Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2008
Floor Speech
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2008 -- (House of Representatives - June 14, 2007)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I want to compliment the gentlelady again on an excellent amendment, the hard work that she's put into this issue. I have some problem with the offset, but that's overridden by the urgent need that the gentlelady has illuminated in her amendment.
Allowing our local law enforcement officials and first responders to have authority in illegal immigration problems is the only way, in my judgment, that we will ever be able to solve this problem. And so I commend the gentlelady for this wonderful amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Well, if the gentleman would yield very briefly, every community has the decision to make. If they don't want to participate, that's their business. But for those communities that do want to participate, it seems to me like we ought to allow the local option to take effect.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I'll be brief. I understand my chairman's concerns that he has expressed.
Notwithstanding that, though, this agency is so far behind with this backlog, and trying to catch up with equipment and procedures that are decades old. I think this demands that we do something different. And so I appreciate the gentleman bringing this forward. I think it's a good idea. I'm going to support it.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I join the chairman in opposing the amendment, reluctantly, because the gentleman from New Mexico makes a compelling argument for better border security. Coming from his State, I can fully understand that.
But as the chairman has said, we have increased in this bill moneys for an additional 3,000 Border Patrol agents, and the gentleman was arguing strongly for that and I appreciate that. But we have accommodated his request to that extent, as well as 500 additional Customs and Border Patrol officers, and we increase the salaries and expenses by over $50 million. So I think there is more help on the way that the gentleman has been asking for.
But the moneys that the gentleman would take from TSA is not for screeners. It wouldn't come from screeners, it would come from the equipment that we are trying to furnish airports with, explosive detection machines, X-ray machines to locate explosives, so that we can clear the lobbies of many airports that have the trace detection machines in the lobbies so that passengers in small- and medium-sized airports really can't get through to fly. And that has been a pet project of this Member for some time.
So that is where the money would come from, $125 million, and that really is my objection, because if we take that money from these explosive detection machines, which are already underfunded, and this bill increases the number quite a bit but is still underfunded, it would severely cripple the effort to bring more technology to the airports.
I join the chairman in opposing the amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, if we can't control who crosses our Nation's border, all other possible immigration initiatives will fail.
Now, the gentleman's amendment prevents the undue delay of urgently needed border security. It still maintains the flexibility to use any and all tools to protect the border and secure the border, like fencing, vehicle barriers, and technology; but it takes away all of the strings and conditions upon which the money was appropriated to build the fence.
How many times does Congress have to say to the Department, build the fence?
The money's here. Take these strings and conditions away from this project. That's what it was designed and financed for and authorized by the Congress.
Now, DHS should absolutely be consulting with the mayors and the local officials; and they are, very vigorously. They spend hours and hours meeting and talking with the local communities. They're doing that with vigor.
This amendment also removes the possibilities of frivolous litigation. This bill invites frivolous litigation. This amendment would strike that frivolous language.
I'm supportive of the funding levels and planning requirements in this bill for border security and immigration enforcement. I've maintained that onerous restrictions for fencing and tactical infrastructure are contrary to our homeland security needs.
Now, this amendment does strike planning requirements for SBInet. But the program has demonstrated sound management over the last year. It's met and exceeded every legislative requirement from the 2007 bill. In fact, the majority conducted a substantial oversight of SBI through hearings and a Codel to the southwest border and saw fit to release all of the $950 million withheld from obligation until a fair expenditure plan was submitted.
I have read this expenditure plan and can report to you that this program is on track to meet some very noteworthy goals by the end of 2008, including the installation of 370 miles of fencing, another 200 miles of vehicle barriers, and over 640 miles of technology along the southwest border.
Bottom line, Mr. Chairman, it's time to stop talking and start digging and building that fence. The money is there. Take away these conditions that have been placed on building the fence that Congress ordered and make it happen.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source