Congressional Record, Volume 153 Issue 96 (Thursday, June 14, 2007)

[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 96 (Thursday, June 14, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H6419-H6436]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2008

Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that, during further
consideration of H.R. 2638 pursuant to House Resolution 473, the Chair
may reduce to 2 minutes the minimum time for electronic voting under
clause 6 of rule XVII and clauses 8 and 9 of rule XX.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Wisconsin?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 473 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the state of the Union for the further consideration of the bill,
H.R. 2638.

{time} 2044

In the Committee of the Whole

Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for the further consideration of
the bill (H.R. 2638) making appropriations for the Department of
Homeland Security for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and
for other purposes, with Mr. Ross (Acting Chairman) in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose on
Wednesday, June 13, 2007, the bill had been read through page 3, line
10, and pending was amendment No. 9 by the gentlewoman from Virginia
(Mrs. Drake).
Pursuant to the order of the House of today, that amendment shall be
debatable for 10 further minutes, equally divided and controlled by the
proponent and opponent. No further amendment to the bill may be offered
except those specified in the previous order of the House of today,
which is at the desk.
The gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. Drake) and the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Serrano) each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Virginia.
Mrs. DRAKE. Mr. Chairman, this amendment reduces the Office of the
Secretary of Management $10.4 million, and increases ICE salaries and
the expense account by $9.1 million, restoring the funding that was in
the President's budget to fund the 287(g) program.

{time} 2045

I chose this account because between 2007 and 2008 budgets, it has
increased 60 percent, or a total increase of $89 million. The 287(g)
program provides training, technology, and resources to local law
enforcement officers to work with the Federal Government, with ICE, to
identify illegal aliens who have broken our laws.
This is a voluntary program available to both our State and local
governments. Currently, it is implemented in 13 locations. One of the
most prominent of these is Sheriff Pendergraf in North Carolina, who
has detained and deported 1,900 illegal criminal aliens in the last
year.
America saw the very tragic accident that occurred in Virginia Beach
that took the lives of two beautiful young women at the hands of an
illegal alien

[[Page H6420]]

drunk driver. And, Mr. Chairman, this individual had been arrested and
detained on DUI offenses in the past and was released onto our streets.
I believe that immigration is a Federal responsibility, but we need
the help of local and State law enforcement officials. We need to
identify the gaps and figure out how to bridge those gaps.
The 287(g) program can also be used to better coordinate with our
DMVs; none of us want fraudulent documents used and driver's licenses
issued for our States, and can also be used with our Departments of
Corrections, so that when an illegal alien has served time in our
prisons and jails, they're deported immediately, and there's no
additional expense to us.
Contrary to the report language in this bill, by the end of June
there will only be $1 million remaining in the 287(g) coffers. Due to
the success of this program such as in Mecklenberg, North Carolina, and
high-profile cases like in Virginia Beach, there is an increased
awareness and an increased demand for this program.
I ask my colleagues to support this amendment, make our communities
safer, and allow better coordination between local, State, and Federal
governments.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. DRAKE. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
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.
Mrs. DRAKE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may
consume.
It's clear, it should be clear to Members what this amendment does
and what this program does. This, in fact, has local law enforcement
enforcing immigration law.
This is the most unpopular and rejected program within law
enforcement in this country when it comes to these types of programs.
Department after department, police department after police department,
sheriff's department after sheriff's department has said we don't want
this responsibility, we don't want this job.
In fact, that is the reason why the number of communities that have
participated in this program is not anywhere where the proponents would
want it to be, because the mainstay, the strength of local law
enforcement is the ability to fight crime, to protect the community,
and, yes, even to flush out possible terrorist acts by getting
information from the community.
Granted, there is an immigration issue. But the police departments,
the local law enforcement do not want to play the role of immigration
officers because they want the ability to be able to speak to members
of the community and get information.
Now, that information may be who did you see near that car that is
now missing from that corner. But that information can also be, where
did you see and who did you see going into that building where we later
found equipment to make bombs that could in fact be involved in a
terrorist attack.
Local law enforcement have told us, in big cities and in small cities
throughout this country and the rural communities, that they want the
ability to work with their communities, and they don't want to be
hampered by being asked to enforce immigration law.
And how it works is very simply this. There are people who are in
this country without proper documentation. You call them illegal
aliens; some of us call them undocumented. But they still live in the
community. They still have information and law enforcement needs to
work with them.
If they now know that the local police officer, if they now know that
the local sheriff's deputy is going to be dealing with them in terms of
an immigration situation, they will not open up to that person and give
them any information. And in the long run, we will suffer as a Nation.
That's why I think that this is a bad program. I'm sorry it has even
a penny assigned to it. But to add more money to it would be a total
waste of time.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield
briefly?
Mr. SERRANO. To you, always.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. The 287(g) program is voluntary by local
communities, is it not?
Mr. SERRANO. It may be voluntary, but what happens is that local
elected officials who sound like some of us here begin to put pressure
on the police department to get into the program when, indeed, just
about every law enforcement agency, local law enforcement in the Nation
has gone public to say we don't want it. And in this case, we don't
even want people to ask us to join it.
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.
Mr. SERRANO. Reclaiming my time, it's just, with all due respect to
my brother, Mr. Rogers, it's just bad policy. It is not the way to get
at an issue.
We are now dealing with the Senate, and we will be dealing in the
House with an immigration reform bill. We will eventually deal with
that issue. In the meantime, we have other business to take care of in
this country, other protections to offer to our citizens.
To have the local police officer, on top of the fact that they're
busy already, now you're going to give them another assignment. But to
have them enforce immigration law, I can't tell you how much all the
people I speak to say they don't want that. They want the freedom to
get information at all levels of the community and not be seen as an
immigration officer.
There used to be a bad joke about somebody would come into a
restaurant and yell out ``immigration'' and a lot of people would leave
and jump out the window. And that's funny, and it's sad at the same
time.
But if you adjust that to a police department in a neighborhood
looking for information and having people run away from them because
they see them as immigration enforcement agents, then we lose the
opportunity to really protect our communities.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. If the gentleman would briefly yield, do you
have a problem, though, if Mecklenberg County, North Carolina, wants to
do the 287(g) program? You don't have to do it. But is it okay for them
to do it?
Mr. SERRANO. I have a problem if we set in motion a wave of desire
and push to force local people to do it. And what we hear from local
law enforcement is that they're under incredible pressure, political
pressure, from elected officials to join a program that they know is
not a good program.
Mrs. DRAKE. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
The Acting CHAIRMAN. 1\1/2\ minutes.
Mrs. DRAKE. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina
(Mr. McHenry).
Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chairman, this past March, Burke County authorities
pulled over an SUV in Morganton, North Carolina, packed with 11 illegal
immigrants. Local law enforcement officials were forced to release the
illegals after being notified that there were not enough Immigration
and Customs Enforcement agents available to check on the group's
immigration status, even though they admitted that they were illegal.
Law enforcement officials, not the illegal aliens, were handcuffed
that night on I-40. Our hands were tied by red tape and bureaucracy and
underfunding.
The 287(g) program is working efficiently in my home county of
Gaston, and our sheriff there, Sheriff Cloninger, is doing a fantastic
job of cross-training deputies to also enforce our immigration laws of
this land and gives them the authority, the legal authority, to
investigate, detain and arrest illegal aliens on civil and criminal
grounds. It paves the way for local law enforcement to be a part of our
homeland security.

[[Page H6421]]

Mrs. DRAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield the remaining 30 seconds to the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon).
Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, this is a very good amendment.
The State of Arizona reports it has saved $10.2 million by removing
illegal aliens into Federal custody.
The City of Nashville, Tennessee, in it's first year of implementing
this program, is reportedly on track to deport as many as 4,200 illegal
immigrants.
This is a good program. It needs to be expanded. The lady should be
commended. All of my colleagues should vote in support of this very
valuable amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. All time on the amendment having expired, the
question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Virginia
(Mrs. Drake).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the
noes appeared to have it.
Mrs. DRAKE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Virginia
will be postponed.

Amendment Offered by Mr. King of New York

Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. King of New York:
Page 2, line 16, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $35,000,000)''.
Page 31, line 18, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $5,000,000)''.
Page 51, line 17, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $40,000,000)''.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from New York (Mr. King) and the gentleman from North
Carolina (Mr. Price) each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, at the outset let me commend Chairman Price and Ranking
Member Rogers for the outstanding job, I believe, and the effort they
put into putting this legislation together. And I commend them on an
issue which is so vital to our Nation, homeland security.
My amendment would restore $40 million to the Domestic Nuclear
Detection Office, DNDO, specifically relating to the Securing the
Cities Initiative and the Radiation Portal Monitor program.
Mr. McCaul, as the cosponsor of the amendment, will address himself
in a few moments to the Radiation Portal Monitor program. I'm going to
stress the STC.
Mr. Chairman, intelligence and recent terrorist attacks overseas have
led to the conclusion that the next attack against our cities may very
well come from outside the city, from suburban areas. And certainly, in
New York City, it's been concluded that the STC is the only program
which is dedicated to protecting cities against this threat.
Specifically, the STC program involves a ring of radiological
detectors on highways, bridges, tunnels and waterways leading into
cities. Indeed, the police commissioner of New York, Commissioner
Kelly, has said that this program is our best last defense to keep a
nuclear or dirty bomb from being detonated within cities.
So this should be a bipartisan matter. While it directly affects New
York at this moment, this is a pilot program which will affect the
entire Nation.
There's already been two full exercises run. I was present at one of
them last week, seeing how effective it was. It involves 90 counties,
three States, numerous cities and many agencies. And it, to me, serves
no purpose at all to be taking, in effect, $20 million out of a
valuable program, a program which very well could end up saving
thousands and thousands of lives. And I say that as someone who came
from a district that lost well over 100 people on September 11 and
certainly doesn't want to go through that again.
This is a very effective, meaningful program, and I would, again,
implore the House to restore this money, $40 million, to the DNDO.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to
the gentleman from New York's amendment to add a total of $40 million
to the funding recommended by the committee for the Domestic Nuclear
Detection Office.
I have concerns, first of all, about two of the proposed offsets.
First, the amendment proposes to reduce funding for the Office of the
Under Secretary for Management by $35 million. The amendments adopted
earlier this week already cut the Office of the Under Secretary for
Management by 17 percent. This amendment, if adopted, would reduce the
office by another 18 percent.

