Hal Rogers

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to be here to present the fiscal year 2007 Homeland Security Appropriations Bill. The bill provides just over $32 billion in discretionary funds for the upcoming fiscal year, that is $1.8 billion above the current year, providing ample resources to fund the Department's operations in 2007. After 3 years, the Department of Homeland Security has made enormous progress, but much work remains. The past year has been challenging. We have seen military-like incursions at the border, learned of potential vulnerabilities within port security and witnessed a massive failure in our Nation's preparedness and response during Hurricane Katrina. It has not been an easy year. I have watched the Department tackle these challenges, and have been forthcoming in both my criticisms and praise, and they deserve both. Now, in its fourth year of existence, DHS is still struggling to merge its 22 legacy agencies. Basic business systems are not yet established. And there is a constant shuffling of responsibilities and positions. From one day to the next, it is hard to determine who is in charge of what effort. On top of the mundane job of simply managing a large bureaucracy of over 180,000 employees, the Department is often focused on managing the crisis of the day. Part of this is necessary. Katrina's aftermath certainly required the attention of DHS leadership. But I do not think the Department should lose sight of its long range goals and diverse legacy missions, to deal exclusively with the latest crisis. Nor, do I think that we as a Congress can afford to be so caught up in today's crisis that we fail to provide balance, stability and aggressive oversight within the Department's operations. The President's budget put a strong emphasis on two areas, borders and immigration security, and nuclear detection. These are certainly homeland security priorities which I support. But increases in these areas came at the expense of everything else, resulting in reduced funding for first responders, port security and legacy agencies such as the Secret Service. The bill before you shifts some of these resources and provides a balance among all of the Homeland Security priorities. It gives the Department the tools, assets and direction it needs to prepare our Nation for both terrorist attacks and natural disasters. Since September 11, we have provided $217.6 billion for homeland security, including $116.9 billion for the Department itself. This does not include emergency appropriations for Hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Wilma. For the past 3 years, we have provided funds to get the Department up and running. But this year marks a turning point for the Department. It is 3 years old. It is already up and running. We now expect results. No longer will we tolerate excuses and delays due to reorganizations, personnel shortages and poor financial management. Those days are over. We need to have confidence that this money is making a difference and that as a Nation we are safer and better prepared. The bill includes a number of initiatives designed to compel the Department to develop strategies and milestones for performance. To eliminate any ambiguity of Congressional intent, the bill fences funds until certain actions are performed. In fact, a total of $1.3 billion is withheld until we have strategic plans, expenditure plans, and better financial data throughout the Department. The bill also balances funding across all programs, not just a select few. But there are some caveats. We give money to the Department, but we also require results. For port security, cargo security and container security, we include $4.185 billion, a significant sum of money, but not without strings. There are stringent performance requirements, such as doubling the amount of cargo inspected, 100 percent screening of all cargo and the establishment of minimum security standards for all cargo containers. It also requires that DHS double the amount of cargo screened for radiation. These requirements are in line with the recently considered SAFE Port Act, which overwhelming passed this House on May 4. For border security and immigration enforcement, the bill is also generous. We provide $19.6 billion, including almost $4 billion for the Secure Border Initiative. Again, these funds do not come without strings. Strategic and expenditure plans must be submitted for this effort. Unless the Department can show us exactly what we are buying, we will not fund it. Since 1995, spending on border security has quadrupled from $5.1 billion to over $17.9 billion. And the number of Border Patrol agents has more than doubled from 5,000 to 12,319. However, during this same period, the number of illegal immigrants has jumped from 5 million to an estimated 12 million people. The policy of more money and no results is no longer in effect. We will not fund programs with false expectations. The American taxpayer deserves more. We learned many lessons, Mr. Chairman, from Hurricane Katrina. The Department has taken a number of steps to prepare for the start of the 2006 Hurricane season on June 1, including improvements to communications, logistics management, victim registration and debris removal. However, much work remains. And we provide $493 million to build FEMA's operational capabilities, including 200 new staff to improve incident and logistics management, evacuations and debris removal. The bill includes $3.2 billion for our first responders. This is in addition to the $5.1 billion that is still in the pipeline waiting to be spent, moneys from previous years. Here, too, we require results. And we put pressure on DHS to measure progress in preparing our first responders. Since September 11, we have given the first responders, we have provided $37.4 billion. The question is, are they better trained? Are