[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 120 (Tuesday, August 10, 2010)]
[House]
[Pages H6584-H6589]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




EMERGENCY BORDER SECURITY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS, FISCAL YEAR 2010

  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the 
rules and pass the bill (H.R. 6080) making emergency supplemental 
appropriations for border security for the fiscal year ending September 
30, 2010, and for other purposes.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 6080

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

                                TITLE I

                    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

                   U.S. Customs and Border Protection

                         salaries and expenses

       For an additional amount for ``Salaries and Expenses'', 
     $253,900,000, to remain available until September 30, 2011, 
     of which $39,000,000 shall be for costs to maintain U.S. 
     Customs and Border Protection Officer staffing on the 
     Southwest Border of the United States, $29,000,000 shall be 
     for hiring additional U.S. Customs and Border Protection 
     Officers for deployment at ports of entry on the Southwest 
     Border of the United States, $175,900,000 shall be for hiring 
     additional Border Patrol agents for deployment to the 
     Southwest Border of the United States, and $10,000,000 shall 
     be to support integrity and background investigation 
     programs.

        border security fencing, infrastructure, and technology

       For an additional amount for ``Border Security Fencing, 
     Infrastructure, and Technology'', $14,000,000, to remain 
     available until September 30, 2011, for costs of designing, 
     building, and deploying tactical communications for support 
     of enforcement activities on the Southwest Border of the 
     United States.

 air and marine interdiction, operations, maintenance, and procurement

       For an additional amount for ``Air and Marine Interdiction, 
     Operations, Maintenance, and Procurement'', $32,000,000, to 
     remain available until September 30, 2012, for costs of 
     acquisition and deployment of unmanned aircraft systems.

                 construction and facilities management

       For an additional amount for ``Construction and Facilities 
     Management'', $6,000,000, to remain available until September 
     30, 2011, for costs to construct up to 2 forward operating 
     bases for use by the Border Patrol to carry out enforcement 
     activities on the Southwest Border of the United States.

                U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement

                         salaries and expenses

       For an additional amount for ``Salaries and Expenses'', 
     $80,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 2011, of 
     which $30,000,000 shall be for law enforcement activities 
     targeted at reducing the threat of violence along the 
     Southwest Border of the United States, and $50,000,000 shall 
     be for hiring of additional agents, investigators, 
     intelligence analysts, and support personnel.

                Federal Law Enforcement Training Center

                         salaries and expenses

       For an additional amount for ``Salaries and Expenses'', 
     $8,100,000, to remain available until September 30, 2011, for 
     costs to provide basic training for new U.S. Customs and 
     Border Protection Officers, Border Patrol agents, and U.S. 
     Immigration and Customs Enforcement personnel.

                           GENERAL PROVISIONS

                             (rescissions)

       Sec. 101.  From unobligated balances made available to U.S. 
     Customs and Border Protection ``Border Security Fencing, 
     Infrastructure, and Technology'', $100,000,000 are rescinded: 
     Provided, That section 401 shall not apply to the amount in 
     this section.

                                TITLE II

                         DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

       Sec. 201.  For an additional amount for the Department of 
     Justice for necessary expenses for increased law enforcement 
     activities related to Southwest border enforcement, 
     $196,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 2011: 
     Provided, That funds shall be distributed to the following 
     accounts and in the following specified amounts:
       (1) ``Administrative Review and Appeals'', $2,118,000.
       (2) ``Detention Trustee'', $7,000,000.
       (3) ``Legal Activities, Salaries and Expenses, General 
     Legal Activities'', $3,862,000.
       (4) ``Legal Activities, Salaries and Expenses, United 
     States Attorneys'', $9,198,000.
       (5) ``United States Marshals Service, Salaries and 
     Expenses'', $29,651,000.
       (6) ``United States Marshals Service, Construction'', 
     $8,000,000.
       (7) ``Interagency Law Enforcement, Interagency Crime and 
     Drug Enforcement'', $21,000,000.
       (8) ``Federal Bureau of Investigation, Salaries and 
     Expenses'', $24,000,000.
       (9) ``Drug Enforcement Administration, Salaries and 
     Expenses'', $33,671,000.
       (10) ``Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, 
     Salaries and Expenses'', $37,500,000.
       (11) ``Federal Prison System, Salaries and Expenses'', 
     $20,000,000.

                               TITLE III

                             THE JUDICIARY

    Courts of Appeals, District Courts, and Other Judicial Services

                         salaries and expenses

       For an additional amount for ``Salaries and Expenses'', 
     $10,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 2011: 
     Provided, That notwithstanding section 302 of division C of 
     Public Law 111-117, funding shall be available for transfer 
     between Judiciary accounts to meet increased workload 
     requirements resulting from immigration and other law 
     enforcement initiatives.

