Hal Rogers

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Madam Chairman, could I inquire of the time remaining.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I yield 4 minutes to one of our hardest- working members of our committee and subcommittee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Culberson).

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Madam Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to a hardworking Member of this Congress, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan).

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me start, Madam Chairman, by commending the chairman on putting together a thoughtful bill. I also want to sincerely thank him for listening to our concerns on this side and for continuing this subcommittee's traditions of bipartisanship, professionalism and, where possible, accommodating the minority's interests. However, I must also express my grave concern over an issue that casts a long and sad shadow over this important bill. The fact that we are not here today debating this bill under an open rule breaks with long-cherished traditions concerning appropriations bills. I, for one, am outraged that today's debate on the critical issue of homeland security has been arbitrarily constrained. Such dictatorial tactics are contrary to the very purposes of this Chamber and our legislative process. To add insult to injury, the majority also denies the ability of a hardworking member of our subcommittee, the gentleman from California, and even the ranking member of this subcommittee, to offer amendments on E-Verify. Both amendments were clearly in order, and both amendments pertain to a critical issue that is germane to this bill. To deny us the ability to offer such legitimate amendments is a complete travesty. Now, as to the FY10 bill, Chairman Price has already discussed many of the details, so I will refrain from repeating them. But I think it is important to note that with this bill before us today, the chairman has significantly improved the hand that we were dealt by the administration, a hand that included an extremely late and bureaucracy- laden budget request with huge increases for policy and administrative offices at headquarters at the expense of operations, and also a somewhat tightened 302(b) allocation that is nearly a half billion dollars below the budget estimate. These conditions present a somewhat mixed picture about how this new administration and the current House leadership are prioritizing security nearly 8 years after 9/11. Indeed, I find it incredibly ironic and disappointing that just 2 weeks ago President Obama released a 77-page strategy on stopping the Mexican drug cartels that professes the need to enhance our intelligence and drug interdiction capabilities, yet his FY10 budget only marginally increases Homeland's intelligence office and Border Patrol and actually proposes cuts to Customs and Border Patrol's operational assets and Coast Guard personnel. This is a prime example of where the President's rhetoric doesn't match reality. Given the current threat environment, now is not the time to shortchange our investment in security and leave our front-line personnel in the lurch wanting for the tools required to fulfill their mission. Now, having said all that, I do think the chairman has endeavored to make up for these deficiencies by somewhat scaling back on the administration's plans for more bureaucrats, making some prudent enhancements to operations and producing a pretty good bill for FY10. That's not to say it is absolutely perfect. There are some areas where I would have changed and am concerned about. One of the concerns I have is the bill's funding levels for operational and surveillance assets. While the chairman has made some enhancements to operations, more could and should be done to equip our operators in the field. With a drug war raging in Mexico and the drug supply lines bustling from South America, we must not only step up operations along the southwest border, but also increase our interdiction efforts in the source and transit zones. Second, I would be remiss, Madam Chairman, if I didn't clarify my position on a piece of language contained in the report accompanying today's bill. On page 49, the report says ``that ICE must have no higher immigration enforcement priority,'' referring to the identification and removal of criminal aliens. Now, I know the issue of criminal aliens is near and dear to Chairman Price's heart, as it is mine. Over the past 2 years, I have supported his efforts in this regard with one major caveat, that an emphasis upon criminal aliens will not come at the expense of other critical immigration and enforcement functions. Every time I hear someone on the other side of the aisle profess that ICE should have no higher immigration enforcement priority than criminal aliens, I must remind them that not one of the 9/11 hijackers could be classified as so-called ``criminal aliens'' and that all of the 9/11 terrorists exploited the legal immigration system. So immigration enforcement matters to our homeland security, and we must not lose sight of that fact. Now, in addition to these concerns, I think it is imperative that the homeland security implications of closing the Guantanamo Bay facility be thoroughly addressed. So I am thankful that through a bipartisan effort during our committee markup we adopted my amendment to require the Department to conduct a thorough threat assessment for each and every Guantanamo detainee, to add their names as well to the no-fly lists, and prevent the possibility of immigration benefits being used as a loophole that could lead to the release of these detainees into the United States. This is a deadly serious issue. We need to know the threat posed by a possible transfer of these terrorists to both our hometowns and to susceptible inmate populations in our prisons across our country. And this need to know is exacerbated by the fact that the President is moving forward with detainee transfers and resettlements as we speak, ignoring Congress' bipartisan, bicameral calls for better planning and risk analysis. The adoption of that amendment is a prime example of how this body can work together in the name of responsible oversight and security, and I believe it's an absolutely vital addition to the bill. Madam Chairman, it is my hope that we can continue to address these issues and further improve what I believe to be a well-crafted bill. While I have made it clear that it is my intention to support this bill, I will also continue to voice my suggestions for how it can be strengthened. In closing, let me again voice my disappointment and indignation with the majority's decision to close down a full and open debate on today's bill. This misguided decision by the Democrat leadership clouds what should be a thorough discussion of the safety and security of our Nation. I look forward to working with the chairman of the subcommittee and the committee as we continue to move the bill through the 2010 process, a process that I hope can salvage some vestige of the long-standing and cherished traditions of open and fair debate. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to a very hardworking member of our subcommittee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert).

