Hal Rogers

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, this is a simple amendment. It would restore to the bill the traditional historic 45,000-person cap on the number of screeners that the TSA can employ. The reason for this is simple. This screener cap has been in place since before there was a Department of Homeland Security. When we first created the Transportation Security Administration in 2001, I think it was, or 2002, TSA was in the Department of Transportation. At the time, I chaired the subcommittee that funded that Department. When we first began to place federally employed screeners in the airports, TSA came to us and said we need 35,000 screeners. We said, okay, here is the money, hire them. They came back a few days later, a few months later, and said no, we're going to need 40,000. Then they came back a few months later and said no, we have to have 45,000. Then it was 50,000 and 60,000, and then finally they said we need to have 70,000. We said, wait a minute, time out. We can't afford this many. Where are you going to stop? What they did at the outset, TSA was poorly managed, poorly run, and was not operating properly. They made up for their difference, their shortcomings, by hiring more people. I remember going to an airport in the South, a moderate-sized airport. The lobby was full of the trace detection machines where they swab your briefcase and then run it through the machine, very time-consuming, very labor-intensive, and not very accurate. And the lobby was full, passengers having trouble getting through the doorway to get to the boarding gates. And I called over the Federal director, security director for that airport and I said, when are you going to apply for an x-ray machine to more efficiently and more securely search people as they go to board the airplane? They said, oh, we don't need, we don't want an x-ray machine to replace these trace detection machines in the lobby. I said, why not? The person said, our people are perfectly happy. I said, you mean the passengers? No, the screeners. Of course they were perfectly happy. One machine, Mr. Chairman, would have taken the place of all of those trace detection machines in that lobby. And so we came up with a screener cap mainly to force TSA to bring technology to bear on the detection of explosive devices in briefcases and baggage of passengers. The 45,000 screener limit works. TSA now is placing the machines in airports. This committee, this subcommittee, has now appropriated many hundreds of millions of dollars in this bill, along with others, to buy more machinery. But the cap on screeners needs to be kept in place. It's been there since we first began TSA 5 years ago. You take that screener cap off, as this bill does, and TSA will go back to their old ways. I guarantee it. They'll go back to their old ways of hiring screeners to run trace detection machines, very unreliable, insecure, and disruptive, actually, of people trying to get on the airplane. So I urge our colleagues to keep in place, put back in place the 45,000 screener limit that's been in the bill ever since we've had a Department of Transportation, TSA in the Department of Transportation and now Homeland Security. I know the bill contains funds only for some 44,000 screeners, and the argument can be made that we can control the number of screeners by the amount of money we appropriate. And this bill starts us along that line. But we all know that these agencies can come back to the Appropriations Committee and request a reprogramming of funds from one account to the next, and the pressure would be great if they came to us to assign that reappropriation of monies. But the limit works. Keep the limit.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is simple. It strikes the Davis-Bacon section in the bill. That section has consequences that I'm not sure the majority has thoroughly thought through. Requiring all DHS contract and grant funds to comply with Davis-Bacon could unfairly disadvantage communities that are unfortunate enough to be struck by a disaster. It could reduce funds available for their recovery. It could slow the pace of assistance and significantly increase non-Federal cost-share requirements. This section would likely cost already cash-strapped States and localities additional funds. The Congressional Budget Office says that Davis-Bacon will cost taxpayers more than $9.5 billion from 2002 to 2011. This expansion would only greater the burden on taxpayers. This expansion further disadvantages small, emerging and minority businesses new to the complex, inefficient wage and work restrictions which make it nearly impossible for them to compete with better capitalized corporations, disadvantaging the very companies we often seek to help following a disaster. And so I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and strike this onerous restriction on the Nation's communities. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to compliment the gentleman. He's been very hard working on these whole issues, and I appreciate him bringing this to our attention and appreciate the chairman being willing to listen further to your request.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I want to first thank the chairman for including $20 million in this program when it was zeroed out in the budget request and also to congratulate my colleague from Kentucky (Mr. Davis) for this amendment which I strongly support. It increases the funds for this CEDAP program by $30 million to get it back up to the historic funding level of $50 million. That's what we've always had in this program. In fact, Mr. Chairman, this program was created by this subcommittee in fiscal year 2005, and the reason was we found that a lot of small towns and small communities were not being able to get grants out of their State allocations or these other grant programs because the moneys were being consumed by the larger cities. And this was the only way we could find to get money directly to those smaller communities. These are not grants that go to the State. These grants go directly from here to the local community, designed to target those areas that may not directly benefit from the large amounts of grant funding because of competing priorities within the States or larger urban areas. It gets basic first responder equipment into all first responder hands. And it's been one of the most successful programs DHS has run. It made close to 4,000 awards in fiscal 2005 and 2006, another 2,000 awards for fiscal 2007. There is some report language in the bill that changes how the program is run from a direct assistance program to a grant program. I don't necessarily agree with that, but I think it is very important to get the level of funding back to the 2007 level of $50 million. Listen to what some of the local communities say about this program: ``Your program is one of the absolutely best run and organized programs I have ever seen in the rescue service. The equipment you offer to emergency responders for homeland security is right on target for our needs in the field.'' Another one says: ``The CEDAP program has allowed us to obtain, train with, and deploy an essential fire fighting tool that we would have otherwise not have had available to us.'' Another one says: ``This award represents a purchase that would have not been possible for my agency. Thank you for giving us this ability.'' So, Mr. Chairman, this is a popular program. It is effective. It helps communities that otherwise are not getting help and there's no other place for them to turn. So I urge our colleagues to support the gentleman's amendment and restore funding for this worthwhile program to the previous year's level and the level it was set at in 2005 and every year since. And I want to congratulate Mr. Davis for bringing this amendment forward. It's thoughtful, it is needed, and it fits the bill; and I congratulate the gentleman and support his amendment.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. 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, which states, in pertinent part: An amendment to a general appropriations bill shall not be in order if changing existing law. I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Like the chairman, I am sympathetic with the gentleman's concern about funding for REAL ID. It is a mandate that we put on the States that we need to match money for. And we've done that. As the chairman indicated, there's $50 million in this bill which was unrequested by the administration. In addition to that, there's $40 million that was put in this program in '06 and most of that is unobligated. So there will be around $90 million that REAL ID has. So there's plenty of money, I think, in the REAL ID program. The gentleman, I think, should be pleased with that. But at the same time, I must say that we can't afford to take more money out of the Deepwater program. This subcommittee has maintained aggressive oversight of that program. But this bill also makes, as the chairman said, substantial cuts already of almost $200 million to Deepwater that will, in effect, slow down the program's acquisition schedule and delay the much-needed modernization of the Coast Guard's ships and aircraft. Specifically, the bill cuts $60 million from the National Security Cutter, $70 million from the Maritime Patrol Aircraft, and over $50 million from the Fast Response Cutter. Now, those reductions are made in the name of good oversight, but I fear that the security of shores will be further delayed by these sizable reductions, and may unnecessarily prolong the operation of antiquated systems, some dating back to World War II. We're confident the Coast Guard is putting in place the right managerial tools and controls and organizational improvements to get Deepwater heading in the right direction. But let me be clear. Mr. Chairman, no one has been harder on Deepwater than this Member. Too much of our national security is at stake for the Coast Guard to continue to struggle with inadequate managerial and budgetary controls. I think the commandant of the Coast Guard now has seized control of this program, and I am convinced that he is on the right track and will have the capability to make it work. And so while we're cutting Deepwater in this bill and putting controls on how they spend their money, they still need this money, and this amendment would cut too much from the Deepwater program for a REAL ID program that is flush with money already. So I oppose the amendment reluctantly and congratulate the gentleman for his thoughtful but misplaced amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman has offered a very thoughtful amendment. I think it is worthwhile, and I would like to add my name to it and support it.

