Hal Rogers

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky

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

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

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

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

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. 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.

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

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Well, if the gentleman would yield very briefly, every community has the decision to make. If they don't want to participate, that's their business. But for those communities that do want to participate, it seems to me like we ought to allow the local option to take effect.

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. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I want to compliment the gentlelady again on an excellent amendment, the hard work that she's put into this issue. I have some problem with the offset, but that's overridden by the urgent need that the gentlelady has illuminated in her amendment. Allowing our local law enforcement officials and first responders to have authority in illegal immigration problems is the only way, in my judgment, that we will ever be able to solve this problem. And so I commend the gentlelady for this wonderful amendment.

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

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. The 287(g) program is voluntary by local communities, is it not?

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Let me thank the chairman for that clarification.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Madam Speaker, I thank the minority leader and majority leader and the chairman for their clarification. Madam Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I will be very brief. I thank the gentleman for yielding. On the Energy and Water bill, I'm a little confused.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I will be happy to yield.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. To also clarify that, that is precisely and exactly what we voted on last year; is that correct?

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Madam Speaker, reclaiming my time, I can tell you there is zero in this bill.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to compliment the gentlewoman for being an aggressive leader on this subject. She is very knowledgeable on the subject and has done a great deal of work in backgrounding on the amendment she has brought forward. She is doing a great service to the country in this effort. I want to compliment and thank the gentlelady for a great job.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. If the gentleman would yield. At the end of the bill, we will have to see what amendments have passed, and then we will look at that and see whether or not that would fit into our across the board cut, and if it might be modified to that extent.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the gentlewoman's amendment. I have some concerns about the offset, but I believe this amendment will help restore balance to ICE's enforcement resources as well as the agency's support for State and local officials. As I said when we opened this debate, I believe a fiscally responsible funding level includes sufficient resources to carry out all legislative functions and directions. This amendment helps to restore some balance of resources to meet the bill's mandate for ICE to contact every correctional facility across the country, over 5,000 of them, at least once a month to identify incarcerated aliens that can be deported and to initiate those deportation proceedings. That mandate is a lofty goal. Over 5,000 local and State jails and detention facilities that you have got to contact monthly and talk to the jailers who are State or local officials and are not being paid to help you with this, it is an unfunded mandate, and who are also not qualified to judge whether or not a person that is incarcerated is an illegal alien. It is not their job, and they are not trained for it. So that is going to be a difficult goal to implement and one that is unfunded but, I think, worthwhile. So I remain concerned that the bill presupposes that ICE can simply redirect resources from some other vital criminal investigation or fugitive operation to meet this unfunded mandate. I mean, ICE is understaffed as it is with personnel out there. You take a lot of personnel off of what they are doing now to check with every jail in the country, 2,000 of which hardly have any incarcerated aliens in them anyway, and you have got to take that personnel off of fugitive operations, catching people who are not in jail who are rapists and murderers and thieves, and deport them. So the bottom line is we have got to have some more money for ICE to do this new chore. In fact, the bill even suggests resources can be drawn from the 287(g) program to meet this mandate. But then the bill reduces funding for that very program by almost 30 percent below the request. So restoring the $9.1 million cut in the 287(g) program will provide additional funds to help State and local correctional facilities at the ID and processing of illegal aliens, the very priority the bill is trying to force. In fact, over 40 percent of the local law enforcement officers trained to date through the 287(g) program are from jails and correctional facilities in States like Florida, Arizona, Alabama, North Carolina, California. Look at some of the notable results from the ICE's 287(g) program. I am quoting from the Nashville City Paper printed April 24. ``If the first week's worth of figures hold up, the number of illegal immigrants deported in the first year of the national 287(g) program would be more than 4,200, or equal to 11 percent of Nashville's total, legal and illegal, Hispanic population, according to a City Paper analysis of the first batch of 287(g) immigration enforcement data.'' Bottom line, Mr. Chairman, the 287(g) program is too vital a program in the fight to secure our borders to accept the bill's $9.1 million cut. I urge Members to support the Drake amendment.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I thank the gentlelady for yielding. And to both Members, there are just a few thousand ICE agents, but there are literally hundreds of thousands of local law enforcement officials.