Hal Rogers

Mr. ROGERS

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

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from eastern Washington is correct. We need more agents and support staff on the northern border. In fact, in the House report, we continue to admonish the INS for their failure to address the problems along the northern border, as well as their failure to hire the Border Patrol we have already funded for them. In fact, INS has still not yet hired over 1,700 agents that we provided funding for within the last 2 years. However, I will note that the Spokane border sector in Mr. Nethercutt's district will receive an additional three agents in the near future.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because it is in violation of section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. The Committee on Appropriations filed a suballocation of budget totals for fiscal year 2001 on June 21, 2000, and that was House Report 106-686. This amendment would provide new budget authority in excess of the subcommittee suballocation made under section 302(b), and it is not permitted under section 302(f) of the act. I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

Mr. ROGERS. This belongs in the right forum, over there in the Committee on the Judiciary where you can debate this for all that it is worth, and it is worth a lot it sounds like; but please do not burden this bill with another rider. I urge the rejection of the amendment, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. ROGERS. INS pays for the detention of all these people. It is not BOP. It is the INS. You are punishing the wrong people. If you were punishing INS, I might join you because I have got my complaints there, too.

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

Mr. ROGERS. That is being prepared. When the Committee rises this evening, we would propound the unanimous consent request on the amendments, and then tomorrow morning the unanimous consent would be propounded on the time balance on the rest of the amendments. Announcement by the Chairman

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the understanding I had of the unanimous consent request was that the majority leader, the chairman and the ranking member of the full committee and the subcommittee, myself and the minority leader would reach agreement on the amount of time that each amendment would be considered. That is as far as the conversation went at the time of the unanimous concept request. That is about all I can say that I know about.

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

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word in order to discuss this evening's schedule and tomorrow's schedule and to reemphasize to Members a discussion that we had earlier this evening. Perhaps some Members did not hear it and would need to hear it. There was a unanimous consent agreement that has been discussed that will do the following: the votes that will be cast now will be the final business of the evening, with three more votes to follow. Tomorrow morning the body will reconvene at 9 o'clock to resume business on this bill, in which case the Waxman amendment would be the first order of business. There is a time limit on that amendment of 40 minutes, 20 to a side. For the remainder of the amendments to the bill, in order for any further amendments to be considered as part of that agreement they must be submitted before the close of business today. Tomorrow, time agreements will be reached concerning each of the amendments on the list, which is the universe for the bill. The majority leader also reiterated that we would finish this bill Monday night, and that could be a late night. The agreement is that we would resume business on the bill at 4 o'clock Monday afternoon, with votes rolled at least until 6 p.m. Monday evening to accommodate Members' travel plans. The bill would then be finished Monday night on the amendments that are remaining at that time.

Mr. ROGERS. Point of order. The gentlewoman must confine her remarks to the point of order.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriations bill and therefore violates clause 2 of rule XXI. The rule states in pertinent part: ``No amendment to a general appropriation bill shall be in order if changing existing law.'' This amendment gives affirmative direction. In effect, it imposes additional duties, and it modifies existing powers and duties. I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I am in opposition, of course, to the amendment; and I will insist upon the point of order. But before doing so, let me correct a couple of pieces of information. Like all other State and local law enforcement grant programs, COPS in this bill is funded at the same level as the fiscal year 2000 bill was. Our bill provides $745 million, of which $595 million is direct appropriations, the same level as fiscal year 2000, and $150 million is unobligated balances. That level continues to fund the existing COPS programs, including $385 million for hiring cops and $360 million for continuation of the successful nonhiring technology and crime prevention programs. Our hiring number is within $30 million of the Administration's request after funding for all of the unauthorized and relaxed hiring provisions are withdrawn. We continue successful nonhiring programs such as bulletproof vests, COPS technologies and Crime Identification Technology Act grants, that is CITA, that is for DNA testing and the like, police courts and the methamphetamine cleanup program which is so important to so many Members of this body. Funding is not included, however, for new unauthorized and unproven programs, but COPS is funded at the same level as this year. Point of Order

Mr. ROGERS. Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. ROGERS. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I do.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because it is in violation of section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. The Committee on Appropriations filed a suballocation of Budget Totals for fiscal year 2001 on June 21, 2000 (H.Rept. 106-686). This amendment would provide new budget authority in excess of the subcommittee suballocation made under section 302(b) and is not permitted under section 302(f) of the Act. I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, the local law enforcement block grants go through no State government. They go directly from here to their local police force, to their local sheriff, to their community police force. There is nobody in between. They can use it as they see fit in their application for the grant.