they better prepared? Are they better equipped? We do not know the answer to that, but we should. The bill includes a provision requiring DHS to develop a preparedness strategy and to measure the performance of first responders. The bill provides $6.4 billion for the Transportation Security Administration and the air marshals, including $497 million for explosive detection systems, and $55 million for air cargo security. It also continues to cap the number of screeners at 45,000, ensuring that TSA will not rely exclusively on people to secure aviation but rather use smart technologies to screen for explosives and other contraband. We must get out of the cycle of simply giving more money for people when technology in many cases provides a better answer. The bill includes $500 million for the domestic nuclear detection office. Much work has been done in this area over the past year, and the office has made significant progress in the areas of detection technologies and coordinating Federal efforts. This work deserves our continued support. Finally, I would like to point out that the bill includes $1.3 billion for the Secret Service. I continue to believe the administration sometimes ignores the resource requirements of that agency. Despite dramatic increases in their workload for both protection and investigations, dollars have not been forthcoming. This is a good example of where I think the administration is not paying enough attention to legacy missions, because they are so focused on bigger, more visible challenges. This legislation, Mr. Chairman, supports our most critical Homeland Security priorities, keeps the Department on track to produce results and continues the committee's tradition of strict accountability. The recommendations in this bill reflect a balance among programs and operations, and I urge my colleagues to support the measure. Mr. Chairman, this is the last year that my distinguished colleague, Mr. Sabo, will be serving in the U.S. House. He has chosen to retire to his home in Minnesota. I want to pay him the highest compliment that I can. He has been an able soldier. He has been a good work mate on this subcommittee. A good part of this bill is his handiwork. He is easy to work with. He reminds me a lot of that old adage that still water runs deep. He does not yell and scream. And yet he is extremely competent. So I wish him well in his next life. I want him to know that we have enjoyed working with him. He has done a great service for his country. And we want to thank him for his distinguished service. So, Mr. Sabo, thank you for being a great partner. [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25MY06.001 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25MY06.002 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25MY06.003 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25MY06.004 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25MY06.005 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25MY06.006 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25MY06.007 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25MY06.008 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25MY06.009 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25MY06.010 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25MY06.011 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25MY06.012 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25MY06.013 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25MY06.014 Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I want to thank the gentleman for his efforts to work with our subcommittee and commend him for his leadership in the Committee on Homeland Security. I also appreciate the opportunity to work with the gentleman on legislative provisions contained in the homeland security bill. As this bill moves forward towards conference, I want to assure the gentleman that I am committed to retaining the key oversight provisions included in this bill. I also look forward to working with the gentleman to ensure that measures consistent with the legislative agenda of the Committee on Homeland Security, particularly in the areas of border, immigration and port security, emergency preparedness and chemical site security. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his comments, especially about the staff. We would not be here obviously without the hard work that they have put into this bill. You and I are just sort of front people for the real work that goes on behind the scenes by staff. So we do have, I think, the best staff in the business on both sides of the aisle. I join you in complimenting the staff. You may notice that all of the staff is wearing some form of purple in their clothing at some point in time. And there is a reason for that. Purple is the favorite color of Michelle Mrdeza, who as we all know is retiring after this year from her labors. And so we are paying tribute to Michelle with purple. We wish Michelle well in her next life as well. She has rendered tremendous service to her country. In trying to stand up this brand-new Department, the biggest reorganization in the government at least since 1948, in standing up this Department it has been real labor, toils and snares all along the way and they continue until this today. But Michelle and the staff of the subcommittee on both sides have just been marvelous in this labor of love of trying to stand up this huge agency, that we owe them more than we can ever tell them about. But that goes for the ranking member, too. He has been a marvelous help-mate as we struggled along trying to find our way through a thicket to try to stand up this brand-new Department. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

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

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. The gentleman is correct.

