Hal Rogers

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky

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. Chairman, I rise in opposition.

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

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman has offered a very fine amendment, and I would like to say that the committee accepts it.

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 reserve a point of order.

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 reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment.

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

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. The gentleman is correct.

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

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

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I do make a point of order against the amendment because it is in violation of section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. The Committee on Appropriations filed a suballocation of budget totals for fiscal year 2007 on May 18. The adoption of this amendment would cause the subcommittee suballocation for budget authority made under section 302(b) to be exceeded and is not permitted under section 302(f) of the Act. I ask for a ruling.

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

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. The committee bill already provides $96 million plus for the Inspector General. That is an increase of $14 million over the current level. And of that increase, $11 million is to continue and expand audits and investigations related to the gulf coast hurricanes. So we have already increased funding for the inspector general by 17 percent over current levels. And again, this money would come out of the Under Secretary of Management's Office. We have already cut $70 million from that office. We are going to shut it down, and the Department will not be able to operate. So I urge a no vote.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. 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. Mr Chairman, I ask for a ruling.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, the amendment that was read is what we are relying upon here.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I will not object at this point in time. I am serving notice, however, that this is the last time during the consideration of this bill that I will not object.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. You have my assurances proper site selection procedures will be used.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition. The amendment would increase funding for the emergency management performance grants by $40 million and $10.3 million for SAFECOM, and the offset would be, guess what, the poor old Under Secretary for Management. We have tried to dip into that well today 15 times, and every time we have said no because it would stop the Department's operations. The committee already has in the bill $186 million for these grants. That is $16 million more than the President asked of us, and it is $2.8 million more than what we have in it right now. So, you know, we have done well by this grant program. I cannot imagine somebody complaining about it. Then you are taking the money out of the Under Secretary for Management, and that would either zero out or substantially decrease funding for absolutely critical programs that are designed to bring these 22 agencies into a single program, and so I would strongly oppose this amendment.

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

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman, as I understand his amendment, would take $14.7 million out of the Office of the Under Secretary for Management and provide that money to the metropolitan medical response teams. Mr. Chairman, we have already provided $30 million in the bill for these teams. The budget request that came to us asked for zero, and the subcommittee and the committee decided these were worthwhile programs, doing great work, and we provided $30 million in the bill that we had to find from somewhere else. Now, Mr. Markey wants to take another slug of money from the Office of the Under Secretary for Management. The poor guy's out of money. With the amendments that have been offered so far, there is no more money left in the Under Secretary For Management's account if those amendments pass, Mr. Chairman. So we have hit bottom and the Under Secretary for Management and the management of the Department of Homeland Security, if these amendments pass, will go out of business. So I urge a rejection of this amendment. I cannot see how the extra money would be used by the teams because we have already got $30 million in their account, and the offset would wreck the Department. I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. The committee included 160 million dollars in the bill for USCIS salaries and expenses which is $115 million above the 2006 level. Their request included $110 million for the Employment Eligibility Verification program, mainly to fund development of new systems and intelligence communications, to support employer requests for confirmation of immigration status of their employees. The bill provides $90 million. The reason that we did not fully fund that program is because they do not need that much money. This $90 million will be enough to begin the work needed to start defining systems needs and begin the design and procurement process. That is all they need for this. If we give them more, it will not be spent. They cannot spend more. We could certainly use that money. Certainly the Under Secretary for Management can use that money. If we continue to dip into his account, he will not exist and that is very, very important to manage the whole Department. I understand the gentleman and the gentlewoman's point on this; however, when you think that this amount of money will be all that they can use to get the program up and running, I think you will be satisfied with it. I urge defeat of the amendment.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. I want to identify with the remarks just made by the gentleman from North Carolina. It is urgent, in my judgment, that Mr. Poe secures more money for the 287(g) program. I think that is an essential matter that needs to be taken care of, to get State and local law enforcement assistance in the enforcement of the immigration laws. We will never be able to get enough border control to completely handle the problem in my judgment, unless we get the active assistance of State and local law enforcement, as authorized and funded. In the bill we provided $5.4 million for training of local law enforcement officers in participation in 287(g) and the President's border supplemental proposes a $50 million increase. So we are going to get that money that Mr. Poe would like for us to have; we are just going to get it from another source. I agree with the gentleman from North Carolina on the need to keep the money in the Chief Information Officer's account for the data center. And it will assist, those data centers will assist the border effort to be sure that we keep out people that should not be in the country. We cannot do it without a coordinated data collection center, and that is what this bill includes $41 billion for. Currently, the Department has 17 of these centers scattered all over the country, largely a legacy of consolidating multiple agencies when we formed the Department. Running those multiple data floors is expensive. It hinders information sharing. It creates security vulnerabilities. The Department estimates that consolidation to twin facilities as the bill proposes will save $50 million each year, starting in 2009, with two mirror sites. The current information silos scattered across the Department will be done away with, allowing a consolidated view of information, a critical element of information sharing. Having information at twin sites allows it to be under one security umbrella, leaving fewer opportunities to compromise secure information. The first center is being built in Stennis, Mississippi. The Department plans to release a request for information to begin the competitive process to locate a surface for a second mirror facility this year. Without a redundant data center, should something happen to this Stennis facility, DHS would not be able to operate. People could not cross the border. Travelers would stop at airports. Coast Guard data would be lost. So I urge the Members to reject this amendment so that we can have the data centers that are absolutely vital to the successful operation of the Department and the battle to keep illegals out of the country. I would point out again to Mr. Poe that when the President's border supplemental passes, you will get not just the $41 million you seek, but $50 million dollars. So we are with you. We are just doing it a different way. I urge a defeat of the amendment.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Appropriations have until midnight, June 2, 2006, to file a privileged report, making appropriations for the Legislative Branch for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2007, and for other purposes.