[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 77 (Wednesday, June 1, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H3832-H3855]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2012

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 287 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 2017.

                              {time}  1535


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 2017) making appropriations for the Department of Homeland 
Security for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2012, and for other 
purposes, with Mr. Dreier in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the 
first time.
  The gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Aderholt) and the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Price) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Alabama.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  It is my honor to present the fiscal year 2012 appropriations bill 
for the Department of Homeland Security.
  This bill before us today, perhaps more than any other bill, 
exemplifies the difficult choices that need to be made in order to 
address our Nation's fiscal crisis.
  This bill demonstrates how we can fully fund vital security programs 
while also reducing spending overall. Furthermore, this bill does not 
represent a false choice between fiscal responsibility and security. 
Both are national security priorities, and both are vigorously 
addressed in this bill.
  I am under no illusion that everyone here in this Chamber will agree 
with the spending reductions included in this legislation; but now, 
more than ever, our government needs fiscal discipline, and this bill 
takes the necessary steps toward that goal.
  The bottom line: more money and more government do not equal more 
security. So in this time of skyrocketing debt and persistent threats, 
we must get our homeland security priorities right.
  The bill before us today provides $40.6 billion in discretionary 
funding, or almost $3 billion, which is 7 percent below the request, 
and $1.1 billion, or almost 3 percent below the fiscal year 2011 level. 
In addition, the bill also includes $1 billion in offset, emergency 
supplemental funding for FEMA's disaster relief fund immediately upon 
enactment. There are no earmarks that are set out in this bill or the 
accompanying report.
  The bill places priority on funding our Nation's greatest security 
needs--fully funding all frontline personnel such as Border Patrol, CBP 
officers, ICE officers, Coast Guard military personnel, and Secret 
Service agents, and fully funding all intelligence, watchlisting, and 
threat targeting functions.
  In addition, the bill provides funding where the administration and 
the Department of Homeland Security have failed. This bill makes up for 
the nearly $650 million shortfall handed to us by the Department 
through phony, unauthorized fee collections. It is irresponsible for 
the administration to submit a budget based on the illusion that 
Congress is going to raise taxes or fees in this current economy.
  This bill also addresses the wholly inadequate request for disaster 
relief funding and provides the resources to help our communities 
recover from natural disasters, like the unprecedented flooding across 
the Mississippi

[[Page H3833]]

River Valley; the tornadoes that devastated my home State of Alabama a 
few weeks ago; and the horrific tornado that destroyed much of Joplin, 
Missouri, just a little over a week ago.
  However, programs that have been underperforming and failing to 
execute their budgets or which have repeatedly ignored congressional 
directives to measure their results are significantly reduced.
  In short, this bill places a priority on the taxpayers' limited 
dollars towards the security programs that will have an immediate 
impact upon our national security and responsibly reduces spending 
wherever possible.
  The bill is constructed around three core priorities: number one, 
fiscal discipline; number two, targeted investments in security 
operations and disaster relief; and, number three, meaningful, hard-
hitting oversight.
  First on fiscal discipline. The bill goes further than simply cutting 
spending. This bill insists upon real reform--reform in how the 
Department justifies its budget; reform on how FEMA manages its first 
responder grants; and reform on how FEMA, the Department, and the 
administration budget for the costs of disaster relief.

                              {time}  1540

  Number two, on security, the bill includes nearly $150 million worth 
of targeted investments above the budget request for security 
operations--the frontline programs that are among the most critical at 
keeping our Nation secure and these activities that directly countered 
recent terrorist attacks and address known threats.
  On disaster relief, I have seen firsthand what natural disasters can 
do over the past few weeks, and I can tell you that my constituents in 
Alabama are expecting FEMA to get it right. So this bill picks up from 
where we left off in FY 2011 and provides an increase of $850 million 
above the request and within the budget for FEMA's disaster relief fund 
to address the known and expected cost of disasters in FY 2012. And as 
we added unanimously in our full committee markup of the bill last 
week, $1 billion in offset, emergency supplemental funding is provided 
to FEMA to ensure that disaster relief efforts stay on track this year 
and well into 2012.
  And, three, finally, is oversight. Our subcommittee has a long 
tradition of insisting upon results for each and every taxpayer dollar 
that is appropriated. This is a testament to the previous leadership on 
this subcommittee that was exhibited by our founding chairman of this 
subcommittee, Chairman Rogers, and also my predecessor and now the 
subcommittee's ranking member, Mr. Price.
  This bill continues the dedication to frontline security programs and 
robust oversight by including numerous spend plan requirements, 
reporting requirements, and operational requirements, such as border 
patrol staffing levels and an increase to ICE's detention capacity.
  Now, I know there has been some criticism on the funding level this 
bill is recommending for FEMA's first responder grants. Let me 
emphasize that there is more than $13 billion in the pipeline that has 
not been spent, but FEMA has yet to establish a credible method for 
measuring the impact of these grants.
  So this bill takes bold steps to get FEMA's fiscal house in order--
requiring accountability for every dollar spent, requiring a plan for 
drawing down the enormous unexpended balances, consolidating 
duplicative grant programs, putting priority on high-risk needs, and 
rewarding programs like the Emergency Management Performance Grants 
that actually spend their funds wisely and are willing to measure their 
results.
  I know how important first responders are to this Nation. We see it 
every day. But we simply cannot keep on throwing money into a clogged 
pipeline when our debt is soaring out of control. I believe it's our 
duty to reform these grant programs.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill is about putting a priority on limited 
dollars and robustly supporting the most essential functions. The 
Department of Homeland Security, with all its critical missions, is not 
immune from fiscal discipline. That means the Department has to find 
the most cost-effective way to meet its mission requirements. The 
American people are demanding no less.
  In closing, let me thank Ranking Member Price. Although we have 
certainly had a turbulent year, he has been a statesman and a true 
partner as we worked on this vital bill. I sincerely thank him for his 
input and his contributions that he has made on this bill.
  In addition, I would like to thank the distinguished chairman and 
ranking member of the full committee, Chairman Hal Rogers and Ranking 
Member Norm Dicks. As much as we have had to make difficult choices and 
tradeoffs at subcommittee level, I know that both of these gentlemen 
have had to make much more difficult decisions dealing with all 12 
subcommittee budgets.
  Finally, I would like to take a moment to thank the committee staff 
for their hard work on this bill, namely: Stephanie Gupta and Paul Cox 
on the minority staff; and Jeff Ashford, Kris Mallard, Kathy Kraninger, 
Miles Taylor, Rebecca Ore, Brian Rell, Mark Dawson, Anne Marie Malecha, 
and Ben Nicholson, who is the clerk of this committee, on the majority 
side.
  I believe this bill reflects our best efforts to address our Nation's 
most urgent needs: security and fiscal discipline. I urge my colleagues 
to support this measure.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time 
as I may utilize.
  Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that we're considering the fiscal year 
2012 Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill in a timely 
fashion and under an open rule. Chairman Aderholt has been a true 
professional in the drafting of this bill, and I appreciate his 
willingness to include input from our side all along the way. And I 
certainly want to share in his commendation of all of our staff on both 
sides of the aisle.
  For the second year in a row, overall funding for the Department of 
Homeland Security will drop. The bill decreases funding for Homeland 
Security by 6.8 percent below the President's request and essentially 
returns funding to the 2009 level, which is concerning to many people, 
including myself.
  This allocation has required Chairman Aderholt to make some tough 
decisions. He has been able to retain adequate funding for the 
frontline employees of the Department of Homeland Security to continue 
conducting critical operations along our borders, to protect our 
Nation's airports and seaports, and to respond to the wave of natural 
disasters that our country has experienced this spring.
  The same, however, is not true, unfortunately, of Homeland Security 
grant programs, which are cut radically. Providing a total of $1 
billion for all State and local grants, or 65 percent below the 
President's request, and providing $350 million for firefighter 
assistance grants--that's almost 50 percent below an already reduced 
request--breaks faith with the States and localities that depend on us 
as partners to secure our communities. These cuts will be especially 
harmful as many of our States and municipalities are being forced to 
slash their own budgets.
  For example, according to the International Association of Fire 
Fighters, 1,600 fewer local firefighters will be on the job if the cuts 
in this bill are enacted. I can't conceive of any defensible argument 
for cuts of this magnitude, cuts that come on top of cuts to grants 
already made in the fiscal 2011 appropriations. They will do great 
damage to local preparedness, to emergency response in our communities, 
and to the recovering economy.
  These grant programs equip our State and local partners to be ready 
for a disaster so they can mitigate its impact and respond effectively. 
While this bill rightly seeks to help States and localities rebuild 
after a disaster strikes, it decimates the work required to prepare for 
a disaster before it happens. That exposes our communities to greater 
risk, and it potentially raises the cost of attacks and disasters when 
they do occur. And we shouldn't ignore the impact of first responder 
layoffs on our economic recovery.
  This bill recommends other drastic reductions, for example, by 
cutting research funding in half. At this level, the Science and 
Technology Directorate informed us that it would concentrate its 
remaining resources on

