[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 96 (Thursday, June 14, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H6443-H6474]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

[[Page H6443]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

                        House of Representatives

  DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2008--Continued

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate being able to offer this 
amendment tonight. What I would like to do is establish the legislative 
history for a pilot project that would help eradicate a tactical cover 
along the Rio Grande.
  My amendment simply adds $5 million to title II and subtracts $5 
million from title II, but would take $5 million from the environmental 
regulatory assessments funding, which would lower that back to what the 
President requested.

                              {time}  2300

  The Border Patrol would use this money to create a pilot project to 
eliminate, eradicate, noxious, invasive species of weeds along the Rio 
Grande. The Rio Grande creates the border between the Republic of 
Texas, United States, and Mexico; and many long stretches are inundated 
with a noxious weed such as Russian olive and salt cedar. These weeds 
can grow from 10 to 15 feet in height. They provide excellent tactical 
cover for anyone trying to sneak across the border, or in what is on 
this side of the United States, stage in ways that our Border Patrol 
agents can't see them.
  I have spoken with leadership of the Border Patrol, along with former 
sector chief Simon Garza for the Marfa sector in relation to this 
project, and it is an idea that they would support if they were able to 
get funding for that.
  This is a win on two different levels. One, it would eliminate this 
tactical cover that the folks trying to sneak across could use, and it 
would make our cameras and UAVs much more effective because of the loss 
of that cover. But it would also have a conservation issue in that 
these weeds, such as the salt cedar, will use up to 200 gallons of 
water a day. If these weeds were eliminated along the Rio Grande, that 
would put additional water in the Rio Grande, which would of course 
make that much better of a barrier to folks trying to sneak into this 
country.
  The safety of our Border Patrol would be improved as they walk up and 
approach the river. If this cover was eliminated, they would be able to 
see what was going on along our border to better do their job.
  This amendment would also ask or require that the Border Patrol 
report on how they spent the money and whether or not this is a program 
that they would want to pursue going forward.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CONAWAY. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman has 
offered a very thoughtful amendment. I think it is worthwhile, and I 
would like to add my name to it and support it.
  Mr. CONAWAY. Thank you, sir.
  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 want to thank the gentleman for a very useful 
amendment. The amendment would shift some funding around in ways that I 
think are well justified. It would apply $5 million to study the 
eradication of invasive cover species such as Cariso cane, Russian 
olive trees, salt cedar. It is a well-crafted amendment and I am happy 
to support it.
  Mr. CONAWAY. I accept that.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Ross). The question is on the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


 air and marine interdiction, operations, maintenance, and procurement

       For necessary expenses for the operations, maintenance, and 
     procurement of marine vessels, aircraft, unmanned aircraft 
     systems, and other related equipment of the air and marine 
     program, including operational training and mission-related 
     travel, and rental payments for facilities occupied by the 
     air or marine interdiction and demand reduction programs, the 
     operations of which include the following: the interdiction 
     of narcotics and other goods; the provision of support to 
     Federal, State, and local agencies in the enforcement or 
     administration of laws enforced by the Department of Homeland 
     Security; and at the discretion of the Secretary of Homeland 
     Security, the provision of assistance to Federal, State, and 
     local agencies in other law enforcement and emergency 
     humanitarian efforts, $477,287,000, to remain available until 
     expended: Provided, That no aircraft or other related 
     equipment, except aircraft that are one-of-a-kind and have 
     been identified as excess to United States Customs and Border 
     Protection requirements and aircraft that have been damaged 
     beyond repair, shall be transferred to any other Federal 
     agency, department, or office outside of the Department of 
     Homeland Security during fiscal year 2008 without the prior 
     approval of the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate 
     and the House of Representatives: Provided further, That none 
     of the funds under this heading may be obligated for 
     procurement of additional unmanned aerial systems until the 
     Commissioner of United States Customs and Border Protection 
     certifies to the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate 
     and House of Representatives that they are of higher priority 
     and more cost effective than other items included in the Air 
     and Marine Strategic Recapitalization and Modernization plan.


                Amendment No. 106 Offered by Mr. Souder

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

[[Page H6444]]

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

       Amendment No. 106 offered by Mr. Souder:
       Page 16, line 20, strike ``Provided, That no aircraft'' and 
     insert ``Provided further, That no aircraft''.
       Page 16, line 20, insert after the colon the following: 
     ``Provided, That of the amount made available under this 
     heading, $100,000,000 may not be obligated until Congress 
     receives a report detailing the number of requests United 
     States Customs and Border Protection receives for use of air 
     and marine assets by United States Immigration and Customs 
     Enforcement and other Federal, State, and local agencies and 
     the number of such requests that are denied:''.

  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on 
the gentleman's amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3\1/2\ minutes.
  Ever since we created the Department of Homeland Security, we have 
had a problem of what to do with our air assets.
  This amendment would hold $100 million from the Customs and Border 
Protection, CBP, Air and Marine interdiction, operations, maintenance, 
and procurement account until a report is received detailing the number 
of requests CBP receives from the use of assets and the number of those 
requests that are denied.
  One of the problems we had when we, in effect, set up ICE and CBP was 
to to do with the division called Air and Marine. Air and Marine 
Division did not stay parked right along the border. The Air and Marine 
Division has assets down in Colombia. They have assets in the 
Caribbean, assets in the Eastern Pacific, assets at various points, 
because the whole point of the Air and Marine Division was both with 
boats and air to be able to follow in particular drug traffickers, 
other traffickers of contraband in high value or mass targets in the 
sense of illegal immigration or of terrorism.
  But when we put the air assets underneath CBP and they put them under 
Border Patrol, the nature of what we were doing with our Air and Marine 
assets have fundamentally changed.
  As the now ranking member of the Border Subcommittee and a member of 
the Homeland Security Committee since its creation, I have spent a lot 
of time on this issue, as well as being head of Speaker Hastert's drug 
task force. I have spent my entire career working on narcotics issues. 
This has been a huge issue. In particular, one of our problems right 
now is that many, if not all, of the critical assets are now more or 
less chained to the border; that one of the P-3s, which are critical 
for long-range surveillance, right now, because of their usage, and it 
hasn't been made a priority because the maintenance is going to the 
helicopters along the border, all 16, and let me repeat, all 16 air 
assets that are supposed to be used in counternarcotics are now down 
for serious maintenance, leaving the counterdrug mission severely 
impacted. And if we can't work out to some degree over in the Florida 
and the Gulf of Mexico range, they fixed this short term by having 
legacy Air and Marine or Customs pilots be the regional Border Patrol 
people and managing their assets. But along the border, we don't have 
that luxury.
  We have been trying in the authorizing committee for some time to get 
a report from the agency, and I have spent hours with the relevant 
people in my office, as well as questioning at hearings, trying to get 
the data of how exactly they are using these assets. What are they 
denying? ICE can't get the assets to do the big-risk things. This has 
been one of the historic conflicts between these agencies.
  I support a picket fence. We need to have a border fence. But you 
also have to have the ability to go behind and forward and track and 
take down systems. And Air and Marine is a critical part of this, and 
we need this report. And I hope that if we can't work this out tonight, 
that it can be worked out in conference committee, because this must be 
resolved.
  May I inquire of the chairman of the subcommittee for a brief, 
informal colloquy here, would you be willing to continue to work with 
me on this subject and with the Department of Homeland Security, 
because it is very critical to how we are going to do counternarcotics 
and high-risk terrorism and how CBP is going to work with ICE in 
resolving the Air and Marine issue?
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SOUDER. I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
raising this issue. And I am, of course, willing to work with him on 
this.
  I do not believe the withholding of the $100 million is necessary or 
desirable in this case. But I believe we need to get the confirmation 
that you are talking about from CBP, and I am not eager to delay the 
release of needed funds, but I certainly am willing to work with the 
gentleman to make certain that we get the information we need and the 
confirmation that we need that the agency is on track.
  Mr. SOUDER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman, 
and with that assurance, I am not really anxious to hold up any money 
in this bill either. But I would like them to be accountable to 
Congress because they have not resolved how they are going to move and 
deal with Air and Marine assets related to ICE and investigations. They 
sometimes have even sent helicopters where we needed a P-3. This just 
isn't functioning, and narcotics terrorism is ripping up this country. 
We have 20,000 to 30,000 deaths a year. And if we have loads of cocaine 
coming in, loads of heroin coming into our society, because we have got 
all our planes lined up on the border and our P-3s down, it will not 
function. And with your assurance that you will continue to work with 
this, watch this, and we continue to talk about it between the 
authorizing and the appropriators, I will be happy to withdraw my 
amendment tonight.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SOUDER. I will yield.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. It is my expectation that CBP Air and 
Marine with enormous aviation and maritime operations, they should have 
as one of their priority missions supporting the investigative or other 
DHS agencies, in particular ICE. That was done by the legacy Air and 
Marine arm of the old Customs Service, and it should not decline.
  So I appreciate the gentleman's raising the matter. I am happy to 
work with him to further the issue he has raised.
  Mr. SOUDER. Thank you.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Indiana?
  There was no objection.


            Amendment No. 98 Offered by Mr. McCaul of Texas

  Mr. McCAUL of Texas. 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. 98 offered by Mr. McCaul of Texas:
       Page 17, strike the proviso beginning on line 2.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. McCaul) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. McCAUL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 2638, as currently written, 
prohibits the use of funds for additional unmanned aerial vehicles, or 
UAVs, until the Customs and Border Patrol informs the House and Senate 
Appropriations Committees that their use is cost-effective. I submit 
today that they are worth every penny. My amendment would strike that 
provision which would otherwise be protected by the rule.
  These eyes of the sky bring exceptional operational capabilities to 
the table. They can stay airborne for 30 to 40 hours and can carry 
state-of-the-art technology through day and night cameras, radar 
tracking systems, and other surveillance tools.
  UAVs working the borders have flown over 2,000 hours and aided in the 
arrests of nearly 3,900 illegal immigrants and the seizure of over 
13,000 pounds of marijuana.

[[Page H6445]]

  UAVs are not in sufficient quantities to provide economies of scale 
and, as such, will always be more expensive to operate than a pilot in 
a small aircraft. But, Mr. Chairman, cost is not the only 
consideration.
  On March 20, 2007, a UAV detected and tracked six illegal aliens 
trying to cross the southern border. When border officials arrived on 
the scene, they seized 395 pounds of marijuana and arrested all six. 
Among the six was a fugitive wanted in Kings County, Washington, on 
charges of third-degree rape of a child.
  We should be providing our border authorities with more technology 
and tools. We talked a lot about the fence but this is the technology 
piece. More technology and tools, not less. Had a UAV not detected the 
entry of those illegal immigrants, how many more children may have been 
victimized by sexual predators?
  I think this is an important piece to our overall security of the 
border, and I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of my amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, this is an issue that came up when our 
committee traveled to the border and had discussions with the Border 
Patrol. And what you are talking about here is striking language that 
gives some ability for comparing the expenditure of costs on one piece 
of intelligence equipment versus the other. And what the gentleman 
didn't tell you is that of all the assets on the border, this is the 
most expensive, $10 million, $8 to $10 million per unmanned vehicle. 
The other assets that are on the border, which everybody agreed was 
much more effective, is the new radar system, which costs about 
$700,000, that are portable.
  We have others. We have balloons. We have helicopters. We have as 
many assets looking at the border as there are in Iraq. And what the 
language in the bill says is that before you go out and just buy more 
Predators at 8 million bucks, there is already $50 million in the 
account and we want to know before you spend that whether it is cost-
effective compared to other issues that you have to do.
  You have on the border not only the Customs and Border Patrol, and I 
would submit that the arrests were not made by that unmanned vehicle, 
and I don't think that was the only system they used to discover that. 
It was just one. It happened to be a very, very expensive one. The 
radar systems are the most effective. The most effective. And you have 
responding to that Customs and Border Patrol that are in aircraft, in 
different kinds of helicopters, including Black Hawk helicopters, you 
have all-terrain vehicles, you have Border Patrol on horseback, you 
have Border Patrol with SUVs, with four-wheel-drive vehicles. You have 
all kinds of response mechanisms and all kinds of detection mechanisms.
  But to suggest that we shouldn't even ask the question of whether an 
$8 million expense is more cost-effective than another kind of assets, 
I think, is just ridiculous.
  And, frankly, that is one thing the committee found out, that there 
isn't all the money you always want to spend on everything here. There 
have got to be some priorities. And if you have made the priority that 
of the Customs and Border Patrol, this is not what they would spend it 
on.

                              {time}  2315

  So I think the amendment and the language in the bill is particularly 
appropriate. It doesn't prohibit the expenditures. It just says before 
you come back and spend up to another $8 billion, compare this to what 
other assets you can buy, and you make the suggestion to us as to what 
is the best expenditure of limited public funds.
  Mr. McCAUL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas has 2\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. McCAUL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, let me simply just say we 
obviously do not have enough manpower down at the border. These ``eyes 
in the skies,'' as we call them, provide the surveillance technology 
that is just absolutely critical to surveilling the border to stop this 
flood of illegal immigration and potential terrorism.
  Mr. Chairman, with that, I would yield the remainder of my time to 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray).
  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, I find it hard to believe my dear 
colleague from California can really believe that an unmanned 
observation platform like the Predator is not more cost effective than 
having a rotor wing with twin crews that have to switch off at least 
every 6 hours. Where you are able to do an unmanned observation, you 
can switch off crews while they're on site. You don't have to take the 
vehicles off station to be able to do the transformation from one crew 
to the other.
  And I don't know what data, where you're getting the saying that the 
unmanned vehicle is somehow not as cost effective as having rotor-
winged manned vehicles on site in very remote areas. It just doesn't 
pencil out. This is the same kind of argument we heard 5 years ago in 
the military saying unmanned vehicles would never work in some place 
like Afghanistan, where you and I know the great hero of the Afghan war 
was the Predator. So I've just got to say sincerely, you've been in 
government long enough to understand that putting a rotor wing, a major 
helicopter up with two individuals to do aerial observations compared 
to an unmanned vehicle that has proven its technology over time and 
time again, that is able to stay on station, and this is one key along 
the border that most people won't talk about, they are able to stay on 
station so that the smugglers don't know when they're coming off 
station to switch crews to go down. A crew actually switches in the 
trailer on site. One guy says, you've got it now, Joe, I have it now, 
and the smugglers never know when you're going through. And to do the 
same kind of test to your manned vehicles and other aerial observations 
that you are proposing for this technology, this technology is the 
greatest success in the world.
  Mr. FARR. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BILBRAY. I will yield.
  Mr. FARR. First of all, the Predator has to be monitored. There is 
manpower on the Predator. And as I recall, there are three people that 
it takes to fly it.
  But that's not the issue of this, because you would have money to buy 
Predators. All it says is that the same people that operate them, 
Customs and Border Patrol, that this isn't a high priority for them. 
That is all it says.
  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 is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I am happy to yield such time as he 
needs to Mr. Farr to complete his argument.
  Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, the language is that the very people that are 
operating these vehicles, the Customs and Border Patrol, certify that 
these are the higher priority and the more cost effective than other 
items included in the Air and Marine Strategic Recapitalization and 
Modernization plan. It puts the burden on them. If this is what they 
think is the most cost effective, fine. It doesn't block it; it just 
says do that analysis.
  I am really just surprised, because I sat here all these days and 
just heard riling after riling, people getting up on the other side 
talking about money, and we need to be very conscientious about how we 
spend money. There is language in there that says, Customs and Border 
Patrol, you certify that this is a high priority for you and it's cost 
effective. What's wrong with that? Why do you want to strike that 
language? It doesn't make any sense at all.
  Mr. BILBRAY. Would the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I would be happy to yield.
  Mr. BILBRAY. You and I have both operated in local and State 
government and we've worked on this. If you really think that you 
should place that kind of condition on one technology that is a proven 
technology that even the military originally did not think was going to 
be cost effective and which

[[Page H6446]]

now admits that they were wrong to underestimate the cost effectiveness 
of, the fact is, why apply it to this technology and not apply that 
condition to every other application along here?
  The fact is, this technology has been the breakthrough that has 
shocked the world. And it is absolutely astonishing that we would pick 
out the hero and the technology that opened the eyes to the fact that 
remote technology was a great break through for effectiveness and cost 
effectiveness. Why would you back off from the fact of doing that and 
not apply to every other technology going except for this one?
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I'm happy to yield to Mr. Farr.
  Mr. FARR. Because as the gentleman knows, this is an almost $10 
million per cost item. And you know what? The one we had crashed, and 
the other one we have is about to be delivered. And there is $50 
million in the account. If they want to come back and use that $50 
million to buy more of them, that's what we are asking. You tell us 
what is the most cost-effective use. Frankly, and I wish you were 
there, the new equipment that is coming out, this technology on radar, 
for 100 miles can detect when even rabbits are crossing the border. 
It's very cost effective. The Border Patrol is very excited about it. 
They would like to have more, but they can't because they're spending 
money like this.
  So, with all due respect, these are professionals that are on the job 
every single day, you want to let them tell you what they think is the 
most effective tool to do their job. That is all this language does. I 
don't know why you would oppose that.
  Mr. BILBRAY. Would the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. BILBRAY. I appreciate your concern. But again, I come back to the 
fact that you do not place the same condition on the other 
technologies. And if you want to do this, then let's talk about it 
through the entire technologies, that we are not going to apply that. 
And the fact is, history has proven, and even though you may not like 
to admit it, the things like the fence in San Diego that some people 
thought wouldn't work and the so-called experts said wouldn't work have 
worked extraordinarily well because we gave it a chance to work before 
we started cutting it off. And that is exactly what we are seeing here. 
This is a technology that has proven itself around the world, but you 
don't want to give it a chance to prove itself along our national 
frontier.
  Mr. FARR. Don't read in this language what isn't there. That's not 
what it is about.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, let me 
say to the gentleman from California that this language, I think, could 
be widely applied. If he has items he wishes to apply to it, he should 
propose that. We are asking simply for a determination that these items 
are of higher priority and more cost effective than other items 
included in the Air and Marine Strategic Recapitalization and 
Modernization plan.
  We focused on this system because there are particular challenges 
here. But as Mr. Farr says, it is just a basic principle of good 
responsible government.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's time has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. McCaul).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. McCAUL of Texas. 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.
  If there are no further amendments to this paragraph, the Clerk will 
read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


                              construction

       For necessary expenses to plan, construct, renovate, equip, 
     and maintain buildings and facilities necessary for the 
     administration and enforcement of the laws relating to 
     customs and immigration, $249,663,000, to remain available 
     until expended.

           United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses for enforcement of immigration and 
     customs laws, detention and removals, and investigations; and 
     purchase and lease of up to 3,790 (2,350 for replacement 
     only) police-type vehicles; $4,146,300,000, of which not to 
     exceed $10,000,000 shall be available until expended for 
     conducting special operations under section 3131 of the 
     Customs Enforcement Act of 1986 (19 U.S.C. 2081); of which 
     not to exceed $15,000 shall be for official reception and 
     representation expenses; 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; and of which not to exceed $11,216,000 
     shall be available to fund or reimburse other Federal 
     agencies for the costs associated with the care, maintenance, 
     and repatriation of smuggled illegal aliens: Provided, That 
     none of the funds made available under this heading shall be 
     available to compensate any employee for overtime in an 
     annual amount in excess of $35,000, except that the Secretary 
     of Homeland Security, or a designee of the Secretary, may 
     waive that amount as necessary for national security purposes 
     and in cases of immigration emergencies: Provided further, 
     That of the total amount provided, $15,770,000 shall be for 
     activities to enforce laws against forced child labor in 
     fiscal year 2008, of which not to exceed $6,000,000 shall 
     remain available until expended: Provided further, That at 
     least once per month the Secretary of Homeland Security or a 
     designee of the Secretary shall obtain information from every 
     prison, jail, and correctional facility in the United States 
     to identify incarcerated aliens who may be deportable and 
     make every reasonable effort to remove such aliens judged 
     deportable upon their release from custody.


             Amendment No. 105 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. 105 offered by Mr. King of Iowa:
       Page 17, line 23, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $5,000,000) (increased by $5,000,000)''.

  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, my amendment strikes $5 million and 
puts it back in. It is directed to encourage the promotion of the Basic 
Pilot Program.
  We have had a number of hearings on this in the subject matter that 
has come before the Immigration Subcommittee of which I am the ranking 
member. And the statistics on that look very encouraging to the 
effectiveness of the Basic Pilot Program, the Employment Verification 
Program, if you will, or I will call it the ``Instant Check Program.''
  What that program does is it allows an employer to take the 
information off the I-9 document from an employee applicant and 
introduces that into an Internet page, where that Internet goes off and 
checks the database of the Social Security Administration and the 
Department of Homeland Security and comes back and verifies if you have 
the documents before you and the information from the documents that 
ensure that that is a legal applicant, at least the documents from a 
legal applicant.
  What we have seen is that 98.6 percent of the legal applicants are 
approved in the first try. And when they have to go back and clean up 
their records a little bit, you get to well over 99 percent accuracy 
within the Basic Pilot Program, and yet we don't have enough employers 
that are using it.
  This has been the substance of many of the proposals for 
Comprehensive Immigration Reform on how we are going to hold employers 
accountable and how they are going to verify that the applicants before 
them are applying with real documents and if those documents identify 
real people that are lawful to work in the United States.
  And so as much success as we have had with this, I want to ensure 
that we have the Department of Homeland Security promoting the Basic 
Pilot Program. They have the dollars in their budget to do that. This 
just commits those dollars and dedicates $5 million to promotion of the 
Basic Pilot Program.
  I will say that I have this program. I have run it myself. I have 
tried to fool it, everything I could do. The longest

[[Page H6447]]

delay I could create was 6 seconds on an applicant, and the error rate, 
of course, is minimal.
  I would add that if we have flaws in our database, it isn't 
necessarily a problem with the Basic Pilot Program. It may well be that 
the Social Security Administration records are wrong, or the Department 
of Homeland Security criminal records in the NCIC perhaps need to be 
corrected. So the only way that I can see that you can complete that 
narrow area, that less than 1 percent that are flawed, is to use the 
program. If you use the program, you clean up the mistakes.
  That is what this amendment does, Mr. Chairman, is it directs $5 
million and encourages the Department of Homeland Security to promote 
the Basic Pilot Program. And this has been something that has been 
consistent with those that promote the Comprehensive Immigration Reform 
plan, as well as those of us who believe we should do enforcement 
first.
  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 mainly am confused about exactly what the gentleman is proposing 
and would like to try to clarify it if I might.
  The effort here is to attempt to carve out $5 million for the ICE 
Mutual Agreement Between Government Employers Program, which he is, I 
believe, confusing with the Basic Pilot Program. ICE does not 
administer the Basic Pilot Program. The bill already includes $30 
million for CIS to carry out Basic Pilot.
  And it is indeed a well-regarded program to do exactly the same thing 
as the gentleman is describing here. But I don't understand the 
rationale for carving $5 million out of the ICE budget for a program 
that, as I understand it, would be totally duplicative. So maybe you 
can clarify.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. I appreciate the gentleman yielding.
  This is actually an amendment that I offered a previous year or two. 
And I don't recall if it was successful or not, I actually think it 
was, but I can't speak to that factually here tonight. But I can say 
that since ICE has the authority to go in and enforce on the work site, 
and they do do that, that also puts them in a position, in their 
cooperative effort with employers, to be able to use these resources to 
promote the Employment Verification Program, or the Basic Pilot 
Program, within the auspices of their regular enforcement, where they 
are interrelating with the employers on the work site.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I'm sorry. I believe the gentleman is 
mistaken about the bureaucratic location of the Basic Pilot Program.
  The concern he expresses is certainly a legitimate one. Given the 
fact that we may be talking about duplicative efforts here, though, 
could I suggest that the amendment be withdrawn and we work with him as 
we go to conference to see how we might accommodate his concerns.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I will yield.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. I appreciate the privilege to make another point, 
and that is that I believe that since we have ICE working all across 
this country, working with many of the employers, that the knowledge 
base and the promotion of Basic Pilot would be something that would be 
mobile and portable and flexible.

