[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)''.

  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. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an 
amendment to grant additional funding to the Inspector General's office 
so that they may enforce section 8 and small disadvantaged business 
contracts at the Department of Homeland Security.

[[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)''.





     

                          ____________________