Hal Rogers

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky

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

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. The gentleman is exactly correct. In fact, in the 2002 period of time we were requesting the new baseline. We did that in 2003. And then in the 2005 bill finally, we wrote it into the law that said you shall furnish the rebaselining on a such and so date. That time has long past gone. We still do not have it. What else can we do? I am open to all ideas, but I think the only weapon we have left is withholding funds.

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, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. I really appreciate the action of the gentleman from New Jersey, the chairman of the Coast Guard authorization committee. I really appreciate the gentleman's amendment and the comments that have been made. I think we are all in agreement. There is nothing that hurt me more in this bill than when we were forced to cut back the Deepwater monies until we could get the report of the Coast Guard about what the 20-year plans were. I am a big supporter of Deepwater. In fact, when I was chairman of the Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee is when we first funded Deepwater. The gentleman from Minnesota and I served on that subcommittee as well. It is a wonderful program. But then came 9/11. When 9/11 happened, the mission of the Coast Guard dramatically changed and they never really amended the Deepwater program in view of that very alarming new mission that they became charged with. And then we have continued to fund them for the last 2 years just based on their promise that they would get us the revised plan--a rebaselining. And then as time passed and we began to notice with the help of the gentleman from New Jersey's subcommittee that more and more of the Deepwater monies intended for new equipment was being used to maintain the old equipment, increasingly eating into the Deepwater monies. We felt we had no choice but to try to force the issue. We have bent over backwards, 15 different ways, with the Coast Guard and with the Department to try to get them to tell us the new 20-year plan, the rebaselined Deepwater, so that we all know where we are going and we know what we are buying. This subcommittee is not going to be a blank check for anybody. We insist on knowing what the program is. I think that is our duty. As soon as the Coast Guard can get us the 20-year Deepwater spending plan, I think the problem will disappear but not until. The old equation, lack of information means lack of money, applies to the Coast Guard as it does to my personal account. I appreciate the gentleman from New Jersey's work and his attitude in the subcommittee. He is a great leader of that subcommittee and has done a wonderful job. We have enjoyed working with him. He is easy to work with. He is very firm in his convictions, but he understands what has to be done here. I hope that this painful period of time will pass. It is up to the Coast Guard and the Department and perhaps, most importantly, the Office of Management and Budget to all finally agree and let us get on with it. I thank the gentleman for offering the amendment.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, the proposal will likely cause an overage on outlays, and so 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. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.

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 in opposition to the amendment, and I rise reluctantly in opposition to the gentleman's amendment that would earmark $6 million for the Office of Counternarcotics Enforcement and the U.S. Interdiction Coordinator out of funds provided for the Office of the Secretary and executive management. Mr. Chairman, the Department currently has eight people working on counternarcotics issues. In the past 2 years, we funded $1.86 million for that activity. That is almost half the funding provided for the Chief of Staff of the Department, where the counternarcotics staff are located. A $6 million earmark for counternarcotics would have the effect of zeroing out all funding for all other activities funded within the Chief of Staff's office, including the development of budget and information technology policies for the secretary. In fact, this amendment would require additional reductions in the Chief of Staff's office to fund this work. These reductions would mean that the Secretary would hire fewer security staff to focus on classified and security-sensitive issues within the Department, reduce support for the privacy office, or perhaps eliminate most of the newly proposed Office of Policy and also prohibit the hiring of new staff requested in the 2006 budget. There is no real clear justification why this office should basically triple in one fiscal year from less than $2 million to $6 million, or what the appropriate size of the office should be, particularly when they have not even filled all the funded positions they have. While I support the counterdrug mission of the Department, and in fact wish that the Chief Counternarcotics Officer would take a more prominent role in resolving longstanding issues of interagency coordination of drug interdiction, we cannot appropriate funds without knowing what those funds will be paying for. We just do not write blank checks in this subcommittee. I respect the gentleman's amendment and his intent.

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

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I will be happy to work with the gentleman. He has been a very diligent Member of this body, and I appreciate the information he is providing to us now. We will work with the gentleman to try to get at the problem he describes here.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, there is plenty of money in this section of the bill. I think we have put all the money we can into that section, and it is ample. Mr. Chairman, the amendment proposes to amend portions of the bill not yet read. The amendment proposes to increase the level of outlays in the bill, and I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

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, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the very distinguished and very able chairman of our full committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis).