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

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. The gentleman has offered an excellent amendment, and we accept it.

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

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

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 5441, and that I may include tabular material on the same.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky

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

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend the staff of the Prestonsburg Social Security Office for their strong, effective, and compassionate service to the people of Kentucky. Social Security plays an important role in the lives of more Americans than any other federal program. Whether providing a Social Security number for a newborn baby, mailing a check to a retired worker, or helping a disabled individual receive benefits, the Social Security Administration touches the lives of just about everyone. The field office in Prestonsburg, Kentucky, is a shining example for this massive federal agency. The Prestonsburg staff consistently goes beyond the call of duty to provide valuable benefits to the people of Kentucky. Because of this unwavering commitment to helping others, the Social Security Administration recognized the Prestonsburg Office as the Best Level I Field Office in the Atlanta Region for fiscal year 2005. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my colleagues and myself, I want to thank the staff at the Prestonsburg Social Security Office for their hard work and dedication to serving the people of Kentucky. These fine Americans are an inspiration to us all, and I salute them for their commitment to helping others.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's amendment, well-intentioned as it is, is absolute overkill. In total, this amendment would add $1.225 billion for a variety of programs in the Department of Homeland Security, which is nearly 5 percent of the annual appropriations. I may agree with him on some of the needs, but most of what he is asking for should be dealt with in regular order, not in an emergency supplemental bill. I recognize the importance of many of the appropriations contained in the amendment, but we have already substantially increased funding, Mr. Chairman, for Customs and Border Protection, Coast Guard, and FEMA over the last 3 years. This supplemental is about the Global War on Terror and Gulf Coast recovery, not about the regular budgets of these Departments, of these agencies, which we are dealing with right now as we appropriate for 2007. Now, in Customs and Border Protection, in this bill already we increase funding by $17.7 million. We have aggressively supported radiation detection and cargo inspection technology, appropriating some $700 million over the last three years. An additional $400 million in this amendment, well-intended, is completely arbitrary and unneeded. There is no rationale for this number. The new Domestic Nuclear Detection Office is developing new technologies, even as I speak, and a framework for their deployment. The gentleman also increases Customs and Border protection, international port security programs, the Container Security Initiative, and the Customs Trade Partnership Against Terrorism by $300 million. Since 2004, these programs have received, at the hands of the Congress, over $430 million. This has fully funded the Container Security Initiative which will expand in 58 foreign ports by the end of fiscal 2007. Through those 58 ports come 90 percent of the containers that come to this country and C-TPAT has expanded to 5,636 certified trade partners that send us container vessels every day. Mr. Chairman, we simply cannot grow these programs any faster. Money is not the problem. An expansion of this program is more about obtaining diplomatic clearances than money. These countries simply will not take more of our personnel until we negotiate diplomatically with them. As for the Coast Guard operating expenses, in this bill the Chairman of the full committee, Mr. Lewis, has already included an additional $14.3 million. The gentleman's amendment would add another $125 million. Mr. Chairman, over the last 5 years, we have doubled funding for the Coast Guard's operating expenses, doubled, from $2.8 billion in fiscal 2001 to $5.5 billion in the current year, and while we have increased their responsibilities, they have funding in their base and in this supplemental for operating expenses sufficient to carry out their duties for the remainder of the year, including overhauling equipment, additional fuel, port security, inspections and the like. So the Coast Guard is taken care of. In fact, they have roughly half of their operating expenses for this fiscal year laying there waiting to be spent. So they do not need the extra funds. Now then, on FEMA, we include in this bill already increases to FEMA of $70 million in the supplemental emergency bill. The gentleman would increase their funding for administrative and regional operations by $300 million, but it is unclear how that $300 million figure is derived. The President requested $70 million for emergency communications, primarily for Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama, although some of the funds are also targeted to Texas and Florida. The Sabo amendment adds $300 million for ``three other locations.'' We do not