[[Page H3834]]

aviation security and explosive detection devices and on two cutting-
edge, near-term research projects. But other critical research 
underway, including research on cyber security, disaster resiliency, 
and detection of chemical and biological threats, this research simply 
wouldn't be funded in 2012, if ever.
  The bill also greatly reduces funds for information technology needs 
and construction activities. It includes no funding for the new DHS 
headquarters that are already under construction and the related lease 
consolidation efforts. We've been told repeatedly by the administration 
that deferring these investments will ultimately affect frontline 
operations and cost us more money in the future, and I believe that 
they are absolutely correct.

                              {time}  1550

  Now, I recognize that the administrations budget left Chairman 
Aderholt some holes to fill, but the real problem here is the bill's 
allocation in the budget resolution. That's thanks to a completely 
unrealistic spending cap set by the House Republican budget. We are now 
seeing the real implications of that deeply flawed plan. It simply 
leaves no room to keep departmental operations strong, and at the same 
time to fund our dual responsibility to prepare for and respond to all 
hazards.
  The majority further exacerbated the allocation's inadequacy by 
adding $850 million in disaster relief beyond the President's request 
to respond to recent flooding and tornado emergencies. Now, that's 
fine; that's important to do. But contrary to bipartisan tradition, the 
additional spending was not designated as an emergency for budget 
purposes, and as a result these disaster funds come out of the hide of 
first responder funding.
  We gave the majority two chances to correct this flaw by designating 
the funding increase, that is, the increase beyond the President's 
request, as an emergency, once in last week's appropriation committee 
markup and yesterday in the Rules Committee. Unfortunately, the 
majority refused and passed up the opportunity to get us to a point 
where both parties might be able to support this bill.
  I want to close by reiterating my appreciation for the chairman's 
efforts, for the staff's efforts to work with us on many, many issues 
in this bill, and for their valiant efforts to sustain our frontline 
Federal homeland security operations; but the bill does fall short of 
our obligations in critical aspects. The inadequate allocation makes it 
difficult to repair this bill, but I and other Members will be offering 
amendments to move it in a positive direction.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Murphy).
  Mr. MURPHY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage in a 
colloquy with the gentleman from Alabama about some concerns about the 
Chemical Facilities Antiterrorism Standards, known as CFATS.
  The Committee on Energy and Commerce has voted by more than two-
thirds to favorably report to the House a bill to extend authorization 
for CFATS through fiscal year 2017. Our bill also contains 
authorizations for appropriations for the full 7 years, and that 
provision conforms to the majority leader's CutGo protocols. I 
recognize the need to fund the CFATS program for the next fiscal year, 
but I'm hoping that the gentleman will provide me with an indication of 
his support for the authorizing committee to get its job done on this 
matter.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. I would be happy to. And I congratulate the Energy and 
Commerce Committee on pursuing the CFATS authorization on an expedited 
basis this year. We do hope and expect that CFATS will be authorized 
under regular order prior to the start of the new fiscal year. However, 
it was important that we include funding for the 2012 appropriation 
bill for CFATS, and we do not want that line item to appear to be in 
conflict with the currently enacted sunset date of October 4, 2011.
  I look forward to a long-term authorization extension so that these 
chemical facilities and the people that work in them can have a long-
range certainty with respect to antiterrorism plans and investments. We 
look forward to a good authorizing bill becoming law in time to guide 
our final 2012 agreements on the CFATS funding.
  Mr. MURPHY of Pennsylvania. I thank the chairman for his support.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 
minutes to the ranking member of our full committee, the distinguished 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks).
  Mr. DICKS. I thank my friend, Ranking Member Price, for yielding.
  I would like to express my appreciation to Chairman Rogers, Chairman 
Aderholt and Ranking Member Price for their work on this bill, and to 
the committee staff that has worked long days and many late nights to 
produce the bill for our consideration today. I would also like to 
commend the majority's effort to accommodate many of the concerns of 
Members on the Democratic side. And I would also like to thank Chairmen 
Rogers and Aderholt for bringing this bill to the floor through the 
regular order and working with us to bring it to the floor with a rule 
that allows Members to offer their amendments.
  At the outset, let me state for the record that I believe the 
allocation for this bill is too low. The bill is about $1.1 billion 
below the FY11 enacted level and $2.9 billion below the President's 
request, and it would represent the second straight year of a declining 
Homeland Security budget.
  Some parts of this bill are very good, and I commend the chairman for 
providing adequate funding for the frontline employees of the 
Department of Homeland Security to continue to conduct critical 
operations along our borders, protect our airports and seaports, and to 
respond to the series of natural disasters we have experienced this 
spring. However, some serious gaps remain. My colleague, Mr. Price, has 
already described in great detail the dangerous reductions in our 
support for the Nation's first responders.
  Also slashed in this bill is the budget for research and development 
activities at the Department. The bill approved by the full committee 
provides less than $400 million for the Science and Technology 
Directorate's Research, Development, Acquisition and Operations 
account, a cut of more than 40 percent. At this level for 2012, S&T has 
informed us that many critical research efforts already under way on 
cybersecurity, disaster resiliency, and detection of chemical and 
biological threats would be halted. America's technological edge is one 
of our great assets, and in the fight against terrorism I believe that 
it would be a mistake to retreat from the aggressive pursuit of new 
solutions.
  I also want to bring my colleagues' attention to another disturbing 
precedent-setting provision of this bill. It would require the 
President to submit a budget amendment for additional disaster relief 
funding 3 months before the balance of available funds reaches $800 
million, and it would require these additional funds to be fully offset 
from discretionary budget accounts. Certainly, Democrats as well as 
Republicans would like to see less reliance on supplemental 
appropriations to fund known disaster relief needs. But when disasters 
strike, victims need help and they need help quickly. We should not 
risk delaying disaster relief because of partisan battles over proposed 
offsets; nor should we create a mechanism that would tie up the relief 
process because a disaster did not do us the courtesy of providing 3 
months' notice.
  During our consideration of the bill, we will have the opportunity to 
address these and other serious flaws, and I am hopeful that we will be 
able to do so.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
chairman of the full Appropriations Committee, the gentleman from 
Kentucky (Mr. Rogers).
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I thank Chairman Aderholt for the time; but, 
more importantly, I thank him for the great work that he has done in 
perfecting this bill and bringing it to the floor, along with the 
accolades that have already been said about the staff and the other 
members of the subcommittee.
  Mr. Chairman, I, of course, rise in support of this bill. When I 
became chairman of this committee, I promised to return to regular 
order, open rules, and the completion of as many appropriations bills 
as possible prior to the August recess; and I intend to stick by that 
promise. And I appreciate the

[[Page H3835]]

cooperation of my ranking member, Mr. Dicks, who has been very, very 
helpful in this process already. I look forward to an open amendment 
process and lively debate over the next several months.
  I also vowed, Mr. Chairman, that we would cut spending wherever 
possible to help balance our budgets. The Appropriations Committee is 
dedicated to the careful stewardship of taxpayer dollars, and you will 
see that in each of the 12 bills we put out this year that will be a 
hallmark, careful stewardship of money.
  We have had to make the most of our very limited resources in all 
areas of government, and that includes the Department of Homeland 
Security. We began this year with the Homeland Security appropriations 
bill because we can all agree that our national security is a number 
one priority. Every day our citizens worry about constant terrorist 
threats, the security of our air and seaports, and the defense of our 
borders; but we also face the very real dangers of uncontrolled 
spending and skyrocketing debt.
  Americans deserve to live and work in a country that will protect not 
only their physical safety, but also their economic livelihood. This 
bill maintains the crucial measures that keep our citizens safe while 
also reining in out-of-control, dangerous deficit spending, providing 
$40.6 billion in total emergency spending for the various programs 
within DHS. This is a decrease of $1.1 billion below last year's level.
  It funds the critical frontline personnel, operations and programs 
needed to uphold the highest levels of national security. Within this 
bill, we have bolstered our immigration and border security efforts, 
funded the maritime and security activities of the Coast Guard, and 
boosted security efforts to address air cargo threats.