                                TITLE IV

                           GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 401.  Each amount appropriated or otherwise made 
     available under this Act is designated as an emergency 
     requirement and necessary to meet emergency needs pursuant to 
     sections 403(a) and 423(b) of S. Con. Res. 13 (111th 
     Congress), the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal 
     year 2010.
       Sec. 402. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
     Act or any other provision of law, during the period 
     beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act and ending 
     on September 30, 2014, the filing fee and fraud prevention 
     and detection fee required to be submitted with an 
     application for admission as a nonimmigrant under section 
     101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 
     U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(L)) shall be increased by $2,250 for 
     applicants that employ 50 or more employees in the United 
     States if more than 50 percent of the applicant's employees 
     are nonimmigrants admitted pursuant to section 
     101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) of such Act or section 101(a)(15)(L) of 
     such Act.
       (b) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act or any 
     other provision of law, during the period beginning on the 
     date of the enactment of this Act and ending on September 30, 
     2014, the filing fee and fraud prevention and detection fee 
     required to be submitted with an application for admission as 
     a nonimmigrant under section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 
     1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b)) shall be increased by $2,000 for 
     applicants that employ 50 or more employees in the United 
     States if more than 50 percent of the applicant's employees 
     are such nonimmigrants or nonimmigrants described in section 
     101(a)(15)(L) of such Act.
       (c) During the period beginning on the date of the 
     enactment of this Act and ending on September 30, 2014, all 
     amounts collected pursuant to the fee increases authorized 
     under this section shall be deposited in the General Fund of 
     the Treasury.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Price) and the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) 
each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina.


                             General Leave

  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent 
that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend 
their remarks on H.R. 6080.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from North Carolina?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, I rise to urge adoption of H.R. 6080, a bill to 
address the urgent need for enhanced security on our Southwest border. 
Violence on the Mexican side of the border has intensified because of 
turf battles among murderous transnational criminal organizations 
competing for drug, alien, and weapon trafficking business. The bill 
would provide $600 million to enable the Department of Homeland 
Security, the Department of Justice, and the Judiciary, in cooperation 
with the National Guard, to counter this threat, building on the 
current border enforcement surge.
  This funding is urgently needed to counter the pressures our law 
enforcement agencies and our border communities currently face.
  Madam Speaker, the bill is fully offset. It includes a $100 million 
reduction

[[Page H6585]]

in the Department of Homeland Security's border security infrastructure 
and technology account due to an ongoing reassessment of the SBInet 
program. The bill also increases, for 5 years, the cost for two visas 
which permit foreign workers to come and work in the United States. 
These fee increases would apply only to companies with more than 50 
employees and for whom the majority of their workforce is visa-holding 
foreign workers.
  The House passed a very similar version of this border security 
supplemental bill 2 weeks ago, partially offset and partially on a 
well-justified emergency basis. Because the Senate amended the House-
passed bill, we are voting on the package again today.
  The most significant change the Senate made was to fully offset the 
bill, adding the visa fee increases. Because of the Constitutional 
requirement that revenue-generating bills initiate in the House, the 
bill before us today has been introduced as a new bill but with 
provisions identical to the Senate-passed bill. Therefore, should the 
House approve this bill today, it will need to be taken up again by the 
Senate, hopefully at the earliest possible date.
  For the Department of Homeland Security, the bill provides a total of 
$394 million, including: $176 million to hire a thousand new Border 
Patrol agents. That funding will bring us to a total of 21,370 Border 
Patrol agents, a 70 percent increase since 2006. $68 million to retain 
270 Customs and Border Protection officers and hire 250 additional 
officers. With this bill, there will be over 20,700 CBP officers 
working to enhance port of entry operations.
  There is $32 million to procure two additional unmanned aircraft 
systems; $80 million to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, ICE, 
which includes $30 million to pay for four new Border Enforcement 
Security Task Forces, training and support for Mexican law enforcement 
partners, and a staffing surge for ICE's criminal alien removal 
efforts. The remaining $50 million will be used to hire additional ICE 
investigators, intelligence analysts, and support personnel for a 
permanent expansion of ICE's presence along the border. These new 
personnel will focus on disrupting the criminal enterprises that fuel 
violence in Mexico.
  There is $6 million to construct two new forward operating bases for 
the Border Patrol.
  For the Department of Justice, the bill provides $196 million in 
support of investigations and crime control along the Southwest border, 
including $38 million for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and 
Explosives; $34 million for the Drug Enforcement Administration; $30 
million for the U.S. Marshals Service; and $24 million for the Federal 
Bureau of Investigation.