                              {time}  2330

  Since it is an Internet-based program, all of these employers, at 
least the larger employers, have computers and Internet access. So the 
flexibility of this and the mobility of it I think is clear. The 
message that comes from this I don't think constrains ICE, but 
encourages them to do something I think they should be doing as part of 
their overall process.
  I would encourage the chairman to consider my remarks in his 
response.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, is the gentleman saying he 
is willing to withdraw the amendment?
  Mr. KING of Iowa. The gentleman believes that this is a well thought 
out and constructive amendment, and although I appreciate the sentiment 
of the chairman, I would be reluctant to withdraw the amendment.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I can 
understand the need for flexibility and for these programs not to be in 
totally separate spheres, but I just have to say that CIS administers 
the Basic Pilot Program. It can't be in two agencies. The bill has $30 
million for this purpose. I simply do not, cannot, grasp the rationale 
for carving $5 million out of the ICE budget for the same purpose. 
There does seem to be confusion here. That is why I am offering to take 
the concern forward and suggesting the amendment be withdrawn.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. If the gentleman will yield further, I hope I have 
made my point that ICE is in a position to enforce. They are hands-on 
with the employers in the work site, and that is where the utilization 
of Basic Pilot takes place. I believe it is incumbent upon this 
Congress to encourage that ICE incorporates the promotion and education 
of this as part of the work that they do as they interrelate with the 
employers. Not just go in and raid and lock people up and haul them 
off, but to help work so employers can have confidence.
  If we leave this strictly within USCIS, they are not out into the 
employer workforce. They don't have that access to employers in the 
fashion that ICE does.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, Basic 
Pilot is a program which lets employers check the employment status of 
people they are hiring. It is not an enforcement program, and it can't 
be located in two agencies. So I have no choice but to oppose the 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman 
from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Iowa, and I 
do rise to support his amendment.
  As a point of clarification, I think the gentleman from Iowa, who has 
worked in the business world and has dealt with ICE on employment 
issues, has such a good understanding of how this works. To the 
esteemed chairman from North Carolina, who has spent much of his life 
in academia, I think that what we have got is apples and oranges and 
what we need to do is pull it together.
  Having trained people with ICE who are in the field, who actually 
would help encourage employers to use this program, it is an important 
part of internal enforcement for our employers, knowing how to use it, 
having that tool to be certain that they know how to use the Basic 
Pilot Program, to be certain that individuals who are going to work for 
them are indeed who they say they are and that they are in the country 
legally. That is important for employers. It is an important tool for 
having immigration enforcement in this country.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, moving forward in my last minute in 
conclusion, I just want to emphasize that ICE is out there in the field 
and they are dealing with employers on a daily basis face-to-face. 
USCIS is a stationary operation and they operate out of their offices 
wherever they might be located with the databases they have and the 
access that they have to the information. But USCIS wouldn't be in a 
position to come out and promote Basic Pilot on a face-to-face basis 
with employers.
  I would say the only entity out there that has better capability of 
interacting with employers, other than ICE, would be the IRS. It may be 
a good idea for us at some point to take up the idea of eliminating the 
tax deductibility of wages and benefits paid to illegals and let the 
IRS help with this enforcement.
  But what this amendment does is it encourages and directs that ICE go 
out and interact with the employers and promote with $5 million the 
utilization of the Basic Pilot Program.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge the adoption of the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

[[Page H6448]]

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa will be 
postponed.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. If there are no further amendments to this 
paragraph, the Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


                       federal protective service

       The revenues and collections of security fees credited to 
     this account shall be available until expended for necessary 
     expenses related to the protection of federally-owned and 
     leased buildings and for the operations of the Federal 
     Protective Service: Provided, That none of the funds provided 
     in this or any other Act, and none of the revenues or 
     collections of security fees credited to this account, may be 
     obligated for any activity that reduces the number of in-
     service Federal Protective Service police officers below the 
     number of such officers as of October 1, 2006, unless--
       (1) the Director of the Federal Protective Service provides 
     to the head of the relevant lead State and local law 
     enforcement agencies for the jurisdiction concerned a report 
     on the number and type of cases handled by the Federal 
     Protective Service police in that jurisdiction for the 
     previous two fiscal years;
       (2) the Director of the Federal Protective Service 
     negotiates a Memorandum of Agreement with the head of each 
     relevant State and local law enforcement agency for the 
     jurisdiction concerned that explains how the work identified 
     in the report described in section (1) will be addressed in 
     the future; and
       (3) the Director of the Federal Protective Service submits 
     copies of each report under paragraph (1) and each memorandum 
     under paragraph (2) to the Committees on Appropriations of 
     the Senate and the House of Representatives by not later than 
     15 days before the number of in-service Federal Protective 
     Service police officers is reduced for the concerned 
     jurisdiction.


                        Automation Modernization

       For expenses of immigration and customs enforcement 
     automated systems, $30,700,000, to remain available until 
     expended: Provided, That none of the funds made available 
     under this heading may 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 that--
       (1) meets the capital planning and investment control 
     review requirements established by the Office of Management 
     and Budget, including Circular A-11, part 7;
       (2) complies with the Department of Homeland Security 
     information systems enterprise architecture;
       (3) complies with the acquisition rules, requirements, 
     guidelines, and systems acquisition management practices of 
     the Federal Government;
       (4) includes 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 project;
       (5) 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
       (6) is reviewed by the Government Accountability Office.


                              construction

       For necessary expenses to plan, construct, renovate, equip, 
     and maintain buildings and facilities necessary for the 
     administration and enforcement of the laws relating to 
     customs and immigration, $6,000,000, to remain available 
     until expended: Provided, That none of the funds made 
     available in this or any other Act may be used to solicit or 
     consider any request to privatize facilities currently owned 
     by the United States Government and used to detain illegal 
     aliens until the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate 
     and the House of Representatives receive and approve a plan 
     for carrying out that privatization.

                 Transportation Security Administration


                           aviation security

       For necessary expenses of the Transportation Security 
     Administration related to providing civil aviation security 
     services pursuant to the Aviation and Transportation Security 
     Act (Public Law 107-71; 115 Stat. 597; 49 U.S.C. 40101 note), 
     $5,198,535,000, to remain available until September 30, 2009, 
     of which not to exceed $10,000 shall be for official 
     reception and representation expenses: Provided, That of the 
     total amount made available under this heading, not to exceed 
     $4,218,194,000 shall be for screening operations, of which 
     $560,000,000 shall be available only for procurement and 
     installation of checked baggage explosive detection systems; 
     and not to exceed $980,116,000 shall be for aviation security 
     direction and enforcement: Provided further, That security 
     service fees authorized under section 44940 of title 49, 
     United States Code, shall be credited to this appropriation 
     as offsetting collections and shall be available only for 
     aviation security: Provided further, That the sum 
     appropriated under this heading from the General Fund shall 
     be reduced on a dollar-for-dollar basis as such offsetting 
     collections are received during fiscal year 2008, so as to 
     result in a final fiscal year appropriation from the General 
     Fund estimated at not more than $2,488,310,000: Provided 
     further, That any security service fees collected in excess 
     of the amount made available under this heading shall become 
     available during fiscal year 2009.


                    surface transportation security

       For necessary expenses of the Transportation Security 
     Administration related to providing surface transportation 
     security activities, $41,413,000, to remain available until 
     September 30, 2009.


           transportation threat assessment and credentialing

       For necessary expenses for the development and 
     implementation of screening programs of the Office of 
     Transportation Threat Assessment and Credentialing, 
     $49,490,000, to remain available until September 30, 2009: 
     Provided, That if the Assistant Secretary of Homeland 
     Security (Transportation Security Administration) determines 
     that the Secure Flight program does not need to check airline 
     passenger names against the full terrorist watch list, then 
     the Assistant Secretary shall certify to the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the Senate and the House of Representatives 
     that no security risks are raised by screening airline 
     passenger names only against a subset of the full terrorist 
     watch list.


                    transportation security support

       For necessary expenses of the Transportation Security 
     Administration related to providing transportation security 
     support and intelligence pursuant to the Aviation and 
     Transportation Security Act (Public Law 107-71; 115 Stat. 
     597; 49 U.S.C. 40101 note), $526,615,000, to remain available 
     until September 30, 2009: Provided, That the Secretary of 
     Homeland Security shall submit to the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the Senate and the House of Representatives 
     no later than 60 days after the date of enactment of this Act 
     a detailed expenditure plan for checkpoint support and 
     explosive detection systems refurbishment, procurement, and 
     installations on an airport-by-airport basis for fiscal year 
     2008: Provided, further, That notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, the acquisition management system shall be 
     subject to the provisions of the Small Business Act (15 
     U.S.C. 631 et seq.).


                          federal air marshals

       For necessary expenses of the Federal Air Marshals, 
     $722,000,000.

                              Coast Guard


                           operating expenses

       For necessary expenses for the operation and maintenance of 
     the Coast Guard not otherwise provided for; purchase or lease 
     of not to exceed 25 passenger motor vehicles, which shall be 
     for replacement only; payments pursuant to section 156 of 
     Public Law 97-377 (42 U.S.C. 402 note; 96 Stat. 1920); and 
     recreation and welfare; $5,885,242,000, of which $340,000,000 
     shall be for defense-related activities; of which $24,500,000 
     shall be derived from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund to 
     carry out the purposes of section 1012(a)(5) of the Oil 
     Pollution Act of 1990 (33 U.S.C. 2712(a)(5)); and of which 
     not to exceed $20,000 shall be for official reception and 
     representation expenses: Provided, That none of the funds 
     made available by this or any other Act shall be available 
     for administrative expenses in connection with shipping 
     commissioners in the United States: Provided further, That 
     none of the funds made available by this Act shall be for 
     expenses incurred for yacht documentation under section 12114 
     of title 46, United States Code, except to the extent fees 
     are collected from yacht owners and credited to this 
     appropriation.


                Amendment No. 107 Offered by Mr. Souder

  Mr. SOUDER. 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. 107 offered by Mr. Souder:
       Page 25, line 3, after the first dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $21,500,000)''.
       Page 31, line 13, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $8,000,000)''.
       Page 26, line 10, after the first dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $29,500,000)''.
       Page 26, line 22, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $29,500,000)''.
       Page 26, line 25, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $29,500,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder) and the gentleman from North 
Carolina (Mr. Price) each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment in effect transfers money from the 
alteration of bridges account, $8 million, and $21.5 million allocated 
from the operating expenses allocated to airborne use of force account, 
and moves it over to buy a Coast Guard maritime patrol aircraft.
  The challenge here in Deepwater, which has had admitted problems, but 
which is one of the most important long-term programs of the Coast 
Guard for reaching out into beyond just harbor patrol to be able to 
protect our

[[Page H6449]]

country, whether it be illegal contraband, such as narcotics or anthrax 
or whatever, or high risk terrorists, is that we don't have enough 
assets that are operating and functional, and part of this is aircraft.
  The MH-68, the HITRON, leases have expired, and we have moved to the 
M-65s, which are replacing them in the field. The Coast Guard then 
requested four more, to bring it up to 12, of assets that go out with 
the Deepwater Program. This bill already cuts Deepwater $197 million. 
This is the only Coast Guard plus-up that we would have related to 
Deepwater. They deeply need these air assets.
  Now, one of the challenges here is, what is this $8 million 
alteration of bridges account? The Coast Guard in the report language 
here, it suggests that the Coast Guard has asked and said we don't have 
people who maintain bridges and we don't want to do this. The committee 
is ordering the Coast Guard to do the bridges, rather than the 
Department of Transportation.
  We also have a question of what is this $21.5 million, and it looks 
like it is for an MH-68 that the Coast Guard didn't want in a lease 
that expired.
  A former Homeland Security Department official now works for a 
lobbying firm who has been lobbying the Hill to continue this lease, in 
spite of the fact that the Coast Guard doesn't want the lease. We have 
been unable to identify which Members have actually been advocating 
renewing the lease that the Coast Guard doesn't want for a helicopter 
we don't need, and they cut the committee request from four to two for 
a helicopter the Coast Guard desperately needs and wants. This would 
put that back in.
  While it is not absolutely clear whether this is a closet earmark, it 
hasn't exactly been coming forward on the helicopter part or the 
designation in this bill, which actually doesn't designate the $21.5 
million. It asks the Coast Guard to submit a plan. But the lobbyist has 
been all over the Hill today and recently saying this is for the MH-68 
helicopter we don't want.
  My amendment merely says, let's help Deepwater. Let's give them the 
helicopter they need and want, rather than giving them money they don't 
want for something they don't do that the Department of Transportation 
does in bridges and for a helicopter they don't want with an expired 
lease.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment would cut the Coast Guard operating 
expenses account, the budget that pays for military officers and 
personnel, by $8 million. Given our country's need for port security, 
marine environmental protection and search and rescue operations, it 
doesn't seem like a very good time to be cutting back on Coast Guard 
personnel.
  The amendment would also cut the alteration of bridges program by $8 
million. That is half of the budget for that program included in the 
bill. The amendment would instead move this money to the Coast Guard 
aircraft acquisitions budget in the Deepwater Program.
  The question is not whether these aircraft are needed. We know that 
they are. But there is a serious question about whether the Coast Guard 
is or would be prepared to utilize the funding that the gentleman is 
suggesting. The Coast Guard's aircraft acquisitions are behind 
schedule. The newest planes that the service is buying have not even 
been shown to meet the Coast Guard's needs through flight testing.
  So, again, as with many items in this budget, the question is not 
whether this is a worthy expenditure or a worthy object of expenditure. 
The question is what the traffic will bear in terms of next year's 
budget and the money that can be wisely and usefully spent. Our 
judgment, after carefully looking at this, is that the bill provides 
adequate funding for aircraft acquisition.
  Moreover, these items that would be cut to make room for this funding 
would have a negative impact on the day-to-day operations of the Coast 
Guard. In particular, they would delay the replacement of bridges in a 
major way, bridges that are a hazard to maritime safety.
  For all these reasons, though we certainly want to work with the 
gentleman in trying to push this aircraft acquisition forward. We want 
to do that in a prudent way, and we think this amendment is basically 
not helpful.
  So we reluctantly urge a no vote.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe that what the chairman was referring to was a 
general account of the things that I referred to which were inside the 
general account. I am not trying to cut funding for personnel. There is 
$8 million in the bill for alteration of bridges. The report language 
says the committee denies the request to transfer personnel devoted to 
maintaining safe passage of marine traffic. That means that the Coast 
Guard had requested to the committee that they didn't want these funds. 
The reason they don't want the funds is they don't have personnel that 
does bridges. They said this should be, according to your report 
language, within the Department of Transportation's Maritime Division 
to do bridges.
  I don't know what kind of fight is occurring between Transportation 
and Coast Guard here, but basically the Coast Guard wants the money to 
do their mission, not to do bridges, and this amendment tries to 
address this.
  Then also in the airborne use of force, there is a discussion about 
the $21.5 million, which just happens to be the amount that the 
lobbying firm is seeking to continue the MH-68 HITRON helicopter, which 
is a great helicopter, I have been in it, but it is not armed. It is 
outdated and they are moving to the M-65s. They have the M-65s on line 
or in production, the ones that you said that are off-the-shelf 
helicopters that they are now adapting, of which they had eight and 
they wanted four more and you gave them two more.

                              {time}  2345

  The money for the account that they don't want and don't have people 
to do and the 21.5 for a contract they don't want would buy the 
additional helicopter that they do want that's off the shelf and merely 
would need to be added to.
  I would ask the chairman respectfully, can you identify who is 
requesting this, because we haven't been able to figure out who's 
pushing this MH-68 contract of which the amount of money is the exact 
amount of money. And the lobbyist is all over the Hill saying that 
that's what this is for.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SOUDER. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. The item that the gentleman is 
discussing, let me just clarify. We're talking about $21.5 million. It 
requires that the Coast Guard shall submit a plan for the use of this 
money to the committee by November 1.
  Mr. SOUDER. Reclaiming my time, can I ask the chairman a follow-up 
question?
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Well, it calls for a submission of a 
plan. It does not say how the money shall be spent otherwise.
  Mr. SOUDER. I agree with that. My question then would be, given what 
we've been hearing and we have been suggested and it is all over that 
this amount just happens to be the amount that was proposed for the 
lease and that it's intended for a lease.
  Will the chairman assure me that in fact the Coast Guard is 
submitting an independent request to you for 21.5 and it's not intended 
to buy an MH-68?
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Yes, I can assure you of that.
  Mr. SOUDER. Thank you very much.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's time has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Souder).
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my 
amendment.
  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:


                environmental compliance and restoration

       For necessary expenses to carry out the environmental 
     compliance and restoration

[[Page H6450]]

     functions of the Coast Guard under chapter 19 of title 14, 
     United States Code, $15,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended.


                            reserve training

       For necessary expenses of the Coast Guard Reserve, as 
     authorized by law; operations and maintenance of the reserve 
     program; personnel and training costs; and equipment and 
     services; $126,883,000.


              acquisition, construction, and improvements

                    (including rescissions of funds)

       For necessary expenses of acquisition, construction, 
     renovation, and improvement of aids to navigation, shore 
     facilities, vessels, and aircraft, including equipment 
     related thereto; and maintenance, rehabilitation, lease and 
     operation of facilities and equipment, as authorized by law; 
     $941,767,000, of which $20,000,000 shall be derived from the 
     Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund to carry out the purposes of 
     section 1012(a)(5) of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (33 
     U.S.C. 2712(a)(5)); of which $9,200,000 shall be available 
     until September 30, 2012, to acquire, repair, renovate, or 
     improve vessels, small boats, and related equipment; of which 
     $113,600,000 shall be available until September 30, 2010, for 
     other equipment; of which $37,897,000 shall be available 
     until September 30, 2010, for shore facilities and aids to 
     navigation facilities; of which $82,720,000 shall be 
     available for personnel compensation and benefits and related 
     costs; and of which $698,350,000 shall be available until 
     September 30, 2012, for the Integrated Deepwater Systems 
     program: Provided, That of the funds made available for the 
     Integrated Deepwater Systems program, $257,400,000 is for 
     aircraft and $219,500,000 is for surface ships: Provided 
     further, That $400,000,000 of the funds provided for the 
     Integrated Deepwater Systems program may not be obligated 
     until the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the 
     House of Representatives receive and approve a plan for 
     expenditure directly from the Coast Guard that--
       (1) defines activities, milestones, yearly costs, and 
     lifecycle costs for each procurement of a major asset, 
     including an independent cost estimate for each;
       (2) identifies lifecycle staffing and training needs of 
     Coast Guard project managers and of procurement and contract 
     staff;
       (3) identifies competition to be conducted in each 
     procurement;
       (4) describes procurement plans that do not rely on a 
     single industry entity or contract;
       (5) contains very limited indefinite delivery/indefinite 
     quantity contracts and explains the need for any indefinite 
     delivery/indefinite quantity contracts;
       (6) complies with all applicable acquisition rules, 
     requirements, and guidelines, and incorporates the best 
     systems acquisition management practices of the Federal 
     Government;
       (7) complies with the capital planning and investment 
     control requirements established by the Office of Management 
     and Budget, including circular A-11, part 7;
       (8) includes a certification by the Head of Contracting 
     Activity for the Coast Guard and the Chief Procurement 
     Officer of the Department of Homeland Security that the Coast 
     Guard has established sufficient controls and procedures and 
     has sufficient staffing to comply with all contracting 
     requirements and that any apparent conflicts of interest have 
     been sufficiently addressed;
       (9) includes a description of the process used to act upon 
     deviations from the contractually specified performance 
     requirements and clearly explains the actions taken on such 
     deviations;
       (10) includes a certification that the Assistant Commandant 
     of the Coast Guard for Engineering and Logistics is 
     designated as the technical authority for all engineering, 
     design, and logistics decisions pertaining to the Integrated 
     Deepwater Systems program;
       (11) identifies use of the Defense Contract Auditing 
     Agency; and
       (12) is reviewed by the Government Accountability Office:

     Provided further, That the Commandant of the Coast Guard is 
     authorized to dispose of surplus real property, by sale or 
     lease, and the proceeds shall be credited to this 
     appropriation as offsetting collections and shall be 
     available until September 30, 2010: Provided further, That of 
     amounts made available under this heading in Public Law 109-
     90 for the Offshore Patrol Cutter, $68,841,000 is rescinded: 
     Provided further, That of amounts made available under this 
     heading in Public Law 109-90 and Public Law 109-295 for 
     unmanned aerial vehicles, $38,608,000 is rescinded: Provided 
     further, That the Secretary of Homeland Security shall submit 
     to the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the 
     House of Representatives, in conjunction with the President's 
     fiscal year 2009 budget, a review of the Revised Deepwater 
     Implementation Plan that identifies any changes to the plan 
     for the fiscal year; an annual performance comparison of 
     Deepwater assets to pre-Deepwater legacy assets; a status 
     report of legacy assets; a detailed explanation of how the 
     costs of legacy assets are being accounted for within the 
     Deepwater program; and the earned value management system 
     gold card data for each Deepwater asset: Provided further, 
     That the Secretary shall submit to the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the Senate and the House of Representatives 
     a comprehensive review of the Revised Deepwater 
     Implementation Plan every five years, beginning in fiscal 
     year 2011, that includes a complete projection of the 
     acquisition costs and schedule for the duration of the plan 
     through fiscal year 2027: Provided further, That the 
     Secretary shall annually submit to the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the Senate and the House of 
     Representatives, at the time that the President's budget is 
     submitted under section 1105(a) of title 31, United States 
     Code, a future-years capital investment plan for the Coast 
     Guard that identifies for each capital budget line item--
       (1) the proposed appropriation included in that budget;
       (2) the total estimated cost of completion;
       (3) projected funding levels for each fiscal year for the 
     next five fiscal years or until project completion, whichever 
     is earlier;
       (4) an estimated completion date at the projected funding 
     levels; and
       (5) changes, if any, in the total estimated cost of 
     completion or estimated completion date from previous future-
     years capital investment plans submitted to the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the Senate and the House of 
     Representatives:

     Provided further, That the Secretary shall ensure that 
     amounts specified in the future-years capital investment plan 
     are consistent to the maximum extent practicable with 
     proposed appropriations necessary to support the programs, 
     projects, and activities of the Coast Guard in the 
     President's budget as submitted under section 1105(a) of 
     title 31, United States Code, for that fiscal year: Provided 
     further, That any inconsistencies between the capital 
     investment plan and proposed appropriations shall be 
     identified and justified.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Bilbray

  Mr. BILBRAY. 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 offered by Mr. Bilbray:
       Page 26, line 10, after the first dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $150,000,000)''.
       Page 26, line 22, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $150,000,000)''.
       Page 39, line 14, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $150,000,000)''.
       Page 41, line 7, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $150,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray) and the gentleman from North 
Carolina (Mr. Price) each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, after the tragedy of 9/11, the 9/11 
Commission came forth with some very distinct recommendations. And one 
of their most distinct recommendations was that we need to have a 
secure minimum standard for identification within the United States. 
The REAL ID bill was our answer to that and it was a bipartisan effort 
to make sure that we correct a deficiency that was identified by the 9/
11 Commission. My amendment is very clear. It strikes $150 million out 
of the integrated Deepwater system program which has been identified 
with major problems, moves it over to a program that we all admit is 
underfunded and needs to be addressed and aids in the implementation of 
this most essential program.
  All it says is that we now are going to commit $150 million to the 
program which will raise it up to $200 million to help our States 
fulfill their responsibility to provide viable, verifiable 
identification for every American and every legal resident within the 
United States.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant 
opposition to this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman seeks to add $150 million to fund REAL ID 
grants while cutting the Coast Guard's Deepwater program. I'm certainly 
sympathetic to the gentleman's basic idea of providing some funding for 
REAL ID. In fact, we added in this bill $50 million that was not 
requested by the administration in order to put some seed funds out 
there, to get the department in gear to adequately assess what the 
Federal Government must do to assist States in complying with this 
Federal mandate, which many of us have heard concerns about from our 
home States.
  I am certainly sympathetic with the idea of getting some seed funding 
out there for REAL ID. But I have to take issue with the offset, with 
the source of these funds. The gentleman is proposing to take $150 
million from the Coast Guard's Deepwater program.
  Now, he rightly notes that the Deepwater program has had financial 
management problems. The committee is well aware of that. We have 
explored

[[Page H6451]]

them thoroughly both under the former chairman, Mr. Rogers, and this 
year. Deepwater is one of the items in this bill that, while we place 
great importance on it, great emphasis on it, we are trying to make a 
very careful decision about the amount provided and the conditions 
under which it is provided.
  The bottom line is that this bill is already $197 million below the 
President's request for the Coast Guard's Deepwater acquisition 
program. There are reductions to projects with high carryover funding. 
There are reductions in projects where the lead asset, the first of a 
series to be purchased, has not yet been tested. In fact, we've been 
discussing some of those situations tonight. So we're reducing the 
program. We're also restoring accountability. $400 million of Deepwater 
funding is withheld pending the submission of a detailed management and 
expenditure plan.
  So we are well aware of the Deepwater challenges. But I think in 
light of the way we have dealt with them and the level of funding we 
have provided, another $150 million cut would be most unwise. So my 
opposition is more out of a concern for that than it is out of any 
inclination to downplay the REAL ID challenge. It's more in terms of 
this offset that I have to oppose this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Like the chairman, I am sympathetic with the 
gentleman's concern about funding for REAL ID. It is a mandate that we 
put on the States that we need to match money for. And we've done that. 
As the chairman indicated, there's $50 million in this bill which was 
unrequested by the administration. In addition to that, there's $40 
million that was put in this program in '06 and most of that is 
unobligated. So there will be around $90 million that REAL ID has. So 
there's plenty of money, I think, in the REAL ID program. The 
gentleman, I think, should be pleased with that.
  But at the same time, I must say that we can't afford to take more 
money out of the Deepwater program. This subcommittee has maintained 
aggressive oversight of that program. But this bill also makes, as the 
chairman said, substantial cuts already of almost $200 million to 
Deepwater that will, in effect, slow down the program's acquisition 
schedule and delay the much-needed modernization of the Coast Guard's 
ships and aircraft.
  Specifically, the bill cuts $60 million from the National Security 
Cutter, $70 million from the Maritime Patrol Aircraft, and over $50 
million from the Fast Response Cutter. Now, those reductions are made 
in the name of good oversight, but I fear that the security of shores 
will be further delayed by these sizable reductions, and may 
unnecessarily prolong the operation of antiquated systems, some dating 
back to World War II.
  We're confident the Coast Guard is putting in place the right 
managerial tools and controls and organizational improvements to get 
Deepwater heading in the right direction. But let me be clear. Mr. 
Chairman, no one has been harder on Deepwater than this Member. Too 
much of our national security is at stake for the Coast Guard to 
continue to struggle with inadequate managerial and budgetary controls. 
I think the commandant of the Coast Guard now has seized control of 
this program, and I am convinced that he is on the right track and will 
have the capability to make it work.
  And so while we're cutting Deepwater in this bill and putting 
controls on how they spend their money, they still need this money, and 
this amendment would cut too much from the Deepwater program for a REAL 
ID program that is flush with money already.
  So I oppose the amendment reluctantly and congratulate the gentleman 
for his thoughtful but misplaced amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, there have already been three States that 
have opted out of REAL ID because they say they don't have the money to 
implement it. The terrorists of 9/11 did not slip through the Coast 
Guard along our coastline. I represent a coastal district. The fact is 
we need to make some priority decisions here. What is the real threat 
to the American people? The threat is the use of false identification 
to get on airplanes, to get access into government buildings, to do 
other types of wrongful deeds against the American people is because we 
do not have a secure ID today. The 9/11 report did not say a critical 
national defense purpose to defend our Nation from terrorism is that we 
need Deepwater. But they did say we absolutely need to have secure 
documentation within this country.
  So we have to make a priority decision. And as somebody of a naval 
family, somebody of a coastal community, I understand the Coast Guard 
is important, but this is a priority decision. REAL ID not only should 
and needs to be implemented now, it should have been implemented years 
ago. But the lack of funding should not be an excuse for us to do the 
right thing that is essential. If you're not going to follow the 9/11 
report, then why the heck even have the committee report? If you're 
going to follow the bureaucracy that says let's keep defending America 
the way we did for the last hundred years and not upgrade to the 
realities of today?
  The 9/11 report has said, one of the first priorities must be 
securing our documentation. With this amendment, we will be saying we 
will not only be economically viable, we will be intellectually smart 
in the way we defend our country.
  This amendment is quite simple. It says, you have problems with the 
Deepwater project right now, let's talk about it and work those 
problems out, but we know right now we do not have the time to delay at 
implementing a secure identification system for this country. Let's 
work with our States, let's give them the grants so they don't have an 
excuse not to do the right thing, to make sure that when our citizens 
get on an airplane, we know that everyone who got on that airplane got 
on with a secure document and that they can be reassured that it's safe 
to fly in America and that America is safe because the Congress did the 
right thing and gave the resources for secure identification so we can 
have a secure Nation.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back 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 yield to Mr. Farr from California.
  Mr. FARR. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for yielding.
  I wasn't even going to speak on this issue, but I have to concur with 
my Chair and ranking member, and I'll tell you why, Mr. Bilbray. The 
Deepwater project, the first Deepwater vessel is being delivered to 
Alameda, California. As you know, the Alameda office is in charge of 
the entire ocean from California to the Indian Ocean, half the world. 
The other half is monitored by this side. If you think that that 
operation isn't about national security with the vessels that are in 
the entire Pacific and with the drugs that are being run up through the 
ocean from South America, I don't think we can afford to take the 
newest vessel which is going through all its trials and sea trials and 
is going to be stationed in our own State and cut funding that's going 
to affect that. I hear you. I think we need to do something about 
identification, but I frankly think that if you're thinking that REAL 
ID is going to solve that identification problem, all IDs tell you is 
that you are who you are. There is no national ID. There is no 
citizenship ID. There's nobody in this room that has a card in their 
wallet that shows that they're an American citizen. You may have a 
driver's license. You don't have to be an American citizen to have a 
driver's license. You may have a Social Security card. You don't have 
to be an American citizen to have a Social Security card. There is no 
card. You may have a passport. Very few Americans have them, but those 
who have them, that shows that you are an American citizen.
  The issue is whether these fake IDs which the States are working with 
can be made more secure, and I think that's important to do, but I 
don't think that's going to answer your national ID issue. It's not.

[[Page H6452]]

                              {time}  0000

  Frankly, this is a debate worth having. We are not having it here, we 
are not having it on your amendment, we are not having it tonight 
because I think the real debate is: Is this the time in the development 
of our country where we really ought to form an ID? I have been opposed 
to it. If you look at the politics, the left and the right have been 
very much opposed to having a national ID program. But if you are going 
to do it, it is going to need to make much more sense than 58, our 
States plus our territories, all having different measurements and not 
having any one way to tell if it is a citizenship issue which you want 
to talk about, which is what this Border Patrol and Customs is all 
about. This is not the way to do it, and certainly not cutting money 
from a budget that has already been whacked and oversighted and 
conditioned more than any other budget item than in this bill.
  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I yield to the gentleman from 
California.
  Mr. BILBRAY. The Governor of California supports this legislation. 
The fact is, the Fraternal Order of Police, because they say we have a 
standard now, it is REAL ID, but allow us to implement it. It is a 
time-sensitive issue. I understand Deepwater needs to be addressed. But 
you have to admit, there are major problems with Deepwater. But right 
now, there is a major crisis in getting the resources to the local 
States to implement the REAL ID bill.
  You may not agree with the REAL ID bill, but our own Governor and the 
Fraternal Order of Police understand. This is one of those little 
things that don't seem important, but law enforcement and the Governor 
say please, this is one of the things that local government can do to 
fulfill.
  Mr. FARR. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I yield to the gentleman from 
California.
  Mr. FARR. It is very interesting. I am from California, and I sit on 
the committee and I have never heard from the Governor about your 
amendment, nor anyone else in California. I support the chairman and 
the ranking member's opposition.
  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 
gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. BILBRAY. 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 California 
will be postponed.
  If there are no further amendments to this paragraph, the Clerk will 
read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


                         alteration of bridges

       For necessary expenses for alteration or removal of 
     obstructive bridges, as authorized by section 6 of the Act of 
     July 16, 1952 (chapter 409; 33 U.S.C. 516), $16,000,000, to 
     remain available until expended.


              research, development, test, and evaluation

       For necessary expenses for applied scientific research, 
     development, test, and evaluation; and for maintenance, 
     rehabilitation, lease, and operation of facilities and 
     equipment; as authorized by law; $22,583,000, to remain 
     available until expended, of which $500,000 shall be derived 
     from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund to carry out the 
     purposes of section 1012(a)(5) of the Oil Pollution Act of 
     1990 (33 U.S.C. 2712(a)(5)): Provided, That there may be 
     credited to and used for the purposes of this appropriation 
     funds received from State and local governments, other public 
     authorities, private sources, and foreign countries for 
     expenses incurred for research, development, testing, and 
     evaluation.


                              retired pay

       For retired pay, including the payment of obligations 
     otherwise chargeable to lapsed appropriations for this 
     purpose, payments under the Retired Serviceman's Family 
     Protection and Survivor Benefits Plans, payment for career 
     status bonuses, concurrent receipts and combat-related 
     special compensation under the National Defense Authorization 
     Act, and payments for medical care of retired personnel and 
     their dependents under chapter 55 of title 10, United States 
     Code, $1,184,720,000, to remain available until expended.

                      United States Secret Service


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the United States Secret Service, 
     including purchase of not to exceed 645 vehicles for police-
     type use for replacement only, and hire of passenger motor 
     vehicles; purchase of motorcycles made in the United States; 
     hire of aircraft; services of expert witnesses at such rates 
     as may be determined by the Director of the Secret Service; 
     rental of buildings in the District of Columbia, and fencing, 
     lighting, guard booths, and other facilities on private or 
     other property not in Government ownership or control, as may 
     be necessary to perform protective functions; payment of per 
     diem or subsistence allowances to employees where a 
     protective assignment during the actual day or days of the 
     visit of a protectee requires an employee to work 16 hours 
     per day or to remain overnight at a post of duty; conduct of 
     and participation in firearms matches; presentation of 
     awards; travel of United States Secret Service employees on 
     protective missions without regard to the limitations on such 
     expenditures in this or any other Act if approval is obtained 
     in advance from the Committees on Appropriations of the 
     Senate and the House of Representatives; research and 
     development; grants to conduct behavioral research in support 
     of protective research and operations; and payment in advance 
     for commercial accommodations as may be necessary to perform 
     protective functions; $1,392,171,000, of which not to exceed 
     $25,000 shall be for official reception and representation 
     expenses: Provided, That up to $18,000,000 provided for 
     protective travel shall remain available until September 30, 
     2009: Provided further, That the United States Secret Service 
     is authorized to obligate funds in anticipation of 
     reimbursements from Executive agencies, as defined in section 
     105 of title 5, United States Code, receiving training 
     sponsored by the James J. Rowley Training Center, except that 
     total obligations at the end of the fiscal year shall not 
     exceed total budgetary resources available under this heading 
     at the end of the fiscal year: Provided further, That none of 
     the funds made available under this heading shall be 
     available to compensate any employee for overtime in an 
     annual amount in excess of $35,000, except that the Secretary 
     of Homeland Security, or the designee of the Secretary, may 
     waive that amount as necessary for national security 
     purposes: Provided further, That notwithstanding section 
     503(b) of this Act, none of the funds provided to the United 
     States Secret Service by this or any previous appropriations 
     Act shall be available for obligation or expenditure for 
     programs, projects, or activities through a reprogramming of 
     funds in excess of $2,500,000 or 5 percent, whichever is 
     less, that: (1) augments existing programs, projects, or 
     activities; (2) reduces by 5 percent funding for any existing 
     program, project, or activity, or reduces by 5 percent 
     numbers of personnel as approved by the Congress; or (3) 
     results from any general savings from a reduction in 
     personnel that would result in a change in existing programs, 
     projects, or activities as approved by Congress; unless the 
     Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the House of 
     Representatives are notified 15 days in advance of such 
     reprogramming of funds.


                 Amendment No. 102 Offered by Mr. Dent

  Mr. DENT. 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. 102 offered by Mr. Dent:
       Page 33, line 15, after ``of which'' insert the following: 
     ``$853,690,000 is for protective missions and''.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I rise today to offer this amendment to help the United States Secret 
Service meet its protection obligations.
  This Homeland Security appropriations bill funds the Secret Service 
to the tune of $1.39 billion. The plain language of the bill does not 
specify how these moneys should be allocated as between the Secret 
Service's protection and investigative operations. However, the 
committee report provides that $849.6 million should go to protective 
missions, while approximately $314.5 million is allocated to 
investigations.
  While I sincerely commend the Appropriations Committee for providing 
these funds to the Secret Service, I would respectfully submit that the 
committee has underestimated the demands placed upon the Service's 
protection mission during this Presidential election cycle. 
Accordingly, my amendment would add approximately $4 million to that 
protection function from those moneys that would otherwise go to 
investigations.
  This funding upgrade is required because of the increased 
responsibilities

[[Page H6453]]

thrust upon the Secret Service's protection component within the last 
few years. Before 9/11, the Secret Service had 20 protectees. Since 9/
11, that number has increased to 54. Just last month, the number of 
protectees reached 55 when a Presidential hopeful was given Secret 
Service protection, at an estimated cost of about $44,000 per day. This 
additional expenditure was never considered in the President's budget 
request.
  Now is not the time to strip $4 million from the Service's protective 
missions, particularly when the cost to protect Senator Obama for just 
the first 4 months of fiscal year 2008 are estimated at $5.456 million. 
This amendment ensures that the Secret Service is not bound by the 
report language which would transfer $4 million from the Joint 
Operations Center relocation to the field investigations account.
  I believe that the actions by the committee have made sure that the 
Secret Service will still be able to perform its investigatory 
functions with its usual skill and alacrity. In that regard, the 
committee had the foresight to provide the field investigation units of 
the Secret Service a plus-up of $10.4 million over and above the amount 
the President requested for investigations.
  On May 29, 2007, just a few weeks ago, the Washington Post reported 
that the Secret Service was transferring agents from investigations to 
security details and borrowing law enforcement officers from other 
Federal agencies in order to meet its protection obligations. Faced 
with wartime security needs, the threat of terrorism, and a field of 20 
Presidential contenders, the Washington Post continued that the Service 
was ``showing signs of strain'' even before the Department of Homeland 
Security ordered protection for Senator Obama. It is my hope that this 
amendment will help to ease that strain and allow this dedicated group 
of professionals to keep performing at the high level to which we have 
all become accustomed.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Does any Member wish to oppose the amendment?
  Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Are there any other amendments to this 
paragraph?
  If not, the Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


     acquisition, construction, improvements, and related expenses

       For necessary expenses for acquisition, construction, 
     repair, alteration, and improvement of facilities, 
     $3,725,000, to remain available until expended.

       TITLE III--PROTECTION, PREPAREDNESS, RESPONSE AND RECOVERY

              National Protection and Programs Directorate


                     management and administration

       For salaries and expenses of the immediate Office of the 
     Under Secretary for National Protection and Programs, the 
     National Protection Planning Office, support for operations, 
     information technology, and Risk Management and Analysis, 
     $40,346,000: Provided, That not to exceed $5,000 shall be for 
     official reception and representation expenses.


           Infrastructure Protection and Information Security

       For necessary expenses for infrastructure protection and 
     information security programs and activities, as authorized 
     by title II of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 
     121 et seq.), $532,881,000, of which $471,787,000 shall 
     remain available until September 30, 2009.


    United States Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology

       For necessary expenses for the development of the United 
     States Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology 
     project, as authorized by section 110 of the Illegal 
     Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 
     (8 U.S.C. 1365a), $462,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended: Provided, That of the total amount made available 
     under this heading, $232,000,000 may not be obligated for the 
     United States Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator 
     Technology project 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 that--
       (1) meets the capital planning and investment control 
     review requirements established by the Office of Management 
     and Budget, including Circular A-11, part 7;
       (2) complies with the Department of Homeland Security 
     information systems enterprise architecture;
       (3) complies with the acquisition rules, requirements, 
     guidelines, and systems acquisition management practices of 
     the Federal Government;
       (4) includes 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 project;
       (5) 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;
       (6) is reviewed by the Government Accountability Office;
       (7) includes a comprehensive strategic plan for the United 
     States Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology 
     project;
       (8) includes a complete schedule for the full 
     implementation of a biometric exit program or a certification 
     that such program is not possible within five years; and
       (9) includes a detailed accounting of operation and 
     maintenance, contractor services, and program costs 
     associated with the management of identity services:

     Provided further, That quarterly status reports on the US-
     VISIT program submitted to the Committees on Appropriations 
     of the Senate and House of Representatives shall include 
     reporting on coordination with Western Hemisphere Travel 
     Initiative planning and implementation, the Secure Border 
     Initiative, and other Departmental efforts that relate to US-
     VISIT goals and activities.

                        Office of Health Affairs

       For the necessary expenses of the Office of Health Affairs, 
     $117,933,000; of which $25,750,000 is for salaries and 
     expenses; and of which $92,183,000 is for biosurveillance, 
     BioWatch, medical readiness planning, chemical response, and 
     other activities, to remain available until September 30, 
     2009: Provided, That not to exceed $3,000 shall be for 
     official reception and representation expenses.

                  Federal Emergency Management Agency


                     management and administration

       For necessary expenses for management and administration of 
     the Federal Emergency Management Agency, $685,000,000, 
     including activities authorized by the National Flood 
     Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.), the Robert T. 
     Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 
     U.S.C. 5121 et seq.), the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 
     1977 (42 U.S.C. 7701 et seq.), the Defense Production Act of 
     1950 (50 U.S.C. App. 2061 et seq.), sections 107 and 303 of 
     the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 404, 405), 
     Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App.), and the 
     Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 101 et seq.): 
     Provided, That not to exceed $3,000 shall be for official 
     reception and representation expenses: Provided further, That 
     of the total amount made available under this heading, 
     $35,000,000 shall be for Urban Search and Rescue, of which 
     not to exceed $1,600,000 may be made available for 
     administrative costs: Provided further, That no less than 
     $6,000,000 shall be for the Office of the National Capital 
     Region Coordination.


                 Amendment No. 97 Offered by Mr. Jindal

  Mr. JINDAL. 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. 97 offered by Mr. Jindal:
       Page 38, line 17, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $5,000,000)''.
        Page 44, line 20, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $5,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Jindal) and the gentleman from North 
Carolina (Mr. Price) each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. JINDAL. Mr. Chairman, as witnessed in 2005, the response to 
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita was hampered by failure of identifying 
needs, and delays in delivering support. In preparation for this year's 
hurricane season, FEMA has engaged each of the 18 hurricane impact 
States, including the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and the Territories, 
in a focused effort to identify strengths and weaknesses in their 
preparedness capabilities.
  FEMA used a gap analysis tool that was developed in coordination with 
the State of New York Emergency Management Office and the New York City 
Office of Emergency Management. This tool was successful in identifying 
vulnerabilities in New York, and it is now being implemented to provide 
FEMA, States, and local governments in the hurricane-prone regions of 
the country with a snapshot of asset gaps.
  Although FEMA has not yet released its full analysis, the agency has 
found significant gaps and shortfalls in hurricane preparedness among 
the targeted areas.

[[Page H6454]]

  Indeed, according to recent testimony before both the House and 
Senate Homeland Security Committees, FEMA Administrator David Paulison 
recognized Louisiana, in particular, as having a fragile state of 
recovery. He indicated that the State still needs assistance in finding 
shelter space in adjacent States, ensuring sufficient transportation 
resources to conduct timely and effective evacuation, positioning 
commodities, and caring for those with critical medical needs.
  We are already now several days into the current hurricane season, 
and there is an urgent need to assist States and local governments in 
addressing their hurricane preparedness weaknesses.
  It makes no sense to identify but not address these gaps. My 
amendment adds $5 million to the Disaster Relief Fund, specifically the 
Disaster Support Account, to enable FEMA to begin assisting these 
States and local governments by strengthening their preparedness 
capabilities.
  The initiative would build upon a joint effort between State 
Emergency Management representatives and FEMA regional representatives 
to understand and bridge potential disaster response asset gaps in the 
critical area of debris removal, evacuation, sheltering, interim 
housing, health care facilities, commodity distribution, 
communications, fuel, or other vulnerabilities intrinsic to those 
areas.
  The $5 million would be offset by a reduction in FEMA management and 
administration. The underlying bill allocates $685 million for this 
purpose, which is $17 million above the requested amount from the 
administration.
  In my State, levees and floodwalls are still under repair and 
thousands of disaster victims are still housed in temporary travel 
trailers. Louisiana and other impacted States cannot afford to 
exacerbate vulnerabilities with shortfalls in emergency planning, 
communication and supplies. It is imperative that we provide the 
resources necessary to protect the lives of our citizens. Hurricanes 
Katrina and Rita demonstrated the awful consequences of not being 
prepared before the next natural disaster.
  I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to 
the gentleman's amendment, but I rise mainly to raise questions with 
him and see if we can't work something out on this because I very much 
identify with what he is trying to achieve here. After all, North 
Carolina is very hurricane-prone.
  We certainly support your goals, support the gentleman's goals in 
building up preparedness. But I believe moving money around within 
FEMA, as the gentleman has proposed, is unlikely to achieve the goal. 
Let me explain why I think that is so.
  The gentleman is proposing to move funds from the management and 
administration account at FEMA to the disaster relief account. However, 
FEMA tells us and I believe this is accurate, the very account that 
FEMA uses to support the activity that the gentleman is interested in 
is the management and administration account. Now we are providing a 
good bit of money here. We are providing adequate funding, I believe, 
for identifying hurricane-related preparedness gaps within the FEMA 
management and administration accounts. We are funding it at $685 
million. That is $150 million above the current fiscal year. But we 
don't want to take money from that account, particularly when it is 
being applied to the very purpose the gentleman identifies.
  So here is what I would like to suggest, Mr. Chairman. If the 
gentleman would be willing to withdraw the amendment, I would certainly 
be happy to work with him to ensure that FEMA is fulfilling its 
responsibilities on identifying preparedness gaps related to 
hurricanes.
  The season is approaching, and we need to assure ourselves about 
that. I fully appreciate that goal. And as the conference approaches, 
if there are further ways that we can address this, we should. But I do 
suggest that the amendment be withdrawn because I think there needs to 
be some further investigation of exactly which accounts we are talking 
about to perform the functions that the gentleman is concerned about.
  Mr. JINDAL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. JINDAL. I certainly appreciate the chairman's support. Based on 
his commitment, I would like to work with him.
  My concern is in talking to FEMA, they didn't think that funds had 
been allocated to actually act on the gaps that have been identified. I 
know that in previous instances, we have used this account, the 
disaster support account, with the disaster relief fund, we have used 
that for support activities previously to support disasters; for 
example, the National Processing Service Center.
  My intent was to make sure that there was actually funding to act on 
these gaps. Again in our conversations with FEMA staff, it had been 
expressed to us they hadn't identified funding to address these gaps. 
It is not important to me which fund it comes out of. I want to make 
sure that there is funding and that FEMA understands it is 
congressional intent for them to actually act on these gaps now that 
they have been identified.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I can assure the gentleman, Mr. 
Chairman, that I will work with him in communicating that priority.
  We have also had our staff in consultations, and we are told that 
management and administration is the correct account for what the 
gentleman is talking about.