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

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentlewoman would continue to yield, the money can be done that way. I mean, the monies are available for whatever they want to use it for. Let them target it as they see fit, locally. If they think there is a gun problem in their community, use the money for that purpose. I would point out also, there is the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant program, $523 million; and, also, there is the COPS program, another $500-something million for hiring cops for whatever purpose they wanted. On top of that, there is zillions of dollars for Violence Against Women Act, there is Juvenile Justice block grants, there are block grants and grants that are not spent, including the money I mentioned, the $15 million a year, for community prosecutors for the last 2 years, all of which has not yet been spent.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I would simply respond to the gentlewoman that this President zeroed out the $523 million that we provided, the Congress provided, for local law enforcement block grants. He said zip. Zero. It is gone. Now, if my colleagues want to talk about who is committed to wiping out gun violence, let us talk about the fact that the Congress has funded, as I said before, $15 million as long ago as 2 years ago and they have yet to spend it. The Administration has yet to make those grants. They have got money laying there. They cannot even give the money out they have got laying there. On top of that, we are piling more money on this year in this bill and they cannot spend it. They cannot or they will not. I do not know what the case is. But the point I wanted to make is, they do not need any more money. They have got plenty laying down there they will not give out to these communities to prosecute gun violence.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield to me.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me; and, Mr. Chairman, I do continue to reserve the point of order, but let me say this about the substance of the amendment. This program is neither authorized or even well defined. No one knows what we are talking about here. What is a high gun violence area? There has to be some definitions so we can administer a law when it is passed. No one knows what that means. Does it mean three guns per square mile or 5,000 guns per square mile? I am just tempted to think that this is not thought out very well. In fact, I question whether the $150 million requested for so-called gun prosecutors could even be awarded in fiscal 2001. In fiscal 1999 and in fiscal year 2000 we appropriated a total of $15 million for the Community Prosecutors program; and through April of this year, Department of Justice has yet to award all of its 1999 funding, much less the 2000 year funding. And they tell us that only about 140 communities will apply for funding in fiscal year 2000. Well, if only 140 communities are interested in this program, and they have not spent 1999 monies, why do we need more money in fiscal 2001? In fact, I say to my colleagues, Mr. Chairman, that the block grant programs which the Administration proposed to eliminate, that goes to State and local communities for law enforcement, a total of $523 million, is in this bill that could be used for that purpose if they want to. There is plenty of money here sloshing over the sides for local law enforcement to use for these purposes. We do not need another program, especially one that is unauthorized and, two, that cannot be defined.

Mr. ROGERS. I reserve the point of order.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, there is already in this bill in the COPS program $130 million for the Criminal Identification Technology Act, the CITA programs, which the gentleman has just described, very vital to the Nation's criminal system. The COPS program includes $130 million. There is plenty of money there. The way the States go after that money, they go through the Office of Justice Programs, which administers the COPS grants. The money then goes to the local areas. The distribution is equitable across geographic lines. So there is already money there. Number two, the gentleman's amendment would again cut the State Prison Grant program, a commitment made by this Congress years ago to help States build prisons to house the State prisoners, provided they require the prisoners to stay there for a goodly percentage of the time they were sentenced for. So I would urge that we reject this amendment. There is already plenty of money in the CITA program, within the COPS program administered by OJP, and the cuts would come from every State in the Union participating in the State prison construction program. I urge a no vote.

Mr. ROGERS

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that during further consideration of H.R. 4690 in the Committee of the Whole pursuant to House Resolution 529: (1) no further amendment to the bill shall be in order except pro forma amendments offered by the chairman or ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations or their designees for the purpose of debate; amendments printed in the portion of the Congressional Record designated for that purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII on or before June 22, 2000, which may be offered only by the Member who caused it to be printed or his designee, shall be considered as read, shall not be subject to amendment except pro forma amendments for the purpose of debate, and shall not be subject to a demand for a division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole; (2) the Clerk be authorized to print in the portion of the Congressional Record designated for that purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII all amendments to H.R. 4690 that are at the desk and not already printed by the close of business this legislative day; and (3) before consideration of any other amendment, it shall be in order to consider the amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) to section 110, which shall be debatable for only 40 minutes equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent.