[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 96 (Wednesday, June 24, 2009)]
[House]
[Pages H7190-H7215]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2010

  The Committee resumed its sitting.
  Mr. KING of New York. Madam Chair, I recognize the gentlelady from 
New York, the cosponsor of the amendment, and a really zealous fighter 
on this issue, Ms. Clarke, for 90 seconds.
  Ms. CLARKE. Madam Chairman, I would like to thank Ranking Member King 
for yielding. I want to urge Members of the House to support the King-
Clarke amendment to the fiscal year 2010 Homeland Security 
Appropriations Act, H.R. 2892. Neither the President's budget request 
for fiscal year 2010 nor H.R. 2892 includes funding for the Securing 
the Cities Initiative. This initiative has created the department's 
Domestic Nuclear Detection Office, which is charged with directing the 
Nation's capability to detect and report

[[Page H7191]]

unauthorized attempts to develop or transport nuclear or radiological 
materials.
  This amendment restores the Federal commitment to this critical 
antiterrorism initiative and funds it.
  Since coming to Congress in 2001, I have worked with my colleagues on 
homeland security to protect our Nation against dirty bomb threats. In 
fact, my bill, the Radiological Materials Security Act, would help 
secure domestic sources of radiological materials that could be used to 
make a dirty bomb.
  We recognize that in the 21st century there are many very technical 
ways, many technologically advanced ways, in which communities across 
this Nation can sustain attack. And we are stating through this 
amendment today that this program has created a protocol that is a 
model for the Nation.
  So I urge my colleagues as we continue to grow in the 21st century 
and protect our critical cities and infrastructure that we will 
redirect funds to this particular program and that you will vote this 
amendment in order.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I will continue to reserve.
  Mr. KING of New York. Madam Chair, I yield 90 seconds to the 
gentleman from California and the ranking member on the committee, Mr. 
Lungren, 90 seconds.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I thank the gentleman for 
yielding.
  Madam Chair, some may wonder why someone from California would be 
here supporting an amendment that appears to be directed towards 
assisting the other side of the country. It is because of the success 
of the program to this point. That is, this is not only for the City of 
New York, but it is for that entire region, and I believe it has shown 
how it can be replicated in other parts of the country. Also, the 
greatest concern I have of an attack by terrorists who wish to do us 
ill would be a nuclear attack of some sort in one of our major 
metropolitan areas.
  The interdiction capabilities of this program could prevent a bomb 
from entering New York or from leaving the city to head to other parts 
of the region or Nation. And its lessons, I think, can help other 
cities around the country where similar initiatives could be 
implemented. And importantly, and this was used as a point of criticism 
I believe by the chairman, this amendment would provide $10 million for 
the procurement of radiation portal monitors, not just in the New York 
area, but from around the country. It seems to me that because of the 
success of this program, because of its opportunity for duplication and 
replication in other parts of the country, this is a worthy amendment.
  I believe that these initiatives are designed to save lives. They 
are, in fact, not just regional but national in scope and deserve 
national support.
  Radiation detection cannot be taken lightly. We must ensure that the 
federal commitment to a dedicated funding stream is there. So I would 
urge support of this amendment in restoring funding to the Securing Our 
Cities project, a critical national initiative and one of a kind.
  Mr. KING of New York. Madam Chair how much time remains?
  The CHAIR. The gentleman has 1 minute remaining.
  Mr. KING of New York. Madam Chair, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  Madam Chair, this initiative is extremely essential not just for New 
York but the entire Nation because it is very much expected that the 
next attack upon a major city will be launched from the suburbs, 
whether it is New York, Los Angeles, Chicago or wherever.
  Now, on the issues raised by the chairman, I have great respect for 
the chairman. The fact is all of the 2008 funds have been designated. 
All of them, once all the materials come in, will be paid. Every penny 
has been designated.
  Similarly for 2009, that money has been designated as well. There was 
a delay, not because of New York City, but because the department took 
so long in getting out the application. Once they were out, the city 
applied, and the money has been allocated and has been designated.
  When the chairman mentioned the increase in New York funding since 
2006, he picked 2006. That was the year that New York was cut by 40 
percent. So that is really not a good barometer to be using. The fact 
is New York is the number one terrorist target in the country. New York 
remains the number one terrorist target in the country. My district 
lost well over 100 people on September 11. We dread the thought of 
another attack, certainly a nuclear attack.
  This program works. I urge the adoption of the amendment.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. How much time is remaining, Madam 
Chairman?
  The CHAIR. The gentleman has 90 seconds remaining.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Chairwoman, I will close and have 
no further speakers. But I do want, once again, to commend the 
gentleman for the spirit in which he offers this amendment and the zeal 
with which Members whom we all know and respect, like Mr. Israel, Mr. 
Serrano and Mrs. Lowey, protect their cities and have defended this 
program.
  We take a backseat to no one with respect to those efforts. We 
understand New York's unique needs and how successful this pilot 
program has been.
  As a matter of fact, though, the money for carrying out the remaining 
aspects of this program is already in the pipeline. And these very 
arguments for the importance of this program are exactly why we need to 
take a more long-term approach and get away from a pilot program, get 
away from yearly amendments, yearly earmarks, and make this part of our 
permanent, long-term protective efforts. Of course, we will work with 
the New York delegation to find the resources that will let them do 
just that.
  So I pledge my cooperation in that endeavor.
  I hope the spirit of this opposition is well understood. We do want 
to work on this matter. We just believe that this amendment is not the 
right approach. And therefore we do ask for its defeat.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. King).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. KING of New York. 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 New York will be postponed.


            Part B Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Bilirakis

  Mr. BILIRAKIS. 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 B amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Bilirakis:
       Page 2, line 9, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $1,700,000)''.
       Page 15, line 20, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $1,700,000)''.
       Page 17, line 16, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $1,700,000)''.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 573, the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Bilirakis) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. BILIRAKIS. Madam Chair, I yield myself as much time as I may 
consume.
  I rise to offer this important amendment which will help increase our 
Nation's visa screening capabilities overseas to stop the entry into 
our country of terrorists, criminals, and others who may wish to do us 
harm.
  As a member of the Homeland Security Committee and a ranking member 
of the Subcommittee on Management, Investigations and Oversight, I have 
come to understand the importance of being proactive in strengthening 
our homeland security. At the same time, I have also become concerned 
about the inadequacies in the screening process and background checks 
conducted on those seeking temporary admission to our country.
  While many visa seekers simply want to come here to study or work and 
comply with the terms of their visas, some do not. And some, as we 
tragically saw on 9/11, want to enter our country to wage war against 
us.

                              {time}  1715

  That's why we need to strengthen the process by which temporary 
visitors

[[Page H7192]]

are screened prior to their entry into the United States. Congress 
recognized this weakness and created the Visa Security Program, which 
places Immigration and Customs Enforcement personnel overseas at risk 
locations to more carefully screen and investigate visa applicants.
  This important terrorist detection program allows ICE to proactively 
investigate and review visa applications to identify potential 
terrorists or criminal suspects before they gain entry into the United 
States. That is the key.
  Unfortunately, the administration did not seek increased funding for 
this valuable program in its budget request. While I am pleased that 
the bill we are considering today ensures that a portion of the funding 
for this program will be reserved to open several new visa security 
units in high-risk locations, I think we should provide additional 
resources to accelerate ICE's plan for expanding to other critical 
locations, which is what my amendment does.
  ICE currently operates 14 visa security units overseas. My amendment 
increases funding for the Visa Security Program by $1.7 million which 
will allow ICE to stand up an additional visa security unit. ICE has 
identified additional locations for new units but has not yet opened 
its units in these areas, largely due to the resource constraints.
  To offset this increase, my amendment would take a corresponding 
amount from the Office of the Secretary, which under this bill receives 
$147 million, a $24 million increase over fiscal year 2009, including 
$3 million for establishing a new intermodal security coordination 
office that largely will duplicate existing department efforts.
  We must be mindful of the way we spend our scarce resources. When it 
comes to security, we must avoid creating more bureaucracy and ensure 
that we are allocating funds where the risk is greatest. This amendment 
will help do that and ensure that the department is operating as 
effectively and efficiently as possible.
  My amendment will provide needed resources to keep terrorists out of 
the country while still allowing sufficient funding for establishing an 
office for which the need is questionable.
  I urge all of my colleagues to help strengthen our Nation's homeland 
security by supporting this amendment.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BILIRAKIS. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I want to salute the gentleman for a well-
thought out and wise amendment. I will support the amendment, and I 
hope it wins.
  Mr. BILIRAKIS. I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from North Carolina is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no obligation.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Chairman, I rise also to thank the 
gentleman for this amendment, which would increase the budget for the 
ICE Visa Security Program by $1.7 million. This addition would be 
offset by corresponding reductions to the Office of Secretary and 
Executive Management, but not a devastating cut.
  The committee has fully funded the $30.2 million request for the Visa 
Security Program, which is $3.4 million over the 2009 appropriations 
level already. This program places ICE agents and investigators 
overseas in embassies and consulates to assist State Department 
officials by investigating the criminal and terrorist backgrounds of 
those who apply for visas to come to the United States.
  The committee also expanded the program by more than 45 percent in 
the 2009 Appropriations Act, and I recognize its ongoing importance for 
the security of our country. The additional funds proposed in this 
amendment will allow ICE to continue to accelerate its Visa Security 
Program deployments in 2010. In other words, it would build in a very 
positive way on the progress we were making. And with this in mind, I 
am happy to accept the gentleman's amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BILIRAKIS. I yield myself the balance of my time to close.
  I want to thank the chairman and the ranking member, and I urge my 
colleagues to help strengthen our Nation's homeland security by 
supporting this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance 
of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. BILIRAKIS. 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 Florida will be postponed.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

              Office of the Under Secretary for Management

       For necessary expenses of the Office of the Under Secretary 
     for Management, as authorized by sections 701 through 705 of 
     the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 341 through 345), 
     $268,690,000, of which not less than $1,000,000 shall be for 
     logistics training; and of which not to exceed $3,000 shall 
     be for official reception and representation expenses: 
     Provided, That of the total amount made available under this 
     heading, $6,000,000 shall remain available until expended 
     solely for the alteration and improvement of facilities, 
     tenant improvements, and relocation costs to consolidate 
     Department headquarters operations at the Nebraska Avenue 
     Complex; and $17,131,000 shall remain available until 
     expended for the Human Resources Information Technology 
     program.

                 Office of the Chief Financial Officer

       For necessary expenses of the Office of the Chief Financial 
     Officer, as authorized by section 103 of the Homeland 
     Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 113), $63,530,000, of which 
     $11,000,000 shall remain available until expended for 
     financial systems consolidation efforts.

                Office of the Chief Information Officer

       For necessary expenses of the Office of the Chief 
     Information Officer, as authorized by section 103 of the 
     Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 113), and Department-
     wide technology investments, $299,593,000; of which 
     $86,912,000 shall be available for salaries and expenses; and 
     of which $212,681,000, to remain available until expended, 
     shall be available for development and acquisition of 
     information technology equipment, software, services, and 
     related activities for the Department of Homeland Security: 
     Provided, That none of the funds appropriated shall be used 
     to support or supplement the appropriations provided for the 
     United States Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator 
     Technology project or the Automated Commercial Environment: 
     Provided further, That the Chief Information Officer shall 
     submit to the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and 
     the House of Representatives, not more than 60 days after the 
     date of enactment of this Act, an expenditure plan for all 
     information technology acquisition projects that: (1) are 
     funded under this heading; or (2) are funded by multiple 
     components of the Department of Homeland Security through 
     reimbursable agreements: Provided further, That such 
     expenditure plan shall include each specific project funded, 
     key milestones, all funding sources for each project, details 
     of annual and lifecycle costs, and projected cost savings or 
     cost avoidance to be achieved by the project.

                        Analysis and Operations

       For necessary expenses for intelligence analysis and 
     operations coordination activities, as authorized by title II 
     of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 121 et seq.), 
     $345,556,000, of which not to exceed $5,000 shall be for 
     official reception and representation expenses; and of which 
     $199,677,000 shall remain available until September 30, 2011.

      Office of the Federal Coordinator for Gulf Coast Rebuilding

       For necessary expenses of the Office of the Federal 
     Coordinator for Gulf Coast Rebuilding, $2,000,000.

                      Office of Inspector General

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General 
     in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector General Act 
     of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App.), $111,874,000, of which not to exceed 
     $150,000 may be used for certain confidential operational 
     expenses, including the payment of informants, to be expended 
     at the direction of the Inspector General.

          TITLE II--SECURITY, ENFORCEMENT, AND INVESTIGATIONS

                   U.S. Customs and Border Protection

                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses for enforcement of laws relating to 
     border security, immigration, customs, agricultural 
     inspections and regulatory activities related to plant and 
     animal imports, and transportation of unaccompanied minor 
     aliens; purchase and lease of up to 4,500 (4,000 for 
     replacement only) police-type vehicles; and contracting with 
     individuals for personal services abroad; $7,576,897,000, of 
     which $3,226,000 shall be derived from the Harbor Maintenance 
     Trust Fund for administrative expenses related to the 
     collection of the Harbor Maintenance Fee pursuant to section 
     9505(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (26 U.S.C.

[[Page H7193]]

     9505(c)(3)) and notwithstanding section 1511(e)(1) of the 
     Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 551(e)(1)); of which 
     not to exceed $45,000 shall be for official reception and 
     representation expenses; of which not less than $309,629,000 
     shall be for Air and Marine Operations; of which such sums as 
     become available in the Customs User Fee Account, except sums 
     subject to section 13031(f)(3) of the Consolidated Omnibus 
     Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (19 U.S.C. 58c(f)(3)), 
     shall be derived from that account; of which not to exceed 
     $1,000,000 shall be for awards of compensation to informants, 
     to be accounted for solely under the certificate of the 
     Secretary of Homeland Security; and of which not more than 
     $800,000 shall be for procurement of portable solar charging 
     rechargeable battery systems, to be awarded under full and 
     open competition: Provided, That for fiscal year 2010, the 
     overtime limitation prescribed in section 5(c)(1) of the Act 
     of February 13, 1911 (19 U.S.C. 267(c)(1)) shall be $35,000; 
     and notwithstanding any other provision of law, none of the 
     funds appropriated by this Act may be available to compensate 
     any employee of U.S. Customs and Border Protection for 
     overtime, from whatever source, in an amount that exceeds 
     such limitation, except in individual cases determined by the 
     Secretary of Homeland Security, or the designee of the 
     Secretary, to be necessary for national security purposes, to 
     prevent excessive costs, or in cases of immigration 
     emergencies.


           Part B Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. King of Iowa

  Mr. KING of Iowa. Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk 
made in order by the rule.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Part B Amendment No. 3 offered by Mr. King of Iowa:
       Page 5, line 20, after the first dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $1,000,000) (increased by $1,000,000)''.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 573, the gentleman from Iowa 
(Mr. King) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Iowa.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Madam Chair, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  This is an amendment that takes a million dollars out and puts a 
million dollars in, and it comes from time I spent on the border and 
time I worked with our Border Patrol officers, our law enforcement 
officers on the border over the last several years. I have been down to 
the border, traveled along primarily the Arizona border, and had our 
law enforcement officers point to the pinnacles and say, There are drug 
lookouts, drug smuggling lookouts and people smuggling lookouts up on 
top of the promontories. These are the equivalent of military 
positions.
  I have actually personally walked a map around and had them put X's 
on the map to show me where these lookouts are, and over time, I 
developed this map that I have handed to the Secretary of Homeland 
Security. The locations are not disputed. This is a cat-and-mouse game 
that is going on between our law enforcement personnel all along the 
border, between ICE, the Shadow Wolves, and our Border Patrol 
personnel.
  I had a conversation with John Morton, who is the new director of 
ICE. He recognizes this concern. I am encouraged that this 
administration has taken notice of the lookouts that control the 
smuggling routes and tip them off when our law enforcement personnel 
converge in.
  Sometimes they will run a decoy, and this cat-and-mouse game has got 
to end. No nation can maintain its sovereignty if we are going to allow 
military positions, lookout positions to exist. So this million dollars 
is at the encouragement of ICE's people as well. A million dollars will 
be directed at taking out these lookout sites and removing this as a 
tool from our drug smugglers and our people smugglers on the border.
  I think it is something that is a bipartisan piece of legislation and 
it ends the cat-and-mouse game. By the way, their request was Congress 
should have a voice on this when I had that conversation with ICE. And 
so I encourage support for this amendment.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Would the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KING of Iowa. I would be happy to yield to the ranking member.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. The gentleman has worked hard on this issue 
and has brought forth some information that is very helpful to us, and 
I support the amendment he has offered and salute him for offering it.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. I thank the gentleman, and I reserve my time.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to 
the amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from North Carolina is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. The amendment simply increases and 
decreases funding for CBP salaries and expenses by $1 million with no 
statutory direction.
  Now, my colleague would have us understand this amendment would 
somehow provide funding for a targeted border enforcement effort. I 
must respectfully disagree. In fact, it will do nothing of the kind.
  The procedure used in this amendment is meaningless, having no 
effect, and establishing no legislative mandate. With no statutory 
significance, it also will have no impact whatsoever on the conference 
outcome with the Senate. It neither identifies the activity being 
defunded nor the one being augmented.
  On that basis alone, and to discourage the use of this kind of 
parliamentary tactic to stretch out the time for general debate, I urge 
colleagues to defeat this amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.
  I would respectfully disagree with the gentleman. As I read my 
amendment, I think the dialogue I heard was it increases and then 
decreases funding. Actually, this amendment decreases and then 
increases funding. I don't know if that changes the gentleman's 
analysis of what the amendment actually does. I don't add to this 
funding. I simply decrease it and then add it back in.
  I would have been happy to work with some language that would have 
perhaps been made in order, but in order for this Congress to have a 
voice on these lookouts--and this is drug smugglers that hold military 
positions, the equivalent of military positions that have stones 
stacked up like sandbags and people in there with semiautomatic weapons 
and have their supplies brought up to them by patrols that make sure 
that they have food and water and sometimes other things. They come and 
go as they see fit. We let them sit on top of these mountains and 
smuggle into the United States 90 percent of the illegal drugs that are 
consumed in the United States of America. And accompanying that are all 
of the violence, the death, the things that are associated with illegal 
drugs.
  This amendment is clearly in order, and how this Congress speaks to 
this amendment is how ICE and the balance of the law enforcement 
personnel on the border will react.
  I'm asking that we simply join our voices together and ask for 
enforcement so we don't concede these locations to the people who are 
smuggling 90 percent of the illegal drugs into America.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Would the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KING of Iowa. I would be very happy to yield.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Are these lookout posts on U.S. soil?
  Mr. KING of Iowa. On U.S. soil.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Madam Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time 
in order to close.
  As the ranking member from Kentucky said, this is something that I 
have done a lot of work on, and I am not the only Member of Congress 
who has gone to these lookouts. I have gone there and walked across the 
desert with our Shadow Wolves, for example, and had them point up and 
say, On that mountain, they have a position and they have state-of-the-
art optical equipment, state-of-the-art radio equipment. They are 
watching every move that our Border Patrol, ICE, Customs and Border 
Protection, and Shadow Wolves are making on that southern border.
  Whenever we deploy manpower, if we set up our ground-base radar that 
picks up humans, personnel walking across the desert, they know where 
our locations are. They shift their traffic accordingly. I have watched 
them run the decoy. I have been part of picking up

[[Page H7194]]

230 or 240 pounds of marijuana in one load that probably helped 2,000-
some pounds go through another load.
  We simply cannot tolerate in the United States of America, at least 
as much as 70 miles inside the United States--and I will be going down 
next week to look at some of these locations that are actually north of 
Tucson on the road to Phoenix. This is the United States of America, 
our sovereign territory, and playing cat and mouse with people there 
with semiautomatic weapons, supplies, smuggling drugs through the 
United States has got to stop. And this Congress should join together 
and, with this amendment, ask them to do so to stop that activity and 
defend our soil and put an end to this. It would be a very good help to 
dramatically reduce the amount of illegal drug smuggling into the 
United States.
  I urge adoption of the amendment.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Iowa (Mr. King).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. 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 Iowa will be postponed.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                        automation modernization

       For expenses for U.S. Customs and Border Protection 
     automated systems, $462,445,000, to remain available until 
     expended, of which not less than $267,960,000 shall be for 
     the development of the Automated Commercial Environment: 
     Provided, That of the total amount made available under this 
     heading, $167,960,000 may not be obligated for the Automated 
     Commercial Environment program until 30 days after the 
     Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the House of 
     Representatives receive a report on the results to date and 
     plans for the program from the Department of Homeland 
     Security.