                              {time}  0015

  We'll need to do a little more work on that. We'll confer with you. 
So we will appreciate the chance to collaborate going forward.
  Mr. JINDAL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. JINDAL. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman, I want to 
thank the ranking member for their work with me, not only on this 
amendment, but on the stated goal of helping our States become 
prepared.
  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. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to compliment the 
gentleman. He's been very hard working on these whole issues, and I 
appreciate him bringing this to our attention and appreciate the 
chairman being willing to listen further to your request.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.
  Mr. JINDAL. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


                        state and local programs

       For grants, contracts, cooperative agreements, and other 
     activities, including grants to State and local governments 
     for terrorism prevention activities, notwithstanding any 
     other provision of law, $3,101,000,000, which shall be 
     allocated as follows:
       (1) $550,000,000 for formula-based grants and $400,000,000 
     for law enforcement terrorism prevention grants pursuant to 
     section 1014 of the USA PATRIOT ACT (42 U.S.C. 3714): 
     Provided, That the application for grants shall be made 
     available to States within 45 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act; that States shall submit applications 
     within 90 days after the grant announcement; and the Federal 
     Emergency Management Agency shall act within 90 days after 
     receipt of an application: Provided further, That not less 
     than 80 percent of any grant under this paragraph to a State 
     or to Puerto Rico shall be made available by the State or 
     Puerto Rico to local governments within 60 days after the 
     receipt of the funds.
       (2) $1,858,000,000 for discretionary grants, as determined 
     by the Secretary of Homeland Security, of which--
       (A) $800,000,000 shall be for use in high-threat, high-
     density urban areas;
       (B) $400,000,000 shall be for port security grants pursuant 
     to section 70107 of title 46, United States Code;
       (C) $10,000,000 shall be for trucking industry security 
     grants;
       (D) $11,000,000 shall be for intercity bus security grants;
       (E) $400,000,000 shall be for intercity rail passenger 
     transportation (as defined in section 24102 of title 49, 
     United States Code), freight rail, and transit security 
     grants;

[[Page H6455]]

       (F) $50,000,000 shall be for buffer zone protection grants;
       (G) $20,000,000 shall be for Commercial Equipment Direct 
     Assistance grants;
       (H) $50,000,000 shall be for Metropolitan Medical Response 
     System grants;
       (I) $17,000,000 shall be for Citizen Corps grants;
       (J) $50,000,000 shall be for interoperable communications 
     grants; and
       (K) $50,000,000 shall be for Real ID grants pursuant to 
     Public Law 109-13:

     Provided, That for grants under subparagraph (A), the 
     application for grants shall be made available to States 
     within 45 days after the date of enactment of this Act; that 
     States shall submit applications within 90 days after the 
     grant announcement; and that the Federal Emergency Management 
     Agency shall act within 90 days after receipt of an 
     application: Provided further, That no less than 80 percent 
     of any grant under this paragraph to a State shall be made 
     available by the State to local governments within 60 days 
     after the receipt of the funds: Provided further, That for 
     grants under subparagraphs (B) through (K), the applications 
     for such grants shall be made available for competitive award 
     to eligible applicants not later than 75 days after the date 
     of enactment of this Act, that eligible applicants shall 
     submit applications not later than 45 days after the date of 
     the grant announcement, and that the Federal Emergency 
     Management Agency shall act on such applications not later 
     than 60 days after the date on which such an application is 
     received.
       (3) $293,000,000 for training, exercises, technical 
     assistance, and other programs:

     Provided, That none of the grants provided under this heading 
     shall be used for the construction or renovation of 
     facilities, except for emergency operations centers: Provided 
     further, That the preceding proviso shall not apply to grants 
     under subparagraphs (B), (C), (D), (F), (G), (H), (I), (J), 
     and (K) of paragraph (2) of this heading: Provided further, 
     That grantees shall provide additional reports on their use 
     of funds, as determined necessary by the Secretary of 
     Homeland Security: Provided further, That funds appropriated 
     for law enforcement terrorism prevention grants under 
     paragraph (1) of this heading and discretionary grants under 
     paragraph (2)(A) of this heading shall be available for 
     operational costs, including personnel overtime and overtime 
     associated with certified training, as needed.


               Amendment Offered by Mr. Davis of Kentucky

  Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. 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. Davis of Kentucky:
       Page 39, line 14, after the dollar amount insert 
     ``(increased by $5,000,000)''
       Page 39, line 16, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced 
     by $5,000,000)''.
       Page 39, line 17, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced 
     by $5,000,000)''.
       Page 40, line 5, after the dollar amount insert 
     ``(increased by $15,000,000)''.
       Page 40, line 8, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced 
     by $5,000,000)''.
       Page 40, line 10, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced 
     by $5,000,000)''.
       Page 40, line 17, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced 
     by $5,000,000)''.
       Page 40, line 23, after the dollar amount insert 
     ``(increased by $30,000,000)''.
       Page 42, line 25, after each dollar amount insert 
     ``(reduced by $5,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Davis) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an 
amendment to restore funding that directly impacts the emergency 
response capabilities of rural and small community first responders.
  The Commercial Equipment Direct Assistance Program, or CEDAP, is a 
critical resource for equipping first responders in rural and small 
communities around the country, especially in America's heartland. For 
each of the last 3 fiscal years, Congress has wisely provided $50 
million for CEDAP. CEDAP is designed to help first responders in small 
and rural communities to purchase much-needed equipment.
  This year's bill would cut that funding by 60 percent, but increases 
other grant programs by over $2.6 billion. It would cut from $50 
million in last year's CEDAP funding to only $20 million this year. 
It's also worth noting that the House-passed bill for fiscal year 2007 
would have provided $75 million, a 50 percent increase to assist our 
small cities and rural communities.
  My amendment will restore funding for this vital program to $50 
million. To offset this funding increase, my amendment would take $5 
million from each of six other very large grant programs, totaling a 
$2.6 billion increase in grant security spending overall, each of which 
will still receive a massive increase over last year, even if my 
amendment is adopted.
  By only approving $20 million in this year's bill, we risk severely 
impacting the capabilities for emergency response in our small and 
rural communities. In addition, CEDAP is a program with a proven track 
record of accountability and success.
  While the committee responsibly proposed increasing State and local 
grant programs by hundreds of millions of dollars and anticipates this 
will benefit some of these same communities, that result is no means a 
guarantee. CEDAP is designed to guarantee that our small communities 
receive needed first responder equipment. And I believe it's our 
mandate from Congress to assure that small communities are protected.
  The committee report says it expects overall increased funding to 
benefit the CEDAP communities, but that is not guaranteed in statute. 
We must not cut this critical funding.
  If my amendment is adopted, the House will affirm its commitment to 
safety and prosperity of our rural communities, without severely 
burdening any other program. Each of the programs selected as a part of 
this offset would still receive a massive increase over last year's 
enacted amount if my amendment is adopted.
  The House should maintain level funding for CEDAP to ensure that 
communities continue to benefit from this direct assistance program. 
The proposed cut I believe is a terrible message for the new Congress 
to send to rural and small communities who benefit directly from this 
program despite the soundness of the underlying overall bill.
  With funding at the $50 million level, the Department issued 
approximately 1,800 CEDAP grants in fiscal year 2006 to small town and 
rural community police departments, fire departments, EMS units, 
sheriff departments, cities, towns, counties, universities and others. 
If this $20 million number stands for fiscal year 2008, this Congress 
will likely be cutting these rural and small town grants from roughly 
1,800 to 720. This is the wrong direction for this Congress and for 
this important homeland security program, just as the fiscal year 2007 
application process is under way.
  The committee increased funding for urban grants by $50 million for a 
total of $800 million. Certainly we can maintain CEDAP for rural 
communities at a level of $50 million, instead of cutting it 60 
percent. In this year's bill, funding for a majority of programs is 
hugely increased, including important urban programs. I mentioned 
before $2.6 billion of critical grant increases while cutting this one 
by 60 percent.
  My amendment would only reduce these programs by $5 million. While 
the increases are important, the committee has unreasonably targeted 
the CEDAP account for a 60 percent cut, while finding hundreds of 
millions of dollars in new spending.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  I rise to thank the gentleman for his amendment and indicate that I'm 
hopeful we can work with him on this CEDAP program. I certainly support 
it. Many on our side of the aisle support it. We understand the value 
that it provides for rural communities in need of emergency response 
equipment.
  We were frankly surprised that the President zeroed out this program. 
We think that was unwise. As the gentleman has stated, we restored the 
CEDAP program to $20 million, but we were faced with the challenge of 
needing to work on a number of the grant programs to bring them up to 
the levels needed.
  The gentleman presumably not knowing quite where else to turn has 
proposed reducing some of those programs to make up the difference here 
with CEDAP. Some of those offsets we're not particularly happy with, 
the State grants, the fire grants, the port security grants and so 
forth.
  So it's a difficult problem. The gentleman knows quite well that this 
program has strong support in this House. I'm well aware of that. It 
has strong support in the other body. We will be going to conference 
and trying to come

[[Page H6456]]

to an understanding of what level we can afford here and what level is 
wise.
  So while I can't support the amendment in its present form, I 
certainly don't want to downplay the challenge here, and I want to 
assure the gentleman that going forward we're aware of this need. We're 
aware of his concern in particular, and we will work very hard to 
address it.
  Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I respect greatly the work of 
the chairman and the ranking member to craft I think a very strong bill 
overall.
  We face problems in protecting our rural communities. I believe the 
three of us all have many rural communities that face challenges. 
Working in another committee, we've faced challenges in protecting 
rural housing grants for affordable housing programs to make sure 
they're not subsumed by the large urban areas in the States.
  And I'd ask the gentleman if he would consider in this conference 
process finding a way to segment or protect, if not in the form 
directly of the CEDAP dollars, but to make sure that a mechanism is 
considered to protect our rural communities and small towns to have 
access to this needed equipment.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Reclaiming my time, I most certainly do 
make that pledge to you both in terms of looking at the CEDAP dollars 
and also in terms of finding other ways that we can address this need.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  I want to first thank the chairman for including $20 million in this 
program when it was zeroed out in the budget request and also to 
congratulate my colleague from Kentucky (Mr. Davis) for this amendment 
which I strongly support.
  It increases the funds for this CEDAP program by $30 million to get 
it back up to the historic funding level of $50 million. That's what 
we've always had in this program. In fact, Mr. Chairman, this program 
was created by this subcommittee in fiscal year 2005, and the reason 
was we found that a lot of small towns and small communities were not 
being able to get grants out of their State allocations or these other 
grant programs because the moneys were being consumed by the larger 
cities. And this was the only way we could find to get money directly 
to those smaller communities.
  These are not grants that go to the State. These grants go directly 
from here to the local community, designed to target those areas that 
may not directly benefit from the large amounts of grant funding 
because of competing priorities within the States or larger urban 
areas. It gets basic first responder equipment into all first responder 
hands.
  And it's been one of the most successful programs DHS has run. It 
made close to 4,000 awards in fiscal 2005 and 2006, another 2,000 
awards for fiscal 2007.
  There is some report language in the bill that changes how the 
program is run from a direct assistance program to a grant program. I 
don't necessarily agree with that, but I think it is very important to 
get the level of funding back to the 2007 level of $50 million.
  Listen to what some of the local communities say about this program: 
``Your program is one of the absolutely best run and organized programs 
I have ever seen in the rescue service. The equipment you offer to 
emergency responders for homeland security is right on target for our 
needs in the field.''
  Another one says: ``The CEDAP program has allowed us to obtain, train 
with, and deploy an essential fire fighting tool that we would have 
otherwise not have had available to us.''
  Another one says: ``This award represents a purchase that would have 
not been possible for my agency. Thank you for giving us this 
ability.''
  So, Mr. Chairman, this is a popular program. It is effective. It 
helps communities that otherwise are not getting help and there's no 
other place for them to turn. So I urge our colleagues to support the 
gentleman's amendment and restore funding for this worthwhile program 
to the previous year's level and the level it was set at in 2005 and 
every year since.
  And I want to congratulate Mr. Davis for bringing this amendment 
forward. It's thoughtful, it is needed, and it fits the bill; and I 
congratulate the gentleman and support his amendment.
  Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  I thank the gentleman from Kentucky, I thank the chairman for their 
work on this and the commitment to work on this problem.
  The real issue is not the superficial presenting question itself in 
the form that it takes, but ensuring that our small towns, our rural 
communities have access to these funds in some kind of a manner that 
can be protected. For example, in my district along the Ohio Valley, in 
fact many districts, small towns sit aside critical infrastructure, 
locks, dams, chemical plants, other areas that could be vulnerable to 
threats, and they are the only means of response. And by having this 
access, it will protect them.
  With that commitment, I thank both the ranking member and the 
chairman.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman's amendment is 
withdrawn.
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


                     firefighter assistance grants

       For grants authorized by the Federal Fire Prevention and 
     Control Act of 1974 (15 U.S.C. 2201 et seq.), $800,000,000, 
     of which $570,000,000 shall be available to carry out section 
     33 of that Act (15 U.S.C. 2229) and $230,000,000 shall be 
     available to carry out section 34 of that Act (15 U.S.C. 
     2229a), to remain available until September 30, 2009: 
     Provided, That not to exceed 5 percent of the amount 
     available under this heading shall be available for program 
     administration.


                emergency management performance grants

       For necessary expenses for emergency management performance 
     grants, as authorized by the National Flood Insurance Act of 
     1968 (42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.), the Robert T. Stafford 
     Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 
     et seq.), the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977 (42 
     U.S.C. 7701 et seq.), and Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978 
     (5 U.S.C. App.), $300,000,000: Provided, That grants provided 
     under this heading shall be distributed based on the formula 
     used by the Department of Homeland Security in fiscal year 
     2007: Provided further, That total administrative costs shall 
     not exceed 3 percent of the total amount appropriated under 
     this heading.


              radiological emergency preparedness program

       The aggregate charges assessed during fiscal year 2008, as 
     authorized in title III of the Departments of Veterans 
     Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and Independent 
     Agencies Appropriations Act, 1999 (42 U.S.C. 5196e), shall 
     not be less than 100 percent of the amount the Secretary of 
     Homeland Security anticipates is necessary for the 
     radiological emergency preparedness program of the Department 
     of Homeland Security for the next fiscal year: Provided, That 
     the methodology for the assessment and collection of fees 
     shall be fair and equitable and shall reflect the cost of 
     providing such services, including the administrative cost of 
     collecting such fees: Provided further, That fees received 
     under this heading shall be deposited in this account as 
     offsetting collections and shall become available for 
     authorized purposes on October 1, 2008, and remain available 
     until expended.


                   united states fire administration

       For necessary expenses of the United States Fire 
     Administration and for other purposes, as authorized by the 
     Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act of 1974 (15 U.S.C. 
     2201 et seq.) and the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 
     101 et seq.), $43,300,000.


                            disaster relief

       For necessary expenses in carrying out the Robert T. 
     Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 
     U.S.C. 5121 et seq.), $1,700,000,000, to remain available 
     until expended.


            disaster assistance direct loan program account

       For activities under section 319 of the Robert T. Stafford 
     Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 
     5162), $875,000, of which $580,000 is for administrative 
     expenses to carry out the direct loan program under that 
     section and $295,000 is for the cost of direct loans: 
     Provided, That gross obligations for the principal amount of 
     direct loans under that section shall not exceed $25,000,000: 
     Provided further, That the cost of a modification of such a 
     loan shall be as defined in section 502(5)(D) of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 661a).


                      flood map modernization fund

       For necessary expenses under section 1360 of the National 
     Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4101), $230,000,000, 
     and such additional sums as may be provided by State and 
     local governments or other political subdivisions for cost-
     shared mapping activities under subsection (f) of such 
     section, to remain available until expended: Provided,

[[Page H6457]]

     That total administrative costs shall not exceed 3 percent of 
     the total amount appropriated under this heading.


                     national flood insurance fund

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For activities under the National Flood Insurance Act of 
     1968 (42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.) and the Flood Disaster 
     Protection Act of 1973 (42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.), 
     $145,000,000, which is available as follows: (1) not to 
     exceed $45,642,000 for salaries and expenses associated with 
     flood mitigation and flood insurance operations; and (2) no 
     less than $99,358,000 for flood hazard mitigation, which 
     shall be derived from offsetting collections assessed and 
     collected under section 1307 of the National Flood Insurance 
     Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4014), to remain available until 
     September 30, 2009, including up to $34,000,000 for flood 
     mitigation expenses under section 1366 of that Act (42 U.S.C. 
     4104c), which shall be available for transfer to the National 
     Flood Mitigation Fund under section 1367 of that Act (42 
     U.S.C. 4104) until September 30, 2009: Provided, That any 
     additional fees collected pursuant to section 1307 of that 
     Act shall be credited as an offsetting collection to this 
     account, to be available for flood hazard mitigation 
     expenses: Provided further, That in fiscal year 2008, no 
     funds shall be available from the National Flood Insurance 
     Fund under section 1310 of that Act (42 U.S.C. 4017) in 
     excess of: (1) $70,000,000 for operating expenses; (2) 
     $773,772,000 for commissions and taxes of agents; (3) such 
     sums as are necessary for interest on Treasury borrowings; 
     and (4) $90,000,000 for flood mitigation actions with respect 
     to severe repetitive loss properties under section 1361A of 
     that Act (42 U.S.C. 4102a) and repetitive insurance claims 
     properties under section 1323 of that Act (42 U.S.C. 4030), 
     which shall remain available until expended: Provided 
     further, That total administrative costs shall not exceed 4 
     percent of the total appropriation.


                     national flood mitigation fund

                     (including transfer of funds)

       Notwithstanding subparagraphs (B) and (C) of subsection 
     (b)(3), and subsection (f), of section 1366 of the National 
     Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4104c), $34,000,000, 
     to remain available until September 30, 2009, for activities 
     designed to reduce the risk of flood damage to structures 
     pursuant to such Act, of which $34,000,000 shall be derived 
     from the National Flood Insurance Fund under section 1310 of 
     that Act (42 U.S.C. 4017).


                 national pre-disaster mitigation fund

       For a predisaster mitigation grant program under title II 
     of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency 
     Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5131 et seq.), $120,000,000, to 
     remain available until expended: Provided, That grants made 
     for predisaster mitigation shall be awarded on a competitive 
     basis subject to the criteria in section 203(g) of such Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 5133(g)): Provided further, That the total 
     administrative costs associated with such grants shall not 
     exceed 3 percent of the total amount made available under 
     this heading.


                       emergency food and shelter

       To carry out an emergency food and shelter program pursuant 
     to title III of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 11331 et seq.), $153,000,000, to remain available 
     until expended: Provided, That total administrative costs 
     shall not exceed 3.5 percent of the total amount made 
     available under this heading.

       TITLE IV--RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, TRAINING, AND SERVICES

           United States Citizenship and Immigration Services

       For necessary expenses for citizenship and immigration 
     services, $30,000,000: Provided, That collections made 
     pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 1356(u) may not be obligated until the 
     Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the House of 
     Representatives, and the Committee on the Judiciary of the 
     House of Representatives, receive a strategic transformation 
     plan for United States Citizenship and Immigration Services 
     that has been reviewed and approved by the Secretary of 
     Homeland Security and reviewed by the Government 
     Accountability Office.

                Federal Law Enforcement Training Center


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Federal Law Enforcement 
     Training Center under section 884 of the Homeland Security 
     Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 464), including materials and support 
     costs of Federal law enforcement basic training; purchase of 
     not to exceed 117 vehicles for police-type use and hire of 
     passenger motor vehicles; expenses for student athletic and 
     related activities; the conduct of and participation in 
     firearms matches and presentation of awards; public awareness 
     and enhancement of community support of law enforcement 
     training; room and board for student interns; a flat monthly 
     reimbursement to employees authorized to use personal mobile 
     phones for official duties; and services as authorized by 
     section 3109 of title 5, United States Code, $219,786,000, of 
     which up to $43,910,000 shall remain available until 
     September 30, 2008 for materials and support costs of Federal 
     law enforcement basic training; of which $300,000 shall 
     remain available until expended for Federal law enforcement 
     agencies participating in training accreditation, to be 
     distributed as determined by the Federal Law Enforcement 
     Training Center for the needs of participating agencies; and 
     of which not to exceed $12,000 shall be for official 
     reception and representation expenses: Provided, That section 
     1202(a) of Public Law 107-206 (42 U.S.C. 3771 note) is 
     amended by striking ``December 31, 2007'' and inserting 
     ``December 31, 2008''.


     acquisition, construction, improvements, and related expenses

       For acquisition of necessary additional real property and 
     facilities, construction, and ongoing maintenance, facility 
     improvements, and related expenses of the Federal Law 
     Enforcement Training Center, $43,270,000, to remain available 
     until expended: Provided, That the Center is authorized to 
     accept reimbursement to this appropriation from Government 
     agencies requesting the construction of special use 
     facilities.

                         Science and Technology


                     management and administration

       For salaries and expenses of the Office of the Under 
     Secretary for Science and Technology and for management and 
     administration of programs and activities, as authorized by 
     title III of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 181 
     et seq.), $130,787,000: Provided, That not to exceed $10,000 
     shall be for official reception and representation expenses.


           research, development, acquisition and operations

       For necessary expenses for science and technology research, 
     including advanced research projects; development; test and 
     evaluation; acquisition; and operations; as authorized by 
     title III of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 181 
     et seq.); $646,325,000, to remain available until expended: 
     Provided, That none of the funds made available under this 
     heading shall be obligated for the Analysis, Dissemination, 
     Visualization, Insight, and Semantic Enhancement program 
     until the Secretary of Homeland Security completes a Privacy 
     Impact Assessment.

                   Domestic Nuclear Detection Office


                     management and administration

       For salaries and expenses of the Domestic Nuclear Detection 
     Office as authorized by the second title XVIII of the 
     Homeland Security Act of 2002 and for management and 
     administration of programs and activities, $31,176,000: 
     Provided, That not to exceed $3,000 shall be for official 
     reception and representation expenses.


                 research, development, and operations

       For necessary expenses for radiological and nuclear 
     research, development, testing, evaluation and operations, 
     $316,900,000, to remain available until expended.


                          systems acquisition

       For expenses for the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office 
     acquisition and deployment of radiological detection systems 
     in accordance with the global nuclear detection architecture, 
     $168,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 2010: 
     Provided, That none of the funds appropriated under this 
     heading shall be obligated for full-scale procurement of 
     Advanced Spectroscopic Portal Monitors until the Secretary of 
     Homeland Security submits to the Committees on Appropriations 
     of the Senate and the House of Representatives a report 
     certifying that a significant increase in operational 
     effectiveness will be achieved by that procurement.