                              {time}  1600

  The bill also addresses the President's overtly inadequate request 
for known disaster relief costs. It can be nearly impossible, in fact 
it is impossible, to plan for acts of God. But over the past few weeks, 
Mother Nature has wreaked havoc across our Midwest and South and other 
parts of the country, demonstrating the need for sufficient disaster 
relief funding.
  I'm proud that we have added a billion dollars to the disaster relief 
fund while completely offsetting this increase by taking unused funding 
from the Department of Energy.
  We've significantly reduced or eliminated ineffective and wasteful 
programs while requiring reforms in underperforming programs through 
heightened oversight to get the most out of each and every tax dollar. 
This includes long overdue reform on the State and local grant program 
under the Federal Emergency Management Agency, which has been plagued 
by inefficiency. These grants often remain in Federal coffers for years 
to come. Right now, as you've heard, there is a backlog of more than 
$13 billion in unspent grant funds. Why should we pack a clogged pipe, 
as Chairman Aderholt has said, at a time when we are strapped for money 
as we are.
  This bill reduces funding for that program by $2.1 billion, changing 
the structure and requiring increased measurement and reporting, and 
getting the money out of the pipeline and into the hands of our first 
responders and our local communities and States.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. There is no money for advanced inspection 
technology body scanners or the staff. It prohibits funds to transfer, 
release, or assist in the transfer of Guantanamo detainees to or within 
the U.S., and in accordance with the House rules, there are no earmarks 
in this bill.
  The misleading budget request from the President for DHS included 
undefined and unspecified administrative savings and relied on $650 
million of revenue from fees Congress has not approved. This bill 
follows both the spirit and the letter of the law that we must make 
real budget cuts, and that's what we do in this bill.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I yield 3 minutes to one of our fine 
subcommittee members from California (Ms. Roybal-Allard).
  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this 
bill which irresponsibly slashes over $1 billion from programs that 
protect and support the ability of our local police, firefighters, and 
emergency medical personnel to quickly and adequately respond to a 
disaster or a terrorist attack.
  The destructive flooding across the Mississippi Basin and the 
devastating tornadoes in Alabama and Missouri have demonstrated the 
need for a rapid and effective response to save lives. This is true of 
other parts of our country, like my home city of Los Angeles, which is 
vulnerable to fires and earthquakes and is one of the top 10 targets 
for a terrorist attack.
  My police departments, firefighters, and first responders have said 
that the cuts in this bill will delay their implementation of a badly 
needed interoperable communications system, which is critical to their 
emergency coordination efforts.
  It was the lack of this kind of technology during the 9/11 attacks 
that contributed to hundreds of deaths. The cuts in this bill also 
jeopardize the security of our Nation's ports--the Port of Los Angeles, 
Long Beach, for example, tells us that the cuts to port security grants 
would seriously threaten their ability to protect the port and to 
continue critical security training programs. An attack on this complex 
alone would have devastating consequences on our economy.
  FEMA director Craig Fugate testified before our subcommittee that 
degrading the capabilities of State and local governments would likely 
magnify the impact of a disaster and ultimately increase the total 
costs to taxpayers.
  This bill turns a blind eye to these realities. It is a dangerous 
bill that weakens our national security and undermines the ability of 
our first responders to safely meet the dangerous challenges they face 
every day.
  America cannot cut its way to greater security. Today's realities 
require that our first responders and our Department of Homeland 
Security receive funding commensurate with the scale and the severity 
of the threats America faces.
  I ask my colleagues to join me in opposing H.R. 2017.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Carter).
  Mr. CARTER. I rise today in support of the fiscal year 2012 
Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act. This bill cuts $1.1 
billion from last year's level and $3 billion from the President's 
request while still providing the resources needed to ensure that our 
borders are safe and secure and our homeland is safe and secure.
  All frontline defenders, including the Border Patrol, Immigration and 
Customs Enforcement agents, Coast Guard, military personnel, and Secret 
Service agents are fully funded. In fact, this measure substantially 
increases funding for many of these frontline defenders over the 
President's budget request while eliminating waste in other areas.
  It ensures our borders will be secure by providing both CBP and ICE 
with all necessary resources. It ensures our homeland will be protected 
from terrorist threats by giving TSA additional funds to conduct air 
cargo screening. It ensures that the Federal Emergency Management 
Agency, FEMA, will have the flexibility of funds needed to respond to 
disasters, including the floods along the Mississippi River Valley, the 
tornados that have swept the Nation, and the ongoing wildfires that 
have devastated my home State of Texas.
  This bill also includes 169 oversight actions which will force the 
Obama administration to be accountable to the Congress and ultimately 
to the people of the United States.
  At a time when China owns $1.1 trillion of our publicly held debt, we 
must make hard choices on spending here in D.C. during these difficult 
economic times, just like families across this country do every day.
  I would like to commend Chairman Aderholt and Ranking Member Price 
for their leadership on this critical measure, and I urge my colleagues 
to join in supporting this very important bill.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Frelinghuysen).

[[Page H3836]]

  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I rise in support of the Homeland Security 
appropriations bill.
  As a member of the committee from a 9/11 State, I work daily to 
ensure that our State and Nation are prepared to meet any and all 
potential Homeland Security threats, whether those threats come from 
natural events or from activities of violent international extremists.
  One month after Osama bin Laden was brought to justice, we cannot 
ignore the fact that terrorists are plotting and planning at this very 
moment to harm Americans everywhere. They're waiting for us to let down 
our guard so they can attack our communities and our neighbors.
  Mr. Chairman, it remains a dangerous world. We must remain vigilant.
  However, we must also remember that one of the greatest threats to 
our national security is our growing $14.3 trillion national debt. 
We've heard that from our civilian and military leaders. Consequently, 
our subcommittee has carefully examined the President's $43.5 billion 
request, and we have had to make some hard choices. I congratulate 
Chairman Aderholt and Mr. Price for making those choices.

