[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.
____________________