[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 96 (Wednesday, June 24, 2009)]
[House]
[Pages H7179-H7190]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2010

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 573 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 2892.

                              {time}  1536


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 2892) making appropriations for the Department of Homeland 
Security for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2010, and for other 
purposes, with Ms. DeGette in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the 
first time. The gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price) and the 
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Chair, I am pleased to present the 
fiscal year 2010 Homeland Security Appropriations bill, as reported by 
the Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee. It is the product of 
extensive information gathering and analysis, with 15 hearings touching 
every Department of Homeland Security component. The bill provides the 
resources and the direction that the Department needs for the coming 
fiscal year.
  This bill also reflects our subcommittee's tradition of bipartisan 
cooperation initiated by its first chairman and now ranking member, Hal 
Rogers. I want to thank the distinguished ranking member for his advice 
and help on making this a better bill, and to his staff, too, for 
working so closely and constructively with us. We agree on most of this 
bill, if not every item, and I believe this is a bill that every Member 
in this body can get behind.
  In total, the bill contains $42.625 billion in discretionary 
appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security. This is $2.6 
billion, or 6.5 percent, above the comparable fiscal year 2009 amount, 
and about 1 percent below the administration request, excluding Coast 
Guard overseas contingency operations. This level reflects our share of 
the $10 billion cut made in the budget resolution to the 
administration's overall request.
  Homeland security requires identification and response to all 
threats, whether man-made or natural. This ``all-hazards'' approach is 
the hallmark of our subcommittee, an approach we are happy to see 
President Obama and Secretary Napolitano embrace. The persistent threat 
of pandemic flu is an unmistakable reminder of why we must prepare for 
all hazards, as is the annual and predictable onslaught of natural 
disasters, from hurricanes and floods to wildfires and ice storms. 
Accordingly, this bill will enable our government to better protect the 
American people against all major threats.
  Appropriately for the start of hurricane season, the bill maintains a 
robust $844 million for FEMA management and administration, and $2 
billion for disaster relief. In addition, the bill and report 
specifically place FEMA at the forefront of disaster response 
management, thereby avoiding confusion when working with our State and 
local partners.
  State and local emergency managers and first responders are equal 
partners in disaster preparedness and response, and I am pleased that 
the administration's budget request recognizes this important 
partnership. This bill strengthens our commitment to our State and 
local partners by providing $3.96 billion for grant and training 
programs, including: $330 million for Emergency Management Performance 
Grants, our one true all-hazards grant program; $950 million for State 
homeland security grants; $887 million for the Urban Area Security 
Initiative, which targets the highest risks of terrorism; and $800 
million for firefighter assistance grants.
  Within that $800 million for firefighter assistance grants, $420 
million is for SAFER staffing grants, or personnel grants, and $380 
million is for basic equipment and training grants. The additional 
funding for SAFER is part of a targeted and temporary effort to stem 
the tide of layoffs and ensure our communities are protected by an 
adequate number of firefighters.
  In addition to the increased funding, the supplemental appropriations 
bill just passed allows the waiver of certain restrictions and broadens 
the use of SAFER to allow the grants to be used for the hiring, 
rehiring and retention of firefighters for fiscal years 2009 and 2010.
  Madam Chairman, one could make an argument for increasing nearly any 
account in this bill; but since we can't spend the whole Federal 
Treasury on homeland security, we must base our priorities on risk. The 
subcommittee has done this with respect to the identification and 
removal of illegal aliens who have committed crimes; in other words, 
illegal aliens who have proven their capacity to do harm in our 
communities.
  The bill continues the tradition of recent bills by targeting $1.5 
billion of Immigration and Customs Enforcement appropriations for this 
priority, an effort that the President and Secretary Napolitano 
wholeheartedly support.
  Part of this funding furthers development of the Secure Communities 
program, which offers a productive approach for Federal immigration 
agents to work closely with State and local law enforcement while 
distinguishing the traditional Federal role of enforcing immigration 
law from the local role of prosecuting criminal violations. We have 
heard from many law enforcement and community groups about the 
importance of keeping a bright line between immigration enforcement and 
local community policing, and the Secure Communities program does just 
that.
  Taking on the international drug cartels along our southwest border 
is another major priority we support in this bill. The bill enhances 
funding for CBP and ICE to combat illegal narcotics smuggling from 
Mexico and the cartels' trafficking in weapons and bulk currency. The 
bill supports a realistic and strategic approach to southwest border 
infrastructure and maintains a historically robust Border Patrol force.
  Other specific priorities we have funded included: $800 million for 
explosive detection systems at airports and $122.8 million for air 
cargo security to meet the 100 percent screening requirement for air 
cargo in the hold of passenger planes by August of 2010; $804 million 
to continue developing systems to screen inbound land- and sea-based 
cargo for weapons or nuclear materials, which includes $162 million to 
strengthen overseas operations to monitor and target cargo; $241.5 
million for the Coast Guard to support overseas contingencies in the 
Persian Gulf and off the coast of Somalia; $382 million for 
cybersecurity, to help protect vulnerable computer infrastructure from 
the escalating sophistication and intensity of cyberattacks; and $10 
million above the administration's request to expand the Alternatives 
to Detention program nationwide. Alternatives to Detention is a cost-
effective alternative for low-risk individuals such as asylum seekers, 
families, and the elderly.
  The bill includes several policy items requested by the 
administration. It clarifies fee authorities for temporary protected 
status petitions and visa fraud investigations; it extends the E-Verify 
program for 2 years; and it continues a longstanding provision related 
to imported prescription drugs.
  As it did last year, this bill contains Member-requested and 
Presidential earmarks. Each Member's project has

[[Page H7180]]

been vetted by DHS and deemed eligible, if part of a grant program, or 
consistent with the Department's mission otherwise.

                              {time}  1545

  We did have to reduce earmarks by 5 percent below last year's level.
  This is a good bill, one I hope every Member will support.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Let me start, Madam Chairman, by commending the chairman on putting 
together a thoughtful bill. I also want to sincerely thank him for 
listening to our concerns on this side and for continuing this 
subcommittee's traditions of bipartisanship, professionalism and, where 
possible, accommodating the minority's interests.
  However, I must also express my grave concern over an issue that 
casts a long and sad shadow over this important bill. The fact that we 
are not here today debating this bill under an open rule breaks with 
long-cherished traditions concerning appropriations bills.
  I, for one, am outraged that today's debate on the critical issue of 
homeland security has been arbitrarily constrained. Such dictatorial 
tactics are contrary to the very purposes of this Chamber and our 
legislative process. To add insult to injury, the majority also denies 
the ability of a hardworking member of our subcommittee, the gentleman 
from California, and even the ranking member of this subcommittee, to 
offer amendments on E-Verify. Both amendments were clearly in order, 
and both amendments pertain to a critical issue that is germane to this 
bill. To deny us the ability to offer such legitimate amendments is a 
complete travesty.
  Now, as to the FY10 bill, Chairman Price has already discussed many 
of the details, so I will refrain from repeating them. But I think it 
is important to note that with this bill before us today, the chairman 
has significantly improved the hand that we were dealt by the 
administration, a hand that included an extremely late and bureaucracy-
laden budget request with huge increases for policy and administrative 
offices at headquarters at the expense of operations, and also a 
somewhat tightened 302(b) allocation that is nearly a half billion 
dollars below the budget estimate. These conditions present a somewhat 
mixed picture about how this new administration and the current House 
leadership are prioritizing security nearly 8 years after 9/11.
  Indeed, I find it incredibly ironic and disappointing that just 2 
weeks ago President Obama released a 77-page strategy on stopping the 
Mexican drug cartels that professes the need to enhance our 
intelligence and drug interdiction capabilities, yet his FY10 budget 
only marginally increases Homeland's intelligence office and Border 
Patrol and actually proposes cuts to Customs and Border Patrol's 
operational assets and Coast Guard personnel. This is a prime example 
of where the President's rhetoric doesn't match reality.
  Given the current threat environment, now is not the time to 
shortchange our investment in security and leave our front-line 
personnel in the lurch wanting for the tools required to fulfill their 
mission.
  Now, having said all that, I do think the chairman has endeavored to 
make up for these deficiencies by somewhat scaling back on the 
administration's plans for more bureaucrats, making some prudent 
enhancements to operations and producing a pretty good bill for FY10. 
That's not to say it is absolutely perfect. There are some areas where 
I would have changed and am concerned about.
  One of the concerns I have is the bill's funding levels for 
operational and surveillance assets. While the chairman has made some 
enhancements to operations, more could and should be done to equip our 
operators in the field. With a drug war raging in Mexico and the drug 
supply lines bustling from South America, we must not only step up 
operations along the southwest border, but also increase our 
interdiction efforts in the source and transit zones.
  Second, I would be remiss, Madam Chairman, if I didn't clarify my 
position on a piece of language contained in the report accompanying 
today's bill. On page 49, the report says ``that ICE must have no 
higher immigration enforcement priority,'' referring to the 
identification and removal of criminal aliens. Now, I know the issue of 
criminal aliens is near and dear to Chairman Price's heart, as it is 
mine. Over the past 2 years, I have supported his efforts in this 
regard with one major caveat, that an emphasis upon criminal aliens 
will not come at the expense of other critical immigration and 
enforcement functions. Every time I hear someone on the other side of 
the aisle profess that ICE should have no higher immigration 
enforcement priority than criminal aliens, I must remind them that not 
one of the 9/11 hijackers could be classified as so-called ``criminal 
aliens'' and that all of the 9/11 terrorists exploited the legal 
immigration system. So immigration enforcement matters to our homeland 
security, and we must not lose sight of that fact.
  Now, in addition to these concerns, I think it is imperative that the 
homeland security implications of closing the Guantanamo Bay facility 
be thoroughly addressed. So I am thankful that through a bipartisan 
effort during our committee markup we adopted my amendment to require 
the Department to conduct a thorough threat assessment for each and 
every Guantanamo detainee, to add their names as well to the no-fly 
lists, and prevent the possibility of immigration benefits being used 
as a loophole that could lead to the release of these detainees into 
the United States.
  This is a deadly serious issue. We need to know the threat posed by a 
possible transfer of these terrorists to both our hometowns and to 
susceptible inmate populations in our prisons across our country. And 
this need to know is exacerbated by the fact that the President is 
moving forward with detainee transfers and resettlements as we speak, 
ignoring Congress' bipartisan, bicameral calls for better planning and 
risk analysis. The adoption of that amendment is a prime example of how 
this body can work together in the name of responsible oversight and 
security, and I believe it's an absolutely vital addition to the bill.
  Madam Chairman, it is my hope that we can continue to address these 
issues and further improve what I believe to be a well-crafted bill. 
While I have made it clear that it is my intention to support this 
bill, I will also continue to voice my suggestions for how it can be 
strengthened.
  In closing, let me again voice my disappointment and indignation with 
the majority's decision to close down a full and open debate on today's 
bill. This misguided decision by the Democrat leadership clouds what 
should be a thorough discussion of the safety and security of our 
Nation.
  I look forward to working with the chairman of the subcommittee and 
the committee as we continue to move the bill through the 2010 process, 
a process that I hope can salvage some vestige of the long-standing and 
cherished traditions of open and fair debate.
  Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute, 
to be followed by 4 minutes for a colloquy. But before we go any 
further in this debate today, I do want to pay tribute to our staff by 
name. These staff members have worked day and night for weeks now up to 
the committee markup, and now up to this floor consideration.
  Our chief clerk, Stephanie Gupta, Shalanda Young, Jeff Ashford, Jim 
Holm, Will Painter, Adam Wilson, Matt Behnke; and from my staff, Paul 
Cox, who spends full time on Homeland Security matters. On the minority 
side, the able minority clerk, Ben Nicholson, as well as Allison 
Dieters. We need to again and again thank these staff members, these 
true professionals, for the way they back up our work.
  And now, Madam Chairman, I would like to yield 4 minutes to the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis) for purposes of a colloquy.
  Mr. POLIS. I thank and congratulate Chairman Price for his hard work 
on this legislation. My colleague, Congresswoman Roybal-Allard, and I 
would like to engage the chairman in a colloquy for the purpose of 
highlighting the funding for alternatives to detention in H.R. 2892.
  Over the last decade, the United States has spent billions of dollars 
in the detention of hundreds of thousands of mostly noncriminal 
immigrants and

