Emergency Border Security Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2010

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

Let me start, Mr. Speaker, by saying that I take a backseat to no one on border security. I have read the intelligence reports, the briefings. I have been on this subcommittee since it started in 2003, chaired it for its first years, now ranking member on the subcommittee.

I have led and supported the robust funding for the Coast Guard, CBP, ICE, DOJ, all the other law enforcement agencies, even the local ones.

I have implored, in fact, practically begged, the White House and the Democrat majority to recognize the spillover violence from this heinous drug war raging on the border with Mexico.

I have even pushed for a new joint command along the southwest border for all of the American agencies.

Finally, I have been first in line calling for a serious, sustained approach to breaking the backs of the cartels and enforcing our immigration laws.

Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, this bill is not a serious, sustained response. Rather, this is little more than a cynical knee-jerk, political ploy.

I have three concerns with this bill:

This suspension bill is not paid for. At a time of record deficit spending, why can't we at least attempt to find the prudent offsets necessary to address our Nation's border security needs, as $600 million of this money will be borrowed money. Is this so important that we will ask our children and our grandchildren to pay for it?

Secondly, this bill circumvents regular order. These expenditures should be considered as part of the 2011 Homeland Security bill, the very same process that was derailed by the majority only yesterday when the Homeland bill was to be considered by the full committee. Ten minutes before we were to meet, they cancelled the meeting.

Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly and disappointing, this bill is woefully inadequate and the wrong mix of security, leaving gaping holes at the Judiciary, CBP, and the Coast Guard.

If we are going to do this, let's do it right, as $500 million out of this bill's $700 million price tag, as I said before, is borrowed money. So, in many ways, in bill is addressing one urgent security issue and creating another. While border security is, indeed, a priority, our skyrocketing debt and continued deficit spending have the makings of a genuine national security crisis. We can no longer ignore our debt and continue to recklessly spend, call everything an emergency and simply hope it will go away. We have to make the tough, disciplined decisions at every level and on every issue.

So these border security enhancements can and should be paid for by way of responsible offsets. More to the point, why can't we consider these obvious funding needs as part of the 2011 Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill? That's where it belongs.

The majority took 6 months to consider a true emergency, funding our troops at war, and sent that bill through a tangled, politicized labyrinth. The White House only woke up to this drug violence on the border in June with a haphazard request, which begs the question: Where is the administration's and Democrat majority's commitment to security?

Instead, yesterday, the Democrat majority cancelled the full committee markup of the 2011 Homeland Security appropriations bill, where this belongs, just 10 minutes before it was scheduled to begin. And for what? So that we can turn to this suspension bill, borrow half a billion dollars, and then ignore all the other vital Homeland Security issues for the coming year. Addressing the critical needs facing our Nation's aviation security, immigration enforcement, disaster response, and cybersecurity are now left dead in the water with little hope of resurrection.

Or was the last-minute cancellation of the markup for some other more political reason, like the fact that Arizona's new tough immigration enforcement law is in the midst of a contentious lawsuit?

Mr. Speaker, the murderous drug war along our border with Mexico demands serious solutions, not reckless spending in the middle of the night after no preparation or no hearings, a flawed process, and, worst of all, political games.

As it were, I was prepared to offer yesterday, at the full committee markup of our annual bill, I was prepared to offer a responsible, completely offset amendment that would have achieved this goal and would have included many of Chairman Obey's ideas. And the minority was prepared to take a strong stand in defense of the Arizona immigration enforcement law, a law that simply makes being illegally present in the United States against the law. Sadly, thanks to the dictatorial tactics of the Democrat majority, we don't get a chance to offer, let alone debate, these sound amendments.

So, let's get our border security right. Let's provide the right mix of enforcement resources to combat the ruthless drug cartels, but let's do so through regular order in a fiscally responsible way.

This bill, just like President Obama's flawed request, neglects our countersmuggling needs in the source and transit zones, fails to fully address aerial surveillance shortfalls, and ignores the judicial resources required to follow through on enforcement actions.

If only the Democrat majority would be willing to take up the regular 2011 Homeland Security Department and Commerce and Justice Department appropriations bills, we could consider and debate the improvement of our border security in such a way that all of these issues could be addressed and paid for without passing along the bill to our kids and grandkids. Sadly, that's not the case here tonight.

I have grave reservations about this bill, Mr. Speaker, as you may have noticed, and this process. While I wholeheartedly believe we can and must do more to shore up our porous border, I believe we can do it far better and be willing to pay for it.

I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is correct. Years ago, when we requested and put in the bill funding for the border, some of it was so-called ``emergency spending,'' but that was at a time when we did not have a $1.4 trillion annual deficit. Times were different. We are in a monetary crisis in the country now. So that is the reason that I believe now is not the time to use what is called ``emergency money,'' which means borrowed money. It means not paying for it. This is not the time to do that.

Mr. Speaker, the drug cartels have demonstrated that they will not relent so long as there is a viable way to smuggle their drugs and money--blood money--across our border. To take this threat lightly or to address it with only half-baked ideas which are brought up under suspension, at night and without any preparation, will only, I think, get us further into the morass. The last thing we want to do is to cause trouble for President Calderon as the drug war reaches its boiling point, because he has been so diligent in his efforts. We must not rush into something that does not have their, President Calderon's, complete understanding and agreement.

So that means we must get our border security right through serious solutions, having thought through them carefully and having worked with our allies in the matter rather than through reckless spending and flawed political gimmicks like this bill is. It is not paid for. It is incomplete, and it is absolutely no substitute for the urgently needed fiscal 2011 Homeland Security appropriations bill.

Now, as to this funding and as to the urgent need that it is said to represent, the Congressional Budget Office told me that none of this bill's funding will outlay in this fiscal year. According to the CBO, this money will not be used in this year. What that tells me is that this bill is really padding the fiscal 2011 regular bill process.

Where is our fiscal 2011 bill?

It is almost August. We're going on recess for 6 weeks, and there is no bill that this Congress has produced that the Democrat majority has put before us to fund the department a few days later.

Where is the bill?

We had it scheduled to be heard in the full committee yesterday. Ten minutes before we were to convene and mark up the fiscal 2011 bill, which could have included moneys like this in the regular process, they canceled the hearing. They pulled the rug out. We are not worried, they apparently said, about the Nation's security.

Where is the bill?

This is neither a substitute for the regular department bill that funds everything nor is it the substitute for one that funds the border war. Bypassing regular order and throwing more money at the border is not responsible leadership with regard to our Nation's security needs.

Though, Mr. Speaker, it is not too late. The Democrat majority can still make up for all of the lost time and for all of the inaction this year, and it can move the DHS fiscal 2011 and CJS appropriations bills to properly address our border security and enforcement needs. That is what I would have proposed had we actually convened our markup yesterday, had we moved the fiscal bill through regular order, and had we had a genuine and thoughtful debate on our security priorities. Somehow, I don't think I'm going to get that chance.

So I caution Members to consider this bill very carefully, and I urge the Democrat majority to move the regular appropriations bills through regular order with all due haste.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT.

Source