                              {time}  1610

  In this context, I must say for the record I am concerned about the 
extent of the reductions to FEMA's State and local grant programs 
included in the bill. With that said, and a lot more could be said, I 
also recognize that we have already made substantial investments in 
these important areas for over 9 years.
  Mr. Chairman, I support the chairman's intent to force the Department 
to make tough decisions on spending. It's imperative that a Department 
with over 230,000 employees and dozens of agencies and directorates 
under its jurisdiction, that they make the hard choices. This bill will 
ensure that the Department is accountable for taxpayers' dollars. We 
have witnessed the infusions of many millions of taxpayers' dollars 
over the last 9 years.
  And, lastly, as one of the three appropriators that are liaisons to 
the Intelligence Committee, I note that the bill fully funds the 
President's requested funding increases for intelligence gathering 
activities at the Department of Homeland Security. I support the bill.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Dent).
  Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 2017, the 
Homeland Security appropriations bill for fiscal year 2012. As we all 
know, we are closing in on the 10th anniversary of the September 11 
attacks, and this week marks one month since the death of Osama bin 
Laden. Communities across the country, particularly in Alabama, as ably 
represented by the chairman of this subcommittee, and Missouri, are 
reeling from some of the most devastating storms and tornadoes in their 
history.
  I am pleased that the Homeland Security funding bill is the first of 
the FY12 appropriations bills to be considered on the floor this 
afternoon. H.R. 2017, this legislation, tackles both fiscal discipline 
and national security, both of critical importance to the American 
public.
  With regard to fiscal responsibility, H.R. 2017 provides $40.6 
billion in discretionary funding, or almost $3 billion, or 7 percent, 
below the request, and $1.1 billion, or 3 percent, below the fiscal 
year 2011 level.
  As for our national security, all of our front line personnel, 
including Border Patrol agents, CBP officers, ICE agents, and Coast 
Guard military personnel are fully funded to sustain their forces and 
meet mission objectives. Obviously, we wish we could do more in this 
legislation, but I think this is a very important start that should 
move this process forward.
  Furthermore, this bill, 2017, does not shy away from oversight to 
ensure the Federal Government is a good steward of the American 
public's tax dollars. For instance, the Transportation Security 
Administration, TSA, will be required to cap their full-time screeners 
and generate a plan to improve the integration of screening technology 
and the deployment of its existing workforce. Having served on the 
authorizing committee for 6 years, I very much appreciate this 
initiative and have paid very close attention to these TSA issues over 
the years.
  I do believe this bill we are considering today is timely and 
specifically targets our Nation's security needs. I know that we are 
going to have a robust debate on some of these amendments that can 
further enhance this legislation.
  Finally, I want to thank Chairman Aderholt for his hard work and his 
leadership, as well as the minority staff.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
King).
  Mr. KING of New York. I thank the gentleman from Alabama for 
yielding.
  Let me just at the outset commend him for his professionalism and his 
courtesy throughout this entire process, and also for the effort that 
he made to preserve the Secure the Cities program in the Homeland 
Security bill. Having said that, I must reluctantly oppose the bill in 
its current form.
  Mr. Chairman, the threat level is the highest in our country since 9/
11. That has only been increased since the death of Osama bin Laden. 
Osama bin Laden specifically stated, we find in his documents, that he 
wanted to attack mass transit, wanted to attack maritime shipping. Yet 
we are reducing our mass transit security funding by 50 percent. We are 
reducing our port security funding by 50 percent. We are reducing 
overall aid for Homeland Security grants, which was the purpose for 
which the Department was created. We are reducing that by 50 percent. 
This, I believe, is putting us at risk.
  I can speak, for instance, for New York. We have 5 million people, 5 
million passengers every day on our subway system, hundreds of 
thousands on the commuter lines; yet we are cutting security by 50 
percent. We have a thousand police officers working on 
counterterrorism, carrying out a Federal purpose, doing not what they 
were doing before September 11, but working entirely on 
counterterrorism and intelligence. Yet their funding will be 
significantly cut.
  We have the Lower Manhattan Security Initiative, which is going to 
provide a camera system of protection in the Lower Manhattan area. And 
I can go through program after program. Every penny is accounted for. 
And I would say that as we go forward, as we look to the future, it's 
important that cities and governments have some sense of continuity of 
where the funding will come from as they put their programs in place. 
To have a 50 percent cut this year is going to put us at a severe 
disadvantage.
  And as we do approach the 10th anniversary of September 11, do we 
really want to cut our police departments, our counterterrorism units, 
our intelligence units, our mass transit security, our port security by 
50 percent? To me, this is an invitation to an attack. We cannot put 
ourselves in that position. Because of that, despite my great regard 
for the chairman, I must reluctantly oppose this legislation.
  Ms. HIRONO. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of increased funding 
for important state and local grant programs which have been 
irresponsibly slashed in this bill.
  This bill consolidates nine distinct grant programs into one and cuts 
the overall funding level by 55 percent from FY 2011 levels.
  This bill cuts programs that our communities rely on to detect and 
prevent terrorism, train emergency responders, secure transit and 
ports, and address other critical needs.
  Have the threats our communities face diminished by 55 percent in the 
past year?
  No.
  In fact, in the past few months we have dealt with numerous natural 
disasters--tsunamis, tornadoes, and floods.
  Early today, 40 Honolulu Firefighters were called to extinguish a 
fire that damaged three businesses in Hawaii--which they did 
successfully.
  And even with the death of Osama Bin Laden, we all know that we must 
remain vigilant against the likelihood of possible terrorist attacks.
  If anything, we should be increasing funding for detecting, 
preventing, and responding to these types of threats.
  Instead, the majority's cut and consolidate proposal will undermine 
Hawaii's preparedness. This bill will prevent Hawaii from receiving 
Urban Area Security Initiative funds, which have been crucial to our 
ability to detect and guard against terrorist attacks, and prepare for 
natural and man-made disasters.

[[Page H3837]]

  Additionally, port and transit security funds received a combined 
$500 million in FY 2011. Under this ``cut and consolidate'' proposal, 
these programs now must compete with seven other programs for a total 
allocation of $1 billion.
  This bill as written fails to adequately address a key objective of 
the Department of Homeland Security--ensuring that our nation is 
prepared for unforeseen emergencies.
  The National Association of Counties also opposes this ``cut and 
consolidate'' approach. I request that a letter I received from the 
Association outlining its concerns be included in the Record.
  I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting amendments like this 
one and providing adequate resources to keep our communities safe.


                             National Association of Counties,

                                                     May 25, 2011.
     Hon. John A. Boehner,
     Speaker, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Eric Cantor,
     Majority Leader, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
     Minority Leader, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Steny Hoyer,
     Minority Whip, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Members: On behalf of National Association of Counties 
     (NACo) and the elected and appointed officials we represent 
     from our nation's 3068 counties, we write to urge you to 
     protect essential public safety funding for our communities 
     as you debate the FY2012 Depaituient of Homeland Security 
     (DHS) appropriations bill on the House floor soon. 
     Specifically, we strongly urge you to fund DHS State and 
     Local Programs, Fire Grants, SAFER Grants at FY 2010 or even 
     2011 levels. Additionally, we ask that you oppose efforts to 
     consolidate DHS State and local programs into a single line 
     item and allow future grant awards to be distributed at the 
     discretion of the DHS Secretary.
       Currently, these programs assist States, local governments 
     and public safety agencies in securing our borders, enforcing 
     our immigration laws, improving our nation's preparedness, 
     prevention, response, and recovery from all hazard threats. 
     Furthermore, these programs have assisted in expanding 
     regional collaboration at all levels of government and public 
     safety disciplines, strengthening information sharing, 
     enhancing interoperable communications capabilities, 
     supporting medical surge and mass prophylaxis capabilities 
     and increasing citizen preparedness.
       Since September 11, all communities--of all sizes have had 
     to enhance their level of preparedness to deal with all 
     hazards threats, including potential nuclear, chemical, and/
     or biological attacks. This effort has continued and requires 
     a great deal of state and local planning, coordination and 
     investment by all stakeholders. Recent and past natural 
     catastrophic disasters affecting our states and local 
     communities and intelligence that showcases foreign 
     terrorists' willingness to target both large and small 
     communities further strengthens our resolve that now is not 
     the time to reduce or consolidate these critical programs.
       While we understand the severity of the federal budget 
     challenges that must be addressed, we strongly believe it is 
     imperative that we remain vigilant about meeting our public 
     safety commitments to our nation's citizens. States and local 
     governments can only achieve the highest level of 
     preparedness, response and recovery if the federal government 
     properly continues to fund these critical programs. 
     Preserving these funds will continue to aid state and local 
     governments in our efforts to implement statewide and 
     regional strategies, provide necessary resources to our first 
     responders, and enhance basic levels of prevention and 
     preparedness across the nation. Thank you for your 
     consideration, and we again urge you to protect essential 
     public safety funding for our communities as you begin 
     deliberations.
           Sincerely,
     B. Glen Whitley,
       President, National Association of Counties.
     Larry E. Naake,
       Executive Director, National Association of Counties.