                              {time}  1020

  Finally, for the judiciary, the bill provides $10 million to meet 
increased workload requirements resulting from immigration and other 
law enforcement initiatives.
  I want to recognize especially, Madam Speaker, the hard work of our 
border State Representatives who were instrumental in getting the 
supplemental border security bill initially passed. They have signaled 
their full support for the House to take up this latest version from 
the Senate, and we will hear from a number of them during the debate 
this morning.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to adopt this bill to address 
these critical border security challenges which, while they are most 
acute on the southwest border, constitute a serious national threat 
which we ignore at our peril.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
might consume.
  Madam Speaker, it's been now 47 days, almost 6 weeks, since our 
subcommittee marked up the fiscal 2011 appropriations bill that would 
fund the Department of Homeland Security. Forty-seven days. Normally, 
after you mark up a bill in subcommittee, it immediately goes to the 
full committee, and then immediately to the floor of the House for us 
to act on the entire appropriations for the entire Department of 
Homeland Security.
  For some reason, the Democrat leadership in the House chose to delay 
the markup of the funding bill for the Department of Homeland Security 
now 6 weeks. And instead, they're bringing up this piecemeal 
supplemental bill that would make a nice amendment to the 
appropriations bill for the Department of Homeland Security if we could 
get that bill to us. And this supplemental, if passed, has to go back 
to the Senate, who is gone for the summer, before it can become law, 
even if we pass it here. And number two, it won't take effect until 
next year.
  So, Madam Speaker, I'm asking, why are we here? Why did we come back 
for this? Because it can't take effect until next year and it can't 
take effect until the Senate comes back to pass on it. And they're gone 
until September. So why are we here? I don't know. I don't know. Forty-
seven days that we have been waiting to bring up funding for the whole 
Department of Homeland Security. Homeland security, flippantly dealt 
with by the Democrat majority.
  Now, here's what this bill before us today won't do. This bill won't 
address the massive and inexplicable cuts the President proposed to cut 
the Coast Guard and to the Customs and Border Protection's aerial 
resources. The President submitted a budget to the subcommittee cutting 
Coast Guard, slashing the Border assets. The subcommittee in our markup 
corrected that, but we can't get that bill to come onto the floor.
  This bill won't do enough to improve our interdiction capabilities 
and stop the flow of drugs into northern Mexico and through the source 
and transit zones. This bill won't address any of the post-Christmas 
Day attack needs for aviation security or watchlisting. All of these 
were dealt with in the regular bill, if we could get it before the 
House. But this piecemeal approach doesn't work. And this bill surely 
won't address the numerous other homeland security challenges facing 
the country that range from emergency preparedness, to immigration 
enforcement, to cybersecurity. Simply put, this bill does nothing to 
make up for the fact that the fiscal 2011 Homeland Security bill is 
nowhere in sight.
  Why are we taking up this piecemeal approach? So it's all about, I 
guess, politics. It's all about politics. I ask the majority, where's 
the bill? Bring us the bill. We can amend it with this supplemental, 
make a modest change in the bill. Just bring us the bill.
  Madam Speaker, our country's facing many grave threats to our 
security. In the wake of the Christmas Day, Times Square, and Fort Hood 
attacks, and with a drug war waging along our border, it's a complete 
dereliction of duty by the Democrat majority to avoid moving the fiscal 
2011 Homeland Security appropriations bill.
  So let's be absolutely clear about what we are doing here today. Yes, 
we are improving, we would improve the House Democrats' incomplete and 
deficit-increasing border security supplemental, but this bill won't 
take effect until next year. Why are we here? According to the 
nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, not a single dime of this bill 
will be spent until fiscal 2011.
  If they had brought forth the Homeland Security appropriations bill 
for the whole Department, we could have avoided a supplemental 
altogether. We could have made the changes in that bill that this bill 
suggests, perhaps, and all would have been fine. Homeland security 
would have again reached the importance that it has in the past. 
Instead, now homeland security is sort of a secondary thought, 
apparently, by the majority, because they won't bring us the bill.
  So what that tells me is that we should be addressing all of our 
homeland security issues here today, not just putting a Band-Aid on 
some of our urgent border security needs with this supplemental. In 
fact, this supplemental, as I have said, might have made a very 
worthwhile amendment to the full security appropriations bill if the 
majority would bring it out and let it be discussed. But they control 
the rules, and they've said, no, we don't want to discuss the whole 
matter of homeland security. We want to address just these small pieces 
of it.
  So again we ask, where's the bill and why are we here? The fact of 
the matter is that the Democrat majority should be governing and 
Congress should be addressing our urgent security needs in the most 
responsible and disciplined way possible. Sadly, as

[[Page H6586]]

demonstrated by the Democrat majority's repeated attempts to bend the 
rules and their lethargic pace and inaction on critical security issues 
like funding for our brave troops, that is certainly not the case this 
year. The bottom line is we desperately need to get our homeland 
security right. We need to address our security needs with real 
solutions, not partial fixes that circumvent regular order and that 
employ questionable offsets, as this bill does.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, our distinguished ranking 
minority member has asked a legitimate question, and that is, where is 
the 2011 regular Homeland Security bill? He says it's nowhere in sight. 
He knows very well it's clearly in sight. The 2011 Homeland Security 
appropriations bill has been marked up in subcommittee. It's been put 
together with full bipartisan participation. It directly addresses the 
Coast Guard and border security matters that he has stressed. And this 
emergency measure here today in no way detracts from that.
  But this is an emergency. This is something that needs to be urgently 
addressed. Unfortunately, the Senate earlier stripped out these border 
provisions from the supplemental appropriations bill, and so we are 
here today passing this and getting this done at the earliest possible 
moment.

