Robert Aderholt

Mr. ADERHOLT

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

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

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

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

Mr. ADERHOLT. Madam Chair, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. SAFER was originally authorized for the purpose of increasing the number of new firefighters in local communities--a hand up, not a handout. SAFER was not intended to rehire or retain firefighters, and certainly was not intended to serve as an operating subsidy for what is unquestionably a municipal responsibility. The Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act contains very specific requirements that local communities have to meet in order to obtain funds; however, those requirements have been waived for the last 3 years. When initially proposed by the Democrats in 2009, Mr. Price, who was chairman of this subcommittee, acknowledged that these waivers were just a short-term, temporary effort that would expire at the end of FY10. Yet, here we are today debating the continuation in FY12 of a subsidy that our country cannot afford. Under these costly waivers, there are no controls, there are no salary limits, and there are no local commitments. These proposed waivers totally undermine the original purpose and intent of the SAFER program by forcing the taxpayers to subsidize the everyday operating expenses of the local first responders. Given our Nation's dire fiscal situation today, we must take a stand that it is not the Federal Government's job to bail out every municipal budget or serve as a fire marshal for every city and town across this country. Therefore, Madam Chair, I would strongly urge my colleagues to support fiscal discipline and to vote ``no'' on this amendment. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ADERHOLT. Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman. And based on the requirement that the applicants biometrically enroll, we will accept the amendment. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. ADERHOLT. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment. This amendment is not germane to the Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill. This amendment is better addressed within the National Defense Authorization Act or the Defense appropriations bill. I yield back the balance of time.

Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. 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 appropriations 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 requires a new determination.'' I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

Mr. ADERHOLT

Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. ADERHOLT

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

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

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

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

Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. It is my honor to present the fiscal year 2012 appropriations bill for the Department of Homeland Security. This bill before us today, perhaps more than any other bill, exemplifies the difficult choices that need to be made in order to address our Nation's fiscal crisis. This bill demonstrates how we can fully fund vital security programs while also reducing spending overall. Furthermore, this bill does not represent a false choice between fiscal responsibility and security. Both are national security priorities, and both are vigorously addressed in this bill. I am under no illusion that everyone here in this Chamber will agree with the spending reductions included in this legislation; but now, more than ever, our government needs fiscal discipline, and this bill takes the necessary steps toward that goal. The bottom line: more money and more government do not equal more security. So in this time of skyrocketing debt and persistent threats, we must get our homeland security priorities right. The bill before us today provides $40.6 billion in discretionary funding, or almost $3 billion, which is 7 percent below the request, and $1.1 billion, or almost 3 percent below the fiscal year 2011 level. In addition, the bill also includes $1 billion in offset, emergency supplemental funding for FEMA's disaster relief fund immediately upon enactment. There are no earmarks that are set out in this bill or the accompanying report. The bill places priority on funding our Nation's greatest security needs--fully funding all frontline personnel such as Border Patrol, CBP officers, ICE officers, Coast Guard military personnel, and Secret Service agents, and fully funding all intelligence, watchlisting, and threat targeting functions. In addition, the bill provides funding where the administration and the Department of Homeland Security have failed. This bill makes up for the nearly $650 million shortfall handed to us by the Department through phony, unauthorized fee collections. It is irresponsible for the administration to submit a budget based on the illusion that Congress is going to raise taxes or fees in this current economy. This bill also addresses the wholly inadequate request for disaster relief funding and provides the resources to help our communities recover from natural disasters, like the unprecedented flooding across the Mississippi River Valley; the tornadoes that devastated my home State of Alabama a few weeks ago; and the horrific tornado that destroyed much of Joplin, Missouri, just a little over a week ago. However, programs that have been underperforming and failing to execute their budgets or which have repeatedly ignored congressional directives to measure their results are significantly reduced. In short, this bill places a priority on the taxpayers' limited dollars towards the security programs that will have an immediate impact upon our national security and responsibly reduces spending wherever possible. The bill is constructed around three core priorities: number one, fiscal discipline; number two, targeted investments in security operations and disaster relief; and, number three, meaningful, hard- hitting oversight. First on fiscal discipline. The bill goes further than simply cutting spending. This bill insists upon real reform--reform in how the Department justifies its budget; reform on how FEMA manages its first responder grants; and reform on how FEMA, the Department, and the administration budget for the costs of disaster relief. Number two, on security, the bill includes nearly $150 million worth of targeted investments above the budget request for security operations--the frontline programs that are among the most critical at keeping our Nation secure and these activities that directly countered recent terrorist attacks and address known threats. On disaster relief, I have seen firsthand what natural disasters can do over the past few weeks, and I can tell you that my constituents in Alabama are expecting FEMA to get it right. So this bill picks up from where we left off in FY 2011 and provides an increase of $850 million above the request and within the budget for FEMA's disaster relief fund to address the known and expected cost of disasters in FY 2012. And as we added unanimously in our full committee markup of the bill last week, $1 billion in offset, emergency supplemental funding is provided to FEMA to ensure that disaster relief efforts stay on track this year and well into 2012. And, three, finally, is oversight. Our subcommittee has a long tradition of insisting upon results for each and every taxpayer dollar that is appropriated. This is a testament to the previous leadership on this subcommittee that was exhibited by our founding chairman of this subcommittee, Chairman Rogers, and also my predecessor and now the subcommittee's ranking member, Mr. Price. This bill continues the dedication to frontline security programs and robust oversight by including numerous spend plan requirements, reporting requirements, and operational requirements, such as border patrol staffing levels and an increase to ICE's detention capacity. Now, I know there has been some criticism on the funding level this bill is recommending for FEMA's first responder grants. Let me emphasize that there is more than $13 billion in the pipeline that has not been spent, but FEMA has yet to establish a credible method for measuring the impact of these grants. So this bill takes bold steps to get FEMA's fiscal house in order-- requiring accountability for every dollar spent, requiring a plan for drawing down the enormous unexpended balances, consolidating duplicative grant programs, putting priority on high-risk needs, and rewarding programs like the Emergency Management Performance Grants that actually spend their funds wisely and are willing to measure their results. I know how important first responders are to this Nation. We see it every day. But we simply cannot keep on throwing money into a clogged pipeline when our debt is soaring out of control. I believe it's our duty to reform these grant programs. Mr. Chairman, this bill is about putting a priority on limited dollars and robustly supporting the most essential functions. The Department of Homeland Security, with all its critical missions, is not immune from fiscal discipline. That means the Department has to find the most cost-effective way to meet its mission requirements. The American people are demanding no less. In closing, let me thank Ranking Member Price. Although we have certainly had a turbulent year, he has been a statesman and a true partner as we worked on this vital bill. I sincerely thank him for his input and his contributions that he has made on this bill. In addition, I would like to thank the distinguished chairman and ranking member of the full committee, Chairman Hal Rogers and Ranking Member Norm Dicks. As much as we have had to make difficult choices and tradeoffs at subcommittee level, I know that both of these gentlemen have had to make much more difficult decisions dealing with all 12 subcommittee budgets. Finally, I would like to take a moment to thank the committee staff for their hard work on this bill, namely: Stephanie Gupta and Paul Cox on the minority staff; and Jeff Ashford, Kris Mallard, Kathy Kraninger, Miles Taylor, Rebecca Ore, Brian Rell, Mark Dawson, Anne Marie Malecha, and Ben Nicholson, who is the clerk of this committee, on the majority side. I believe this bill reflects our best efforts to address our Nation's most urgent needs: security and fiscal discipline. I urge my colleagues to support this measure. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. ADERHOLT. I continue to reserve a point of order.

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

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

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

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

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