Hal Rogers

Mr. ROGERS

Mr. ROGERS. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. This amendment would cut State local law enforcement assistance grants to provide an additional $49 million for the Economic Development Grant programs. Specifically, this amendment would cut the Criminal Alien Assistance program. That is a program that reimburses States for a portion of their costs in jailing criminal aliens. It is a program that is widely supported by the Members of this body, by the governors, by mayors, and local law enforcement people throughout the country. It is especially critical along the southwest border where the criminal alien population is exploding and the States need some financial assistance from the U.S. Government to fund the jailing costs for jailing not just illegal immigrants, but criminal illegal aliens. This amendment does not state what the increased funding would be used for; just to be put into the EDA. We already provide in the bill, Mr. Chairman, $362 million for the EDA that goes to provide assistance to communities that are struggling with long-term economic downturns as well as sudden and severe economic downturns. This committee and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure have worked with EDA to reauthorize the program, to reform the EDA, to ensure that monies that we provide are targeted to the most severely distressed areas. Without EDA, these communities would have little access to resources for critical infrastructure development and capacity building. The funding in this bill is sufficient to provide the seed capital to distressed areas to allow those local communities to increase their ability to create new economic opportunities. So this committee, we think, has provided sufficient resources for the EDA, and, on top of that, I am deeply opposed to cutting the assistance to our States and localities in dealing with jailing the criminal illegal aliens that they are having to imprison, and they blame the U.S. for not protecting the borders to keep those people out in the first place.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I appreciate the gentleman's interest in the issue and his understanding that the subcommittee cannot specify how many inspectors should be allocated to individual airports across the country. It is best to leave those decisions to the INS. But the gentleman is correct, we have specifically asked that the INS consult with this subcommittee before they locate the new agents that we fund in this act. I agree with the gentleman that the Detroit Metropolitan Airport is understaffed relative to other airports, and I assure the gentleman that they will receive due consideration from this subcommittee during the consultation process with the INS.

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

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, we will be delighted to work with the gentleman. The gentleman has raised a very important issue in this amendment, and we will be delighted to continue to work with the gentleman as the bill progresses through the House and conference with the Senate in addressing the issue that the gentleman has brought up.

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

Mr. ROGERS. But the gentleman understands that the Bureau of Prisons has nothing to do with this; it is the INS, if anybody's fault, and BOP has nothing to do with it.

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

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant opposition because it sounds like there is an inequity here that needs to be addressed by the authorizing committee, the Committee on the Judiciary. There is a reason why there is a rule of this House that you shall not legislate on an appropriations bill, and I think we are seeing a good example of that tonight. This is a matter that needs to be heard and aired in the right forum, with the right machinery in place so that we can make the right decision. And so I would hope that we would reject the amendment on this appropriations bill in favor of hearing the matter in the Committee on the Judiciary where it belongs, in the gentleman from Texas's (Mr. Smith) subcommittee or whatever subcommittee of the Committee on the Judiciary it belongs in. In fact, I understand that H.R. 2121 has been referred to the Committee on the Judiciary and addresses the issue of this so-called secret evidence matter. I would dearly hope that we would do that and address it quickly and adroitly and expertly and with knowledge, weighing all of the factors involved in the right forum. Number two, I realize this is a symbolic amendment. It is not going to change anything if you pass it. It merely would cut $173,480 out of the Bureau of Prisons salaries and expenses. And that you are using this as a vehicle to get this issue elevated and aired and I salute you for that. But I would hope you would not be serious about cutting BOP's salaries and expenses. In the first place, you are cutting the wrong people. INS, if anybody, is at fault here; and you are not cutting INS. You are cutting the poor old BOP. They do not house these prisoners. INS houses the people that you are talking about, not poor old BOP who are hurting for money to house the legitimate detainees that we have sentenced to our Nation's prisons. And so do not punish the innocent party here in an effort to right a wrong that you see that perhaps needs to be righted but in the right place, in the authorizing committee. So while I salute you and I appreciate the gentleman bringing this very horrible-sounding issue before us, I would hope that you would choose the right forum and not punish innocent people in the process.

