Hal Rogers

Mr. ROGERS

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, may I just ask the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers] the name of the agency again? I heard it wrong, I thought.

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

Mr. ROGERS. We would, Mr. Chairman, and we do, I would tell the gentleman.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, they cannot be used for courthouses. That comes, of course, under another part of the Government.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I would tell the gentleman that it is in the Justice Department, so we do have jurisdiction, yes.

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

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I have a problem with that on this bill.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, the amendment specifies what the additional unallocated moneys can be used for.

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

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I appreciate the chairman from Florida for offering this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I hope this is the beginning of a long and productive relationship between the Committee on the Judiciary and the Committee on Appropriations, both of which are under new management. I originally suggested a version of this amendment that the chairman is offering back when the bill was marked up in committee, and we have been working together on it since that time. This amendment will assure that in the event States cannot use these resources within a reasonable period of time, that those unallocated resources can be appropriated for unmet Federal law enforcement needs. Resources are just too tight to allow pots of money to accumulate unused. We have a challenge this year and the years ahead. As criminals are increasingly apprehended, tried, and sentenced, Federal law enforcement agencies must grow. New cases mean new FBI agents, new U.S. attorneys, new judges, new marshals, new courthouses, new prisons, new probation officers, and on and on and on. For instance, in the new 1996 budget--proposed by the budget, there are three new Federal prisons, seven completed prisons that will come on line, and five prison expansions. Just for the annual cost of the seven prisons coming on line this year, of which five will be operated by private contractors, we will need to find $200 million to operate those on an annualized basis. Similarly, this year there will be 31 new courthouses coming on line, 150 new courthouses planned over the next decade. Each new courthouse requires rent payments, furnishings, new personnel, and so forth that add substantially to the funding we need to provide just to keep up with the country. These are examples of the resource requirements that are coming due on the Federal level while overall we are trying to reduce the size of the Federal budget. I appreciate the gentleman working with us on this amendment and in offering it in his name. I hope to continue to work with him on it to perfect it, and I hope to work with him when he goes to conference on the crime bill to assure that the conference report will adequately reflect the needs of the Federal law enforcement agencies.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, could the gentleman from Michigan explain what that agency does?

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, yes, I do. We can talk about that on another bill, if the gentleman would care to. But not on this bill. It is just not possible on this bill.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I will defer to the chairman on this bill. This is his bill. This is his amending process. I am going to take his judgment on it. I would prefer it not be there, but if the gentleman is happy with it, I will manage to try to be happy.

Mr. ROGERS. If the gentleman will continue to yield, Mr. Chairman, frankly, I do not like specifying anything in the amendment. When we start specifying some items, then we say ``Why not do so-and-so and so- and-so.'' There are 10,000 things we could specify in the amendment. I think it would be best for the body, including the gentleman's interests, if we leave that unspoken so we can deal with it in the appropriations process. The gentleman will have a chance at that time, if he is unhappy with it.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, mentioning courthouses was a mistake. It does not fund courthouses. It mentioned the personnel that use courthouses. That is what I intended to try to say. Another section of the appropriations bill deals with money for public defenders and the Legal Services Corporation. It is not in the bill. We can deal with that on another day, and we can debate that all day long. The problem here is, we do not have enough money, as it is, to fund the existing Federal law enforcement agencies that I think we all want to fund, the FBI and the Drug Enforcement Administration, the war on drugs and all of that. I want to try, if we run short there, to have access to the Crime Trust Fund in case it is not all used up under its State prison construction uses. And that is the reason I would like to have this amendment as it is. I asked for more, frankly. We have to wait 2 years under this amendment for this unallocated money to show it. I would like to have had it this year, because we are going to run short this year, for the Federal law enforcement agencies. And this is the only reason that I wanted to have that kind of an access to this unallocated money.