  Mr. PIERLUISI. Mr. Chair, I rise to support the various amendments 
offered by my colleagues to either increase funding for the Urban Areas 
Security Initiative or to maintain current funding levels but ensure 
that they are more fairly distributed among U.S. cities.
  The amendment would strike a provision in the bill that would make 
more than 50 cities ineligible to receive funding under the Urban Areas 
Security Initiative. This discretionary grant program provides federal 
funding to metropolitan areas to purchase equipment, conduct exercises, 
develop plans, and train and compensate first responders. The funds are 
allocated to high-risk urban areas based on vulnerability and threat 
assessments conducted by DHS.
  In the case of Puerto Rico, the City of San Juan received $3.1 
million in funding through this program in 2010. These resources have 
allowed law enforcement and emergency responders in San Juan to prepare 
for national security incidents, without compromising other parts of 
their missions. If San Juan loses access to these funds, it may be 
forced to shift money that it had allocated to combat crime to address 
its counter-terrorism needs instead. This is a choice that the City 
should not be compelled to make.
  Indeed, it is illogical to eliminate funding for certain high risk 
urban areas, like San Juan, just because other cities have a higher 
risk. All high risk urban areas should receive funding proportional to 
their relative risk assessment. And this is exactly how funding for the 
Urban Areas Security Initiative is currently divided. In 2011, the 11 
highest risk urban areas were eligible for $540 million, while the next 
20 highest risk urban areas were eligible for $122 million. This 
allocation--where the very highest risk areas receive greater funding 
than other high risk areas--makes sense and should be continued.
  To leave San Juan, San Antonio, and Syracuse to their own devices, 
while devoting all funding under this program to larger cities that 
already receive robust federal and local support is not prudent.
  For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this 
bipartisan, budget-neutral amendment.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests 
for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment 
under the 5-minute rule.
  During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chair may accord 
priority in recognition to a Member offering an amendment who has 
caused it to be printed in the designated place in the Congressional 
Record. Those amendments will be considered read.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 2017

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,  That the 
     following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the 
     Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the Department of 
     Homeland Security for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
     2012, and for other purposes, namely:

                                TITLE I

                 DEPARTMENTAL MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONS

            Office of the Secretary and Executive Management

       For necessary expenses of the Office of the Secretary of 
     Homeland Security, as authorized by section 102 of the 
     Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 112), and executive 
     management of the Department of Homeland Security, as 
     authorized by law, $126,700,000: Provided, That not to exceed 
     $60,000 shall be for official reception and representation 
     expenses, of which $20,000 shall be made available to the 
     Office of Policy for Visa Waiver Program negotiations in 
     Washington, DC, and for other international activities: 
     Provided further, That consistent with the requirements 
     specified within Presidential Policy Directive-8, dated March 
     30, 2011, the Secretary shall submit to the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the Senate and the House of Representatives 
     not later than October 15, 2011, the National Preparedness 
     Goal and not later than January 15, 2012, the National 
     Preparedness System: Provided further, That of the amount 
     made available under this heading, $63,350,000 may not be 
     obligated until the Committees on Appropriations of the 
     Senate and the House of Representatives receive (1) the 
     National Preparedness Goal and the National Preparedness 
     System consistent with Presidential Policy Directive-8, and 
     (2) the Secretary's determination on implementation of 
     biometric air exit.

                  Amendment Offered by Mr. LaTourette

  Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Page 2, line 10, after the dollar amount, insert ``reduced 
     by $63,350,000''.
       Page 3, line 9, after the dollar amount, insert ``reduced 
     by $117,470,000''.
       Page 4, line 5, after the dollar amount, insert ``reduced 
     by $139,180,000''.
       Page 4, line 6, after the dollar amount, insert ``reduced 
     by $55,672,000''.
       Page 4, line 7, after the dollar amount, insert ``reduced 
     by $83,508,000''.
       Page 50, line 13, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``increased by $320,000,000''.
       Page 50, line 14, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``increased by $135,000,000''.
       Page 50, line 15, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``increased by $185,000,000''.

  Mr. LaTOURETTE (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered read.

[[Page H3838]]

  The CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Ohio is recognized for 5 minutes in 
support of his amendment.
  Mr. LaTOURETTE. First of all, I want to indicate that I am offering 
this amendment with my friend and neighbor. Actually, he is in the 
office next door, Mr. Pascrell of New Jersey. And this deals with the 
Fire and the SAFER grant programs. I also want to indicate that I have 
nothing but respect for the full committee chairman and the 
subcommittee chairman, who have been dealt a difficult hand with the 
302(b) allocations made in front of them, and as they face the awesome 
responsibility of funding the programs that defend our country.
  However, the Chair I think may remember during the discussion of the 
continuing resolution in H.R. 1 that there was some discussion about 
what funding levels were appropriate for fiscal year 2011 for these two 
grant programs which aid our first responders. In the one iteration of 
H.R. 1, there was something along the lines of a 75 percent reduction 
from these funds. Those funds, however, were restored by overwhelming 
votes of the whole body. Over 300 Members supported Mr. Pascrell's 
amendment to put the level back up at $820 million for fiscal year 
2011, and just shy of 260 Members supported Mr. Price of North 
Carolina's amendment that dealt with how those funds could be utilized 
and spent.

                              {time}  1620

  Now, again, faced with the difficult decisions that the chairs find 
themselves in, the average reduction, and this isn't a bill that came 
to the floor with across-the-board cuts, but the average reduction in 
spending is about 14 percent for the bills that the Appropriations 
Committee is considering. Yet these funds have gone from $820 million 
to $350 million, which is on the order of about a, well, 60 percent 
reduction.
  The amendment that I offer with Mr. Pascrell would transfer funds out 
of the Office of the Secretary and Executive Management, the Office of 
the Under Secretary for Management, and the Office of the Chief 
Information Officer to restore those funds not to the $820 million that 
300 Members of the House indicated should be spent in the last fiscal 
year, but restores them to $670 million equally divided between the two 
programs that I have indicated.
  Now, at that level, these funds will still receive a 19 percent 
reduction from fiscal year 2011 and, again, citing my great respect for 
the chairs of the committee, on more than one occasion I have heard it 
remarked that this is a national Homeland Security bill and there needs 
to be some nexus between this funding and a national purpose, that we 
should not be in the business of funding every local and/or volunteer 
fire department in the Nation, and I agree with that sentiment.
  However, I can just tell you that faced with amazing budget pressures 
back in our local communities, when the Grand River in Painesville, 
Ohio, flooded a couple of years ago, it wasn't FEMA, it wasn't the 
Coast Guard, it wasn't the National Guard that plucked these folks out 
of their homes and plucked them out of the river and saved their lives 
and saved their properties. It was our firefighters and our police 
officers.
  So if we make a determination as a Congress that we are in the FEMA 
business--that is, emergency management business--and we will provide 
funds to help rebuild and reshape and fortify and all the other things, 
then we need to be in all parts of the emergency management business, 
and that includes the first responder portion of that.
  Therefore, I know that we have attempted to come to some agreement on 
this amendment to try and get all parties on board. Sadly, we haven't 
been able to do that, not for lack of trying on the part of the 
chairman. But we find ourselves now with this simple amendment that 
transfers funds from the bureaucracy of the Department of Homeland 
Security and restores it to our local communities and our first 
responders.
  Again, I want to thank Mr. Pascrell for his cosponsorship. I urge 
support of the amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, I rise to reluctantly oppose the 
amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Alabama is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. As I mentioned, I reluctantly rise to oppose this 
amendment, which would slash the funding for the Department's 
management functions below what is responsible for the Nation's 
security and move funding to the grants.
  I was hoping that we would be able to work something out on this, but 
it was not possible. The committee has already cut the Department's 
headquarters management at historic levels. In fact, the bill reduces 
the funding for these activities 21 percent below what the President 
requested himself.
  This includes zeroing out the Department's new headquarters in 
Washington, D.C., zeroed out the funding for data center migration, and 
we have slashed other initiatives we cannot afford at this time. Many 
of these cuts were unavoidable because the President's budget request 
for the Department of Homeland Security was filled with phony offsets.
  Since 9/11, Congress has provided $6.7 billion for this program and 
for the last 3 years has included a waiver for the cost share 
requirements with local governments. Given our Nation's dire fiscal 
situation, we must take a stand that it's not the Federal Government's 
job to bail out every municipal budget or to serve as a fire marshal 
for every city and town across the Nation. In today's fiscally 
constrained environment, the 350 million that we have included in here 
is a lot of money.
  Again, while I support the gentleman's intentions, I would urge my 
colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PASCRELL. First, I want to thank Mr. LaTourette for, as usual, 
taking on a very, very exquisite subject here and not coming late to 
the fight. So I am proud to rise in strong support of this bipartisan 
amendment. I want to thank my good friend from Ohio for his leadership 
and willingness to work across the aisle on this important issue.
  To those who say that the Federal Government bears no responsibility 
about public safety, they are absolutely wrong. On one side of our 
mouth we say that we must protect and defend our first responders; on 
the other side of our mouth we say that we have no responsibility 
whatsoever in talking about our firefighters and our police officers. 
And that is why, just a short period of time ago in the 2011 CR, both 
sides came together. The majority of both parties supported putting 
money back into the budget.
  We are debating a bill called the Department of Homeland Security 
appropriations bill. It's an ironic title because this legislation, as 
written, fails the American people and fails the very people who are on 
front lines of our homeland security. It is our firefighters and our 
police officers who will respond to a national tragedy before the 
Federal Government. This is what we said in 9/11. This is what we said 
in every year since 9/11, and it has not changed.
  We understand the financial realities this country faces, and I am 
prepared to work across the aisle to find common solutions as we did 6 
months ago. But what we cannot afford is to sacrifice our country's 
security at the altar of spending cuts, and that's precisely what the 
bill, as written now, does.
  The FIRE and SAFER programs, these programs, supported by both 
Democrats and Republicans, reached across the lines, across that center 
aisle that goes down between us, and said let's work together on the 
national security of this country. Remember, the FIRE Act was written 
before 9/11 when places in the far west had to push their equipment to 
a fire. Simply put, that's not acceptable in the United States of 
America, the greatest country in the world.
  And when we ask our first responders to be ready, to protect us, to 
protect the community, we need to know that they have the resources 
necessary. And, as you know, not only in the past