        border security fencing, infrastructure, and technology

       For expenses for border security fencing, infrastructure, 
     and technology, $732,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended: Provided, That of the total amount made available 
     under this heading, $150,000,000 shall not be obligated until 
     the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the House 
     of Representatives receive and approve a plan for 
     expenditure, prepared by the Secretary of Homeland Security, 
     reviewed by the Government Accountability Office, and 
     submitted not later than 90 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, for a program to establish and 
     maintain a security barrier along the borders of the United 
     States, of fencing and vehicle barriers where practicable, 
     and of other forms of tactical infrastructure and technology, 
     that includes--
       (1) a detailed accounting of the program's implementation 
     to date for all investments, including technology and 
     tactical infrastructure, for funding already expended 
     relative to system capabilities or services, system 
     performance levels, mission benefits and outcomes, 
     milestones, cost targets, program management capabilities, 
     identification of the maximum investment, including life-
     cycle costs, related to the Secure Border Initiative program 
     or any successor program, and description of the methodology 
     used to obtain these cost figures;
       (2) a description of how specific projects will further the 
     objectives of the Secure Border Initiative, as defined in the 
     Department of Homeland Security Secure Border Plan, and how 
     the expenditure plan allocates funding to the highest 
     priority border security needs;
       (3) an explicit plan of action defining how all funds are 
     to be obligated to meet future program commitments, with the 
     planned expenditure of funds linked to the milestone-based 
     delivery of specific capabilities, services, performance 
     levels, mission benefits and outcomes, and program management 
     capabilities;
       (4) an identification of staffing, including full-time 
     equivalents, contractors, and detailees, by program office;
       (5) a description of how the plan addresses security needs 
     at the Northern border and ports of entry, including 
     infrastructure, technology, design and operations 
     requirements, specific locations where funding would be used, 
     and priorities for Northern border activities;
       (6) a report on budget, obligations and expenditures, the 
     activities completed, and the progress made by the program in 
     terms of obtaining operational control of the entire border 
     of the United States;
       (7) a listing of all open Government Accountability Office 
     and Office of Inspector General recommendations related to 
     the program and the status of Department of Homeland Security 
     actions to address the recommendations, including milestones 
     to fully address such recommendations;
       (8) a certification by the Chief Procurement Officer of the 
     Department including all supporting documents or memoranda, 
     and documentation and a description of the investment review 
     processes used to obtain such certifications, that--
       (A) the program has been reviewed and approved in 
     accordance with the investment management process of the 
     Department, and that the process fulfills all capital 
     planning and investment control requirements and reviews 
     established by the Office of Management and Budget, including 
     as provided in Circular A-11, part 7;
       (B) the plans for the program comply with the Federal 
     acquisition rules, requirements, guidelines, and practices, 
     and a description of the actions being taken to address areas 
     of non-compliance, the risks associated with such actions, 
     together with any plans for addressing these risks, and the 
     status of the implementation of such actions; and
       (C) procedures to prevent conflicts of interest between the 
     prime integrator and major subcontractors are established and 
     that the Secure Border Initiative Program Office has adequate 
     staff and resources to effectively manage the Secure Border 
     Initiative program and all contracts under such program, 
     including the exercise of technical oversight;
       (9) a certification by the Chief Information Officer of the 
     Department including all supporting documents or memoranda, 
     and documentation and a description of the investment review 
     processes used to obtain such certifications that--
       (A) the system architecture of the program has been 
     determined to be sufficiently aligned with the information 
     systems enterprise architecture of the Department to minimize 
     future rework, including a description of all aspects of the 
     architectures that were or were not assessed in making the 
     alignment determination, the date of the alignment 
     determination, and any known areas of misalignment together 
     with the associated risks and corrective actions to address 
     any such areas;
       (B) the program has a risk management process that 
     regularly and proactively identifies, evaluates, mitigates, 
     and monitors risks throughout the system life cycle and 
     communicates high-risk conditions to U.S. Customs and Border 
     Protection and Department of Homeland Security investment 
     decision-makers, as well as a listing of all the program's 
     high risks and the status of efforts to address such risks; 
     and
       (C) an independent verification and validation agent is 
     currently under contract for the projects funded under this 
     heading;
       (10) a certification by the Chief Human Capital Officer of 
     the Department that the human capital needs of the Secure 
     Border Initiative program are being addressed so as to ensure 
     adequate staff and resources to effectively manage the Secure 
     Border Initiative; and
       (11) an analysis by the Secretary for each segment, defined 
     as not more than 15 miles, of fencing or tactical 
     infrastructure, of the selected approach compared to other, 
     alternative means of achieving operational control, including 
     cost, level of operational control, possible unintended 
     effects on communities, and other factors critical to the 
     decisionmaking process:
     Provided further, That the Secretary shall report to the 
     Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the House of 
     Representatives on program progress, and obligations and 
     expenditures for all outstanding task orders as well as 
     specific objectives to be achieved through the award of 
     current and remaining task orders planned for the balance of 
     available appropriations at least 15 days before the award of 
     any task order requiring an obligation of funds in an amount 
     greater than $25,000,000 and before the award of a task order 
     that would cause cumulative obligations of funds to exceed 50 
     percent of the total amount appropriated: Provided further, 
     That none of the funds made available under this heading may 
     be obligated unless the Department has complied with section 
     102(b)(1)(C)(i) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and 
     Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1103 note), 
     and the Secretary certifies such to the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the Senate and the House of 
     Representatives: Provided further, That none of the funds 
     made available under this heading may be obligated for any 
     project or activity for which the Secretary has exercised 
     waiver authority pursuant to section 102(c) of the Illegal 
     Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 
     (8 U.S.C. 1103 note) until 15 days have elapsed from the date 
     of the publication of the decision in the Federal Register.

 air and marine interdiction, operations, maintenance, and procurement

       For necessary expenses for the operations, maintenance, and 
     procurement of marine vessels, aircraft, unmanned aircraft 
     systems, and other related equipment of the air and marine 
     program, including operational training and mission-related 
     travel, and rental payments for facilities occupied by the 
     air or marine interdiction and demand reduction programs, the 
     operations of which include the following: the interdiction 
     of narcotics and other goods; the provision of support to 
     Federal, State, and local agencies in the enforcement or 
     administration of laws enforced by the Department of Homeland 
     Security; and at the discretion of the Secretary of Homeland 
     Security, the provision of assistance to Federal, State, and 
     local agencies in other law enforcement and emergency 
     humanitarian efforts, $513,826,000, to remain available until 
     expended: Provided, That no aircraft or other related 
     equipment, with the exception of aircraft that are one of a 
     kind and have been identified as excess to U.S.

[[Page H7195]]

     Customs and Border Protection requirements and aircraft that 
     have been damaged beyond repair, shall be transferred to any 
     other Federal agency, department, or office outside of the 
     Department of Homeland Security during fiscal year 2010 
     without the prior approval of the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the Senate and the House of 
     Representatives.

                          facilities management

       For necessary expenses to plan, construct, renovate, equip, 
     and maintain buildings and facilities necessary for the 
     administration and enforcement of the laws relating to 
     customs and immigration, $682,133,000, of which not to exceed 
     $150,000 shall be available for payment for rental space in 
     connection with preclearance operations; and of which 
     $279,870,000 shall remain available until expended; of which 
     not more than $3,500,000 shall be for acquisition, design, 
     and construction of U.S. Customs and Border Protection Air 
     and Marine facilities at El Paso International Airport, 
     Texas.

                U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement

                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses for enforcement of immigration and 
     customs laws, detention and removals, and investigations; and 
     purchase and lease of up to 3,790 (2,350 for replacement 
     only) police-type vehicles; $5,311,493,000, of which not to 
     exceed $7,500,000 shall be available until expended for 
     conducting special operations under section 3131 of the 
     Customs Enforcement Act of 1986 (19 U.S.C. 2081); of which 
     not to exceed $15,000 shall be for official reception and 
     representation expenses; of which not to exceed $1,000,000 
     shall be for awards of compensation to informants, to be 
     accounted for solely under the certificate of the Secretary 
     of Homeland Security; of which not less than $305,000 shall 
     be for promotion of public awareness of the child pornography 
     tipline and anti-child exploitation activities; of which not 
     less than $5,400,000 shall be used to facilitate agreements 
     consistent with section 287(g) of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1357(g)); and of which not to 
     exceed $11,216,000 shall be available to fund or reimburse 
     other Federal agencies for the costs associated with the 
     care, maintenance, and repatriation of smuggled aliens 
     unlawfully present in the United States: Provided, That none 
     of the funds made available under this heading shall be 
     available to compensate any employee for overtime in an 
     annual amount in excess of $35,000, except that the 
     Secretary, or the designee of the Secretary, may waive that 
     amount as necessary for national security purposes and in 
     cases of immigration emergencies: Provided further, That of 
     the total amount provided, $15,770,000 shall be for 
     activities in fiscal year 2010 to enforce laws against forced 
     child labor, of which not to exceed $6,000,000 shall remain 
     available until expended: Provided further, That of the total 
     amount available, not less than $1,500,000,000 shall be 
     available to identify aliens convicted of a crime who may be 
     deportable, and to remove them from the United States once 
     they are judged deportable, of which $200,000,000 shall 
     remain available until September 30, 2011: Provided further, 
     That the Secretary, or the designee of the Secretary, shall 
     report to the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and 
     the House of Representatives, not later than 30 days after 
     the end of each fiscal quarter, on progress implementing the 
     preceding proviso and the funds obligated during that quarter 
     to make that progress: Provided further, That the Secretary 
     shall prioritize the identification and removal of aliens 
     convicted of a crime by the severity of that crime: Provided 
     further, That of the total amount provided, not less than 
     $2,549,180,000 shall be for detention and removal operations, 
     including transportation of unaccompanied minor aliens: 
     Provided further, That of the total amount provided, 
     $6,800,000 shall remain available until September 30, 2011, 
     for the Visa Security Program: Provided further, That none of 
     the funds provided under this heading may be used to continue 
     a delegation of law enforcement authority authorized under 
     section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 
     U.S.C. 1357(g)) if the Department of Homeland Security 
     Inspector General determines that the terms of the agreement 
     governing the delegation of authority have been violated: 
     Provided further, That none of the funds provided under this 
     heading may be used to continue any contract for the 
     provision of detention services if the two most recent 
     overall performance evaluations received by the contracted 
     facility are less than ``adequate'' or the equivalent median 
     score in any subsequent performance evaluation system: 
     Provided further, That nothing under this heading shall 
     prevent U.S. Immigation and Customs Enforcement from 
     exercising those authorities provided under immigration laws 
     (as defined in section 101(a)(17) of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(17))) during priority 
     operations pertaining to aliens convicted of a crime: 
     Provided further, That none of the funds provided under this 
     heading may be obligated to co-locate field offices of U.S. 
     Immigration and Customs Enforcement until the Secretary of 
     Homeland Security submits to the Committees on Appropriations 
     of the Senate and the House of Representatives a plan for the 
     nationwide implementation of the Alternatives to Detention 
     Program that identifies: (1) the funds required for 
     nationwide program implementation, (2) the timeframe for 
     achieving nationwide program implementation; and (3) an 
     estimate of the number of individuals who could be enrolled 
     in a nationwide program.

                       federal protective service

       The revenues and collections of security fees credited to 
     this account shall be available until expended for necessary 
     expenses related to the protection of Federally-owned and 
     leased buildings and for the operations of the Federal 
     Protective Service: Provided, That the Secretary of Homeland 
     Security and the Director of the Office of Management and 
     Budget shall certify in writing to the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the Senate and the House of Representatives 
     no later than December 31, 2009, that the operations of the 
     Federal Protective Service will be fully funded in fiscal 
     year 2010 through revenues and collection of security fees, 
     and shall adjust the fees to ensure fee collections are 
     sufficient to ensure that the Federal Protective Service 
     maintains not fewer than 1,200 full-time equivalent staff and 
     900 full-time equivalent Police Officers, Inspectors, Area 
     Commanders, and Special Agents who, while working, are 
     directly is engaged on a daily basis protecting and enforcing 
     laws at Federal buildings (referred to as ``in-service field 
     staff''): Provided further, That none of the funds made 
     available in this Act may be used to modify or restructure 
     the bureaucratic organization of the Federal Protective 
     Service as part of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

                        automation modernization

       For expenses of immigration and customs enforcement 
     automated systems, $105,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended.

                              construction

       For necessary expenses to plan, construct, renovate, equip, 
     and maintain buildings and facilities necessary for the 
     administration and enforcement of the laws relating to 
     customs and immigration, $11,818,000, to remain available 
     until expended: Provided, That none of the funds made 
     available in this Act may be used to solicit or consider any 
     request to privatize facilities currently owned by the United 
     States Government and used to detain aliens unlawfully 
     present in the United States until the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the Senate and the House of Representatives 
     receive a plan for carrying out that privatization.

                 Transportation Security Administration

                           aviation security

       For necessary expenses of the Transportation Security 
     Administration related to providing civil aviation security 
     services pursuant to the Aviation and Transportation Security 
     Act (Public Law 107-71; 115 Stat. 597; 49 U.S.C. 40101 note), 
     $5,265,740,000, to remain available until September 30, 2011, 
     of which not to exceed $10,000 shall be for official 
     reception and representation expenses: Provided, That of the 
     total amount made available under this heading, not to exceed 
     $4,409,776,000 shall be for screening operations, of which 
     $1,138,106,000 shall be available for explosives detection 
     systems; and not to exceed $855,964,000 shall be for aviation 
     security direction and enforcement: Provided further, That of 
     the amount made available in the preceding proviso for 
     explosives detection systems, $800,000,000 shall be available 
     for the purchase and installation of these systems: Provided 
     further, That of the total amount provided, $1,250,000 shall 
     be made available for Safe Skies Alliance to develop and 
     enhance research and training capabilities for Transportation 
     Security Officer improvised explosive recognition training: 
     Provided further, That security service fees authorized under 
     section 44940 of title 49, United States Code, shall be 
     credited to this appropriation as offsetting collections and 
     shall be available only for aviation security: Provided 
     further, That any funds collected and made available from 
     aviation security fees pursuant to section 44940(i) of title 
     49, United States Code, may, notwithstanding paragraph (4) of 
     such section 44940(i), be expended for the purpose of 
     improving screening at airport screening checkpoints, which 
     may include the purchase and utilization of emerging 
     technology equipment; the refurbishment and replacement of 
     current equipment; the installation of surveillance systems 
     to monitor checkpoint activities; the modification of 
     checkpoint infrastructure to support checkpoint 
     reconfigurations; and the creation of additional checkpoints 
     to screen aviation passengers and airport personnel: Provided 
     further, That the sum appropriated under this heading from 
     the general fund shall be reduced on a dollar-for-dollar 
     basis as such offsetting collections are received during 
     fiscal year 2010, so as to result in a final fiscal year 
     appropriation from the general fund estimated at not more 
     than $3,165,740,000: Provided further, That any security 
     service fees collected in excess of the amount made available 
     under this heading shall become available during fiscal year 
     2011: Provided further, That Members of the House of 
     Representatives and Senate, including the leadership; the 
     heads of Federal agencies and commissions, including the 
     Secretary, Under Secretaries, and Assistant Secretaries of 
     Homeland Security; the Attorney General and Assistant 
     Attorneys General and the United States attorneys; and senior 
     members of the Executive Office of the President, including 
     the Director of the Office of Management and Budget; shall 
     not be exempt from Federal passenger and baggage screening.

                    surface transportation security

       For necessary expenses of the Transportation Security 
     Administration related to

[[Page H7196]]

     providing surface transportation security activities, 
     $103,416,000, to remain available until September 30, 2011.

           transportation threat assessment and credentialing

       For necessary expenses for the development and 
     implementation of screening programs of the Office of 
     Transportation Threat Assessment and Credentialing, 
     $171,999,000, to remain available until September 30, 2011: 
     Provided, That if the Assistant Secretary of Homeland 
     Security (Transportation Security Administration) determines 
     that the Secure Flight program does not need to check airline 
     passenger names against the full terrorist watch list, the 
     Assistant Secretary shall certify to the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the Senate and the House of Representatives 
     that no significant security risks are raised by screening 
     airline passenger names only against a subset of the full 
     terrorist watch list.

                    transportation security support

       For necessary expenses of the Transportation Security 
     Administration related to providing transportation security 
     support and intelligence pursuant to the Aviation and 
     Transportation Security Act (Public Law 107-71; 115 Stat. 
     597; 49 U.S.C. 40101 note), $992,980,000, to remain available 
     until September 30, 2011: Provided, That not to exceed 
     $5,000,000 may be obligated for headquarters administration 
     until the Secretary of Homeland Security submits to the 
     Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the House of 
     Representatives detailed expenditure plans for checkpoint 
     support and explosives detection systems refurbishment, 
     procurement, and installations on an airport-by-airport basis 
     for fiscal year 2010: Provided further, That these plans 
     shall be submitted no later than 60 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act.

                          federal air marshals

       For necessary expenses of the Federal Air Marshals, 
     $860,111,000.

                              {time}  1730


              Part B Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Duncan

  Mr. DUNCAN. 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. 2 offered by Mr. Duncan:
       Page 24, line 9, strike the dollar amount and insert 
     ``$819,481,000''.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 573, the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Duncan) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Madam Chairman, former Congressman Sonny Callahan, a very 
respected former subcommittee chairman on the Appropriations Committee, 
told me that we had done all we needed to do on airplane security when 
we secured the cockpit doors. Whether you agree with him or not, that 
one very inexpensive action took away the ability to hijack and use 
airplanes the way they were used on 9/11.
  Now we are about to appropriate $860 million for the Federal Air 
Marshal Service, and I believe this money could be much better spent in 
any one of hundreds of other ways. However, my amendment does not 
eliminate this agency, even though I do believe it is a needless, 
useless agency. And my amendment does not even cut its funding. All it 
does is freeze this agency at its current level of funding, $819 
million.
  Air marshals arrest an average of a little over four people each 
year. Even after my amendment, they would still be getting about $200 
million per arrest. There must not be a softer, easier, more cushy job 
in the entire Federal Government than just to ride airplanes back and 
forth, back and forth, back and forth, many of them in first class. I 
would rather give this money to local law enforcement people who are 
fighting real crime, the street crime that people want fought.
  Families all over this country are having to tighten their belts, and 
many millions are having to reduce spending. It would seem to me that 
the least we can do is stop giving big increases to agencies like this 
that really are doing almost no good at all. Actually, more air 
marshals have been arrested since 9/11 than there have been arrests by 
air marshals. This is an agency that has gone from just 33 before 9/11 
to over 4,000 today.
  Now, what TSA is doing at the airports, what all the other Federal, 
State and local law enforcement agencies are doing, what private 
companies are doing on security and all the many other things that are 
done on this bill on aviation security are more than enough. We need to 
realize that we cannot make everyone totally safe even if we spent the 
entire Federal budget on security.
  I chaired the Aviation Subcommittee for 6 years and have always been 
a strong supporter of law enforcement and aviation security, but as one 
high-ranking former TSA official told me 2 days ago, this air marshal 
agency is simply ``gilding the lily.''
  The Wall Street Journal said in an editorial a few months after 9/11: 
``We would like to suggest a new post-September 11 rule for Congress: 
Any bill with the word ``security'' should get double the public 
scrutiny and maybe four times the normal weight, lest all kinds of bad 
legislation become law under the phony guise of fighting terrorism.'' 
That was from The Wall Street Journal when they noticed that almost 
every Department agency was requesting additional funds and using the 
word ``security'' to justify it, even unnecessary appropriations.
  Everyone on both sides of the aisle, Madam Chairman, likes to call 
themselves fiscally conservative. Well, even if my amendment were to 
pass, this agency would be getting an almost 60 percent increase since 
2003, more than double the rate of inflation since that time.
  This amendment is bare bones fiscal conservatism, very minimal fiscal 
conservatism. And I might add that I have never had a run-in with an 
air marshal. In fact, I don't even believe that I know an air marshal, 
so this is nothing personal. But USA Today a few months ago had an 
article about this agency and all the troubles and problems they're 
having, and I can tell you that I think this agency at least should not 
keep getting huge increases in funding.
  Madam Chairman, I reserve 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, I rise in opposition to 
the amendment with great respect for the gentleman from Tennessee who, 
after all, has labored in this body for many years in the areas of 
transportation and transportation security. I take what he believes 
very, very seriously. And I know that he offers this amendment in all 
earnestness.
  I want to say more in a minute about what our committee has done to 
make certain some of the elements that he is looking for are indeed 
addressed; namely, by requiring a long-term assessment of the air 
marshal staffing needs. This is not something we should go on funding 
indefinitely without assessment or analysis; and we intend for that to 
occur. But I do not believe this amendment to simply flat-fund the 
Federal air marshals is the best approach.
  The exact number of Federal air marshals is security-sensitive, but a 
reduction of $40.6 million, which the gentleman proposes, would result 
in a significant number of air marshals being let go, and TSA would 
have to put in place a hiring freeze for all of fiscal 2010. As a 
result, we would have fewer high-risk international and domestic 
flights covered. In fact, flight coverage would be below what it was in 
2009.
  With this funding reduction, it is possible that air marshals may not 
be on all flights during some high-consequence events, such as the 2010 
Olympics or national special security events. Now, I'm sure that TSA 
would make every effort not to reduce coverage for such events, but we 
would need to worry about resources being spread thinly under the 
gentleman's amendment.
  The funding reduction would limit the air marshals' ability to 
rapidly respond to unanticipated events as they did in the past, such 
as the U.K. liquid explosives threat, evacuation of U.S. citizens from 
Lebanon, or in response to hurricanes like Ike and Katrina. In 
addition, funding restrictions would affect air marshals' ability to 
support TSA's VIPR teams. These are teams that conduct unannounced, 
high-visibility exercises in mass transit and passenger rail facilities 
and are designed to disrupt possible threats determined by reports from 
our intelligence community. So these air marshals do perform vital 
functions, and we need to know what we're doing if we cut back 
personnel levels.

[[Page H7197]]

  Having said that, I do want to call the attention of colleagues to 
our report, page 74 to be explicit, where we discuss the long-term 
prospects for this air marshals program. We go into some detail about 
these additional security measures that the gentleman outlined which, 
indeed, may change the picture in the longer term. We don't know. We 
want DHS to reassess what is the appropriate long-term staffing level 
for the Federal air marshals in light of its new risk assessment model 
that better targets staff deployments.
  So we have ordered up this study. Until we receive it, we believe it 
is premature to reduce funding for air marshals without the kind of 
sound analysis that would demonstrate what threats might be addressed 
or what might not be addressed if there is a diminished effort by the 
air marshal program.
  So, again, with appreciation for the gentleman's history on this 
issue, I do respectfully urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment. But I do 
pledge to Members that we are going to undertake an assessment of this 
program for the long-term. And this time next year we will expect to 
have a much better analysis of what the long-term prospects should be.
  With that, Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Madam Chairman, I will close by saying that, first of 
all, I appreciate the kind comments by the chairman of the subcommittee 
for whom I have the greatest and deepest respect.
  I served on the conference committee that created the TSA. I do 
believe that aviation security is very important, and I do believe that 
this bill does many good things in that respect. But I also know that 
the Air Marshal Service has a horrendous record so far. And as I said 
earlier, when you think of the very few arrests that they've made, it 
comes out to an average of a little over four a year, or about $200 
million per arrest. I can't think, really, of any Department or agency 
in the Federal Government that does less good with more money than this 
agency. And yet, in spite of that, I am not trying to eliminate the 
agency; I am not trying to cut its funding. All I've done by this 
amendment is advocate a freeze that would save a little over $40 
million. And if we can't do that, then really we can't do anything that 
is truly fiscally conservative in this Congress. I think when we 
recently raised our national debt limit to over $13 trillion, I think 
we at least need to start taking a few baby steps like this. So I urge 
my colleagues to support my amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance 
of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. DUNCAN. 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 Tennessee will be 
postponed.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                              Coast Guard

                           operating expenses

       For necessary expenses for the operation and maintenance of 
     the Coast Guard, not otherwise provided for; purchase or 
     lease of not to exceed 25 passenger motor vehicles, which 
     shall be for replacement only; purchase or lease of small 
     boats for contingent and emergent requirements (at a unit 
     cost of no more than $700,000) and for repairs and service-
     life replacements for small boats for such requirements, not 
     to exceed a total of $26,000,000; minor shore construction 
     projects not exceeding $1,000,000 in total cost at any 
     location; payments pursuant to section 156 of Public Law 97-
     377 (42 U.S.C. 402 note; 96 Stat. 1920); and recreation and 
     welfare; $6,822,026,000, of which $340,000,000 shall be for 
     defense-related activities; of which $241,503,000 is 
     designated as being for overseas deployments and other 
     activities pursuant to section 423(a)(1) of S. Con. Res. 13 
     (111/th/ Congress), the concurrent resolution on the budget 
     for fiscal year 2010; of which $24,500,000 shall be derived 
     from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund to carry out the 
     purposes of section 1012(a)(5) of the Oil Pollution Act of 
     1990 (33 U.S.C. 2712(a)(5)); of which not to exceed $20,000 
     shall be for official reception and representation expenses: 
     Provided, That none of the funds made available by this or 
     any other Act shall be available for administrative expenses 
     in connection with shipping commissioners in the United 
     States: Provided further, That none of the funds made 
     available by this Act shall be for expenses incurred for 
     recreational vessels under section 12114 of title 46, United 
     States Code, except to the extent fees are collected from 
     yacht owners and credited to this appropriation: Provided 
     further, That the Coast Guard shall comply with the 
     requirements of section 527 of Public Law 108-136 with 
     respect to the Coast Guard Academy.

                environmental compliance and restoration

       For necessary expenses to carry out the environmental 
     compliance and restoration functions of the Coast Guard under 
     chapter 19 of title 14, United States Code, $13,198,000, to 
     remain available until expended.