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Perhaps the gentleman can withdraw the amendment and we will have a chance to work on it further.

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 gentlewoman's amendment.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time as well, and I yield back.

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. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I am pleased to be here today to present the fiscal 2006 Homeland Security Appropriations bill. The first chapter for the Department of Homeland Security has been written. Progress has been made, and our country is safer today than it was before September 11. In 2 years the Department has developed and deployed new technologies to inspect cargo at our seaports and detect hazards in our environment. US-VISIT has been put in place at all international airports and seaports; a one-stop shop for first responders has been created; more than 90,000 national assets have been catalogued in a national infrastructure database; and a communications system with State and local governments is in place. These are important accomplishments, but they are not enough. There is a great deal of work to be done, and it is time to write the next chapter. The bill before us today provides $30.8 billion in discretionary funds for the upcoming fiscal year, $1.4 billion above the current year and $1.3 billion above the amounts requested by the President. There are some tough choices in here, but they have been made after a careful review of how the Department is functioning, which programs work, and which ones, quite frankly, are broken. Nearly 2 years ago, when the Department was first created and came before the Committee on Appropriations seeking funds, I made it clear that homeland security requires the active engagement of all Americans and all branches of government; that we are all stakeholders and must be treated as such. I also advised that the Committee on Appropriations would be a partner as the Department sought to secure our homeland, that we would not be casual bystanders willing to sign a blank check. I have consistently and repeatedly told the Department that we would require accountability and cooperation, that we would expect them to establish and meet specific milestones, that we would watch and measure their progress. We have done that, exactly that. And, frankly, Mr. Chairman, I am disappointed. I have come to the conclusion that there are two fundamental challenges within this Department. First, DHS has been slow to build its internal capabilities. The information technology infrastructure has not been integrated. There is no system in place to develop, certify, and transfer homeland security technologies. A financial management system that tracks where the money goes does not exist, and there is only a limited capacity to put first responder funds out on the street based on standards and minimum levels of preparedness. Second, the Department has not been successful at revising missions and assets of legacy organizations in a way that reflects the post-9/11 homeland security environment. All too many examples come to mind: the Coast Guard, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Border Protection, and Transportation Security. In too many cases it is just business as usual. Missions and threats have changed, but the Department has not. This is unacceptable. The ``business as usual'' mentality has to go. The bill before us is anything but business as usual. The Department has been a reluctant partner and has ignored requests for information and direction to move expeditiously in the implementation of important national policies and goals. This became all too obvious this year when the Department ignored Congressional requests for comprehensive information on the Coast Guard's important Deepwater program. The Department will find that that lack of information has cost them. Absent a revised baseline that reflects post-9/11 mission requirements for the Coast Guard, Deepwater is being funded at pre-9/11 levels, $500 million. That is $466 million below the request. It is a simple equation, Mr. Chairman: No information equals no money. Throughout this bill, we will see this equation applied. There are more than $485 million in cuts because the Congress did not get the information we needed to make informed decisions about programs and operations. There is also more than $310 million in fenced funding, until the Department performs certain actions, including implementation of new air cargo screening methods and standards, an immigration and border security enforcement strategy, and a plan to deploy explosive detection technologies to our Nation's airports. Within this bill, first responders are funded at the President's requested level of $3.6 billion. I would like to point out that there continues to be problems at the local, State, and Federal levels in terms of getting money actually out to first responders. We have recently learned, Mr. Chairman, that only 30 percent of the funds that we have appropriated since 2002, have been spent. Including the 2005 grant money, there is $6.8 billion in the grant pipeline. Mr. Chairman, that is unacceptable. The bill does not propose any changes to the current formula as to how those monies are dealt out, but it does recognize that legislation which passed this Chamber last week is moving through the process. The appropriations bill will allow 2006 funding to go out based on any formula change that may be signed into law. The bill also presumes that if new formulas do not go into effect, the Department would maintain the minimum allocation for States of .75 percent. The balance of that fund, though, would go out based on risk, threat, and need; not, as it has in the past, based solely on population. That is a fundamental change in the way first responder monies would go out. The bill also includes a significant increase for border security and immigration enforcement. A total of $1.2 billion is added for the Customs and Border Patrol and the Immigration and Customs Enforcement branches. That funding is on top of the $550 million that was provided in the emergency supplemental just signed. Between that supplemental and this bill, we will be providing the Department with the resources to hire an additional 1,500 border patrol agents and 568 ICE officers throughout the country. Funds are also available to add some 3,870 detention beds, which would be roughly a 20 percent increase over current levels. Also, funds are available for new radiation portal monitors and air