                      TITLE V--GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 501. No part of any appropriation contained in this 
     Act shall remain available for obligation beyond the current 
     fiscal year unless expressly so provided herein.
       Sec. 502. Subject to the requirements of section 503 of 
     this Act, the unexpended balances of prior appropriations 
     provided for activities in this Act may be transferred to 
     appropriation accounts for such activities established 
     pursuant to this Act: Provided, That balances so transferred 
     may be merged with funds in the applicable established 
     accounts and thereafter may be accounted for as one fund for 
     the same time period as originally enacted.
       Sec. 503. (a) None of the funds provided by this Act, 
     provided by previous appropriations Acts to the agencies in 
     or transferred to the Department of Homeland Security that 
     remain available for obligation or expenditure in fiscal year 
     2008, or provided from any accounts in the Treasury of the 
     United States derived by the collection of fees available to 
     the agencies funded by this Act, shall be available for 
     obligation or expenditure through a reprogramming of funds 
     that: (1) creates a new program; (2) eliminates a program, 
     project, office, or activity; (3) increases funds for any 
     program, project, or activity for which funds have been 
     denied or restricted by the Congress; (4) proposes to use 
     funds directed for a specific activity by either of the 
     Committees on Appropriations of the Senate or House of 
     Representatives for a different purpose; or (5) enters into a 
     contract for the performance of any function or activity for 
     which funds have been appropriated for Federal full-time 
     equivalent positions; unless the Committees on Appropriations 
     of the Senate and the House of Representatives are notified 
     15 days in advance of such reprogramming of funds.
       (b) None of the funds provided by this Act, provided by 
     previous appropriations Acts to the agencies in or 
     transferred to the Department of Homeland Security that 
     remain available for obligation or expenditure in fiscal year 
     2008, or provided from any accounts in the Treasury of the 
     United States derived by the collection of fees available to 
     the agencies funded by this Act, shall be available for 
     obligation or expenditure for programs, projects, or 
     activities through a reprogramming of funds in excess of 
     $5,000,000

[[Page H6458]]

     or 10 percent, whichever is less, that: (1) augments existing 
     programs, projects, or activities; (2) reduces by 10 percent 
     or more the total amount of funding for any existing program, 
     project, or activity, or numbers of personnel by 10 percent 
     or more as approved by the Congress; or (3) results from any 
     general savings from a reduction in personnel that would 
     result in a change in existing programs, projects, or 
     activities as approved by the Congress; unless the Committees 
     on Appropriations of the Senate and the House of 
     Representatives are notified 15 days in advance of such 
     reprogramming of funds.
       (c) Not to exceed 5 percent of any appropriation made 
     available for the current fiscal year for the Department of 
     Homeland Security by this Act or provided by previous 
     appropriations Acts may be transferred between such 
     appropriations, but no such appropriations, except as 
     otherwise specifically provided, shall be increased by more 
     than 10 percent by such transfers: Provided, That any 
     transfer under this section shall be treated as a 
     reprogramming of funds under subsection (b) and shall not be 
     available for obligation unless the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the Senate and the House of Representatives 
     are notified 15 days in advance of such transfer.
       (d) Notwithstanding subsections (a), (b), and (c), no funds 
     shall be reprogrammed within or transferred between 
     appropriations after June 30, 2008, except in extraordinary 
     circumstances which imminently threaten the safety of human 
     life or the protection of property.
       Sec. 504. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available to the Department of Homeland Security may be used 
     to make payments to the ``Department of Homeland Security 
     Working Capital Fund'', except for the activities and amounts 
     allowed in the President's fiscal year 2008 budget, excluding 
     sedan service, shuttle service, transit subsidy, mail 
     operations, parking, and competitive sourcing: Provided, That 
     any additional activities and amounts shall be approved by 
     the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the House 
     of Representatives 30 days in advance of obligation.
       Sec. 505. Except as otherwise specifically provided by law, 
     not to exceed 50 percent of unobligated balances remaining 
     available at the end of fiscal year 2008 from appropriations 
     for salaries and expenses for fiscal year 2008 in this Act 
     shall remain available through September 30, 2009, in the 
     account and for the purposes for which the appropriations 
     were provided: Provided, That prior to the obligation of such 
     funds, a request shall be submitted to the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the Senate and the House of Representatives 
     for approval in accordance with section 503 of this Act.
       Sec. 506. Funds made available by this Act for intelligence 
     activities are deemed to be specifically authorized by the 
     Congress for purposes of section 504 of the National Security 
     Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 414) during fiscal year 2008 until the 
     enactment of an Act authorizing intelligence activities for 
     fiscal year 2008.
       Sec. 507. The Federal Law Enforcement Training 
     Accreditation Board shall lead the Federal law enforcement 
     training accreditation process, to include representatives 
     from the Federal law enforcement community and non-Federal 
     accreditation experts involved in law enforcement training, 
     to continue the implementation of measuring and assessing the 
     quality and effectiveness of Federal law enforcement training 
     programs, facilities, and instructors.
       Sec. 508. None of the funds in this Act may be used to make 
     grant allocations, discretionary grant awards, discretionary 
     contract awards, or to issue a letter of intent totaling in 
     excess of $1,000,000, or to announce publicly the intention 
     to make such awards, unless the Secretary of Homeland 
     Security notifies the Committees on Appropriations of the 
     Senate and the House of Representatives at least three full 
     business days in advance: Provided, That no notification 
     shall involve funds that are not available for obligation: 
     Provided further, That the Administrator of the Federal 
     Emergency Management Agency shall brief the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the Senate and the House of Representatives 
     five full business days in advance of announcing publicly the 
     intention of making an award of formula-based grants, law 
     enforcement terrorism prevention grants, or high-threat, 
     high-density urban areas grants: Provided further, That such 
     notification shall include a description of the project or 
     projects to be funded including the city, county, and state.
       Sec. 509. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no 
     agency shall purchase, construct, or lease any additional 
     facilities, except within or contiguous to existing 
     locations, to be used for the purpose of conducting Federal 
     law enforcement training without the advance approval of the 
     Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the House of 
     Representatives, except that the Federal Law Enforcement 
     Training Center is authorized to obtain the temporary use of 
     additional facilities by lease, contract, or other agreement 
     for training which cannot be accommodated in existing Center 
     facilities.
       Sec. 510. The Director of the Federal Law Enforcement 
     Training Center shall schedule basic or advanced law 
     enforcement training at all four training facilities under 
     the control of the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center to 
     ensure that these training centers are operated at the 
     highest capacity throughout the fiscal year.
       Sec. 511. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act may be used for expenses for any 
     construction, repair, alteration, or acquisition project for 
     which a prospectus, if required under chapter 33 of title 40, 
     United States Code, has not been approved, except that 
     necessary funds may be expended for each project for required 
     expenses for the development of a proposed prospectus.
       Sec. 512. None of the funds in this Act may be used in 
     contravention of the applicable provisions of the Buy 
     American Act (41 U.S.C. 10a et seq.).
       Sec. 513. (a) None of the funds provided by this or 
     previous appropriations Acts may be obligated for deployment 
     or implementation, on other than a test basis, of the Secure 
     Flight program or any other follow on or successor passenger 
     prescreening program, until the Secretary of Homeland 
     Security certifies, and the Government Accountability Office 
     reports, to the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate 
     and the House of Representatives, that all 10 conditions 
     under paragraphs (1) through (10) of section 522(a) of the 
     Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2005 
     (Public Law 108-334; 118 Stat. 1319) have been successfully 
     met.
       (b) The report required by subsection (a) shall be 
     submitted within 90 days after the Secretary provides the 
     requisite certification, and periodically thereafter, if 
     necessary, until the Government Accountability Office 
     confirms that all ten conditions have been successfully met.
       (c) Within 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act, 
     the Secretary of Homeland Security shall submit to the 
     Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the House of 
     Representatives a detailed plan that describes: (1) the dates 
     for achieving key milestones, including the date or 
     timeframes that the Secretary will certify the program under 
     subsection (a); and (2) the methodology to be followed to 
     support the Secretary's certification, as required under 
     subsection (a).
       (d) During the testing phase permitted by subsection (a), 
     no information gathered from passengers, foreign or domestic 
     air carriers, or reservation systems may be used to screen 
     aviation passengers, or delay or deny boarding to such 
     passengers, except in instances where passenger names are 
     matched to a Government watch list.
       (e) None of the funds provided in this or any other Act to 
     any part of the Department of Homeland Security may be 
     utilized to develop or test algorithms assigning risk to 
     passengers whose names are not on Government watch lists.
       (f) None of the funds provided in this or any other Act may 
     be used for data or a database that is obtained from or 
     remains under the control of a non-Federal entity: Provided, 
     That this restriction shall not apply to Passenger Name 
     Record data obtained from air carriers.
       Sec. 514. None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be 
     used to process or approve a competition under Office of 
     Management and Budget Circular A-76 for services provided as 
     of June 1, 2004, by employees (including employees serving on 
     a temporary or term basis) of United States Citizenship and 
     Immigration Services of the Department of Homeland Security 
     who are known as of that date as Immigration Information 
     Officers, Contact Representatives, or Investigative 
     Assistants.
       Sec. 515. None of the funds appropriated to the United 
     States Secret Service by this or any other Act may be made 
     available for the protection of the head of a Federal agency 
     other than the Secretary of Homeland Security: Provided, That 
     the Director of the United States Secret Service may enter 
     into an agreement to perform such a service on a fully 
     reimbursable basis.
       Sec. 516. (a) Section 513 of the Department of Homeland 
     Security Appropriations Act, 2005, is amended by striking 
     ``triple'' and inserting ``double''.
       (b) The amendment made by subsection (a) shall apply to the 
     percentage of cargo inspected as required by Security 
     Directives in effect as of the date of enactment of this Act.
       Sec. 517. (a) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall 
     research, develop, and procure new technologies to inspect 
     and screen air cargo carried on passenger aircraft at the 
     earliest date possible.
       (b) Existing checked baggage explosive detection equipment 
     and screeners shall be used to screen air cargo carried on 
     passenger aircraft to the greatest extent practicable at each 
     airport until technologies developed under subsection (a) are 
     available.
       (c) Not later than 45 days after the end of the quarter, 
     the Transportation Security Administration shall submit to 
     the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the House 
     of Representatives a report on air cargo inspection 
     statistics by airport and air carrier, including any reason 
     for non-compliance with section 516.
       Sec. 518. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used by any person other than the Privacy Officer 
     appointed under section 222 of the Homeland Security Act of 
     2002 (6 U.S.C. 142) to alter, direct that changes be made to, 
     delay, or prohibit the transmission to Congress of any report 
     prepared under paragraph (6) of such section.
       Sec. 519. No funding provided in this or any other Act 
     shall be available to pay the salary of any employee serving 
     as a contracting officer's technical representative (COTR), 
     or anyone acting in a similar capacity, who has not received 
     COTR training.

[[Page H6459]]

       Sec. 520. Except as provided in section 44945 of title 49, 
     United States Code, funds appropriated or transferred to 
     Transportation Security Administration ``Aviation Security'', 
     ``Administration'' and ``Transportation Security Support'' 
     for fiscal years 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007 that are 
     recovered or deobligated shall be available only for the 
     procurement or installation of explosive detection systems, 
     for air cargo, baggage, and checkpoint screening systems, 
     subject to notification: Provided, That quarterly reports 
     shall be submitted to the Committees on Appropriations of the 
     Senate and the House of Representatives on any funds that are 
     recovered or deobligated.
       Sec. 521. Section 525 of the Department of Homeland 
     Security Appropriations Act, 2007 (Public Law 109-295), is 
     amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(2)(A) by inserting ``identifies and 
     describes the specific risk to the national transportation 
     system and therefore'' after ``information'';
       (2) in subsection (d) by striking ``like that'' and 
     inserting ``identical to those''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(e) For the purposes of this section, the term `party's 
     counsel' includes any employee who assists counsel in legal 
     proceedings and who is so designated by counsel and approved 
     by the judge overseeing the legal proceedings.''.
       Sec. 522. The Department of Homeland Security Working 
     Capital Fund, established pursuant to  section 403 of Public 
     Law 103-356 (31 U.S.C. 501 note), shall continue operations 
     during fiscal year 2008.
       Sec. 523. (a) The report required by Public Law 109-62 and 
     Public Law 109-90 detailing the allocation and obligation of 
     funds for ``Disaster Relief'' shall hereafter be submitted 
     monthly and include: (1) status of the Disaster Relief Fund 
     including obligations, allocations, and amounts 
     undistributed/unallocated; (2) allocations, obligations, and 
     expenditures for Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma; (3) 
     information on national flood insurance claims; (4) 
     information on manufactured housing data; (5) information on 
     hotel and motel data; (6) obligations, allocations, and 
     expenditures by State for unemployment, crisis counseling, 
     inspections, housing assistance, manufactured housing, public 
     assistance, and individual assistance; (7) mission assignment 
     obligations by agency, including: (A) the amounts reimbursed 
     to other agencies that are in suspense because the Federal 
     Emergency Management Agency has not yet reviewed and approved 
     the documentation supporting the expenditure; and (B) a 
     disclaimer if the amounts of reported obligations and 
     expenditures do not reflect the status of such obligations 
     and expenditures from a government-wide perspective; (8) the 
     amount of credit card purchases by agency and mission 
     assignment; (9) specific reasons for all waivers granted and 
     a description of each waiver; and (10) a list of all 
     contracts that were awarded on a sole source or limited 
     competition basis, including the dollar amount, the purpose 
     of the contract and the reason for the lack of competitive 
     award.
       (b) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall, at least 
     quarterly, obtain and report from each agency performing 
     mission assignments each such agency's actual obligation and 
     expenditure data and include such data in the report referred 
     to in subsection (a).
       (c) For any request for reimbursement from a Federal agency 
     to the Department of Homeland Security to cover expenditures 
     under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency 
     Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.), or any mission 
     assignment orders issued by the Department of Homeland 
     Security for such purposes, the Secretary of Homeland 
     Security shall take appropriate steps to ensure that each 
     agency is periodically reminded of Department of Homeland 
     Security policies on--
       (1) the detailed information required in supporting 
     documentation for reimbursements; and
       (2) the necessity for timeliness of agency billings.
       Sec. 524. Within 45 days after the close of each month, the 
     Chief Financial Officer of the Department of Homeland 
     Security shall submit to the Committees on Appropriations of 
     the Senate and the House of Representatives a monthly budget 
     and staffing report that includes total obligations and on-
     board versus funded full-time equivalent staffing levels.
       Sec. 525. Section 532(a) of Public Law 109-295 is amended 
     by striking ``2007'' and inserting ``2008''.
       Sec. 526. None of the funds made available by this Act 
     shall be used in contravention of the Federal buildings 
     performance and reporting requirements of Executive Order No. 
     13123, part 3 of title V of the National Energy Conservation 
     Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 8251 et seq.), or subtitle A of title I 
     of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (including the amendments 
     made thereby).
       Sec. 527. The functions of the Federal Law Enforcement 
     Training Center instructor staff shall be classified as 
     inherently governmental for the purpose of the Federal 
     Activities Inventory Reform Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 501 note).
       Sec. 528. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used in contravention of section 303 of the Energy Policy 
     Act of 1992 (42 U.S.C. 13212).
       Sec. 529. None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to take an action that would violate Executive Order 
     No. 13149 (65 Fed. Reg. 24607; relating to greening the 
     Government through Federal fleet and transportation 
     efficiency).
       Sec. 530. (a) In General.--Any contract, subcontract, task 
     or delivery order described in subsection (b) shall contain 
     the following:
       (1) A requirement for a technical review of all designs, 
     design changes, and engineering change proposals, and a 
     requirement to specifically address all engineering concerns 
     identified in the review before the obligation of further 
     funds may occur.
       (2) A requirement that the Coast Guard maintain technical 
     warrant holder authority, or the equivalent, for major 
     assets.
       (3) A requirement that no procurement subject to subsection 
     (b) for lead asset production or the implementation of a 
     major design change shall be entered into unless an 
     independent third party with no financial interest in the 
     development, construction, or modification of any component 
     of the asset, selected by the Commandant of the Coast Guard, 
     determines that such action is advisable.
       (4) A requirement for independent life-cycle cost estimates 
     of lead assets and major design and engineering changes.
       (5) A requirement for the measurement of contractor and 
     subcontractor performance based on the status of all work 
     performed. For contracts under the Integrated Deepwater 
     Systems program, such requirement shall include a provision 
     that links award fees to successful acquisition outcomes 
     (which shall be defined in terms of cost, schedule, and 
     performance).
       (6) A requirement that the Commandant of the Coast Guard 
     assign an appropriate officer or employee of the Coast Guard 
     to act as chair of each integrated product team and higher-
     level team assigned to the oversight of each integrated 
     product team.
       (7) A requirement that the Commandant of the Coast Guard 
     may not award or issue any contract, task or delivery order, 
     letter contract modification thereof, or other similar 
     contract, for the acquisition or modification of an asset 
     under a procurement subject to subsection (b) unless the 
     Coast Guard and the contractor concerned have formally agreed 
     to all terms and conditions or the head of contracting 
     activity of the Coast Guard determines that a compelling need 
     exists for the award or issue of such instrument.
       (b) Contracts, Subcontracts, Task and Delivery Orders 
     Covered.--Subsection (a) applies to--
       (1) any major procurement contract, first-tier subcontract, 
     delivery or task order entered into by the Coast Guard;
       (2) any first-tier subcontract entered into under such a 
     contract; and
       (3) any task or delivery order issued pursuant to such a 
     contract or subcontract.
       (c) Reports.--Not later than 30 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Commandant of the Coast Guard 
     shall submit to the Committees on Appropriations of the 
     Senate and the House of Representatives, the Committee on 
     Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate, and the 
     Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House 
     of Representatives: (1) a report on the resources (including 
     training, staff, and expertise) required by the Coast Guard 
     to provide appropriate management and oversight of the 
     Integrated Deepwater Systems program; and (2) a report on how 
     the Coast Guard will utilize full and open competition for 
     any contract entered into after the date of enactment of the 
     Act that provides for the acquisition or modification of 
     assets under, or in support of, the Integrated Deepwater 
     Systems program.
       Sec. 531. None of the funds provided by this or any other 
     Act may be obligated for the development, testing, 
     deployment, or operation of any system related to the MAX-HR 
     project, or any subsequent but related human resources 
     management project, until any pending litigation concerning 
     such activities is resolved, and any legal claim or appeal by 
     either party has been fully resolved.
       Sec. 532. (a) Amendments.--Section 550 of the Department of 
     Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2007 (6 U.S.C. 121 
     note) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (c), by striking ``consistent with 
     similar'' and inserting ``identical to the protections 
     given'';
       (2) in subsection (c), by striking ``, site security plans, 
     and other information submitted to or obtained by the 
     Secretary under this section, and related vulnerability or 
     security information, shall be treated as if the information 
     were classified material'' and inserting ``and site security 
     plans shall be treated as sensitive security information (as 
     that term is used in section 1520.5 of title 49, Code of 
     Federal Regulations, or any subsequent regulations relating 
     to the same matter)''; and
       (3) by adding at the end of the section the following:
       ``(h) This section shall not preclude or deny any right of 
     any State or political subdivision thereof to adopt or 
     enforce any regulation, requirement, or standard of 
     performance with respect to chemical facility security that 
     is more stringent than a regulation, requirement, or standard 
     of performance issued under this section, or otherwise impair 
     any right or jurisdiction of any State with respect to 
     chemical facilities within that State.''.
       (b) Regulatory Clarification.--Not later than 30 days after 
     the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of 
     Homeland Security shall update the regulations administered 
     by the Secretary that govern sensitive security information, 
     including 49 CFR 1520, to reference all information required 
     to be

[[Page H6460]]

     protected under section 550(c) of the Department of Homeland 
     Security Appropriations Act, 2007 (6 U.S.C. 121 note), as 
     amended by subsection (a).
       Sec. 533. The Commissioner of United States Customs and 
     Border Protection shall, not later than July 1, 2008, 
     establish for the United States Customs and Border Protection 
     Officer (CBPO) position, a new classification (``CBPO/LEO''), 
     which shall be identical to the current position description 
     for a CBPO, and include, but not be limited to, eligibility 
     for treatment accorded to law enforcement officers under 
     subchapter III of chapter 83, and chapter 84 of title 5, 
     United States Code. In developing the new classification, the 
     Commissioner shall consult with the Office of Personnel 
     Management, as well as employee groups that represent CBPOs. 
     The option to elect to serve as a CBPO/LEO shall be available 
     to all CBPOs who enter into service on or after July 1, 2008, 
     as well as to incumbent CBPOs currently serving on July 1, 
     2008, who meet the maximum age requirements to serve in a law 
     enforcement officer position.
       Sec. 534. In fiscal year 2008, none of funds made available 
     in this or any other Act may be used to enforce section 
     4025(1) of Public Law 108-458 if the Assistant Secretary 
     (Transportation Security Administration) determines that 
     butane lighters are not a significant threat to civil 
     aviation security: Provided, That the Assistant Secretary 
     (Transportation Security Administration) shall notify the 
     Committee on Appropriations of the Senate and the House of 
     Representatives 15 days in advance of such determination 
     including a report on whether the effectiveness of screening 
     operations is enhanced by suspending enforcement of the 
     prohibition: Provided further, That if the Assistant 
     Secretary has previously submitted a report pursuant to 
     Section 530 of Public Law 108-458, no further report shall be 
     required.
       Sec. 535. None of the funds provided in this Act may be 
     used to alter or reduce operations within the Civil 
     Engineering Program of the Coast Guard nationwide, including 
     the civil engineering units, facilities, design and 
     construction centers, maintenance and logistics command 
     centers, and the Coast Guard Academy, except as specifically 
     authorized by a statute enacted after the date of enactment 
     of this Act.
       Sec. 536. None of the funds appropriated in this Act may be 
     used for a grant or contract for any project that does not 
     comply with the requirements of subchapter IV of chapter 31 
     of title 40, United States Code: Provided, That the President 
     may suspend the provisions of such subchapter during a 
     national emergency.
       Sec. 537. (a) None of the funds appropriated in this Act 
     may be obligated for a grant or contract awarded by a means 
     other than full and open competition, other than a grant 
     distributed by a formula or other mechanism that is required 
     by statute. The Secretary of Homeland Security may waive the 
     application of this subsection during a national emergency.
       (b) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall establish an 
     objective of awarding at least 3 percent of the total value 
     of all contracts to be carried out with amounts appropriated 
     in this Act to small business concerns.
       Sec. 538. None of the funds provided in this Act shall be 
     available to carry out section 872 of Public Law 107-296.
       Sec. 539. Section 44940(a)(2) of title 49, United States 
     Code, is amended by striking the last sentence of 
     subparagraph (A), and clause (iv) of subparagraph (B).


                         (rescission of funds)

       Sec. 540. From the unobligated balances of funds 
     transferred to the Department of Homeland Security when it 
     was created in 2003, excluding mandatory appropriations, 
     $55,273,000 is rescinded, of which $12,084,003 shall be 
     rescinded from Departmental Operations.
       Sec. 541. None of the funds provided by this or previous 
     appropriation Acts shall be used to fund any position 
     designated as a Principal Federal Official during any 
     declared disasters or emergencies.
       Sec. 542. Section 46301(a) of title 49, United States Code, 
     is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(6) Failure To Collect Airport Security Badges.--
     Notwithstanding paragraph (1), any employer (other than a 
     governmental entity or airport operator) who employs an 
     employee to whom an airport security badge or other 
     identifier used to obtain access to a secure area of an 
     airport is issued before, on, or after the date of enactment 
     of this paragraph and who does not collect or make reasonable 
     efforts to collect such badge from the employee on the date 
     that the employment of the employee is terminated and does 
     not notify the operator of the airport of such termination 
     within 24 hours of the date of such termination shall be 
     liable to the Government for a civil penalty not to exceed 
     $10,000.''.

  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask 
unanimous consent that the remainder of the bill through page 74, line 
10, be considered as read, printed in the Record and open to amendment 
at any point.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from North Carolina?
  There was no objection.


            Amendment No. 99 Offered by Mr. McCaul of Texas

  Mr. McCAUL of Texas. 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. 99 offered by Mr. McCaul of Texas:
       Strike section 531 (page 69, beginning at line 4).

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. McCaul) and the gentleman from North Carolina 
(Mr. Price) each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. McCAUL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, section 531 prohibits the 
implementation of MAX-HR. MAX-HR is the human resources program that 
allows DHS wide latitude in personnel matters such as transferring 
workers to areas where they may be needed during a national emergency. 
Congress gave the Department this ability so that it could move quickly 
to protect the country from terrorist threats.
  While some authority is currently under judicial review, the bill as 
currently written would enjoin the entire program until courts decide.

                              {time}  0030

  If this section were to pass as written, it would result in an action 
that is not consistent with the purposes of Homeland Security.
  My amendment would strike section 531 of this bill and allow current 
regulations to continue until the courts make their final judgment.
  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 remove a restriction that the 
committee included in order to prevent the Department of Homeland 
Security from wasting more money developing a human capital system that 
would, we believe, be judged illegal. DHS has not been willing to 
negotiate with its employees unions to develop a human capital system 
that lines up with the negotiated labor contracts.
  That becomes our committee's problem, when money that gets 
appropriated is wasted on projects that are judged illegal and in 
violation of contractual agreements. DHS shouldn't be spending millions 
of dollars on systems that will need to be thrown away simply to 
frustrate unions and to intimidate their employees. It's a waste of 
taxpayers' money and from what I have heard, Mr. Chairman, has led to 
many morale problems at the Department.
  I will remind Members that unfortunately the Department of Homeland 
Security ranked dead last in employee morale across government agencies 
in a survey taken recently. We need to reject this amendment, and I ask 
my colleagues to do so.
  Mr. McCAUL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I respect the distinguished 
gentleman from North Carolina, but I would say I believe it's important 
that we let the courts decide this matter. It's under judicial review, 
just a small part of the human resources program at the Department of 
Homeland Security.
  I think it would be a tremendous mistake for us in the Congress, as a 
separate branch of government, to essentially enjoin, essentially 
enjoin the executive branch in the human resource program that has 
combined 22 agencies, developed the human resources program that has 
been efficient in many respects, only because the courts have enjoined 
a very small portion. Again, let's let the courts decide this issue, 
and let's let the rest of the program go forward.
  I know that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle would like 
to move the Department into a more unionized system that is not merit 
based. My view is that that would cripple our ability to respond in 
emergency situations. That was the view of the Congress at the time 
that we developed the Department of Homeland Security, and that is the 
view of this Congressman at this time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. McDermott). The question is on the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. McCaul).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.

[[Page H6461]]

  Mr. McCAUL of Texas. 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 Offered by Mr. Thompson of Mississippi

  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. 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. Thompson:
       In section 537 of the bill, strike subsection (b).

