Hal Rogers

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky

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, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to this amendment. This amendment earmarks $10 million within the Science and Technology account for specific institutions of higher learning. Mr. Chairman, we have studiously and steadfastly avoided all earmarks in this bill. There are none. This would be an earmark. For that reason, I have to oppose it. The University Centers of Excellence awards are made on a competitive basis and should stay that way. All universities and colleges in the United States can apply, including Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Hispanic- serving institutions and community colleges. Universities and colleges can apply singly or together as part of a consortium, pooling the talents of several higher-learning institutions. The recent Center of Excellence award on agroterrorism to the University of Minnesota includes Tuskegee University, a Historically Black University, as one of its partners. The S&T university program has been proactive in reaching out to minorities. S&T encourages the Center of Excellence competitors to partner with minority institutions. They are setting up a program for partnering university minority faculty with national labs for fellowships and internships. A new Center of Excellence award on emergency preparedness and response will be targeted to the urban community, with the intent of reaching more institutions with minority populations. This center will focus on training for emergency preparedness. The competition element, Mr. Chairman, is critical to bring together the Nation's best experts and focus its most talented researchers on science and technology solutions to combat terrorist threats against this Nation from wherever they come. It is absolutely critical to the security of the country that the Department of Homeland Security is able to utilize the best science that the Nation has to offer, be it private sector technology, national labs, or our great universities and colleges. The best way to identify that talent is through open competition, not earmarks, which this amendment would do. For that reason, I urge Members to reject the amendment.

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

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 appropriation bill in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI which states, in pertinent part: ``An amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law by imposing additional duties.'' I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order. We have not seen the amendment. We have no idea what this is.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I will only make a brief statement in regards to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp), who serves on our subcommittee, who has been so active on this issue. He has been a leader in the whole Congress on Buy-America issues through diligent efforts on his part to make sure that companies that manufacture goods and supplies must comply with the Buy-America Act. I regret that this provision is being probably stricken from the bill, but the work of the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp) on this issue must go as noted, because it certainly has been a labor of love on his part, and a very effective one.

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. Regular order, Mr. Chairman.

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

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I did not say every container. I said every high-risk container.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, this is simple. It takes $20 million out of a very important program that cannot afford it and gives it to a program that does not need it. The $20 million the gentlewoman would put in the Citizen Corps comes from the Flood Map Modernization Fund, a program that is critical to our communities and our individuals. These moneys are for a 5-year, $1 billion program to update and modernize the 100,000 aging flood maps nationwide which affects hundreds of thousands of people. It is already underfunded. So we cannot afford to take money out of that. We include in the bill $20 million for the Citizen Corps. However, Mr. Chairman, they have got $51 million laying around unused which is way more than they need. There is $51 million in the pipeline all the way back to 2003 that has not been used, and so there is plenty of money there, and we do not want to take the money from the Flood Map Modernization Fund that is critical to so many people in this country. I oppose the amendment and urge Members to oppose it.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Granger), a very important member of our subcommittee.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on the further consideration of H.R. 4567, and that I may include tabular and extraneous material.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky

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

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. The gentleman makes a very good point. The TSA is still operating under the system where they hire nationally. So that when there is a vacancy in San Francisco or New Jersey or where have you, that has to work its way up to the national headquarters, and it is a very inefficient way for TSA to replace people who have quit their job. We are trying to force the Department to at least regionalize the hiring process, and I would like to see it even localized so that we can replace people quickly, but the gentleman makes a good point.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would remain at the desk, I really appreciate the gentleman bringing this issue before us, interoperability of communications amongst our first responders. One of the great lessons we learned, of course, out of 9/11--and the evidence has been ongoing since that time--is to go all out to try to create interoperability. It is a fairly complicated matter, as we now find out, and very expensive. So the gentleman's amendment that would set aside more money to examine how this can take place really is not necessary, because the Department already has an ongoing operation to collect that data from the States and the communities and the first responder units. Not all the States, of course, have decided what grant money will be spent on; and, of course, all the data is not yet automated. But the Office for Domestic Preparedness is currently building a master database, it is supposed to be completed in the next few months, to automate all state and local spending details, so we will then have what I think will be a fairly comprehensive inventory of where we are, which is what the gentleman, I think, is seeking in his amendment. So I would hope, perhaps, that the gentleman might withdraw the amendment, with my assurance that the Department is already involved in exactly what I think he seeks in his amendment.

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

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

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I appreciate the gentleman bringing this issue forward, and it is an important issue. But the Science and Tech Directorate of Homeland Security has assured us and the Coast Guard that all elements of the Coast Guard's R&D program will remain under the direct management of the Coast Guard. 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 2005.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman has offered what I consider to be a very helpful amendment. I think it is needed, and we are happy to agree to it. The ranking member of the Select Committee on Homeland Security has been very helpful to us.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman has worked tirelessly on this effort, this amendment, and the SAFER funding, and the committee thinks this is a wise move. Our first responders are in great need, and we depend upon them, and I am happy to accept his amendment.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp), a very hardworking member of the subcommittee.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would continue to yield, I look forward to working with the gentleman as we move forward and will certainly work to strengthen the report language in conference as events dictate.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that we take up the Weldon amendment now, then the Turner amendment and then the regular order.