{time} 2100

This means that DHS will be unable to consolidate its 60 locations in
the D.C. metro area into a new headquarters facility at St.
Elizabeth's.
Secondly, the amendment would reduce $5 million from the Coast
Guard's research, development, testing, and evaluation program. This
decrease would eliminate priority research to resolve how the Coast
Guard can best operate unmanned aerial vehicles at sea after recent
failures in the deepwater program as well as find ways to better manage
invasive species such as zebra muscles and ballast water.
At this time, I don't believe, Mr. Chairman, that funding for the
Domestic Nuclear Detection Office needs to be increased by $40 million.
The committee has already increased the total funding for the office
above last year's level by $35 million, excluding the supplemental
funding.
The bill before you did make some reductions within this office: a
reduction of $20 million for the Securing the Cities program, and a
reduction of $20 million for procuring radiation portal monitors. Let
me briefly explain those items.
The Securing the Cities program is a proposed pilot program that
assumes a radioactive device is heading to the heart of New York City
and, in order to detect this device, an elaborate network of radiation
detection devices will be installed in a ring around the city. Congress
provided $10 million in 2007 to begin this effort. Yet, to the best of
my knowledge, very little of this funding has been spent because the
Department of Homeland Security has not reached agreement with New York
and New Jersey officials on the architecture for this initiative or
developed a mutually acceptable deployment plan. DHS testified that
this would not occur until at least the summer of 2007.
The amendment being offered by the gentleman from New York would
restore funding that we reduced from the President's budget request for
this program for 2008. In total we appropriate $19.7 million instead of
the $39.7 million requested because of the delays in beginning the
pilot program. It is premature to quadruple this program in 1 year
without a clear architecture and deployment plan that has been agreed
to by all the parties in place.
The bill before you also reduced funding to procure radiation portal
monitors for two reasons. First, the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office
provided information after the submission of their budget request that
reduced the number of radiation portal monitors it planned to procure
from 149 to 127 systems in 2008. We fully fund this revised figure, not
a higher level that DNDO no longer plans to procure.
Secondly, the recently enacted supplemental provided $100 million for
the procurement of radiation portal monitors. This funding, coupled
with the House level for 2008, means we are actually $80 million above
the funding level requested in 2008. So more is not needed.
I urge Members to oppose this amendment.
Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman stated that no
agreement has been reached and would not be reached until the summer of
2007. We are talking about several weeks from now. The summer of 2007
is coming upon us. And also as far as the agreement's being reached, I
have a letter which I would like to introduce into the Record, signed
by officials from New York State, New Jersey, and Connecticut, all of
whom say all that is

[[Page H6422]]

delaying the agreement is the finalizing of this appropriation. They
are ready to go. They have an agreement in place ready to go, just
subject to this appropriation.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, this
agreement is not now in place; is that right?
Mr. KING of New York. But it will be. Again, this is a letter signed
by all the ranking officials in New York State, New Jersey, and
Connecticut. All that is holding it up is this appropriation. Once the
amount is known, they will go ahead. But other than that, they cannot
go ahead.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is saying
that the present appropriation, the money in the pipeline, is not
sufficient, that their ability to pull their plan together depends on
whether your amendment passes.
Mr. KING of New York. Yes, that is true.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. That is a strange way to plan.
Mr. KING of New York. It was done in concert with DNDO and with the
three States.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, at this time I would like
to yield the balance of my time to my colleague Mr. Israel.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5
seconds.
Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I actually had a question. I support the spirit and intent of this
amendment, and I was hoping to ask a question to the gentleman from New
York.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from North Carolina is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to Mr.
Israel.
Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished chairman of the
subcommittee for yielding.
I serve on the Appropriations Committee. As I said, I support the
spirit and the intent of this amendment. I am concerned that New York
City has not effectively advocated for these funds, didn't, in my view,
do a sufficient job of alerting the members of the Appropriations
Committee to this problem, hasn't lined up its ducks, but I am willing
to put that behind us.
I would just ask the gentleman, will the gentleman work with me to
pressure New York City to ensure that this agreement is signed? The
concern I have is that if it is not signed, it is entirely possible
that the bureaucracy at the Department of Homeland Security will take
the money meant for New York and send it elsewhere.
So would my very good friend from Long Island, with whom I have a
wonderful partnership on so many issues, commit to work with me to
pressure the city of New York to get this agreement signed so that the
money goes to where it is intended?
Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I would be happy to yield 30 seconds for
a response.
Mr. KING of New York. Yes. I will absolutely assure him that I will
work with the city of New York and the Department of Homeland Security
to ensure that this money is allocated and used for this purpose and
that the agreement be expedited as quickly as possible.
Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman. I understand
the concerns he has. I am deeply disappointed in how the city of New
York approached the committee or did not approach the committee on
this. But I will work closely with the gentleman from Long Island in
pressuring the city to conclude this agreement.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I must
say to the gentleman, the sponsor of the amendment, that we on the
committee have heard nothing from DNDO about this pending agreement.
I will say this, though: that if between now and the conference on
this bill, if this agreement is forthcoming and if we feel that the
basis exists to move ahead, then we will certainly be happy to work
with the gentleman in considering the final appropriations level. But
as I said earlier, I do not believe the basis for an increase of this
magnitude currently exists. We just can't responsibly do it.
Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the coauthor
of the amendment, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. McCaul).
Mr. McCAUL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding.
In response to the issues raised, the DNDO has reached an agreement
in principle with State and local stakeholders, and it is about 95
percent there. I submit we cannot wait another year for the
appropriations cycle to take place.
This amendment is important. It restores $40 million to the Domestic
Nuclear Detection Office. The lack of these funds threatens to delay
the completion of the radiation portal monitor program and
significantly impair the implementation of securing the cities
initiative. Both of these initiatives aim to strengthen the Nation's
defenses against a terror attack by a nuclear device or a radioactive
``dirty bomb.''
There is no doubt that the risks are real. We know that nuclear
terrorism is the number one threat facing our country and that the
economic costs associated with a dirty bomb could reach about $1
trillion. We know that Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda terrorist
network have been attempting to acquire a nuclear bomb. We also know
that hundreds of tons of the necessary ingredients of nuclear weapons
are dangerously insecure all over the world. There have been numerous
documented cases of theft of weapons-grade nuclear material.
But nuclear terrorism is, in fact, preventable, and we should be
spending Homeland Security dollars on preventing what could be a
catastrophic attack against the United States. Twenty million dollars
of the cuts to the DNDO comes out of the radiation portal monitor
program. It would delay the completion of these until the year 2013.
Acquisition of systems for five ports of entry, including the Port of
Houston in my home State of Texas, would be delayed, and this means
that more unscreened cargo would get into this country.
Such a delay is unacceptable. And the best deterrence against
terrorism is to disrupt the ability of terrorists to do what they want
to do, and that is to kill Americans.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the
gentleman from Staten Island, Brooklyn, (Mr. Fossella), who lost more
than 300 people on September 11.
Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I very strongly urge the adoption of this amendment. The focus, as we
all know, should be on preventing another 9/11, as the police
commissioner from New York has underscored many, many different times,
that to place this ring around New York City and major urban areas will
be a strong deterrent to anybody even contemplating. So I strongly urge
the adoption of this great amendment by my good friend from Long
Island, New York (Mr. King).
Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my
time.
Let me again at the outset commend the gentleman from North Carolina
for his good faith and effort. We have an honest disagreement on this,
but I certainly commend him for the time and concern he has shown on
this issue, and I certainly appreciate his offer to work with me.
I would just ask to introduce into the Record this letter from
virtually every law enforcement official from New York, New Jersey, and
Connecticut, State police, local police, fire commissioners in New York
City, Nassau County, Suffolk County, Westchester County, and all of the
State officials of New Jersey and Connecticut.
I urge the adoption of the amendment.
New York Regional Joint Working Group on Securing the
Cities,
June 12, 2007.
Subject: FY08 Appropriation for Securing the Cities
Initiative.

Hon. Peter T. King,
Ranking Member, House Homeland Security Committee,
Washington, DC.
Dear Ranking Member King: We are writing to urge you to
fully fund the President's FY08 request for the Securing the
Cities (STC) initiative: $30 million for procurement and $10
million for R&D.
We are profoundly concerned by the prospect of a terrorist
attack against New York

[[Page H6423]]

involving a radiological weapon or improvised nuclear weapon.
We know al-Qaeda and its affiliates are interested in
perpetrating such an attack and will do so if they can. The
STC initiative is the only federal initiative dedicated to
defending New York from this catastrophic possibility. A
Congressional decision to provide less than the full amount
requested by the President for this new and important program
will significantly impair our region's ability to defend
against, and prepare for, the most terrible threat
imaginable.
The STC initiative is an extraordinary example of
interagency and intergovernmental collaboration. Together, we
represent three layers of government, three states, over
ninety counties, numerous cities, and many different
agencies. In partnership with the Domestic Nuclear Detection
Office (DNDO) of the Department of Homeland Security, we are
working together in a truly unprecedented fashion. In the
short time since STC began, for instance, we have conducted
two full-scale exercises (with a third planned for this week)
in which a radiological substance was surreptitiously
transported in a vehicle on a highway and then intercepted by
our agencies; we have coordinated our procurement of
radiological detection equipment and have designed a concept
of operations for the larger regional system envisioned in
the STC initiative. A regional deployment plan for FY08 is
nearing completion and has been delayed mainly by uncertainty
over the total amount of funding that will be available from
the Federal Government.
We appreciate your full consideration of this request. We
welcome the opportunity to brief Members of Congress or their
staffs on the progress of this initiative either in the New
York region or in Washington, DC. We believe the Securing the
Cities initiative in the New York region should be a model
for the nation which was indeed one of its intended purposes.
Sincerely,
Raymond W. Kelly, Commissioner, New York City Police
Department.
Nicholas Scoppetta, Commissioner, New York City Fire
Department.
Preston L. Felton, Acting Superintendent, New York State
Police.
Colonel Joseph R. Fuentes, Superintendent, New Jersey State
Police.
Colonel Thomas Davoren, Connecticut State Police.
James H. Lawrence, Commissioner of Police, Nassau County
Police Department.
Richard Dormer, Commissioner, Suffolk County Police
Department.
William A. Morange, Deputy Executive Director, Metropolitan
Transportation Authority Police Department.
Michael Balboni, Deputy Secretary for Public Safety, New
York State.
F. David Sheppard, Director, New York State Office of
Homeland Security.
James F. Kralik, Sheriff, Rockland Couty Sheriffs Office.
Thomas Belfiore, Commissioner, Westchester County Police
Department.
Richard Canas, Director, New Jersey Office of Homeland
Security and Preparedness.
James M. Thomas, Commissioner, Connecticut Office of
Emergency Management and Homeland Security.
Samuel J. Plumeri, Jr., Superintendent of Police, Port
Authority of New York and New Jersey.
Emily Lloyd, Commissioner, New York City Department of
Environmental Protection.
Thomas R. Frieden, Commissioner, New York City Department
of Health and Mental Hygiene.
Joseph Bruno, Commissioner, New York City Office of
Emergency Management.
Janette Sadik-Khan, Commissioner, New York City Department
of Transportation.

The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New York (Mr. King).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the
noes appeared to have it.
Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York
will be postponed.

Amendment No. 13 Offered by Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite of Florida

Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 13 offered by Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite of
Florida:
Page 2, line 16, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced
by $89,125,000)''.
Page 11, line 24, after the dollar amount insert
``(increased by $89,125,000)''.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite) and the gentleman from
North Carolina (Mr. Price) each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Florida.
Ms. GINNY BROWN WAITE of Florida. Mr. Chairman, Americans are in a
crisis of confidence. They hear Members of this Congress proclaiming
the importance of border, port, and airport security. But then they
hear about lapses. They hear about neglect.
For instance, several of my constituents contacted me about an
immigration reform rally in the Tampa area. It was widely understood
that illegal aliens were going to be present. Well, a constituent
called ICE to report this information, and they told her they did not
have credible intelligence or staff capable of going to the rally to
investigate. When my local sheriffs call ICE because they have
apprehended an illegal alien, ICE says they can't come because they are
far too busy.
But when this Congress said that they will build 700 miles of a
border fence last year, DHS, it seems, said, No, thank you, we will
stick to 370 miles, we will take a lot of time and money to do it.
And, frankly, I am fed up with some elected officials and nonelected
people promoting amnesty while ignoring the illegal presence in our
country. Congress said build a fence. That means now.
My amendment is very simple. It takes $89 million from the Under
Secretary for Management's account, keeping the account at the fiscal
year 2007 levels, and transfers that amount to the border security
fencing, infrastructure, and technology account. CBO has scored this
amendment as budget neutral.
Congress must not accept anything less than the 700 miles of fencing
in the exact locations that we authorized. With this money we send both
a stark wakeup call to the department and we will be keeping promises
to our constituents. The people of America deserve better than what DHS
is giving them. So far a measly 1.8 percent of the fence is completed.
Leaving funds at the fiscal year 2007 levels for the department shows
that we are serious. Why should their management be rewarded with
bigger budgets when they haven't completed their work for fiscal year
2007?