                              {time}  1030

  I would now like to yield 2 minutes to a subcommittee member who has 
been an important participant in putting this effort together, the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Rodriguez).
  Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the chairman for his 
great work on this issue. He has been the champion on these issues and 
responsive to the needs of our borders.
  Border security is one of my highest priorities. I represent 785 
miles of the Mexican border, more border with Mexico than any other 
Member of Congress. As the vice chairman of the Homeland Security 
Appropriations Committee, we have made making our border more secure a 
high priority.
  Earlier this month, the House passed a supplemental appropriations 
bill that continued funding for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and 
in addition included $701 million in much-needed border security 
funding. This is funding that our men and women on the border are 
asking for and need to get the job done. We all know the violence in 
Mexico has escalated. We need to ensure the U.S. borders are not left 
vulnerable.
  This new version is much smaller than the previous one cut by the 
Senate. This bill does not have the funding for Operation Stonegarden, 
a much-needed program supported by many bipartisan Members. 
Nonetheless, I support the chairman on his effort and thank him for his 
leadership.
  This bill will target funds just as the previous House-passed 
supplemental did. This includes an additional 1,000 Border Patrol 
agents and 250 additional officers at our land ports of entry, which 
are critical and important at this point in time. This is a significant 
step towards securing our border, and I want to thank the chairman for 
his leadership in this area and ensuring that the border becomes a 
priority.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the ranking Republican on the full committee, the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Lewis).
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Madam Speaker, I very much appreciate my 
colleague yielding. I thank not only the gentleman for yielding, but 
the chairman as well, for their cooperative working relationship with 
me. On the other hand, Madam Speaker, it really pains me to have to be 
here today and comment on this emergency bill.
  Securing our borders, thwarting ruthless drug cartels, and enforcing 
immigration laws should unquestionably be among our highest priorities. 
But why are we here today, with only seven weeks remaining in this 
fiscal year, debating a supplemental that CBO says will not take effect 
until next year? So we are going to solve a problem for 2010 that can't 
even begin to be enforced until next year. This bill will have to go 
back to the Senate because of the way it is structured.
  Meanwhile, there is no plan to complete the vital FY 2011 Homeland 
Security and Defense appropriations bills. The chairman mentioned that 
the homeland bill had been marked up, et cetera, but it will not be in 
the full committee, no chance to amend it on the floor, et cetera. It 
is business as usual.
  This bill is only on the floor today to allow the Democratic majority 
to claim that they care about border security. It won't go into effect 
soon. It won't solve our border problems, and it makes a mockery of our 
annual appropriations process, where these problems should be handled.

  Even the bill's $600 million worth of new spending is paid for with 
questionable tactics. Avoiding cuts to wasteful government spending, 
the Democratic majority is penalizing businesses with increased fees. 
How are de facto tax increases going to increase jobs and help our 
economy? And we will be paying for these so-called emergency funds for 
some time because they will result in increased operating costs for 
future years as well.
  Madam Speaker, with the drug war continuing to escalate along the 
Southwest border and the States clamoring for help, and with the cost 
of illegal immigration, the American people expect real solutions from 
Congress. Instead, we have another round of throwing money at problems 
with no real understanding of how we are going to get out of this mess.
  We should have already completed fiscal year 2011 appropriation bills 
for homeland security and defense, as has been suggested, and taken 
care of these problems in an orderly and rational way. Instead, we are 
left with haphazard schemes that seem more like political cover than 
real budget solutions to our security. This is not the way the Congress 
should get its work done.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Cuellar), another of our border members, and 
the chairman of our authorizing Subcommittee on Border, Maritime and 
Global Counterterrorism.
  Mr. CUELLAR. Madam Speaker, I certainly want to thank the chairman, 
Chairman Price, for the leadership in this emergency funding to be 
allocated to the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of 
Justice for enhanced Southern border security. And to all the border 
members, I as a border member understand why this is very important. 
Also I want to thank the ranking member, Mr. Lewis, and also Mr. 
Rogers, for the work they are doing on this issue also.
  We join here today at a critical juncture of our border and homeland 
security. Now more than ever we need to allocate additional resources 
to our Nation's border. As the chairman of the Homeland Security 
Subcommittee for Border, Maritime and Global Counterterrorism, and as a 
Congressman that represents 250 miles of the Texas-Mexico border, where 
I drink the water, breathe the air, understand the border very well, I 
can tell you that the communities I represent are on the front line of 
our Nation's border and homeland security.
  I recently got an official briefing by the Assistant Secretary of 
ICE, Mr. Morton, and got some of the most up-to-date threats facing us 
on our border. And certainly for our Members, I sure would like to show 
you some videos for anybody interested in seeing what is happening 
across the river.

  The threat is real, and we need to take action now, whether it is the 
1,000 Border Patrol agents, the ICE agents, ATF, judiciary, or 
prosecutors that we are trying to add to CBP for our land ports and our 
airports, this is important.
  I am a little disappointed that the Senate took out the Operation 
Stonegarden, but we are working with Chairman Price to put that money 
back because that money is important for our local law enforcement.
  So, Madam Speaker, as a member of the border delegation, I certainly 
ask the House and Senate leadership to support this and other border 
security funding. This is not a Texas issue, nor a partisan issue. This 
is an American issue for the safety.
  So we stand up today for our communities, for our Federal, State, and 
local law enforcement to give them the additional resources that they 
need to secure our border.