                            reserve training

       For necessary expenses of the Coast Guard Reserve, as 
     authorized by law; operations and maintenance of the reserve 
     program; personnel and training costs; and equipment and 
     services; $133,632,000.

              acquisition, construction, and improvements

       For necessary expenses of acquisition, construction, 
     renovation, and improvement of aids to navigation, shore 
     facilities, vessels, and aircraft, including equipment 
     related thereto; and maintenance, rehabilitation, lease and 
     operation of facilities and equipment, as authorized by law; 
     $1,347,480,000, of which $20,000,000 shall be derived from 
     the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund to carry out the purposes 
     of section 1012(a)(5) of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (33 
     U.S.C. 2712(a)(5)); of which $103,000,000 shall be available 
     until September 30, 2014, to acquire, repair, renovate, or 
     improve vessels, small boats, and related equipment; of which 
     $119,500,000 shall be available until September 30, 2012, for 
     other equipment; of which $10,000,000 shall be available 
     until September 30, 2012, for shore facilities and aids to 
     navigation facilities; of which $100,000,000 shall be 
     available for personnel compensation and benefits and related 
     costs; and of which $1,014,980,000 shall be available until 
     September 30, 2014, for the Integrated Deepwater Systems 
     program: Provided, That of the funds made available for the 
     Integrated Deepwater Systems program, $269,000,000 is for 
     aircraft and $591,380,000 is for surface ships: Provided 
     further, That the Secretary of Homeland Security shall submit 
     to the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the 
     House of Representatives, in conjunction with the President's 
     fiscal year 2011 budget, a review of the Revised Deepwater 
     Implementation Plan that identifies any changes to the plan 
     for the fiscal year; an annual performance comparison of 
     Integrated Deepwater Systems program assets to pre-Deepwater 
     legacy assets; a status report of such legacy assets; a 
     detailed explanation of how the costs of such legacy assets 
     are being accounted for within the Integrated Deepwater 
     Systems program; and the earned value management system gold 
     card data for each Integrated Deepwater Systems program 
     asset: Provided further, That the Secretary shall submit to 
     the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the House 
     of Representatives a comprehensive review of the Revised 
     Deepwater Implementation Plan every 5 years, beginning in 
     fiscal year 2011, that includes a complete projection of the 
     acquisition costs and schedule for the duration of the plan 
     through fiscal year 2027: Provided further, That the 
     Secretary shall annually submit to the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the Senate and the House of 
     Representatives, at the time that the President's budget is 
     submitted under section 1105(a) of title 31, United States 
     Code, a future-years capital investment plan for the Coast 
     Guard that identifies for each capital budget line item--
       (1) the proposed appropriation included in that budget;
       (2) the total estimated cost of completion;
       (3) projected funding levels for each fiscal year for the 
     next 5 fiscal years or until project completion, whichever is 
     earlier;
       (4) an estimated completion date at the projected funding 
     levels; and
       (5) changes, if any, in the total estimated cost of 
     completion or estimated completion date from previous future-
     years capital investment plans submitted to the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the Senate and the House of 
     Representatives:

     Provided further, That the Secretary shall ensure that 
     amounts specified in the future-years capital investment plan 
     are consistent to the maximum extent practicable with 
     proposed appropriations necessary to support the programs, 
     projects, and activities of the Coast Guard in the 
     President's budget as submitted under section 1105(a) of 
     title 31, United States Code, for that fiscal year: Provided 
     further, That any inconsistencies between the capital 
     investment plan and proposed appropriations shall be 
     identified and justified: Provided further, That subsections 
     (a) and (b) of section 6402 of the U.S. Troop Readiness, 
     Veterans' Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability 
     Appropriations Act, 2007 (Public Law 110-28) shall apply to 
     fiscal year 2010.

                         alteration of bridges

       For necessary expenses for alteration or removal of 
     obstructive bridges, as authorized by section 6 of the 
     Truman-Hobbs Act (33 U.S.C. 516), $10,000,000, to remain 
     available until expended.

              research, development, test, and evaluation

       For necessary expenses for applied scientific research, 
     development, test, and evaluation; and for maintenance, 
     rehabilitation,

[[Page H7198]]

     lease, and operation of facilities and equipment; as 
     authorized by law; $19,745,000, to remain available until 
     expended, of which $500,000 shall be derived from the Oil 
     Spill Liability Trust Fund to carry out the purposes of 
     section 1012(a)(5) of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (33 
     U.S.C. 2712(a)(5)): Provided, That there may be credited to 
     and used for the purposes of this appropriation funds 
     received from State and local governments, other public 
     authorities, private sources, and foreign countries for 
     expenses incurred for research, development, testing, and 
     evaluation.

                              retired pay

       For retired pay, including the payment of obligations 
     otherwise chargeable to lapsed appropriations for this 
     purpose, payments under the Retired Serviceman's Family 
     Protection and Survivor Benefits Plans, payment for career 
     status bonuses, concurrent receipts and combat-related 
     special compensation under the National Defense Authorization 
     Act, and payments for medical care of retired personnel and 
     their dependents under chapter 55 of title 10, United States 
     Code, $1,361,245,000, to remain available until expended.

                      United States Secret Service

                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the United States Secret Service, 
     including: purchase of not to exceed 652 vehicles for police-
     type use for replacement only; hire of passenger motor 
     vehicles; purchase of motorcycles made in the United States; 
     hire of aircraft; services of expert witnesses at such rates 
     as may be determined by the Director of the Secret Service; 
     rental of buildings in the District of Columbia, and fencing, 
     lighting, guard booths, and other facilities on private or 
     other property not in Government ownership or control, as may 
     be necessary to perform protective functions; payment of per 
     diem or subsistence allowances to employees where a 
     protective assignment during the actual day or days of the 
     visit of a protectee requires an employee to work 16 hours 
     per day or to remain overnight at a post of duty; conduct of 
     and participation in firearms matches; presentation of 
     awards; travel of United States Secret Service employees on 
     protective missions without regard to the limitations on such 
     expenditures in this or any other Act if approval is obtained 
     in advance from the Committees on Appropriations of the 
     Senate and the House of Representatives; research and 
     development; grants to conduct behavioral research in support 
     of protective research and operations; and payment in advance 
     for commercial accommodations as may be necessary to perform 
     protective functions; $1,457,409,000, of which not to exceed 
     $25,000 shall be for official reception and representation 
     expenses; of which not to exceed $100,000 shall be to provide 
     technical assistance and equipment to foreign law enforcement 
     organizations in counterfeit investigations; of which 
     $2,366,000 shall be for forensic and related support of 
     investigations of missing and exploited children; and of 
     which $6,000,000 shall be for a grant for activities related 
     to the investigations of missing and exploited children and 
     shall remain available until expended: Provided, That up to 
     $18,000,000 provided for protective travel shall remain 
     available until September 30, 2011: Provided further, That up 
     to $1,000,000 for National Special Security Events shall 
     remain available until expended: Provided further, That the 
     United States Secret Service is authorized to obligate funds 
     in anticipation of reimbursements from Federal agencies and 
     entities, as defined in section 105 of title 5, United States 
     Code, receiving training sponsored by the James J. Rowley 
     Training Center, except that total obligations at the end of 
     the fiscal year shall not exceed total budgetary resources 
     available under this heading at the end of the fiscal year: 
     Provided further, That none of the funds made available under 
     this heading shall be available to compensate any employee 
     for overtime in an annual amount in excess of $35,000, except 
     that the Secretary of Homeland Security, or the designee of 
     the Secretary, may waive that amount as necessary for 
     national security purposes: Provided further, That none of 
     the funds made available to the United States Secret Service 
     by this Act or by previous appropriations Acts may be made 
     available for the protection of the head of a Federal agency 
     other than the Secretary of Homeland Security: Provided 
     further, That the Director of the United States Secret 
     Service may enter into an agreement to perform such service 
     on a fully reimbursable basis.

     acquisition, construction, improvements, and related expenses

       For necessary expenses for acquisition, construction, 
     repair, alteration, and improvement of facilities, 
     $3,975,000, to remain available until expended.

      TITLE III--PROTECTION, PREPAREDNESS, RESPONSE, AND RECOVERY

              National Protection and Programs Directorate

                     management and administration

       For salaries and expenses of the Office of the Under 
     Secretary for the National Protection and Programs 
     Directorate, support for operations, information technology, 
     and the Office of Risk Management and Analysis, $44,577,000: 
     Provided, That not to exceed $5,000 shall be for official 
     reception and representation expenses.

           infrastructure protection and information security

       For necessary expenses for infrastructure protection and 
     information security programs and activities, as authorized 
     by title II of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 
     121 et seq.), $883,346,000, of which $744,085,000 shall 
     remain available until September 30, 2011:  Provided, That of 
     the amount made available under this heading, $155,000,000 
     may not be obligated for the National Cyber Security 
     Initiative program and $25,000,000 may not be obligated for 
     the Next Generation Networks program until the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the Senate and the House of Representatives 
     receive and approve a plan for expenditure for that program 
     that describes the strategic context of the program; the 
     specific goals and milestones set for the program; and the 
     funds allocated to achieving each of those goals: Provided 
     further, That of the total amount provided, $1,000,000 is for 
     Philadelphia infrastructure monitoring; $3,500,000 is for 
     State and local cyber security training; $3,000,000 is for 
     the Power and Cyber Systems Protection, Analysis, and Testing 
     Program at the Idaho National Laboratory; $3,500,000 is for 
     the Cyber Security Test Bed and Evaluation Center; $3,000,000 
     is for the Multi-State Information Sharing and Analysis 
     Center; $500,000 is for the Virginia Operational Integration 
     Cyber Center of Excellence; $100,000 is for the Upstate New 
     York Cyber Initiative; and $1,000,000 is for interoperable 
     communications, technical assistance and outreach programs.

    united states visitor and immigrant status indicator technology

       For necessary expenses for the development of the United 
     States Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology 
     project, as authorized by section 110 of the Illegal 
     Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 
     (8 U.S.C. 1365a), $351,800,000, to remain available until 
     expended: Provided, That of the total amount made available 
     under this heading, $75,000,000 may not be obligated for the 
     United States Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator 
     Technology program until the Committees on Appropriations of 
     the Senate and the House of Representatives receive a plan 
     for expenditure prepared by the Secretary of Homeland 
     Security that includes--
       (1) a detailed accounting of the program's progress to date 
     relative to system capabilities or services, system 
     performance levels, mission benefits and outcomes, 
     milestones, cost targets, and program management 
     capabilities;
       (2) an explicit plan of action defining how all funds are 
     to be obligated to meet future program commitments, with the 
     planned expenditure of funds linked to the milestone-based 
     delivery of specific capabilities, services, performance 
     levels, mission benefits and outcomes, and program management 
     capabilities;
       (3) a listing of all open Government Accountability Office 
     and Office of Inspector General recommendations related to 
     the program and the status of Department of Homeland Security 
     actions to address the recommendations, including milestones 
     for fully addressing such recommendations;
       (4)(A) a certification by the Chief Procurement Officer of 
     the Department that--
       (i) the program has been reviewed and approved in 
     accordance with the investment management process of the 
     Department;
       (ii) the process fulfills all capital planning and 
     investment control requirements and reviews established by 
     the Office of Management and Budget, including as provided in 
     Circular A-11, part 7; and
       (iii) the plans for the program comply with Federal 
     acquisition rules, requirements, guidelines, and practices; 
     and
       (B) a description by the Chief Procurement Officer of the 
     actions being taken to address areas of non-compliance, the 
     risks associated with such areas as well as any plans for 
     addressing such risks, and the status of the implementation 
     of such actions;
       (5)(A) a certification by the Chief Information Officer of 
     the Department that--
       (i) an independent verification and validation agent is 
     currently under contract for the program;
       (ii) the system architecture of the program is sufficiently 
     aligned with the information systems enterprise architecture 
     of the Department to minimize future rework, including a 
     description of all aspects of the architecture that were or 
     were not assessed in making the alignment determination, the 
     date of the alignment determination, and any known areas of 
     misalignment along with the associated risks and corrective 
     actions to address any such areas; and
       (iii) the program has a risk management process that 
     regularly identifies, evaluates, mitigates, and monitors 
     risks throughout the system life cycle, and communicates 
     high-risk conditions to agency and Department investment 
     decision makers; and
       (B) a listing by the Chief Information Officer of all the 
     program's high risks and the status of efforts to address 
     them;
       (6) a certification by the Chief Human Capital Officer of 
     the Department that the human capital needs of the program 
     are being strategically and proactively managed, and that 
     current human capital capabilities are sufficient to execute 
     the plans discussed in the report; and
       (7) a detailed accounting of operation and maintenance, 
     contractor services, and program costs associated with the 
     management of identity services.

[[Page H7199]]

                        Office of Health Affairs

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Health Affairs, 
     $128,400,000, of which $30,411,000 is for salaries and 
     expenses: Provided, That $97,989,000 shall remain available 
     until September 30, 2011, for biosurveillance, BioWatch, 
     medical readiness planning, chemical response, and other 
     activities, including $5,000,000 for the North Carolina 
     Collaboratory for Bio-Preparedness, University of North 
     Carolina, Chapel Hill: Provided further, That not to exceed 
     $3,000 shall be for official reception and representation 
     expenses.

                  Federal Emergency Management Agency

                     management and administration

       For necessary expenses for management and administration of 
     the Federal Emergency Management Agency, $844,500,000, 
     including activities authorized by the National Flood 
     Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.), the Robert T. 
     Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 
     U.S.C. 5121 et seq.), the Cerro Grande Fire Assistance Act of 
     2000 (Div. C Title I, 114 Stat. 583), the Earthquake Hazards 
     Reduction Act of 1977 (42 U.S.C. 7701 et seq.), the Defense 
     Production Act of 1950 (50 U.S.C. App. 2061 et seq.), 
     sections 107 and 303 of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 
     U.S.C. 404, 405), Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978 (5 U.S.C. 
     App.), the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 101 et 
     seq.), and the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act 
     of 2006 (Public Law 109-295; 120 Stat. 1394): Provided, That 
     not to exceed $3,000 shall be for official reception and 
     representation expenses: Provided further, That the 
     President's budget submitted under section 1105(a) of title 
     31, United States Code, shall be detailed by office for the 
     Federal Emergency Management Agency: Provided further, That 
     of the total amount made available under this heading, 
     $32,500,000 shall be for the Urban Search and Rescue Response 
     System, of which not to exceed $1,600,000 may be made 
     available for administrative costs; and $6,995,000 shall be 
     for the Office of National Capital Region Coordination.


           Part B Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Poe of Texas

  Mr. POE of Texas. Madam Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk 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. 7 offered by Mr. Poe of Texas:
       Page 38, line 19, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $32,000,000)''.
       Page 52, line 2, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $32,000,000)''.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 573, the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Poe) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. POE of Texas. Madam Chairman, the amendment I am offering today 
seeks to add additional funding to the highly successful and widely 
supported National Predisaster Mitigation Fund. In a time of deficits 
and rampant government spending, predisaster mitigation is good for the 
taxpayer.
  According to a study first released in 2005, the ``National Hazard 
Mitigation Saves: An Independent Study to Assess the Future Savings 
from Mitigation Activities,'' performed by the group called the Multi-
Hazard Mitigation Council, stated that for every $1 spent on 
mitigation, $3 to $4 is saved. Further, the Congressional Budget Office 
issued its own report on predisaster mitigation and its cost savings 
and confirmed the savings derived from this program.
  According to these studies, this amendment that I'm offering could 
save anywhere from $96 million to $128 million in future disaster 
costs. In communities such as I represent along the gulf coast of 
Texas, predisaster mitigation is essential in weathering future 
devastating hurricanes which have ravaged my district in recent years 
in helping to reduce the cost towards recovery. Just since I've been 
elected, the following hurricanes have hit my southeast district in 
Texas: Katrina, Rita, Humbert, Gustav, and the latest is Ike.
  Every year it seems, Madam Chairman, a new hurricane comes down 
Hurricane Alley through my congressional district, but also hits other 
gulf States. The purpose of this program is to implement hazard 
reduction measures prior to an event. Funds can be used to help 
retrofit buildings, such as the courthouse that is used as the Center 
for Emergency Management Services. Those retrofitting buildings can 
withstand high wind damage. Also it moves properties out of flood 
plains, and flood-proof buildings, among many other things.
  The problem is requests for funding from this program is three times 
the amount of money that is actually available under current law. This 
amendment takes $32 million out of the $850 million of salaries. The 
$32 million figure comes from the amount that's over the President's 
request. And communities throughout Hurricane Alley and other areas in 
the country prone to devastation, such as earthquakes and wildfires, 
are all looking at ways to strengthen their defenses and avoid the 
often long and painful recovery.

                              {time}  1745

  The predisaster recovery program is a community-based program and 
emphasizes commitment to local input on what's needed. Over the last 
decade, the predisaster mitigation program has developed and grown as 
mitigation itself has become accepted as Federal policy. Adoption and 
expansion of mitigation as a beneficial approach for government has 
been bolstered by studies that demonstrated cost reductions following 
disasters due to earlier mitigation investments.
  So I ask support of this amendment and support of communities that 
would benefit from this amendment before disaster strikes.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to 
the gentleman's amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Chairman, the gentleman seeks to 
add $32 million for predisaster mitigation grants by cutting the same 
amount from FEMA's management and operations programs.
  Again, I appreciate the gentleman's support for predisaster 
mitigation. I come from a State where both predisaster and postdisaster 
mitigation have been very important and often successful programs. And 
I believe the funding levels recommended by our committee in recent 
years have reflected this favorable evaluation.
  But the offset the gentleman proposes is just untenable. I have to 
say that, and I want to spend some time in explaining it because I do 
respect the motivation that he brings to this effort.
  We have, today, correspondence from State and local emergency 
managers who also think this offset is unacceptable. They oppose this 
amendment because it cuts critical FEMA programs, and, in particular, I 
have a letter dated today from the International Association of 
Emergency Managers along these lines.
  The Congress has spent the last 4 years since Hurricane Katrina 
rebuilding FEMA's management and operations capabilities. At the time 
of Katrina, the agency was understaffed and unable to effectively 
manage a catastrophic disaster. It's my belief that the increases over 
the last 2 fiscal years were a major factor in FEMA's return to 
strength as demonstrated during the response to Hurricane Ike and the 
Midwest floods.
  I am afraid the gentleman's amendment could send us backwards. The 
gentleman would cut the account that supports the National Hurricane 
Program, the National Dam Safety Program, national continuity programs, 
disaster operations and disaster mitigation.
  The committee supports predisaster mitigation. That's why we included 
a $10 million increase for predisaster mitigation grants above fiscal 
year 2009.
  But the gentleman proposes a further increase, and I believe that 
should not come at the detriment of FEMA's operational readiness.
  Besides, the grant program that the gentleman seeks to increase had 
$143 million that was unobligated or not spent at the time this bill 
was reported. In other words, there is a good deal of money in the 
pipeline.
  So as a supporter of increased mitigation, and as the chairman of a 
committee that has championed increased mitigation, I believe we have 
enough funds for now to support ongoing mitigation work, and I think 
the offset would be detrimental to FEMA's readiness to respond to 
disasters.
  So I respectfully urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POE of Texas. I yield myself as much time as I may consume.
  I appreciate the chairman's input on my amendment.

[[Page H7200]]

  As I mentioned earlier, the request for predisaster mitigation funds 
is three times what is available under current law. And I probably have 
dealt with FEMA as much as anybody in this House, not by choice, but 
because of the fact that our district keeps getting hammered by 
hurricanes, starting with Katrina. And the management system of FEMA 
has a lot to be desired. That has to be dealt with eventually in 
another issue.
  Hurricane Rita, 2005, people in my congressional district are still 
living with blue plastic tarps on their roofs because of the inadequate 
response. That is why this bill is so important, because it allows for 
predisaster mitigation. It allows the hospitals to get a generator so 
that when they lose their power, they are able to take care of the 
patients that are in the emergency room. That is a portion of 
predisaster mitigation.
  And I think it's imperative that we be proactive because it takes 
FEMA too long to respond to disasters, which drives up the cost of 
recovery. Some people in my district still say FEMA is the disaster.
  We talked earlier on other amendments about the fact that a next 
terrorist attack may occur in New York City. That may be so. But Mother 
Nature, as we say in Texas, ``has a mad on'' for Hurricane Alley 
because we keep getting hammered every year with hurricanes.
  And one way to help is to ratchet up the amount of money available in 
areas in the Gulf Coast and other parts of the country that have the 
likelihood of being hit by a major disaster. Where recovery takes a 
long time, and if we are prepared with just a third of the money that 
is needed to recover, we can be prepared, and communities can get back 
together a lot quicker.
  So I would respectfully disagree with the chairman and say that we 
need to adopt this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance 
of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Poe).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. 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 Texas will be postponed.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                        state and local programs

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For grants, contracts, cooperative agreements, and other 
     activities, $2,829,000,000 shall be allocated as follows:
       (1) $950,000,000 shall be for the State Homeland Security 
     Grant Program under section 2004 of the Homeland Security Act 
     of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 605): Provided, That of the amount provided 
     by this paragraph, $60,000,000 shall be for Operation 
     Stonegarden: Provided further, That notwithstanding 
     subsection (c)(4) of such section 2004, for fiscal year 2010, 
     the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico shall make available to local 
     and tribal governments amounts provided to the Commonwealth 
     of Puerto Rico under this paragraph in accordance with 
     subsection (c)(1) of such section 2004.
       (2) $887,000,000 shall be for the Urban Area Security 
     Initiative under section 2003 of the Homeland Security Act of 
     2002 (6 U.S.C. 604), of which, notwithstanding subsection 
     (c)(1) of such section, $15,000,000 shall be for grants to 
     organizations (as described under section 501(c)(3) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and exempt from taxation under 
     section 501(a) of such code) determined by the Secretary of 
     Homeland Security to be at high risk of a terrorist attack.
       (3) $40,000,000 shall be for the Metropolitan Medical 
     Response System under section 635 of the Post-Katrina 
     Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006 (6 U.S.C. 723).
       (4) $15,000,000 shall be for the Citizen Corps Program.
       (5) $250,000,000 shall be for Public Transportation 
     Security Assistance and Railroad Security Assistance under 
     sections 1406 and 1513 of the Implementing Recommendations of 
     the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (6 U.S.C. 1135 and 1163): 
     Provided, That such public transportation security assistance 
     shall be provided directly to public transportation agencies.
       (6) $250,000,000 shall be for Port Security Grants in 
     accordance with 46 U.S.C. 70107, notwithstanding 46 U.S.C 
     70107(c).
       (7) $12,000,000 shall be for Over-the-Road Bus Security 
     Assistance under section 1532 of the Implementing 
     Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (6 U.S.C. 
     1182).
       (8) $50,000,000 shall be for Buffer Zone Protection Program 
     Grants.
       (9) $50,000,000 shall be for grants in accordance with 
     section 204 of the REAL ID Act of 2005 (49 U.S.C. 30301 
     note).
       (10) $50,000,000 shall be for the Interoperable Emergency 
     Communications Grant Program under section 1809 of the 
     Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 579).
       (11) $40,000,000 shall remain available until expended for 
     grants for Emergency Operations Centers under section 614 of 
     the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency 
     Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5196c), as detailed in the 
     statement accompanying this Act.
       (12) $235,000,000 shall be for training, exercises, 
     technical assistance, and other programs, of which--
       (A) $132,000,000 shall be for the National Domestic 
     Preparedness Consortium in accordance with section 1204 of 
     the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act 
     of 2007 (6 U.S.C. 1102), of which $23,000,000 shall be for 
     the National Energetic Materials Research and Testing Center, 
     New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology; $23,000,000 
     shall be for the National Center for Biomedical Research and 
     Training, Louisiana State University; $23,000,000 shall be 
     for the National Emergency Response and Rescue Training 
     Center, Texas A&M University; $23,000,000 shall be for the 
     National Exercise, Test, and Training Center, Nevada Test 
     Site; and $40,000,000 shall be for the Center for Domestic 
     Preparedness, Alabama; and
       (B) $3,000,000 shall be for the Rural Domestic Preparedness 
     Consortium, Eastern Kentucky University:
     Provided, That not to exceed 3 percent of the amounts 
     provided under this heading may be transferred to the Federal 
     Emergency Management Agency ``Management and Administration'' 
     account for program administration, and an expenditure plan 
     for program administration shall be provided to the 
     Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the House of 
     Representatives within 60 days after the date of enactment of 
     this Act: Provided further, That for grants under paragraphs 
     (1) through (4), the applications for grants shall be made 
     available to eligible applicants not later than 25 days after 
     the date of enactment of this Act, eligible applicants shall 
     submit applications not later than 90 days after the grant 
     announcement, and the Administrator of the Federal Emergency 
     Management Agency shall act within 90 days after receipt of 
     an application: Provided further, That for grants under 
     paragraphs (5) through (7) and (10), the applications for 
     grants shall be made available to eligible applicants not 
     later than 30 days after the date of enactment of this Act, 
     eligible applicants shall submit applications within 45 days 
     after the grant announcement, and the Federal Emergency 
     Management Agency shall act not later than 60 days after 
     receipt of an application: Provided further, That for grants 
     under paragraphs (1) and (2), the installation of 
     communications towers is not considered construction of a 
     building or other physical facility: Provided further, That 
     grantees shall provide reports on their use of funds, as 
     determined necessary by the Secretary: Provided further, That 
     (a) the Center for Domestic Preparedness may provide training 
     to emergency response providers from the Federal Government, 
     foreign governments, or private entities, if the Center for 
     Domestic Preparedness is reimbursed for the cost of such 
     training, and any reimbursement under this subsection shall 
     be credited to the account from which the expenditure being 
     reimbursed was made and shall be available, without fiscal 
     year limitation, for the purposes for which amounts in the 
     account may be expended, (b) the head of the Center for 
     Domestic Preparedness shall ensure that any training provided 
     under (a) does not interfere with the primary mission of the 
     Center to train State and local emergency response providers.

                     firefighter assistance grants

       For necessary expenses for programs authorized by the 
     Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act of 1974 (15 U.S.C. 
     2201 et seq.), $800,000,000, of which $380,000,000 shall be 
     available to carry out section 33 of that Act (15 U.S.C. 
     2229) and $420,000,000 shall be available to carry out 
     section 34 of that Act (15 U.S.C. 2229a), to remain available 
     until September 30, 2011: Provided, That not to exceed 5 
     percent of the amount available under this heading shall be 
     available for program administration, and an expenditure plan 
     for program administration shall be provided to the 
     Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the House of 
     Representatives within 60 days of the date of enactment of 
     this Act.

                emergency management performance grants

       For necessary expenses for emergency management performance 
     grants, as authorized by the National Flood Insurance Act of 
     1968 (42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.), the Robert T. Stafford 
     Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 
     et seq.), the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977 (42 
     U.S.C. 7701 et seq.), and Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978 
     (5 U.S.C. App.), $330,000,000: Provided, That total 
     administrative costs shall not exceed 3 percent of the total 
     amount appropriated under this heading.

              radiological emergency preparedness program

       The aggregate charges assessed during fiscal year 2010, as 
     authorized in title III of the Departments of Veterans 
     Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and Independent 
     Agencies Appropriations Act, 1999

[[Page H7201]]

     (42 U.S.C. 5196e), shall not be less than 100 percent of the 
     amounts anticipated by the Department of Homeland Security 
     necessary for its radiological emergency preparedness program 
     for the next fiscal year: Provided, That the methodology for 
     assessment and collection of fees shall be fair and equitable 
     and shall reflect costs of providing such services, including 
     administrative costs of collecting such fees: Provided 
     further, That fees received under this heading shall be 
     deposited in this account as offsetting collections and will 
     become available for authorized purposes on October 1, 2010, 
     and remain available until expended.

                   united states fire administration

       For necessary expenses of the United States Fire 
     Administration and for other purposes, as authorized by the 
     Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act of 1974 (15 U.S.C. 
     2201 et seq.) and the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 
     101 et seq.), $45,588,000.

                            disaster relief

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For necessary expenses in carrying out the Robert T. 
     Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 
     U.S.C. 5121 et seq.), $2,000,000,000, to remain available 
     until expended: Provided, That the Federal Emergency 
     Management Agency shall submit an expenditure plan to the 
     Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the House of 
     Representatives detailing the use of the funds for disaster 
     readiness and support within 60 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act: Provided further, That the Federal 
     Emergency Management Agency shall submit to such Committees a 
     quarterly report detailing obligations against the 
     expenditure plan and a justification for any changes in 
     spending: Provided further, That of the total amount 
     provided, $16,000,000 shall be transferred to the Department 
     of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General for audits 
     and investigations related to disasters, subject to section 
     503 of this Act: Provided further, That up to $90,080,000 may 
     be transferred to the Federal Emergency Management Agency 
     ``Management and Administration'' account for management and 
     administration functions: Provided further, That the amount 
     provided in the previous proviso shall not be available for 
     transfer to the ``Management and Administration'' account 
     until the Federal Emergency Management Agency submits an 
     expenditure plan to the Committees on Appropriations of the 
     Senate and the House of Representatives: Provided further, 
     That the Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management 
     Agency shall report monthly beginning July 1, 2009, to the 
     Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives 
     regarding the number of individuals and households in need of 
     Federal disaster assistance as a result of such severe 
     storms, tornados, flooding, and mudslides (under FEMA-1841-
     DR) but denied assistance due to failure to meet flood 
     insurance requirements. Such report shall include the reasons 
     and circumstances for each denial per individual and 
     household: Provided further, That for any request for 
     reimbursement from a Federal agency to the Department of 
     Homeland Security to cover expenditures under the Robert T. 
     Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 
     U.S.C. 5121 et seq.), or any mission assignment orders issued 
     by the Department for such purposes, the Secretary of 
     Homeland Security shall take appropriate steps to ensure that 
     each agency is periodically reminded of Department policies 
     on--
       (1) the detailed information required in supporting 
     documentation for reimbursements; and
       (2) the necessity for timeliness of agency billings.

            disaster assistance direct loan program account

       For activities under section 319 of the Robert T. Stafford 
     Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 
     5162), $295,000 is for the cost of direct loans: Provided, 
     That gross obligations for the principal amount of direct 
     loans shall not exceed $25,000,000: Provided further, That 
     the cost of modifying such loans shall be as defined in 
     section 502 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 
     661a).

                      flood map modernization fund

       For necessary expenses under section 1360 of the National 
     Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4101), $220,000,000, 
     and such additional sums as may be provided by State and 
     local governments or other political subdivisions for cost-
     shared mapping activities under section 1360(f)(2) of such 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 4101(f)(2)), to remain available until 
     expended: Provided, That total administrative costs shall not 
     exceed 3 percent of the total amount appropriated under this 
     heading.

                     national flood insurance fund

       For activities under the National Flood Insurance Act of 
     1968 (42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.), and the Flood Disaster 
     Protection Act of 1973 (42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.), 
     $159,469,000, which shall remain available until September 
     30, 2011, and shall be derived from offsetting collections 
     assessed and collected under section 1308(b)(3) of the 
     National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4015(b)(3)), 
     which shall be available as follows: (1) not to exceed 
     $52,149,000 for salaries and expenses associated with flood 
     mitigation and flood insurance operations; and (2) no less 
     than $107,320,000 for flood plain management and flood 
     mapping: Provided, That any additional fees collected 
     pursuant to section 1308(b)(3) of the National Flood 
     Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4015(b)(3)) shall be 
     credited as an offsetting collection to this account, to be 
     available for flood plain management and flood mapping: 
     Provided further, That if the Administrator of the Federal 
     Emergency Management Agency determines that such amount for 
     salaries and expenses is insufficient, the Administrator of 
     the Federal Emergency Management Agency may use amounts made 
     available under this heading for flood plain management and 
     flood mapping to pay for such salaries and expenses, but only 
     if the Administrator submits to the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the Senate and the House of Representatives 
     notice of the Administrator's intention to use such funds for 
     such purpose 30 days in advance of any such use: Provided 
     further, That in fiscal year 2010, no funds shall be 
     available from the National Flood Insurance Fund under 
     section 1310 of that Act (42 U.S.C. 4017) in excess of: (1) 
     $85,000,000 for operating expenses; (2) $969,370,000 for 
     commissions and taxes of agents; (3) such sums as are 
     necessary for interest on Treasury borrowings; and (4) 
     $120,000,000, which shall remain available until expended for 
     flood mitigation actions, of which $70,000,000 shall be for 
     severe repetitive loss properties under section 1361A of the 
     National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4102a), of 
     which $10,000,000 shall be for repetitive insurance claims 
     properties under section 1323 of the National Flood Insurance 
     Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4030), and of which $40,000,000 is for 
     flood mitigation assistance under section 1366 of the 
     National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4104c) 
     notwithstanding subparagraphs (B) and (C) of subsection 
     (b)(3) and subsection (f) of section 1366 of the National 
     Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4104c) and 
     notwithstanding subsection (a)(7) of section 1310 of the 
     National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4017): 
     Provided further, That amounts collected under section 102 of 
     the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 and section 1366(i) 
     of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C 
     1366(i)) shall be deposited in the National Flood Insurance 
     Fund to supplement other amounts specified as available for 
     section 1366 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 
     notwithstanding 42 U.S.C. 4012a(f)(8), 4104c(i), and 
     4104d(b)(2)-(3): Provided further, That total administrative 
     costs shall not exceed 4 percent of the total appropriation.

                  national predisaster mitigation fund

       For the predisaster mitigation grant program under section 
     203 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency 
     Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5133), $100,000,000, to remain 
     available until expended and as detailed in the statement 
     accompanying this Act: Provided, That the total 
     administrative costs associated with such grants shall not 
     exceed 3 percent of the total amount made available under 
     this heading.

                       emergency food and shelter

       To carry out the emergency food and shelter program 
     pursuant to title III of the McKinney-Vento Homeless 
     Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11331 et seq.), $200,000,000, to 
     remain available until expended: Provided, That total 
     administrative costs shall not exceed 3.5 percent of the 
     total amount made available under this heading.

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

           United States Citizenship and Immigration Services

       For necessary expenses for citizenship and immigration 
     services, $248,000,000, of which $100,000,000 shall be for 
     processing applications for asylum or refugee status; and of 
     which $112,000,000 is for the basic pilot program, as 
     authorized by section 402 of the Illegal Immigration Reform 
     and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1324a 
     note), to assist United States employers with maintaining a 
     legal workforce: Provided, That notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, funds available to United States 
     Citizenship and Immigration Services may be used to acquire, 
     operate, equip, and dispose of up to five vehicles, for 
     replacement only, for areas where the Administrator of 
     General Services does not provide vehicles for lease: 
     Provided further, That the Director of United States 
     Citizenship and Immigration Services may authorize employees 
     who are assigned to those areas to use such vehicles to 
     travel between the employees' residences and places of 
     employment: Provided further, That none of the funds made 
     available under this heading may be obligated for processing 
     applications for asylum or refugee status unless the 
     Secretary of Homeland Security has published a final rule 
     updating part 103 of title 8, Code of Federal Regulations, to 
     discontinue the asylum/refugee surcharge: Provided further, 
     That none of the funds made available under this heading for 
     may be obligated for development of the ``REAL ID hub'' until 
     the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the House 
     of Representatives receive and approve a plan for expenditure 
     for that program that describes the strategic context of the 
     program, the specific goals and milestones set for the 
     program, and the funds allocated for achieving each of these 
     goals and milestones.

                Federal Law Enforcement Training Center

                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Federal Law Enforcement 
     Training Center, including materials and support costs of 
     Federal law enforcement basic training; the purchase of not 
     to exceed 117 vehicles for police-type use and hire of 
     passenger motor vehicles; expenses

[[Page H7202]]

     for student athletic and related activities; the conduct of 
     and participation in firearms matches and presentation of 
     awards; public awareness and enhancement of community support 
     of law enforcement training; room and board for student 
     interns; a flat monthly reimbursement to employees authorized 
     to use personal mobile phones for official duties; and 
     services as authorized by section 3109 of title 5, United 
     States Code; $239,356,000, of which up to $47,751,000 shall 
     remain available until September 30, 2011, for materials and 
     support costs of Federal law enforcement basic training; of 
     which $300,000 shall remain available until expended for 
     Federal law enforcement agencies participating in training 
     accreditation, to be distributed as determined by the Federal 
     Law Enforcement Training Center for the needs of 
     participating agencies; and of which not to exceed $12,000 
     shall be for official reception and representation expenses: 
     Provided, That the Center is authorized to obligate funds in 
     anticipation of reimbursements from agencies receiving 
     training sponsored by the Center, except that total 
     obligations at the end of the fiscal year shall not exceed 
     total budgetary resources available at the end of the fiscal 
     year: Provided further, That section 1202(a) of Public Law 
     107-206 (42 U.S.C. 3771 note), as amended by Public Law 110-
     329 (122 Stat. 3677), is further amended by striking 
     ``December 31, 2011'' and inserting ``December 31, 2012'': 
     Provided further, That the Federal Law Enforcement Training 
     Accreditation Board, including representatives from the 
     Federal law enforcement community and non-Federal 
     accreditation experts involved in law enforcement training, 
     shall lead the Federal law enforcement training accreditation 
     process to continue the implementation of measuring and 
     assessing the quality and effectiveness of Federal law 
     enforcement training programs, facilities, and instructors: 
     Provided further, That the Director of the Federal Law 
     Enforcement Training Center shall schedule basic or advanced 
     law enforcement training, or both, at all four training 
     facilities under the control of the Federal Law Enforcement 
     Training Center to ensure that such training facilities are 
     operated at the highest capacity throughout the fiscal year.

     acquisitions, construction, improvements, and related expenses

       For acquisition of necessary additional real property and 
     facilities, construction, and ongoing maintenance, facility 
     improvements, and related expenses of the Federal Law 
     Enforcement Training Center, $43,456,000, to remain available 
     until expended: Provided, That the Center is authorized to 
     accept reimbursement to this appropriation from Government 
     agencies requesting the construction of special use 
     facilities.

                         Science and Technology

                     management and administration

       For salaries and expenses of the Office of the Under 
     Secretary for Science and Technology and for management and 
     administration of programs and activities, as authorized by 
     title III of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 181 
     et seq.), $142,200,000: Provided, That not to exceed $10,000 
     shall be for official reception and representation expenses.

           research, development, acquisition, and operations

       For necessary expenses for science and technology research, 
     including advanced research projects; development; test and 
     evaluation; acquisition; and operations; as authorized by 
     title III of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 181 
     et seq.); $825,356,000, to remain available until expended: 
     Provided, That of the amount provided, $12,000,000 shall be 
     for construction expenses of the Pacific Northwest National 
     Laboratory: Provided further, That not less than $10,000,000 
     shall be available for the National Institute for Hometown 
     Security, Kentucky: Provided further, That not less than 
     $2,000,000 shall be available for the Naval Postgraduate 
     School: Provided further, That not less than $1,000,000 shall 
     be available to continue a homeland security research, 
     development, and manufacturing pilot project: Provided 
     further, That $500,000 shall be available for a demonstration 
     project to develop situational awareness and decision support 
     capabilities through remote sensing technologies: Provided 
     further, That $4,000,000 shall be available for a pilot 
     program to develop a replicable port security system that 
     would improve maritime domain awareness: Provided further, 
     That none of the funds available under this heading, in this 
     Act, or in any previously enacted law shall be obligated for 
     construction of a National Bio- and Agro-defense Facility 
     located on the United States mainland until the Secretary of 
     Homeland Security receives a risk assessment prepared by a 
     person who is not an officer or employee of the Department of 
     Homeland Security of whether foot-and-mouth disease work can 
     be done safely on the United States mainland.

                   Domestic Nuclear Detection Office

                     management and administration

       For salaries and expenses of the Domestic Nuclear Detection 
     Office as authorized by title XIX of the Homeland Security 
     Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 591 et seq.) as amended, for management 
     and administration of programs and activities, $39,599,000: 
     Provided, That not to exceed $3,000 shall be for official 
     reception and representation expenses.

                 research, development, and operations

       For necessary expenses for radiological and nuclear 
     research, development, testing, evaluation, and operations, 
     $326,537,000, to remain available until expended.