{time} 2115

Let me see: fence. Build a fence or build a bureaucracy? I think our
constituents would answer that very clearly, build a fence.
I want to be able to say that we kept our promise to America. Mr.
Chairman, this amendment simply says build a fence, and a vote for this
amendment is to complete the fence we promised. A vote against this
amendment is a vote to leave our borders unsecured.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time
as I may consume.
This amendment would increase funding for the Border Security,
Fencing, Infrastructure and Technology account by 9 percent above the
administration request.
The bill funds the $1 billion request, bringing funding for the
Border Security program, since its inception, to $2.54 billion, but the
amendment would increase this further.
Now, the requested fiscal year 2008 funding that we have included
will enable CBP to complete construction of 370 miles of primary
fencing and 200 miles of vehicle barriers. While the specific mix of
technology and infrastructure has yet to be determined, the Department
has confirmed that those are the current limits of such infrastructure
required to achieve operational control of the southwest border, with
the remainder being addressed through technology or existing assets.
In part, because of the requirements for a detailed expenditure plan,
the Department has broken out its proposed investments in a way that
aligns its requirements with its resources. There is no rationale in
its plans for additional funding at this time.
In short, additional funding for this program would be based on no
rationale and no known program needs. On the other hand, the proposal
to reduce funding for the office that oversees departmental management
is arbitrary. I must say, it fits the pattern of the last couple of
days of simply going after the departmental secretary of this
Republican administration. But it is an arbitrary cut. It would have
the effect of degrading the capacity of the Department to oversee
itself and thus reduce

[[Page H6424]]

the very accountability we want to establish.
I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I now yield to my colleague from California (Mr. Farr).
Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I rise also in opposition, and I'll tell you
why. I've been to the border and I've traveled the area that you're
talking about. It's in the Barry Goldwater range. It's a very rural
area. It's actually an area where you have Indian tribes. I mean, this
is so rural you can't believe it. I am really surprised that the
gentlewoman rose on this because she doesn't have any border in her
State, nor fence. I come from the State of California which not only
has a border; it has the busiest border in the world.
I am also in opposition to this because I have talked to the Border
Patrol. This is not a fence that they are asking for. What this fence
is for is a fence in the military range. It should be coming out of the
military budget because it is just in the middle of absolutely nowhere,
where there is very little, if any, crossings. You would be much more
effective in detection rather than fences. Border Patrol once said, you
know, a 12-foot fence, you just need a 13-foot ladder.
I respect the fact that you think that this is going to get you
somewhere, but I can tell you that it's not wisely spent money. There
are much more cost-effective ways to do border detection than building
a fence in the middle of nowhere.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. I would inquire as to the time
remaining on my side.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Florida has 2 minutes
remaining.
Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. I would like to yield 1 minute to
my friend from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito).
Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of my colleague
from Florida and her amendment that will enhance the ability to secure
our borders.
The enactment of the Secure Fence Act last year was a step in the
right direction because this act recognized that most illegal
immigrants do enter from the southern border. The Secure Fence Act
directs the Department of Homeland Security to construct hundreds of
miles of reinforced fencing, not just fencing, but additional physical
barriers, roads, lighting, cameras and sensors along that southwest
border.
Building the fence is a very expensive and urgent construction
project. My constituents in West Virginia, who do not have a border,
say, What is taking so long, and why are so many people still able to
enter our country illegally? Unfortunately, part of it has been a lack
of funding.
So with this amendment, I think the gentlewoman from Florida has put
forth a good-faith effort to see that this fence not only is built, but
is built quicker and that the border becomes more secure.
I support her amendment.
Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield
45 seconds to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, in response to a comment that was just
made, I would remind my colleague that in this day and age and in this
time in which we find ourselves, every State is a border State and
every town is a border town because of the situation that we find on
the southern border of this Nation.
Mr. Chairman, 283 Members of this body voted to build a fence, so it
is incumbent upon us to appropriately and fully fund that fence.
I support the amendment of the gentlelady from Florida. I rise to
support her efforts. I commend her for this. The bill before us
underfunds the effort of building the fence.
Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. I thank the gentlewoman from
Tennessee.
Mr. Chairman, it is not just the border States that are affected by
illegal immigrants who come into our country. They are not all coming
here for jobs, folks, and I think we are very naive if we believe that.
Some are coming here to form terrorist cells. And a fence may not be
the perfect answer, but it is the answer that this Congress voted on
last year.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, let me just reiterate that
anyone who will look at this bill for a minute or two will realize that
the border infrastructure, including the fencing, is fully funded in
this bill. It is not underfunded; it is fully funded at the
administration's request.
We do provide for the very careful consideration of what is the
appropriate mix of technology and infrastructure to create this barrier
along the border. That is what the Department, of course, has requested
and it's what, I think, rationally they should undertake.
So I reiterate that there is no reason for this additional funding,
and I ask my colleagues to oppose it.
Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to the
amendment being offered by my colleague, Ms. Brown-Waite.
I want to prevent criminals and terrorists from coming into this
county. I believe we should enforce our immigration laws. As a lifelong
resident of the border region, I also know how interdependent border
communities are on movement back and forth. Families live on both sides
of the border. People cross back and forth to shop, go to school, and
attend church. Endangered and unique species of birds and wildlife need
access to habitat found on both sides of the border to survive.
A physical fence along the portion of the U.S.-Mexico border that I
represent would be devastating. It would cut off livestock from access
to our scarce water resources and hinder the ability of our irrigation
districts to get water to our farmers. It would require the
condemnation of private property.
It would undo everything that has been done and the millions that
have been spent over the last few decades to create Federal wildlife
refuges and parks to protect unique habitat. It will destroy our new
multi-million dollar ecotourism industry. I ask unanimous consent to
include in the Record an article from the Houston Press on the
environmental and economic impact of the fence in the Rio Grande
Valley.
We just learned this week that the proposed fence would divide the
University of Texas Brownsville in half leaving part of the campus on
the wrong side.
Our residents are protected from flooding by a levee system that is
in disrepair and would become even less effective by the addition of
fencing. Fences would inhibit the ability of our first responders and
emergency coordinators to evacuate people during natural disasters.
A physical fence tells the people of Mexico: We don't want you. Keep
the billions of dollars you would have spent in our stores and
restaurants. Don't come here and help create the jobs that have finally
brought my district's unemployment rate down from 23 percent to 7
percent.
If all of these arguments don't sway you, then maybe fiscal reality
will. A physical fence is three times more expensive than a virtual
fence. We will spend billions upon billions of dollars building this
physical fence. My constituents don't understand why this Congress can
find such huge sums to build a fence that could destroy the border
economy and take away their jobs, yet we can't find $100 million to fix
their levees and save millions of lives or a few million dollars to
build them the veteran's hospital for which they have been begging for
years. Frankly, I don't have a good answer for them.
We have the technology to create a virtual fence. The money saved by
not constructing a physical fence could be used to hire more Border
Patrol agents and law enforcement personnel who are still going to be
needed even if we build a physical fence.
At the very least, my communities, who are going to have to live with
the consequences of this fence, should be able to have their concerns
heard and taken seriously before a fence is constructed.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance
of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the
noes appeared to have it.
Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded
vote.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Florida
will be postponed.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Burgess

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

[[Page H6425]]

The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Burgess:
Page 2, line 16, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $15,000,000)''.
Page 23, line 16, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $15,000,000)''.

The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess) and the gentleman from North
Carolina (Mr. Price) each will control 2\1/2\ minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Chairman, this is a very simple amendment. The
Secure Flight offset amendment will reduce the Department of Homeland
Security Office of Under Secretary for Management by $15 million and
increase the Transportation Threat Assessment account by $15 million.
The Department of Homeland Security Under Secretary for Management
oversees the Audit Liaison Office at the Department of Homeland
Security. This liaison office helps to oversee the Department's efforts
to coordinate with the Government Accountability Office, the Office of
Inspector General, and DHS component agencies.
The liaison officers have not been meeting the goal for which they
were first funded, that is, to keep the agencies updated and to avoid
duplication, to avoid gaps and to avoid inefficiency. The liaison
officers have not been successful in providing a centralized and
coordinated process. Therefore, this amendment reduces funding for this
office by $15 million and increases the funding for the Transportation
Threat Assessment Act by $15 million.
The funding would be used by the Transportation Security
Administration to further the development of the passenger pre-
screening program called Secure Flight. When fully implemented, Secure
Flight will be able to more effectively compare passenger information
to information that is contained within the Federal terrorist watch
list.
Secure Flight will decrease the chance for compromised watch list
data by centralizing the use of comprehensive watch lists. It will
further provide earlier identification of potential threats, allowing
for expedited notification of law enforcement and threat management.
And, finally, it will offer consistent application of an expedited and
integrated redress process for passengers who have been misidentified
as a threat.
Secure Flight is a critical part of the TSA's overall strategy to
secure the Nation's commercial air transportation system and deserves
more money to be fully implemented as soon as possible. It will give
cleaner and more efficient data to our air carriers.
Constituents throughout our country, certainly constituents in my
district, have contacted my office because they have been misidentified
by the Transportation Security Administration, and they simply cannot
be removed from the watch list. Increasing the Secure Flight initiative
would help that process, and it is time we did increase the funding for
that.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time
as I may consume.
I am opposed to this amendment, and I will briefly explain my
reasoning.
I do support the development of an effective screening program that
would prevent known terrorists from boarding airlines headed to the
United States; of course we all favor that. For that reason, I
recommended $10 million more for Secure Flight than what Congress
appropriated last year, and that is in this bill. Further funding is
premature.
Many times tonight, I am sure we are going to be dealing with
questions of priorities and objectives with which we all agree. But as
many people on both sides of the aisle are fond of saying, it doesn't
solve anything just to throw money at something. You have to look at
what can be intelligently and wisely spent, and we have done that
throughout this bill.
This Secure Flight program is troubled in ways that make us reluctant
to throw the kind of money at it that the gentleman is suggesting.
While earlier this year TSA completed the year-long assessment of the
program, the assessment didn't include total cost estimates for
development of the program and did not assure the committee that
privacy rights will be protected.
The Government Accountability Office has reported multiple times this
year on concerns it has with the Secure Flight program. It has
recommended a variety of management actions that TSA should undertake
to get this program back on track. The agency must have to have
incentives to undertake those improvements. We don't do them any favors
simply by loading more money onto existing appropriations. TSA
continues to provide our subcommittee with conflicting information on
how the budget requests for Secure Flight will be spent in 2008. And,
finally, recent documents show that the operational testing of this
program has now slipped into 2009.
For all of these reasons, we very carefully calibrated what the
traffic will bear and what the appropriation should be. It's an
increase, but there is no rationale for the kind of increase the
gentleman is suggesting.
Now, like many other people, the gentleman has targeted Secretary
Chertoff's office for the offset, a cut of $15 million. Well, if
everybody does that, and many plan to, then we are going to reduce
these accounts to the point that DHS simply cannot consolidate its 60
locations into this new headquarters facility and they can't carry on
their basic operations.
So, Mr. Chairman, until TSA can get a firm handle on what Secure
Flight will do, the milestones to develop this program, its costs, and
how it will protect the privacy of U.S. citizens, it is premature to
provide additional funding for this troubled program.
I urge Members to oppose this amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Chairman, I would just simply say this is a good
amendment. I would encourage my colleagues to vote in favor of this. As
someone who travels frequently, I want this program to be upfunded and
running well.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the
noes appeared to have it.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas will
be postponed.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word for purposes of engaging in a colloquy with the gentleman from
Rhode Island.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. As the designee of the full committee chairman,
the gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I yield to the gentleman from Rhode
Island (Mr. Langevin).
Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, as chairman of the Homeland Security
Subcommittee on Emerging Threats, Cybersecurity and Science and
Technology, I have worked to bring greater attention to the issue of
cybersecurity, which remains a vulnerability in our national
infrastructure.
I believe it is critical that adequate funding for cybersecurity
research and development be made a priority at the Science and
Technology Directorate.

