge the Members to reject it. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, this is a noncontroversial amendment. I think it is agreed to by both sides. It moves $50 million from the local law enforcement block grant to the Violence Against Women Grant Program. Mr. Chairman, we believe that these funds would have been spent out of the local law enforcement block grant for domestic violence programs, but moving these resources will ensure that local communities will target it to domestic violence issues. Both the gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Molinari] and the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey] have worked closely with me and my ranking member on this amendment, and I applaud both of their efforts to pursue funding for this program and I urge its adoption.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Mr. ROGERS. Reclaiming my time, the gentleman has made a very eloquent case and need not make it further. It is my intent, as the gentleman requested, that we will work with the gentleman to see that funds are provided.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman, based on the assurances that I am prepared to make to him, if he might be willing to withdraw the amendment. Let me say this to this gentleman: It is my intent that from within funds provided to the Immigration and Naturalization Service, funds be provided to community based organizations to promote the opportunities and responsibilities of U.S. citizenship with the assistance of appropriate community groups in accordance with section 332(h) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, and we will work with the gentleman to make sure that happens. Based on that assurance, I would hope the gentleman would be able to withdraw his amendment.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Deal].

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California [Mr. Becerra].

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield further, I would hope, on that assurance, that the gentleman would withdraw his amendment.

Mr. ROGERS

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker].

Mr. ROGERS. I am, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on this amendment and all amendments thereto close in 30 minutes and that the time be equally divided.

Mr. ROGERS. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, if I may have the Members' attention on the schedule, I think we have some information that would be helpful to everyone. Mr. Chairman, we think we have time agreements on all the rest of the amendments that will take significant time, and we think that will take around two hours. We think we should roll all votes on this bill until all debate has ended so that there will only be one other series of votes at the conclusion of debate. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, if this is agreeable, there will not be any votes, we estimate, for around two hours. Members who have amendments should be prepared to offer them because there will not be any intervening votes to kill time.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on this amendment and all amendments thereto close in 20 minutes and the time be equally divided between the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Skaggs] and a Member on this side in opposition.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, on this side, we accept this amendment.

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