                      TITLE V--GENERAL PROVISIONS

                    (including rescissions of funds)

       Sec. 501.  No part of any appropriation contained in this 
     Act shall remain available for obligation beyond the current 
     fiscal year unless expressly so provided herein.
       Sec. 502.  Subject to the requirements of section 503 of 
     this Act, the unexpended balances of prior appropriations 
     provided for activities in this Act may be transferred to 
     appropriation accounts for such activities established 
     pursuant to this Act, may be merged with funds in the 
     applicable established accounts, and thereafter may be 
     accounted for as one fund for the same time period as 
     originally enacted.
       Sec. 503. (a) None of the funds provided by this Act, 
     provided by previous appropriations Acts to the agencies in 
     or transferred to the Department of Homeland Security that 
     remain available for obligation or expenditure in fiscal year 
     2010, or provided from any accounts in the Treasury of the 
     United States derived by the collection of fees available to 
     the agencies funded by this Act, shall be available for 
     obligation or expenditure through a reprogramming of funds 
     that: (1) creates a new program, project, office, or 
     activity; (2) eliminates a program, project, office, or 
     activity; (3) increases funds for any program, project, or 
     activity for which funds have been denied or restricted by 
     the Congress; (4) proposes to use funds directed for a 
     specific activity by either of the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the Senate or the House of Representatives 
     for a different purpose; or (5) contracts out any function or 
     activity for which funding levels were requested for Federal 
     full-time equivalents in the object classification tables 
     contained in the fiscal year 2010 Budget Appendix for the 
     Department of Homeland Security, as modified by the 
     explanatory statement accompanying this Act, unless the 
     Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the House of 
     Representatives are notified 15 days in advance of such 
     reprogramming of funds.
       (b) None of the funds provided by this Act, provided by 
     previous appropriations Acts to the agencies in or 
     transferred to the Department of Homeland Security that 
     remain available for obligation or expenditure in fiscal year 
     2010, or provided from any accounts in the Treasury of the 
     United States derived by the collection of fees or proceeds 
     available to the agencies funded by this Act, shall be 
     available for obligation or expenditure for programs, 
     projects, or activities through a reprogramming of funds in 
     excess of $5,000,000 or 10 percent, whichever is less, that: 
     (1) augments existing programs, projects, or activities; (2) 
     reduces by 10 percent funding for any existing program, 
     project, or activity, or numbers of personnel by 10 percent 
     as approved by the Congress; or (3) results from any general 
     savings from a reduction in personnel that would result in a 
     change in existing programs, projects, or activities as 
     approved by the Congress, unless the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the Senate and the House of Representatives 
     are notified 15 days in advance of such reprogramming of 
     funds.
       (c) Not to exceed 5 percent of any appropriation made 
     available for the current fiscal year for the Department of 
     Homeland Security by this Act or provided by previous 
     appropriations Acts may be transferred between such 
     appropriations, but no such appropriation, except as 
     otherwise specifically provided, shall be increased by more 
     than 10 percent by such transfers: Provided, That any 
     transfer under this section shall be treated as a 
     reprogramming of funds under subsection (b) and shall not be 
     available for obligation unless the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the Senate and the House of Representatives 
     are notified 15 days in advance of such transfer.
       (d) Notwithstanding subsections (a), (b), and (c) of this 
     section, no funds shall be reprogrammed within or transferred 
     between appropriations after June 30, except in extraordinary 
     circumstances that imminently threaten the safety of human 
     life or the protection of property.
       (e) Within 90 days after the date of the enactment of this 
     Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall submit to the 
     Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the House of 
     Representatives a report listing all dollar amounts specified 
     in this Act and accompanying explanatory statement that are 
     identified in the detailed funding table at the end of the 
     explanatory statement accompanying this Act or any other 
     amounts specified in this Act or accompanying explanatory 
     statement: Provided, That such dollar amounts specified in 
     this Act and accompanying explanatory statement shall be 
     subject to the conditions and requirements of subsections 
     (a), (b), and (c) of this section.
       Sec. 504.  The Department of Homeland Security Working 
     Capital Fund, established pursuant to section 403 of Public 
     Law 103-356 (31 U.S.C. 501 note), shall continue operations 
     as a permanent working capital fund for fiscal year 2010: 
     Provided, That none of the funds appropriated or otherwise 
     made available to the Department of Homeland Security may be 
     used to make payments to the Working Capital Fund, except for 
     the activities and amounts allowed in the President's fiscal 
     year 2010 budget: Provided further, That funds provided to 
     the Working Capital Fund shall be available for obligation 
     until expended to carry out the purposes of the Working 
     Capital Fund: Provided further, That all departmental 
     components shall

[[Page H7203]]

     be charged only for direct usage of each Working Capital Fund 
     service: Provided further, That funds provided to the Working 
     Capital Fund shall be used only for purposes consistent with 
     the contributing component: Provided further, That such fund 
     shall be paid in advance or reimbursed at rates which will 
     return the full cost of each service: Provided further, That 
     the Working Capital Fund shall be subject to the requirements 
     of section 503 of this Act.
       Sec. 505.  Except as otherwise specifically provided by 
     law, not to exceed 50 percent of unobligated balances 
     remaining available at the end of fiscal year 2010 from 
     appropriations for salaries and expenses for fiscal year 2010 
     in this Act shall remain available through September 30, 
     2011, in the account and for the purposes for which the 
     appropriations were provided: Provided, That prior to the 
     obligation of such funds, a request shall be submitted to the 
     Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the House of 
     Representatives for approval in accordance with section 503 
     of this Act.
       Sec. 506.  Funds made available by this Act for 
     intelligence activities are deemed to be specifically 
     authorized by the Congress for purposes of section 504 of the 
     National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 414) during fiscal 
     year 2010 until the enactment of an Act authorizing 
     intelligence activities for fiscal year 2010.
       Sec. 507.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to make a grant allocation, grant award, contract 
     award, other transactional agreement, or to issue a letter of 
     intent totaling in excess of $1,000,000, or to announce 
     publicly the intention to make such an award, including a 
     contract covered by the Federal Acquisition Regulation, 
     unless the Secretary of Homeland Security notifies the 
     Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the House of 
     Representatives at least 3 full business days in advance of 
     making such an award or issuing such a letter: Provided, That 
     if the Secretary of Homeland Security determines that 
     compliance with this section would pose a substantial risk to 
     human life, health, or safety, an award may be made without 
     notification and the Committees on Appropriations of the 
     Senate and the House of Representatives shall be notified not 
     later than 5 full business days after such an award is made 
     or letter issued: Provided further, That no notification 
     shall involve funds that are not available for obligation: 
     Provided further, That the notification shall include the 
     amount of the award, the fiscal year for which the funds for 
     the award were appropriated, and the account from which the 
     funds are being drawn: Provided further, That the Federal 
     Emergency Management Agency shall brief the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the Senate and the House of Representatives 
     5 full business days in advance of announcing publicly the 
     intention of making an award under the State and Local 
     Programs.
       Sec. 508.  Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no 
     agency shall purchase, construct, or lease any additional 
     facilities, except within or contiguous to existing 
     locations, to be used for the purpose of conducting Federal 
     law enforcement training without the advance approval of the 
     Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the House of 
     Representatives, except that the Federal Law Enforcement 
     Training Center is authorized to obtain the temporary use of 
     additional facilities by lease, contract, or other agreement 
     for training which cannot be accommodated in existing Center 
     facilities.
       Sec. 509.  None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act may be used for expenses for any 
     construction, repair, alteration, or acquisition project for 
     which a prospectus otherwise required under chapter 33 of 
     title 40, United States Code, has not been approved, except 
     that necessary funds may be expended for each project for 
     required expenses for the development of a proposed 
     prospectus.
       Sec. 510.  Sections 519, 520, 522, 528, 530, and 531 of the 
     Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2008 
     (division E of Public Law 110-161; 121 Stat. 2072, 2073, 
     2074, 2082) shall apply with respect to funds made available 
     in this Act in the same manner as such sections applied to 
     funds made available in that Act.
       Sec. 511.  None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used in contravention of the applicable provisions of the 
     Buy American Act (41 U.S.C. 10a et seq.).
       Sec. 512.  None of the funds appropriated by this Act may 
     be used to process or approve a competition under Office of 
     Management and Budget Circular A-76 for services provided as 
     of June 1, 2004, by employees (including employees serving on 
     a temporary or term basis) of United States Citizenship and 
     Immigration Services of the Department of Homeland Security 
     who are known as of that date as immigration information 
     officers, contact representatives, or investigative 
     assistants.
       Sec. 513. (a) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall 
     research, develop, and procure new technologies to inspect 
     and screen air cargo carried on passenger aircraft by the 
     earliest date possible.
       (b) Checked baggage explosive detection equipment and 
     screeners that exist as of the date of the enactment of this 
     Act shall be used to screen air cargo carried on passenger 
     aircraft to the greatest extent practicable at each airport 
     until technologies developed under subsection (a) are 
     available for such purpose.
       (c) The Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security 
     (Transportation Security Administration) shall work with air 
     carriers and airports to ensure that the screening of cargo 
     carried on passenger aircraft, as defined in section 
     44901(g)(5) of title 49, United States Code, increases 
     incrementally each quarter.
       (d) Not later than 45 days after the end of each quarter, 
     the Assistant Secretary shall submit to the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the Senate and the House of Representatives 
     a report on air cargo inspection statistics by airport and 
     air carrier detailing the incremental progress being made to 
     meet the requirements of section 44901(g)(2) of title 49, 
     United States Code.
       (e) Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment 
     of this Act, the Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security 
     (Transportation Security Administration) shall submit to the 
     Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the House of 
     Representatives, a report on how the Transportation Security 
     Administration plans to meet the requirement for screening 
     all air cargo on passenger aircraft by the deadline under 
     section 44901(g) of title 49, United States Code. The report 
     shall identify the elements of the system to screen 100 
     percent of cargo transported between domestic airports at a 
     level of security commensurate with the level of security for 
     the screening of passenger checked baggage.
       Sec. 514.  Except as provided in section 44945 of title 49, 
     United States Code, funds appropriated or transferred to the 
     Transportation Security Administration ``Aviation Security'', 
     ``Administration'' and ``Transportation Security Support'' 
     accounts for fiscal years 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007 that are 
     recovered or deobligated shall be available only for the 
     procurement or installation of explosives detection systems 
     for air cargo, baggage, and checkpoint screening systems, 
     subject to notification: Provided, That quarterly reports 
     shall be submitted to the Committees on Appropriations of the 
     Senate and the House of Representatives on any funds that are 
     recovered or deobligated.
       Sec. 515.  Any funds appropriated to the Coast Guard 
     ``Acquisition, Construction, and Improvements'' account for 
     fiscal years 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006 for the 110-123 
     foot patrol boat conversion that are recovered, collected, or 
     otherwise received as the result of negotiation, mediation, 
     or litigation, shall be available until expended for the Fast 
     Response Cutter program.
       Sec. 516.  Within 45 days after the end of each month, the 
     Chief Financial Officer of the Department of Homeland 
     Security shall submit to the Committees on Appropriations of 
     the Senate and the House of Representatives a monthly budget 
     and staffing report for that month that includes total 
     obligations, on-board versus funded full-time equivalent 
     staffing levels, and the number of contract employees for 
     each office of the Department.
       Sec. 517.  Section 532(a) of Public Law 109-295 (120 Stat. 
     1384) is amended by striking ``2009'' and inserting ``2010''.
       Sec. 518.  The functions of the Federal Law Enforcement 
     Training Center instructor staff shall be classified as 
     inherently governmental for the purpose of the Federal 
     Activities Inventory Reform Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 501 note).
       Sec. 519. (a) None of the funds provided by this or any 
     other Act may be obligated for the development, testing, 
     deployment, or operation of any portion of a human resources 
     management system authorized by Section 9701(a) of title 5, 
     United States Code, or by regulations prescribed pursuant to 
     such section, for an employee, as that term is defined in 
     section 7103(a)(2) of such title.
       (b) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall collaborate 
     with employee representatives in the manner prescribed in 
     section 9701(e) of title 5, United States Code, in the 
     planning, testing, and development of any portion of a human 
     resources management system that is developed, tested, or 
     deployed for persons excluded from the definition of employee 
     as that term is defined in section 7103(a)(2) of such title.
       Sec. 520.  For fiscal year 2010, none of the funds made 
     available in this or any other Act may be used to enforce 
     section 4025(1) of Public Law 108-458 unless the Assistant 
     Secretary of Homeland Security (Transportation Security 
     Administration) reverses the determination of July 19, 2007, 
     that butane lighters are not a significant threat to civil 
     aviation security.
       Sec. 521.  Funds made available in this Act may be used to 
     alter operations within the Civil Engineering Program of the 
     Coast Guard nationwide, including civil engineering units, 
     facilities design and construction centers, maintenance and 
     logistics commands, and the Coast Guard Academy, except that 
     none of the funds provided in this Act may be used to reduce 
     operations within any Civil Engineering Unit unless 
     specifically authorized by a statute enacted after the date 
     of the enactment of this Act.
       Sec. 522. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b), none of 
     the funds appropriated in this or any other Act to the Office 
     of the Secretary and Executive Management, the Office of the 
     Under Secretary for Management, or the Office of the Chief 
     Financial Officer, may be obligated for a grant or contract 
     funded under such headings by any means other than full and 
     open competition.
       (b) Subsection (a) does not apply to obligation of funds 
     for a contract awarded--
       (1) by a means that is required by a Federal statute, 
     including obligation for a purchase made under a mandated 
     preferential program, including the AbilityOne Program,

[[Page H7204]]

     that is authorized under the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 
     U.S.C. 46 et seq.);
       (2) pursuant to the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 631 et 
     seq.);
       (3) in an amount less than the simplified acquisition 
     threshold described under section 302A(a) of the Federal 
     Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (41 U.S.C. 
     252a(a)); or
       (4) by another Federal agency using funds provided through 
     an interagency agreement.
       (c)(1) Subject to paragraph (2), the Secretary of Homeland 
     Security may waive the application of this section for the 
     award of a contract in the interest of national security or 
     if failure to do so would pose a substantial risk to human 
     health or welfare.
       (2) Not later than 5 days after the date on which the 
     Secretary of Homeland Security issues a waiver under this 
     subsection, the Secretary shall submit notification of that 
     waiver to the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and 
     the House of Representatives, including a description of the 
     applicable contract and an explanation of why the waiver 
     authority was used. The Secretary may not delegate the 
     authority to grant such a waiver.
       (d) In addition to the requirements established by 
     subsections (a), (b), and (c) of this section, the Inspector 
     General of the Department of Homeland Security shall review 
     departmental contracts awarded through means other than a 
     full and open competition to assess departmental compliance 
     with applicable laws and regulations: Provided, That the 
     Inspector General shall review selected contracts awarded in 
     the previous fiscal year through other than full and open 
     competition: Provided further, That in selecting which 
     contracts to review, the Inspector General shall consider the 
     cost and complexity of the goods and services to be provided 
     under the contract, the criticality of the contract to 
     fulfilling Department missions, past performance problems on 
     similar contracts or by the selected vendor, complaints 
     received about the award process or contractor performance, 
     and such other factors as the Inspector General deems 
     relevant: Provided further, That the Inspector General shall 
     report the results of the reviews to the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the Senate and the House of 
     Representatives.
       Sec. 523.  None of the funds provided by this or previous 
     appropriations Acts shall be used to fund any position 
     designated as a Principal Federal Official for any Robert T. 
     Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 
     U.S.C. 5121 et seq.) declared disasters or emergencies.
       Sec. 524.  None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used by United States Citizenship and Immigration Services 
     to grant an immigration benefit unless the results of 
     background checks required by law to be completed prior to 
     the granting of the benefit have been received by United 
     States Citizenship and Immigration Services, and the results 
     do not preclude the granting of the benefit.
       Sec. 525.  None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to destroy or put out to pasture any horse or other 
     equine belonging to the Federal Government that has become 
     unfit for service, unless the trainer or handler is first 
     given the option to take possession of the equine through an 
     adoption program that has safeguards against slaughter and 
     inhumane treatment.
       Sec. 526.  None of the funds provided in this Act shall be 
     available to carry out section 872 of the Homeland Security 
     Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 452).
       Sec. 527.  None of the funds appropriated by this Act may 
     be used to conduct, or to implement the results of, a 
     competition under Office of Management and Budget Circular A-
     76 for activities performed with respect to the Coast Guard 
     National Vessel Documentation Center.
       Sec. 528.  The Secretary of Homeland Security shall require 
     that all contracts of the Department of Homeland Security 
     that provide award fees link such fees to successful 
     acquisition outcomes (which outcomes shall be specified in 
     terms of cost, schedule, and performance).
       Sec. 529.  None of the funds made available to the Office 
     of the Secretary and Executive Management under this Act may 
     be expended for any new hires by the Department of Homeland 
     Security that are not verified through the basic pilot 
     program under section 401 of the Illegal Immigration Reform 
     and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1324a 
     note).
       Sec. 530.  None of the funds made available in this Act for 
     U.S. Customs and Border Protection may be used to prevent an 
     individual not in the business of importing a prescription 
     drug (within the meaning of section 801(g) of the Federal 
     Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 381(g)) from 
     importing a prescription drug from Canada that complies with 
     the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 301 et 
     seq.): Provided, That this section shall apply only to 
     individuals transporting on their person a personal-use 
     quantity of the prescription drug, not to exceed a 90-day 
     supply: Provided further, That the prescription drug may not 
     be--
       (1) a controlled substance, as defined in section 102 of 
     the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802); or
       (2) a biological product, as defined in section 351 of the 
     Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 262).
       Sec. 531.  None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used by the Secretary of Homeland Security or any delegate 
     of the Secretary to issue any rule or regulation which 
     implements the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking related to 
     Petitions for Aliens To Perform Temporary Nonagricultural 
     Services or Labor (H-2B) set out beginning on 70 Fed. Reg. 
     3984 (January 27, 2005).
       Sec. 532.  Section 831 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 
     (6 U.S.C. 391) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by striking ``Until September 30, 
     2009'' and inserting ``Until September 30, 2010,''; and
       (2) in subsection (d)(1), by striking ``September 30, 
     2009,'' and inserting ``September 30, 2010,''.
       Sec. 533.  None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used for planning, testing, piloting, or developing a 
     national identification card.
       Sec. 534. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
     Act, except as provided in subsection (b), and 30 days after 
     the date that the President determines whether to declare a 
     major disaster because of an event and any appeal is 
     completed, the Administrator shall submit to the Committee on 
     Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate, the 
     Committee on Homeland Security of the House of 
     Representatives, the Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure of the House of Representatives, the 
     Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the House of 
     Representatives, and publish on the website of the Federal 
     Emergency Management Agency, a report regarding that 
     decision, which shall summarize damage assessment information 
     used to determine whether to declare a major disaster.
       (b) The Administrator may redact from a report under 
     subsection (a) any data that the Administrator determines 
     would compromise national security.
       (c) In this section--
       (1) the term ``Administrator'' means the Administrator of 
     the Federal Emergency Management Agency; and
       (2) the term ``major disaster'' has the meaning given that 
     term in section 102 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief 
     and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5122).
       Sec. 535.  Notwithstanding any other provision of law, in 
     the fiscal year 2010 or a subsequent fiscal year, if the 
     Secretary of Homeland Security determine that the National 
     Bio- and Agro-defense Facility should be located at a site 
     other than Plum Island, New York, the Secretary shall 
     liquidate the Plum Island asset by directing the 
     Administrator of General Services to sell, through public 
     sale, all real and related personal property and 
     transportation assets that support Plum Island operations, 
     subject to such terms and conditions as the Secretary 
     determines are necessary to protect government interests and 
     meet program requirements: Provided, That the proceeds of 
     such sale shall be deposited as offsetting collections into 
     the Department of Homeland Security Science and Technology 
     ``Research, Development, Acquisition, and Operations'' 
     account and, subject to appropriation, shall be available 
     until expended, for site acquisition, construction, and costs 
     related to the construction of the National Bio- and Agro-
     defense Facility, including the costs associated with the 
     sale, including due diligence requirements, necessary 
     environmental remediation at Plum Island, and reimbursement 
     of expenses incurred by the General Services Administration: 
     Provided further, That after the completion of construction 
     and environmental remediation, the unexpended balances of 
     funds appropriated for costs referred to in the preceding 
     proviso shall be available for transfer to the appropriate 
     account for design and construction of a consolidated 
     Department of Homeland Security Headquarters project, 
     excluding daily operations and maintenance costs, 
     notwithstanding section 503 of this Act, and the Committees 
     on Appropriations of the Senate and the House of 
     Representatives shall be notified 15 days prior to such 
     transfer.
       Sec. 536.  Any official who is required by this Act to 
     report or certify to the Committees on Appropriations of the 
     Senate and the House of Representatives may not delegate such 
     authority to perform that act unless specifically authorized 
     herein.
       Sec. 537.  The Secretary of Homeland Security, in 
     consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury, shall notify 
     the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the House 
     of Representatives of any proposed transfers of funds 
     available under subsection (g)(4)(B) of title 31, Unites 
     States Code (as added by Public Law 102-393) from the 
     Department of the Treasury Forfeiture Fund to any agency 
     within the Department of Homeland Security: Provided, That 
     none of the funds identified for such a transfer may be 
     obligated until the Committees on Appropriations of the 
     Senate and the House of Representatives approve the proposed 
     transfers.
       Sec. 538.  If the Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security 
     (Transportation Security Administration) determines that an 
     airport does not need to participate in the basic pilot 
     program under section 402 of the Illegal Immigration Reform 
     and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1324a 
     note), the Assistant Secretary shall certify to the 
     Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the House of 
     Representatives that no security risks will result from such 
     non-participation.
       Sec. 539.  From the unobligated balances of prior year 
     appropriations made available for ``Analysis and 
     Operations'', $2,203,000 is rescinded.