know where those locations are or why it is an emergency that they be equipped, and there is a huge difference in the cost estimates. Seventy million will take care of the three principal States of Katrina, but he is asking $300 million for these three other locations. Wherever they are, I do not know, and what they need the money for we still do not know. The $70 million that Chairman Lewis included in the bill that is before us fully prepares the Gulf Coast for the upcoming hurricane season, putting in place the necessary communications infrastructure for warning and communicating with the public during these natural disasters. It may be appropriate to position the technology in other locations, but there is no reason to consider an expansion of this effort as part of this emergency appropriations bill. These are decisions that can and will be considered as part of the regular appropriations cycle, which we are having hearings on right now. The gentleman seeks to add $100 million for preparedness activities at FEMA. We also increase in preparedness this bill by $10 million. The gentleman states we are not spending enough on simulation exercises; but in fiscal 2006, the National Exercise Program is funded at $52 million. That supports local, State, and national exercises. The gentleman also seeks to restart a program called Project Impact, funded in the previous administration to simulate predisaster mitigation efforts. That program has not been funded for 5 years. Nothing is known about it, we do not know that it works, and yet we are asked to plop down another big chunk of money. Who will administer it? what will it do? and so on--we do not know. So, Mr. Chairman, it is not a matter of more money. It is a matter of spending the money that we already have stashed away in these programs wisely, based on a sound strategy and a rationale to improve our homeland security. While the gentleman's amendment is well-intended, it is overkill. This supplemental is focused on immediate needs, not budgetary items for next year. Many of the areas being addressed in this amendment are funded in this supplemental, not just to the arbitrary levels being proposed by the gentleman's amendment. Throwing huge sums of money at these programs is not a responsible way to conduct our Nation's business. I urge a defeat of this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is just not necessary. FEMA has money and the authorization to go ahead and buy election equipment already, and they are already doing it. This amendment would actually earmark Disaster Relief Funds, which we have never done before. We don't earmark. This is not an account out of which you earmark monies for things you like. These are Disaster Relief Funds that are administered by the government where it is needed. Now, the Stafford Act authorizes the use of Federal money to repair or replace damaged public infrastructure. That is what it is for, including election equipment. FEMA has already spent over $1.7 million on election equipment in Louisiana and Mississippi. Specifically, Louisiana has received $1,200,100 from FEMA to replace polling booths, computers, voting machines, office supplies, and storage facilities. Mississippi has received $724,000 from FEMA for voting machines, equipment, and election commission furniture. So FEMA is already doing it. I don't know why we need to earmark monies, which I oppose in general; but it is unnecessary here because it is already being done. There is plenty of money in FEMA's account to replace the election equipment. They are already doing it. So I don't see the need for us to pass this sort of an amendment and set a precedent, Mr. Chairman, for earmarking out of the Disaster Relief Fund for somebody's whim on the floor. We have passed the Stafford Act. That is what governs how FEMA monies are being spent. This would be a violation, in my judgment, of the principle of the Stafford Act. FEMA is in the process of helping remove debris from the Gulf Coast. Roads are still closed in the area. As has been described innumerable times, it is an absolute mess down there. And while election equipment is important, it is just simply, in my judgment, premature to purchase this equipment, first of all, when there are no structures in place to house the equipment and no roads open to deliver it. When the time is right, FEMA has both the authority and the money to assist with the upcoming election and the equipment requirements. There is simply no need for this amendment and no need to earmark out of disaster funds. Including the funds in this bill, we will have given $44.5 billion to the Disaster Relief Fund in supplemental appropriations during 2005 and 2006. That is a huge sum. But it reflects the commitment of this body to helping rebuild the devastated Gulf Coast region. Now is the time for sound management of this money. Arbitrarily carving out specific amounts from the disaster fund would open a floodgate seemingly without end for many, many needs. We recognize and support the need to repair election facilities. It is critical that we allow those affected by Hurricane Katrina to participate in the most important civic duty, and that is voting. With this bill, the disaster relief monies involved in the bill are in place to do just that and are being spent for that purpose already. So I would urge a rejection of this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. May I inquire of the time remaining?

