Hal Rogers

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against the amendment under clause 2 of rule XXI. The provision designates an amount as emergency spending for purposes of the concurrent resolution on the budget. As stated in the House rules and manual, such a designation is fundamentally legislative in character. Mr. Chairman, I would reserve raising the point of order and yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner) to explain.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I really hate to disappoint the ranking member, but I do raise a point of order against the amendment under clause 2 of rule XXI. The provision designates an amount as emergency spending for purposes of the concurrent resolution on the budget. As stated in the House Rules and Manual, such a designation is ``fundamentally legislative in character.'' Mr. Chairman, I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I do, Mr. Chairman.

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

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, the simple fact is if this amendment passes, there will not be any planes for them to get on in the first place.

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

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, the amendment seeks to cap the number of high-threat, high-density urban area grants and rail and transit security grants to the 80 presently awarded in 2004. Mr. Chairman, the whole concept of giving monies on top of the regular distribution of funds across the country, to give extra money to certain cities in the country, the whole concept was we need to protect those cities that we know are targets from the threat information we receive from time to time, because they have extra needs. And so that was the very concept of the urban area grant program which was added on top of all of the other grant programs. But threats change. Anyone who is privy to intelligence knows that yesterday it is Columbus, Ohio. It is New York. It is Washington. It is LA. It is Chicago. But then it is Albuquerque, and who knows where. And the Secretary needs to have wide latitude. We do not need to use this pot of money as pork. This needs to go where the needs are. We do not know where the needs are until we hear the intelligence of the moment. And that is why we leave great discretion in this bill with this pot of money as with most of the others with the Secretary and the intelligence community to make these grants based on real intelligence. Not what I think or what some Member of this body thinks, but what are the real facts, what information do we have that we need to respond to. And that is why it needs to be a flexible fund. Next year there may be 20 cities that are in that list, or it may be 10, or it may be 60. I do not know. But the funds are there for that purpose, to protect the large urban centers of high-density, high- threat urban areas. To restrict this amount, to restrict the number of cities, to say that these are these and no more, we will protect these cities and the rest of you can fend on your own, that is not right, is it? Are we to say to a certain segment of America, you do not matter. You do not count. I do not think so. I think this Congress should say these monies are to protect Americans wherever the threat is and wherever the risk is. And we should not be monkeying around with this type of thing. Please do not try to earmark in this bill, and this is an earmark in reverse. I oppose the amendment.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing laws 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.'' This directly amends existing law. Mr. Chairman, I ask for a ruling.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of the time to the sponsor of the amendment, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo).

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth).

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, with respect to my colleague, I have to oppose the amendment. The bill provides $2,270,000 for the Office of Privacy in 2005, which is $1.5 million above the level enacted for the current year. And the Department of Homeland Security continues to be slow in hiring. The current vacancy rate in the Office of the Secretary, which includes the Office of Privacy, the vacancy rate is over 30 percent. A lot of that is due to the slow process of clearing people for these jobs. And we do address that in the bill in another section. So we hope to allow them to hire people and get them on the job quicker. However, the money in the bill already allows the Office of Privacy to hire eight new staff, and I do not think they can get that many hired anyway. This amendment would increase funding even more, and it is just not needed. So I would hope that the Members would reject this amendment. It is not needed. We have got more money there than we can use.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), chairman of the Subcommittee on Aviation of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, if I could speak on the point of order, as I read the amendment, it says no funds may be used to violate the law, and I am prepared to accept that.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, it says Federal funds cannot be used to violate the law. I agree with that. Does the gentleman not?

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo).

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

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, in the interest of time, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on this amendment and all amendments thereto close in 24 minutes and that the time be equally divided between me and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo).

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. If there are no further speakers on the amendment, I will agree to it. If there are further speakers, I will oppose it. I think it is a wonderful amendment.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. I agree with the gentlewoman from California, who by the way is a very hardworking member of our subcommittee and a very valued member. I agree with her that CIS should meet the highest standards in evaluating petitions for naturalization or immigration benefits, but I do not believe her proposal is justified. CIS is in the midst of a critical effort to reduce its very large case backlog, while ensuring that it screens applicants for the privilege of living here or acquiring citizenship. Our bill demands a high degree of accountability from this agency, and we will exercise significant oversight into how it achieves the elimination of its backlog. In the meantime, I believe that the Department deserves some latitude to explore new ways of getting this job done and the backlog reduced, to include privatizing some functions that may be just as easily performed outside of the government, and allows the agency to concentrate internally on its core government functions. The argument that the positions up for competition are ``governmental'' begs the question: Immigrants need information and help getting through this system, but such service is not inherently governmental; and, two, the requirement to have specialized subject matter expertise also does not uniquely limit the work to government officials. So I think the amendment is not necessary. I believe the Department should have some leeway in getting this backlog reduced, and so I, therefore, ask my colleagues to support us in rejecting this amendment.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, in the interest of attempting to save time and to get us out of here today on this bill, I want to engage my ranking member and ask his and others unanimous consent that all debate on this amendment and all amendments thereto be limited to 40 minutes, the time to be equally divided between myself and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo).

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, that amendment last year was altogether different. As I read this amendment, it is fairly simple. It has been modified, obviously, and now just says no funds may be used in contravention of section 642(a) of the Act, and I find it to be innocuous, frankly.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I so amend my request.