[[Page H6587]]

  Finally, this is one step, and a critical step, forward in our 
ability to detect, deter, and disrupt illegal activity along the U.S.-
Mexico border.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I would now like to yield 
2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Arizona (Ms. Giffords), another 
border member who from her first day here has worked tirelessly on this 
border security issue.
  Ms. GIFFORDS. Thank you, Chairman Price, I appreciate your leadership 
on this issue, and the other border members who appreciate this 
difficult situation that we have.
  Repeatedly we heard from our colleagues across the aisle, why are we 
here? Why are we here? Well, we are here because we are sent here by 
our constituents to be their voices in Washington. And my constituents 
are the most heavily impacted in terms of illegal immigration. My 
sector had over 242,000 apprehensions, over 1.2 million pounds of 
marijuana seized last year. Mr. Chairman, that is why we are here.
  We are here because residents in my district are sick and tired of 
all of the partisan bickering and the political games around securing 
the U.S.-Mexico border. That is why we are here.
  We heard from across the aisle it is all about politics. Well, let me 
tell you about politics. This is the third time that we are here. The 
first time we were here on July 1st, the second time on July 28th, and 
now here on August 10th. The House is saying yes to more Border Patrol 
agents on the ground. We are saying yes to agents at the ports of 
entry. We are saying yes to more forward operating bases.
  Why are we here? We are here because the Congress cannot turn its 
back on the American people, and those people who are most heavily 
impacted by illegal immigration. We are here because the Senate has 
refused to do the responsible thing and yet again for the third time 
has sent this back to us.
  Politics? Well, the Senate needs to come back and deal with this 
issue. For all of the talk about securing the border and protecting 
American citizens, here we have an opportunity to actually do that, and 
we are not.
  We are here because my constituents are sick and tired of all the 
political rhetoric. They want to see us get the job done.
  This should be a bipartisan issue. I urge the Senate to return 
immediately to pass this bill.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Will the gentlelady yield?
  Ms. GIFFORDS. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I yield the gentlelady 2 additional minutes.
  Ms. GIFFORDS. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.

                              {time}  1040

  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Is the gentlelady aware that the President 
proposed to cut the Border Patrol in his budget submission to the 
Congress?
  Ms. GIFFORDS. To me, it doesn't matter what the President of the 
United States proposes along the U.S.-Mexico border. I am a Member of 
the United States Congress. I am sent here by my constituents to fight 
for their needs. That is why I repeatedly asked for the National Guard 
to be deployed to the border.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Reclaiming my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman has the time; the gentleman 
yielded to her.
  Ms. GIFFORDS. That is why it was so important to have the National 
Guard deployed on the border. We are here because today the National 
Guard is deploying to Arizona and the Southwest border. They were 
designed to be deployed not in a vacuum but with increased members of 
the Border Patrol that will be trained, that will have equipment, that 
will have----
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Wouldn't the gentlelady prefer that the 
Congress pass the whole bill for the Department of Homeland Security 
rather than this piecemeal approach?
  Ms. GIFFORDS. Madam Speaker, for my constituents, the people that 
reside in my district, what matters is that we get the job done. They 
don't care about all of the partisan back and forth and this and that, 
what happens here.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. The point is that we are not getting the job 
done because we will not pass the regular bill.
  Ms. GIFFORDS. This is my time, sir.
  When the National Guard was blindly deployed early this month--which 
took a lot of work from many of us to have the National Guard back on 
the border--they were designed to be deployed not in a vacuum. They 
were designed to have members of our Border Patrol trained up so that 
the Guard wouldn't have to be there forever and that we would have 
increased forward operating bases, that we would have an increased 
aerial surveillance system, that we would have a beefing up at the 
ports of entry.
  This was all designed with this emergency supplemental funding in 
mind, and the Senate blew it again. This is not a partisan issue. This 
is something that Democrats and Republicans can do to fight for what's 
right for the people of America.
  Madam Speaker, I serve on the House Armed Services Committee. We pass 
very large budgets securing America's interests, and it is critical 
that we get this job done.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Madam Speaker, I understand the gentlelady from Arizona's 
frustrations. In fact, I sympathize with her. I made the same arguments 
she has just made in trying to bring up to the floor of this House the 
funding bill for the entire Department of Homeland Security, for the 
Coast Guard and for the Secret Service and for the Border Patrol and 
for all of the other agencies, the 22 that make up the Department. I 
made those arguments: Why are we wasting time? Let's get on with it. 
And yet the majority will not bring up the bill that funds the whole 
Department.
  We could have cured this months ago. It's been 6 weeks, Madam 
Speaker, since we passed the bill in the subcommittee that would have 
taken care of all these problems.
  And, yes, I want to see politics out of it, too, but you're in 
control, and you won't let us bring that bill to the floor. Instead, we 
are faced with this little piecemeal bill here, trying to correct the 
President's slash of the Border Patrol when he submitted his budget to 
the Congress.
  So, yes, I sympathize with the gentlelady. I wish we could get that 
bill up here, too, and stop playing politics with national security.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a 
distinguished member of our authorizing committee, Representative 
Jackson Lee.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, I am very glad that 
Democrats are doing the responsible thing, and we know we need to be 
doing more. This is an important step because it substitutes for some 
of the misguided legislative initiatives that States are promoting, 
such as Arizona and Texas.
  I know there is a sense of desperation, but we on this side of the 
border have to ensure and have to be able to move forward on border 
security, and as well for those of us who are arguing vigorously for 
the comprehensive approach, addressing the needs of so many who are 
here simply wanting to work. We have to look to both directions.
  So I am rising to support this bill and this legislation, recognizing 
that there are people who are crying their heart out, saying when is 
this Congress going to do comprehensive immigration reform? But just as 
we have to clean this up, we've got a problem in those on the other 
side of the aisle not recognizing that we have to do this as a total 
package. But the Border Patrol agents funding, the CBP funding, $68 
million to hire 250 new Customs and Border Protection personnel is 
important. The tactical communications is important.
  For those of us who live on the border, who have been to the border, 
who know border areas, we understand that the value of this is also to 
save lives, save the many people who are coming here for work but are 
dying in the desert, children, women who are coming here--yes, out of 
desperation, but still they are coming and dying in these deserts. This 
has to be stopped.