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

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray).

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

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

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, if we can't control who crosses our Nation's border, all other possible immigration initiatives will fail. Now, the gentleman's amendment prevents the undue delay of urgently needed border security. It still maintains the flexibility to use any and all tools to protect the border and secure the border, like fencing, vehicle barriers, and technology; but it takes away all of the strings and conditions upon which the money was appropriated to build the fence. How many times does Congress have to say to the Department, build the fence? The money's here. Take these strings and conditions away from this project. That's what it was designed and financed for and authorized by the Congress. Now, DHS should absolutely be consulting with the mayors and the local officials; and they are, very vigorously. They spend hours and hours meeting and talking with the local communities. They're doing that with vigor. This amendment also removes the possibilities of frivolous litigation. This bill invites frivolous litigation. This amendment would strike that frivolous language. I'm supportive of the funding levels and planning requirements in this bill for border security and immigration enforcement. I've maintained that onerous restrictions for fencing and tactical infrastructure are contrary to our homeland security needs. Now, this amendment does strike planning requirements for SBInet. But the program has demonstrated sound management over the last year. It's met and exceeded every legislative requirement from the 2007 bill. In fact, the majority conducted a substantial oversight of SBI through hearings and a Codel to the southwest border and saw fit to release all of the $950 million withheld from obligation until a fair expenditure plan was submitted. I have read this expenditure plan and can report to you that this program is on track to meet some very noteworthy goals by the end of 2008, including the installation of 370 miles of fencing, another 200 miles of vehicle barriers, and over 640 miles of technology along the southwest border. Bottom line, Mr. Chairman, it's time to stop talking and start digging and building that fence. The money is there. Take away these conditions that have been placed on building the fence that Congress ordered and make it happen.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I join the chairman in opposing the amendment, reluctantly, because the gentleman from New Mexico makes a compelling argument for better border security. Coming from his State, I can fully understand that. But as the chairman has said, we have increased in this bill moneys for an additional 3,000 Border Patrol agents, and the gentleman was arguing strongly for that and I appreciate that. But we have accommodated his request to that extent, as well as 500 additional Customs and Border Patrol officers, and we increase the salaries and expenses by over $50 million. So I think there is more help on the way that the gentleman has been asking for. But the moneys that the gentleman would take from TSA is not for screeners. It wouldn't come from screeners, it would come from the equipment that we are trying to furnish airports with, explosive detection machines, X-ray machines to locate explosives, so that we can clear the lobbies of many airports that have the trace detection machines in the lobbies so that passengers in small- and medium-sized airports really can't get through to fly. And that has been a pet project of this Member for some time. So that is where the money would come from, $125 million, and that really is my objection, because if we take that money from these explosive detection machines, which are already underfunded, and this bill increases the number quite a bit but is still underfunded, it would severely cripple the effort to bring more technology to the airports. I join the chairman in opposing the amendment.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Iowa 30 seconds to close.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

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

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. If the gentleman would briefly yield, do you have a problem, though, if Mecklenberg County, North Carolina, wants to do the 287(g) program? You don't have to do it. But is it okay for them to do it?

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I'll be brief. I understand my chairman's concerns that he has expressed. Notwithstanding that, though, this agency is so far behind with this backlog, and trying to catch up with equipment and procedures that are decades old. I think this demands that we do something different. And so I appreciate the gentleman bringing this forward. I think it's a good idea. I'm going to support it.