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Madam Chairman, I would like to recognize now for such time as he may consume the ranking Republican on the full Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis).

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes for the purpose of a colloquy to the gentleman from Washington State, Mr. Hastings.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Latta).

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I want to congratulate our leader for this very adequate amendment that will help us on the border where the drug war wages, and we can use that personnel. The meager increases in the number of agents the gentleman has referred to in the bill needs to be increased, and the gentleman's amendment does just that, and I congratulate him and support it fully.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Will the gentleman yield?

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

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Madam Chairman, I object to this amendment on procedural grounds. It's not a bipartisan amendment as manager's amendments are supposed to be, so I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Madam Speaker, pursuant to the House Republican standards on congressionally directed funding, I am submitting the following information regarding funding included in H.R. 2892, the Homeland Security Appropriations Act of 2010. Requesting Member: Congressman Harold Rogers Bill Number: H.R. 2892 Account: Federal Emergency Management Agency--Emergency Operations Center Legal Name of Recipient: Kentucky Division of Emergency Management Address of Recipient: 100 Minuteman Parkway, Frankfort, Kentucky 40601 Description of Request: Funding in the amount of $500,000 will be used to assist with planning and construction of a building addition to the existing Kentucky Emergency Operations Center (7,126 sq ft.) which was built in 1975. Staff are currently scattered across Frankfort in three different locations as far as 8 miles apart. During disasters, FEMA and other local, state, and federal partner agencies have no space available in the existing structure. The EOC serves as the primary in- state operations response center for coordination during an emergency. Requesting Member: Congressman Harold Rogers Bill Number: H.R. 2892 Account: Federal Emergency Management Agency--Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program Legal Name of Recipient: Kentucky Division of Emergency Management Address of Recipient: 100 Minuteman Parkway, Frankfort, Kentucky 40601 Description of Request: The Martin County Fiscal Court, through the Kentucky Division of Emergency Management, proposes a stream improvement project to mitigate the repetitive damage at Blacklog Fork and Old Route 40 in Inez. The County proposes to widen the channel in key locations and armor eroding banks for the first two stream miles of Blacklog Fork (above its confluence with Coldwater Fork). Roadways and bridges have already been elevated and correction of the drainage problem will alleviate flooding in this area. The bill includes $500,000 in planning and construction funds toward this $700,000 project. Requesting Member: Congressman Harold Rogers Bill Number: H.R. 2892 Account: S&T Research, Development, Acquisition, & Operations Legal Name of Requesting Entity: National Institute for Hometown Security, Kentucky Address of Requesting Entity: 610 Valley Oak Drive, Suite 1, Somerset, Kentucky 42503 Description of Request: The funding will be used to continue to provide leadership in discovering and developing community-based critical infrastructure protection solutions; facilitate commercialization; and encourage deployment. The $10 million FY10 program will help continue robust research for homeland security solutions and build on this successful partnership. Requesting Member: Congressman Harold Rogers Bill Number: H.R. 2892 Account: Federal Emergency Management Agency Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Rural Domestic Preparedness Consortium Address of Requesting Entity: Eastern Kentucky University, 50 Stratton Bldg., 521 Lancaster Blvd., Richmond, Kentucky 40475 Description of Request: This $3 million allocation of FEMA funds will continue robust and tailor-made homeland security and disaster response training to the rural first responder community. The non-federal grant managing entity is Eastern Kentucky University (EKU). EKU manages these grant funds on behalf of itself and its partner institutions; East Tennessee State University, Johnson City, Tennessee; Iowa Central Community College, Ft. Dodge, Iowa; NorthWest Arkansas Community College, Bentonville, Arkansas; University of Findlay, Findlay, Ohio and North Carolina Central University, Durham, North Carolina. The funding will be used to continue to provide and deliver training to rural first responders consistent with the National Preparedness Goal.