[[Page H7181]]

asylum seekers. There are, however, viable alternatives to our current 
detention system, and they are generally more affordable and humane 
than detention itself.
  It is not surprising that Immigration and Customs Enforcement, ICE, 
has also recognized the need for alternatives to detention, such as the 
Intensive Supervision Appearance Program (ISAP) and the Enhanced 
Supervision and Reporting Program, which includes electronic 
monitoring. The Homeland Security Appropriations Act for fiscal year 
2010 funds these smarter and less expensive means of enforcing our 
immigration laws, allocating $74 million to expand alternatives to 
detention programs nationally.
  I yield to Congresswoman Roybal-Allard.
  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Polis, I share your concerns about the 
financial cost of detention, and I am also distressed by the impact our 
current policies have on families and communities.
  Every year, hundreds of thousands of noncriminal immigrants are held 
in detention. Many of these immigrants are detained for months or years 
in one of several hundred detention facilities in the country. They 
often face significant challenges like inadequate access to medical 
care, legal assistance, and other necessary resources. Separated from 
their families and communities, they may languish in isolation and fall 
into depression. In some cases, entire families are held in prison-like 
conditions. I believe we can do better and have introduced legislation 
to address many of these concerns.
  I commend Chairman Price for recognizing the importance of funding 
alternatives to detention, a major step towards reforming our detention 
system.
  Mr. POLIS. I yield to Chairman Price.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I want to thank Representative Polis and 
Representative Roybal-Allard, a fine, hardworking member of our 
subcommittee, for the work they've done on this issue, for highlighting 
the financial cost and the human impact of ICE'S current detention 
policy. I, too, believe we can do better.
  While the average cost of detention is about $100 per person per day, 
alternative programs such as telephone reporting, unannounced home 
visits, local office reporting, and electronic monitoring cost, on 
average, less than $20 per person per day and are very successful. 
According to a recent ICE analysis of the program, the Intensive 
Supervision Appearance Program currently has a 99 percent total 
appearance rate for all immigration hearings, a 95 percent appearance 
rate at final removal hearings, and a 91 percent compliance rate with 
removal orders.
  This program has been successful at pilot sites in Colorado, 
California, Maryland, Kansas, Florida and Pennsylvania; so, therefore, 
I sought funding to expand it. Our bill increases the budget for 
alternatives to detention programs by 16 percent above the President's 
request.
  Mr. POLIS. I thank the chairman for highlighting more cost-effective 
and humane alternatives to detention and for recognizing the financial 
and human costs of our current detention system. I want to applaud his 
leadership as well as that of my colleague, Representative Roybal-
Allard from California, on this important issue.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to a very 
hardworking member of our subcommittee, the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Calvert).
  Mr. CALVERT. I would like to thank Chairman Price and Ranking Member 
Rogers for crafting a very thoughtful bill for fiscal year 2010, the 
Homeland Security Appropriations bill. And I appreciate the recognition 
of the Air and Marine Operations Center, which is located in my 
congressional district. AMOC has been foremost in aviation-oriented law 
enforcement operations and coordinates our operations in the United 
States. It plays an integral role in protecting us from attack from 
drug and gun smuggling across our borders.
  However, I was disappointed that the extension of E-Verify was 
reduced from the President's request of 3 years to 2 years. The House 
overwhelmingly passed a 5-year reauthorization last year, and I think 
many people would support a permanent reauthorization of E-Verify.
  During full committee markup of the bill I offered an amendment but 
was repeatedly told that a reauthorization of E-Verify would be part of 
a comprehensive immigration reform bill, which simply makes no sense. A 
reauthorization of a voluntary program that has existed for 13 years 
should not be part of an immigration reform debate. Perhaps my friends 
on the other side of the aisle are confusing reauthorization with 
mandatory participation in E-Verify, which I support, of course.
  However, the thousands of businesses that use E-Verify to comply with 
existing Federal law and the two States that have made it mandatory 
deserve assurance that the program will continue to be available.

                              {time}  1600

  Furthermore, I would like to clear up some misconceptions about the 
E-Verify program, which seem to be endlessly repeated.
  E-Verify is 99.6 accurate. That's right, only .4 percent of tentative 
non-confirmations are an error in the data. E-Verify is free to 
employers. It does not cost anything other than the minutes it takes to 
sign up for the program to use the system.
  My friends on the other side of the aisle repeatedly state that 10 
percent of naturalized citizens receive a tentative non-confirmation. I 
would like to deliver some good news: That statistic is now down to 6.1 
percent. So that means 93.9 percent of naturalized citizens are 
immediately cleared to work. Of the 6.1 percent that received the 
tentative non-confirmation, they only need to call a toll-free number 
to rectify their information.
  Other than my disagreement with the length of the reauthorization, I 
was also disappointed that an amendment I offered in the Rules 
Committee was ruled out of order. My amendment would have allowed 
Members to vote on whether the executive order requiring Federal 
contractors to use E-Verify should not be delayed again. The executive 
order has been delayed three times for dubious reasons.
  Secretary Napolitano has signaled her support for E-Verify, and the 
people running E-Verify have declared they are ready with the Federal 
contractor requirement. When it comes to doing business with the 
Federal Government, which is funded by the American taxpayer, the use 
of E-Verify should be mandatory.
  In closing, I would like to reiterate my support for the bill, but 
with strong reservations about the majority's actions that has severely 
restricted amendments and has shut down a once open process.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to 
another fine member of our subcommittee, Mrs. Lowey.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Madam Chair, I would like to thank the gentleman from 
North Carolina for writing a strong bill that provides much-needed 
funding for critical initiatives, several of which I would like to 
mention.
  Emergency communication gaps remain for many first responders. The 
bill includes $50 million for interoperability grants, $45 million for 
the Office of Emergency Communications, and $80 million for Command, 
Control, and Interoperability research and development. These important 
programs will benefit first responders in all of our communities.
  The bill also includes $887 million for the Urban Area Security 
Initiative, nearly $50 million more than FY09. This is the only program 
designed to exclusively assist high-risk urban areas such as New York, 
and I thank the chairman for substantially increasing its funding.
  However, I would be remiss if I did not mention the Securing the 
Cities Initiative, which is not funded in the bill. This program seeks 
to prevent the smuggling of illicit nuclear material into Manhattan. 
The threat of a radiological attack and New York's status as the number 
one terror target remains, and I hope the bill signed into law includes 
money for securing the cities. I know there are concerns due to the 
length of the project and unspent