{time} 2130

Unfortunately, this issue has been largely overlooked within the
Department of Homeland Security. In fact, out of the $22.7 million in
fiscal year 2007 funding appropriated for the S&T Directorate for
Cybersecurity R&D, only $13 million actually has been spent on
cybersecurity. The rest has been reallocated to other programs at the
directorate. For fiscal year 2008, the President slashed the budget
again, requesting only $14.8 million, which is an $8 million cut from
the previous year.
As the chairman knows, my subcommittee has raised attention to this

[[Page H6426]]

issue, and the full committee authorized $50 million for cybersecurity
research and development. As the committee's authorization and
appropriations bills move forward, I would like to work with the
chairman so that we can assure appropriate funding for cybersecurity
research.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from
Rhode Island for raising this important issue, and I agree that our
Nation must protect its critical infrastructure from cyberattacks.
Research and development efforts at the S&T Directorate will be vital
to our homeland security activities. I look forward to working with the
gentleman to bring greater attention to the issue of cybersecurity and
to provide adequate funding for these efforts, and I very much
appreciate his vigilance, outstanding among all the Members of this
body, in attending to this issue.
Mr. LANGEVIN. I thank the gentleman, and again I want to thank you
for your attention to this matter of national significance, and I do
look forward to working with you. And I also appreciate all your hard
work on the Homeland Security appropriations bill in general. Again, I
appreciate the gentleman's efforts.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance
of my time.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Ferguson

Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Ferguson:
Page 2, line 16, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced
by $50,000,000)''.
Page 39, line 14, after the dollar amount insert
``(increased by $50,000,000)''.
Page 40, line 5, after the dollar amount insert
``(increased by $50,000,000)''.
Page 40, line 21, after the dollar amount insert
``(increased by $50,000,000)''.

The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Ferguson) and the gentleman from North
Carolina (Mr. Price) each will control 2\1/2\ minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. Chairman, I want to first thank the chairman of the
subcommittee and the ranking member for the good work they have done on
this bill.
I rise to offer this amendment which holds great importance not only
to my home State of New Jersey, but really to the entire Nation. My
amendment is a simple one and it is one that is a step in acknowledging
the dangers that we are still faced with following the attacks of
September 11, 2001.
My amendment would transfer $50 million from the DHS Office of Under
Secretary for Management to grants, contracts and cooperative
agreements to State and local law enforcement agencies for terrorism
prevention activities.
Specifically, this amendment would increase funding for DHS buffer
zone protection grants. These funds can be used to enhance security and
protection around sites of national importance. These areas of national
importance include not only banking and financial sites, but also
government buildings and mass transit systems, such as the PATH in New
York and New Jersey, the T in Boston, the BART in San Francisco.
However, most importantly, this applies to chemical plants, which pose
one of the most dangerous threats to our domestic security today.
These funds could be used to provide increased law enforcement
patrols around chemical plants and to protect these critical
infrastructures, as well as enhance information sharing among Federal,
State and local officials and those in the intelligence community.
For example, in 2007, the State of California received $4.6 million
of these grant funds. My home State of New Jersey received $1.5 million
in these grant funds. Other States that have benefited from this grant
program include Maryland and South Carolina, which have each received
nearly $1 million. States like Illinois have benefited. Even States
like Idaho, Delaware and Montana have benefited from this program. They
have each received over $180,000 in these funds. In fact, in 2006, all
50 States in America received grants from this important program.
New Jersey ranks as one of the leading States for chemical
production. Most unsettlingly, New Jersey chemical plans are
specifically listed by Federal authorities as ripe targets for
potential terrorist attack. Millions of people and essential
transportation routes surround these chemical plants. An attack on one
of these plants could not only cause tremendous loss of life, but also
irreversible environmental damage by unleashing secondary explosions or
toxic fumes and substances.
Make no any mistake, this amendment wouldn't only benefit New Jersey.
Countless states throughout the Nation that are home to high-risk
targets also would benefit from this amendment, which would increase
DHS funding for grants, contracts, and cooperative agreements to state
and local law enforcement agencies for terrorism prevention activities.
In 2005, 225 members of the House voted in favor of nearly identical
amendment, and dozens of lawmakers are on record as supporting
increased DHS funding to bolster protections at our Nation's most high-
risk targets. I encourage you to continue this record of support and
show the American people that national security is a top priority for
this Congress by supporting my amendment.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time
as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment would halve the budget for the
Department's new headquarters campus. That may seem like an easy
target, but as a matter of fact, this Department's functions are
scattered all over Washington, D.C.
We all agree in wanting an effective, strong Department of Homeland
Security. We also know the obstacles that have stood in the way of
integrating this Department and making it function smoothly, because it
involves integrating 22 separate agencies into a functioning
department. So for years now, we have known that this central facility
needs to be constructed. The Bush administration has put a very high
priority on it. Secretary Chertoff has talked about it repeatedly.
It is just baffling that members of the minority would get up and
show so little regard for that kind of priority. They seem to think
that this departmental budget is some kind of cash cow that can be
dipped into at will.
Without this funding, the Coast Guard won't be able to move into its
new headquarters. How about that? The Department wouldn't be able to
consolidate its management functions at this modern facility. So it is
not a costless amendment, Mr. Chairman, not by any means.
The amendment would increase the buffer zone protection program by
$50 million. There might be a case to be made for this if we had
underfunded the buffer zone protection program. But the bill already
funds the President's budget for this program, equal to the amount
provided in fiscal year 2007, which the President deemed sufficient.
The gentleman wants to double that funding, throw money at it, and at
the same time remove money from this critically needed facility to pull
all these 22 agencies together in a functioning department. It is
unwise, it is unneeded, and it simply disregards the kind of careful
consideration of this account, the kind of careful balancing of these
needs that has gone into the production of this bill.
So, although I appreciate the gentleman's intentions and his support
of this program, I have to ask my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Ferguson).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the
noes appeared to have it.
Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey
will be postponed.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Mc Henry

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. McHenry:
Page 2, line 16, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $34,000,000)''.

[[Page H6427]]

Page 48, line 9, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $30,000,000)''.

The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry) and the gentleman from
North Carolina (Mr. Price) each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry).
Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, a major contributor to America's illegal immigration
problem is the inability of the U.S. Customs and Immigration Service to
process legal immigration applications in a timely manner. USCIS uses
horribly antiquated systems for processing applications. So antiquated,
in fact, they are still tracking immigration applications using paper
and sending them around the country with the U.S. Postal Service.
Every customer of a major bank in this country can track his or her
accounts, payments, and transactions on line in real time. But the
Federal Government is still using stone age technology, or paper age,
rather, when it comes to the basic functioning of granting citizenship.
Take, for instance, a constituent of mine, Mete Adan. Mete Adan
actually was born in Turkey. He spent 16 years trying to become a
United States citizen the right way, the legal way.
My office has worked with him for a number of years in fact, helping
him through this bureaucratic process and cutting through this outdated
redtape. But due to the inefficiency of the current system, which
processes over 7 million immigration applications per year using paper
printouts, Mete's case has been a 2\1/2\-year debacle marked by
mistakes, errors and blunders.
The amendment I am offering today would prevent this sort of horror
from continuing to happen in the future.
A few years ago, USCIS embarked on a major technological overhaul for
how it handles the millions of immigration applications it receives
every year. The problem, though, is that they are not really putting
this into place fast enough. That is why I am proposing that we take
$30 million and apply it to carrying out the strategic information
transformation through USCIS.
Their plan includes on-line accounts that Federal agencies and
applicants themselves can use to track their immigration status as it
moves through the initial application process, to background checks, to
adjudication and to final approval. It is a very commonsense way for us
to track immigration applications.
Beyond that, what we have to understand is USCIS estimates that it
handles 7 million immigration applications using paper today. We should
use Information Age technology to make sure that we have a fair process
for those seeking to come to our country, and thereby reducing illegal
immigration in the process.
But the bulk of those 7 million applications, applications for
citizenship and non-immigration residency, require up to 11 different
forms apiece. That means the USCIS has to handle tens of millions of
forms annually just to keep track of the people currently in the
system. That is why there are just reported 15,000 pending cases from
the 1986 amnesty plan passed by Congress and enacted into law. That is
right, 21 years later there are still more than 15,000 unresolved
cases.
If we want people to immigrate to the United States legally and come
to our country without sneaking across our border or breaking our laws
or coming under the cover of darkness, then we must remove the barriers
of illegal immigration.
The $30 million I am proposing to devote to the USCIS strategic
transformation will significantly aid that process.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time
as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment would put funding not requested by the
administration into the business transformation program.

{time} 2145

Once again, it would take funds from the efforts to consolidate DHS
operations on the St. Elizabeth's campus, which Secretary Chertoff has
cited as one of his top priorities for improving the efficiency and the
performance of the Department of Homeland Security.
This amendment puzzles me, though, Mr. Chairman, because CIS is
updating its programs by utilizing user fees. My understanding is that
this is a program funded by user fees and that it really is not in need
of appropriated funding.
Knowing the gentleman's support for economies in government--we have
heard a lot about that the last couple of days, for many, many hours,
in fact--why would we not want to have this program pay for itself, so
to speak? And why would we want to dip into appropriated funds to make
this kind of increase? I just raise that as a question.
Maybe I should let the gentleman answer it before reaching my final
conclusion.
Mr. McHENRY. I certainly appreciate it. I thank my friend and
colleague for yielding. I agree with you. USCIS should be fee-based and
continue to be fee-based. However, in discussions with them, I realize
we have a severe problem and they're not going to actually put in place
this plan until 2013. And so the time frame I don't think is fast
enough, and I think that is very deserving for us to appropriate funds
so we can actually have a more efficient process.
No matter where you are on the immigration debate, whether you want
amnesty or border security, this actually is a pretty sensible thing
from both sides.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Reclaiming my time, the gentleman is
arguing that this $30 million would make a significant impact on what I
think is about a $250 million program. If the Department is so
encouraging of this, why do you suppose we didn't get a request from
them when the budget was sent up?
Mr. McHENRY. If the gentleman will yield.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Yes, I will.
Mr. McHENRY. I spoke last night about a lack of competence within
some of our bureaucracies, even those led by Republicans, my fellow
Republican brethren. I see a failure in the bureaucracy and an
unwillingness for them to step forward and make this happen faster. And
you are correct, it is a much larger price tag. However, limited by the
offsets available to me within this legislation and the confines of the
rules, $30 million would be a good start in this process and hopefully
pull that date closer to being enacted.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Reclaiming my time, I understand the
pilots for this project are already under way. The answer about the
bureaucracy, though, is somewhat troubling. If there are problems that
the gentleman has identified, it doesn't seem like a very
discriminating response to just simply throw appropriated funds at the
agency, I must say.
Now, if the point is to make sure that this program comes online, to
make sure that it does what it is supposed to do, that it's monitored
carefully, that we exercise our oversight responsibilities and that we
encourage the Department to ask for whatever kind of support it needs,
then that's another matter. But simply reaching into appropriated funds
and throwing them at this program in this way, I must say to the
gentleman, it's not something that I can accept.
He might want to withdraw this amendment and let us work with him on
trying to give this program appropriate emphasis, but that, of course,
is his option.
I yield if he wishes to respond.
Mr. McHENRY. I would actually like to have a vote on this so that we
can begin that process. I do think that they have a good plan in place
to go into the information age and finally get out of this sort of
1950s mentality of paperwork being shifted around. I would like to at
least take a step forward in the process. But ongoing after that, I
would certainly like to work with the chairman, because I know he very
much cares about efficiency of the money appropriated.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Reclaiming my time, we'll work on this
in any case; but I must say if there are the kinds of problems that the
gentleman has identified, simply throwing appropriated funds at them in
what seems to me to be a fairly undiscriminating way doesn't seem to be
a very promising remedy.

[[Page H6428]]

For that reason, Mr. Chairman, I do urge a ``no'' vote on this
amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. McHENRY. How much time do I have remaining, Mr. Chairman?
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from North Carolina has 1\1/2\
minutes remaining.
Mr. McHENRY. I thank the chairman.
Reclaiming my time, to address the issues raised, I do think USCIS
actually has a good plan in place for moving forward to an electronic
or digital age level of technology. What concerns me is this
bureaucracy that deals with 7 million applications each year, tens of
millions of pages of paper each year, doesn't move to technology sooner
than 2013, which is their current plan. And so I would like to start
that process, give them the money to begin earlier on moving to the
information age.
With that, I would be happy to yield to the ranking member of the
subcommittee.
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.
Mr. McHENRY. I thank my colleague from Kentucky.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, when we have 15,000 pending cases from the
1986 amnesty plan still stuck in the system, I think we have a flaw in
the system. We need to update that and use current technology so that
we can fairly bring legal immigration to this country.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's time has expired.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from North
Carolina (Mr. McHenry).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the
noes appeared to have it.
Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from North
Carolina will be postponed.