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson) and a Member opposed each 
will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Mississippi.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, the amendment I offer 
tonight will ensure that businesses can continue their current level of 
participation in contracting opportunities with the Department of 
Homeland Security.
  The current governmentwide goal for small minority and disadvantaged 
business's participation established by the SBA is 23 percent. The 
current language of this bill places that contracting goal within the 
Department of Homeland Security at 3 percent.
  Small businesses are often best able to provide the kind of 
innovative technologies we need to protect this Nation. This language 
would strike the 3 percent language, returning small business 
participation at DHS to the governmentwide goals.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  I commend my friend, the chairman of the Homeland Security 
authorizing committee, for a fine amendment, and I am pleased to 
suggest that it be adopted.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance 
of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson).
  The amendment was agreed to.


        Amendment No. 18 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 offered by Ms. Corrine Brown of Florida:
       Page 61, after line 11, insert the following:
       (d) Orlando International Airport and Miami International 
     Airport shall be two of the seven airports selected to 
     implement a pilot program to screen airport workers who enter 
     or re-enter secure airport space.

  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. A point of order is reserved.
  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 today to ask 
support for my amendment to allow Orlando International Airport and 
Miami International Airport to be named as two of the seven airports 
selected to implement a pilot program to screen airport workers who 
enter or reenter security airport space.
  My interest in this stems from a very serious security breach which 
occurred at the Orlando International Airport, OIA, earlier this year.
  On March 5, a Comair customer service employee boarded a Delta flight 
from Orlando International to San Juan, carrying 13 handguns, 1 assault 
weapon and 8 pounds of marijuana. Although passengers and flight crews 
are required to pass through screening to obtain access to gates, 
mechanics and other airline employees move through the airport without 
being screened.
  In fact, the men that were arrested had employee identification that 
allowed them to bypass screening altogether when they brought a duffel 
bag full of handguns into the airport. This serves as a perfect example 
of a striking gap in airline security, not only at OIA, but at airports 
nationwide.
  Moreover, given an employee was willing to take the risk of smuggling 
illegal weapons and drugs into a flight for a few thousand dollars, one 
would certainly imagine that it would be possible that the airline 
employee could be bribed by well-financed terrorists to obtain access 
to the airport infrastructure.
  In response to this incident, report language in the bill required a 
pilot program for seven airports nationwide to mandate the screening of 
all employees as prescribed in H.R. 1314.
  Of the seven airport pilot projects mentioned in the report language, 
my amendment would require that the Orlando International Airport and 
the Miami International Airport be named two of the designated 
programs. Miami International, in fact, already had a program in place, 
while Orlando International has undertaken a plan to screen 100 percent 
of all of its employees. Given the heavy international traffic at both 
of these airports, I strongly believe that they serve as perfect places 
to begin a program which eventually needs to be implemented at all 
airports nationwide.
  The reason I include Miami is because Miami can be used as a model, 
since the airport has had a program in place for nearly a decade and 
spends about $5 million per year for this type of security. The Miami 
program has reduced smuggling by all employees. Under this program, all 
airport and airline employees are screened, though not at the same area 
as the passengers or flight crews.
  The Miami program also includes a provision that allows screening to 
instantly send a suspect's image to a New York center that operates 
around-the-clock with a staff of former NYPD technicians.
  As you know, the State of Florida, in particular, thrives on tourism, 
which forms the backbone of the State economy. Obviously, those 
traveling in the State need to feel safe during their commute, and 
increasing and enforcing the security process for airline employees 
would serve as an important step toward achieving this goal.
  I realize it is necessary to withdraw this amendment, and I am 
willing to do so, but this is a very, very serious situation not just 
for Florida, but for the entire country. I want all of us to work 
together to ensure that our system does not allow these huge security 
gaps to continue.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against 
the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and 
constitutes legislation in an appropriation bill and therefore violates 
clause 2 of rule XXI, which states, in pertinent part: An amendment to 
a general appropriations bill shall not be in order if changing 
existing law.
  I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Does any other Member wish to be heard?
  Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent 
to withdraw my amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. If there are no further amendments to this 
section, the Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Sec. 543. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services to grant 
     an immigration benefit to any individual unless all criminal 
     history and other background checks required for the benefit 
     have been completed, the results of such checks have been 
     received by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, and 
     the results do not preclude the grant of the benefit.


           Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Rogers of Kentucky

  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. 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. 2 offered by Mr. Rogers of Kentucky:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __. None of the funds made available under this Act 
     may be used to recruit or hire

[[Page H6462]]

     a total of more than 45,000 full-time equivalent airport 
     screeners.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) and the gentleman from North 
Carolina (Mr. Price) each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, this is a simple amendment.
  It would restore to the bill the traditional historic 45,000-person 
cap on the number of screeners that the TSA can employ.
  The reason for this is simple. This screener cap has been in place 
since before there was a Department of Homeland Security.
  When we first created the Transportation Security Administration in 
2001, I think it was, or 2002, TSA was in the Department of 
Transportation. At the time, I chaired the subcommittee that funded 
that Department.
  When we first began to place federally employed screeners in the 
airports, TSA came to us and said we need 35,000 screeners. We said, 
okay, here is the money, hire them.
  They came back a few days later, a few months later, and said no, 
we're going to need 40,000. Then they came back a few months later and 
said no, we have to have 45,000. Then it was 50,000 and 60,000, and 
then finally they said we need to have 70,000. We said, wait a minute, 
time out. We can't afford this many. Where are you going to stop?
  What they did at the outset, TSA was poorly managed, poorly run, and 
was not operating properly. They made up for their difference, their 
shortcomings, by hiring more people. I remember going to an airport in 
the South, a moderate-sized airport. The lobby was full of the trace 
detection machines where they swab your briefcase and then run it 
through the machine, very time-consuming, very labor-intensive, and not 
very accurate.

                              {time}  0045

  And the lobby was full, passengers having trouble getting through the 
doorway to get to the boarding gates. And I called over the Federal 
director, security director for that airport and I said, when are you 
going to apply for an x-ray machine to more efficiently and more 
securely search people as they go to board the airplane? They said, oh, 
we don't need, we don't want an x-ray machine to replace these trace 
detection machines in the lobby. I said, why not? The person said, our 
people are perfectly happy. I said, you mean the passengers? No, the 
screeners. Of course they were perfectly happy. One machine, Mr. 
Chairman, would have taken the place of all of those trace detection 
machines in that lobby.
  And so we came up with a screener cap mainly to force TSA to bring 
technology to bear on the detection of explosive devices in briefcases 
and baggage of passengers. The 45,000 screener limit works. TSA now is 
placing the machines in airports.
  This committee, this subcommittee, has now appropriated many hundreds 
of millions of dollars in this bill, along with others, to buy more 
machinery.
  But the cap on screeners needs to be kept in place. It's been there 
since we first began TSA 5 years ago. You take that screener cap off, 
as this bill does, and TSA will go back to their old ways. I guarantee 
it. They'll go back to their old ways of hiring screeners to run trace 
detection machines, very unreliable, insecure, and disruptive, 
actually, of people trying to get on the airplane.
  So I urge our colleagues to keep in place, put back in place the 
45,000 screener limit that's been in the bill ever since we've had a 
Department of Transportation, TSA in the Department of Transportation 
and now Homeland Security.
  I know the bill contains funds only for some 44,000 screeners, and 
the argument can be made that we can control the number of screeners by 
the amount of money we appropriate. And this bill starts us along that 
line.
  But we all know that these agencies can come back to the 
Appropriations Committee and request a reprogramming of funds from one 
account to the next, and the pressure would be great if they came to us 
to assign that reappropriation of monies. But the limit works. Keep the 
limit.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, the amendment, as the 
gentleman has stated, would impose a statutory cap of 45,000 on the 
number of aviation screeners. I'm reluctantly opposed to this, because 
under the Committee mark, we fund considerably fewer than that amount, 
that number. We fund only 43,688 screeners. So we're nowhere close to 
the statutory cap that the gentleman would impose.
  The budget is what really controls how many screeners TSA can fund, 
as 53 percent of TSA's aviation security budget goes to screener 
salaries and benefits.
  Now, I agree with the gentleman that our goal should be to provide 
more efficient explosive detection systems, ones that rely less on 
humans and more on machines that identify possible threats.
  Instead of the cap, I think a better way to provide the funding for 
additional explosive detection systems for passengers and carry on 
baggage and checked baggage and air cargo is to fund those systems 
adequately. And the bill before us does that. It has $251 million more 
than the President's request for these systems.
  To make sure that DHS spends funding for better detection systems, 
we've withheld funding from a key asset, namely, their new headquarters 
building, until the Department submits an expenditure plan for 
checkpoint and explosive detection systems. We do believe that this 
will provide a rather powerful incentive for TSA to become less people 
dependent and more technology driven in the near term. But I just want 
to stress that I agree with the gentleman on that point, that priority.
  I should also say, Mr. Chairman, that our authorizers oppose this 
cap. They've specifically asked us not to include this bill language in 
fiscal 2008.
  I'm more than willing to work with the gentleman to ensure that the 
committee is kept well informed of screener staffing levels at 
airports. And if it appears that TSA is out of control regarding 
staffing, we will be the first to get on the case. But I cannot support 
this amendment.
  Speaking of authorizers, I yield such time as she may consume to the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
North Carolina, and I thank the ranking member. I agree with the 
ranking member's assessment that we can improve the training and the, 
if you will, work performance in many instances of the TSA screeners. 
But we also note that there are many hardworking screeners.
  I chair the subcommittee that oversees the work of TSA as it relates 
to airport screeners. And the reason the authorizers wanted to not have 
a cap is because, first of all, the Transportation Security 
Administration and the screeners staffing are engaging in what we call 
a spot program. They're dealing with the traveler document checking 
system. New programs need new personnel, new trained personnel.
  The cap was lifted in the 9/11 bill for a very important reason. It 
sends the wrong message for us to cap screeners of airports. Our 
airports are expanding. Air travel is growing. In fact, we have been 
looking at the utilization of screening employees in the airport to 
make the entire airport, front and back, safe. So we all can work 
toward more professional development for the screeners, the airport 
screeners; but our work is too important now, and our work is too 
important going forward, after 9/11, to send this message of capping 
these employees.
  I would respectfully oppose the amendment because of the work that we 
still have to do in securing the Nation's airports.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. 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 Kentucky 
will be postponed.


               Amendment No. 30 Offered by Mr. Ellsworth

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

[[Page H6463]]

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

       Amendment No. 30 offered by Mr. Ellsworth:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), add the 
     following new section:
       Sec. 544. None of the funds appropriated in this Act may be 
     used to enter into a contract in an amount greater than the 
     simplified acquisition threshold unless the prospective 
     contractor certifies in writing to the agency awarding the 
     contract that the contractor owes no Federal tax debt. For 
     purposes of the preceding sentence, the certification 
     requirement of part 52.209-5 of the Federal Acquisition 
     Regulation shall also include a requirement for a 
     certification by a prospective contractor of whether, within 
     the three-year period preceding the offer for the contract, 
     the prospective contractor--
       (1) has or has not been convicted of or had a civil 
     judgment rendered against the contractor for violating any 
     tax law or failing to pay any tax;
       (2) has or has not been notified of any delinquent taxes 
     for which the liability remains unsatisfied; or
       (3) has or has not received a notice of a tax lien filed 
     against the contractor for which the liability remains 
     unsatisfied or for which the lien has not been released.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Ellsworth) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana.
  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.
  Mr. ELLSWORTH. Mr. Chairman, this amendment seeks to ensure that none 
of the funds appropriated in this bill may be used to enter into a 
contract greater than the simplified acquisition threshold unless the 
prospective contractor certifies in writing to the agency awarding the 
contract that the contractor owes no Federal tax debt.
  The Federal Acquisition Regulation already requires prospective 
contractors to certify within a 3-year period preceding the offer that 
they have not been convicted or had a civil judgment rendered against 
them for the various legal infractions such as tax evasion, forgery and 
bribery. This amendment simply adds the following three tax debt-
related offenses: the prospective contractor must certify that they, 
one, have or have not been convicted of a civil judgment rendered 
against the contractor for violating tax law or failing to pay any tax; 
two, have or have not been notified of any delinquent taxes for which 
the liability remains unsatisfied; and, three, have or have not 
received a tax notice or tax lien filed against the contractor for 
which the liability remains unsatisfied or for which the lien has not 
been released.
  Mr. Chairman, my constituents, like many of yours, sent me to 
Washington to ensure their tax dollars are spent wisely. And I guard 
their tax dollars wisely. They believe, as I do, that it's wrong for 
government contractors who owe millions and accumulated billions of 
dollars in unpaid taxes to continue to be awarded Federal contracts 
when their taxes are not paid. Not only do these bad actors cheat our 
government of tax revenue; they gain an unfair advantage over the 
businesses that play by the rules.
  Not all contractors are into gaming the system. Most are doing 
terrific work and putting our tax dollars to good use. But we have a 
responsibility to protect those businesses and the taxpayers' dollars 
by weeding out the corrupt contractors. The only way you do this is 
through increased oversight.
  At a time when our fiscal house is, some say, in complete disarray 
and deficits continue to grow, we cannot continue to allow companies to 
receive Federal tax dollars while shirking their own tax 
responsibilities.
  Mr. Chairman, I respectfully ask my colleagues to support this 
amendment.
  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 want to commend the gentleman from Indiana for this 
very well-conceived amendment, Mr. Ellsworth's proposing that the 
Department of Homeland Security be prohibited from awarding contracts 
to those that owe the Federal Government money. It seems pretty 
straightforward and sensible, and a rule that we need to adopt.
  This would apply to contractors that violate tax laws, that fail to 
pay Federal taxes, that have an unsatisfied Federal liability.
  The Federal Acquisition Regulation, fortunately, does have a rule-
making under way that we believe will eventually provide similar 
coverage to all Federal agencies, including DHS. But the gentleman has 
anticipated that ruling. He's got language here that would offer 
protection earlier and would confirm what we hope will be more general 
policy.
  So it's a very well-conceived amendment, and I commend him for it and 
hope that we can adopt it. I urge its adoption.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against 
the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and 
constitutes legislation in an appropriations bill and, therefore, 
violates clause 2 of rule XXI.
  I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Does any Member wish to be heard?
  Mr. ELLSWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to thank Chairman Price for his 
support of this important amendment that would have taken an important 
step to address waste, fraud and abuse in the contracting process at 
the Department of Homeland Security. It's my hope that we can work 
together to have this commonsense approach to contractor certification 
included in the eventual conference report.
  Again, I'd like to thank the chairman for his support, but I do ask 
unanimous consent to withdraw this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
  There was no objection.


            Amendment No. 96 Offered by Mr. Deal of Georgia

  Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Ross). The Clerk will designate the 
amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 96 offered by Mr. Deal of Georgia:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title) insert the 
     following new section:
       Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to destroy or put to pasture any horse or mule 
     belonging to the United States that has become unfit for 
     service.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Deal) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I realize it's late, and I'll be 
brief.
  We've talked about a lot of things today. I'd like to talk about 
horses and mules for a few minutes. Under the current law, when a horse 
or a mule is deemed no longer fit for service in agencies such as the 
Border Patrol or Customs, the law requires that they either be turned 
out to pasture on Federal lands, where they usually are subject to 
predators, or that they be destroyed. This amendment would simply say 
that they would be allowed to be adopted by their handlers.
  This is an animal equity amendment, Mr. Chairman. We do the same 
thing for dogs who have been in the service and are allowed to be 
adopted by their handlers. This would simply allow the handlers of 
horses and mules to do exactly the same thing. And I would urge the 
adoption.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DEAL of Georgia. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. KUCINICH. I want to thank the gentleman. I want to thank him for 
sponsoring this. I think it is a very humane and proper thing to do, 
and I appreciate that you offered it.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DEAL of Georgia. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.

                              {time}  0100

  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentleman 
for the amendment. This is a horse of a different color that you have 
brought up here. And I think it is a humane thing to do, and I 
congratulate the gentleman. And being from horse country, I doubly 
appreciate it.

[[Page H6464]]

  Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Deal).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                  Amendment No. 28 Offered by Mr. Poe

  Mr. POE. 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. 28 offered by Mr. Poe:
       At the end of title V, add the following new section:
       Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used by the Secretary of Homeland Security to implement a 
     plan under section 7209 of the Intelligence Reform and 
     Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-458; 8 
     U.S.C. 1185 note) that permits travel into the United States 
     from foreign countries using any document other than a 
     passport to denote citizenship and identity.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe) and the gentleman from North Carolina 
(Mr. Price) each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. POE. Mr. Chairman, the amendment I offer today will help reduce 
the lengthy delays consumers are facing when applying for passports, 
while at the same time strengthening security at our borders.
  The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 mandated 
that the U.S. Secretaries of Homeland Security and State develop and 
implement a plan to require all U.S. citizens and foreign nationals to 
present a passport or some other document when entering the United 
States, as of January 1, 2008.
  For many years United States citizens and citizens from other 
countries in the Western Hemisphere have not been required to present a 
passport to enter the United States. They were admitted by stating 
verbally that they were from a country that didn't require passports or 
by presenting a wide variety of less secure documentation, including up 
to 5,000 documents that our border agents must be versed in.
  The 9/11 Commission in their findings highlighted ``for terrorists 
travel documents are as important as weapons. . . . In their travels 
terrorists use evasive methods, such as altered and counterfeit 
documents, and they study and exploit America's vulnerabilities.'' The 
9/11 Commission rightfully recommended we end the practice of traveling 
without passports. I am glad Congress took action on that 
recommendation. However, here we are 2\1/2\ years later, and it seems 
we are still going further and further away from putting this policy in 
place due to the bureaucracy in the Department of Homeland Security and 
the State Department through the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative.
  It seems bureaucrats implementing the Western Hemisphere Travel 
Initiative continue to spend large amounts of time and money to come up 
with other ``alternative documents to passports'' to comply with this 
law. The answer is why? We have a secure document, the passport, that 
has been implemented and is being used. But the Department of Homeland 
Security and the Department of State, even though they continue to say 
the passport is the ``gold standard'' for identity and citizenship 
documents because of its security, have come up with all different 
types of forms and documents that they are studying. All of these 
documents are unproven. They are called the Pass card, the BCC card, 
the SENTRI card, the Nexus card, the Fast card. And we are spending 
taxpayer money experimenting on these, while not implementing the 
proven document like the passport.
  So this bill would require the Department of Homeland Security to use 
and implement only passports and quit spending money on documents that 
are unproven. And that is the purpose of this amendment: to spend money 
on passports only.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, this amendment prohibits 
funds in the act from implementing a plan to permit entry into the U.S. 
using any identification document other than a passport. I understand 
the security concerns that underlie this amendment, but I believe it 
overreaches considerably, and I will take just a minute to explain why 
I think so.
  This amendment would effectively prohibit DHS efforts to develop 
infrastructure or systems to process State Department passport cards 
for U.S. citizens living near and commuting across the land borders of 
the U.S., thus requiring all U.S. citizens who leave the U.S. to 
possess a passport, which currently costs $97 for adults, $82 for 
children. A passport card would cost less than half of that.
  In addition, the language would effectively prohibit anyone who did 
not have a valid passport, such as permanent residents who lack other 
citizenship documents, from reentering the U.S. If I read it correctly, 
that is exactly what it would do. And it would effectively invalidate 
millions of Mexican border crossing cards issued by the State 
Department.
  So it is an overreach, I would say, Mr. Chairman. It represents a 
draconian approach to border security. It would adversely affect the 
ability of U.S. citizens and workers and residents to move easily 
across the border.
  So I urge the House to reject the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POE. Mr. Chairman, with all due respect to the chairman, I 
understand his concerns, but the problem is exactly as he stated. There 
are too many documents to allow people to travel back and forth across 
U.S. borders. The United States discriminates against citizens from 
other nations because we require all those people that enter the United 
States to have a passport. Because of the different special interest 
groups that have thwarted the implementation of passports by having 
other types of documents, those documents are unproven. In fact, 
Homeland Security is still studying those, which means they are 
spending money on trying to come up with various systems.
  So rather than have three or four or five systems, I think it is 
important that we have one system, as the 9/11 Commission recommended. 
And that passport system is the one that is the most foolproof. It will 
take time to implement, but these other systems haven't been 
implemented at all.
  So the purpose of this is to make sure that we are on the same page: 
Require a simple document, a passport document, one that I have here; 
one that is faster than trying to examine numerous documents; one that 
you can, as we say, slide and glide by coming across the border. It 
won't take any more time. In fact, it will take less time than some of 
these other unsecured documents.
  So with that, I ask the approval of this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield to our colleague 
from New York (Mr. Serrano).
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I think you said it well. The problem here is that we have in place 
documentation that is acceptable for these kinds of crossings. Yes, as 
we go forward, we have to make sure that we secure our borders. But to 
undo that which has been working for a while and that which is accepted 
by our State Department is just to take a step backwards. And rather 
than doing that, we should accept what we have now and build on it. And 
what you are proposing is really to take a step that would only hurt 
us.
  Throughout the years, the State Department has worked, in the case of 
the Mexican Government, to bring about a proper crossing of the border 
for work purposes and family visits and so on. That has been in place 
for years. That has worked. That is not the issue that we deal with 
when we talk about undocumented immigration into the country. That is 
not the issue we deal with when we talk about terrorist acts. This is 
the crossing of the border in a proper and safe and legal manner, and 
that is what we have in place, and we shouldn't be reinventing the 
wheel at this stage.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. POE. Mr. Chairman, just in summary, we are requiring people who 
fly

[[Page H6465]]

into the United States to have passports. Even people from Mexico who 
fly into the United States will have to have passports. And when we fly 
to Mexico or Canada, we have to have passports. The same is true of 
people coming in by sea. And now it is appropriate that we have that 
same recommendation for those people who travel into the United States 
by land.
  That is why I recommend and ask for the adoption of this amendment, 
that the universal document for entry into another nation be adopted.
  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. Poe).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. POE. 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 Offered by Mr. LaTourette

  Mr. LaTOURETTE. 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. LaTourette:
       At the end of title V, add the following new section:
       Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to implement any plan developed under section 
     7209(b)(1) of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism 
     Prevention Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-458; 8 U.S.C. 1185 
     note) before June 1, 2009.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. LaTOURETTE. First of all, Mr. Chairman, I want to compliment you 
on the way you have conducted this debate. In happier times I had the 
privilege of being where you are, and I have to tell you, you have done 
a tremendous job and I appreciate it very much.
  I am pleased to offer this amendment with my friend, a colleague from 
Cleveland, Ohio, Congressman Kucinich.
  This amendment basically recognizes what I think that every Member of 
this House should recognize: that the implementation of the passport 
travel requirements in the Western Hemisphere has been a disaster. The 
State Department and Department of Homeland Security made an estimate, 
and they have been swamped. My constituents call me on a regular basis 
saying that they have applied for passports 12, 14, 20 weeks. They 
don't have their passports. Their trips are canceled. And this is a bad 
thing.
  You would think in the face of that track record that perhaps we 
wouldn't go to phase 2. Phase 2 says that we need to have documents as 
we cross the border by land into Canada. Where Congressman Kucinich and 
I are from, we go through Detroit or Buffalo and the southern border as 
well. But that hasn't been the case.
  On Friday the two agencies announced, reluctantly, that, you know 
what? We have got it wrong, and as a result we are not going to require 
passports for air travel to the Caribbean or to Canada anymore, and 
that a photo ID will be sufficient. However, even with this chaos, the 
administration has vowed that it will move forward with phase 2 on 
January 1.
  Now, I want to commend the chairman of the Rules Committee, 
Congresswoman Slaughter, for the work that she has done to put in this 
bill triggers that say maybe we don't have it right. Let's do some 
pilot programs and things of that nature. But those provisions were put 
in this bill before this disaster happened. And I don't assume that I 
am the only Member of this body that has received angry phone calls 
from their constituents and say, you know what? Maybe, maybe, we just 
need to slow it down.
  So this is a complete prohibition. It says to the Department of 
Homeland Security in this bill, and we will do it again in the State 
Department bill, saying we gave you until June of 2009 to get this 
right, to come up with the Pass card, to come up with whatever you are 
going to come up. But please, please, don't do this to our constituents 
on January 1, 2008.
  Mr. Chairman, at this time it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to my 
good friend and colleague from Cleveland, Ohio, Congressman Kucinich.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, as my colleague Mr. LaTourette points 
out, our offices are getting deluged with requests and complaints from 
constituents who are suffering under this backlog that has been 
created, and some of the action that has been taken by our Federal 
Government is only going to compound it. So the amendment is aimed at 
being constituent-sensitive and also sensible with respect to the 
border crossings, particularly at Canada.
  I think that Members realize, and all of us are here as legislators, 
but another important part of our responsibility is constituent 
service. And every one of us knows that we have been swamped.
  So this amendment that I am proud to work with Mr. LaTourette on is 
aimed at not just deferring a problem, but at really taking a sound and 
sensible approach to what has become a nightmare in terms of our 
constituents not being able to get the kind of responsiveness they have 
the right to expect on these issues that relate to visas and passports.
  So thank you very much, Mr. LaTourette, for your work on this, and I 
am very grateful that I have a chance to work with you on it.
  Mr. LaTOURETTE. I thank my colleague.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to commend our colleagues for this amendment. I 
certainly will not be objecting to it and will be happy if it is 
adopted. It is not exactly the same approach that was taken in our 
bill. I must say that. But I do think it is consistent with the bill.
  The amendment would prohibit funds in the act from being used to 
implement a plan before June 1, 2009, to comply with the Intelligence 
Reform Act of 2004 requirement to require all who enter the U.S. to 
have passports or equally valid identification. The Western Hemisphere 
Travel Initiative is intended to reduce the likelihood of entry by 
people who mean us ill.
  We believe this could be done effectively in a way that doesn't 
sacrifice good relations with our neighbors, that doesn't cause undue 
hardship for U.S. citizens or doesn't affect legitimate travel and 
commerce.