[[Page H6588]]

  We do need more monies for ATF and DEA. In my own city of Houston, it 
is a center point, unfortunately, for a lot of drug cartels and 
gunrunning. So I know that there is an emergency. It is relevant to do 
this today.
  But I wish my friends as well would stop blocking us from looking 
holistically at real, comprehensive immigration reform, so that people 
who want to come here to work can, so that young people who want to go 
to school can, so that families who are innocent and want to be here 
without being jeopardized by phony laws and can stay here and pay and 
invest into this Nation.
  I support this legislation.
  Madam Speaker, I am pleased to come before you today in support of 
H.R. 6080, the ``Emergency Border Security Supplemental Appropriations 
Act of 2010,''--a bill that appropriates $600 million for border 
security activities along the Southwest Border, including $254 million 
for Customs and Border Protection, of which $176 million would be used 
to hire additional border patrol agents, as well as $196 million for 
the Justice Department, and $80 million for Immigration and Customs 
Enforcement.
  As Chairwoman of the Homeland Security Transportation Security & 
Infrastructure Protection Subcommittee, I want to thank Chairman Obey 
and Ranking Member Lewis for your leadership on this timely 
legislation. This is an important bill that provides the necessary 
funding that is essential to the assistance our Border States so 
greatly needs.
  Our Border States are frustrated and in need of targeted assistance. 
In recent months, I have attended a number of different hearings, 
meetings with local and state officials, and press conferences on 
immigration, combating the drug trade, and improving the border, and in 
almost all instances, I have heard the same comment: Border States are 
frustrated. The deeply misguided Arizona Law, (SB1070) for example, is 
an expression of that frustration. Unless we want to see more of a 
backlash, we in the Federal Government must do more to help our Border 
States, which is vital to securing our nation and upholding our 
immigration laws, and helping local and state officials secure our 
Border States.
  The United States continues to fight the battle against the powerful 
drug trafficking organizations that have plagued our sister cities just 
across the border with violence. We have been fortunate thus far that 
for the most part the violence has not spilled over into the United 
States, but we cannot depend on being insulated forever. Instability 
abroad is a danger to stability at home, and we have a vested interest 
in helping our neighbors to the southwest power away from the criminal 
organizations that have threatened the safety of their citizens and 
brought drugs into our country.
  First of all, we need to do more than just provide ``boots on the 
ground'' to help secure our borders. While deterrence through 
additional personnel is essential to improving security, several 
members of the law enforcement community have stressed the importance 
of providing more resources for investigators and detectives, who can 
help to ferret out and dismantle the criminal activities taking place 
on our borders.
  Moreover, while federal agencies have improved their coordination 
with the Border States, communication within local and State 
authorities continues to be problematic. Communication in disperse 
rural areas presents a particular challenge. At a hearing on the Merida 
Initiative, I heard the moving testimony of a rancher from rural 
Arizona, Mr. Bill McDonald. He pointed out how a lack of resources and 
a rapid turnover rate make communication extremely important, but 
extremely lacking. These rural areas, and the people who live there, 
are in many cases the most vulnerable to human traffickers and drug 
traffickers.
  There is a desperate need for Border States to receive the necessary 
support to effectively secure our borders from threats and ensure a 
safe and stable environment for our border residents. More robust, well 
funded, and well resourced law enforcement systems are exactly what our 
Border States and residents demand.
  These appropriations to improve law enforcement efforts at our Border 
States are only a small part of more comprehensive reforms to our 
immigration system. Reforms that the American people are crying out for 
and that I sincerely hope my fellow Members will stand behind. This 
legislation honors our first responsibility to protect the American 
people by giving law enforcement the tools they need to address the 
threat of violence near the U.S.-Mexico border. With investments in 
expanding the number of Border Patrol agents and Customs and Border 
Protection officers, improving our border surveillance efforts, and 
increasing resources for anti-smuggling investigations, we are tackling 
our border security challenges head on. This is one of the central 
pillars of bipartisan comprehensive immigration reform.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired. 
Members should heed the gavel.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Smith 
of Texas.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. I want to thank the gentleman from Kentucky, a 
senior member of the Appropriations Committee, for yielding me time.
  Madam Speaker, I support the passage of this bill. Additional funds 
for border security are always a step in the right direction, but if 
the Democrats were serious about immigration enforcement, they would 
include more funds for interior enforcement.
  U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement says it doesn't have enough 
resources to enforce our immigration laws, yet this bill contains no 
funds for work-site enforcement that is needed to protect jobs for 
citizens and legal immigrants.
  Last week, an illegal immigrant drunk driver killed a nun and 
critically injured two others. He had two earlier convictions for drunk 
driving. If ICE had sufficient funds for enforcement, this tragedy 
could have been avoided.
  Madam Speaker, in many ways, this bill represents an opportunity 
lost, and I regret that even though I support passage of the bill.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Madam Speaker, I will yield myself such time 
as I may consume in closing.
  Again, I wish we had, Madam Speaker, the bill that funds the entire 
Department of Homeland Security before us instead of this piecemeal 
approach. I don't fathom why the majority will not bring forth that 
bill that's been marked up since 47 days ago--6 weeks--and yet they 
refuse to bring it out. Instead, they bring this piecemeal bill out 
there that only deals with a particular aspect of the entire Homeland 
Security bill.
  And, number two, as I've said before, even if we pass this bill here, 
it still has to go back to the Senate before it can become law, and 
they're gone until the middle of September. And this bill won't spend 
any money until next year anyway.
  So that's why I say why are we doing it this way? Why can't we just 
bring out the bill and deal with it? It includes all of this as well.
  And yet the majority refuses to do that. It's all about politics, 
Madam Speaker. We are all concerned about that border, about the crime 
that is taking place, about the illicit drugs coming across, illegal 
people coming across. And we have devoted so much of the Nation's 
energy and monies to try to seal that border to little effect, it 
seems.
  And yet if we had the whole Department of Homeland Security budget 
here on the floor so that we could at once deal with Coast Guard, with 
Secret Service, with Border Patrol, with enforcement of the laws 
against illegal immigration, if we had all of those matters before us, 
we could deal with it holistically. But they won't do it. Instead, we 
have this bill which won't become law until next year anyway. So I ask 
the Speaker, why did you call us back in session on this bill knowing 
that it could not become law until next year anyway? Puzzlement.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1050