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment. First, this amendment throws money at a problem where money is not the problem. There are literally billions of dollars that we have appropriated in the pipeline for the various grant programs in the Department of Homeland Security, including grant monies for port security. In fact, the Department, in the next couple of weeks will be releasing port security applications for various ports around the country to apply for funding. Money is in the pipeline waiting to be spent. As I have said before, the Department will be in 58 foreign ports the end of the fiscal year 2007. Ninety percent, nine out of 10 of the containers coming into the country come through those 58 ports around the world. We are there x-raying the containers, manually searching containers, classifying and targeting containers, finding those that are susceptible to suspicion and then searching them. It is not perfect, obviously. But money is not the problem. We simply cannot send more agents into those countries than they will take, unless we can diplomatically make arrangements. But that is a job of the State Department, not DHS. Second, this is an emergency supplemental bill. We can deal with most of the problems that the gentleman outlines in his amendment in the regular process. And in the regular process, I will probably support a number of the proposals that he is bringing forth in this emergency bill. But this is not the time or the place. So I would urge a ``no'' vote. These dollars are emergency spending. They are not offset. And the gentleman is asking us to add another $1.225 billion of nonoffset spending. I would hope the body would recognize that, reject this amendment, and let us deal with these issues in the regular process of the 2007 bill. I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I know the motivation of the offerer of the amendment, and I sympathize with his general premise. However, I am obligated to speak against the amendment because the amendment would eliminate the money for FEMA. Under this proposal, FEMA would run out of money in May. The $9.55 billion in the bill for the operations in the Gulf Coast would be eliminated. Housing assistance would stop; debris removal would stop. There would be no emergency communications in place for the upcoming hurricane season, which is only two months away. And $13.5 million for the Inspector General would be cut, almost ensuring fraud, waste and abuse of the $35 billion in supplemental funds we have appropriated so far for the Gulf Coast. So I would urge a ``no'' vote. Although I understand the gentleman's motivation to try to separate out the disaster funding from the military funding, that would ruin the disaster assistance for the Gulf Coast. I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in opposition to this amendment which would prohibit FEMA from terminating its hotel and motel emergency sheltering program. This language is overly restrictive. At its peak, FEMA had more than 85,000 hotel rooms rented per night. The current subsidized hotel-room population is 3,780 households with the vast majority being in Louisiana. FEMA is now in the process of transitioning these remaining hotel/ motel residents into more appropriate housing. We do not want families living in motels. We all want to see those families in a better environment, longer term housing solutions such as apartments and the like. This transition will occur over the coming weeks. To date, over 2,500 have already been matched up against not-yet-ready temporary housing, trailers, apartments and the like. The remainders include hard-to-place individuals, the disabled and people like that; and FEMA will continue to provide hotel/motel assistance to those people until a suitable temporary housing solution is identified and prepared. Members should be assured that people are not being thrown out in the streets. FEMA is working with families to place them in appropriate housing solutions. This amendment would keep in place a program in the long term that is not good for the recipients or anyone else. So I urge Members to vote against the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, it is not true that the time is up. Eligible Hurricane Katrina victims with no other housing means may be eligible for 3 months' worth of housing assistance. And the deadline application for individual assistance has been extended until April 11. So I would urge defeat of this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Madam Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg).