Robert Aderholt

Mr. ADERHOLT

Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, we accept the gentleman from Georgia's amendment.

Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, the bill already reduces the Office of Under Secretary substantially, 6 percent below the request and 26 percent below the FY11 CR, reflecting the fact that the bill includes no funding to continue the construction of the Department of Homeland Security headquarters. The bill has reduced management to a bare minimum, with reduction of 29 percent to leadership and management offices. The Department of Homeland Security is an agency of 230,000 employees. The number of employees in OSEM is 700, or less than one- third of 1 percent, and funding provided is also one-third of 1 percent for the total DHS budget. This is extremely small for assets needed to manage a major security department. Additional reductions would prevent filling key staffing positions and thus limit the ability of the Department to respond to national emergencies and provide stable leadership to the public and the Nation in the event of a large disaster or terrorist event. These reductions are not compatible with running a Cabinet agency. No other Federal department is asked to manage such large responsibilities and operating components with such a small and stretched headquarters element. Therefore, I urge the Members to oppose this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, the bill before us today was born out of the need for reform. It consolidates various grant programs and provides discretion to the Secretary. These reforms include funding reductions, requirements for measurement, and requirements for spending languishing dollars. In total, this bill provides $1.7 billion for Homeland Security first responder grants. However, as we are all aware, not all programs are funded at the previous year's level. The consolidation in this bill requires the Secretary to examine the intelligence and risk and put scarce dollars where they are most needed, whether it is a port, rail, surveillance, or access and hardening projects--or whether it is to high-risk urban areas or to States--as opposed to reverse engineering projects to fill the amount designated for one of many programs. Additionally, as noted by the gentleman from Rhode Island, the bill limits the Urban Areas Security Initiative grants to the top 10 highest cities. Again, this puts scarce dollars where they are most needed. This does not mean lower risk cities will lose all funding; it just means the funds will come from other programs such as State Homeland grants that are risk and formula based. These cuts will not be easy, but they are long overdue and necessary to address our out-of-control Federal spending. Furthermore, the offset proposed by the gentleman is unacceptable. A reduction to the Border Security Fencing, Infrastructure, and Technology account would: impact operations and maintenance on the border fence; reduce investments in critical border security communications; and affect the Border Patrol's ability to procure proven technologies to increase border security immediately. I urge my colleagues to support fiscal discipline, and I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ADERHOLT. I would be happy to. And I congratulate the Energy and Commerce Committee on pursuing the CFATS authorization on an expedited basis this year. We do hope and expect that CFATS will be authorized under regular order prior to the start of the new fiscal year. However, it was important that we include funding for the 2012 appropriation bill for CFATS, and we do not want that line item to appear to be in conflict with the currently enacted sunset date of October 4, 2011. I look forward to a long-term authorization extension so that these chemical facilities and the people that work in them can have a long- range certainty with respect to antiterrorism plans and investments. We look forward to a good authorizing bill becoming law in time to guide our final 2012 agreements on the CFATS funding.

Mr. ADERHOLT. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ADERHOLT. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen).

Mr. ADERHOLT

Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the gentlelady's amendment.

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

Mr. ADERHOLT. I accept the gentlelady's amendment. However, I must clarify that the base bill includes $2.65 billion and includes an additional $1 billion in supplemental funds, and that is a total of $1.8 billion above the request. So I would like to point that out to the gentlelady, but we will accept her amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ADERHOLT. Madam Chair, I reserve a point of order.

Mr. ADERHOLT. Madam Chair, I insist on my point of order.

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 it changes the application of existing law. The amendment changes the application of existing law. I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

Mr. ADERHOLT. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. ADERHOLT. I will yield to the gentleman and ask if he can confirm that this amendment still requires applicants to biometrically enroll in person.

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

Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.

Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my point of order.

Mr. ADERHOLT. We accept the amendment.

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

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

Mr. ADERHOLT. I make a point of order against the amendment because it provides an appropriation for an unauthorized program and violates clause 2 of rule XXI. Clause 2 of rule XXI states in pertinent part: ``An appropriation . . . may not be in order as an amendment . . ., for an expenditure not previously authorized by law.'' Mr. Chairman, the amendment proposes to appropriate funds for a program that is not authorized. The amendment therefore violates clause 2 of rule XXI. I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, we accept the gentleman's amendment.

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

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