  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, it seems that a good part 
of the debate this morning has been about what this bill is not. Both 
sides have mentioned the need for comprehensive immigration reform, and 
I couldn't agree more. We cannot enforce our way out of this 
immigration challenge. I have never met a border security officer who 
claims otherwise.
  This is a much broader challenge than simply enforcement or securing 
the border. I would hope most Members understand that and understand 
the urgency of moving ahead on comprehensive immigration reform.
  What is before us this morning is an emergency measure dealing with 
some border security challenges arising from the cartel violence and 
gang activity in Mexico which requires an emergency response, an 
immediate response, and a targeted response. That is what this bill 
provides.

[[Page H6589]]

  We have also heard a great deal about the 2011 Homeland Security 
Appropriations bill. Indeed, this emergency supplemental is not the 
regular bill. Nor is it a substitute for the regular bill. In fact, it 
is just what it says, it is a supplement to ongoing appropriations, a 
supplement designed to address this critical situation out on the 
southwest border which our colleagues on the border have testified to 
very convincingly here this morning.
  The 2011 Homeland Security bill is alive and well. It has been 
assembled on a bipartisan basis after months of hearings and 
discussions. It has been approved at the subcommittee level, and 
Members will be seeing that bill very shortly. And believe me, on many 
of these items in the supplemental, you will be hearing from us again: 
the BEST teams, the border enforcement security task forces, a proven 
device; the forward-operating bases; and, of course, the beefing up of 
the Border Patrol and the cadre of CBP officers. All of these things 
are ongoing challenges, but they are also immediate challenges.
  This is an important supplemental to the regular bill. This was true 
when we first passed it in early July, and it is still true today. 
Today we are compensating for the fact that border security was dropped 
from the supplemental appropriations bill by the Senate. But the 
Senate, fortunately, in recent days passed the bill before us. We are 
now passing the bill that they passed so as to expedite the targeting 
of these funds for this immediate problem in the Southwest. This is a 
much-needed bill. We have had ample testimony to that effect. I urge my 
colleagues to support it here this morning.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Madam Speaker, today, the House is 
considering H.R. 6080, legislation to provide $600 million for 
increased security activities at our Nation's southwest border. As 
Chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security, I have visited the 
U.S.-Mexico border and heard the concerns of local residents firsthand. 
I understand the imperative for more resources to combat the drug 
cartels and the threat of potential violence in the region. Therefore, 
I support the bill before the House today.
  H.R. 6080 is an integral part of providing the Department of Homeland 
Security and its federal partners with additional personnel and 
equipment necessary to combat violence and better secure America's 
borders. Specifically, H.R. 6080 provides funding to put more boots on 
the ground for Customs and Border Protection (CBP), including 
additional Border Patrol agents and CBP officers who secure the areas 
at and between our ports of entry. Increased interdictions along the 
border translate into increased additional referrals for Immigration 
and Customs Enforcement (ICE). I am pleased that H.R. 6080 also 
provides funding for additional ICE agents, analysts, and support 
personnel. These resources will aid ICE in identifying and dismantling 
cross-border criminal networks.
  H.R. 6080 also provides for additional equipment, such as two 
unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) and forward operating bases for CBP. 
Communications in remote areas along the border is a persistent 
problem, and the bill helps address this problem by including funding 
for enhanced tactical communications in the area.
  Providing additional resources is not a panacea for our border 
security problems, however. In the absence of a comprehensive border 
security strategy, this kind of supplemental funding will only do so 
much. Rather than a piecemeal approach, the Department of Homeland 
Security must develop and implement a border security strategy that 
contemplates all border security threats facing our Nation and 
allocates our border security resources accordingly.
  Again, Madam Speaker, I support H.R. 6080 and urge my colleagues to 
do so as well.
  Mr. REYES. Madam Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to vote 
in favor of the revised Emergency Border Security Supplemental 
Appropriations Act of 2010.