assets. These funds, though, Mr. Chairman, would come with strings attached. Our immigration enforcement strategy needs an overhaul. Despite more than tripling spending on border security and immigration enforcement in the last 10 years, the number of illegal immigrants in the U.S. has more than doubled, an unbelievable 11 million estimated illegal aliens in the country; and that number is growing by a half a million a year, by conservative estimates. And of that total, there are more than 465,000 absconders, people who have been caught, brought to court, released on their own recognizance to report at a later date, which they fail to do. And of those, 80,000 of them have criminal records. Those numbers, Mr. Chairman, will only get worse unless we act. Immigration enforcement is one of the most critical components of homeland security, yet the Department's current strategy has changed little since the days of the old Immigration and Naturalization Service. In order to inspire change, the bill includes language requiring the Secretary to submit an immigration enforcement strategy to reduce the number of undocumented aliens by 10 percent per year. The bill withholds $20 million of the Secretary's office funds until we receive that strategy. Finally, for transportation security, the bill includes $6.4 billion, partially offset by fees, which is an increase of $344 million above the current year. The bill includes several provisions that address years of frustration in dealing with the Transportation Security Administration. For too long, TSA and others have ignored congressional direction regarding general aviation at Reagan National Airport. A legislative provision is included, after these 3 or 4 years of discussions, requiring the Secretary to open Reagan National Airport to general aviation within 90 days of enactment of this act. The committee also has repeatedly asked for a plan as to how TSA would be installing the explosive detection systems, the so-called x- ray machines, at our airports. Again, TSA has ignored the Congress. In addition to providing $495 million for the purchase and installation of these x-ray machines, the committee fences $50 million of the administrator's funds until an installation plan is provided to the Congress. Finally, the bill provides $100 million for cargo security in passenger planes. TSA has ignored congressional directions to triple the screening of air cargo on passenger aircraft. As a result, the committee reduces the appropriation for TSA headquarters by $100,000 for each day that the tripling of air cargo is not implemented. The bill also fences another $10 million until new cargo screening standards and protocols are implemented. These next few years, Mr. Chairman, will define the Department's place in history. This bill may be tough, and I admit that it is, but I hope it is a wakeup call. It is time to take strong action to ensure that the Department's place in history and our safety will be one of success and leadership in securing our homeland and not one of government bureaucracy and failed opportunities. It is now time for action. I appreciate that the bill includes several tough provisions. I am aware that the new Secretary is in the process of completing what he calls a second-stage review of the Department's programs and operations. I am pleased about that. While I have great respect and confidence in the Department's new leadership, and we look forward to receiving any recommendations the Secretary may have to move the Department forward, we cannot ignore the fundamental problems that we have been experiencing with this Department since its creation. I urge my colleagues to support the measure. [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17MY05.001 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17MY05.002 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17MY05.003 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17MY05.004 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17MY05.005 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17MY05.006 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17MY05.007 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17MY05.008 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17MY05.009 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17MY05.010 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17MY05.011 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17MY05.012 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17MY05.013 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17MY05.014 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17MY05.015 Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky, Mr. Chairman, I submit the following exchange of letters for the Record. House of Representatives, Committee on Appropriations, Washington, DC, May 17, 2005. Hon. Bill Thomas, Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Thomas. Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 2360, the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2006. As you have noted, the bill is scheduled for floor consideration on Tuesday, May 17, 2005. I appreciate your agreement to expedite the passage of this legislation although it contains a provision involving overtime pay that falls within your Committee's jurisdiction. I appreciate your decision to forgo further action on the bill and acknowledge that it will not prejudice the Committee on Ways and Means with respect to its jurisdictional prerogatives on this or similar legislation. Our committees have worked closely together on this important initiative, and I am very pleased we are continuing that cooperation. I appreciate your helping us to move this legislation quickly to the floor. Finally, I will include in the Congressional Record a copy of our exchange of letters on this matter. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation. We look forward to working with you in the future. Best regards, Harold Rogers, Chairman.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky

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

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because its proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation on an appropriations bill and, therefore, violates clause 2 of rule XXI. The rule states in pertinent part ``an amendment to a general appropriations bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.'' This amendment changes the application of existing law, and I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

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.