Point of Order

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, point of order.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized to state his point
of order.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Do the rules not stipulate that the Chair is to
be an impartial arbiter of the proceedings of the House?
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Chair's count is not subject to appeal.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized to
state his parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Do the rules not state that the Chair of the
House is to be an impartial arbiter of the proceedings?
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Chair calls each voice vote as he hears it,
and that call is not subject to appeal.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I thank the Chair.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Are there any other amendments to this pending
paragraph?
If not, the Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

Office of the Chief Financial Officer

For necessary expenses of the Office of the Chief Financial
Officer, as authorized by section 103 of the Homeland
Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 113), $32,000,000.

Amendment No. 19 Offered by Ms. Corrine Brown of Florida

Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at
the desk.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 19 offered by Ms. Corrine Brown of Florida:
Page 3, line 14, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced
by $1,000,000)''.
Page 39, line 14, after the dollar amount insert
``(increased by $1,000,000)''.

The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Corrine Brown) and a Member opposed each
will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Florida.
Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I rise to offer an amendment that would add $1 million to the FEMA
management and administration account so that children's disaster
planning materials can be developed and implemented.
Children are often neglected when it comes to preparedness and
response. Nothing shows this more than the chaotic evacuations during
Hurricane Katrina when hundreds of children were separated from their
parents or guardians because a simple system of writing down names of
evacuated children was not implemented.
Children's unique needs are often overlooked because of the fallacy
that children can be treated like ``little adults.'' Children are among
the most vulnerable members of the population and their needs are
vastly different.
For example, I had a meeting with the chief of the Division of
Community Pediatrics from the University of Florida and he brought to
my attention that emergency evacuation equipment is often bought for
adults, but children can't be transported in adult equipment and often
that type of equipment is missed.
My amendment would make sure children don't go unnoticed when we are
thinking about preparedness materials. Children represent nearly 25
percent of the population, and they need their own set of disaster
planning materials. Children should be learning the importance of
making an emergency plan, what to ask their parents and about the need
for an emergency contact and identification card.
In addition, children often take the preparedness message back home
to their families. Involving and educating children is the best way to
get many of the adults who don't always hear the planning message.
Getting children ready for disasters can make the difference between
success and failure. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment to
increase funding for children's disaster preparedness materials.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I want to say I appreciate the
gentlewoman's efforts in this important area. We expect FEMA to develop
these materials to ensure that children are adequately prepared when
disasters strike.
I will be happy to accept the amendment.
Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Does anyone seek recognition in opposition to
the amendment?
If not, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman
from Florida (Ms. Corrine Brown).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 17 Offered by Ms. Corrine Brown of Florida

Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 17 offered by Ms. Corrine Brown of Florida:
In title I, in the item relating to ``Office of the Chief
Financial Officer'', after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $500,000)''.
In title I, in the item relating to ``Inspector General,
operating expenses'', after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $500,000)''.

[[Page H6429]]

Procurement at the Department of Homeland Security increased 189
percent between 2003 and 2005, which was 11 times faster than the
growth of the rest of the government. Yet according to the Federal
Procurement Data System, the percentage of contracting for small
disadvantaged businesses has decreased. In 2003, small disadvantaged
businesses accounted for 16 percent of contracts. In 2004, the number
decreased to 9.5 percent, and in 2005 the number decreased to 7.6
percent. If spending is increasing at the Department of Homeland
Security, then why aren't minority and small business contracts
increasing, too?
I've heard from several businesses about their frustration with being
awarded Federal contracts as a member of the Congressional Black Caucus
and Women's Caucus, as well as talking with members from the
Congressional Hispanic Caucus. Going around my district and speaking
with many small businesses in general, they also feel like the
government has shut them out. Of course, with the abundance of
noncompetitive contracts in the Bush administration, it seems like the
first place the Department does not look are minority businesses or
small business. No-bid contracts go to large companies that are not
minority-owned. Waste, fraud and abuse have been rampant at the
Department of Homeland Security.
It has long been the policy of the Federal Government to assist
minority and other ``socially and economically disadvantaged'' small
businesses to become fully competitive and viable business concerns.
This policy must be taken seriously by all agencies, especially the
Department of Homeland Security.
This amendment is important to members of the Congressional Black
Caucus, the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, and the Congressional
Women's Caucus. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment and the
longstanding policy for assisting minority and small, disadvantaged
businesses.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

{time} 2200

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
I simply want to say on this side we accept this amendment and
commend the Congresswoman for her good work.
Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I am very grateful.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Does any Member claim the time in opposition?
If not, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman
from Florida (Ms. Corrine Brown).
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Are there any other amendments to the pending
paragraph?
If not, the Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

Office of the Chief Information Officer

For necessary expenses of the Office of the Chief
Information Officer, as authorized by section 103 of the
Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 113), and Department-
wide technology investments, $258,621,000; of which
$79,921,000 shall be available for salaries and expenses; and
of which $178,700,000 shall be available for development and
acquisition of information technology equipment, software,
services, and related activities for the Department of
Homeland Security, to remain available until expended:
Provided, That none of the funds appropriated shall be used
to support or supplement the appropriations provided for the
United States Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator
Technology project or the Automated Commercial Environment:
Provided further, That the Chief Information Officer shall
submit to the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and
the House of Representatives, not more than 60 days after the
date of enactment of this Act, an expenditure plan for all
information technology acquisition projects with an estimated
cost of $2,500,000 or more: Provided further, That such
expenditure plan shall include each specific project funded,
key milestones, all funding sources for each project, details
of annual and lifecycle costs, and projected cost savings or
cost avoidance to be achieved by the project: Provided
further, That notwithstanding any other provision of law,
none of the funds made available in this or any other Act may
be obligated to provide for the oversight or management of
the Integrated Wireless Network program by any employee of
the Office of the Chief Information Officer.

Analysis and Operations

For necessary expenses for information analysis and
operations coordination activities, as authorized by title II
of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 121 et seq.),
$291,619,000, to remain available until September 30, 2009,
of which not to exceed $5,000 shall be for official reception
and representation expenses.

Office of the Federal Coordinator for Gulf Coast Rebuilding

For necessary expenses of the Office of the Federal
Coordinator for Gulf Coast Rebuilding, $3,000,000: Provided,
That $1,000,000 shall not be available for obligation until
the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the House
of Representatives receive an expenditure plan for fiscal
year 2008.

Inspector General

operating expenses

For necessary expenses of the Inspector General in carrying
out the provisions of the Inspector General Act of 1978 (5
U.S.C. App.), $99,111,000, of which not to exceed $150,000
may be used for certain confidential operational expenses,
including the payment of informants, to be expended at the
direction of the Inspector General.

TITLE II--SECURITY, ENFORCEMENT, AND INVESTIGATIONS

United States Customs and Border Protection

salaries and expenses

For necessary expenses for enforcement of laws relating to
border security, immigration, customs, and agricultural
inspections and regulatory activities related to plant and
animal imports; purchase and lease of up to 4,500 (2,300 for
replacement only) police-type vehicles; and contracting with
individuals for personal services abroad; $6,629,733,000, of
which $3,093,000 shall be derived from the Harbor Maintenance
Trust Fund for administrative expenses related to the
collection of the Harbor Maintenance Fee pursuant to section
9505(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (26 U.S.C.
9505(c)(3)) notwithstanding section 1511(e)(1) of the
Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 551(e)(1)); of which
not to exceed $45,000 shall be for official reception and
representation expenses; of which not less than $207,740,000
shall be for Air and Marine Operations; of which such sums as
become available in the Customs User Fee Account, except sums
subject to section 13031(f)(3) of the Consolidated Omnibus
Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (19 U.S.C. 58c(f)(3)),
shall be derived from that account; of which not to exceed
$150,000 shall be available for payment for rental space in
connection with preclearance operations; and of which not to
exceed $1,000,000 shall be for awards of compensation to
informants, to be accounted for solely under the certificate
of the Secretary of Homeland Security: Provided, That for
fiscal year 2008, the overtime limitation prescribed in
section 5(c)(1) of the Act of February 13, 1911 (19 U.S.C.
267(c)(1)) shall be $35,000; and notwithstanding any other
provision of law, none of the funds appropriated by this Act
may be available to compensate any employee of United States
Customs and Border Protection for overtime, from whatever
source, in an amount that exceeds such limitation, except in
individual cases determined by the Secretary of Homeland
Security, or the designee of the Secretary, to be necessary
for national security purposes, to prevent excessive costs,
or in cases of immigration emergencies: Provided further,
That of the amount made available under this heading,
$202,816,000 shall remain available until September 30, 2009,
to support software development, equipment, contract
services, and the implementation of inbound lanes and
modification to vehicle primary processing lanes at ports of
entry, of which $100,000,000 may not be obligated until the
Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the House of
Representatives receive a report on the results of pilot
programs used to develop and implement the plan required by
section 7209(b)(1) of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism
Prevention Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-458; 8 U.S.C. 1185
note), which includes the following information: (1)
infrastructure and staffing required, with associated costs,
by port of entry; (2) updated milestones for plan
implementation; (3) a detailed explanation of how
requirements of such section have been satisfied; (4)
confirmation that a vicinity-read radio frequency
identification card has been adequately tested to ensure
operational success; and (5) a description of steps taken to
ensure the integrity of privacy safeguards.

Amendment No. 128 Offered by Mr. Pearce

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 128 offered by Mr. Pearce:
Page 6, line 5, after the first dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $125,000,000)''.
Page 22, line 9, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $125,000,000)''.
Page 22, line 13, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $125,000,000)''.
Page 22, line 14, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $125,000,000)''.

The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce) and the gentleman from North
Carolina (Mr. Price) each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Mexico.
Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, I would like to amend this bill in order to

[[Page H6430]]