[[Page H3839]]

several years have our local communities been unable, small and large 
communities, to have all of those resources at their hands, now it's 
even more difficult. What you are asking here is a cut of 57 percent 
compared to the 2010 and 2011 budget. Unacceptable.
  I support adequate funding for all of the agencies funded in this 
bill, but we are shortchanging the very people who ran into the burning 
buildings on September 11. You can't tell me those folks weren't on the 
front lines that day. I don't believe you if that's what you are 
telling me, and I know you don't mean that, but then don't say it.
  The FIRE Act was signed by President Clinton before September 11. We 
are talking about basic equipment needs for our fire departments to 
protect all of our constituents, and hasn't that changed since 9/11. 
What their responsibilities are and what they need to respond to is 
much different than 9/11.
  September 11 changed the relationship we had with our first 
responders, solidified our decision that no longer would this funding 
be a solely local issue. Firefighters and police officers are an 
integral part of homeland security, and ensuring they are well staffed 
and equipped would be partly a Federal responsibility.

                              {time}  1630

  Since they were originally authorized back in 2000, these programs 
have provided nearly $7 billion to our local fire departments in nearly 
every congressional district in this country. The fact is that our 
firefighters rely on this funding for the equipment, for the training 
and for the personnel, especially in these tough economic times.
  An independent evaluation of the FIRE program, Mr. Chairman, 
published by the U.S. Fire Administration, concluded it was highly 
effective in improving the readiness. And this is the most efficient 
Federal program in the entire Federal budget. Hear me.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise in qualified 
support of the LaTourette-Pascrell amendment. The bill before us more 
than halves the total amount of funding for firefighter assistance 
grants compared to 2011 and 2010.
  If this bill is adopted as written, the hiring grants known as SAFER 
grants are going to be cut by 63 percent below 2011, and equipment 
grants will be cut by 51 percent. That is simply unacceptable. These 
cuts would result in thousands of fewer firefighters on the job. It 
would leave fewer departments able to maintain safe staffing levels. It 
would prevent many fire departments from purchasing equipment, 
purchasing breathing apparatus and protective gear that our 
firefighters depend on during a time of emergency.
  This bipartisan amendment provides $320 million to restore this 
funding to the President's requested level. Mind you, that's still 
below the 2011 level, but it comes at least to the President's 
requested level. And it would divide the funds between SAFER and 
equipment grants as we've been urged to do by the various fire 
associations.
  Retaining this funding when local governments are cutting firefighter 
budgets will help preserve public safety and security. This amendment 
will help keep thousands of firefighters on the job.
  And the notion that we are talking here about some kind of Federal 
take-over of local security responsibilities, I think everyone in this 
Chamber knows that that is not an accurate characterization of what's 
going on here. Of course, these expenditures are still mainly occurring 
at the local level, but we're in a world where our fire departments are 
being asked to equip themselves in new ways, to train themselves in new 
ways, to meet new kinds of threats and hazards, and these FIRE grants--
the personnel grants and the equipment grants--have been a critical way 
of establishing a partnership whereby our local fire departments can do 
what they need to do in this new era when they confront all kinds of 
new hazards.
  Now, I don't believe the offsets in this amendment are workable at 
the end of the day. I want to acknowledge that. But the inadequate 
Republican budget allocation, combined with the decision to transfer 
$850 million from first responder grants to disaster relief and to 
refuse emergency designation for disaster relief leaves my colleagues 
no good place to cut and no good options to find offsets for the 
absolutely essential restoring of these grants to firefighters.
  So I support the amendment, but I will work diligently to restore 
these funding cuts as the bill progresses; and we will get down, at the 
end of day, I trust, to responsible budget negotiations with the Senate 
and the White House.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  The CHAIR. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the 
LaTourette-Pascrell amendment, and I too recognize the challenges that 
Mr. Aderholt and Mr. Price faced in the confines of trying to address 
some difficult times. But as a Member of the Homeland Security 
Committee, I believe it is imperative that we look at the reality of 
the world in which we live. In an article dated April 24, 2011, out of 
the State of Texas, reads: hundreds of weary firefighters were racing 
against the clock on Sunday, pushing back massive brush fires that have 
destroyed near-record swatches of Texas countryside. Firefighters were 
hoping to make as much progress as possible before low humidity and 
strong winds set the stage for more potential flare-ups late Monday and 
Tuesday.
  Fires were still burning in Texas. Firefighters are still being 
called upon. Cities and States across America are laying off 
firefighters. And we are reminded of the needs, if you will, that were 
addressed on 9/11 when firefighters from the City of New York rushed in 
to save their fellow New Yorkers and others, and many of them, many of 
them perished.
  They are, in fact, first responders. And I believe it is important 
that we make the sacrifice, we find the adequate offset, and we support 
this amendment. I'm also reminded of a story that many of you may have 
heard, the sad story, it aired on local television, where firefighters 
from some locality watched while a man drowned and could not save him. 
The reasoning was that the particular team that would have had the 
skills and the equipment to save this drowning man in what has been 
called the most powerful Nation in the world, was fired, laid off, 
eliminated. And, therefore, from the shoreline many looked in horror as 
this particular man drowned.
  Is this what America has come to?
  I believe this amendment is extremely important, one, to be able to 
show appreciation to the firefighters across America who come to the 
aid of those in need from different States when a crisis or tragedy 
occurs.
  I heard someone mention, it might have been Mr. LaTourette, but who 
is it that plucks you out of a burning house or rescues, when they do 
have the resources or the team, out of a predicament where you are 
stranded in some crisis, whether it is drowning, whether it's a fire, 
whether it is an emergency health condition or whether or not they are 
confronting a terrorist act? Firefighters are truly our first 
responders.
  In the City of Houston they are considering closing out or shutting 
down 600-plus police officers. And firefighters have the same concerns.
  So I think it is very important that we own up to our duties. And as 
I mentioned in a metaphor before, let the American people be winners 
today. Let the firefighters be present and accounted for. And let us be 
reminded of their great heroic acts of 9/11. This 10th year 
anniversary, let us not say thank you in the way that we deny them 
funding, but let us say thank you in the way that we provide them with 
the funding that they need.
  I ask my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. CLARKE of Michigan. I move to strike the last word, Mr. Chair.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. CLARKE of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I support this amendment, as