                              {time}  0115

  But we are certainly not there yet.
  Our bill fences $100 million of the $225 million in funding until the 
Department reports on the results of pilot projects in Washington 
State, until it provides an update on project milestones, until it 
demonstrates that statutory requirements are met and the system has 
been operationally tested, and until it reports on privacy safeguards. 
So we do have those kinds of protections in this bill. We have not 
included a date certain, but as I said, I believe the inclusion of a 
date is compatible with what we've suggested, and so we will not object 
to this amendment. We commend the gentleman for offering it.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time is 
remaining.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio has 1\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. LaTOURETTE. I would like to thank Chairman Price for not only 
accepting this amendment, but also for the work that he has done on 
this bill.
  This has been a very difficult process. And just like you, Mr. 
Chairman, he has also had a tough go of it. It's tough to lead, it's 
tough to be in the majority, it's tough to govern, and I think Chairman 
Price has done great work.
  I commend the committee for the work they have done on this bill. And 
I mentioned Chairwoman Slaughter for the work that she put in, and that 
was her language, that $100 million.
  I don't want to be an obstructionist, but because the Republicans and 
Democrats are being killed on this passport issue, even though the 
chairman has indicated he will accept the amendment, I will ask for a 
recorded vote.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

[[Page H6466]]

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. LaTOURETTE. 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 Ohio will be 
postponed.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Tancredo

  Mr. TANCREDO. 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. Tancredo:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. 544. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to carry out the visa waiver program under section 
     217 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1187).

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) and the gentleman from North 
Carolina (Mr. Price) each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado.
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, my amendment simply suspends the Visa 
Waiver Program for fiscal year 2008.
  The Visa Waiver Program was established in 1986 as a temporary, and I 
underline temporary, program to allow tourists or short-term business 
visitors to enter the United States for 90 days or less without 
obtaining a visa. The program was later made permanent by Congress and 
currently allows nationals of 27 countries into the United States with 
a simple stamp.
  The Visa Waiver Program ill advisedly trusts the security of our 
Nation to the background check capabilities and passport procedures of 
foreign governments. There are numerous instances of terrorists and 
would-be terrorists who have exploited this program, or easily could 
have.
  September 11 conspirator Zacharias Moussaoui is a great example of 
this. He exploited the Visa Waiver Program to travel to the United 
States. The 9/11 Commission stated that ``a maximum U.S. effort to 
investigate Moussaoui conceivably could have unearthed his connections. 
Those connections might have brought investigators to the core of the 
9/11 plot.''
  It's an interesting case because, of course, he was actually under 
investigation at the time by the French Government, by their secret 
service. Had we required a visa program that allowed for us to conduct 
that kind of background check, we may very well have identified those 
connections and not allowed him the visa. It seems clear that a maximum 
effort would include a thorough vetting of those seeking access to the 
United States.
  Would-be ``shoe bomber'' terrorist Richard Reid exploited the Visa 
Waiver Program to board the flight he tried to bomb. The London subway 
bombing was executed in large part by British citizens with known ties 
to terrorism. Under the Visa Waiver Program, any British citizen can 
travel to the United States without having to apply for a visa and 
without giving our government the ability to do even a cursory 
investigation as to whether he or she may have ties to a terrorist 
group. British citizen Hemant Lakhani is just such an example. He was 
busted in a sting in New Jersey in 2003 when he tried to sell shoulder-
fire surface-to-air missiles to a Federal operative who he believed to 
be a Somali terrorist plotting against American jetliners.
  Mr. Chairman, we cannot give those who wish to harm us open access to 
America under the cloak of the Visa Waiver Program. We need to suspend 
the program until we are equipped to check the criminal and terrorist 
background of every visitor who arrives at any port of entry to confirm 
the identity of each visitor using the biometric identifiers.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield to our colleague, 
subcommittee member, Mr. Farr.
  Mr. FARR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for yielding.
  I rise as one of the cochairs of the Travel and Tourism Caucus, and I 
rise because I think you are trying to fix something here that isn't 
broken.
  We have not had problems with the Visa Waiver Program. In fact, it 
has worked very well. And the reason you get qualified as a country for 
the Visa Waiver Program is because the visitors from that country, all 
who have passports, those passports all are screened and have to pass 
the screening before they get on an airplane. And so if there is such a 
traveler that is on the ``no fly'' list, they would be selected out at 
that point.
  The reason these countries have qualified is because they haven't had 
people visiting our country who have skipped, who have stayed on, who 
have violated. The visa is time certain. These are frequent travelers; 
they are from the countries that are our allies, most of whom are 
members of NATO or other security forces. I think it is a very bad way 
to go. One is it's going to alienate the travel and tourism industry in 
the United States that relies a lot on foreign travelers; they spend a 
lot of money in this country. And, frankly, right now visiting America 
is a bargain. It is one of the best vacation packages you can buy 
compared to costs in Europe and so on. And what you do by cutting these 
funds, you would prohibit funds from this act from carrying out the 
Visa Waiver Program.
  Now, within that program is also the ability of DHS sharing 
information with the State Department, maintaining records of these 
visa-waiver applications. Remember, you have to apply for that. You 
would prohibit the administering of programs which air carriers use 
relating to verifying travelers as qualified, visa-waiver residents.
  So what you are going to do is you are not going to stop the program. 
You are just going to stop the sharing of inside information. And I 
think it's a fear that hasn't been demonstrated as a problem. 
Therefore, nothing is broken that needs fixing. There isn't support for 
this program among the travel and tourism industry, and particularly 
the air carriers. And I think the fact that all these visitors have to 
have a passport and those passports have to meet our standards, that 
these Visa Waiver Program visitors are very well protected.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, if passports alone provided the kind of 
security that the gentleman suggests they provide, then of course we 
would not need visas at all. Why would we impose this particular kind 
of background check if passports alone gave us the kind of security 
that we need to make sure that the people entering this country are, 
number one, who they say they are, and more importantly, that their 
backgrounds do not show anything that might suggest that they should 
not be allowed into the country.
  But don't just take my word for it. Listen to what former DHS 
Inspector General Clark Kent Ervin recently said: ``We ought to be 
ending the Visa Waiver Program, not expanding it. There is a reason why 
terrorists are keen to obtain passports from visa-waiver countries. 
They don't have to undergo extensive security checks.''
  So when you say there is no opposition to the program, I would 
suggest that that is not correct. There certainly are people involved 
with the program who feel as I do, that we need to abandon this 
particular visa-waiver idea.
  And the IG isn't alone. Last September, the Government Accountability 
Office found that stolen passports from visa-waiver countries are 
prized travel documents among terrorists, criminals and immigration law 
violators. Based on a State Department report from January 2002 until 
June 2004, 28 foreign governments reported 56,943 stolen blank foreign 
passports. The Director of the U.S. National Central Bureau of Interpol 
has said that for 55 of the 181 Interpol countries, there were probably 
over 10 million lost and stolen passports that might be in circulation. 
In August of 2004, according to CBP, their database contains 1.2 
million records of stolen passports. Notably, between January and June 
of 2005, DHS confiscated 298 passports issued by visa-waiver countries 
that travelers were attempting to use at ports of entry to fraudulently 
enter the United States.

[[Page H6467]]

  I encourage the adoption of the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's time has expired.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of our 
time to Mr. Farr.
  Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, none of the facts stated by the gentleman 
have anything to do with the amendment. The amendment cuts the ability 
for us to manage a program which is working very well. Every one of 
these travelers has to get a passport; those passports have to meet our 
standards. They have to go through the screening at airports. If they 
are on a ``no fly'' list, they won't be allowed on an airplane. This is 
not the way to try to prevent good visitors to this country who are 
allies of the United States.
  And, frankly, adopting this amendment is not only going to create an 
incredible bureaucracy for us; it is going to create an alienation 
among countries that we get along with very well and have allowed a 
visa waiver. Without it, every one of these would have to flood a 
foreign council. And you would have frequent travelers unable to get to 
the United States and be a good tourist and good visitors of our 
country and good friends.
  I don't think in nation building that this is the way that you want 
to attack the problem. So I ask for a ``no'' vote on 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 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. TANCREDO. 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 Colorado 
will be postponed.


             Amendment Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. 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 Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas:
       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Sec. __. Critical Infrastructure Vulnerability
       None of the funds in this Act may be used to limit the 
     implementation of Homeland Security Presidential Directive 7 
     (HSPD-7).

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, might I add my appreciation 
for the manner in which the chairman has conducted this process with 
the appropriations of the Homeland Security Appropriations Committee.
  Let me thank the ranking member of the committee and the chairman of 
the subcommittee for working with the authorizers. And let me thank my 
chairman, Chairman Thompson of the full committee, the Homeland 
Security Committee, for creating the committee which I Chair, the 
Transportation, Security and Critical Infrastructure.
  This amendment speaks directly to the immediacy of our concerns about 
pipeline security, refineries and other critical infrastructure.
  A CRS report indicates that there are now nearly half a million miles 
of oil and gas transmission pipelines across America. We got a wake-up 
call just a few weeks ago with the discovery of a possible plot to blow 
up the fuel lines at John F. Kennedy Airport. Now we understand that we 
have a dilemma, and that dilemma requires the Department of Homeland 
Security to consider assessing the vulnerability of pipelines, 
refineries and other critical infrastructure around America.
  Natural gas, gasoline, petroleum and other pipelines can produce 
catastrophic fires and explosions when they fall, and it is imperative 
that we begin to assess the vulnerabilities of such.
  A weekly bulletin from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and 
FBI told law enforcement officials and businesses this week that the 
Independence Day holiday might make an attack more appealing.

                              {time}  0130

  This was an article in 2005. The bulletin said important economic 
infrastructure like refineries are possible targets for terrorists.
  We need to assess the vulnerabilities of our refineries and 
pipelines.
  Another article said, apparently some international terrorists have 
targeted our oil refining assets in the United States as potential 
targets. FBI Director Mueller said between 1999 and 2001, the FBI 
prevented 10 possible domestic terrorist incidents, including two 
potentially large scale, high casualty attacks by right wing groups, 
and the planned bombing of a trans-Alaska pipeline in 1999. Our 
pipelines are on the front lines of terrorists.
  A New York Post article said for years, city residents have 
questioned the safety of the 40 year old artery that pumps jet fuel, 
heating and diesel oil and gasoline into the city, and some have even 
cited the pipeline as a potential terrorist attack.
  We saw what happened when this allegation of terrorism that is still 
being investigated was uncovered regarding the John F. Kennedy 
pipeline. We have to get in front of this. We have to be preventive. 
Our committee will go forward having oversight hearings on these 
important questions. But it is important for the Department of Homeland 
Security to adhere to its directive and to recognize that the 
responsibility of security of pipelines and critical infrastructure 
remains in the Department of Homeland Security.
  It is interesting as to whether or not beyond the question of 
impacting our security and our lives, that this damage to critical 
infrastructure can generate increased oil prices, something that many 
Americans are now saying, enough is enough.
  I would ask my colleagues to recognize that our responsibility, the 
Homeland Security Appropriations Committee that has put together a very 
inclusive appropriations bill, to answer the questions of the needs of 
America's homeland security. But we also have to recognize that we have 
to be diligent, we have to be vigilant, and we have to make sure that 
we are in front of the ideas, the threats, of those perpetrators who 
would want to do us harm.
  The half a million miles of pipelines, the many, many refineries, 
speaks loudly and volumes to the necessity of creating a vulnerability 
assessment of those pipelines and refineries and other critical 
infrastructure around the United States.
  I would ask that my colleagues support this amendment, and I would 
ask additionally that the Department of Homeland Security have as one 
of its chief responsibilities the vulnerability assessment of these 
critical infrastructure sites.
  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 want to commend our colleague for her effective focus 
on this issue of pipeline safety and her good work on the authorizing 
committee and her coming here at this very late hour to offer this very 
fine amendment. I am pleased on behalf of the majority to accept the 
amendment.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I am absolutely delighted. It 
means America will be safer.
  I thank the Chair for this opportunity to explain my amendment to 
H.R. 2638, the ``Homeland Security Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 
of 2008.'' As a member of the Homeland Security Committee and the chair 
of the Transportation Security and Infrastructure Protection 
Subcommittee, I am pleased to offer this amendment, which enhances the 
bill by requiring the Department of Homeland Security to conduct a 
security vulnerability study of the Nation's pipelines and refineries.
  Less than two weeks ago, four would-be terrorists were arrested for 
hatching a plot to blow up John F. Kennedy Airport and swaths of 
Queens by attacking fuel tanks and an underground pipeline in the hope 
of igniting a catastrophic explosion that would surpass the horrific 
devastation visited upon the Nation on September 11.

  Because of their length, ubiquity, and remoteness, pipelines can be 
nearly impossible to defend. Natural gas, gasoline, petroleum, and 
other pipelines can produce catastrophic

[[Page H6468]]

fires and explosions when they fail. ``Environmental'' damage aside, 
these events can kill and injure people, and the casualties can be 
worse when pipelines are located near populated areas.
  We need to ensure that everything that can be done to secure the 
Nation's pipelines and refineries is being done. There may be, of 
course, other actions that pipeline and refinery operators can and must 
do to reduce the threats terrorists could present.
  My aim of my amendment is to increase the knowledge base pertaining 
to potential vulnerabilities of a critically important segment of the 
Nation's economic infrastructure so that effective countermeasures can 
be taken to protect the public health, safety, and welfare.
  For these reasons, I urge the adoption of this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I am very happy to yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Tancredo

  Mr. TANCREDO. 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. 7 offered by Mr. Tancredo:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. 544. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used in contravention of section 642(a) of the Illegal 
     Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 
     (8 U.S.C. 1373(a)).

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado.
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment that I offered many times in the 
past. It was actually passed by the House, I believe, in the last 
session. The fact is that we need to, unfortunately, run at it again.
  My amendment would prevent State and local governments who refuse to 
share information with Federal immigration authorities from obtaining 
Federal funds under this act. These are so-called sanctuary policies, 
and they are not only misguided and dangerous, but they also are 
illegal.
  That is an interesting aspect of this that we have brought to the 
attention of the Congress many times in the past. There is in fact a 
law. It has been on the books now for over 10 years. Section 642 of the 
Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 
already makes it illegal for a State or local government to block 
communications between State and local police and Federal immigration 
enforcement authorities.
  Unfortunately, there are no provisions for enforcement. Therefore, 
many local governments adopt policies that explicitly prevent their 
police officers from cooperating with immigration and Customs 
enforcement agents.
  A recent example of this increasingly brazen defiance of Federal law 
is the City of San Francisco. Just a couple of months ago, Mayor Gavin 
Newsome assured a concerned audience that he would ``not allow any of 
his department heads or anyone else associated with the city to 
cooperate in any way, shape or form with these immigration raids.'' 
Unfortunately, San Francisco is not is not the only jurisdiction in 
this category.
  When local governments refuse to share information with Federal 
immigration authorities, police departments often stop and/or arrest 
criminal aliens time and time again, only to release them without ever 
checking their immigration status. As a result, instead of being 
deported, these aliens move on to commit other crimes.
  The City of Denver also has a sanctuary city policy that violates 
Federal law. Their police manual explicitly prohibits officers from 
initiating actions whose objective is to ``discover the immigration 
status of a person.''
  Mr. Chairman, I can tell you from my own experience that there have 
been numerous occasions where this sanctuary city policy in Denver 
alone has resulted in the deaths of individuals, and certainly other 
kinds of crimes being perpetrated, because people that were involved 
with these murders and/or manslaughter charges that were brought 
against them were illegal aliens. They had come in contact at some time 
in the past with the authorities, but because of these sanctuary city 
policies, none of the authorities were able to communicate with ICE and 
therefore, of course, these people went undetected and otherwise almost 
certainly would have been taken into custody and deported and those 
crimes would not have been committed.
  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, section 642(a) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and 
Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 prohibits governments from 
withholding immigration-related data when it is requested by other 
government entities with a legitimate need for the information. This 
amendment, which our friend from Colorado has offered many times 
before, would prevent DHS from awarding funds to any government entity 
that fails to comply with the law.
  Now, as far as I know, Mr. Chairman, the Department of Homeland 
Security has never reported a failure to comply with the law, with this 
underlying law. The Justice Department has never filed suit against any 
entity for violating this statute. So I don't know how our friend would 
explain that. I would say it renders unclear why this amendment is 
necessary or what effect it is likely to have.
  I would yield to the gentleman, and I would appreciate his responding 
to a few questions that would help us understand the thrust of this 
amendment.
  Does the gentlemen know of any DHS funding today that is used in 
contravention of section 642(a) of the 1996 Immigration Act?
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, the issue is not whether DHS funding is 
used in contravention. It is whether or not there is any penalty to be 
assessed to enforce the law that is on the books. Naturally there has 
been no suit brought or whatever because there is no penalty in the law 
itself. What we are doing here is providing a penalty for the violation 
of the law.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. The question is, do you know of any 
violations that have occurred?
  Mr. TANCREDO. Yes, I most certainly do, and I have brought them to 
the attention of the body. There are many, many more like this.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. You are aware of DHS funding that has 
been used in contravention?
  Mr. TANCREDO. No. The question was am I aware of any violations of 
the law, and the answer is yes, many violations of the law.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I am asking about DHS funding, Homeland 
Security funding, which, after all, is the department we are 
appropriating for.
  Mr. TANCREDO. That is correct. I am trying to assess a penalty for a 
violation of the law, and this is the penalty that I believe is 
appropriate.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Let me maybe phrase this another way. Is 
disaster relief funding being used in contravention of this section?
  Mr. TANCREDO. At the present time, it is not. But if we pass this 
amendment, it would be, yes. There has to be some sort of penalty 
assessed to the law that is already on the books or, of course, it is 
of no value. That is why so many cities have adopted these sanctuary 
city programs, and that is why we have to do something about it.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Let me ask about DHS grant dollars 
generally. Have they been used in contravention of this section?
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, any first responder money, any of the 
money we are talking about here in San Francisco, is currently 
appropriated in violation of the law, actually, and what this would do 
is establish that fact.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I am asking though what evidence exists 
that this is actually a problem.
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield further, 
there are innumerable cases we could cite, and certainly I did, of 
where cities were in contravention of the law. They described 
themselves as sanctuary cities. They have said they will not in

[[Page H6469]]

fact obey the law, the 1996 law that I have already described, that we 
have laid out, section 642 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and 
Immigrant Responsibility Act.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Reclaiming my time, New York City has a 
law on the books, for example, that prohibits the provision of 
Immigration information to the Federal Government, I understand. Would 
this amendment prohibit any DHS funding to New York City?
  Mr. TANCREDO. Yes. The fact is if they chose to maintain this 
particular program, it would prohibit the funding.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. The answer is yes. Reclaiming my time, 
it is a simple straightforward question. Border Patrol agents are 
funded in this bill. If DHS were to find that a border city or county 
were in contravention of section 642(a), would this provision require 
them to remove all Border Patrol agents from that city or county?
  Mr. TANCREDO. They are not protecting the city. They are protecting 
the border.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's time has expired. The gentleman 
from Colorado has 2 minutes remaining.
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I thank Mr. Tancredo for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I would take it to this, that one thing that has 
happened with these sanctuary policies is the cities have gotten 
together, I think I looked at the same attorney opinion, and tried to 
find a loophole, and in many of these sanctuary policies it says if you 
are an employee of the city, you shall not gather information. If you 
are prohibited from gathering, then you don't have any information to 
share with the law enforcement people who do enforce our Immigration 
laws. That is one of the loopholes that is there.
  But the philosophy here is really the difference. There are two 
trains of thought. One of them says if you enforce immigration law in 
my community, people won't come forward and report other laws, like 
domestic abuse or whatever. And the other side is, how in the world can 
you enforce some laws and not others?
  This is a statute that is clear on the books. Mr. Tancredo is seeking 
to enforce that statute. And the decision needs to be made by the 
cities, do you like your Homeland Security funding? Is the funding that 
comes from the Federal Government that provides that security in those 
cities worth more to you than your sanctuary policy? That is the bottom 
line. Federal law has got to prevail.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to the bill, and I claim the 
time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, this may be one of those classic moments 
where we are dealing with something that really isn't broken. The fact 
of life is that everybody at every local government and in every 
locality throughout this country knows what the law is and knows how to 
react to that law. People are not withholding information from the 
Federal Government.
  What happens, however, on many occasions, is that local communities 
will make a statement, and basically it is a statement in many cases, 
in most cases, saying that that area is a sanctuary, meaning that they 
look at the immigration issue differently than you may in other parts 
of the country. But it doesn't mean that they flaunt the law, that they 
laugh at the law, that they will not participate.
  I assure you that in the case of New York City, where the scene of 
the crime took place on September 11, no one in that city government, 
no one in that State government, is interested in doing anything else 
but complying with every law that will help us secure our borders and 
protect our city.