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Speaker, I am sorely disappointed at the rule that has been proposed for the consideration of this Homeland Security Appropriations bill, one of the most important of the bills that the Congress will face. Our constituents are entitled to have us speak for them. That is the reason that they selected us. And yet now we are being denied the opportunity to register the thoughts and opinions of the constituents that we represent. There were some 70 amendments proffered to be offered on the floor on this bill. Only 14 will be allowed. Never in my experience, and I have been here 28 years, on the Appropriations Committee 26 of those years, have I ever seen a rule this restrictive on allowing members of the committee, as well as the Members of the body, to express their views. This is a muzzle of the minority. You are muzzling the people that we represent. You say, well, there are so many amendments, it would take us forever, and it would slow down our process of spending. That is what this is all about. The majority is attempting to muzzle the minority to speed up the process of spending, borrowing, and taxing. I regret that. I think it is sad for the institution, not to mention our constituents and the Members of this body. Well, those 70 amendments we could go through in no time flat. Last year, well, for the 2008 appropriations for this department, there were 178 amendments offered. We didn't shut down the process and deny those people the chance to offer their amendment and to say their piece about what their constituents thought about the bill. We simply went through them, 2 days. After a certain period of time, we were able to work out unanimous consent agreements amongst the Members of the body to reduce the time allotted to each amendment. Or we substituted a colloquy with the other offerer of the amendment instead of offering the amendment, and that satisfied them. They had their day in court, so to speak. Other amendments were not offered. This is nothing new. This is the practice of this honored institution to allow Members to offer their thoughts and opinions and amendments. If it takes time, that is what democracy is all about. It may not be pretty. The making of sausage is not pretty. But that is what we are in the process and the business of doing. You are shutting down the Members of this body who have legitimate, in-order amendments, almost in toto. And I resent that. The ranking member of the subcommittee was denied the opportunity to offer his own amendment, a legitimate, in- order amendment. That has never happened, to my knowledge, before. You are making history, but in a sad, sad way. Give us the chance to speak for our constituents, the people that want to know why you are shutting off their voice in this great deliberative body. Give us an open rule, as we have always had it. We have never had a restrictive rule like this on appropriations bills. Give us a chance to be heard.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. In its present form, I am.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Madam Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Madam Speaker, since the majority has shut out nearly all the minority from offering legitimate and well-reasoned amendments, I offer this motion to recommit. The motion is straightforward. It would simply add $50 million to the E-Verify program. This program allows an employer to call and verify that an applicant for a job is not an illegal immigrant. For months the administration and this majority have delayed, diminished and ultimately dismissed the government-run employee verification system under the guise that the system is inaccurate, costly, and susceptible to error and identity theft. However, E-Verify is accurate 99-plus percent of the time. In my book, 99 percent accuracy, especially when we're talking about jobs and security, is a pretty good statistic. Having said that, this motion would ensure beyond a shadow of a doubt complete and total accuracy of E-Verify. No longer can opponents of E- Verify hide behind concerns about incorrect readings or system errors. This motion simply directs $50 million in this bill to improve on a system that the current Secretary of Homeland Security had the good sense to adopt in her home State when she was governor 2 years ago. E-Verify ensures that a legitimate worker has a legitimate shot at a job. If we can't help our citizenry in this, what are we doing here? Second, it's a tool to prevent illegitimate workers from working in secure areas; airport runways, military bases, Federal buildings, train yards and so forth. Continued opposition to this creates a security vulnerability we simply can't afford. We have record-level unemployment in this country, and we have Americans who want to work, yet we continue to drag our feet and delay both an economic tool and a homeland security tool. So let's get past the rhetoric. Let's add sufficient funds to ensure even greater accuracy, capacity and oversight to prevent the risk of identity theft. Madam Speaker, $50 million is just one-third of the raise the departmental headquarters gives itself under this bill. So let's give Americans at least a fighting chance at a job and ensure that our government and U.S. businesses are employing legitimate American workers. I yield to my colleague from California.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I thank the gentleman for those remarks. Give Americans a job. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Are these lookout posts on U.S. soil?

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I want to salute the gentleman for a well- thought out and wise amendment. I will support the amendment, and I hope it wins.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Would the gentleman yield?