[[Page H7205]]

       Sec. 540.  The explanatory statement referenced in section 
     4 of Public Law 110-161 for ``National Predisaster Mitigation 
     Fund'' under Federal Emergency Management Agency is deemed to 
     be amended--
       (1) by striking ``Dalton Fire District'' and all that 
     follows through ``750,000'' and inserting the following:


``Franklin Regional Council of Governments, MA.......            250,000
Town of Lanesborough, MA.............................            175,000
University of Massachusetts, MA......................         175,000'';
 

       (2) by striking ``Santee and'';
       (3) by striking ``3,000,000'' and inserting ``1,500,000'';
       (4) by inserting after the item relating to Adjutant 
     General's Office of Emergency Preparedness the following:


``Town of Branchville, SC............................       1,500,000'';
 

       and
       (5) by striking ``Public Works Department of the City of 
     Santa Cruz, CA'' and inserting ``Monterey County Water 
     Resources Agency, CA''.
       Sec. 541.  Section 203(m) of the Robert T. Stafford 
     Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 
     5133(m)) is amended by striking ``September 30, 2009'' and 
     inserting ``September 30, 2010''.
       Sec. 542.  From the unobligated balances of prior year 
     appropriations made available for the ``Infrastructure 
     Protection and Information Security'' account, $5,963,000 is 
     rescinded.
       Sec. 543.  From unobligated amounts that are available to 
     the Coast Guard for fiscal year 2008 or 2009 for acquisition, 
     construction, and improvements for shoreside facilities and 
     aids to navigation at Coast Guard Sector Buffalo, the 
     Secretary of Homeland Security shall use such sums as may be 
     necessary to make improvements to the land along the northern 
     portion of Sector Buffalo to enhance public access to the 
     Buffalo Lighthouse and the waterfront.
       Sec. 544.  For fiscal year 2010 and hereinafter, the 
     Secretary may provide to personnel appointed or assigned to 
     serve abroad, allowances and benefits similar to those 
     provided under chapter 9 of title I of the Foreign Service 
     Act of 1990 (22 U.S.C. 4081 et seq.).
       Sec. 545. (a) Extension of Programs.--Section 143 of 
     Division A of the Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, 
     and Continuing Appropriations Act, 2009 (Public Law 110-329; 
     122 Stat. 3580 et seq.), as amended by section 101 of 
     division J of the Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009 (Public 
     Law 111-8), is amended by striking ``September 30, 2009'' and 
     inserting ``September 30, 2011''.
       (b) Protection of Social Security Administration 
     Programs.--
       (1) Funding under agreement.--Effective for fiscal years 
     beginning on or after October 1, 2009, the Commissioner of 
     Social Security and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall 
     enter into and maintain an agreement which shall--
       (A) provide funds to the Commissioner for the full costs of 
     the responsibilities of the Commissioner under section 404 of 
     the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility 
     Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1324a note), including--
       (i) acquiring, installing, and maintaining technological 
     equipment and systems necessary for the fulfillment of the 
     responsibilities of the Commissioner under such section 404, 
     but only that portion of such costs that are attributable 
     exclusively to such responsibilities; and
       (ii) responding to individuals who contest a tentative 
     nonconfirmation provided by the basic pilot confirmation 
     system established under such section;
       (B) subject to the availability of appropriations for such 
     purpose, provide such funds quarterly in advance of the 
     applicable quarter based on estimating methodology agreed to 
     by the Commissioner and the Secretary (except in such 
     instances where the delayed enactment of an annual 
     appropriation may preclude such quarterly payments); and
       (C) require an annual accounting and reconciliation of the 
     actual costs incurred and the funds provided under the 
     agreement, which shall be jointly reviewed by the Office of 
     the Inspector General of the Social Security Administration 
     and the Office of Inspector General of the Department of 
     Homeland Security.
       (2) Continuation of employment verification in absence of 
     timely agreement.--In any case in which the agreement 
     required under paragraph (1) for any fiscal year beginning on 
     or after October 1, 2009, has not been reached as of October 
     1 of such fiscal year, the most recent agreement between the 
     Commissioner and the Secretary of Homeland Security providing 
     for funding to cover the costs of the responsibilities of the 
     Commissioner under section 404 of the Illegal Immigration 
     Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 
     1324a note) shall be deemed in effect on an interim basis for 
     such fiscal year until such time as an agreement required 
     under paragraph (1) is subsequently reached, except that the 
     terms of such interim agreement shall be modified by the 
     Director of the Office of Management and Budget to adjust for 
     inflation and any increase or decrease in the volume of 
     requests under the basic pilot confirmation system. In any 
     case in which an interim agreement applies for any fiscal 
     year under this paragraph, the Commissioner and the Secretary 
     shall, not later than October 1 of such fiscal year, notify 
     the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of 
     Representatives, the Committees on the Judiciary of the 
     Senate and the House of Representatives, the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the Senate and the House of 
     Representatives, and the Committee on Finance of the Senate 
     of the failure to reach the agreement required under 
     paragraph (1) for such fiscal year. Until such time as the 
     agreement required under paragraph (1) has been reached for 
     such fiscal year, the Commissioner and the Secretary shall, 
     not later than the end of each 90-day period after October 1 
     of such fiscal year, notify such Committees of the status of 
     negotiations between the Commissioner and the Secretary in 
     order to reach such an agreement.
       (c) GAO Study of Basic Pilot Confirmation System.--
       (1) In general.--As soon as practicable after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall 
     conduct a study regarding erroneous tentative 
     nonconfirmations under the basic pilot confirmation system 
     established under section 404(a) of the Illegal Immigration 
     Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 
     1324a note).
       (2) Matters to be studied.--In the study required under 
     paragraph (1), the Comptroller General shall determine and 
     analyze--
       (A) the causes of erroneous tentative nonconfirmations 
     under the basic pilot confirmation system;
       (B) the processes by which such erroneous tentative 
     nonconfirmations are remedied; and
       (C) the effect of such erroneous tentative nonconfirmations 
     on individuals, employers, and Federal agencies.
       (3) Report.--Not later than 2 years after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall submit 
     the results of the study required under paragraph (1) to the 
     Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives, 
     the Committees on the Judiciary of the Senate and the House 
     of Representatives, the Committee on Finance of the Senate, 
     and the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the 
     House of Representatives.
       (d) GAO Study of Effects of Basic Pilot Program on Small 
     Entities.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 2 years after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall 
     submit to the Committees on the Judiciary of the Senate and 
     the House of Representatives and the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the Senate and the House of Representatives 
     a report containing the Comptroller General's analysis of the 
     effects of the basic pilot program described in section 
     404(a) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant 
     Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1324a note) on small 
     entities (as defined in section 601 of title 5, United States 
     Code). The report shall detail--
       (A) the costs of compliance with such program on small 
     entities;
       (B) a description and an estimate of the number of small 
     entities enrolled and participating in such program or an 
     explanation of why no such estimate is available;
       (C) the projected reporting, recordkeeping, and other 
     compliance requirements of such program on small entities;
       (D) factors that impact small entities' enrollment and 
     participation in such program, including access to 
     appropriate technology, geography, entity size, and class of 
     entity; and
       (E) the steps, if any, the Secretary of Homeland Security 
     has taken to minimize the economic impact of participating in 
     such program on small entities.
       (2) Direct and indirect effects.--The report shall cover, 
     and treat separately, direct effects (such as wages, time, 
     and fees spent on compliance) and indirect effects (such as 
     the effect on cash flow, sales, and competitiveness).
       (3) Specific contents.--The report shall provide specific 
     and separate details with respect to--
       (A) small businesses (as defined in section 601 of title 5, 
     United States Code) with fewer than 50 employees; and
       (B) small entities operating in States that have mandated 
     use of the basic pilot program.
       Sec. 546. (a) In General.--Strike subparagraphs (A) through 
     (C) that appear within section 426(b) of division J of the 
     Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005 (Public Law 108-447) 
     and insert the following:
       `` `(A) Secretaray of state.--One-third of the amounts 
     deposited into the Fraud Prevention and Detection Account 
     shall remain available to the Secretary of State until 
     expended for programs and activities--
       `` `(i) to increase the number of consular and diplomatic 
     security personnel assigned primarily to the function of 
     preventing and detecting fraud by applicants for visas 
     described in subparagraph (H)(i), (H)(ii), or (L) of section 
     101(a)(15);
       `` `(ii) otherwise to prevent and detect visa fraud, 
     including fraud by applicants for visas described in 
     subparagraph (H)(i), (H)(ii), or (L) of section 101(a)(15), 
     as well as the purchase, lease, construction, and staffing of 
     facilities for the processing of these classes of visa, in 
     consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security as 
     appropriate; and
       `` `(iii) upon request by the Secretary of Homeland 
     Security, to assist such Secretary in carrying out the fraud 
     prevention and detection programs and activities described in 
     subparagraph (B).
       `` `(B) Secretary of homeland security.--One-third of the 
     amounts deposited into the

[[Page H7206]]

     Fraud Prevention and Detection Account shall remain available 
     to the Secretary of Homeland Security until expended for 
     programs and activities to prevent and detect immigration 
     benefit fraud, including fraud with respect to petitions 
     filed under paragraph (1) or (2)(A) of section 214(c) to 
     grant an alien nonimmigrant status described in subparagraph 
     (H) or (L) of section 101(a)(15).
       `` `(C) Secretary of labor.--One-third of the amounts 
     deposited into the Fraud Prevention and Detection Account 
     shall remain available to the Secretary of Labor until 
     expended for wage and hour enforcement programs and 
     activities otherwise authorized to be conducted by the 
     Secretary of Labor that focus on industries likely to employ 
     nonimmigrants, including enforcement programs and activities 
     described in section 212(n) and enforcement programs and 
     activities related to section 214(c)(14)(A)(i).' ''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.


                     clarification of fee authority

       Sec. 547.  (a) In General.--In addition to collection of 
     registration fees described in section 244(c)(1)(B) of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1254a(c)(1)(B)), 
     fees for fingerprinting services, biometric services, and 
     other necessary services may be collected when administering 
     the program described in section 244 of such Act.
       (b) Construction.--Subsection (a) shall be construed to 
     apply for fiscal year 1998 and each fiscal year thereafter.
       Sec. 548.  Section 550(b) of the Department of Homeland 
     Security Appropriations Act, 2007 (Public Law 109-295; 6 
     U.S.C. 121 note) is amended by striking ``three years after 
     the date of enactment of this Act'' and inserting ``October 
     4, 2010''.
       Sec. 549.  For Fiscal Year 2010 and thereafter, the 
     Secretary of Homeland Security may collect fees from any non-
     Federal participant in a conference, seminar, exhibition, 
     symposium, or similar meeting conducted by the Department of 
     Homeland Security in advance of the conference, either 
     directly or by entering into a contract, and those fees shall 
     be credited to the appropriation or account from which the 
     costs of the conference, seminar, exhibition, symposium, or 
     similar meeting are paid and shall be available to pay the 
     costs of the Department of Homeland Security with respect to 
     the conference or to reimburse the Department for costs 
     incurred with respect to the conference. In the event the 
     total amount of fees collected with respect to a conference 
     exceeds the actual costs of the Department of Homeland 
     Security with respect to the conference, the amount of such 
     excess shall be deposited into the Treasury as miscellaneous 
     receipts.
       Sec. 550.  From unobligated balances for fiscal year 2009 
     made available for the Federal Emergency Management Agency 
     ``Trucking Industry Security Grants'' account, $5,572,000 is 
     rescinded.
       Sec. 551.  None of the funds made avilable in this Act may 
     be obligated for full-scale procurement of Advanced 
     Spectroscopic Portal monitors until the Secretary of Homeland 
     Security submits to the Committees on Appropriations of the 
     Senate and the House of Representatives a report certifying 
     that a significant increase in operational effectiveness will 
     be achieved: Provided, That the Secretary shall submit 
     separate and distinct certifications prior to the procurement 
     of Advaced Spectroscopic Portal monitors for primary and 
     secondary deployment that address the unique requirements for 
     operational effectiveness of each type of deployment: 
     Provided further, That the Secretary shall consult with the 
     National Academy of Sciences before making such 
     certifications: Provided further, That none of the funds 
     provided in this Act may be obligated for high-risk 
     concurrent development and production of mutually dependent 
     software and hardware.
       Sec. 552. (a) As part of a plan regarding the proposed 
     disposition of any individual who is detained, as of April 
     30, 2009, at Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, the 
     Secretary of Homeland Security shall conduct a threat 
     assessment for each such individual who is proposed to be 
     transferred to the continental United States, Alaska, Hawaii, 
     the District of Columbia, or the United States Territories 
     that--
       (1) determines the risk that the individual might instigate 
     an act of terrorism within the continental United States, 
     Alaska, Hawaii, the District of Columbia, or the United 
     States Territories if the individual were so transferred; and
       (2) determines the risk that the individual might advocate, 
     coerce, or incite violent extremism, ideologically motivated 
     criminal activity, or acts of terrorism, among inmate 
     populations at incarceration facilities within the 
     continental United States, Alaska, Hawaii, the District of 
     Columbia, or the United States Territories if the individual 
     were transferred to such a facility.
       (b) Section 44903(j)(2)(C) of title 49, United States Code, 
     is amended by adding at the end the following new clause:
       ``(v) Inclusion of detainees on no fly list.--The Assistant 
     Secretary, in coordination with the Terrorist Screening 
     Center, shall include on the No Fly List any individual who 
     was a detainee held at the Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, 
     Cuba, unless the President certifies in writing to Congress 
     that the detainee poses no threat to the United States, its 
     citizens, or its allies. For purposes of this clause, the 
     term `detainee' means an individual in the custody or under 
     the physical control of the United States as a result of 
     armed conflict.''.
       (c) None of the funds made available in this Act may be 
     used to provide any immigration benefit (including a visa, 
     admission into the United States, parole into the United 
     States, or classification as a refugee or applicant for 
     asylum) to any individual who is detained, as of April 20, 
     2009, at Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
       (d) Nothing in subsections (b) and (c) shall be construed 
     to prohibit a detainee held at Guantanamo Bay from being 
     brought to the United States for prosecution.

                              {time}  1800


           Part B Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. King of Iowa

  Mr. KING of Iowa. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk made 
in order by the rule.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Part B amendment No. 4 offered by Mr. King of Iowa:
       At the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the 
     following:
       Sec. ___.  None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to employ workers described in section 274A(h)(3) of 
     the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1324a(h)(3)).

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 573, the gentleman from Iowa 
(Mr. King) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Iowa.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. I yield myself 2 minutes.
  My amendment prohibits the Department of Homeland Security funds in 
this bill from being used to hire illegal immigrants. The Immigration 
and Nationality Act is very clear. Section 274(a) makes it a crime to 
knowingly hire or employ an illegal immigrant. There are no exceptions.
  Despite the law, over 8 million illegal immigrants currently have 
jobs in the United States, and some of those are no doubt employed by 
and with DHS funds under Federal contracts.
  Unemployment today is at over 15 percent for lower-skilled American 
workers. Congress should do anything possible to end the hiring of 
illegal immigrants and save those jobs for American workers, Madam 
Chair.
  A 2006 audit report by the Office of Inspector General indicates that 
the U.S. Government was the Nation's most egregious employer of illegal 
aliens. Seventeen of the top 100 offending employers were Federal, 
State, or local government entities. This report also found that, of 
the sample, 44 percent of the government workers were unauthorized 
workers, and 3 percent of government workers had no immigration status 
whatsoever.
  These numbers are alarming. The IG report raises a national security 
issue. The report states, ``Noncitizens who work without DHS 
authorization could affect homeland security because they may obtain 
employment in sensitive areas.''
  The report goes on to say that the People's Republic of China ranked 
fourth and Iran ranked sixth among the top 10 countries of birth for 
employees that were audited in this report.
  With the unemployment rate at 9.4 percent, we have got to stop the 
hiring of illegals, and the Federal Government has to lead the charge.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I ask unanimous consent to claim the 
time in opposition.
  The CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from North Carolina is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I would reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Madam Chair, I'd yield such time as he may consume 
to the ranking member, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers).
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I thank the gentleman for yielding and I 
thank him for this amendment, and I support it fully. The 
administration's new policy on worksite enforcement, from my point of 
view, amounts to de facto amnesty.
  The raid that was made in Seattle after this administration took 
office, where the 24 or so illegal aliens who got their job by false 
papers were seized and arrested and then turned loose and, on top of 
that, given a work permit, that's the new policy of this 
administration. So that an illegal alien knows that if he or she is 
working in a

[[Page H7207]]

place that's raided, they can get a permit to go back to work, which 
makes them legal.
  So, as far as I'm concerned, the new policy of the administration is 
de facto amnesty, and the gentleman's amendment reaches a part of that 
issue, and I salute him for it. But I hope and trust that the 
administration will come to their senses and give us a rational 
immigration policy that requires worksite enforcement at a time when 
American citizens of the country are out of work, that will enforce the 
illegal alien laws on the books.
  And I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Reclaiming my time, and thanking the ranking member 
from Kentucky, I would just add that we as employers on this Hill are 
now required to use E-Verify with our employees. This isn't too high a 
standard to ask of the balance of the Federal Government, particularly 
within this appropriation.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Chairman, I yield such time as she 
may consume to the chairwoman of the Immigration Subcommittee of the 
Judiciary Committee, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Zoe Lofgren).
  Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Thank you, Mr. Price.
  In looking at this amendment, I think it's important for Members to 
know that they can either vote for it or against it. It doesn't really 
matter because it's a restatement of existing law.
  I would direct the attention of Members to section 274A(h)(3) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S. Code 1324a(h)(3), which says, 
and I read it, in part, authorized alien means with respect to the 
employment of an alien at a particular time the alien is not at that 
time either lawfully admitted for permanent residence or authorized to 
be so employed by this act or by the Attorney General.
  As I say, this provision is not necessary. Current law also requires 
all employers to verify the employment authorization of employees here 
in the Federal Government, and there already are criminal and civil 
penalties for hiring unauthorized immigrants. Again, that is current 
law.
  Current law also permits employers to electronically verify the 
employment eligibility of employees pursuant to section 401 and 402 of 
Public Law 104-208, the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant 
Responsibility Act of 1996. That is the E-Verify program that Members 
are aware of.
  Current law requires the legislative and executive branches of the 
Federal Government to use E-Verify to verify the employment eligibility 
of their employees pursuant to section 402(e)(1) of Public Law 104-208; 
again, the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigration Responsibility 
Act of 1996.
  So, I provide this information to Members not as an advocate for or 
against the amendment, simply to note that this is a restatement of 
existing law.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I thank our colleague for those 
clarifying remarks and yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Madam Chair, may I inquire as to how much time 
remains?
  The CHAIR. The gentleman has 90 seconds remaining.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Thank you, Madam Chair. I yield myself the balance 
of my time.
  I would just reiterate that the Federal Government is among the most 
egregious violators of hiring illegal workers, and that's been brought 
out in this IG report that I spoke to in my opening remarks.
  Seventeen of the top 100 violating entities were government entities, 
with 44 percent of the government workers that were part of this study 
were unauthorized. It didn't mean they were all illegal; it meant they 
were not verified.
  And so I recall back in 1986 when the amnesty bill was passed, the 
last big amnesty bill was passed, I remember the fear that the INS 
would come into my office, and I made sure that I dotted all the I's, 
crossed all the T's, verified the identification, and kept the I-9 file 
on record. And they're still on record someplace in my archives. I 
think that is the kind of due diligence that the Federal Government--
all government ought to support.
  This is an amendment that one might argue that it doesn't directly 
change policy. I would agree with the gentlelady, the Chair of the 
Immigration Subcommittee, on that, but it reinforces and it reiterates 
a policy. There are no exceptions to violation of that section of the 
code.
  This is an amendment also that passed on this particular 
appropriations bill in 2007. It's something that has had broad support 
across this country, and it really should not be controversial. It 
should be something that we should all join together with, and 
hopefully we will be able to move along and get to the point where the 
right, left, and middle hand knows what the others are doing.
  I urge adoption of the amendment.

                              {time}  1815

  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Iowa (Mr. King).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr KING of Iowa. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa will be postponed.


            Part B Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Neugebauer

  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk made 
in order by the rule.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Part B Amendment No. 6 offered by Mr. Neugebauer:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title) add the 
     following new section:
       Sec. __.  The amounts otherwise provided in this Act for 
     the following accounts are hereby reduced by the following 
     amounts:
       (1) ``Office of the Under Secretary for Management'', 
     $200,000,000.
       (2) ``Office of Inspector General'', $5,000,000.
       (3) ``U.S. Customs and Border Protection_Salaries and 
     Expenses'', $160,000,000.
       (4) ``U.S. Customs and Border Protection_Border Security 
     Fencing, Infrastructure, and Technology'', $100,000,000.
       (5) ``U.S. Customs and Border Protection_Facilities 
     Management'', $420,000,000.
       (6) ``U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement_Automation 
     Modernization'', $20,000,000.
       (7) ``Transportation Security Administration_Aviation 
     Security'', $1,000,000,000.
       (8) ``Coast Guard_Acquisition, Construction, and 
     Improvements'', $98,000,000.
       (9) ``Federal Emergency Management Agency_State and Local 
     Programs'', $300,000,000.
       (10) ``Federal Emergency Management Agency_Firefighter 
     Assistance Grants'', $210,000,000.
       (11) and ``Federal Emergency Management Agency_Emergency 
     Food and Shelter'', $100,000,000.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 573, the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Neugebauer) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  These are unprecedented times in our country. We have people that are 
out of work. We have people that are losing their homes. Businesses are 
closing. And a lot of people wonder, how did that happen? When some 
people look for the cause of that, they say that unbridled spending and 
borrowing by individuals, by companies and even by government brought 
us to this point in our country where our economy is in a deep slump. 
Many of those families are having to make a lot of changes in their 
lives, making sacrifices.
  Unfortunately, the Federal Government is not doing the same thing. At 
a time when across this country American families are tightening their 
belts, stopping the unlimited spending and borrowing, the Federal 
Government continues to do just that. In fact, Madam Chairman, this 
year we're on track to have a $2 trillion deficit. Now just for those 
folks that don't know what $1 trillion is, if you had to count to 1 
trillion, it would take you 17,000 years. So if you are going to count 
to 2 trillion, it is going to take you 34,000 years.
  So what does my amendment do? What this does is it just says, this 
stimulus money that we put into Homeland Security, some $2.7 billion on 
top of the $43 billion that we had already approved for FY09 and we're 
now talking about approving $43 billion for

[[Page H7208]]

2010, basically it says, you know what, we're going to have to tighten 
our belts. So it takes that stimulus money out.
  Now you say, Well, why would you do that? Well, what we've already 
heard from a number of people, including administration officials, is, 
Hey, we may not be spending this correctly. We may not have gotten it 
right. Well, let me tell you, when people back home are having to 
tighten their belts and when they are looking at some of the largest 
deficits in the history of this country, they want Congress to get this 
right. What this does, it preserves the many programs that are already 
important and that many people have spoken on behalf of; but it doesn't 
let them continue to spend this $2.7 billion that, quite honestly, we 
didn't have to begin with. It's one thing to spend additional money 
when you have it; but when you don't have it, it's another issue.
  The people back home are faced with that very same issue. I got a 
letter from one of my constituents in Abilene, Texas, the other day. It 
said, Congressman, you know what, we got caught up in the credit card 
and borrowing; and it said, We've stopped that. We've quit charging a 
lot of things we used to charge. We have not taken the vacations we 
were taking. We've dropped a lot of items. We were doing it, and now 
we're saving.
  The question she asked, Congressman, why isn't the Federal Government 
doing the same thing? Do they not understand that we cannot continue to 
run these deficits at these levels, continue to spend money that we do 
not have? Madam Chairman, we have to stop this. We cannot leave a 
legacy for future generations where they have no future. It is 
projected in just a few years that we will be paying interest to the 
tune of $1 billion a day--$1 billion a day in interest. And that 
interest doesn't do anything for our country. It pays back countries 
like China and Japan for the money that they have provided to support 
our borrowing and spending habit. It's time that we stop that. This is 
a commonsense approach. It keeps the funding at a constant level, but 
it takes away this $2.7 billion that we didn't have in the first place.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to 
the gentleman's amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Chairman, it's clear what the 
gentleman's amendment does. It reduces funding levels in various 
accounts in this bill by the amounts appropriated in the Recovery Act. 
Just as a few examples, he cuts $200 million from the Under Secretary 
for Management because there was $200 million in the Recovery Act for 
the new DHS headquarters at St. Elizabeth's. But there's no money in 
this bill for the new DHS headquarters. He's just cutting management 
and oversight for the Department by more than 75 percent.
  He cuts $5 million from the Inspector General because there was $5 
million specifically included to help monitor Recovery Act 
expenditures. But there's no money in this bill specifically for 
Recovery Act oversight. It simply comes out of the Inspector General's 
Office and the critical work that he does.
  He cuts $420 million from the CBP budget for facilities management 
because there was $420 million included in the Recovery Act to replace 
and renovate land ports of entry into the U.S.. But there's no money in 
this bill for such construction. So it's really just an indiscriminate 
and enormous cut to the general upkeep of Border Patrol and Customs 
facilities.
  The gentleman cuts $210 million from the Firefighter Assistance 
Grants program because there was $210 million included in the Recovery 
Act for fire station construction. But there's not a penny in this bill 
for fire station construction. This amendment would reduce grant 
funding for firefighter equipment by over 50 percent, at a time when 
local firefighter budgets are already on the chopping block.
  The effect of this amendment is very different from the effect of 
simply rescinding Recovery Act funds. Rather than erasing the effect of 
stimulus moneys provided through this title in the current year, it 
guts the ability of the agency to function in the coming year. It would 
nearly eliminate the budgets for hiring personnel, managing equipment 
purchases, departmental security, and DHS facilities. If this amendment 
passes, the Kansas City Royals--not exactly the biggest spending team 
in baseball--would spend more on player payroll than the third-largest 
department in the Federal Government would have to manage its affairs. 
CBP couldn't pay rent for their existing facilities. Modernization of 
airport screening for explosives and advancements permitting passengers 
to safely carry larger containers of liquids onto planes would grind to 
a halt. I think that's probably enough to illustrate just how 
destructive this amendment would be and how indiscriminate it would be.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this devastating amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. The chairman brings up the point that we are gutting 
this bill. In fact, we are not gutting this bill. We're just trying to 
give the American taxpayers some of their money back, $2.7 billion. And 
unfortunately it was $2.7 billion that we didn't have. If he has some 
other areas that would be better served by cutting those programs, I 
would love to have that discussion with him. But the bottom line is, I 
was on an airplane coming back to Washington. I had two people come up 
and say, Congressman, y'all have got to stop this spending. We can't 
afford it.
  And you know who even gets that more than anybody? I have a 10-year-
old grandson Nathan, and I gave Nathan a gift card not too long ago. He 
and I went to the store, and he went around the store and gathered up a 
lot of things that he thought would be something that he would like to 
have. And when he got to the counter, he realized that had he more 
items in his basket than he had money on his gift card. So he didn't 
turn to his granddaddy and say, Granddaddy, can you spot me a little 
extra? He took those items that he couldn't afford back to the shelf 
where they belonged. That's what the American people want us to do. 
They want us to do what my 10-year-old grandson Nathan did, and that is 
to understand that we have a finite amount of money. We cannot break 
this country. And if we keep spending like this, we are going to break 
this country.
  When we passed this $782 billion stimulus package, we then came back 
and we started bailing out automobile companies. We had an omnibus 
bill, $400 billion. We passed a $3.7 trillion budget. People in 
America, Madam Chairman, are saying, What in the world are y'all doing? 
The young family back in Abilene, Texas--they get it. Nathan 
Neugebauer, my 10-year-old grandson, he gets it. I'm wondering when the 
United States Congress is going to get it.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance 
of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. 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 Texas will be postponed.