[[Page H7182]]

funds, but I do believe we must do everything we can to prevent what 
President Obama has called the most immediate and extreme threat to 
global security.
  This is still a good bill, and I thank the gentleman from North 
Carolina for everything he has done to ensure that our first 
responders, particularly those in high-risk areas, are prepared for 
future emergencies.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes for the 
purpose of a colloquy to the gentleman from Washington State, Mr. 
Hastings.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Chairman, I thank my friend from 
Kentucky for yielding, and I rise to engage in colloquy with Chairman 
Price.
  Mr. Chairman, as you quickly know we are quickly approaching the 
August 2009 deadline to screen 100 percent of the cargo transported on 
passenger airplanes. I commend you and Ranking Member Rogers for your 
work to provide adequate funding to help TSA meet the important 
requirements without slowing commerce.
  The cargo screening requirement has already gone into effect at the 
Seattle-Tacoma International Airport in the Northwest and other major 
west coast airports. Cherry growers in my district, who transport half 
of the cherries they export on passenger aircraft, will only be able to 
ship their fruit in a timely manner this season because TSA has 
committed to bringing in resources from other parts of the country. 
This will not be possible once the 100 percent requirement goes into 
effect nationwide.
  As you know, Madam Chairman, perishable items like cherries can be 
harmed by screening equipment and even delayed in getting to market. 
Canine teams have been identified as the most workable way to screen 
cherries and other perishable items. I was pleased to work with Ms. 
Jackson-Lee of Texas and Mr. Rogers of Alabama to offer an amendment to 
the TSA authorization bill earlier this month to increase the number of 
canine teams used for air-cargo screening by no less than 100 teams. 
This amendment passed the House by a voice vote.
  Now, while the TSA authorization bill has yet to be signed into law, 
Mr. Chairman, is it your intention that TSA utilize funds provided in 
this bill to train additional canine teams? And I yield.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I thank the gentleman, and I certainly 
recognize the important role that canine teams play in screening 
perishable items like fruits and vegetables. It's my intention that TSA 
use a portion of these funds to train additional canine teams for air-
cargo screening.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I would 
like to thank you for this clarification and again, for the ranking 
member, Mr. Rogers, and for your attention to this important issue. I 
look forward to continuing to work with you to ensure that the 100 
percent air-cargo screening requirement is met 100 percent without 
unnecessarily harming cherry growers.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes for 
the purpose of a colloquy to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hare).
  Mr. HARE. I rise for the purpose of entering into a colloquy with the 
chairman of the subcommittee.
  Mr. Chairman, I welcome a colloquy with my distinguished colleague. 
Mr. Chairman, as you know, my district is home to many levee districts 
along the Mississippi River.
  On February 25, 2009, the Federal Emergency Management Agency issued 
a new policy on rehabilitation assistance for levees. Under this new 
policy, levee districts are prohibited from receiving FEMA assistance 
for flood cleanups, debris removal and dewatering. Instead, the burden 
for funding critical flood control activities is being shifted away 
from FEMA to the Corps of Engineers even though, as I understand it, 
the Corps does not have the authorization or the funding to reimburse 
the levee districts for these activities.
  My community, Mr. Chairman, is concerned that this policy leaves 
levees and the river communities they protect vulnerable during peak 
flooding seasons while many are still recovering from last summer's 
floods. In fact, the Illinois Emergency Management Agency recently 
reported that a drainage district in southern Illinois was denied 
reimbursement for debris removal as the direct result of this new 
policy.
  Mr. Chairman, I have contacted FEMA to urge them to reverse the 
policy and continue assisting levee districts with these costs to avoid 
further gaps in disaster assistance.
  Mr. Chairman, I understand that FEMA and the Corps are working on 
this issue, but if there is no resolution by the time this bill heads 
to conference, I may need the assistance of the chairman to resolve 
this matter.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Well, I thank the gentleman from 
Illinois for recognizing this important issue. The FEMA policy on levee 
assistance was intended to clarify the roles and responsibilities of 
Federal agencies in providing critical flood recovery work.
  I understand that the gentleman and the other members of the Illinois 
delegation have concerns that the policy may not be accurate in its 
accounting of Federal responsibility and may have the unintended 
consequence of leaving gaps in assistance for local communities in 
levee districts. As the gentleman mentioned, FEMA and the Army Corps 
are reevaluating the policy to ensure there are no gaps in disaster 
assistance.
  I would like to stress this is only a policy, not a rule, so FEMA 
could easily make adjustments to this document. If changes are 
necessary, FEMA should do so in consultation with the Army Corps to 
ensure accurateness. This issue is also being evaluated with the House 
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, the authorizing committee 
of jurisdiction.
  I will monitor the issue as our bill progresses. I will work with the 
gentleman, the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, and the 
Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee as we go forward.
  Mr. HARE. I thank the chairman, and I thank you again for your 
attention to this matter. This is a matter of great importance to my 
district and I look forward to working with you.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I thank the gentleman.
  I rise for the purpose of entering into a colloquy with the chairman 
of the subcommittee to highlight a serious concern with regard to 
FEMA's subcontracting practices.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I welcome a colloquy with my 
distinguished colleague.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Thank you.
  Chairman Price, I have constituents back in my district in the State 
of New Jersey who have highlighted a current FEMA solicitation for risk 
map production. What it does, it seems to shut out the small and the 
medium, the small medium-sized businesses. Back after Hurricane 
Katrina, FEMA was, rightly so, criticized for issuing sole-source 
contracts to three very large companies. Unfortunately, that pattern 
seems to be repeating itself.
  I agree that updating the Nation's flood map is critical to managing 
and reducing the Nation's flood risk, but operating the program under a 
fair and an open competition, I think, will produce the best results 
for the district, the State and the country as well.
  I yield.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I thank the gentleman from New Jersey 
for highlighting this issue. I agree that the flood-map program is an 
instrumental tool in reducing the loss of life and property from 
floods. This subcommittee will work with the gentleman to review the 
recent contract solicitation.
  I am committed to ensuring that DHS invests acquisition dollars in 
projects that are well planned, competitively awarded, well managed and 
closely overseen.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I appreciate the chairman's comments on 
that. As I said a moment ago, this is not just about the Fifth District 
or even the State of New Jersey, which has had a number of flooding 
problems in the past, but this is an important issue for fairness all 
across the country

[[Page H7183]]

to address the issue of flooding across the country as well.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Chairman, I would like to 
recognize our colleague, Mr. Cuellar, for 2 minutes.
  Mr. CUELLAR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support of this bill and Chairman 
Price's manager's amendment, which includes an amendment that I 
coauthored with my friend, Mr. Martin Heinrich, to reduce government 
waste, abuse, and inefficiency.
  This simple amendment, commonsense amendment, ensures that no 
taxpayer dollars will be used to purchase first-class tickets for the 
employees of agencies funded by this bill, except in special 
circumstances, as allowed by law.
  Madam Chairman, it goes without saying that the Federal Government 
should never use taxpayer dollars for extravagant luxuries and 
excessive spending. To say that these are difficult economic times is 
an understatement. There has never been a more important moment for the 
Federal Government to demonstrate that it is a careful steward of 
taxpayers' dollars and that it would not engage in frivolous and 
wasteful excesses.
  Just as every American household has gathered around the kitchen 
table, finding ways to cut costs and reduce waste, the Federal 
Government has the responsibility to do the same. Fiscal responsibility 
should be a primary objective of every Member. And as a member of the 
fiscally responsible Blue Dog Coalition, I will continue to work with 
my colleagues to address the increasing national debt that we have.
  However, it is important that we tackle every cost-saving 
opportunity, large or small, to meet that goal. I am pleased that 
Chairman Price included this amendment in his manager's amendment. I 
would also like to thank my colleague from New Mexico, Mr. Heinrich, 
for working with me on this issue, and for his dedication on cost-
saving issues.
  I don't see Mr. Heinrich here, so I would conclude my remarks.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Madam Chairman, could I inquire of the time 
remaining.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Kentucky has 14 minutes remaining and 
the gentleman from North Carolina also has 14 minutes remaining.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I yield 4 minutes to one of our hardest-
working members of our committee and subcommittee, the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Culberson).
  Mr. CULBERSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank Mr. Price of 
North Carolina.
  Our Subcommittee on Homeland Security is, I think, a terrific example 
of how the Congress ought to operate. I am one of the most dedicated 
fiscal conservatives in the House. Our subcommittee is made up of 
people of very strong beliefs on both sides of the aisle, but we don't 
work in that committee with regard to party. We don't even mention 
party labels. I have done my best to really erase that term from my 
language and focus on what's fiscally conservative and fiscally 
liberal.
  But this committee really has to work on what is good for the Nation. 
We have to work together in a way, I think, that has--I hope the 
leadership of the Congress would use the work of this subcommittee, the 
work of all the subcommittees on Appropriations, as a model.
  It's important, I think, for this Congress in this time of record 
debt and deficit to do what's right for the country, do what's right 
for the kids and our grandchildren, and focus on ways to be fiscally 
responsible. At a time of record debt and deficit, at a time when the 
national debt is now approaching $11 trillion, at a time when the 
deficit is at record levels, at a time when the new President has laid 
out a budget and foresees record debt and deficit as far as the eye can 
see, we in the Congress have a special responsibility to be guardians 
of the Treasury, do everything in our power to control spending and 
avoid unnecessary increases in spending.
  And the Homeland Security bill in front of the Congress today is one 
that was again put together by our subcommittee, Mr. Rogers, working 
with Chairman Price. Everybody in the subcommittee participated. I am 
very grateful to you, Chairman Price, for working so closely with all 
of us and putting this bill together.