                              {time}  0145

  But we in that city look at immigration different than other people 
in other parts of the country, perhaps. We don't see immigrants as a 
problem to society that we have to somehow create a problem for them.
  So sanctuary movements, which incidentally are growing throughout 
churches of all denominations throughout the country in very 
conservative and in very liberal areas, those movements are simply 
statements by communities saying we see the immigration issue from a 
humane point of view. We see it differently than other people. We don't 
think these people are problems for the country. Let's work to resolve 
the problem in a proper way.
  This, again, is a classic case of coming to the House floor and 
saying, one, we are going to tell local governments what to do, 
something that side does not usually like to do, and in this case 
freedom of speech. Simply a statement by many communities that they see 
immigration in a different way and we should not be badgering them and 
creating issues where issues do not exist.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, talking about not telling local 
communities what they should do, we have a law. It is on the book. I am 
not imposing new legislation telling communities what to do, I am 
simply assessing a penalty for the law that already exists.
  It is interesting that the gentleman would bring up New York City. As 
a matter of fact, in New York City there was a case where there was a 
woman brutally raped by five people, four of whom were illegal 
immigrants and had already come in contact with the police many times. 
It was that case that made New York City rethink, albeit temporarily, 
their whole sanctuary city policy, and they did take it away for a 
while because of that. They have sort of reimposed it.
  Also, the 9/11 hijackers, had we known that they had been stopped 
before, which they actually had, if they had come in contact with the 
police, which they did, we may have been able to stop them had we not 
had sanctuary city policies in place, not just in New York but 
throughout the country.
  These are cities violating the law at the present time. Honestly, I 
am not trying to make new law, just enforce existing law.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. TANCREDO. 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 Colorado 
will be postponed.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Royce

  Mr. ROYCE. 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. Royce:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act for 
     customs and border protection fencing, infrastructure, and 
     technology may be used for anything but at least two layers 
     of reinforced fencing and roads pursuant to section 102 of 
     Public Law 104-208.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Royce) and the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Farr) each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I want to start off by thanking Mrs. Blackburn, Messrs. King, Hunter, 
Franks, Bilbray, Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite, Mrs. Capito, and Mrs. Drake for 
all coming together and working towards this amendment.
  This amendment will give badly needed funding to the border security 
fence as provided by the law in the Secure Fence Act. Congress 
authorized it last year, provided funding to get it started in the 2007 
DHS spending bill.
  The point I would like to make, although Congress mandated the 
construction of 847 miles of fencing, to date only 13.01 miles have 
been completed. And as you know, it is supposed to be a double-border 
fence, and only one-half of the 13.01 miles is completed in the sense 
it is only one side of the fence.
  So the amendment being offered today takes funding made available in

[[Page H6470]]

the bill for border protection and directs it to the fencing.
  This amendment will give the administration, I think, what it needs 
to construct the remaining portions of the border fence. It is vital to 
national security. I had a number of hearings down on the border when I 
was chairman of the Terrorism and Nonproliferation Subcommittee. But 
Border Patrol told me about the effectiveness of the fence. There are 
over 400 attacks on Border Patrol agents a year. They need this fence. 
They find it is a great force multiplier. It extends their capacity. It 
allows them the discretion to redeploy agents to areas where they are 
not vulnerable or at risk.
  Frankly, I think we have a difference of opinion on how important it 
is to follow the law under the Secure Fence Act with the 
administration.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. 
King).
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California 
for yielding.
  I want to clarify what this amendment does. It does really two 
things. One is it directs the $1 billion already in the bill to go to 
the 854 miles of the most critical areas of the border that were 
identified in the Secure Fence Act. The first thing is put the 
resources where they are the most critical, where Congress has, by more 
than a 2-to-1 margin in the House, said let's do this. And the Senate 
has said by a more than 4-to-1 margin, 80-19, let's build this 854 
miles.
  The second thing that the bill does is that it confines the billion 
dollars to fence and access roads. You have to have roads to build it, 
and you have to have roads to maintain it. What the administration has 
demonstrated is out of the $1.187 billion that we appropriated last 
year, they spent perhaps $30 million on real fence, the 13.01 miles 
that Mr. Royce addressed. The balance of that is on virtual technology.
  Now we need some virtual technology; but overall, this will provide 
in the end $2.2 billion. And of that, $1 billion is set aside for 
physical structures, fence and roads. The balance of that, the decision 
can be made by DHS as to whether that is virtual and real or whatever 
combination.
  So we are asking for $1 billion of the overall $2.2 billion to go to 
physical fence and access roads. That is consistent with what Congress 
has passed by a large margin.
  What is so important about this that isn't brought into this debate 
is the fact that there are $65 billion worth of illegal drugs coming 
across that southern border. Ninety percent of the illegal drugs that 
come into America come there. The force of that $65 billion is 
overpowering, and no amount of virtual fence is going to stop a real 
drug cartel that is pushing on all 2,000 miles of that border and will 
find the weak spots.
  Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, and 
must say it has been very interesting tonight. There has been a lot of 
discussion about fences and very little discussion about Homeland 
Security which is what this budget is all about.
  It is interesting, in traveling the border and talking to the Border 
Patrol, there was never, never a request for this. What you are doing, 
very interesting in this amendment, you say ``none of the funds made 
available in this act for customs and border protection fencing, 
infrastructure, and technology may be used for anything but at least 
two layers of reinforced fencing and roads.''
  No technology, no infrastructure, just got to build two fences. Wait 
a minute. This committee went to a lot of effort to find out how to 
prioritize spending. What we heard from the experts is follow risk 
management principles.
  And the question was asked in committee: Where is the risk on our 
border? Where have we seen terrorism? And guess what the head of the 
Border Patrol said, the Customs and Border Patrol Commissioner said, 
when asked about how many terrorists we have apprehended or found on 
the Mexico-U.S. border? The answer was zero. How much material have you 
apprehended on that border? The answer was zero.
  When asked about the northern border the answer was yes, we have 
apprehended terrorists coming across that border, and we have 
apprehended material coming across that border.
  So based on risk management, if this is about terrorism, the fence is 
not an issue. I think this fence discussion here has created fence 
bulimia. That is all we can talk about, and it is only one fence, and 
now you want to build it double when the customs people don't even ask 
for that.
  We are sitting here as fence managers here in Washington and have 
nothing to do with trying to patrol that border. This is cutting off 
funds for technology and infrastructure. If there is anything that is 
needed along that border, it is infrastructure. This is like building a 
huge levee on one side of the river and not taking care of anything on 
the other side.
  I will tell you, if you are going to have security, you are going to 
have to have a much more comprehensive approach. Mexico is our 
important ally. It is our neighbor. It is our leading trade partner 
with the State of California which the gentleman is from. It has the 
busiest border between California and Mexico. More people cross that 
border every day and more legitimate commerce cross that border than 
any other place in the world.
  And we are doing that with existing resources. Guess what, they are 
working because the committee has put in some very good detection 
systems using smart cards and other things.
  I think this amendment does absolutely the opposite of what you want 
to do. This doesn't secure the border, this takes money away from 
technology and infrastructure development. Without a problem, you don't 
need to fix it.
  If you want to build a fence where the terrorists are coming, then 
build that fence across the Canadian border.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, yielding myself the time, I chaired the 
committee meetings down on the border. Mahmoud Qurani crossed that 
border in the trunk of a car, an agent for Hezbollah, whose brother, by 
the way, was in charge of the southern front in the attack on Israel 
recently. He came across in the trunk of a car.
  I have talked to Border Patrol agents who have made apprehensions on 
that border, and I can tell you the San Diego fence has not only cut 
the crime rate by half in San Diego, but also on the Mexican side, and 
nobody has designed a way to get around the San Diego fence. This 
double-border fence works. It is what the Border Patrol has asked me 
for and testified up here for.
  And 69 percent in the polling last night by Rasmussen, actually the 
polling was on the 12th, 69 percent of the public say they want, they 
favor an approach focusing on securing the border with this kind of 
approach. Only 20 percent of people want Congress to try to pass the 
immigration reform bill that failed in the Senate last week.
  Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, this gold-plated fence costs $3 million a 
mile. To do that takes money away from technology and infrastructure. 
It takes money from effective border control. Effective control is 
where they detect and apprehend. That is what they want the money spent 
on, being able to detect and apprehend. This takes money away from 
doing effective border security. I oppose the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  I am intrigued by the suggestion that Border Patrol officials have 
come requesting this kind of approach for protecting the border. I have 
never heard any Border Patrol official make such a request.
  On the contrary, during our travels on the southwest borders and in 
talking to officials here in Washington, Mr. Farr is absolutely 
correct. The first thing they say is this isn't an enforcement problem 
alone, it requires a comprehensive immigration reform effort.
  The second thing they say is that one size does not fit all in terms 
of border protection. The gentleman cites the San Diego example. Yes, 
that may well be a situation where a fence is called for. But the 
people who know the most about this and who are charged with protecting 
us every day invariably say that different technologies, different 
kinds of barriers, vehicle barriers, pedestrian barriers, barriers that 
might be suited to one kind of terrain rather than another, electronic 
surveillance, there are a range of technologies that

[[Page H6471]]

are required here. This is an incredible amendment. This amendment 
forgoes any kind of analytical effort and examination of differences 
and simply says two-layer fences will be erected everywhere.
  And by the way, this is far more expensive than other kinds of 
barriers. So whatever it is, we would build less of it. The number of 
miles we are talking about here, to build that with the kind of fencing 
that the gentleman wants to see would cost $2 billion. That is twice 
what we have in this bill; so, of course, it would protect far less of 
the border.
  The Department needs some discretion here, some discretion for the 
best minds in law enforcement and technology to decide what sort of 
protection makes sense in what portions of the border.

                              {time}  0200

  Our bill does that. Our bill has generous funding, but it also has 
some requirements about documenting the cost-effectiveness, the 
effectiveness in protecting the border, as well as the kind of effects 
we've talked about earlier this evening on the communities in the path 
of this.
  So it's a sensible approach. It's one that draws on the best 
expertise we've been able to engage, and I strongly urge that it be 
retained in the bill, and therefore, this amendment be rejected.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Royce).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. ROYCE. 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 California 
will be postponed.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Forbes

  Mr. FORBES. 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. Forbes:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. 544. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to extend the designation of any foreign state under 
     section 244(b)(3)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act 
     (8 U.S.C. 1254a(b)(3)(C)).

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Forbes) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. FORBES. Mr. Chairman, as you know, Congress has granted the 
Secretary of Homeland Security the authority to grant temporary refuge 
to aliens, usually illegal immigrants, from particular countries under 
temporary protected status. Congress intended this provision to live up 
to its name and be temporary. Unfortunately, a pattern of abuse has 
emerged in the temporary protected status, or TPS, program. DHS can 
grant TPS status to the nationals of a country for as long as 18 months 
and can later extend the TPS period indefinitely by adding extensions 
up to 18 months each.
  The administration has begun to utilize TPS as a de facto amnesty for 
illegal immigrants from certain Central American countries. TPS status 
was granted to Honduran and Nicaraguan nationals at the end of 1998 
following Hurricane Mitch. The administration has extended TPS for 
these individuals multiple times, the latest extension lasting until 
January 2009, more than 10 years after the hurricane. TPS status for 
Salvadoran nationals was granted early in 2001 as a result of 
earthquakes hitting the region. The latest TPS extension for Salvadoran 
nationals lasts until September 2007, again, long after temporary 
dislocations caused by the earthquakes.
  There are currently some 248,000 Salvadorans, 81,000 Hondurans and 
4,000 Nicaraguans, mostly aliens who came illegally to the United 
States, benefiting from TPS status. Our Nation currently has a growing 
gang problem, and we have had testimony in the Judiciary Committee that 
60 to 85 percent of some of the most violent gang members in the United 
States are here illegally. Of 5,000 gang members in a database that ICE 
compiled for Operation Community Shield, 291 El Salvadoran nationals, 
43 Hondurans, and 1 Nicaraguan had been granted temporary protected 
status, 6.7 percent of the total.
  At least one of the suspected MS-13 members accused in the 2002 rape 
of two deaf girls in Massachusetts had been in our country protected by 
TPS. In fact, currently, a criminal gang member could literally stand 
on a street corner and announce that they were a member of a violent 
criminal gang and that they came here illegally, and if protected under 
TPS, no law enforcement officer could touch them until they had 
actually committed a crime.
  TPS is being used to grant long-time residence, a perpetual amnesty, 
to illegal immigrants of certain favored nationalities. This amendment 
will return TPS to its original intent of providing temporary refuge 
during temporary periods of crisis. It would bar any funds made 
available in this Act from being used to extend TPS for nationals of a 
country beyond the original period of not more than 18 months.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  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 rise to oppose this amendment and in the strongest 
possible terms. The amendment would prohibit funds made available in 
the Act from being used to extend temporary protected status for 
countries covered under that program.
  Temporary protected status is a special immigration benefit for 
citizens of countries with severe hardships: civil wars, massive 
natural disasters, humanitarian crises, some of those troubled places 
in the world where people are fleeing absolutely horrendous conditions. 
This program offers the citizens of those countries temporary sanctuary 
in our country until their countries' troubles are resolved.
  In total, 4,198 people currently in the U.S. could be deported if 
their temporary protected status were not extended. These individuals 
would be sent back to countries with extreme conditions, places like 
Burundi, Somalia, the Sudan. Of course, we hope that these troubles 
will end and that these people could eventually return to their home 
countries. This is temporary status, but the notion that we would 
defund this program or refuse to extend it where it's called for.
  This amendment would also be detrimental to the effective 
administration and enforcement of immigration laws. It would create 
confusion about the degree to which the U.S. government can be trusted 
to maintain its commitment to those for whom it offers immigration 
benefits.
  So I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I'm opposed to the amendment, and I rise 
to claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this may go down as the meanest and most misguided 
amendment of the evening. TPS has been known and worked as a proper 
legal statement by the U.S. government to give protection to people who 
are in situations where they cannot go back home. These people did not 
come into the country illegally. In fact, in many cases, our actions 
being involved in those countries invited them to come here, and this 
is why we offer that protection.
  The countries that would be affected are countries where we either 
have had a standing tradition of being involved in trying to resolve 
some difficulties in those countries and participated militarily and 
otherwise in those countries and, as a result, gave them this 
protection. And secondly, there are also a set of countries which are 
going through very difficult situations.
  I'm thinking, as I hear the gentleman speak, if Mr. Frank Wolf was 
here now he would be up on our side talking to you about the Sudan and 
talking to you about other places where we should continue to give the 
temporary protection status.

[[Page H6472]]

  But here's the main point which I've already mentioned and needs to 
be mentioned again. This is a situation where these folks should not be 
looked at as people who are here illegally. They're here legally. 
They're here because this Congress, this administration and other 
administrations, have seen fit to give them this protection. They're 
here because they can't go back home.
  And again, we may disagree on this, and frankly, there might be 
people on this side that disagree with me, but in some of those 
countries our policies have played a role in creating a situation where 
they can't go back home. So to lump them in with the undocumented 
immigrant situation of the country is totally unfair because it's two 
different issues. This one is sanctioned.
  Interestingly enough, I notice that there's always a little bit of 
politics involved in this because the gentleman doesn't suggest that 
all Cubans go back to Cuba and that they should not get special 
treatment as they do under the Cuban Adjustment Act. We never touch 
that one. We touch this one.
  Well, that's sad. It shouldn't be, and we should continue to protect 
these folks and try to make situations back home bearable for them. In 
the meantime, we should not be throwing them out of the country.
  And lastly, we're not talking about 12 million people. We're not 
talking about 15 or 20 million people. We're talking about a much 
smaller number of people who need our protection.
  There's a lady in the harbor to the city where I live and where I've 
grown up. That lady, known as the Statue of Liberty, tells us to bring 
to these shores the people that are hurting.
  This is a fine example of America at its best. Don't lump it in with 
any other problem. That's not fair and that's not right.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.
  Mr. FORBES. Mr. Chairman, could you tell me how much time I have 
remaining?
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia has 2 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. FORBES. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remaining time.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman stated that this would perhaps be the 
meanest and most misguided amendment of the night, but I would suggest 
that the gentleman look in the eyes of the father who had his deaf 
daughter raped and assaulted by individuals who were here illegally, 
protected only because we shielded them with temporary protected 
status, where they could have literally been standing on the street and 
have said, I'm a member of a violent criminal gang, I was here 
illegally, and there would have been nothing law enforcement could have 
done to have gotten rid of those individuals until they'd actually 
raped that little girl. One of those individuals was here protected by 
temporary protected status. The other one had applied for it and was in 
the process of getting it.
  The second thing, Mr. Chairman, we heard it mentioned that these 
individuals are here and we're protecting them on a temporary basis. 
It's mighty hard to look into the eyes of the American people, and say 
that when we have extended something for 10 years, that that is a 
temporary situation.
  And Mr. Chairman, I would just suggest to you when we talk about 
they're here legally, it is true they're here legally because we've put 
this shield of protection around them. If we're going to truly deal 
with the law and be honest with the American people and what this law 
says, we need to either take the word ``temporary'' out and just tell 
them it's protected status, or we need to let the law do what it's 
intended to do, which is to truly be temporary by being an 18-month 
period of time, not a 10-year period of time.
  Mr. Chairman, once again, I hope that it will be the pleasure of my 
colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Forbes).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. FORBES. 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 Virginia 
will be postponed.


              Amendment Offered by Mr. Rogers of Kentucky

  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. 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. Rogers of Kentucky:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. 544. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to implement section 536 of this Act.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) and the gentleman from North 
Carolina (Mr. Price) each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is simple. It 
strikes the Davis-Bacon section in the bill. That section has 
consequences that I'm not sure the majority has thoroughly thought 
through.
  Requiring all DHS contract and grant funds to comply with Davis-Bacon 
could unfairly disadvantage communities that are unfortunate enough to 
be struck by a disaster. It could reduce funds available for their 
recovery. It could slow the pace of assistance and significantly 
increase non-Federal cost-share requirements. This section would likely 
cost already cash-strapped States and localities additional funds.
  The Congressional Budget Office says that Davis-Bacon will cost 
taxpayers more than $9.5 billion from 2002 to 2011. This expansion 
would only greater the burden on taxpayers.
  This expansion further disadvantages small, emerging and minority 
businesses new to the complex, inefficient wage and work restrictions 
which make it nearly impossible for them to compete with better 
capitalized corporations, disadvantaging the very companies we often 
seek to help following a disaster.
  And so I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and strike this 
onerous restriction on the Nation's communities.
  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.
  The amendment would eliminate the requirement that the funding 
provided in this bill comply with the prevailing wage requirements of 
the Davis-Bacon Act. Nobody remembers who Davis and Bacon were, but the 
Act was enacted back in 1931 by a Republican Congress and a Republican 
administration, that of one Herbert Hoover.
  It sets minimum labor standards for workers employed in Federal 
contract construction. It simply says that they've got to pay their 
employees, if they're using Federal funds, not less than the locally 
prevailing wage.

                              {time}  0215

  The Department of Homeland Security interpreted the application of 
Davis-Bacon far too narrowly. They said it applies only to Stafford Act 
grant programs, virtually no other DHS programs, despite the fact that 
a lot of these programs do involve construction projects like State and 
urban area Homeland Security grants, buffer zone protection grants, 
port security grants, airport security grants, transit security grants, 
and so forth.
  Our belief simply is that there is no good reason for denying 
prevailing wage protection to jobs involved in these activities. There 
is a waiver that the President can employ in situations where Davis-
Bacon requirements would truly have a detrimental impact, but for most 
jobs most of the time, carrying out the intent of this bill, fair, 
locally prevailing wages should prevail.
  If you are talking about the quality of construction, I think that 
adds an argument as well. Davis-Bacon encourages a higher quality of 
workmanship. It encourages enhanced productivity. It reduces the need 
for remedial work, probably saving dollars in many instances. So there 
are many, many arguments for this which I won't belabor at this late 
hour. I believe the inclusion of the Davis-Bacon requirements

[[Page H6473]]

is prudent and fair, and I urge the rejection of this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. 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 Kentucky 
will be postponed.


           Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Rogers of Kentucky

  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. 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. 1 offered by Mr. Rogers of Kentucky:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __. Each amount appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act that is not required to be appropriated 
     or otherwise made available by a provision of law is hereby 
     reduced by 5.7 percent.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) and the gentleman from North 
Carolina (Mr. Price) each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, this is the final amendment, 
and it is the fiscal responsibility amendment. This amendment would 
implement an across-the-board cut in the bill of 5.7 percent, thereby 
limiting the increase of this bill to 7.2 percent over the current 
year, the amount the President requested, instead of the current 13.6 
percent in the current bill.
  Let me emphasize that point again. This amendment does not cut 
anything. It provides a more than generous and responsible 7.2 percent 
increase in Homeland Security funding over the current year. It's a 
small downpayment on fiscal discipline, an issue we heard a lot about 
last November.
  The national debt is burgeoning, the public is demanding that we gain 
control of Federal spending. Despite the President's overall budget 
request of $933 billion for fiscal year 2008, and an already generous 
$63 billion over the current year's level, the majority plans to add 
another $20 billion on top of that at the minimum. Where will it stop?
  This year's $20 billion could become $40 billion next year and on and 
on and on. The only thing this does is ensure our children and their 
children will be paying for this generations to come.
  The Homeland Security bill before us today represents 10 percent of 
that $20 billion increase in spending, more than $2 billion above the 
President's request. Nobody on this side is proposing that we cut 
Homeland Security, not our President, not this Member, certainly not 
this amendment.
  I agree with the funding level requested by the administration. It's 
a responsible 7.2 percent increase from the base 2007 level, a rate 
that is already over double the rate of inflation.
  As I said before, the public is demanding accountability and fiscal 
responsibility. I don't think we can exclude any Federal agency, even 
Homeland Security, from fiscal discipline. Otherwise, there will be no 
discipline at all.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment, a fiscally 
disciplined amendment still providing a 7.2 percent increase in 
Homeland Security security.
  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.
  The gentleman's amendment would reduce the funding in this bill by 
just over $2 billion, or 5.7 percent. As this debate began, we did 
discuss the comparison of the bill that we have reported to last year's 
level of funding, and I am going to just repeat those figures here, 
because I think it is important to put the increase in perspective.
  The fiscal 2007 bill, with the emergency funding included that was 
adopted at the time that bill was passed, when that is considered as 
the baseline for 2007, our bill represents a 7.5 percent increase over 
last year's funding. If the supplemental funding is included in the 
2007 base, then, actually, our bill represents a 7.5 percent decrease 
in funding.
  But the point is not just to throw abstract numbers around. The point 
of the considerable deliberation our subcommittee has undertaken is to 
match up the available resources with this country's needs.
  I believe we have done that in a conscientious way. I think it's 
extremely hard to find anything in this bill that is funded to excess, 
funded lavishly.
  That's the reason that the gentleman has chosen not to focus on 
specific items, but, rather, to propose an across the board cut, 
indiscriminately applied, across the country, of 5.7 percent. It would 
have consequences, even spread across all the accounts. It would mean a 
reduced level of funding for a number of things that we have put in 
this bill for very good reason. The SAFE Port Act, the authorization, 
has required that we apply more funding to port security. This cut 
would reduce that substantially. It would, in all likelihood, mean that 
we could provide very limited additional programs for fire grants or 
transit emergency security grants, or emergency grants, State and urban 
grants, other important programs to our hometowns.
  It would mean that border and immigration enforcement improvements 
would be hard to come by. It would make it very, very difficult to 
increase the amount of cargo that is carried on passenger aircraft that 
is screened and so forth. These cuts would be consequential.
  Although our friends on the other side of the aisle have been rather 
selective in their treatment of the President's budget request, the 
chairman has repaired that request in this measure. But I do need to 
point out that we have not, under his leadership in past years, or in 
our deliberations this year, taken the President's requests as serious 
requests, but we have not hesitated to alter them when we felt that was 
required. It's not unusual for the Homeland Security bill in the House 
of Representatives to increase President Bush's request. In fact, we 
have done it every time we have brought a bill to this floor.
  In 2004, the House bill contained $1 billion more than the Bush 
request; in 2005, $900 million more than the Bush request; in 2006, 
$1.3 billion more than the Bush request; in 2007, $1.1 billion more 
than the Bush request.
  So we are in that mode once again. There is no reason to be surprised 
that in some respects we found the Bush requests inadequate, and we 
have increased them. In other respects, we have reduced them. We have 
done both. But there is a net increase, and I think a net increase that 
is amply justified.
  The hour is late, I believe that the funding levels in this bill are 
quite carefully considered. This amendment would do some real damage to 
some things that we need to improve.
  So I ask my colleagues to vote against this amendment.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I urge an ``aye'' vote on the 
amendment.
  Before yielding back, I want to thank the Chair for being a very 
responsible and fair-minded chair tonight. We thank you for that 
service. I want to congratulate the chairman of the subcommittee, who 
has been easy to work with and understanding of issues on this side of 
the aisle, and he has been very forthcoming and cooperative, but, at 
the same time, disciplined in his own approach, and to the staff on 
both sides of the aisle. This has been a long week for them, as well as 
a long several months now. I want to thank the staff for the great work 
that they have done.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I simply want to echo his 
kind words. It's a pleasure to work with him, it has been for these 
last 4 years, as he has chaired this committee, and it has been a 
pleasure to work with him this year, a real professional who takes 
oversight seriously and who takes writing this budget seriously.
  Mr. Rogers and his staff, the staff here on this side, I won't ask 
how many hours of sleep they have had in the last several days.

[[Page H6474]]

  But it has been a real pleasure. I hope we will have a chance in the 
presence of the whole body tomorrow morning to pay tribute a bit more 
formally. But we are grateful.
  We are also grateful to see this evening come to a close. We will, of 
course, with our colleagues tomorrow, be having, I think, probably a 
record number of roll call votes in rapid sequence.
  With that, we are ready to conclude, and I yield back my time.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I thank the chairman, and I am glad that he 
is continuing the tradition of this subcommittee in being a bipartisan, 
strong oversight subcommittee to see this new Department to a success 
one of these days, we hope.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge an ``aye'' vote, and I yield back the balance of 
my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. 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 Kentucky 
will be postponed.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee 
do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Serrano) having assumed the chair, Mr. Ross, Acting Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration 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, had come 
to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________