[[Page H3840]]

well, for several reasons. Number one, it's very obvious that our first 
responders, our firefighters, they are the first there to take care of 
the public when a natural disaster such as these tornadoes that have 
hit our country demolish homes and injure people.
  But most importantly it is this: our local units of government right 
now don't have the money to properly equip and staff their 
firefighters. And here's why: their property values that they have 
depended on for their funding, well, they've been diminished because of 
the foreclosure crisis, a crisis that this Congress has failed to 
effectively address.
  So there's one duty, however, that we can't turn our back on. And 
that's the safety of the American people. And that's why I urge you to 
at least partially restore funding for these important firefighter 
grants.
  And while I may have a problem with the funding source of this 
amendment, I will tell you the appropriate way to fund our first 
responders, firefighters, police officers and emergency medical 
providers, take a share of the military aid that's going to Afghanistan 
right now; bin Laden is gone. We need to reassess our mission in 
Afghanistan and redirect some of that money to protect Americans right 
here at home. Let's put some of that money in the Homeland Security 
budget. It's our firefighters that are our first defense against a 
terrorist attack.
  I support this amendment. We have the money. We just need to allocate 
it right. We've done enough in Afghanistan. Let's take some of that 
money and put it right here to protect the American people. Support 
homeland security, because the next threat that we likely will get from 
a terrorist will come from within our borders. Let's take care of our 
people right now.

                              {time}  1640

  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ALTMIRE. I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. ALTMIRE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the LaTourette-
Pascrell amendment to the Homeland Security appropriations bill to 
restore funding for the Assistance to Firefighters and Staffing for 
Adequate Fire and Emergency Response grant programs.
  The AFG and SAFER programs are essential to our public safety and 
security. These programs improve the readiness of our Nation's 
firefighters, ensuring that the brave men and women who put their lives 
on the line every day for the safety of our communities are prepared 
with the capabilities they need to continue protecting and serving our 
communities safely and effectively.
  These grants provided by the AFG and SAFER programs are the single 
most important source of Federal assistance to volunteer fire 
departments. They help fire departments equip, train and maintain their 
personnel so they are prepared to respond to all emergencies. These 
programs are able to address the immediate and individualized needs of 
fire departments efficiently and effectively because funding is awarded 
directly to fire departments instead of being funneled through other 
layers of government bureaucracies.
  As a result of the recent economic downturn and budget constraints at 
all levels of government, many fire departments have been forced to cut 
personnel and services. Without adequate funding for AFG and SAFER, 
thousands of firefighters could be laid off, and communities across the 
country could be put further at risk.
  There are more than 150 fire departments in my district alone, and 
each one plays a critical role in keeping local communities safe. Many 
of these fire departments have benefited from AFG funding. Beaver 
Falls, Hanover, New Brighton, and Raccoon Township fire departments are 
just a few of the many that have used the grants to purchase new 
equipment or to train additional personnel.
  Just this year, Berkley Hills Fire Department used an AFG grant to 
purchase an aerial ladder fire truck that will help the department 
better protect the numerous multistory apartment complexes, retirement 
homes and businesses in Ross Township. The West Deer Township Volunteer 
Fire Company also received an AFG grant this year that allowed the fire 
company to replace outdated equipment with new portable radios and 
automated external defibrillators. These upgrades will not only 
increase firefighter safety; they will also improve the services 
provided to the communities those fire departments serve.
  Enacting the cuts to the AFG and SAFER programs in the underlying 
legislation will only make it harder for fire departments to avoid 
layoffs and protect our communities. By adequately funding AFG and 
SAFER programs, we can help volunteer fire departments nationwide 
obtain the equipment and personnel they need to effectively respond to 
emergencies. According to the International Association of 
Firefighters, over 1,600 firefighters could lose their jobs as a result 
of the funding cuts that are in this bill.
  I urge all Members to support firefighters in their districts and 
vote in favor of increased funding for firefighters and to support the 
amendment of Mr. LaTourette and Mr. Pascrell.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. RICHARDSON. I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. RICHARDSON. I thank the Chair for allowing me to speak in support 
of the LaTourette-Pascrell amendment to restore funding for FIRE and 
SAFER grants.
  I would like to thank Congressman LaTourette and Congressman Pascrell 
for offering this amendment that enjoys bipartisan support and which I 
strongly support.
  The onslaught of natural disasters that we have seen all across the 
country has shown that the need for first responders has increased, not 
decreased. Many of us have been strong advocates for this program and 
recognize the inherent value of making sure our Nation's first 
responders have the people and the equipment they need in order to 
ensure our safety in all of our local communities.
  I support these programs. Why? Because they work.
  After an independent evaluation of the FIRE grant program was 
implemented by the Department of Agriculture, the Department of 
Agriculture concluded that this program was ``highly effective in 
improving the readiness and capabilities of firefighters across the 
Nation.''
  Additionally, at a time when many local and State governments have 
been forced to make drastic cuts to their emergency staff and 
personnel, the SAFER program has been the only resource fire 
departments have had to ensure that their communities would be ready if 
they needed to respond.
  In the Appropriations Committee report, it mentions that FEMA should 
maintain an ``all hazards focus'' in order to ensure that FEMA 
concentrates its efforts on where it is needed most. I strongly agree 
with this sentiment, which is why I think this amendment is critical to 
achieving our goals.
  As the Representative of the 37th Congressional District and as the 
ranking member of the Homeland Security Subcommittee on Emergency 
Preparedness, Response, and Communications, I understand the importance 
of having a fully staffed and equipped fire department. The San Miguel 
fire, the worst wildfire in California's history, burned through 90,000 
acres of land and cost $15.6 million. However, thanks to prior planning 
and fire prevention education efforts made possible by this critical 
grant program, not a single life was lost in this devastation. 
Therefore, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Unfortunately, with firefighters, we cannot always plan ahead. We 
have to be ready to respond, to do the rescue and then to do the 
recovery. This amendment should be made in order so as to eliminate the 
burden that our local and State governments and the firefighters feel 
of having to do more with less.
  Mr. GRIMM. Mr. Chair, I wish to strike the last word.
  I rise today in support of an amendment to restore $320 million in 
funding to the Department of Homeland Security's FIRE/SAFER grant 
programs that help provide firefighter jobs, equipment, and training 
for local fire departments.
  Yesterday, I attended a rally in my district on Staten Island to save 
one of our fire companies, Engine 157. As it stands, New York

[[Page H3841]]