                              {time}  1615

  Without the increase for bioshield, the funding level for Homeland 
Security is about what--actually, below the level of inflation. At a 
time when we are under attack from foreign terrorists who are going to 
use any means at their disposal to sneak into the United States to kill 
Americans, it's important that we do everything in our power to protect 
this Nation.
  Homeland security is one of those areas where there are no parties' 
labels, where we have an obligation to work together, and we've done so 
on this subcommittee. We have profound concerns and differences on the 
overall spending levels of the appropriations bills as a whole, of the 
omnibus spending bill that we passed earlier this year, of the 
spendulus bill that was passed earlier year, of the tremendous 
unprecedented increases in spending we have seen in this Congress, but 
on this subcommittee we've all worked together.
  I'm particularly pleased to follow my friend from Texas, Mr. Cuellar. 
All of us in the Texas delegation have worked together so well in 
securing our southern border. Henry Cuellar and I were elected 
together, and Ciro Rodriguez, who serves on the subcommittee with me, 
who represents the Del Rio area.
  Henry and Ciro and I were elected to the Texas legislature in 1986. 
That friendship that we formed from 1986 has served us well today. And 
we've worked together in establishing a program called Operation 
Streamline, a zero-tolerance program where we are enforcing in Texas 
existing law, with largely existing resources, to arrest and prosecute 
essentially everybody that crosses the border illegally between Del Rio 
and Zapata County, with a result that the crime rate has plummeted. In 
Laredo, they have seen about a 60 percent drop in the crime rate; in 
Del Rio, over 70 percent drop in the crime rate; and the lowest level 
of illegal crossings since they began to keep statistics.
  This is a piece of good news the Nation needs to hear, that our 
border is far more secure in Texas because we're enforcing existing 
law, applying common sense, and working together in a partnership 
between State and local authorities and the Federal authorities.
  We have, in Texas, I think, demonstrated that Texas, we always keep 
Texas first in our minds regardless of party. And I want to thank the 
chairman and our ranking member for putting together a bill that 
focuses on national security and includes the interests of all Members 
from all parts of the country.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Chairman, I would like to yield 2 
minutes to one of our outstanding new Members from Florida, Ms. Kosmas.
  Ms. KOSMAS. I rise today in support of the 2010 Homeland Security 
Appropriations Act, a bill that will improve the safety and security of 
our cities, ports, borders, and air travel.
  This bill also provides important funding for our first responders on 
the front lines of emergencies through State and local grants, 
including the Metropolitan Medical Response System. I would like to 
thank Chairman Price and Ranking Member Rogers for including my 
amendment to increase funding by $4 million for this vital program in 
the manager's amendment.
  Increasing funding over fiscal year 2009 will help ensure that high-
threat, highly populated communities such as the Orlando metropolitan 
area will be better prepared to respond when faced with emergencies, 
whether it be a terrorist attack, an epidemic disease outbreak, or a 
natural disaster.
  The MMRS program assists 124 highly populated jurisdictions across 
the country in their efforts to coordinate among law enforcement, fire, 
EMS, public health, and emergency management agencies. It allows these 
jurisdictions to develop response plans, conduct training and 
exercises, and acquire personal protective equipment to respond most 
effectively to emergency situations.
  I believe, and I think we all believe, that preparedness is the key 
to mitigating disasters, and this additional funding will ensure that 
our local

[[Page H7184]]

emergency responders will be better able to protect their citizens and 
to reduce damages.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Madam Chairman, I yield such time as he may 
consume to a hardworking Member of this Congress, the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Duncan).
  Mr. DUNCAN. I do thank the gentleman from Kentucky for yielding me 
this time. I want to say, first of all, and express my appreciation to 
Chairman Price and to Ranking Member Rogers. They certainly are two of 
the hardest working Members we have in this Congress and two men whom I 
admire the most and for whom I have the greatest respect.
  I want to say that, overall, I think these leaders have produced a 
very good bill, particularly in regard to aviation security. That's 
something in which I have a great interest because I did chair the 
Aviation Subcommittee for 6 years, and I know they have greatly 
increased the security at the airports and so forth.
  In fact, I will be offering an amendment a little bit later that does 
freeze the appropriation for the Air Marshal Service, which I do feel, 
as one high-ranking TSA official told me 2 days ago, is sort of gilding 
the lily. And I think it's a very unnecessary, useless part of the 
Federal Government and of this bill.
  But, overall, I think it's a very fine bill. And I particularly want 
to thank Chairman Price and Ranking Member Rogers for the work that 
they're doing in regard to cybersecurity, because from everything that 
I have read over these last few years, that is going to be one of the 
areas that is going to be the most troublesome to this country in the 
years ahead.
  And so, Madam Chair, I will simply say that I want to express my 
appreciation to Chairman Price and Ranking Member Rogers, and 
particularly the staff that has worked so hard on this legislation.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Arizona (Mrs. Kirkpatrick).
  Mrs. KIRKPATRICK of Arizona. Madam Chairman, I rise to engage 
Chairman Price of the Homeland Security Subcommittee in a colloquy.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I am pleased to enter into a colloquy 
with my distinguished colleague from Arizona.
  Mrs. KIRKPATRICK of Arizona. Madam Chairman, Mr. Chairman, over the 
past several years we in the Southwest have witnessed a dramatic rise 
in illegal activity along our border. The new leadership at the 
Department of Homeland Security is committed to cracking down on this 
problem, and Federal law enforcement on the ground is doing an 
excellent job of putting the new plan into action.
  One organization with a pivotal role in our border efforts is Customs 
and Border Protection, CBP, Air and Marine, which provides critical air 
support to CBP officers and Border Patrol agents. This air support is 
an unrivaled resource in our fight to keep our borders safe.
  Unfortunately, I have repeatedly heard frustration from agents in my 
district that air resources are in short supply and are often not 
available to agents on the ground.
  Mr. Chairman, it is important that we work to resolve this issue, 
whether by better management of existing resources or by increasing 
those resources. Therefore, as this bill heads toward conference, I ask 
your support in making sure these important questions are addressed and 
answered.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I appreciate the gentlewoman's strong 
commitment to securing our Nation's borders and her hard work on this 
issue as a Member from a border State and a member of the authorizing 
committee on Homeland Security.
  I assure her I will work with her to provide information about how it 
meets requests for air support on the border, as well as any program 
changes or resources required to optimize CBP Air and Marine 
effectiveness at the border.
  Mrs. KIRKPATRICK of Arizona. Reclaiming my time, I wish to thank the 
distinguished chairman and his staff for working with me on this 
important issue.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Madam Chairman, I would like to recognize now 
for such time as he may consume the ranking Republican on the full 
Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis).
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Thank you very much for yielding me the 
time. I really rise for a couple of reasons to speak generally about 
this bill.
  First is to say that the two people who are providing the leadership 
for this bill are as fine of members of the Appropriations Committee as 
there are. Chairman Price is one of those people who digs into issues, 
does his homework. He treats people in a fair and balanced way. Beyond 
that, he's a fabulous person to be associated with in the 
Appropriations Committee.
  Hal Rogers, on the other hand--let's see, what can I say about Hal 
Rogers? A wonderful Member from Kentucky, who also in this arena knows 
as much about this subject as anybody that I know.
  One of the things that's disconcerting to me about this bill, for it 
is one that perhaps addresses the most important area of responsibility 
we have, that is, protecting our homeland. Combine this bill with our 
national security measure and that is our national defense and 
America's ability to protect freedom in the world. But, indeed, it's 
interesting to note that at a subcommittee meeting recently, I spent 
some time dealing with another bill, an area that the public isn't 
always so supportive of, namely, the foreign assistance or foreign aid 
bill.
  And it came to my attention in this process and exchange that the 
foreign aid bill that will be coming to the floor very soon is 
approximately $10 billion more than our Homeland Security bill. Think 
about that.
  We're in a condition where people, to say the least, here at home are 
pressed to the wall, all kinds of concerns besides the economy, concern 
about our security here at home. And they don't always stand up 
intently to say we've got to be sending our money overseas in the form 
of foreign aid. In this arena, the Homeland Security bill has almost 
$10 billion less in it than the foreign aid bill. Now, it's a very 
interesting commentary, to say the least.
  Beyond that, let me mention to both the chairman and the ranking 
member, California, of course, has lots of border. Later on, I will 
have an amendment relative to border security. But, indeed, I know many 
of the Members who are listening to this discussion today are worried 
about their own borders in their home territory.
  If we cannot advance technologically and by way of funding our 
ability to protect our homeland and be dead serious about it, 
projecting over a 10-year period, then we're making a very big mistake 
in this House.
  The work that's done by our chairman and our ranking member has 
produced a very fine product. They really have balanced, within the 
limited means that they have, the priorities that I think I would apply 
myself. But, indeed, I want the Members to know that there is still a 
lot of work to do.
  And, one more time, congratulations to both Hal Rogers and to our 
chairman.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Chairman, I would like to yield 2 
minutes to a distinguished subcommittee member from the authorizing 
committee, our colleague, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I offer my appreciation to the 
appropriators, Mr. Price and Mr. Rogers, and would ask that as we make 
our way through this process that we continue to collaborate and work 
on issues that will move forward the whole issue of security and 
safety.
  Quickly, I would hope that as we move through conference we'd have an 
opportunity to ensure that the Office of Risk Management is, in fact, 
the lead office that analyzes the issue of risk, risk-based assessment 
as it relates to security.
  But, Mr. Chairman, Chairman Price, I would like to speak to you 
specifically about the Transportation Security Authorization bill, 
which just about a week or so ago was passed with a reemphasis or a new 
emphasis on the security of surface transportation.
  We know that just a few days ago we had an enormous tragedy here in 
Washington, D.C. That question may have fallen upon the issue of 
safety, but it could have been an issue of security, an issue dealing 
with terrorism. And we

[[Page H7185]]

know, as it relates to the Department of Transportation safety 
inspectors for rail, pipeline, and highway, there are over a thousand 
of them; but as it relates to security, transportation security, a mere 
175.
  Of course, you know I had an amendment that would have simply moved 
$4 million in order to ensure that we would have an increase in safety 
or security inspectors under the Transportation Security Administration 
pursuant to the legislation that was passed by this House.
  I would like to continue to work with the appropriators as this bill 
moves toward conference and moves toward the Senate. And I would ask 
the chairman, I would like to yield to him, that we have a focus on the 
authorizing language that says that we need to do more with respect to 
security for surface transportation, rail, buses, trains, and other 
resources, and work with him to ensure that we would have dollars to 
increase the number of transit security inspectors.
  I yield to the gentleman.