make our borders more secure. I am one of the Members who lives on a
border and on the southern border. In New Mexico we experience many of
the problems of having a porous border. We find drugs, human
trafficking, and other problems at the border because of our failure to
secure the border, and many of our residents are affected daily.
With an overwhelming amount of funding and preexisting TSA full-time
employees, I think it is proper for us to divert funding from TSA to
border security. The TSA, and I have heard my constituents call it
``thousands standing around,'' seems to have plenty of people to do its
work, and yet we do not have enough people to put on the border. We are
simply requesting a move of less than 3 percent of the funds. Less than
3 percent of an agency, and every single American who travels on
airlines understands the number of people they see standing around when
they walk through the checkpoints.
We are asking that less than 3 percent of that money be sent over to
where we can use it along the borders. Our calculation is that we can
hire over 4,000 new people to help us secure the southern border of the
United States.
CBO recognizes the value of this and scores this as a $43 million
savings. We would like to draw that to the attention of the body.
Every year, between 500,000 and 1 million illegal immigrants come
into the United States. We need more people to help on the southern
border. Many problems are coming into this country and many problems
are affecting each State, but especially the States that lie on the
border.
Mr. Chairman, I respectfully ask Members to support this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time
as I may consume, and rise in opposition to the amendment.
The gentleman's amendment is well-intentioned and understandable,
particularly given the part of the country that he represents. But I
would like to explain to colleagues briefly why I believe this
amendment is ill-advised.
It would cut $125 million from the Transportation Security
Administration in order to fund activities by Customs and Border
Protection. I do appreciate the gentleman's wish to further strengthen
the frontline agency for our borders and our ports of entry. The fact
is, though, I believe we have addressed his concerns very adequately in
this bill.
The bill fully funds the 3,000 additional Border Patrol agents
requested by the administration. Any more, I believe, would exceed CBP
capacity to recruit and to absorb.
The bill also provides for 250 additional CBP officers above the
request to strengthen port and cargo inspection security. So it seems
that putting more money into the agency at this time would be, at best,
symbolic and, at worst, wasteful.
On the other hand, let's look at the offset.
A reduction of this magnitude from TSA's aviation security program
could, for instance, slow to a crawl plans to move explosive detection
machines out of crowded airport lobbies and in line with the airport's
baggage conveyer systems. We are aware of at least 60 airports that
need these necessary improvements. Without them, airport lobbies will
remain congested for the foreseeable future and the use of technology
underdeveloped.
After years of stalling, this cut could delay improvements that are
finally underway at TSA with airport check points, such as installing
next-generation systems to better detect explosives and weapons that
passengers might carry on their bodies or in their checked baggage.
A reduction of this size in TSA could thwart efforts to double the
amount of air cargo screened for explosives and other dangerous items
before it is placed on passenger aircraft.
Explosive detection equipment is the key technology we use to screen
for these dangerous objects.
Finally, this reduction could require TSA to lay off something like
3,000 screeners. For the past 2 years, we have seen record air travel,
resulting in longer lines at many airports and screening check points.
A reduction in aviation screeners could exacerbate this problem. So we
reluctantly, Mr. Chairman, oppose this amendment for these reasons.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
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.
Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman from North Carolina
yield?
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I would be glad to yield.
Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, we spent a lot of money on the puffer
machines that are at the airports. We have spent hundreds of millions
of dollars on those, and I would ask the gentleman about the quality of
product that we are getting from those puffer machines.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. What is the quality?
Mr. PEARCE. Where you walk in and they puff.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. PEARCE. I yield myself the balance of my time.
I appreciate the chairman and the ranking member bringing their
observation. I would point out that $125 million is what we are
requesting to be taken from TSA. TSA has a budget of over $4 billion,
and $125 million represents less than 3 percent.
I would also point out that over 450 miles exist of border, and we
have 13,000 Border Patrol agents, and yet we have 43,000 employees in
TSA to do screening. I am telling the American people that we have
underfunded consistently for the last decades, the last 30, 40, 50
years, the efforts that are needed on the southern border, and today is
not the day to find 3 percent to be an onerous fee.
I sat on the Transportation Committee and watched some of the
elements two terms ago. Last year I was on Homeland Security. I saw the
waste, fraud and abuse, and I will tell the American people that
tonight we must make the stand that our border must be secured.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word to address the gentleman's very legitimate question.
The gentleman asked about the puffer machines which, indeed, do have
some utility but have some very obvious shortcomings, as he observed.
That is not what we are talking about funding in this bill. We are
talking about the explosive detection machines that we can move in line
with the baggage conveyer systems in crowded airports; and that,
unfortunately, is the account

[[Page H6431]]

out of which the gentleman's cuts would come.
Mr. PEARCE. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I yield to the gentleman from New
Mexico.
Mr. PEARCE. My simple point was that the same agency that approved
the puffer machines is going to approve the explosion devices; and my
feeling is that the agency has been ill-managed since the beginning.
We have a desperate need on the southern border today, right now. The
TSA, in finding equipment and funding equipment, both now and in the
past, has been shown to be very, very ineffective. I would just say, we
have an emergency crisis on the southern border and all along the
northern borders. We have 13,000 Border Patrol agents to work that
entire range of 5,400 miles and we have 43,000 TSA officers and
inspectors.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Reclaiming my time, the case has been
stated, and I repeat my request for a ``no'' vote.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the
ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Mexico
will be postponed.

Amendment No. 104 Offered by Mr. King of Iowa

Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 104 offered by Mr. King of Iowa:
Page 6, line 5, after the first dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $1,000,000) (increased by $1,000,000)''.

The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King) and the gentleman from North Carolina
(Mr. Price) each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Iowa.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, this amendment that I bring and the
simple function of it goes into the large $6 billion appropriations
piece, takes out $1 million and puts back in $1 million, and it is for
the purposes of directing customs and border protection and our border
protection people to go in and take out the lookout posts that have
been established, I will call them my military positions, from the
Mexican border all the way up to Phoenix, through Tucson all the way up
to Phoenix.

{time} 2215

In the time that I've spent on the southern border, the Border Patrol
people have pointed out to me, the shadow wolves have pointed out to
me, ICE people have pointed out to me that the lookouts that have been
established there will be on top of those small mountains that overlook
the transportation routes. And so what they do with their
sophisticated, the drug smugglers, the drug cartel, with their
sophisticated surveillance equipment, good optical equipment, good
radio equipment, with scramblers and descramblers ahead of us, they
position one or two people on top of those lookout mountains, and then
they can tell their own people exactly where the Border Patrol are.
They can run a decoy through those routes, and as soon as the Border
Patrol converges on that decoy, they will sacrifice 200 pounds of
marijuana. I've been there to help interdict that. Meanwhile, they run
the truckload through when all those focused resources are on that
lookout. That's one of the tactics.
They deploy a number of tactics, but they are occupying and
controlling what we would describe as military positions way inside the
United States, all the way to Tucson and all the way to Phoenix. I've
been there, I've looked at them, I've seen them, and Congressman Feeney
is actually on his way to add to this debate. He's gone to the top of
these mountains. We have pictures.
I helped produce a map. This is a map of at least 75 locations. It
may well go over 100 locations. I sat there and watched our border
protection people put the Xs on the map. I stood there and looked at
the mountains to them. I presented this to the Vice President. I
presented this to the Secretary of Homeland Security, and what I get is
a letter that is more or less designed to pacify me.
And I believe that, if you're going to play cat and mouse with drug
smugglers, you ought to take those tools away from them. We should be
taking these drug smugglers off of these tactical positions the instant
they arrive there and not let them sit up there and control military
positions inside the United States, controlling the transportation
routes for their drug smuggling, all the way to Phoenix.
This is a fact. It's a well-established fact, and this Congress needs
to send a message that the Department of Homeland Security needs to
take them out the minute they're occupied.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I agree with the gentleman that traffickers are using
lookouts to spy on law enforcement operations and to assess where our
agents are, just as we're looking at them. But I don't see any
rationale for dedicating funding for an initiative of the sort that he
describes.
The bill provides funding for an additional 3,000 Border Patrol
agents and $1 billion to continue and expand the border security
program. The identification and the elimination of the kind of lookout
posts that he's describing on U.S. territory is a matter for CBP to
deal with if it involves crossing the border, and for other law
enforcement agencies to deal with if it's strictly a domestic
violation.
Now, the funding in this bill has been increased, increased a great
deal, to provide the Border Patrol all these new agents, and to better
meet the cargo and port security vulnerabilities addressed, for
example, in the SAFE Port Act. So this is not a costless funding shift.
It's a shift in funding that would reduce resources for these
departmental priorities, priorities in which the committee fully
concurs and, in fact, in some cases has increased.
So although the gentleman's intention is admirable, I do believe it's
unnecessary to designate funds for these purposes. I think shifting the
funds around in this way could do some damage as we attempt to develop
the Department, and so I reluctantly ask Members to oppose the
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, could I inquire as to how much time I
have remaining.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Iowa has 2\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I seek to close in this period of
time, and I appreciate the chairman's remarks on this, but he's asking
us to accept the argument that out of $6.6 billion Homeland Security is
not going to spend $1 million to take out the lookout outpost on top of
the mountains that the drug cartels are manning.
And they man these things full-time, often two at a time, often with
assault weapons on top. They build a little fortress up there with
setting up stones like sandbags, and it's a military position. They sit
up there with optical equipment, infrared equipment at night. They can
see further than we can see, and they can communicate as well as we can
communicate, many times better.
So it wouldn't be rational to say we're playing a game of cat and
mouse, but we're going to let this cat do whatever he wants to do and
we're going to play the mouse.
So Mr. Feeney and I authored a letter that went to Secretary of
Homeland Security Chertoff on August 30 of last year and asked him to
take out these lookout posts and take those drug smugglers off the top
of those mountains. That's the short version of it.
We got the letter back, the answer back from the Deputy Assistant
Secretary of Homeland Security, not the Secretary, and their
explanation from the letter was, ``Recently, agents in the San Diego
sector, using advanced technology, discovered that scouts for

[[Page H6432]]

a drug trafficking organization were watching Border Patrol movements
and were trying to coordinate the crossing of narcotics into the United
States. Using this intelligence, Border Patrol agents seized 400 pounds
of marijuana and the vehicle used to transport the narcotics.''
That's their huge accomplishment for $65 billion worth of drugs
pouring across our southern border and drug smugglers with assault
weapons taking up tactical military positions to control our
transportation routes. And so they explain to us that they have
interdicted 400 pounds of marijuana, which isn't even an indictable
offense in that region of the world. It was 250 pounds, but they had
too many criminals so they had to raise to it to 500 pounds. These guys
get a pass, and that's all the Department of Homeland Security is
doing.
Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Feeney) who has just arrived, and I'm ready for his
vigor and hope a chance to close.
Mr. FEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I really appreciate the gentleman's
amendment.
I want to share with you I'm a skeptic even when my friends tell me
things. When Congressman King told me about the problem on the border,
I thought he was exaggerating. I went down last summer, sat 75 miles
inside the American border, saw a machine gun that's run by coyotes.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. I yield a minute to the gentleman.
Mr. FEENEY. I'm very grateful. This is very important.
As Congressman King just told you, we have a problem on our border
most Congressmen and few Americans know about.
I'm a skeptical guy, even when a good patriot and friend of mine like
Steve King tells me something. So I went down personally and inspected
a machine gun nest 75 miles inside the Arizona border run by coyotes.
It was the 13th in a list of machine gun nests where they were armed
with surveillance techniques, where they were armed with radios, and
they used these facilities inside our border to facilitate drug
trafficking and illegal immigration.
I do not believe that our government is enforcing our own security.
There's nothing more important we can do than to support symbolically
the King amendment to send a message we want to take these machine gun
nests out.
It was the Bureau of Land Management that took me up there. Why?
Because they are cleaning up the mess that these coyotes leave behind
them as they are smuggling poison drugs and illegals across our border.
I saw it with my own eyes, or I would not have believed it. Please
support the King amendment, if nothing else than to send a message we
want our borders secure and our laws enforced.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from
Iowa 30 seconds to close.
Mr. KING of Iowa. I thank the gentleman from Kentucky for his
gracious step that's he taken here and appreciate making sure that the
breathless Mr. Feeney had an opportunity to say a few words because I
know he ran up the stairs.
This is an important symbolic vote, and we've worked on this for
years. I didn't realize how difficult it was to convince the Department
of Homeland Security what was going on here, but this letter in
response that they have written where they bragged about interdicting
one person with 400 pounds of marijuana is just somehow that's
addressing all of these tactical positions that look over all of our
transportation routes inside the United States.
Congress needs to send a message we can't tolerate that inside this
country. We wouldn't if we were at war. We're in a drug war.
I thank the ranking member.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word for the purposes of a colloquy with the gentlewoman from New York
(Ms. Clarke), and I'm happy to yield to her at this time.
Ms. CLARKE. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from North
Carolina (Mr. Price) for the time and for the opportunity to discuss an
important issue to me.
With every passing day, I hear more talk about how to prevent illegal
immigration. We're discussing it at this very moment. Many proposals to
deal with undocumented immigrants involve punishing them through
deportation or what has been termed as ``touchback,'' which requires
immigrants to expel themselves and pay a heavy, extremely punitive
fine.
However, we could best reduce the number of undocumented immigrants
by improving and reforming our own government bureaucracy. While many
Members of this body believe that every undocumented immigrant walked
across the southern border, the fact is that 40 percent of them enter
our country legally, and many of them have only broken the law after
falling through the cracks of a vast bureaucracy.
Back home in Brooklyn, New York, an area that boasts immigrants from
every corner of the world, I have personally talked to countless people
who were frustrated because they had no intention of breaking the law,
but simply became tied up in an overly complicated and backlogged
system as their applications were delayed until their visas expired and
suddenly they were here illegally.
I'm further concerned with the proposed fee increases at CIS to
process applications. All of the people who emigrate here from other
countries have come looking for a better life. Many of these people
work hard at jobs that pay so little that most Americans do not want to
take them.
We cannot expect these individuals to pay astronomical fees that they
cannot afford, as this effectively creates another barrier to
citizenship for many immigrants who only want to make an honest living,
and leaves those who cannot pay in undocumented limbo. We in Congress
must ensure that CIS has the funding it requires to be efficient and
effective without resorting to taking money from those who cannot
afford the extremely punitive costs.
As the debate on immigration reform progresses, it is vital that we
address these issues and ensure that CIS will be able to help everyone
who desires to play by, and be in compliance with, the rules. It is
simply not right that many people have been deemed criminals simply
because our government is ill-equipped to process these applications or
because we have made it totally unaffordable.
I thank the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price) for his efforts
at improving the legal immigration process, and I look forward to
working together to bring about improvements and reforms to an
immigration system that is reflective of the 21st century United
States.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman
from New York for her perspective on this issue.
While the Appropriations Committee has no direct control over the
fees that CIS charges or the revenues that it collects, the committee
report encourages the Department to continue regular reviews of its
cost estimates and to apply any savings generated by business
transformation to reducing fees in the future.
The committee also requires CIS to report on the performance measures
it will implement to ensure that the increased fees charged to its
customers result in commensurate improvements in the service provided
by the agency.
So I encourage the gentlewoman to work closely with the Judiciary
Committee to address these concerns, since the authorities to collect
immigration fees are ultimately within that body's jurisdiction.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Shays

