Hal Rogers

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I concede the point of order.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman is right on track and I think we can agree with it.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I will be glad to work with the gentleman and all of our colleagues toward that goal. In fact, between the supplemental bill that passed last week and this bill that is on the floor, if it is successful, we will have added some 1,500 new agents between now and next year. So we are getting closer to his goal.

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

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman brings up a good point, and I think the gentleman would agree that since 9/11 we have spent most of the Transportation Security money on air flight and we have neglected, I think, rail security and port security and bus security and some of the others, trucking. However, I will be happy to work with him so that we do have moneys that are designated for these particular purposes, so that the Department does not have the capability of spending it all in one place. I think it is important that we do have, if we can get it through the authorization process, kitties destined just for rail, just for ports, just for trucks, buses, and the like. Does the gentleman agree?

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. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes. Mr. Chairman, no one knows at this point in time what this is going to cost. We only passed it 2 or 3 weeks ago. No one has any idea at this point in time what it is going to cost us or States or locals or whomever. I think it is premature at this point in time to take up this amendment. At some point in time during this year before we go to conference, we are probably going to have to deal with this question. But there is just nothing there to give us any idea. Estimates run from $5 million to $100 million, depending on who is asked. The REAL ID Act authorized such appropriations as necessary to help States make their driver's licenses and other documents more secure for ID purposes. But there has been no time, as I have said, to fully assess the funding required in the first year of the program. DHS is not prepared to move forward quickly. I think the $100 million is absolutely premature. The CBO estimate is only $40 million in fiscal year 2006, not $100 million. The committee has not seen any of the estimates from the Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators which probably knows more about this issue than anybody. There already exists certain interstate driver's license databases which perhaps could be used and save money which operate on the basis of multistate compacts. These systems currently in existence should be examined to assess their potential to expand or serve as models for a nationwide database. It may be that many costs assumed in the CBO estimate can be avoided by leveraging these systems. We do not need to reinvent the wheel. And then, Mr. Chairman, the offsets the gentleman's amendment would cut into are very undesirable. Cutting these programs would be very unwise. The IAIP agency has already been reduced $11 million for failure to submit reports to the Congress. Any further reduction could impact information sharing with State and local agencies conducting vulnerability assessments and construction and renovation of space for the directorate. A cut to Science and Technology may have a direct linkage to the success of other programs. For instance, a cut to the Office of Interoperability and Communications can greatly impact the effectiveness of resources spent on first responder grants. In every war effort, it is easier to fund soldiers than science because what soldiers do is obvious; what science does is not. However, like the development of the tank in World War I and the development of the atomic bomb in World War II, science can profoundly influence the outcome. There is reason to believe that homeland security science can have a similar success on the war on terror. We cannot cut the Office of the Secretary. It is a tempting target, but it has already been hit by everybody in the room. Their office is only $133-plus million, and significant reductions will negatively affect their operations. The office is largely salaries and expenses, and cuts will result in fewer people attempting to deal with an increasing workload. Fewer people means DHS will have less time to respond to Congressional inquiries, for example. We have been critical of the office, but it is this office that will ultimately make the changes needed to make the Department work. They are working on the new Secretary's second-stage review even as we speak. So I hope we would not accept this amendment for the reason that we do not know how much money we need to run this program this year. We will find out as time goes by during the year. We can put money in the conference at the end of the year as necessary. So let us not jump off the cliff until we get to it. Number two, this amendment would devastate the Department's operations because it goes right to the heart of what they are doing. I urge the defeat of the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw the point of order.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, my good friend from Texas is correct. The Department has failed to take corrective action, and that is why this act will withhold $50 million in funding until the Department submits a detention and removal plan that addresses these issues in a more comprehensive manner. Already this year, the border patrol has apprehended over 75,000 illegals, Other Than Mexicans, more than twice the number of apprehensions compared to this same time last year; and we still have 5 months to go.

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

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Reclaiming my time, that is correct, and this is where the staff is now located. So it would have to come out of the Chief of Staff's operating budget.

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

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, yes, I agree that the program should focus on both the traditional and homeland security missions of the Coast Guard.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I recognize the gentleman's concerns. We will work with him on this subject if the authorization bill retains R&D funding within the Coast Guard for fiscal year 2006.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I fully sympathize with the concerns the gentleman from New Jersey has brought up, and the other gentleman has, about the issue of safety at chemical plants. We have 77,000 of them in the country and 17,000 of those deal with hazardous materials. So it is a big exposure that we have. However, I have to respectfully urge the defeat of this amendment for two or three reasons. One, we have included $50 million in the bill just for critical infrastructure protection, including chemical plants, already. I know the gentleman will be pleased to hear that we do have that amount of money in there: the amount he is requesting is already in the bill. Number two, we put in some very strong report language directing the Department to continue and complete the vulnerability assessments of all critical chemical facilities in the country. We have already reduced the State and Urban Area grant programs in this bill because of poor guidance, but mainly because they have still got $6.8 billion that we have appropriated since 2002 in the pipeline. They have only spent 30 percent of all we have appropriated. They have $6.8 billion left in the Office of Domestic Policy, which makes these grants. So there is plenty of money there. There is no point of putting more, until they draw down on what they already have. Number three, I have a problem with where the gentleman is taking the money from. We have already hit the Under Secretary for Management's Office big time in this bill already. We have taken $26 million today, and this is the place where the important work of the Department needs to take place. If you take this $50 million from the Under Secretary of Management, it could only come from one place without impacting personnel; that is to say, lay off people, and that is the Human Resource System of the Department. A $50 million reduction in that system would halt implementation of that human resource system program in its tracks. We would be unable to fund the ``pay pool,'' which would prevent the initial conversion of employees from the General Schedule to the new market-based pay bands and the pay-for-performance programs. We would also be unable to provide competent program management and evaluation. It would delay the establishment of the Department's Labor Relations Board, as required by the final regulations. We would not be able to access knowledgeable outside experts that understand industry best practices in compensation design sets. We would be unable to fund the training of managers, supervisors, and employees, and that lack of training would also have profound impacts on the credibility of the program with the employee base and their representatives. So, Mr. Chairman, I reluctantly oppose the amendment, sympathizing with the gentleman's sentiments. But I think we have plenty of money there now, and I do not want to see us hurt the human resource system that is being put in place even as we speak. So I urge the defeat of the amendment.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentlewoman. I think this is an excellent amendment. I am delighted that the gentlewoman has been able to ferret this out and bring it to the attention of all of us, and I want to say what a great job the gentlewoman has done and that I am going to vote for the gentlewoman's amendment.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I want to commend the gentleman for his efforts to work with our subcommittee and the Committee on Appropriations, and I regret that the process of coordination did not go more smoothly. I should acknowledge that the gentleman has indeed only sought to expose to points of order provisions or conditions that are genuinely authorization provisions, not all provisions against which a point of order would lie. Since the exposed provisions and conditions are, in fact, authorizing provisions, I want to assure the gentleman that in the conference negotiations on such provisions, I will follow the will of the authorizing committee in advancing the House position; and the conference report will, to the greatest extent possible, follow the will of the authorizing committee.

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

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

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

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, when the gentleman first described to me the ``catch-and-release'' policy and how it has affected the border communities, I was surprised to learn that the Department had not made full use of its authority. I understand that doing so will not only allow the Department to remove OTMs two to three times faster than traditional methods while permitting legitimate asylum claims, but would cut detention costs for such individuals by more than 50 percent.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I will read it again to the gentlewoman. 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. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I rise to state a point of order and in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 2360 and that I may include tabular material on the same.