                              {time}  1615

  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I thank my colleague for her good work 
on this issue and her very effective pointing out of our unmet needs in 
the area of surface transportation security. I do, indeed, pledge to 
work with her as we move toward conference to see what kind of 
resources we can identify.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I thank the chairman.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Latta).
  Mr. LATTA. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Madam Chair, last night we were in Rules on, I believe, a very 
important amendment that Mr. Minnick and I offered. It was really to 
save jobs; and it was also really to put a hold on what was happening 
with Homeland Security and also what was going on with the folks at 
Customs, trying to put forward a regulation, a rule that's going to put 
Americans out of work.
  At the same time it's also not only going to put Americans out of 
work, but we're looking at 35 million Americans that have a certain 
type of knife. I do not believe that a rule should be done that 
Congress in 1958 defined what a certain type of knife was. So last 
night of course we were there, and we shouldn't have been there. We 
should have been here on an open rule and with an amendment on the 
floor and not in the Rules Committee because this is important.
  Again, as I said, this is going to cost jobs, jobs at the Buck Knife 
Company up in the northwest part of the United States--hundreds of 
jobs. It's estimated that over 4,000 individuals in this country could 
be affected just in the knife industry alone. Not only those 4,000 
individuals there, but there is about 20,000 other ancillary jobs out 
there. That's why it's so important we should be talking about this. 
But unfortunately, again, where we were last night, we weren't doing 
what we should have been doing. We should have had the amendment here 
on the floor because I believe it's absolutely important that we make 
sure the House is headed in the right direction, the way it should be 
going; and that's through the process that we should be in, the normal 
process, not the process that we're in today.
  But I thank the gentleman for yielding because I think that the 
debate that we're in is very, very vital to this country.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Chair, may I inquire how much time 
we have remaining?
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from North Carolina has 8\1/2\ minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Kentucky has 3\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. We have no further speakers on the floor 
at this point. There may be one on the way.
  I would like to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I yield myself the balance of my time.
  You know, since 9/11 I think we've come a long way in securing the 
country. It's been 8 long years. Laborious tasks have been undertaken. 
First, the formation of the Department of Homeland Security, attempting 
to merge some 22 different agencies of the government into a single 
agency under the umbrella of the Department of Homeland Security. And 
yes, we've made progress--I think substantial progress--in aviation 
security and the protection of goods coming into the country by 
container box. We've made substantial gains across the board in 
securing our American homeland. But we're still a long way from being 
where we need to be.
  It seems like it's been terribly slow in many of the areas that we 
need to work on. But you know, it's amazing to me. I was just reading a 
book about World War II and just how quickly the Nation responded to 
the attack on Pearl Harbor, 1941. In just 4 years, Madam Chair, half 
the time since 9/11, the Nation geared up and produced 6,500 ships. It 
produced some 300,000 airplanes, hundreds of thousands of tanks and 
rifles, ammunition, warships, liberty ships, transport ships, thousands 
upon thousands of howitzers and weapons of war in just 4 short years. 
And we've had double that time since 9/11 to gear up for the protection 
of the country from the newest threat in the globe.
  And yes, I am disappointed at times about the progress that we lack. 
But I've got to say that we've got some very brave people in all these 
agencies that now make up the Department of Homeland Security, that 
take their responsibilities deadly serious. They work hard; they don't 
get much thanks from anyone for the good work that they do; and we 
should take a moment the next time we go through an airport and thank 
that TSA worker or that Coast Guard worker or that FEMA helper in our 
home districts. I recently had the great opportunity to thank the FEMA 
response to a terrible flood in my district over Mother's Day weekend. 
But we need to thank these people because they don't get much of that, 
and they are doing a great service in defending us on our home turf.
  With that, Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I want to thank our distinguished former 
chairman and ranking member for those remarks. He is a student of 
history, as he's just demonstrated. He came to this subcommittee as its 
founding chairman with a great deal of understanding of just how big 
this challenge was after 9/11, bringing these 22 agencies together, but 
also with an instinct for how to put it all together and make this 
department work. We've made great strides. I agree with him also on the 
work yet to be done, of course, but over these 7 years we can look back 
on considerable progress.
  Mr. Rogers talked about the careers of civil servants and others, the 
Border Patrol agents, Coast Guard men and women, the people who staff 
these agencies every day. One of the benefits of the process we had 
this year, holding more broad-gauged hearings before we had a budget 
and before we had the agency heads in place, was for us to get a closer 
look at some of these career people and the good work they've done. We 
took a broader look at agency operations and gained some appreciation 
for what is being achieved and a better fix on some of the things that 
we need to improve.
  I hope and believe that our bill reflects that experience. It has 
been put together in a cooperative fashion. We look forward to taking 
it on from the House today and, by the start of the new fiscal year, 
being ready to put the program we envision in place. We're delighted to 
work with the new Secretary and the President's appointees at the 
agencies who are now assuming their roles. This bill today, I'm 
confident, is a very positive step in the process of putting this 
department's program together in cooperation with the new 
administration for the benefit of all Americans.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Madam Chair, I rise today to express my concern regarding 
the provisions of this bill relating to the National Bio- and Agro-
defense Facility, NBAF. The threats facing this country are numerous 
and varied. With the intention of closing the research facility at Plum 
Island, NY, it is imperative that a new research facility be 
constructed as quickly as possible.
  This is one of the many reasons why officials at the Department of 
Homeland Security selected Manhattan, Kansas, as the site for the new 
NBAF research center. Kansas State University is already home to a 
Biosafety Level 3, BSL 3, research facility, which means that right 
this minute the Plum Island facility could be relocated, with minimal 
disruptions in its critical research.
  Construction is ready to begin on the new BSL 4 NBAF facility. State 
and local funding is already in place to assist in the development of 
the facility. The only thing lacking is action by those in Washington.
  This bill, however, ignores not only the requests made by myself and 
other Members representing the great State of Kansas, but

[[Page H7186]]

also the decision of the Department of Homeland Security. By not 
funding NBAF, this bill leaves our nation and its food supply 
vulnerable to dangerous diseases, including Rift Valley Fever and 
African Swine Fever. Furthermore, it allows live cultures of these and 
other dangerous diseases to remain in facilities at Plum Island that 
DHS defined as, ``reaching the end of its life cycle.''
  In refusing to fund construction on the new NBAF site in Manhattan, 
the Committee raised concerns over the risk of diseases, particularly 
Foot-and-Mouth Disease, FMD, being released into the heart of livestock 
country. On that issue let me point out that DHS was aware of this risk 
when Manhattan, Kansas, was selected as the new site, and is already 
taking steps to address these concerns by an anticipated threat 
assessment which should be released shortly.
  I sincerely hope that as this bill works its way towards the 
Conference Committee that funding for construction of the new NBAF 
facility can be included. I have spoken with the Chairman and Ranking 
Member, and have their assurances that once these concerns are 
addressed, they will take steps to fund this critical program. I look 
forward to working with my colleagues on the Committee to ensure that 
our nation remains protected from dangerous diseases.
  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Madam Chair, I rise today in strong support of the 
fiscal year 2010 Homeland Security Appropriations bill.
  One of our government's foremost duties is to protect the American 
people.
  Fulfilling that critical mission falls to the men and women of the 
Department of Homeland Security and, as Members of Congress, we have an 
obligation to provide them with the resources they need to meet the 
challenge of defending our nation.
  Ably led by Chairman David Price and Ranking Member Hal Rogers, the 
Homeland Security Subcommittee has crafted legislation that does just 
that. It allocates more than $42 billion to equip our Border Patrol 
officers, baggage screeners, customs agents and Coast Guard captains to 
successfully combat the threats America faces.
  Like President Obama, we understand that even in a tough fiscal 
environment, with so many pressing priorities competing for the same 
scarce tax dollars, the Department deserves funding that reflects the 
scale of its responsibilities.
  Of course, our success in meeting America's security challenges 
depends on more than the size of the Department's annual appropriation. 
Just as important is the strength of its planning and the effectiveness 
of its leadership.
  Accordingly, the bill provides a sound blueprint for responsibly 
managing an organization that encompasses more than 200,000 employees 
at 22 different agencies. Drawing on the expertise of GAO, the DHS 
Inspector General and stakeholders both in government and private 
industry, the legislation successfully matches resources and risks, 
ensuring a balanced approach to protecting our most sensitive 
infrastructure. For example, in the wake of the London and Madrid 
bombings, it will ensure that our vulnerable transit systems are no 
longer neglected by providing $103 million for surface transportation 
security.
  Just as importantly, the bill also takes meaningful steps to address 
the injustices inherent in our broken immigration system.
  Under the previous administration, instead of pursuing violent 
felons, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, ICE, elected to fill its 
arbitrary quotas by seeking out working immigrants who posed no threat 
to their communities. Since 2002, the deportation of non-criminals has 
increased by 400 percent while criminal deportations are up only 60 
percent. This bill sensibly shifts ICE's primary enforcement target 
from families to felons.
  In addition, the bill responds to reports of asylum seekers denied 
medical attention and children subjected to lonely nights in border 
jails by imposing stronger oversight on detention centers and expanding 
alternatives to incarceration for vulnerable immigrants.
  These provisions are vitally important and they point to perhaps the 
bill's greatest strength: the recognition that we can protect the 
American people without violating their rights or compromising our 
ideals.
  I thank the Chairman and his staff once again for their excellent 
work on this crucial legislation and urge its swift passage.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Chair, I rise in support of the Homeland 
Security Appropriations Act of 2010. This bipartisan legislation funds 
the homeland security priorities of the country and strengthens our 
commitment to our state and local homeland security partners.
  To help address the unique security needs of our high-risk urban 
areas, such as the Washington Capitol Region, the bill requests $887 
million for Urban Area Security Initiative grants. These grants fund 
the security services and equipment needs of the nation's highest-
threat, high-density areas and helps to ensure that our state and local 
leaders have the resources they need to protect these areas from 
terrorist attack.
  In addition to appropriating funding to secure our passenger rail and 
air and sea ports, the bill provides funding for interoperable 
communications and for the nation's emergency operation centers. For 
our firefighters and other first responders, the bill adds $800 million 
for assistance grants for training and equipment. These funds will also 
be used to stem the tide of layoffs that are weakening our fire 
services and putting the public's safety at increased risk.
  The House considers this bill just two days after the Washington 
Capitol Area experienced one of the worst passenger rail tragedies in 
our nation's history. We owe a debt of gratitude to the first 
responders who arrived from across the region to provide aid and 
comfort to the victims of this tragedy.
  By funding these and other important programs, the Homeland Security 
Appropriations Act of 2010, helps make our country more secure in times 
like these. I encourage my colleagues to join me in support of this 
vital piece of legislation.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of 
my time.
  The CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment 
under the 5-minute rule.
  No amendment shall be in order except the amendments printed in part 
A and B of House Report 111-183, not to exceed four of the amendments 
printed in part C of the report if offered by the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Flake) or his designee, and not to exceed one of the 
amendments printed in part D of the report if offered by the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Campbell) or his designee. Each amendment shall be 
considered as read, shall be debatable for 10 minutes equally divided 
and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, and shall not be 
subject to a demand for division of the question. An amendment printed 
in part B, C, or D of the report may be offered only at the appropriate 
point in the reading.
  After consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chair and ranking 
minority member of the Committee on Appropriations or their designees 
each may offer one pro forma amendment to the bill for the purpose of 
debate, which shall be controlled by the proponent.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 2892