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Shays:
Page 7, line 16, after ``which'' insert the following:
``$100,000 is to promote information and education exchange
with nations friendly to the United States in order to
promote sharing of best practices and technologies relating
to homeland security, as

[[Page H6433]]

authorized by Sec. 879 of Public Law 107-296 and:

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I just want to make sure the Clerk has the
proper amendment. Maybe she should read it.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the Clerk will report the
amendment.
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Connecticut.

{time} 2230

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I first want to thank Mr. Price for the work
he has done on this legislation, and Mr. Rogers. I know we are going to
be spending a lot more money, but this is Homeland Security, and I
intend to support this legislation.
The amendment would appropriate $100,000 to allow the Department of
Homeland Security, DHS, and the International Criminal Police
Organization, Interpol, to share counterterrorism and stolen and lost
travel document information. The DHS Secretary has already publicly
stated he hopes to integrate the Interpol information at points of
entry.
This amendment simply provides funding for that stated activity. The
funding would provide the necessary startup costs for the minimum IT
equipment to set up the data sharing, as well as additional funds to
facilitate travel and professional exchanges.
Interpol currently maintains a database of 14.4 million lost and
stolen internationally recognized travel documents from 123 countries.
This includes 67 million passports, of which over a third are from
countries that participate in the visa waiver program. Interpol
currently has a list of over 48,000 blank passports that have been
stolen around the world. Blank passports are better than blank checks
for terrorists, as the 9/11 Commission rightly concluded. For
terrorists, travel documents are as important as weapons.
I will just conclude by saying in a test of 1.9 million passport
records collected over 15 days by U.S. border officials, DHS identified
273 lost or stolen documents used in Interpol data, 64 of which could
not be resolved.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
Mr. Chairman, I would simply say that the gentleman has raised an
important and legitimate issue.
We gladly accept his amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 114 Offered by Mr. Kuhl of New York

Mr. KUHL of New York. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 114 offered by Mr. Kuhl of New York:
Page 8, line 5, insert before the period the following: ``:
Provided further, That the Comptroller General of the United
States and the Secretary of Homeland Security conduct a study
that examines the potentially adverse economic impact of the
requirement for land and sea travelers of the Western
Hemisphere Travel Implementation Act (WHTI) upon businesses
in neighboring regions.''.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on
the gentleman's amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. A point of order is reserved.
Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Kuhl) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
Mr. KUHL of New York. Mr. Chairman, constituents of mine have wisely
questioned the U.S. Department of Homeland Security's plan to require
United States citizens to present passports to travel between Canada
and the United States.
In addition to standard application fees, the plan will require
American citizens to pay for passport photos and travel to a passport
application center just to take their families to the Toronto Blue Jays
game or to Niagara Falls.
There is no question in my mind that we must protect our borders, I
think all of our citizens agree with that, from illegal immigrants and
potential terrorists. But we should not turn away legitimate business
and visitors, as the U.S. and Canadian economies have become
interdependent.
Therefore, my amendment requires that the Governmental Accounting
Office conduct a study of the potentially adverse economic impact that
this new requirement for land and sea travelers may have upon American
business. I believe that we have a long, long way to go before our
borders are finally and fully secured. But I believe that this
amendment gets us moving in the right direction, without slamming the
door on our neighbors to the north.
Mr. Chairman, I understand that there is potentially a legal problem
with this amendment. Having actually put it before the Congress for its
consideration, certainly the chairman, I believe it's appropriate to
withdraw the amendment at this time, and I would do so.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the amendment is
withdrawn.
There was no objection.

Amendment No. 115 Offered by Mr. Kuhl of New York

Mr. KUHL of New York. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 115 offered by Mr. Kuhl of New York:
Page 8, line 5, insert before the period the following: ``:
Provided further, That the Comptroller General of the United
States and the Secretary of Homeland Security conduct a study
that examines security at the Northern Border, evaluates the
ability of United States Customs and Border Protection to
identify and stop all potential threats from crossing the
Northern Border, lists all breaches of security and the
reason for such breaches since 2005, and contains
recommendations to concerning how and what must be done to
improve United States Customs and Border Protection and
security at the Northern border.''.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on
the gentleman's amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. A point of order is reserved.
Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Kuhl) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
Mr. KUHL of New York. Mr. Chairman, earlier this month a security
breach occurred along our northern border when an individual on the no-
fly list carrying a dangerous strain of tuberculosis successfully
crossed the United States border.
This breach highlights the security gaps at our northern border that
must be immediately addressed. If the Department of Homeland Security
cannot adequately meet our Nation's growing security needs, then we in
Congress must step in to provide our citizens with the oversight and
action that they deserve, so that both our northern and our southern
borders will be safe from future threats.
I am offering this amendment to take us a step in the right direction
of securing our northern border. Most of the action that you are
hearing today in this Chamber is dealing with the southern border. This
amendment requires the Government Accountability Office to conduct a
study examining the security of the northern border.
Specifically, it requires that the GAO evaluate the Customs and
Border Patrol's ability to identify and eliminate all potential threats
to the northern border under current funding levels.
In closing, this is a commonsense amendment that will take us a step
in the right direction towards securing our northern border, and I
encourage my colleagues to support this amendment.
I also understand, Mr. Chairman, that my colleague, the ranking
minority member, has a problem with the correctness of this amendment.
So not dealing in wanting to further challenge this, I would withdraw
my amendment and my statement addressing the needs that I feel are
appropriate at this time.

[[Page H6434]]

The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. If there are no further amendments to this
paragraph, the Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

automation modernization

For expenses for customs and border protection automated
systems, $476,609,000, to remain available until expended, of
which not less than $316,969,000 shall be for the development
of the Automated Commercial Environment: Provided, That of
the total amount made available under this heading,
$216,969,000 may not be obligated for the Automated
Commercial Environment program until 30 days after the
Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the House of
Representatives receive a report on the results to date and
plans for the program from the Department of Homeland
Security that includes:
(1) a detailed accounting of the program's progress up to
the date of the report in meeting prior commitments made to
the Committees relative to system capabilities or services,
system performance levels, mission benefits and outcomes,
milestones, cost targets, and program management
capabilities;
(2) an explicit plan of action defining how all unobligated
funds for the program from prior appropriations and all
fiscal year 2008 funds are to be spent to meet future program
commitments, with sufficient detail to link the planned
expenditure of funds to the milestone-based delivery of
specific capabilities, services, performance levels, mission
benefits and outcomes, and program management capabilities;
(3) a listing of all open Government Accountability Office
and Office of Inspector General recommendations related to
the program, with the status of the Department's efforts to
address the recommendations, including milestones for fully
addressing them;
(4) a written certification by the Chief Financial Officer
of the Department of Homeland Security that the program has
been reviewed and approved in accordance with the
Department's investment management process, and that this
process fulfills all capital planning and investment control
requirements and reviews established by the Office of
Management and Budget, including Circular A-11, part 7, as
well as copies of all investment decision memoranda and
supporting analyses generated by and used in the Department's
process;
(5) a written certification by the Chief Information
Officer of the Department of Homeland Security that an
independent validation and verification agent has and will
continue to actively review the program, as well as summaries
of reviews conducted by the agent during the preceding 12
months;
(6) a written certification by the Chief Information
Officer of the Department of Homeland Security that: the
system architecture is sufficiently aligned with the
department's information systems enterprise architecture to
minimize future rework, including: a description of all
aspects of the architectures that were and were not assessed
in making the alignment determination; the date of the
alignment determination; any known areas of misalignment; any
associated risks; and corrective actions to address any such
areas;
(7) a written certification by the Chief Information
Officer of the Department of Homeland Security that the
program has a risk management process that regularly and
proactively identifies, evaluates, mitigates, and monitors
risks throughout the system life cycle, and communicates
high-risk conditions to United States Customs and Border
Protection and Department of Homeland Security investment
decision makers, as well as a listing of the program's high
risks and the status of efforts to address them;
(8) a written certification by the Chief Procurement
Officer of the Department of Homeland Security that the plans
for the program comply with the Federal acquisition rules,
requirements, guidelines, and practices, and a description of
the actions being taken to address areas of non-compliance,
the risks associated with them along with any plans for
addressing these risks and the status of their
implementation; and
(9) a written certification by the Chief Human Capital
Officer of the Department of Homeland Security that human
capital needs of the program are being strategically and
proactively managed, and that current human capital
capabilities are sufficient to execute the plans discussed in
the report.

Border Security Fencing, Infrastructure, and Technology

For expenses for customs and border protection fencing,
infrastructure, and technology, $1,000,000,000, to remain
available until expended: Provided, That of the amount
provided under this heading, $700,000,000 shall not be
obligated until the Committees on Appropriations of the
Senate and the House of Representatives receive and approve a
plan for expenditure, prepared by the Secretary of Homeland
Security and submitted within 60 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, for a program to establish a security
barrier along the borders of the United States of fencing and
vehicle barriers, where practicable, and other forms of
tactical infrastructure and technology, that--
(1) defines activities, milestones, and costs for
implementing the program, including identification of the
maximum investment related to the Secure Border Initiative
network (SBInet) or successor contract, estimation of
lifecycle costs, and description of the methodology used to
obtain these cost figures;
(2) demonstrates how activities will further the objectives
of the Secure Border Initiative (SBI), as defined in the SBI
multi-year strategic plan, and how the plan allocates funding
to the highest priority border security needs;
(3) identifies funding and staffing (including full-time
equivalents, contractors, and detailees) requirements by
activity;
(4) describes how the plan addresses security needs at the
Northern Border and the ports of entry, including
infrastructure, technology, design and operations
requirements;
(5) reports on costs incurred, the activities completed,
and the progress made by the program in terms of obtaining
operational control of the entire border of the United
States;
(6) includes an analysis by the Secretary, for each segment
of fencing or tactical infrastructure, of the selected
approach compared to other, alternative means of achieving
operational control; such analysis should include cost, level
of operational control, possible unintended effects on
communities, and other factors critical to the decision-
making process;
(7) includes a certification by the Chief Procurement
Officer of the Department of Homeland Security that
procedures to prevent conflicts of interest between the prime
integrator and major subcontractors are established and that
the SBI Program Office has adequate staff and resources to
effectively manage the SBI program, SBInet contract, and any
related contracts, including the exercise of technical
oversight, and a certification by the Chief Information
Officer of the Department of Homeland Security that an
independent verification and validation agent is currently
under contract for the projects funded under this heading;
(8) complies with all applicable acquisition rules,
requirements, guidelines, and best systems acquisition
management practices of the Federal Government;
(9) complies with the capital planning and investment
control review requirements established by the Office of
Management and Budget, including Circular A-11, part 7;
(10) is reviewed and approved by the Department of Homeland
Security Investment Review Board, the Secretary of Homeland
Security, and the Office of Management and Budget; and
(11) is reviewed by the Government Accountability Office:

