Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2010
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2010 -- (House of Representatives - June 24, 2009)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Let me start, Madam Chairman, by commending the chairman on putting together a thoughtful bill. I also want to sincerely thank him for listening to our concerns on this side and for continuing this subcommittee's traditions of bipartisanship, professionalism and, where possible, accommodating the minority's interests.
However, I must also express my grave concern over an issue that casts a long and sad shadow over this important bill. The fact that we are not here today debating this bill under an open rule breaks with long-cherished traditions concerning appropriations bills.
I, for one, am outraged that today's debate on the critical issue of homeland security has been arbitrarily constrained. Such dictatorial tactics are contrary to the very purposes of this Chamber and our legislative process. To add insult to injury, the majority also denies the ability of a hardworking member of our subcommittee, the gentleman from California, and even the ranking member of this subcommittee, to offer amendments on E-Verify. Both amendments were clearly in order, and both amendments pertain to a critical issue that is germane to this bill. To deny us the ability to offer such legitimate amendments is a complete travesty.
Now, as to the FY10 bill, Chairman Price has already discussed many of the details, so I will refrain from repeating them. But I think it is important to note that with this bill before us today, the chairman has significantly improved the hand that we were dealt by the administration, a hand that included an extremely late and bureaucracy-laden budget request with huge increases for policy and administrative offices at headquarters at the expense of operations, and also a somewhat tightened 302(b) allocation that is nearly a half billion dollars below the budget estimate. These conditions present a somewhat mixed picture about how this new administration and the current House leadership are prioritizing security nearly 8 years after 9/11.
Indeed, I find it incredibly ironic and disappointing that just 2 weeks ago President Obama released a 77-page strategy on stopping the Mexican drug cartels that professes the need to enhance our intelligence and drug interdiction capabilities, yet his FY10 budget only marginally increases Homeland's intelligence office and Border Patrol and actually proposes cuts to Customs and Border Patrol's operational assets and Coast Guard personnel. This is a prime example of where the President's rhetoric doesn't match reality.
Given the current threat environment, now is not the time to shortchange our investment in security and leave our front-line personnel in the lurch wanting for the tools required to fulfill their mission.
Now, having said all that, I do think the chairman has endeavored to make up for these deficiencies by somewhat scaling back on the administration's plans for more bureaucrats, making some prudent enhancements to operations and producing a pretty good bill for FY10. That's not to say it is absolutely perfect. There are some areas where I would have changed and am concerned about.
One of the concerns I have is the bill's funding levels for operational and surveillance assets. While the chairman has made some enhancements to operations, more could and should be done to equip our operators in the field. With a drug war raging in Mexico and the drug supply lines bustling from South America, we must not only step up operations along the southwest border, but also increase our interdiction efforts in the source and transit zones.
Second, I would be remiss, Madam Chairman, if I didn't clarify my position on a piece of language contained in the report accompanying today's bill. On page 49, the report says ``that ICE must have no higher immigration enforcement priority,'' referring to the identification and removal of criminal aliens. Now, I know the issue of criminal aliens is near and dear to Chairman Price's heart, as it is mine. Over the past 2 years, I have supported his efforts in this regard with one major caveat, that an emphasis upon criminal aliens will not come at the expense of other critical immigration and enforcement functions. Every time I hear someone on the other side of the aisle profess that ICE should have no higher immigration enforcement priority than criminal aliens, I must remind them that not one of the 9/11 hijackers could be classified as so-called ``criminal aliens'' and that all of the 9/11 terrorists exploited the legal immigration system. So immigration enforcement matters to our homeland security, and we must not lose sight of that fact.
Now, in addition to these concerns, I think it is imperative that the homeland security implications of closing the Guantanamo Bay facility be thoroughly addressed. So I am thankful that through a bipartisan effort during our committee markup we adopted my amendment to require the Department to conduct a thorough threat assessment for each and every Guantanamo detainee, to add their names as well to the no-fly lists, and prevent the possibility of immigration benefits being used as a loophole that could lead to the release of these detainees into the United States.
This is a deadly serious issue. We need to know the threat posed by a possible transfer of these terrorists to both our hometowns and to susceptible inmate populations in our prisons across our country. And this need to know is exacerbated by the fact that the President is moving forward with detainee transfers and resettlements as we speak, ignoring Congress' bipartisan, bicameral calls for better planning and risk analysis. The adoption of that amendment is a prime example of how this body can work together in the name of responsible oversight and security, and I believe it's an absolutely vital addition to the bill.
Madam Chairman, it is my hope that we can continue to address these issues and further improve what I believe to be a well-crafted bill. While I have made it clear that it is my intention to support this bill, I will also continue to voice my suggestions for how it can be strengthened.