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the 
     following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the 
     Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the Department of 
     Homeland Security for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
     2010, and for other purposes, namely:

            TITLE I--DEPARTMENTAL MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONS

            Office of the Secretary and Executive Management

       For necessary expenses of the Office of the Secretary of 
     Homeland Security, as authorized by section 102 of the 
     Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 112), and executive 
     management of the Department of Homeland Security, as 
     authorized by law, $147,427,000: Provided, That not to exceed 
     $60,000 shall be for official reception and representation 
     expenses, of which $20,000 shall be made available to the 
     Office of Policy solely to host Visa Waiver Program 
     negotiations in Washington, DC.


     Part A Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Price of North Carolina

  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the 
desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Part A Amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Price of North 
     Carolina:
       Page 2, line 9, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $17,000,000)''
       Page 2, line 18, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $5,900,000)''.
       Page 5, line 20, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $4,900,000)''.
       Page 39, line 21, after the dollar amount insert 
     ``(increased by $7,000,000)''.
       Page 40, line 10, after the dollar amount insert 
     ``(increased by $3,000,000)''.
       Page 40, line 14, after the dollar amount insert 
     ``increased by $3,000,000)''
       Page 40, line 20, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $4,000,000)''.
       Page 44, line 25, after the dollar amount insert 
     ``(increased by $10,000,000)''.
       Page 45, line 1, after the dollar amount insert 
     ``(increased by $10,000,000)''.
       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 close or transfer the operations of the Florida 
     Long Term

[[Page H7187]]

     Recovery Office of the Federal Emergency Management 
     Administration located in Orlando, Florida.
       Sec._. None of the funds made available in this Act may be 
     used for first-class travel by the employees of agencies 
     funded by this Act in contravention of sections 301-10.122 
     through 301.10-124 of title 41, Code of Federal Regulations.
       Sec._. No funds appropriated by this Act may be used to 
     impose any negative personnel action against any Department 
     of Homeland Security employee who engages with the public in 
     the course of the employee's duties, for the use of surgical 
     masks, N95 respirators, gloves, or hand sanitizer.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 573, the gentleman from North 
Carolina (Mr. Price) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Chair, I yield myself as much time 
as I may consume.
  My amendment, I believe, is noncontroversial. It includes a number of 
amendments put forth by other Members that we believe would be good 
additions to the bill, including: First, additional funding for the 
Firefighter grant program that draws on proposals from Representatives 
Altmire, Pascrell, Austria, Peter King and Biggert; additional funding 
for nonprofit security grants, from Representatives Cohen and Weiner; 
additional funding for the Metropolitan Medical Response System, from 
Representative Kosmas; additional funding to implement the Western 
Hemisphere Travel Initiative, from Representative Mitchell; ensuring 
that DHS employees who interact with the public can use personal 
protective equipment without negative personnel action, from 
Representative Lynch; a prohibition on funds in this bill being used 
for first-class travel, with certain exceptions, from Representative 
Cuellar; and a prohibition of funds in this bill from being used to 
close or transfer operations of a FEMA recovery office, coming from 
Representative Hastings.
  All increases are appropriately offset elsewhere in the bill. While 
the bill includes earmarks in it, which have been properly disclosed 
according to House procedures, this amendment does not contain any 
congressional earmarks. I ask Members to support this amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Madam Chair, I rise to claim the time in 
opposition.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Madam Chair, it saddens me that the long-
standing cherished traditions of debate within this Chamber have come 
to this--a so-called manager's amendment that is more about limiting 
the time on today's debate and placating the interests of Democrats 
than truly improving this bill. So I rise in opposition to this 
amendment, not on the substance of the amendment itself, mind you, but 
on the flawed and misguided procedure under which it is being offered. 
We seldom do manager's amendments on appropriations bills on the floor; 
and when on the rare occasion that we have, it's been a true manager's 
amendment, one that is noncontroversial and bipartisan. This amendment 
meets the interests of nine Democrats, and the minority was never 
consulted on the substance and construction of this amendment--never.
  Furthermore, this amendment includes a provision that would be 
subject to a point of order during a normal debate to make this 
provision in order, then included in this flawed amendment. And 
finally, denying other Members the right to offer their amendments that 
were clearly germane and in order, including one of this ranking 
member. It's beyond the pale.
  The majority also denies the ability of a hardworking member of our 
subcommittee, and myself as well, an opportunity to offer an amendment 
on E-Verify, the way that employers in this country can be sure that an 
applicant for work is not an illegal alien. Both amendments were 
clearly in order. Both amendments pertain to a critical issue that's 
germane to this bill. To deny us the ability to offer such legitimate 
amendments is a complete travesty, especially in light of this 
amendment before us.
  So it is clearly not a manager's amendment, in my view. Instead, it's 
a vehicle for the majority to further ramrod this bill off the floor 
through what is perhaps the most closed and arbitrarily constrained 
debate I have seen in my 28 years or so in Congress.

                              {time}  1645

  I am very troubled by the road the majority is heading down with 
actions such as this, actions that muddle what should be an open debate 
on one of the most critical bills that this body will consider this 
year. Today should be about our homeland security, not partisan 
politics.
  I urge Members to reject this flawed procedure and oppose this 
misnamed manager's amendment.
  Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Chairman, I would like to yield 1 
minute to one of the sponsors of one of these amendments that has been 
included in this chairman's amendment, Representative Altmire, who has 
been working very hard on the firefighter grant program.
  Mr. ALTMIRE. I thank the chairman for yielding.
  I want to highlight the one provision which I worked hard to put into 
this manager's amendment. I can think of few that are more deserving 
and in need of support under this Homeland Security bill than our 
Nation's first responders. In particular, volunteer firefighters 
represent all walks of life and are part of the fabric of nearly every 
community in this country.
  The most important source of Federal assistance for our local 
firefighters is the Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program that has 
provided for so many fire companies over the years. Volunteer 
firefighters make every sacrifice for our communities and are always on 
call; so it's the very least we can do to make certain that they're as 
safe and well protected as possible.
  That's why I add the language to this bill to shift $10 million in 
funding over to the firefighter grants program. This funding will help 
hundreds of fire companies across the Nation make the necessary 
equipment and vehicle upgrades that are so critically needed.
  I thank the chairman for including in the bill my language to 
increase funding for our Nation's volunteer firefighters, and I ask my 
colleagues to support it.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Chairman, I would like to yield 1 
minute to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen), who likewise is the 
initiator of one of our amendments.
  Mr. COHEN. Madam Chairman, this amendment, which I appreciate being 
incorporated into the manager's amendment and was also sought in a 
similar fashion by Mr. Weiner of New York, would include language to 
increase funding to the Urban Areas Security Initiative Nonprofit 
Security Grant program. The Urban Areas Security Initiative Nonprofit 
Security Grant program is an important program that helps fund support 
for the not-for-profits that could be subject to attack. Nonprofit 
organizations often are like hospitals, which are vital to our 
communities' ongoing security and safety, especially if there is an 
attack that can spread terror and havoc on a community if they are 
attacked. And if you have research facilities attacked, there are other 
concerns in the community. The nonprofit entities can include hospitals 
and historic landmarks.
  In my community of Memphis, which I hope has an opportunity to share, 
there's the Med, there's St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, and 
other great hospitals. New York has many too; and that's why Mr. 
Weiner, I think, was interested in this. And the terror that could be 
spread by attacking a museum or a library and sending panic through the 
community could be very disastrous to the well-being of the people in 
that community and in the Nation.
  So hopefully the increase in this funding will help our cities secure 
their funds and secure their facilities. I would like to thank the 
chairman for the addition of the funding and the support for the 
additional $3 million for the Urban Areas program. I would like to 
thank Mr. Price and the committee for their work in including it in the 
manager's amendment.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Chairman, I have no further 
requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

[[Page H7188]]

  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Madam Chairman, I object to this amendment on 
procedural grounds. It's not a bipartisan amendment as manager's 
amendments are supposed to be, so I urge a ``no'' vote.
  Mr. LYNCH. Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman from North Carolina for 
his work on this bill. I also thank the Chairman for incorporating my 
amendment into the manager's amendment and for giving me time to speak.
  My amendment to H.R. 2892, the Department of Homeland Security 
Appropriations Act would afford D.H.S. workers the right to voluntarily 
don and access personal protective equipment (PPE), including surgical 
masks, the N-95 respirator, gloves and hand sanitizer without fear of 
reprisal.
  Given the reluctance on the part of D.H.S. to address the voluntary 
use of personal protective equipment amidst the H1N1 flu outbreak, as 
Chair of the Federal Workforce Subcommittee, it has fallen on my 
shoulders to ensure the health and safety of Federal employees--
especially frontline Federal workers at D.H.S. who are tasked with the 
tremendous job of keeping the American public safe.
  In my opinion it is unconscionable that our workers have been 
repeatedly denied the use of these protective items--and even 
threatened with disciplinary action for attempting to protect 
themselves from a communicable disease that has resulted in the World 
Health Organization, WHO, declaring its highest pandemic alert 
possible--Phase Six. Further, it is alarming that D.H.S. has been 
unable--or unwilling--to issue and to distribute comprehensive, written 
guidance on the voluntary usage of PPE to its own employees during a 
public health emergency.