Provided further, That the Secretary shall report to the
Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the House of
Representatives on program progress to date, and specific
objectives to be achieved through the award of current and
remaining task orders planned for the balance of available
appropriations (1) at least 30 days prior to the award of any
task order requiring the obligation in excess of
$100,000,000; and (2) prior to the award of a task order that
would cause cumulative obligations to exceed 50 percent of
the total amount appropriated: Provided further, That of the
funds provided under this heading, not more than $2,000,000
shall be used to reimburse the Defense Acquisition University
for the costs of conducting a review of the SBInet contract
and determining how and whether the Department is employing
the best procurement practices: Provided further, That none
of the funds under this heading may be obligated for fencing
or tactical infrastructure on lands administered by the
National Park Service, the United States Fish and Wildlife
Service, the Forest Service, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, or
the Bureau of Land Management unless the Secretary of
Homeland Security coordinates such decision with that agency,
and makes every effort to minimize impacts on wildlife and
natural resources: Provided further, That none of the funds
under this heading may be obligated for a fencing or tactical
infrastructure project or activity unless the Secretary
formally consults with affected State and local communities
to solicit their advice and support of such project or
activity: Provided further, That no funds under this heading
may be obligated for any project or activity for which the
Secretary has exercised waiver authority pursuant to section
102(c) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant
Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1103 note) until 15 days
have elapsed from the date of the publication of the decision
in the Federal Register.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Carter

Mr. CARTER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Carter:
Page 11, line 25, strike ``: Provided,'' and all that
follows through page 16, line 2, and insert a period.

The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Carter) and the gentleman from North Carolina
(Mr. Price) each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. CARTER. I thank the chairman for recognizing me. I would also
like to

[[Page H6435]]

thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) my colleague, who has
joined me as a cosponsor of this amendment. I am very pleased to thank
the chairman of this subcommittee, who has done a wonderful job on this
bill, and I am very honored to serve with him. I would also like to
thank the ranking member, Mr. Rogers, for all the hard work has done on
this bill.
We all agree, our southern borders are in crisis. We don't want to
create any problems to get our fencing that's authorized and
appropriated for. We don't want to have any interference. This
amendment removes bureaucratic and environmental obstacles that
restrict funding for the construction of the fence on our southern
border.
This amendment strikes a number of restrictions on the border funding
of fencing and tactical infrastructure, including various reporting
requirements attached to funding restrictions, requirements that DHS
must coordinate with Interior agencies to minimize the impact on
wildlife and natural resources, requires DHS must formally consult with
State and local communities and solicit their advice and support of the
projects, ultimately giving them some sort of veto, and restricts the
funding for the use of the Secretary's environmental waiver until the
waiver has been published in the Federal Register for a period of 15
days.
Each one of these things has the potential to slow down or interfere
with or stop the construction of the fence. Bureaucratic hurdles are
not what we are looking for on the southern border. It's protection for
our southern border.
To ask for advice and support gives local communities potential for a
veto. Our border security shouldn't be held hostage to some group like
that. We do consult with the landowners, over 400 have been consulted,
one Governor has been consulted, 60 Governors' assistants have been
consulted. A multitude of city and council officials have been
consulted as border and fencing plans are developed.
We are doing the job. We don't want funding withheld. That's what
this does.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to my colleague from Georgia (Mr. Price).
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I thank Mr. Carter for his leadership on this
issue.
Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this amendment is to prevent further
delay in the construction of border fencing as prescribed in the Secure
Fence Act.
Last Congress, Republicans responded to public opinion and national
need and authorized the creation of more than 700 miles of fence along
the southern border. Instead of providing resources for the border
fencing and surveillance, however, the majority has crafted a lengthy
list of reporting requirements to delay the building of the fence.
One requirement would require the Secretary of Homeland Security to
wait before taking any border security action that warrants the use of
environmental waiver authority. This invites frivolous litigation and
inhibits the Department's ability from addressing vulnerabilities.
Another requirement would require the Secretary of Homeland Security
to solicit local advice and support before constructing infrastructure.
This gives communities veto authority over Federal policy to control
the border, including some sanctuary cities. The American people are
watching Congress and what it is doing on immigration reform.
The American people are looking to trust the Federal Government
again.
The American people are looking to trust the Federal Government again
to live up to its promises and enforce the rule of law. The provisions
of this act undermine the people's trust and signals that it is
business as usual in Washington, that it's not serious about dealing
with our immigration crisis. Many believe that the clear goal of this
bill is not to fund border security. This amendment will go a long way
toward moving us in the right direction.
Mr. CARTER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to
the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I would suggest, as the last speaker said, that if many
people seem to be suggesting that this bill will be doing one thing or
the other, they would actually find it useful to read the bill. In this
case, the relevant language is on page 15 of the bill, and the
requirement says, quite plainly, that in developing these
infrastructure projects, the Secretary is required to ``consult with
affected State and local communities to solicit their advice and
support of such project or activity.'' It's pretty clear that isn't a
veto. It's pretty clear, though, that it is a requirement for serious
consultation.
I must say to the sponsor of the amendment that the mayors of the
border cities of Texas have led the parade in coming to members of the
committee, from both sides of the aisle I am sure, to say that this
kind of attentiveness to local communities and their needs and their
views is essential as this effort moves forward. There is nobody who
was more convincing on that than the mayors from El Paso to Brownsville
to Laredo. We heard from them, and we heard from them very decisively.
The gentleman's amendment would eliminate all requirements for an
expenditure plan for this $1 billion appropriation, as well as all
requirements to consult with affected Federal agencies, and State and
local communities. It would eliminate the requirement to provide a 15-
day advance notice before waiving environmental or other laws that
might otherwise interfere with construction or infrastructure
development.

{time} 2245

Now, I understand some of the gentleman's concerns. But I feel
obligated to point out that the effect of this amendment would be to
give this Department carte blanche to spend these funds as it will,
with no requirements to explain or justify or consult or coordinate.
Now, for 3 days on this floor we've heard railing against the
bureaucracy and the insensitivity of the bureaucracy, and harrowing
descriptions of malfeasance and ineptitude in the bureaucracy. I hope
the irony doesn't escape our colleagues that this amendment would place
full discretion in the hands of those very same bureaucrats to proceed
as they will.
So I object to this amendment because it would simply be an
abdication of responsibility to exercise meaningful oversight. The goal
that all in this Chamber should embrace is realistic but meaningful
progress in getting effective control over our borders.
This amendment would guarantee nothing, I'm afraid, but negative
Inspector General and GA reports for years to come. Besides, the
Department hasn't asked for these requirements to be removed. In fact,
they are quick to assure us that they intend to undertake a
consultation, and this bill simply spells out in more detail what we
expect that consultation to include.
I yield such time as he may consume to my colleague from California
(Mr. Farr) who traveled with us to the southwest border and has some
insight on this.
Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I'm just sorry that my colleague and good
friend wasn't on the border with us, because he would have heard from
the mayors.
And I'm also kind of shocked at the statements here that this is what
the American people want. Who do you think these people along the
border are? They're on our side of the border. They're our communities,
they're our city councils, they're our mayors. And if this were any
other Federal entity coming into your hometown and saying that you
don't have to tell anybody about what you're doing or consult with them
or get any cooperation, you're going to have border failure.
This is the community that supports the homes of the Border Patrol,
supports the children of the families that protect the border, and
you're saying that they, with removing this language, the chairman was
very astute in pointing out that the administration has not asked for
this.
This language does not allow any veto. It allows for a consultation
process. And that's absolutely essential, because if you don't have
that, you're going to have those mayors coming back here and city
council persons and saying, What the hell are you doing building this
without talking to us? We're going to try to stop it. And they'll try
to file lawsuits and things like that.
So if this border is going to work, it's a living border. My
frustration is that we're all paying attention only to one

[[Page H6436]]

side. And I can assure you that meanness and arrogance and just trying
to plow your way through it is not the way to build a secure border.
It's the way to build people that hate the Federal Government.
Mr. CARTER. To my colleagues whom I highly respect, let me say this:
I'm concerned about the part about withholding funds as we consult.
I agree that we should consult. I do not agree that they have to
support it. And the question I would raise is, what happens if they
don't? Do we then not build the fence that the Border Patrol in Laredo,
Texas, told me they had to have to survive? So that's the secret word
that I'm concerned about.
Consult, I'm all for. But if they vote 4-3 on the city council not to
do it, then what happens to the funds? What happens to the fence?
On the issue of wildlife in Texas, we have wildlife-proof fences in
south Texas on literally every ranch there because, quite frankly, the
deer on those ranches are very expensive and they protect them. And
already we are providing water gaps for those whose cattle graze in the
Rio Grande.
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.
Mr. CARTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. CARTER. Chairman Price, in Texas, it's my understanding that over
400 landowners have already been consulted. The Governor of the State
has been consulted. Sixty of the Governors, Homeland Security advisers
in our State and other States have been consulted. Thirty-five city
mayors and county judges have been consulted. Twenty-eight local
sheriffs have been consulted, and seven town hall-type meetings have
been held to discuss the border.
We are a part of the country where private property borders Mexico
from Brownsville all the way to El Paso. And so we are very, very aware
of private property rights and the rights of our cities, and we are
consulting with them.
My concern is the withholding, the stall or withholding of funds when
the process is already in place. We've already been working with our
landowners on wildlife. And the environmental concerns, should we hold
back our homeland security because of a fear that trial lawyers are
going to file frivolous lawsuits to try to stall this fence on
environmental concerns?
I think we need to take a hard look at what our goal is. And, quite
frankly, our goal is to secure the people of the United States along
the border and protect our borders from incursions.
Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman yield?
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Bilbray).
Mr. BILBRAY. My dear colleague from California, we've worked on
environmental issues. I was a border mayor. I saw groups that were
trying to use environmental regulations to stop the construction of the
border fence in San Diego when the fence ended up being the best
benefit to the protection of the environment, and the use of
environmental issues as an excuse to stop the fence.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I hadn't intended to speak on this matter until I heard
my friend from Kentucky refer to certain words in the language that
would be stricken by this amendment as being ``frivolous.'' Let me tell
you what he apparently considers frivolous to be.
The language reads as follows: ``Provided further that none of the
funds under this heading may be obligated for fencing or tactical
infrastructure project or activity unless the Secretary formally
consults with affected State and local communities to solicit their
advice and support of such project or activity.''
Isn't that a terrible thing to do? Can you imagine the Congress of
the United States, in all of its imperial wisdom, having the temerity
to allow someone else besides all-knowing Members of Congress to
comment before the Secretary proceeds with the activity outlined on
this page?
I thought that people in this Congress had the feeling that local
people ought to have a say in what happens. I did not realize that the
new motto of the minority party, of the Republican party was: ``Only
the Feds know.''
Now, in another appropriation bill, with respect to energy, we had
the issue of whether or not local governments should be consulted
before the Federal Government imposed the route for a power line which
would run through the property of private property owners, run through
farms, run through homes of the elderly. And the question was whether
or not those folks would have some say, and whether the State
government would have some say, or whether all-knowing Uncle Sam would
impose its judgment.
What an incredible confession of arrogance. What an incredible
confession that ``I know better than anybody else''. You might. But the
language you're striking simply says that we should formally consult
other levels of government before a unilateral decision is required of
the Secretary.
I think the language speaks for itself. This amendment is incredibly
arrogant, and I would suggest a ``no'' vote on the amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Carter).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the
noes appeared to have it.
Mr. CARTER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas will
be postponed.

Amendment No. 16 Offered by Mr. Conaway

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 16 offered by Mr. Conaway:
Page 11, line 24, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced
by $5,000,000) (increased by $5,000,000)''.

____________________