In closing, let me again voice my disappointment and indignation with the majority's decision to close down a full and open debate on today's bill. This misguided decision by the Democrat leadership clouds what should be a thorough discussion of the safety and security of our Nation.
I look forward to working with the chairman of the subcommittee and the committee as we continue to move the bill through the 2010 process, a process that I hope can salvage some vestige of the long-standing and cherished traditions of open and fair debate.
Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I yield myself the balance of my time.
You know, since 9/11 I think we've come a long way in securing the country. It's been 8 long years. Laborious tasks have been undertaken. First, the formation of the Department of Homeland Security, attempting to merge some 22 different agencies of the government into a single agency under the umbrella of the Department of Homeland Security. And yes, we've made progress--I think substantial pro gress--in aviation security and the protection of goods coming into the country by container box. We've made substantial gains across the board in securing our American homeland. But we're still a long way from being where we need to be.
It seems like it's been terribly slow in many of the areas that we need to work on. But you know, it's amazing to me. I was just reading a book about World War II and just how quickly the Nation responded to the attack on Pearl Harbor, 1941. In just 4 years, Madam Chair, half the time since 9/11, the Nation geared up and produced 6,500 ships. It produced some 300,000 airplanes, hundreds of thousands of tanks and rifles, ammunition, warships, liberty ships, transport ships, thousands upon thousands of howitzers and weapons of war in just 4 short years. And we've had double that time since 9/11 to gear up for the protection of the country from the newest threat in the globe.
And yes, I am disappointed at times about the progress that we lack. But I've got to say that we've got some very brave people in all these agencies that now make up the Department of Homeland Security, that take their responsibilities deadly serious. They work hard; they don't get much thanks from anyone for the good work that they do; and we should take a moment the next time we go through an airport and thank that TSA worker or that Coast Guard worker or that FEMA helper in our home districts. I recently had the great opportunity to thank the FEMA response to a terrible flood in my district over Mother's Day weekend. But we need to thank these people because they don't get much of that, and they are doing a great service in defending us on our home turf.
With that, Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Madam Chair, it saddens me that the long-standing cherished traditions of debate within this Chamber have come to this--a so-called manager's amendment that is more about limiting the time on today's debate and placating the interests of Democrats than truly improving this bill. So I rise in opposition to this amendment, not on the substance of the amendment itself, mind you, but on the flawed and misguided procedure under which it is being offered. We seldom do manager's amendments on appropriations bills on the floor; and when on the rare occasion that we have, it's been a true manager's amendment, one that is noncontroversial and bipartisan. This amendment meets the interests of nine Democrats, and the minority was never consulted on the substance and construction of this amendment--never.
Furthermore, this amendment includes a provision that would be subject to a point of order during a normal debate to make this provision in order, then included in this flawed amendment. And finally, denying other Members the right to offer their amendments that were clearly germane and in order, including one of this ranking member. It's beyond the pale.
The majority also denies the ability of a hardworking member of our subcommittee, and myself as well, an opportunity to offer an amendment on E-Verify, the way that employers in this country can be sure that an applicant for work is not an illegal alien. Both amendments were clearly in order. Both amendments pertain to a critical issue that's germane to this bill. To deny us the ability to offer such legitimate amendments is a complete travesty, especially in light of this amendment before us.
So it is clearly not a manager's amendment, in my view. Instead, it's a vehicle for the majority to further ramrod this bill off the floor through what is perhaps the most closed and arbitrarily constrained debate I have seen in my 28 years or so in Congress.
I am very troubled by the road the majority is heading down with actions such as this, actions that muddle what should be an open debate on one of the most critical bills that this body will consider this year. Today should be about our homeland security, not partisan politics.
I urge Members to reject this flawed procedure and oppose this misnamed manager's amendment.
Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Madam Chairman, I object to this amendment on procedural grounds. It's not a bipartisan amendment as manager's amendments are supposed to be, so I urge a ``no'' vote.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I thank the gentleman for yielding and I thank him for this amendment, and I support it fully. The administration's new policy on worksite enforcement, from my point of view, amounts to de facto amnesty.
The raid that was made in Seattle after this administration took office, where the 24 or so illegal aliens who got their job by false papers were seized and arrested and then turned loose and, on top of that, given a work permit, that's the new policy of this administration. So that an illegal alien knows that if he or she is working in a place that's raided, they can get a permit to go back to work, which makes them legal.
So, as far as I'm concerned, the new policy of the administration is de facto amnesty, and the gentleman's amendment reaches a part of that issue, and I salute him for it. But I hope and trust that the administration will come to their senses and give us a rational immigration policy that requires worksite enforcement at a time when American citizens of the country are out of work, that will enforce the illegal alien laws on the books.
And I thank the gentleman for yielding.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source