Robert Aderholt

Mr. ADERHOLT

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

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

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

Mr. ADERHOLT

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

Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, as we had talked earlier about this legislation, this bill is about putting priority on limited dollars and robustly supporting the most essential functions of the Department of Homeland Security and to make sure that our homeland is safe. The Department of Homeland Security, with all of its critical missions, is not immune from fiscal discipline. That has been the theme that we have been talking about since we started the bill yesterday afternoon. That means that the Department has to find the most cost- effective way to meet its mission requirements. The American people, quite honestly, are demanding no less in this regard. Again, we started yesterday afternoon at around 3:30, we went until about 12:30 this morning, we started again about 12:30 today, this afternoon, and we are continuing with this legislation. It will probably take us a couple of more hours this evening before we finish. A lot of people have done a lot of work to make this bill happen and for it to take place. I just again would want to thank each of them for their hard work. Again, the ranking member, Mr. Price, has been a true partner in this as we have worked together, and I want to thank him for his contribution that he has made. Also, I would like to thank the full committee chairman and the ranking member, Mr. Hal Rogers and Mr. Dicks, for their support. They have both been very helpful as we have gone through this process, and they have had to make some very difficult choices as they have to work with all 12 subcommittees. I want to congratulate them, as we have kicked off the start of a new appropriations season, and we have nearly the first appropriation bill to come to the floor. But I do want to take a moment and thank the committee staff for their hard work, namely, I want to thank Stephanie Gupta and Paul Cox on the minority side; and, of course, the majority staff has worked very, very closely with the minority, and we do appreciate their hard work. But on the majority staff, Jeff Ashford, Kris Mallard, Kathy Kraninger, Miles Taylor, and Rebecca Ore have all done a tremendous job in their work and, of course, last but not least, Ben Nicholson. Ben Nicholson serves as the clerk of the Homeland Security Subcommittee on Appropriations and Ben has done a tremendous job as he has helped me up here as I have managed the time on this particular piece of legislation. Also, on the appropriations staff, Jennifer Miller and Mike Robinson have done a great job, and also Jim Kulikowski. They have been very helpful in making sure this process moves forward. As you can imagine, there's a lot of moving parts. And so I do want to thank Mike, Jennifer, and Jim for their hard work. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ADERHOLT

Mr. ADERHOLT. I yield to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Fortenberry) to talk about an important immigration enforcement program.

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

Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriation bill and, therefore, violates clause 2 of rule XXI. The rules state, in pertinent part: An amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order if it changes an existing law. The amendment requires a new determination. I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

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

Mr. ADERHOLT

Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation, and I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. ADERHOLT. I reluctantly rise in opposition to this amendment.

Mr. ADERHOLT. As I mentioned, I reluctantly rise to oppose this amendment, which would slash the funding for the Department's management functions below what is responsible for the Nation's security and move funding to the grants. I was hoping that we would be able to work something out on this, but it was not possible. The committee has already cut the Department's headquarters management at historic levels. In fact, the bill reduces the funding for these activities 21 percent below what the President requested himself. This includes zeroing out the Department's new headquarters in Washington, D.C., zeroed out the funding for data center migration, and we have slashed other initiatives we cannot afford at this time. Many of these cuts were unavoidable because the President's budget request for the Department of Homeland Security was filled with phony offsets. Since 9/11, Congress has provided $6.7 billion for this program and for the last 3 years has included a waiver for the cost share requirements with local governments. Given our Nation's dire fiscal situation, we must take a stand that it's not the Federal Government's job to bail out every municipal budget or to serve as a fire marshal for every city and town across the Nation. In today's fiscally constrained environment, the 350 million that we have included in here is a lot of money. Again, while I support the gentleman's intentions, I would urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, I rise to reluctantly oppose the amendment.

Mr. ADERHOLT. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. King).

Mr. ADERHOLT. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent).

Mr. ADERHOLT. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Carter).

Mr. ADERHOLT. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished chairman of the full Appropriations Committee, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers).

Mr. ADERHOLT

Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. The amendment is unnecessary. The bill includes no funding for new advanced imagery technology systems. This is because we could not afford 275 new AITs, as requested. We had to fill a $590 million hole left by the budget request gimmick--unauthorized aviation fees. It is not because we oppose technology. In fact, AIT systems offer an alternative to pat downs at airport checkpoints where non-metallic threats are a great concern. In addition, the deployment of new advanced target recognition capability will make the AIT systems less objectionable as they display avatar figures, not actual images of screened individuals. Because this amendment is unnecessary and needlessly limits discretion for security screening, I would urge the Members to reject this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. As we stated earlier, the amendment is unnecessary. The bill includes no funding for new advanced imagery technology systems. This is because we could not afford 275 new AITs requested. We had to fill a $590 million hole left by the budget request gimmick, which was the unauthorized aviation fees. It is not because we oppose technology. In fact, AIT systems offer an alternative to pat-downs at airport checkpoints where non- metallic threats are a great concern. In addition, the deployment of new advanced target recognition capability will make the AIT systems less objectionable as they display avatar figures and not actual images of screened individuals. Because this amendment is unnecessary and needlessly limits the discretion for security screening, I would urge my fellow Members to reject this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. ADERHOLT. I think the gentleman from Michigan makes some very good points, and, therefore, we are prepared to accept this amendment.

Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the intent of the gentleman from Indiana's amendment. I think it is very well intended. I think he makes some valid points in his argument. However, I am going to have to reluctantly oppose the amendment. The bill that we have before us tonight strikes the right balance between funding priority programs that are essential to our Nation's security and keeping discretionary spending in check. The bill cuts nearly $3 billion, or 7 percent, from the request. That does not take into account the internal cuts taken to address the $650 million shortfall for aviation security and customs due to the phony fee offset used by the administration. It also does not reflect the significant increase provided to ensure robust funding for disaster relief. The committee has cut underperforming and ill-managed programs. We've made difficult choices on priorities for the bill. Significant cuts in this bill include $215 million from headquarters consolidation, then an additional $69 million from the Department of Management Operations, an additional $81 million from the Transportation Security Support, an additional $629 million from Science and Technology Research Development, and more than $2 billion from FEMA's First Responder Grants. Deeper cuts will serve no other purpose than endangering critical security operations from our frontline agencies, such as the Coast Guard, the Secret Service, FEMA, and TSA, that conduct daily operations to make our land secure. This past year we have seen intensified terrorist activity, including new threats to aviation, and several homegrown plots. As I have mentioned before, we have endured a near constant occurrence of natural disasters across this Nation, which require robust response capabilities and recovery investments. In light of all these challenges, the importance of the Department's work cannot be overemphasized. This is especially true as we approach the 10th anniversary of September 11. Because of these reasons, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ADERHOLT. Madam Chair, I appreciate the concerns of the gentleman from Texas. This amendment supports existing law, and we accept this amendment.

Mr. ADERHOLT. I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriation bill and, therefore, violates clause 2 of rule XXI. The rule states in pertinent part: an amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law imposes additional duties. I ask for a ruling from the Chair.