  While this legislation represents a scaled-down version of bill that 
the House has twice passed--once in the overall FY10 Emergency 
Supplemental Appropriations bill and again in the Emergency Border 
Security Supplemental bill by voice vote on July 28--the bill still 
provides some of the resources necessary to address the emergency at 
our southwest border. Because of House leadership on this issue, our 
colleagues in the Senate responded with a $600 million package to 
secure our nation's borders. Now, we must respond in kind.
  The challenges our communities face each and every day along the 
border are an emergency, and we need to do all we can to ensure the 
safety and security of our 2,000-mile long border with Mexico.
  While the Senate version of the bill provides $100 million fewer 
resources for the border and fewer CBP officers for land ports of entry 
than many of us who represent border districts would have liked, these 
funds will still address urgent needs on our southwest border.
  I ask my colleagues to seriously consider the importance of giving 
our law enforcement officers who are working along the border the 
resources they need to enhance our border security. In particular, the 
250 additional Customs and Border Patrol Officers are needed because 
GAO estimates that we need thousands more officers in order to fully 
staff our ports of entry. The 250 increase is a step in the right 
direction.
  Increasing staffing of our CBP Officers at land ports of entry is 
critical both to expedite the flow of trade and commerce and more 
effectively screen out illicit drugs, weapons, human smugglers, and any 
other potential criminals. It would also give us greater ability to 
conduct southbound checks so that we can also curb the supply of arms, 
illegal narcotics and cash going into Mexico and fueling violence 
there.
  Residents in our border states know this is an emergency because they 
live it each and every day. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle to act today to secure our borders by voting in favor of the 
Emergency Border Security Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2010.
  Mr. HOLT. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 6080, which will 
provide $600 million to bolster ongoing security efforts and to reduce 
violence along our nation's southern border.
  Like many of my constituents, I am concerned about the influx of 
illegal immigrants into America. The level of violence stemming from 
the drug trade in Mexico, which has spilled over into the Southwest, is 
unacceptable. The Obama administration has committed more than 17,000 
border patrol agents to the southern border, a historic high, yet we 
must do more.
  The bill will provide $176 million for 1,000 additional Border Patrol 
agents to be deployed along the southwest border and $68 million to 
hire 250 new Customs and Border Protection officers at ports of entry 
along the border. It also will fund two new unmanned aerial vehicles 
for Customs and Border Protection to monitor the border.
  The bill will provide $80 million for Immigration and Customs 
Enforcement to hire more than 250 special agents, investigators, 
intelligence analysts, and mission support staff to investigate and 
reduce narcotics smuggling and associated violence.
  Additional funding will go to the U.S. Marshals Service, the Bureau 
of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms' Project Gunrunner, the Drug 
Enforcement Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and to the 
Federal government's efforts to incarcerate criminal illegal immigrants 
and to reduce the backlog in the nation's immigration courts.
  Importantly, this bill is fully paid for by increasing fees for visas 
that permit foreign workers to work in the United States and by 
reallocating $100 million of unspent funds at the Department of 
Homeland Security. These fee increases would apply only to companies 
with more than 50 employees with a workforce predominantly comprised of 
visa-holding foreign workers.
  The history of America is a history of immigration and of immigrants. 
From the first settlers in Jamestown and Plymouth to the masses greeted 
by the Statue of Liberty and Ellis Island fleeing poverty and 
persecution in the old world, millions have sought a new life in 
America. Immigrants continue to this day to be a vital part of our 
social fabric and a key contributor to economic growth. While Congress 
needs to address immigration reform in a comprehensive manner, our 
first priority must be securing our borders by providing additional 
tools and resources to those who patrol the border.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance 
of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price) that the House suspend the 
rules and pass the bill, H.R. 6080.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the 
rules were suspended and the bill was passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________