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

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, the bill already provides significant resources to combat school violence. In fact, it is a matter that we were very concerned about in the subcommittee in our hearings and in the markups. In fact, the bill provides $195 million earmarked to address school violence, including $180 million in the COPS hiring program devoted exclusively to continue the initiative to hire police officers to work in schools full time. That is an initiative which the administration's budget proposed to eliminate, I might point out. An additional $15 million is also included for grants to local law enforcement agencies and schools to work together to combat school violence. We also provide $250 million for the Juvenile Accountability Block Grant Program that communities can use to address juvenile violence which the administration also proposed to eliminate, I might add. I would point out that the gentleman's amendment again proposes to cut the FBI's funding that we have provided to them to ensure that they can address the growing counterintelligence threats and to do their job effectively. I would point out that there are millions of dollars in this bill already to address the problem with school violence, and to add more at the expense of the FBI would not be right. Mr. Chairman, I urge rejection of this amendment.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would take $8.5 million out of the FBI salaries and expenses, that is personnel. Like all of our State and local law enforcement grant programs, Weed and Seed is maintained in this bill at its current level. There are no cuts. But I would point out that in addition to the money that is directly appropriated for Weed and Seed, the Attorney General is authorized in our bill to direct other Department of Justice funds over to the Weed and Seed program and, in fact, for the last several years, they have asked and we have consented to reprogramming $6.5 million from the asset forfeiture fund each year to the Weed and Seed program. So there is plenty of money, I think, available for the program. If the Justice Department feels at any time a shortage of monies in this account, they can simply reprogram monies from another place toward it. Mr. Chairman, what I really have a problem with in the amendment is where the monies would come from if this amendment is passed. They would come out of the FBI's salaries and expenses account. Now, we have scraped every portion of the bill we can with limited assets to try to find the money to maintain this war on crime and drugs. The Weed and Seed program is a vital part of it, but so is law enforcement, and we must not cut the enforcement portion of the fight against crime, and we would do so if we cut the FBI by this figure. Despite our funding constraints, we have tried, Mr. Chairman, to strike a balance to preserve critical Justice programs like Weed and Seed, and, of course, the FBI. So I would urge that we reject this amendment.

Mr. ROGERS. I do, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the amendment.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I do.

Mr. ROGERS. I thank the gentleman for yielding. The previous speaker obviously has not read the bill, because there is $523 million that the committee added in the local law enforcement block grants section that is available for Native Americans. They need apply to the administration, and the money would be there. I would add, this is money that was not in the President's request. What did the President request for this program? Zero. This committee added $523 million for Native Americans and everyone else. It does not discriminate against any group. Anybody can apply for those funds. I somewhat resent the fact that the subcommittee has been maligned in this respect because the money is there.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman knows, over the last few years, the Civil Rights Division has been treated very generously. In fact, funding for the Civil Rights Division has increased by over 32 percent over the last 2 years. Few other agencies in this bill have enjoyed similar growth. We have tried to maintain the investment we have made in the Civil Rights Division, as we have done for other programs in this bill. In addition, this bill also provides increases to other civil agencies that are included in the bill. So, in view of the fact that we do have the fiscal restraints that we are operating under, this division has enjoyed generous growth at the hands of this subcommittee and the Congress over the last 2 years. I would urge rejection of the amendment.

Mr. ROGERS. I respect that. All of us recognize there is a tremendous problem, and that is why we put money in this bill that was not even requested by the President. I resent the fact that the gentleman maintains that there is nothing in this bill for Native American crime fighting. There is. Up to $523 million.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to accept this amendment. I support the work the SBA does to help women start and maintain small businesses. In fact, the bill includes funding for both the Women's Business Centers and the Women's Business Council at the current year levels. In fact, over the last 2 years, we have more than doubled the amount provided for Women's Business Centers. So this activity has enjoyed tremendous growth while a lot of other programs funded in this bill have remained stagnant, frozen, at current levels. The only reservation that I have on the amendment is the offset because the offset comes from the CALEA fund. And as all of us realize, this so-called CALEA fund, telecommunications carrier compliance fund, called CALEA, is the fund out of which we must pay the expenses of equipping our telephone systems so that the court-ordered wiretaps, the law enforcement activities, can continue. It is absolutely critical funding, and I am concerned about where the offset comes. But perhaps we can find some way to remedy that. So I would accept the amendment, Mr. Chairman; and I would call for a vote.

Mr. ROGERS. I yield to the gentlewoman from Colorado.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentlewoman and the other Members' interest in this issue. I can assure the gentlewoman and the others that I will be happy to work with them to ensure that this study is funded.

Mr. ROGERS

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 4690, and that I may include tabular and extraneous material.

Mr. ROGERS

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for raising this very important issue, and one that we all recognize is a growing problem. I will be happy to work with him to ensure that sufficient funding is given to the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Program within the Department of Justice.

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

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