              Part C Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Flake

  Mr. FLAKE. I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Part C Amendment No. 7 offered by Mr. Flake:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds provided in this Act under the 
     heading ``Federal Emergency Management Agency--National 
     Predisaster Mitigation Fund'' shall be available for a grant 
     to the City of Emeryville, California.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 573, the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Flake) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. FLAKE. Madam Chairman, this amendment would remove $600,000 from

[[Page H7209]]

the city of Emeryville, California, and return the money to FEMA's Pre-
Disaster Mitigation account. The Pre-Disaster Mitigation account used 
to be awarded solely on the basis of merit. When we established the 
Department of Homeland Security, we were told time and time again, 
Don't worry. We're not going to earmark any funding in this 
legislation, or this bill will not be earmarked. We were told that for 
a couple of years. Now guess what--it was earmarked a couple of years 
ago. Now more, now more, now even more. Now there are well over 100 
earmarks in the bill.
  Of course the State of California is no stranger to floods. In fact, 
according to FEMA, since the year 2000, parts of California have been 
declared a major disaster due to flooding five times. But there are 
many other areas of the country that also suffer from flooding. 
Louisiana, we all know, is a State that often gets pounded with 
hurricanes and has also had five major disaster declarations due to 
flooding in the past 10 years alone. Yet Louisiana doesn't receive a 
single earmark in this year's Pre-Disaster Mitigation fund. How can 
this be? The answer is easy. When you abide by a process that rewards 
some Members over others, you wind up with a spoils system. And I would 
submit that's what we have with the Pre-Disaster Mitigation fund is a 
classic spoils system. Unless we can determine that mother nature 
somehow finds those districts represented by appropriators and sends 
more floods, more earthquakes, more natural disasters somehow to those 
districts or to the districts of powerful people on powerful 
committees, then we have a spoils system. That is an example here.
  When we look at this year's Pre-Disaster Mitigation earmarks, we see 
of the $150 million appropriated for the grant program, altogether in 
this year's bill, more than $24 million is earmarked. There are a total 
of 58 pre-disaster earmarks. Nearly 30 percent of them go to members of 
the Appropriations Committee. When you consider the dollar value of 
these 58 earmarks, the picture becomes even bleaker. Nearly 40 percent 
of the funds earmarked for Pre-Disaster Mitigation are going to 
districts represented by members on the Appropriations Committee.
  Again, unless Mother Nature knows which districts are represented by 
appropriators, we've got a problem here. Appropriators make up just 13 
percent of this legislative body. So 13 percent of the House will take 
home 40 percent of Pre-Disaster Mitigation spoils. Homeland Security 
earmarks, as a whole, favor Members who serve in a position of power, 
either as an appropriator, in leadership, as a chairman or a ranking 
minority member of the committee. If that's not a spoils system, I 
don't know what is. We ought to let this Pre-Disaster Mitigation 
program work as it should.
  A while ago the Department of Homeland Security asked if this account 
could be distributed with a risk-based formula, but the committee said 
no. They wanted to keep the same competitive grant formula, a 
competitive grant formula that really isn't competitive at all because 
a quarter of it is already earmarked; and within a few years, it will 
probably all be earmarked. And guess what--it will largely go to the 
districts represented by appropriators or those in powerful committee 
positions.
  I urge the adoption of the amendment.
  I reserve 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, if this amendment were 
to be adopted, the locality that is targeted, namely, the city of 
Emeryville, would not receive funding, nor would the locality even be 
able to compete for a Pre-Disaster Mitigation grant through FEMA 
because the amendment would strike any Pre-Disaster Mitigation funding 
for that locality for the fiscal year 2010.
  Now, Madam Chairwoman, FEMA has reviewed every mitigation project in 
this bill. Each project was deemed eligible based on the requirements 
in the Stafford Act and will be used to protect lives and reduce 
property damages in some of the most hazard-prone areas of the country. 
There should be no question that this request underwent rigorous 
scrutiny and meets the test of being aligned with and supporting the 
missions of DHS.

                              {time}  1830

  So I urge colleagues to defeat this amendment.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I would yield, yes.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I want to join the gentleman in saying that 
we have scrubbed these congressionally directed spending in this bill 
unlike anything before. They are clean, and they are needed in the 
areas where they have been congressionally directed. So I join the 
gentleman in opposing this amendment.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I thank the gentleman.
  Madam Chairman, I am happy now to yield to our colleague from 
California (Ms. Lee).
  Ms. LEE of California. Let me thank both gentlemen for their support 
and for understanding the necessity really for this congressionally 
directed spending, Federal funding, better known as an earmark to some.
  Let me just say that I do rise in opposition to the amendment offered 
by the gentleman from Arizona and in support of the request for funding 
that was made by the city of Emeryville in my district for funding 
through FEMA's Predisaster Mitigation Program.
  Let me just start by saying that I respect the gentleman from Arizona 
(Mr. Flake). We have worked together in the past on many issues related 
to lifting the embargo on Cuba and normalizing relations with that 
country and on many, many issues. But I believe he is wrong about the 
funding I requested in the Homeland Security Appropriations for the 
city of Emeryville's Community Emergency Safety Facilities Project.
  The city of Emeryville is in my district. It has a dense population 
of nearly 10,000 residents and a 1.2 square-mile region. Although much 
smaller in size than the neighboring city of San Francisco, this small 
city has become a leader in interagency cooperation and for the new 
economy innovation. On behalf of the city of Emeryville--now, this was 
the only request that I made--I requested $600,000 to help finance the 
seismic retrofitting of the city's principal, and this is the only, 
emergency community gathering and housing facility in the event of a 
natural disaster. It's the Emery Unified High School gymnasium. The 
city has requested these funds to finance 15 percent of the initial 
cost for phase one of the project for ``seismic planning and 
development,'' which in total would cost about $4 million. The balance 
of the funding will come from redevelopment funds directly from the 
city of Emeryville and also an anticipated local bond between $40 
million and $75 million that will also direct some funds to the 
project.
  The remainder of the necessary capital, which is expected to finish 
this project, will come from State, local, and Federal sources, 
including school facilities funding, competitive State bond programs, 
and Federal development or infrastructure grants.
  Several years ago an evaluation of the Emery Secondary School 
gymnasium was conducted based on FEMA's criteria for structurally sound 
facilities and came to the following conclusion: without seismic 
strengthening of the buildings, they could experience high levels of 
localized structural and nonstructural damage in a moderate or large 
earthquake sufficient to pose unacceptable high levels of risk to the 
life safety of the buildings' occupants.
  The Hayward Fault, which runs through Emeryville and the two 
neighboring cities of Berkeley and Oakland, is considered one of the 
most dangerous earthquake faults in the world. Scientists agree that 
the Hayward Fault could soon experience a large earthquake with an 
impact on many densely populated cities throughout the bay area. The 
Hayward Fault has ruptured about every 140 years for its previous five 
large earthquakes, and this past October marked the 140th anniversary 
of the 1868 earthquake, which was approximated to be a magnitude of 
about 7.
  The recent earthquake disasters around the world highlight the need 
for

[[Page H7210]]

the highest level of structural safety in our schools and emergency 
facilities.
  This is the only request and I'm just asking that we support this, 
Madam Chairman. I would certainly support any disaster mitigation 
efforts for Mr. Flake's district should a disaster hit his district. I 
would also support funding to alleviate that.
  Mr. FLAKE. Madam Chair, let me just say again here's a chart. This is 
FEMA predisaster earmarks secured by appropriators, leadership, 
committee Chairs, and ranking members. If we look here at fiscal year 
2009 and 2010, again 49 and 51 percent respectively, the money is going 
to powerful appropriators or committee Chairs or ranking minority 
members that represent just 25 percent of the body.
  Again, I will yield anybody time who can stand and say with a 
straight face that Mother Nature targets districts represented by 
appropriators or committee Chairs or ranking minority members. I don't 
think that's the way it is.
  I have great respect for the gentlewoman from California. We have 
worked together on a number of issues. And this is not just an issue 
that anybody has with this particular earmark, but it is with many in 
this piece of legislation. We need to ensure that FEMA looks and does 
this on a risk-based way where they look at risk and award accordingly. 
When Members of Congress do an earmark, it simply becomes a spoils 
system; and, unfortunately, I think that's what we are seeing here.
  So I would urge support for the amendment.
  Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. FLAKE. 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 Arizona will be postponed.


              Part C Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Flake

  Mr. FLAKE. Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. CULBERSON. Madam Chair, parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. CULBERSON. Madam Chair, could we ask the Clerk to please read the 
text of the amendment so we can be sure which amendment is before the 
House.
  The CHAIR. Without objection, the Clerk will report the amendment.
  There was no objection.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Part C amendment No. 5 offered by Mr. Flake:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds provided in this Act under the 
     heading ``Federal Emergency Management Agency--National 
     Predisaster Mitigation Fund'' shall be available for a grant 
     to the Harris County Flood Control District, Texas.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 573, the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Flake) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. FLAKE. Madam Chair, this amendment would remove an earmark of $1 
million for the Harris County Flood Control District and would return 
money to FEMA's Predisaster Mitigation Fund. This is a similar 
amendment to the one that I just offered. These are earmarks to the 
Predisaster Mitigation Fund, as I mentioned before.
  It used to be that when organizations at the local level wanted to 
apply for this funding, they submitted a proposal to FEMA. FEMA has a 
70-page guidance document for people applying for these grants. 
Unfortunately, when people apply now, 25 percent of the money that was 
in this grant program is gone because it's earmarked. It's been taken 
away, taken off the top. Where it really wasn't before. And as I 
mentioned before, when you have one-quarter of this funding taken, we 
find that 40 percent of the value goes to just 25 percent of the 
Members or actually 40 percent of the value goes to just 13 percent of 
the Members in this body, those districts represented by appropriators.
  And, again, I will gladly yield time to anybody who can stand and say 
that Mother Nature targets districts by appropriators or other powerful 
Members more than Mother Nature does other districts. It simply doesn't 
happen.
  But, again, FEMA has asked if they could establish a more risk-based 
program where they could evaluate risk and allocate funding 
accordingly. That's how it should be done. But we in Congress have said 
no, because why? We like the system how it is because it's easy to 
earmark and it makes it more likely that Members, particularly of the 
Appropriations Committee, can get earmarks for their district. And 
that's what we have here.
  In this particular case, this flood control district, before we 
started earmarking this account, applied for a grant under the 
Predisaster Mitigation Program and got a grant. So competitively they 
established that they had need for it. That's how it should be. But 
then the next year I don't know if it was going to get the grant or 
just didn't want to apply, but money was earmarked and then the next 
year earmarked again. Now this year there's another earmark for that 
same flood control district.
  I think it's time to let FEMA decide under a risk-based formula where 
this funding should go. We all know the process here. It's why we have 
a commission to close military bases because we simply can't discipline 
ourselves as Members to say that base in my district may need to be 
closed, and then we move to protect other people's bases if they'll 
protect ours. The process of logrolling takes effect. That's why it's 
best to establish criteria and let the agency do the work. If we don't 
like how they do it, we exercise oversight and force them to change the 
program and to do it equitably. But to do it this way just means that a 
spoils system occurs, and that's what we have here.
  Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CULBERSON. Madam Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition 
to the amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. CULBERSON. Madam Chairman, the gentleman from Arizona's amendment 
purports to be fiscally conservative.
  I have, as a Member of Congress over the years, established one of 
the best fiscal conservative ratings in Congress. I voted against $2.6 
trillion of spending under President Bush, $1.3 trillion so far under 
this President. I've consistently been ranked as one of the most 
fiscally conservative Members of Congress. And we, each of us, are 
elected by our districts to use our good judgment, to use discretion 
and, in my case, fiscally conservative standards in those spending 
requests that we push forward, those that we set aside. I've worked 
aggressively with my ranking member and members of this committee to 
try to save money in this bill and others.
  But the city of Houston, Harris County, has suffered in just the most 
recent hurricane, Hurricane Ike, which just hit the gulf coast. It hit 
Houston the hardest, $2.1 billion worth of damage to southeast Texas 
that the Federal Government has reimbursed. The city of Houston alone, 
Harris County, home damage: $8.5 billion worth of damage to homes in 
Harris County.
  Now, I asked for very little as a Member of Congress to try to help 
the people of Houston. One area where we need help is in flood control. 
One area where we clearly need help is in mitigation to prevent 
additional damage.
  In fact, because of the work I've done as a member of the 
Appropriations Committee and in the very few areas I asked for help on 
are national security, border security, medical and scientific 
research, and in flood control. And in flood control, the homes along 
Braes Bayou, for example, didn't flood. The Texas Medical Center, Mr. 
Flake, did not flood as a result of this hurricane because of work that 
I was able to do with the help of my colleagues on the Appropriations 
Committee, the Harris County delegation working together.
  Mr. Flake's amendment would strike all Federal funding for all of 
Harris County flood control. His amendment not only would save no 
money. To all my fellow fiscal conservatives out there watching, that 
would be one thing.

[[Page H7211]]

  Your amendment saves no money, and you would eliminate all Federal 
flood control money for all Harris County, which just got hammered by 
the biggest hurricane to hit southeast Texas in my lifetime.

                              {time}  1845

  Now let me yield briefly to my ranking member, Mr. Rogers, and I 
would be proud to yield to my chairman, Mr. Price.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I join the gentleman in opposing the 
amendment.
  I think the gentleman would be derelict in his duties to the Congress 
and to the people of his district and the country if he didn't make 
these efforts to help the people that he represents. That is not a 
unique thing to try to help the people that you represent in the U.S. 
Congress. And I salute the gentleman.
  Mr. CULBERSON. In a fiscally conservative way I may add. And I'm 
proud to yield to my chairman, Mr. Price, from North Carolina.
  Thank you, Mr. Rogers.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I commend the gentleman for looking out 
for his people, looking out for his home area and crafting an amendment 
that is responsive to some very real perils. And I will just say, once 
again, these proposals have been vetted by FEMA. There is no question 
they underwent rigorous scrutiny. This is consistent with the Stafford 
Act and will protect lives and reduce property damages in this 
locality. So I commend him for his advocacy.
  Mr. CULBERSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  I would also say that each one of us, as Members of Congress, how I 
for myself have said from the moment I was appointed to the 
Appropriations Committee, I have published every request that I submit 
for designated spending on my Web site. I was the first Member of 
Congress to send a Twitter message from the Oval Office, the first one 
to send a Twitter message from the floor of Congress. I love 
technology. My hero, Thomas Jefferson, always said to try all abuses at 
the bar of public opinion. And I believe very strongly in transparency 
and openness. I published every appropriations request I have ever made 
on my Web site since 2003. I was the first Member of Congress to do so. 
I published every appropriation, designated funding request, that I 
received on my Web site since 2003. I believe I was the first Member of 
Congress to do so, because I don't ask for much. I will not make a 
funding request for a private individual or a private company. I limit 
them to national security, border security, local units of government, 
State Government, or the Texas Medical Center, God bless them, the 
great work they are doing at M.D. Anderson Hospital, medical or 
scientific research, the Nation's space program or flood control. The 
Houston ship channel will silt up in 6 months unless we on the 
Appropriations Committee direct the Army Corps of Engineers to dredge 
it. They would not have built a railroad bridge connecting Galveston 
Island to the Texas mainland unless the Homeland Security Committee, 
and I want to thank Mr. Rogers and Chairman Price again, for connecting 
the Galveston Island to the mainland. That is not even in my district, 
nor is the Houston ship channel.
  These are fiscally conservative, prudent requests, Mr. Flake. You in 
Arizona, I have to tell you, are just not familiar with Harris County. 
I don't think you will find any Member of Congress with higher fiscally 
conservative standards than I have. And I think the request is entirely 
appropriate. It is absolutely necessary for an area that got hammered 
by the hurricane.
  And I urge defeat of the Member's amendment because it won't even 
save money.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.


                       Announcement by the Chair

  The CHAIR. Members are reminded to address their remarks to the 
Chair.
  Mr. FLAKE. May I ask the time remaining.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman has 2 minutes remaining.
  Mr. FLAKE. I will be glad to yield to the gentleman 30 more seconds 
if you want to go on. You are making my case.


                       Announcement by the Chair

  The CHAIR. Members are reminded to address their remarks to the 
Chair.
  Mr. CULBERSON. Thank you. Madam Chairman, Kitt Peak--I'm not sure 
what part Arizona Mr. Flake has, but every piece of legislation passed 
by Congress directs the Congress--Jeff, which part of Arizona do you 
have? Excuse me.
  Mr. FLAKE. The East Valley.
  Mr. CULBERSON. Due south. I'm an amateur astronomer, a passionate fan 
of Kitt Peak Observatory. Let's say Congress passes a piece of 
legislation to designate funding for Kitt Peak Observatory. Every bill 
Congress passes designates funding. All of us have an obligation----
  Mr. FLAKE. Reclaiming my time.
  Mr. CULBERSON. We have to be fiscally conservative, Mr. Flake, on 
every bill, not just appropriations.
  Mr. FLAKE. I'm a slow learner.
  Let me remind the gentleman that this district, Harris County, 
received $1 million when they applied for the funding before the 
earmarks started, 2 years ago, last year, I'm sorry, 3 years ago--2 
years ago got a $1 million earmark, last year got another $1 million 
earmark, this year asking for a third $1 million earmark. And we just 
had another member of the Texas delegation stand just moments ago and 
offer an amendment to move money to the predisaster mitigation account 
because he couldn't get the funding for his district in Texas because 
25 percent of the funding, by the time people in his district even 
applied for the funding, is gone. It is earmarked, cut off the top.
  And I already explained the spoils system that is here, and still 
nobody has taken me up on my offer. I will yield time to anybody who 
can tell me that Mother Nature targets districts represented by 
appropriators.
  It simply doesn't happen.
  Mr. CULBERSON. I will happily take the challenge. I'm ready.
  Mr. FLAKE. No thanks. I know better. But I believe my time is out.
  I urge adoption of the amendment. We simply have to be more fiscally 
responsible. And we have to have a system at FEMA that is based on risk 
and merit rather than spoils. This is a system based on spoils right 
now. That is why the adoption of the amendment should be done.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. FLAKE. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona will be postponed.


