Robert Aderholt

Mr. ADERHOLT

Mr. ADERHOLT. As I had mentioned earlier in my opening comments, I do believe this bill is a good bill. It reflects our best efforts to try to address our Nation's most urgent needs: of course, first of all, security, and second of all, fiscal discipline. Both of those are very important in this age in which we live. So I would urge my colleagues to support this measure as it moves to the floor. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. ADERHOLT

Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. ADERHOLT. I rise in support of the gentleman's amendment. The Secretary has failed to submit critical reports necessary for this committee's oversight, including workload staffing models for CBP officers. Therefore, we do accept the gentleman from Arizona's amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, I'm going to have to rise to oppose the gentlelady's amendment. The problem with the amendment is it guts the immigration enforcement and it demoralizes the frontline law enforcement personnel. This amendment would actually empower more bureaucrats from Washington to look over the shoulders of the hardworking officers in the field that are trying to keep us safe. So I would urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ADERHOLT. We will accept the amendment of the gentleman of New York.

Mr. ADERHOLT. I move to strike the last word.

Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, I rise to reluctantly oppose my good friend from Georgia's amendment. I think he makes some very good points, but one thing, as I had mentioned in the debate this afternoon and the general debate, this is the third fiscal year in a row that the bill has tried to work at cutting already. Fiscal discipline and funding for homeland needs are the two most important things. And as I said earlier, that fiscal discipline is something that is a very important aspect of this bill. The bill actually has a decrease of $484 million below last year's bill, and it is $394 million below the President's request. As I had mentioned earlier this afternoon, we do think that we need to be very much mindful of the situation we find ourselves in in this country. But bear in mind that we have cut, we have reached a delicate balance to make sure that we make sure frontline operations are secure, that they are operating at a level that we can make sure that our Nation is secure. The Office of the Secretary, for example, has been cut 9 percent below the President's request, and it's 8 percent below the FY 2012 act. This is the 10th year anniversary of the establishment of the Department of Homeland Security, and certainly we've got to make sure that our Department is strong, it has strong management. My concern is that this amendment would undermine that goal. And so I would ask Members to oppose this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. ADERHOLT. The bill that we have before us that we have brought to the floor is something that has already cut programs substantially across the board. But the way that we have cut it, we feel, is responsible and manageable. Some of the cuts that we have had in here--the Office of Secretary, as I had mentioned earlier, has been cut by 9 percent below the request, 8 percent below FY 2012, and it is 18 percent below the FY 2010 level. The bill has reduced management to a bare minimum, with decrease in most offices, including General Counsel. The bill has already cut TSA management by $60 million, and $20 million is cut in the Aviation Security Account. This amendment that the gentleman from New Jersey is bringing up, by taking $15 million more from this account, will impair TSA's ability to manage its aviation security missions and is also simply not responsible. The amendment would slash funding for the Department's intelligence programs, which represent a core homeland security capability. For grants, the bill provides $2.8 billion for Homeland Security first responder grants, $400 million more than provided in FY 2012. Of that, the bill provides $1.8 billion for the Secretary to provide to programs that address the highest need, based on the threat and based on risk. Breaking out specific grants, as this amendment does, funds projects for various programs without an overreaching lens. The consolidation of this bill forces the Secretary to examine the intelligence and risk and put scarce dollars where they are needed most. I would urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ADERHOLT. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, as I have stated earlier, this bill provides $2.8 billion for Homeland Security first responder grants, $400 million more than provided in FY12. Of that, the bill provides $1.8 billion for the Secretary to provide to programs that address the highest need based on threat and based on risk. The funding for grants has been a high priority for our bill this year, and we believe there's adequate funding for grants. Like I said, I would reluctantly have to oppose the gentleman's amendment. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. ADERHOLT. I do commend the gentlemen from Texas and Pennsylvania for their attention to border security. Border security is a top priority with this subcommittee and with this chairman, but the amendment that is before us at this time proposes to cut the Department of Homeland Security to pay for cell towers to provide phone service, actually to the general public. I am very sympathetic to the needs of rural communities. I represent a rural community and am certainly sympathetic to remote ranchers, but this is simply not a cost currently with the situation in this country that Homeland Security can bear. This proposal would cut the Department's management functions below what is possible for our Nation's security. The bill already cuts the Office of Under Secretary for Management 4 percent below the request of the President and 11 percent below the FY12 level. It should be noted that this bill fully funds the Department's tactical communications. I would urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. ADERHOLT. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. ADERHOLT. We accept the gentleman from New Jersey's amendment, considering this is only a $5 million cut. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, I insist on my point of order.

Mr. ADERHOLT. The amendment proposes to amend portions of the bill not yet read. The amendment may not be considered en bloc under clause 2(f) of rule XXI because the amendment proposes to increase the level of outlays in the bill. I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

Mr. ADERHOLT. I object.

Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentlelady's amendment.

Mr. ADERHOLT. This bill already provides robust funding for border security operations. In fact, this year we increase CBP border security inspection and trade facilitation by $85 million above the President's request. CBP border security is important, I totally agree, but let me mention that the funding that we've increased supports 21,186 CBP officers and other increases in the National Targeting Center and Global Entry, among other programs and initiatives, to increase efficiency in CBP operations. CBP's budget faces real challenges. Seventy percent of CBP funds go for pay and benefits, up from 65 percent just last year. This figure does not include costs associated with supporting frontline officers, such as equipment and facilities, much less new technology. The committee report outlines opportunities for better managing fee funds and innovating CBP processes. Further, the Secretary has not yet submitted the workload staffing allocation model that will justify any additional CBP officer resources. Given these issues, it is not the time to increase CBP officer staffing. I will say that it must be noted that the facility that would be cut, we have an immediate need to build up our capacity for research into pathogens that afflict animals and our food chain and, by extension, human beings. The Under Secretary for the Department for Science and Technology herself testified before our subcommittee that the threat of a biological attack through a large and vulnerable food chain is a top priority. She has confirmed that the NBAF facility is required to meet this threat. So the administration itself has said that this is very important. I would urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.