  Federal workers such as Transportation Security Officers, TSOS, U.S. 
Customs and Border Patrol Officers and Border Patrol Agents, and ICE 
Agents who work in high risk areas and come in contact with thousands 
of individuals per shift deserve better. C.B.P. Officers working at the 
Laredo, Texas port of entry and the Otay Mesa port of entry in San 
Diego, CA, can screen over 5,000 individuals per shift and have been 
routinely threatened for asking to wear masks. The nineteen-month-old 
baby of an ICE agent in Miami, Florida, who works at the Krome 
Immigration Service Processing Center which has six confirmed H1N1 flu 
cases, has been diagnosed with the H1N1 virus. I simply cannot fathom 
why these workers are not being supported, but I am committed to 
ensuring that common-sense policies are implemented at D.H.S.
  It is essential that Federal agencies implement adequate and uniform 
worker protection policies for the employees who protect the Nation as 
part of their daily duties. These are the very employees who will be 
called upon to respond in the event of an emergency. Without such 
policies, not only is the health of front line employees being put at 
risk, but the health of their families and the general welfare of the 
public is also placed at risk. In short, the Federal Government cannot 
ably respond to emergencies if the very personnel needed as part of 
that response are themselves compromised.
  I thank Chairmen Price and Thompson for their support of this 
amendment.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of 
my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from North Carolina (Mr. Price).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from North Carolina will be 
postponed.


       Part B Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Lewis of California

  Mr. LEWIS of California. Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the 
desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Part B amendment No. 5 offered by Mr. Lewis of California:
       Page 2, line 9, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $6,000,000)''.
       Page 2, line 18, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $14,000,000)''.
       Page 3, line 7, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $3,000,000)''.
       Page 3, lines 14 and 16, after each dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $18,000,000)''.
       Page 5, line 20, after the first dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $34,000,000)''.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 573, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Lewis) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Madam Chairman, as I proceed with this 
amendment, I want to one more time associate myself first with the 
remarks of my ranking member regarding the manager's amendment but, in 
turn, express my deep respect and appreciation for the two gentlemen 
handling this bill. Chairman Price and my colleague from Kentucky have 
worked very professionally together and I think this House would be 
served well if we extend it to all of our subcommittees.
  The amendment which I have at the desk is a relatively simple 
amendment. I rise to restore some balance to what otherwise is a 
thoughtful and very constructive bill.
  My amendment takes a small fraction of funding, increases recommended 
for administrative expenses, and adds 200 new Border Patrol agents out 
of that transfer of funding, agents that will serve on the front lines 
of the bloody drug war raging in Mexico and produce increased security 
across our borders from entry by way of smugglers and people who are 
coming here for other sorts of contraband activities.
  My amendment seeks to increase the resources for those who are 
charged to keep our Nation safe and secure as well as ensnare money and 
illegal weapons flowing southbound; resources that will fulfill the 
promises repeatedly made by President Obama to both the American people 
and the courageous Mexican Government in their fight against the 
cartels.
  In fact, it was just 2 weeks ago that the President unveiled a new 
strategy on securing the southwest border and fighting the cartels, a 
strategy that calls for sustained enhancements to border security and 
counternarcotics activities.
  The President's budget request calls for only 44 new agents. That's 
right, only 44 new agents. Contrast that with the 2,500 additional 
agents this Congress funded just last year; 44 new agents in this bill, 
2,500 additional agents last year. How can we support such a flattening 
of this crucial security asset? How can we risk a reduction in the size 
of the Border Patrol when our border security needs are so great and 
the agent attrition rate is now creeping up to about 11 percent?
  The decision to fund what is essentially a current services budget 
for Border Patrol comes in conjunction with a request for more than a 
30 percent increase in administrative, policy, and bureaucratic 
functions at DHS. Talk about getting your priorities all wrong. Think 
about that, 11 percent versus 30 percent. Clearly a higher priority 
ought to be given to border security by way of more personnel.
  At a time of such obvious need in the face of a bloody and all too 
real drug war, now is the time to follow through on border security, 
not plateau and rest on our laurels.
  As Ranking Member Rogers has often pointed out, Chairman Price has 
done a laudable job scaling back the President's request for more 
bureaucrats and made some rather prudent enhancements to operations in 
this bill. However, the Border Patrol agents are not increased above 
the request, and I think it is something this Chamber should weigh in 
on heavily.
  So my amendment seeks to add 200 agents while asking the DHS 
administrative offices to get by on no more than a 14.8 percent 
increase, an increase that is more than sufficient and one that many of 
us probably think is too high during the current fiscal climate.
  My amendment simply asks what's more important: resources to provide 
our operators and watch guards in the field or added bureaucracy? We 
have all read the terrible stories of the brutal murders in North 
Mexico. Let's follow through on our commitment to secure our borders, 
stop the advance of the cartels' influence, and improve on our homeland 
security.
  I urge the Members to support this amendment.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LEWIS of California. I'd be happy to yield.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I want to congratulate our leader for this 
very adequate amendment that will help us on the border where the drug 
war wages, and we can use that personnel. The meager increases in the 
number of agents the gentleman has referred to in the bill needs to be 
increased, and the gentleman's amendment does just that, and I 
congratulate him and support it fully.

[[Page H7189]]

  Mr. LEWIS of California. I appreciate very much my colleague's 
speaking on my amendment.
  Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to 
the amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Chairman, this is an amendment 
that the Department of Homeland Security did not request and does not 
support.
  I do, however, want to salute the distinguished ranking member for 
his support of the Border Patrol. That support is widely shared in this 
body, on both sides of the aisle. But as the honorable ranking member 
knows, this committee has been fully a part of that effort to build up 
the Border Patrol. We're second to none in supporting, on a bipartisan 
basis, robust increases in Border Patrol numbers in recent years. We 
have dramatically enhanced border enforcement measures overall.
  Since the start of the 110th Congress, we have funded an increase of 
5,100 agents. That's a 33 percent increase over the number funded 
through 2007. By October of this year, CBP will have 20,019 Border 
Patrol agents. That's more than double the workforce in 2003.
  A level of 20,000 agents has been a bipartisan goal. Both the current 
and the prior administrations used it as a target. Indeed, the 
Republican majority in its report on the 2007 DHS authorization bill 
affirmed this when they wrote, and I'm quoting: ``It's estimated that a 
force of 18,000 to 20,000 agents will be necessary along with 
implementation of border technologies to secure the Nation's borders.'' 
So this amendment does somewhat move the goal posts in the middle of 
the game, you might say.
  The amendment ignores the fact that CBP can't absorb this unplanned 
increase. They are right this minute pulling out all the stops to hire 
before October another 760 Border Patrol agents as well as 250 mission 
support staff to ensure that agents are out patrolling and not sitting 
behind desks. This is not the time to burden the recruitment system 
with unrequested new agents, not to mention to impose unfunded costs 
for their vehicles and facilities and ID support.
  Just a word, Madam Chairman, about the offsets. The amendment uses as 
an offset several management accounts, about 5 percent cuts in most of 
these areas. It doesn't seem so bad until you realize that when this 
bill came to the floor, we were already more than 10 percent below the 
administration's request in this account. The Chief Information Officer 
takes the largest cut. We are already $39 million below the request for 
this office, and cuts here would undermine key efforts to improve 
information security and reduce risks at the Department's data centers. 
So cutting more funds now means less core support for Department 
operations, less oversight, more waste, and an even longer road to 
getting the DHS the American taxpayers deserve.
  For all these reasons, Madam Chairman, I urge my colleagues to defeat 
this amendment.
  Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Lewis).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from California will be 
postponed.