              Part C Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Flake

  Mr. FLAKE. I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Part C amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Flake:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds provided in this Act under the 
     heading ``Science and Technology--Research, Development, 
     Acquisition, and Operations'' shall be available for the 
     National Institute for Hometown Security, Kentucky, and the 
     amount otherwise provided under such heading is hereby 
     reduced by $10,000,000.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 573, the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Flake) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. FLAKE. Madam Chair, this amendment would remove $10 million in 
funding for the National Institute for Homeland Security based in 
Somerset, Kentucky, and reduce the overall cost of the bill by a 
commensurate amount.
  This is not the first time I have brought this earmark to the floor. 
This earmark is always noticeable if for nothing else the cost. 
Compared to most earmarks in the bill, this is one of the largest 
earmarks we have in the Homeland Security bill year after year. This 
year the earmark alone would cost taxpayers $10 million, and if 
approved, this would actually be the lowest dollar amount the institute 
has received since its creation in 2004. According to the Web site, the 
National Institute for Homeland Security is an

[[Page H7212]]

independent, nonprofit corporation designed to allow universities in 
Kentucky to ``more effectively compete for research funds and projects 
aimed at improving homeland security.''
  It goes on to say that the institute's end goal is to match up local 
universities with projects, then commercialize the resulting product.
  Madam Chairman, we all know that Congress has a problem with spending 
overall. We have a $7.87 billion stimulus package. We had a massive 
omnibus appropriations bill, we have had numerous bailouts of private 
companies. Now we are facing nearly $2 trillion in deficits just this 
year. When I came to this body just 8 years ago, our total budget was 
around $2 trillion. Now we will have a deficit by the same amount. Yet 
here we are; we are funding a nonprofit organization, which again, 
according to its own Web site, apparently would not exist without the 
assistance of Congress. And it seems that the purpose of this center is 
to attract other earmarks. It is an institute that seems to beget other 
earmarks.
  I simply don't think that we can continue to do this. Since it was 
created, the institute has received $74 million in taxpayer funding: 
$12 million in 2005; $20 million in both 2006 and 2007; $11 million in 
both 2008 and 2009. When will this end? When will we say enough is 
enough? We have funded this institute enough, and it will have to 
compete on its own for other grants.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Madam Chair, I rise to claim opposition to 
the amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Madam Chairman, the Consortium of Kentucky 
Colleges and Universities was asked by the Department of Homeland 
Security if they would take on research projects that the department 
needed answers on, and the consortium said, yes, we will. They said, we 
can't compete probably singly working by ourselves with the MITs or the 
Cal Techs or the Harvards or maybe Phoenix University or the University 
of Arizona. But collectively, as a group, we can.
  And so the department gives the project to the consortium, and the 
best pieces of the consortium then collect together to work on that 
project. The University of Kentucky may be teamed up with Western 
Kentucky University, the University of Louisville or perhaps an out-of-
state university, and they work on and solve the project that the 
department has need for.
  To set the record straight, the institute receives specified research 
task orders from the science and technology directorate at DHS. The 
task orders are then farmed out to the consortium of colleges and 
universities throughout the State of Kentucky and other public and 
private entities across the country for their input on that particular 
problem.
  This process taps into and unleashes the intellectual firepower of 
our best and brightest people to address new and emerging threats to 
the homeland.
  These are competitive grants. Make no mistake. These are competitive 
grants. All decisions on funding are made by the Department of Homeland 
Security. So far, 22 projects are underway with dozens of colleges and 
universities participating. These are low-cost solutions with a minimal 
footprint and maximum results.
  A couple of examples. University of Kentucky researchers have 
developed a system to maintain the security of raw milk as it is 
transported from the dairy farm to the processing plant to combat a 
problem that we found in China where many dozens of young people were 
sickened by milk that had been tainted. This issue is critical in 
securing our food supply. That system is now available across America 
and is being used.
  University of Louisville researchers are developing a system that 
samples air particles in large enclosed spaces such as shopping malls 
and sports venues to detect the presence of explosive materials. We 
know from the London and Madrid mass-transit bombings that terrorists 
seek enclosed and populated places. Western Kentucky University teamed 
up with the University of Louisville, and they have designed devices to 
detect leaks in rail transport tanker cars. A chlorine or ammonium 
nitrate spill in any neighborhood could be disastrous. Research funds 
have been awarded to reduce the explosive potential of ammonium nitrate 
and fuel oil by coating the material with coal combustion byproducts. 
These two chemicals, when mixed, form a common explosive material for 
terrorists and were the deadly combination used in the tragic Oklahoma 
City bombing.
  MITOC, Man-Portable Interoperable Tactical Operation Center, provides 
communication services to disaster sites to make interoperable 
communications where it did not exist in these public venues. MITOC has 
been deployed to areas around the country to help them solve the 
interoperable need for communications in the disaster scene when no 
other communication systems were working, including Texas during 
Hurricane Ike and recently in Kentucky during the massive ice storm 
throughout the entire State.
  So these are research projects that are producing results that the 
department needs and asks this consortium to do, and is engaging the 
intellectual firepower of these universities and colleges in Kentucky 
and their counterparts throughout the country. It is one of the best 
things the department has ever done. And I'm happy to say it is in my 
home State of Kentucky.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. If the gentleman will yield, I want to 
commend him for his advocacy of these outstanding programs and join him 
in opposition to this ill-conceived amendment.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I thank the gentleman.
  I reserve.
  Mr. FLAKE. May I inquire of the time remaining?
  The CHAIR. The gentleman has 3 minutes remaining.
  Mr. FLAKE. Let me just say first there have been a few statements 
first that imply that the Department of Homeland Security or FEMA in 
the case of the last two amendments somehow endorsed these amendments 
or endorsed these projects. According to OMB, the administration 
responses about earmark requests ``should not be construed as an 
evaluation or recommendation of specific earmark requests based on 
merit or value.'' So we can say that, hey, the agency wants this. But 
the official position of the administration is, We are taking no 
position. And of course, they really can't because these earmark 
dollars are sometimes taken from the account that they would otherwise 
use to give grants based on merit or based on risk.
  Again, this chart is even starker when we look at the overall bill 
that we are considering today. Homeland security earmark dollars 
secured by appropriators, leadership, committee chairs, and ranking 
members. FY 09, 45 percent--45 percent--of the total in earmark dollars 
in the bill went to this group. This group represents just 25 percent 
of the body.

                              {time}  1900

  Mr. CULBERSON. Would the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FLAKE. I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. CULBERSON. Did you do an analysis by geography? For example, 
those of us on the Texas gulf coast that get hammered by hurricanes 
need help with flood mitigation. Did you analyze it geographically and 
see what percentage goes to the coastal areas of the United States or 
the floodplains of the Mississippi River?
  Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentleman. I think we all know that the 
alignment of appropriators and Members in powerful positions does not 
align with the gulf coast or any other geographic position.
  Getting back to the chart, 45 percent last year went to those in 
powerful positions; 45 percent to 25 percent. This year it is even 
starker: 71 percent of all earmark dollars in this bill are going to 25 
percent of this body. That is a spoil system. I don't know how else you 
can claim otherwise, unless as I said, and I will yield simply for the 
purpose if somebody can stand up and say that Mother Nature targets 
this group more than others, then this is a spoil system. When we have 
here an earmark that has been over and over and over awarded, $74 
million in taxpayer funding, $12 million in 2005, $20 million in both 
2006 and 2007.
  Mr. CULBERSON. Would the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FLAKE. I will yield to the gentleman only if he will answer the 
question yes or no: Does Mother Nature target districts represented by 
appropriators?

[[Page H7213]]

  Mr. CULBERSON. Mother Nature targets all districts equally, Mr. 
Flake. But when it comes to floods and hurricanes, they target the gulf 
coast. When it comes to floods from the big rivers, they target the 
Mississippi River Valley.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. FLAKE. 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 Arizona will be postponed.


              Part C Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Flake

  Mr. FLAKE. I have an amendment at the desk, amendment No. 1.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Part C amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Flake:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds provided in this Act under the 
     heading ``United States Customs and Border Protection--
     Salaries and Expenses'' shall be available for award to 
     Global Solar, Arizona, for the portable solar charging 
     rechargeable battery systems, and the amount otherwise 
     provided under such heading is hereby reduced by $800,000.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 573, the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Flake) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. FLAKE. Madam Chairman, I hesitate to challenge this earmark. It 
was secured by my colleague from Arizona, Mr. Pastor, for whom I have 
great admiration and we have a great friendship, but this amendment 
would remove $800,000 for the portable solar charging rechargeable 
battery system, and it would lower the bill by a commensurate amount.
  According to the earmark table itself, the recipient of this earmark 
is Global Solar, who, according to the Web site, is a ``privately held 
company that was incorporated in 1996 that has evolved into a major 
producer of solar cells.''
  The certification letter filed by the earmark's sponsor says the 
money will be used ``for the acquisition of man-packable, solar-
charging, rechargeable battery systems for use by the U.S. Border 
Patrol.''
  My concern is not with the technology nor with the needs of the 
Border Patrol, nor with this company in particular. My concern lies 
with why a specific for-profit entity was designated to receive this 
earmark funding.
  The President recently referred to earmarks for for-profit entities 
as the ``single most corrupting element of this practice.''
  The PMA scandal that has plagued the House of Representatives for 
months has largely centered on campaign contributions and earmarks for 
for-profit entities. We simply cannot move ahead as if nothing is 
happening outside of this body, or even within this body. We have our 
own Ethics Committee, and the Justice Department is investigating the 
relationship between campaign contributions and earmarks, and that is 
largely the case when you have earmarks that go to for-profit 
companies, earmarks that are little more than sole-source contracts or 
no-bid contracts.
  This is the only one gratefully in this legislation that I have been 
able to find, an earmark that goes to a for-profit entity, and I would 
submit, Madam Chair, that we simply shouldn't be earmarking funds for 
private companies in this legislation.
  I urge adoption of the amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to 
the amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from North Carolina is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I want to very quickly turn to Mr. 
Pastor, the author of this provision, but I want to assure Members that 
this provision, like other directed spending, has been vetted down at 
the Department of Homeland Security. It has been certified to be 
consistent with the agency's mission; otherwise, it simply isn't 
eligible.
  Now, on this item in particular, I would invite the attention of 
Members to the actual language of the bill, page 6. This earmark is for 
$800,000 for procurement of portable solar-charging, rechargeable 
battery systems to be awarded under full and open competition.
  That language is pretty plain; isn't it?
  This item is required by law to be subject to a competitive 
procurement process. And, indeed, any item now in appropriations bills 
involving for-profit entities are subject to the same requirement. We 
all need to understand that and read the plain language of the bill.
  I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers).
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I join the chairman in opposing the 
amendment. As he says, all of these congressionally directed spending 
earmarks have been vetted by the Department. They have been scrubbed by 
our subcommittee unlike anything before, and I join in opposition.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I thank the gentleman, and I yield now 
to my colleague, Mr. Pastor, to expand on this provision and the 
reasons that the proposed amendment should be rejected.
  Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. First of all, I want to state for the record 
that I have never met personally with the company listed as the 
recipient for this earmark. It has spurred my interest, the technology 
and the use of technology, that I brought this request to the 
subcommittee. And while this is a for-profit company which is listed as 
a recipient, under the new rules instituted in this Congress this year, 
this company or any company will have to compete for the contract, and 
I know of at least three U.S. companies with products suitable for such 
competition and a great number of foreign companies that could compete.
  This request has been vetted by the Department of Homeland Security 
and the Border Patrol. The Border Patrol's special response teams and 
technical teams have stated requirements for this technology which 
allows them to recharge their power-intensive equipment while deployed 
in the field on extended missions. These teams man-pack over 100 pounds 
of equipment into the field on their missions, so every pound saved is 
significant.
  This technology, which is basically photovoltaic film, lightweight, 
portable, allows them to leave behind at the camp previously used car 
battery-type systems in favor of this lightweight, portable, 
photovoltaic film. And this allows the person using it to be able to 
extend the mission for a longer period of time and to be able to 
recharge their battery so that they can use their communication system, 
can use sensors, and will allow the Border Patrol to be more effective 
in its law enforcement efforts. This type of technology is currently 
used by the military, especially the Marine Corps.
  So the intent for this earmark is not to reward a company because 
they met with me or because they contributed, which they did not, but 
to bring forth to the attention of the Border Patrol that this 
equipment is available for competition for the companies that qualify 
according to their purchase order so that we can make the Border 
Patrol, as they extend into the desert, to be more effective and be 
able to continue the law enforcement. That is the only reason for this 
earmark, and I oppose the amendment.
  Mr. FLAKE. Madam Chair, we have that language saying that this 
earmark would be awarded under full and open competition. But if you 
meet with the Department of Defense, as I have, and you ask them, 
Currently, do you compete out? Do you subject to competition the 
earmarks that you see? They will say, Yes; yes, unless we don't, 
basically.
  So I asked them--if we look at the 2008 Defense bill, for example, I 
asked the Department of Defense to actually look and do a random 
sampling of the earmarks that came that they say are subject to 
competition to see how many of them actually went to the earmark 
recipient listed. With uncanny precision, the answer came back all of 
them that they sampled did go to the earmark recipient listed. If these 
are to be competed out, why do we have to mention the company at all?

[[Page H7214]]

  I don't know if it is in order to ask for a unanimous consent to 
simply remove the name of the company. If these are going to be 
competed out anyway and if there are at least three companies that have 
this technology, would it not be in order to say----
  Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. Would the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FLAKE. Yes, I would yield.
  Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. I would have no objection if you removed the 
name.
  Mr. FLAKE. Would it be in order to modify the amendment under a 
unanimous consent?
  The CHAIR. The gentleman may ask unanimous consent to modify his 
amendment.
  Mr. FLAKE. I would ask unanimous consent to modify the amendment to 
strike the name of the company listed in order that this may be subject 
to full and open competition.
  The CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Arizona?
  Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. I object. At the urging of your colleagues, 
they asked me to object, so I will object.
  The CHAIR. Objection is heard.
  Mr. FLAKE. I understand.
  As I mentioned before, I have the utmost respect for my colleague 
from Arizona. He is a straight shooter, and I know that if it were up 
to him, he would do this. And I think that some things go on their own 
without sometimes us realizing what we are doing.
  But in this case, the language stands that this earmark is to go to a 
specific company despite other language that may be in the legislation 
to say this is to be competed out. We know, based on experience, that 
the Department of Defense or the Department of Homeland Security, in 
this case, the agency, looks to see what the committee wanted and they 
will award it based on that, and so it really isn't full and open 
competition. We shouldn't be listing the company here.
  So I would have to urge adoption of the amendment to strike this 
earmark unless we can remove the company listed.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Would the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FLAKE. Yes.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. The gentleman is aware the company is 
not listed in the bill. The only place the company is listed is in the 
report, which is a matter of disclosure, and it is not amendable. It 
can't be modified here on the floor. The bill, as I read earlier, the 
plain language of the bill says this will be competed.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman's time has expired. The amendment will not 
be altered because objection has been heard.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. FLAKE. 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 Arizona will be postponed.

                              {time}  1915


              Part D Amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Flake

  Mr. FLAKE. Madam Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk as designee 
of Mr. Campbell.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Part D amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Flake:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds provided in this Act under the 
     heading ``National Protection and Programs Directorate--
     Infrastructure Protection and Information Security'' shall be 
     available to SEARCH of Sacramento, California, for 
     interoperable communications, technical assistance and 
     outreach programs, and the amount otherwise provided under 
     such heading is hereby reduced by $1,000,000.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 573, the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Flake) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. FLAKE. I feel obligated, since I ran out of time, to explain why 
simply because the language isn't in the bill itself or the name of the 
company that that still means that the earmark will likely go to the 
company listed.
  In the past few years, the previous President said that he would 
instruct the agencies not to fund any earmarks that weren't in the bill 
text. And so as a way to get around it and make sure that those 
earmarks were funded, the Appropriations Committee actually inserted 
language saying that language in the report would carry the force of 
law. And so that's what we've been operating under for the past couple 
of years to make sure that those earmarks that are simply in a table or 
in a report still get funded.
  In this case, we have language that will be in the table, the table 
that accompanies the bill in the report. The table in the report lists 
the company, Global Solar, that is to receive the earmark. And there is 
a certification that the Member filed saying this earmark is to go to 
this company at this address. And so, notwithstanding the fact that the 
language isn't in the bill itself, we still have an issue where the 
earmark will likely go to the intended recipient.
  This amendment would remove $1 million for funding for the National 
Institute for Communications Interoperability, a nonprofit organization 
and a subsidiary of SEARCH, the National Consortium for Justice 
Information and Statistics. In recent testimony before the House 
Appropriations Committee, the executive director of SEARCH described 
the organization as a ``State criminal justice support program with a 
mission to promote the effective use of information and identification 
technology by criminal justice agencies nationwide.''
  This entity just received a $500,000 earmark in the omnibus bill that 
Congress approved just a few short months ago. According to the 
sponsor's office, this particular earmark would support the launch of a 
nationwide institute to train emergency responders to better command 
and control emergency resources. The proposed pilot project would 
provide training, certification and outreach programs to State, 
regional and local coordinators in the first responder community.
  Now, this sounds strikingly familiar to a program within the 
Department of Homeland Security, one that they already administer. The 
Department of Homeland Security SAFECOM program has developed the 
Statewide Communications Interoperability Planning Methodology, a 
comprehensive 10-phase process created to assist States in the creation 
of their statewide emergency communication plan.
  Now, why should Federal funds be earmarked for a private organization 
that seems to duplicate an effort already undertaken by the agency for 
which we are appropriating now? If the Department of Homeland Security 
requires services that only SEARCH could provide, the administration 
could request funds for it.
  So, Madam Chairman, I don't think that we need to earmark funds here. 
There is a program within the Department of Homeland Security already 
that does what this private organization--which has just received an 
earmark in a bill we did a few months ago--is seeking to do.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to 
this amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. As with earlier items that we have 
discussed this evening, there is simply no question that this request 
underwent rigorous scrutiny, meets the test of being aligned with 
supporting the missions of the Department of Homeland Security, and I 
urge my colleagues to defeat the amendment.
  I am happy to yield at this point to my colleague, Mr. Rothman, to 
expand on the reasons that this amendment is ill advised.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Would the Chair yield?
  Mr. ROTHMAN of New Jersey. I yield to the ranking member.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from North Carolina controls the time.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I am happy to yield to the ranking 
member.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I simply want to join my chairman in 
opposition to the amendment for the reasons that he said.

[[Page H7215]]

  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I thank the gentleman.
  Now I yield to Mr. Rothman.
  Mr. ROTHMAN of New Jersey. I thank the chairman.
  First, I would like to thank Chairman Price and Ranking Member Rogers 
and my fellow subcommittee members for their leadership on this entire 
Homeland Security legislation and for their support for this project. 
As you know, the Department of Homeland Security reviewed this project 
and had no objection to it. This is a good bill and a good project.
  Mr. Flake's amendment would remove funding for this project that 
would otherwise help local, State, and Federal emergency response 
agencies better communicate and coordinate in the aftermath of a 
terrorist attack or natural disaster.
  My district is across the river from what were the Twin Towers in New 
York City, and we know firsthand the difficulties that arose in that 
terrible tragedy because of the inoperability, the lack of 
communication technologies working together amongst police, fire, and 
other emergency services.
  There was a landmark publication, ``Why Can't We Talk,'' which was 
produced in the wake of 9/11 by a national task force of 18 
associations representing public safety and elected officials. It noted 
five key reasons why first responders struggle to communicate sometimes 
with their own agencies.
  This $1 million project would support specific initiatives 
established in the National Emergency Communications Plan delivered to 
Congress in July 2008 by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security's 
Office of Emergency Communications. Working in partnership with that 
office, the National Institute for Communications Interoperability 
would address the most critical issue facing the first responder 
community today, their ability to command and control emergency 
resources in response to terrorist attacks, natural disasters and 
crimes through interagency communication.
  This project will not only help to make our Nation safer by 
demonstrating how various regional emergency responses can better 
coordinate, but it will help to ensure that local, State and Federal 
tax dollars that have already been allocated in previous Homeland 
Security measures and in previous budgets throughout the United States 
are used more wisely. The primary goal of this project is to ensure the 
best possible use of taxpayer money by public safety officers and first 
responder organizations.
  Federal, State, and local governments have invested a substantial 
amount of capital, as they should have, on first responder equipment, 
emergency plans, and safety personnel. It makes sense for Congress to 
support a project that will help to coordinate these efforts and 
maximize the return on these essential investments.
  I urge the defeat of this amendment.
  Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FLAKE. May I inquire as to the time remaining.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Arizona has 2 minutes remaining.
  Mr. FLAKE. I would urge adoption of the amendment. As I mentioned, 
when you look at the bill itself, you see again the spoils system 
that's occurring here: 71 percent of the dollar value of earmarks in 
this legislation go to just 25 percent of this body; 71 percent goes to 
25 percent. That's not an equal distribution.
  As we know, Mother Nature does not target those districts represented 
by appropriators or powerful Members, yet we have a system that awards 
earmarks based on those criteria.
  Mr. ROTHMAN of New Jersey. May I ask the gentleman to yield for a 
short question?
  Mr. FLAKE. Yes.
  Mr. ROTHMAN of New Jersey. Is the gentleman aware that there will be 
five areas across this country that will be supported by this program 
as determined by this organization which has been established by 50 
States and the territories?
  Mr. FLAKE. That's right. And I'm also aware that the Department of 
Homeland Security has a similar program that does similar things, yet 
we are earmarking over and above on top of that.
  I simply think that if we don't like the way the Department of 
Homeland Security is allocating resources, we need to change that or we 
need to give them guidance; we need to oversee what they do. For 
example, in my district a couple of years ago, the Department of 
Homeland Security spent money to synchronize street lights in a small 
town in my district. That wasn't an appropriate use of funds. But 
instead of spending time rooting out that kind of waste, we're saying 
we don't like the way you did that, so we're going to do some of our 
own. And so it is a duplicative program. And in the end, we end up 
spending more money and more money; and that's why the budget increases 
for this agency every year.
  We simply cannot continue to do this when we have a $2 trillion 
budget deficit this year alone. At some point we've got to say we've 
got to save taxpayer money, spend it wisely, and do it in a way that 
actually addresses risk, not seniority.
  Mr. ROTHMAN of New Jersey. Will the gentleman yield for one more 
question?
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  The gentleman from North Carolina has 1 minute remaining.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I am happy to yield to my friend from 
New Jersey (Mr. Rothman).
  Mr. ROTHMAN of New Jersey. I thank the gentleman.
  My friend from Arizona does not, Madam Chairman, dispute the validity 
and the importance of coordinating emergency communication throughout 
the United States, nor does my friend from Arizona dispute that this 
project represents five pilot projects across the country. So I find it 
difficult to believe that there would be any objection to this very 
valuable program that has already met with success and that is 
deserving of additional new outreach to the first responders emergency 
personnel across the country.
  Ms. MATSUI. Madam Chair, SEARCH, the National Consortium for Justice 
Information and Statistics, is headquartered in my district in 
Sacramento, CA. I know this organization, and I support the earmark 
that will allow SEARCH to continue to perform its important work across 
the country supporting the homeland security efforts of state and local 
entities.
  Over the past 40 years, this fine organization has accomplished a 
great deal to promote information sharing solutions among first 
responders. As a non-profit organization of the states with a 
membership body of gubernatorial appointees, SEARCH has served local, 
state, tribal, and federal information sharing and communications 
interoperability initiatives nationwide and continues to benefit the 
whole country.
  SEARCH is uniquely qualified to develop and implement the program 
funded by this earmark. That is why I rise in support of the SEARCH 
National Institute for Communications Interoperability to promote 
interoperability in communications among first responders.
  I urge Members to vote ``no'' on this amendment and support funding 
to SEARCH for the National Institute for Communications 
Interoperability.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. FLAKE. 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 Arizona will be postponed.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Chairman, I move that the 
Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Serrano) having assumed the chair, Ms. DeGette, Chair of the Committee 
of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that that 
Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 2892) making 
appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security for the fiscal 
year ending September 30, 2010, and for other purposes, had come to no 
resolution thereon.

                          ____________________