Hal Rogers

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Now that pretty much everything is said and done on this appropriations bill, according to CBO scoring, the bill is now under its section 302(b) allocation by $4 million. My amendment simply takes that $4 million and makes modest funding adjustments to two accounts: FEMA's Readiness Mitigation Response and Recovery program and the U.S. Secret Services Protection Administration and Training program. Mr. Chairman, the FEMA dollars will be used to continue work to upgrade the National Response Plan. For the Secret Service, funds will be used to support critical protective operations. This amendment has been cleared by both sides of the aisle, and I ask that it be agreed to.

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

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 appropriations bill and, therefore, violates clause 2 of rule XXI. I ask for a ruling.

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

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word and yield to the gentleman from New York for a colloquy.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, first, let me say that, as written, this amendment does not accomplish what the gentleman, I think, has described, but I do understand the intent of the amendment, and I agree with the gentleman's concerns about the various allegations that have been made about this service. However, I would like to point out that the Inspector General's office is investigating this 5-year contract to see if there is any impropriety. If there is, the contract will be terminated. The intent of this amendment is to bar DHS employees from using ``limousine services.'' But it does not define what that means. It could have some wide-ranging impacts if it is not defined. For example, with no definition, it could be perhaps used to stop FEMA crews from contracting buses to get to disaster areas. It could shut down bus shuttle service between the various DHS campuses in the D.C. area. And it could prevent employees from taking taxis from airports while they are on official travel. These are very impractical limitations for a department we expect to act quickly in time of emergency. So I would hope at some point in time, if this amendment passes, that there could be some way to define what is prohibited. But even with these concerns and these reservations, I am willing to accept the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I offer these amendments on behalf of Mr. Gordon and Mr. Engel. They have been agreed to by both sides. I urge adoption of the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. The gentleman has offered a very good amendment. It is a needed improvement, and I congratulate and thank the gentleman for being thoughtful and helpful in this regard.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle).

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I do, Mr. Chairman. 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 which states in pertinent part: ``An amendment to a general appropriations bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.'' The amendment imposes additional duties and, therefore, violates the rule. I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I didn't hear the Clerk designate the amendment. I would like to reserve a point of order.

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

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

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

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

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition. Mr. Chairman, I am opposed. FEMA is transitioning all apartment residents from apartments paid for under the emergency protective measures under the Stafford Act to the Individual and Households Assistance Program. Under the Stafford Act, apartment coverage is provided only during the emergency period; 20,000 evacuees in Houston have already been successfully transitioned from the apartments to the Individual and Households Program which offers cash assistance; 5,000 evacuees are still in apartments in Houston. This remaining group of 5,000 Katrina victims will be eligible for up to 18 months or $26,200 of assistance, whichever threshold is met first. FEMA is working with those not eligible for cash assistance and is helping them find more appropriate housing solutions, either through FEMA, HUD or other agency volunteer agency resources. No one is being thrown out. Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Here we go again, cutting the Secretary and the Secretary for Management's office. If we keep doing this, we are not going to have an office. So I have grave concerns. The Office of the Secretary has already been reduced from 2006 by $30 million and the President's budget request by $2 million because of vacancies within the office. Further reductions would cut into critical funding to hire for the management and oversight of the Secure Border Initiative and to ensure that the Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S., known as CFIUS, is adequately staffed to fully monitor possible foreign investment in critical infrastructure. Border security and CFIUS issues span multiple agencies within the Department. Both of these issues have been in the news, of course, repeatedly, and the Department has been severely criticized for its lack of expertise and breadth of knowledge in these areas. If there is no one to work on the issues within the Office of the Secretary, I can assure you they will not be adequately addressed. Each DHS agency will work separately and independently from each other, keeping the stovepipes in place and ensuring that these criticisms continue. I completely agree with the gentleman that the work being carried out by ICE's child exploitation unit, known as C3, is critical. This amendment would effectively double the operating budget of the C3. We have already increased funding for the center in our base bill. The bill we have presented to this body balances and reflects 5 months of careful oversight and review. The resources provided to C3, $5 million, are sufficient for the pending year. Additional funding is not necessary and could not be used. So while I applaud the gentleman's priorities here, I find the increase not practical nor needed and ask our colleagues to reject this amendment.

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

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order. 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 by $3.5 million. I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, the bill is currently balanced among the many competing homeland security priorities. This amendment significantly upsets that balance and undermines the Department's ability to effectively integrate its business systems. The subcommittee carefully reviewed the President's request. We made significant modifications in order to ensure all mission areas had sufficient resources, including restoration of funds for all first responder grants by adding $500 million; restoration of funds for critical law enforcement functions, such as the CPB air and marine operations, and the Secret Service. We increased funding for critical explosive detection systems, significant funding and oversight for all aspects of border security and immigration reform. What this amendment would do, Mr. Chairman, is unravel over 5 months of committee oversight, 11 hearings, digging deep into the resource requirements of the Department, facing the most ominous threats facing our Nation. The fact is, almost without exception, all of the programs funded in this bill are critical. But what we cannot afford to do is fund one program at the expense of all of the others. I have grave concerns about a $50 million reduction in the Office of the Under Secretary For Management. We have talked about this all day today. This office is already $8 million below funding for the current year. Assuming that the under secretary of management would not lay off its current personnel, key projects would have to be terminated in order to absorb the $50 million reduction in this office. The under secretary for management is responsible for consolidating the 22 agencies that formed DHS in 2003, 180,000 employees, 18 different personnel and payroll systems, and numerous financial management systems. We have made some progress. More is needed. But a $50 million reduction in this office would ensure that the under secretary would have to stop all work on the new personnel and payroll systems that are under development now. Because of the size of this offset, the under secretary would be prevented from the hiring of 25 new procurement employees that we provided for him. The Department has been unable to receive a clean financial audit in the first 2 years of its existence and has repeatedly been in the news for poor procurement decisions and inadequate contract management. The 25 new procurement employees were requested to help the Department receive a clean financial audit, get a better handle on the Department's contracts. As far as the proposed increase for rail and transit security, the responsibility of securing our Nation's rail and mass transit systems is shared between the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of transportation, and in partnership with the public and private entities that own and operate the Nation's transit and rail systems. Since DHS was created, $436 million has been appropriated for rail security. With $150 million in this bill, we will have provided a total of $603 million for rail security in the last 3 years. The Department of Transportation, Mr. Chairman, has also provided funding for rail and transit security, averaging about $40 to $50 million per year. That funding, coupled with the funding that we provide, equals the total amount contained in the amendment of the gentleman. We are giving you the money from two different places. So I think we have satisfied the gentleman's financial request, and I would hope that we would oppose and vote against this amendment.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate the gentleman. This is an excellent amendment. It increases the funding for the UASI program for the cities the Department has determined are at greatest risk.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to this amendment.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. The gentleman is correct.

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