         Part B Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. King of New York

  Mr. KING of New York. Madam Chairwoman, I have an amendment at the 
desk that was made in order under the rule.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Part B amendment No. 8 offered by Mr. King of New York:
       Page 2, line 9, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced 
     by $5,000,000)''.
       Page 2, line 18, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced 
     by $45,000,000)''.
       Page 58, line 15, after the dollar amount insert 
     ``(increased by $50,000,000)''.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 573, the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. King) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. KING of New York. Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that 
Representative Clarke be listed as cosponsor of this amendment.
  The CHAIR. The Chair cannot entertain that request at this time.
  Mr. KING of New York. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  I insert into the Record a letter dated June 4, 2009, to Chairman 
Price and Ranking Member Rogers from virtually every law enforcement 
first responder head in New York, Connecticut, and New Jersey.
         New York Regional Joint Working Group on Securing the 
           Cities,
                                                     June 4, 2009.
     Subject: FY2010 Appropriations for Securing the Cities 
         Program

     Hon. David E. Price,
     Chairman, Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on 
         Homeland Security, Rayburn House Office Building, 
         Washington, DC.
      Hon. Harold Rogers,
     Ranking Member, Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on 
         Homeland Security, Rayburn House Office Building, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Price and Ranking Member Rogers: We are 
     writing to urge you to include $40 million to fund the 
     Securing the Cities (STC) program in your markup of the 
     FY2010 Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill. 
     This funding would be equal to the FY2008 appropriation for 
     the program.
       Securing the Cities is a vital, federally funded effort to 
     protect New York City from the threat of an improvised 
     nuclear device or a radiological dispersal device (a ``dirty 
     bomb''). The program involves equipping many different 
     agencies in New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut with state-
     of-the-art mobile radiation-detection equipment, training 
     them in its proper use, and leveraging existing technology 
     and infrastructure to deploy a permanent defensive radiation-
     detection ring around New York City.
       The STC program is the only federal initiative designed 
     specifically to protect a U.S. city from a radiological or 
     nuclear terrorist attack, which President Obama has called, 
     ``the most immediate and extreme threat to global security.'' 
     We never saw the program as a ``pilot,'' as some have 
     suggested, but as an operational model, developed to protect 
     the city that suffered the most on September 11, 2001, and 
     that continues to be at the top of the terrorist threat list.
       Since the STC program was proposed by the Department of 
     Homeland Security in 2006, we have:
       begun taking delivery of approximately 4,500 units of 
     radiation-detection equipment;
       prepared to train all of our response personnel in the 
     proper use of the equipment;
       conducted three full-scale exercises in which radioactive 
     materials were intercepted by our agencies;
       developed detailed operational nuclear-interdiction plans 
     for the region;
       begun developing the fixed radiation-detection systems that 
     will be installed on bridges and tunnels into New York City;
       and, begun to implement a situational awareness system that 
     will ultimately allow us to track and swiftly interdict 
     radiological threats anywhere in the region.
       All of the money appropriated since FY2007 has been 
     programmed, and most of it has been obligated. We expect to 
     complete the purchase of our situational awareness system, 
     developed with FY2007 funding, by the end of this year; we 
     have begun taking delivery of radiation-detection equipment 
     purchased with FY2008 funds; and, we have submitted our 
     application for FY2009 funds. Additional funding is necessary 
     to complete the final stages of development of the fixed 
     radiation-detection system, which is on the verge of becoming 
     operational, and to establish wireless connections among and 
     between our mobile systems.
       The STC program was designed as a joint federal, state, and 
     local initiative with significant investments and commitments 
     at all levels. Federal STC funding only pays for a fraction 
     of the cost of the total program. For example, the STC 
     program benefits from the absorption of manpower and 
     operational costs by state and local agencies. STC also 
     leverages major existing New York City investments, including 
     the fiber-optic lines that will be run to New York City 
     bridges and tunnels as part of the Lower Manhattan Security 
     Initiative and New York City's wireless network (NYCWiN). The 
     total cost of the STC program as seen by Congress does not 
     account for these significant outlays at the state and local 
     level.
       Together, the STC partners represent three layers of 
     government, three states, 60 counties, and over 80 law 
     enforcement agencies. In our view, the STC program is an 
     extraordinary example of interagency and intergovernmental 
     collaboration, and one of the most successful DHS programs in 
     existence. Zeroing this program out, as the President's 
     FY2010 Budget has mistakenly proposed, would do great harm to 
     the security of New York as well as the quality of our 
     agencies' partnership with DHS. We understand the need for 
     fiscal restraint in the current financial climate. However, 
     this critical investment will ensure that law enforcement and

[[Page H7190]]

     emergency response agencies have the resources needed to 
     protect our nation's largest city from the most damaging 
     terrorist threat imaginable.
       For these reasons, we urge you to appropriate funding to 
     the STC program at a level equal to the FY2008 
     appropriation--$30 million for acquisitions and $10 million 
     for research, development, and operations. We welcome the 
     opportunity to brief members of your staff on the progress of 
     this program either in the New York region or in Washington, 
     DC.
       We appreciate your consideration of this request.
           Sincerely,
       Raymond W. Kelly, Commissioner, Police Department, City of 
     New York;
       Nicholas Scoppetta, Commissioner, Fire Department, City of 
     New York;
       Harry J. Corbitt, Superintendent, New York State Police.
       Colonel Joseph R. Fuentes, Superintendent, New Jersey State 
     Police;
       Colonel Thomas Davoren, Deputy Commissioner, Connecticut 
     State Police;
       Lawrence W. Mulvey, Commissioner of Police, Nassau County 
     Police Department;
       Richard Dormer, Commissioner, Suffolk County Police 
     Department;
       William A. Morange, Deputy Executive Director, Metropolitan 
     Transportation Authority;
       Denise E. O'Donnell, Deputy Secretary for Public Safety, 
     New York State/Commissioner, NYS Division of Criminal 
     Justice;
       Thomas G. Donlon, Director, New York State Office of 
     Homeland Security;
       James F. Kralik, Sheriff, Rockland County Sheriff's Office;
       Thomas Belfiore, Commissioner-Sheriff, Westchester County 
     Police Department;
       Richard L. Camas, Director, New Jersey Office of Homeland 
     Security and Preparedness;
       James M. Thomas, Commissioner, Connecticut Department of 
     Emergency Management and Homeland Security;
       Samuel J. Plumeri, Jr., Director of Public Safety/
     Superintendent of Police, Port Authority of New York and New 
     Jersey;
       Steven W. Lawitts, Acting Commissioner, Department of 
     Environmental Protection, City of New York;
       Thomas R. Frieden, Commissioner, Department of Health and 
     Mental Hygiene, City of New York;
       Joseph F. Bruno, Commissioner, Office of Emergency 
     Management, City of New York and;
       Janette Sadik-Khan, Commissioner, New York City Department 
     of Transportation.

                              {time}  1700

  Madam Chairlady, the King-Clarke bipartisan amendment restores $40 
million for the Securing the Cities Initiative, a vital homeland 
security program which prevents terrorist attacks which are based on 
nuclear or radiological material, primarily in the form of dirty bombs. 
I should point out that a nearly identical amendment had the support of 
this House in 2007 by a majority of more than 2-1.
  Securing the Cities is a networked ring of radiological detectors on 
highways, toll plazas, bridges, tunnels and waterways leading into and 
out of New York City. It is the only Department of Homeland Security 
program dedicated to protecting cities and surrounding regions against 
the nuclear threat of dirty bombs.
  Madam Chair, this successful program is an operational model which 
can be replicated in cities and suburbs throughout the country. The 
proposed cut in funding for Securing the Cities would seriously 
undermine further implementation of needed nuclear and radiological 
detection capability.
  The WMD Commission, a bipartisan commission, warned in December of 
2008 that nuclear and biological terrorism was not only a serious 
threat but a likely threat.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. KING of New York. I reserve my time.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Chairwoman, I rise in opposition 
to the amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I want to first commend my New York 
colleagues, particularly Nita Lowey, Jose Serrano and Steve Israel, all 
on the Appropriations Committee, for promoting Securing the Cities and 
the work that it has made possible in their State. Indeed, their 
tireless advocacy for New York's regional security has resulted in 
notable increases in grant allocations to regional governments and 
first responders.
  New York State homeland security grants rose from $27 million in 2006 
to $112 million in 2009. That is a four-fold increase. And New York's 
Urban Area Security Initiative grants grew from $124 million in 2006 to 
$145 million in 2009. It remains the largest recipient of urban area 
funds.
  I couldn't agree more that Securing the Cities is a valuable pilot 
program demonstrating how State and local Governments could develop, 
with Federal agencies, an architecture to prevent a nuclear or 
radiological attack on New York. But I must emphasize that Securing the 
Cities is a 3-year pilot project, and this period is over. DHS 
requested no 2010 program because it is already positioned to 
accomplish its goals as a pilot program. So what we have here today is, 
in effect, an earmark for New York.
  The next steps are to conclude the program, assess the results, and 
identify candidates of future pilots, if any, outside of New York. 
Funding remains available for New York to continue this program well 
into 2010. About 84 percent of the 2009 funding and 10 percent of the 
2008 funding are presently unobligated. Award decisions for these funds 
are pending with one quarter left in the fiscal year. DHS knows of no 
unfunded requirements for this program. Remaining balances will enable 
New York to transition from a pilot to an ongoing regional operation. 
And that is what needs to happen.
  Adding money to continue a completed pilot is not the answer. New 
York surely does not want to be dependent on year-to-year 
appropriations amendments to continue this vital protective function. 
This needs to move to a sustainment mode, run by New York and its 
partner communities. It needs to identify funding sources that can be 
used for this purpose, including these urban area security grants, of 
course, the Transit Security grants, and others. The New York area has 
received about $1.4 billion through these grants since 2003 and can 
expect about $298 million in new funding this year.
  The amendment also earmarks $10 million for new radiation portal 
monitors. But here again, there is no identified requirement for 
additional funding. The ability to put this to use in 2010 is highly 
questionable.
  The amendment's offsets, $5 million from the Office of the Secretary 
and Executive Management and $45 million from the Under Secretary For 
Management, are particularly troubling. We are already well below the 
request in these areas. We have trimmed salary increases. We rejected 
new investments in departmental facilities. Cutting more funds will 
result in a longer road to getting the Department of Homeland Security 
the American taxpayers deserve.
  So I appreciate the intention of this amendment. I certainly 
appreciate the achievements of the Securing the Cities program. We know 
that this is a vital program and that these protective functions are 
important. But for that very reason, we need to get away from an 
earmark, and get away from a pilot program, and put this on the 
sustainment mode.
  It is in that spirit and for that reason that I ask my colleagues to 
oppose this amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The Committee will rise informally.
  The Speaker pro tempore (Ms. Clarke) assumed the chair.

                          ____________________