City's proposed budget will cut twenty fire companies from New York 
City--three from my district in Staten Island and Brooklyn.
  While I have no vote on the City's budget, I do have vote in 
Congress, and I will not let the federal government turn its back on 
our nation's firefighters.
  As a first responder during 9/11, I worked beside these brave an4 
selfless first responders on the bucket brigade. I know how important 
it is to have well-equipped and well-trained firefighters when it comes 
to saving lives--whether they're saving victims from a major disaster 
or rescuing someone from a burning building.
  As our nation remains on high alert, and as New York remains the 
number one terror target in the nation, we must remain vigilant and 
prepared to respond to any situation. Cutting FIRE/SAFER grants will 
only make that task more difficult.
  Our nation's firefighters work tirelessly around the clock for our 
safety and protection.
  They deserve our full gratitude and support, and that is why I stand 
today in support of restoring funding to the FIRE/SAFER grants program 
and urge my colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chair, I understand the importance of cutting low-
priority spending to get our budget under control. But there is nothing 
low-priority about the firefighters who protect our communities, our 
families, and our homes. Unfortunately, this appropriations bill shows 
badly misplaced priorities by cutting funding for the firefighters who 
keep us safe. Those cuts--$320 million below the president's request--
are shortsighted and reckless. They will take firefighters off the 
streets and put our communities at higher risk. So I support the 
amendment offered by Mr. LaTourette and Mr. Pascrell, which will 
restore funding for the successful FIRE and SAFER grant programs to the 
level requested by the president.
  FIRE and SAFER help fire departments across America recruit, train, 
and retain skilled firefighters. They help fire departments equip 
themselves with the up-to-date tools they need to protect property and 
save lives. What do we cut when we cut FIRE and SAFER? We cut 
protective equipment that helps brave men and women enter burning 
buildings. We cut power generators that keep fire stations running and 
providing vital services during emergencies. We cut staffing, so that 
fire stations are more likely to be sitting empty or underprepared when 
disasters strike. Independent observers have found that FIRE and SAFER 
work: an independent study from the U.S. Fire Administration found that 
grants like these are making our fire departments more prepared and 
better equipped to protect our communities.
  I want to make clear that I am not pleased with the offsets being 
used to restore this funding. However, I recognize that my colleagues 
were left with very few opportunities given the significant cuts made 
to the overall bill. I am hopeful that this will be addressed in 
conference with the Senate.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, fund FIRE and SAFER 
at the level requested by the president, and protect these vital 
investments in public safety.
  Mr. REYES. Mr. Chair, I rise to support the amendment offered by Mr. 
LaTourette and Mr. Pascrell to restore funds for FIRE and SAFER Grants 
in the FY2012 Homeland Security Appropriations Bill.
  The Assistance to Firefighters (FIRE) and Staffing for Adequate Fire 
and Emergency Response (SAFER) grant programs provide much needed 
support to local fire departments to help them afford critically-needed 
equipment and training as well as to hire additional firefighters. 
Funds from the FIRE and SAFER grants can be used by local fire 
departments to equip, train and maintain personnel, as well as to 
prepare them to respond to emergencies from natural disasters to 
terrorist attacks. These programs address the immediate, individualized 
needs of departments efficiently and effectively.
  Unfortunately, the FY2012 Homeland Security Appropriations Bill 
slashes these critical programs by almost 50 percent the amount 
requested in the President's budget, an amount that was already lower 
than previous year's funding. I concur with Mr. Price's sentiments that 
these cuts ``break faith with the states and localities that depend on 
us as partners to secure [and protect] our communities.'' In fact on 
Sunday alone, the Texas Forest Service responded to 20 fires consuming 
over 1,370 acres. This is in addition to three large ongoing fires that 
have consumed over 1,000 acres across Texas.
  While our State and Federal agencies are working together to battle 
this inferno, we need to ensure that fire fighters have the equipment 
and resources that they need.
  As local governments continue to face difficult times, these Federal 
grants help ensure that our communities continue to have the funds to 
hire and retain firefighters and purchase the equipment necessary to 
keep our communities safe. The FIRE grant program has provided over $7 
billion in funding to local fire departments across the country since 
it's authorization in FY2001. One of the most recent grants awarded to 
El Paso, Texas, which I represent, was over $1 million to help offset 
the costs of constructing new fire stations across our quickly 
expanding city which has welcomed over 20,000 additional soldiers.
  Indeed, the FIRE and SAFER grants are a critical piece to our 
security efforts, and I'm proud to say that I have supported 
legislation to strengthen these programs to ensure that communities 
facing financial hardship are able to apply for funds.
  The LaTourette/Pascrell Amendment restores funding to the FIRE and 
SAFER Grants, and the spending increase is offset by cutting other 
funding.
  I urge my colleagues to support our fire fighters by voting in favor 
of this amendment.
  Ms. RICHARDSON. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio will be postponed.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Cicilline

  Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Page 2, line 10, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced 
     by $1,000,000)''.
       Page 12, line 6, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced 
     by $336,000,000)''.
       Page 45, line 18, after the dollar amount insert 
     ``(increased by $337,000,000)''.

  Mr. CICILLINE (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that we suspend the reading of the amendment.
  The CHAIR. Without objection, the amendment will be considered as 
having been read.
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Rhode Island is recognized for 5 
minutes in support of his amendment.
  Mr. CICILLINE. This amendment is offered by me, along with my 
colleagues Mr. Langevin of Rhode Island, Ms. Matsui of California, Ms. 
Berkley of Nevada, and Mr. Ellison of Minnesota.
  I rise to offer this amendment that restores funding for State and 
local grants, which includes funding for the Urban Areas Security 
Initiative, which is referred to as UASI.
  This bill makes dangerous cuts to the Urban Areas Security 
Initiative, the UASI program, which is a program critical to the 
security of cities that have been deemed at high risk of terrorist 
attack. One of those cities is Providence, Rhode Island, in my 
congressional district, along with more than 50 other urban areas in 
our country.
  Just last year, the Providence area was one of 64 cities with either 
critical assets or geography that was identified by Homeland Security 
experts as being most at risk of being targeted by terrorists. As a 
result, the city of Providence and other communities across this 
country have received critical Federal funding under UASI to support 
efforts to prevent and respond to terrorist attacks and other 
emergencies. Providence also became the first city in America to have 
an accredited Department of Emergency Management and Homeland Security.
  However, the cuts that are proposed in this legislation will cripple 
the ability of cities to effectively ensure proper safety should an 
attack occur. The elimination of the UASI program means that staff will 
not be able to attend critical training, maintain certifications or 
purchase the equipment necessary to be prepared. Thousands of devices, 
like security cameras and radios and projects such as port sirens and 
watercraft, will not be able to be maintained. Emergency Operations 
Centers will not be able to be constructed or maintained.

                              {time}  1650

  These are urgent, urgent priorities for America's cities. Mr. 
Chairman, we cannot in good conscience spend billions of dollars 
protecting people all over the world at the expense of our own national 
security.
  I urge Members to adopt this amendment.
  I yield to my colleague from Rhode Island.

[[Page H3842]]

  Mr. LANGEVIN. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I want to echo 
his sentiments. I rise in support of my joint amendment with 
Congressman Cicilline to restore $337 million to the Urban Areas 
Security Initiative grants program, which would fund the program at the 
FY 2010 level.
  In my home State of Rhode Island, a counterterrorism fusion center, 
regional cyber defense measures, and chemical, biological, and nuclear 
detection assets support response efforts across southern New England. 
A Level I trauma center and the Port of Providence are also critical 
assets for the region. These homeland defense capabilities are in 
jeopardy, however, due to the cuts to the Urban Areas Security 
Initiative grant program in this bill.
  The UASI grants were specifically designed to make sure that densely 
populated areas with critical assets were adequately funded and 
protected. Now, because of the cuts in this program, this is an example 
of what I believe are an irresponsible and arbitrary approach to budget 
cutting that jeopardizes safety throughout the region in case of an 
attack or natural disaster.
  So I applaud my colleague and look forward to working with him on 
this issue. I urge my colleagues to support the Cicilline-Langevin 
amendment.
  Mr. CICILLINE. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. ELLISON. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chair, I rise in support of the amendment offered by Mr. 
Cicilline of Rhode Island, which I am a proud cosponsor. This amendment 
will help protect our nation's most vulnerable cities and help 
effectively prevent and manage emergency situations in cities around 
the country.
  Funding for Urban Area Security Initiative helps cities prevent, 
protect against, respond to, and recover from disasters, including 
terrorism.
  My district in Minnesota has benefitted greatly from the assistance 
of UASI. My district includes Minneapolis, a city that has been listed 
as one of the 31 most vulnerable cities by the UASI grant program and 
has received funding for projects to improve safety and response.
  UASI Grant program funding has been essential to the ability of the 
City of Minneapolis to manage events such as the 35W Bridge collapse, 
the 2008 Republican National Convention and the response to the 2009 
and 2011 Minneapolis tornados.
  The UASI program has secured the metropolitan area's water supply, 
improved its emergency dispatch system, and provided protective gear 
for first responders. It also created special response teams for 
emergencies involving hazardous materials, the collapse of buildings 
and advanced bomb squads.
  UASI grant dollars have paid for much of the technology associated 
with the city's new combined Emergency Operations Center (EOC) and 
first responder training facility providing real time situational 
awareness and communication capabilities that did not exist before.
  Without these operations, the recent tornados in my district would 
have created confusion and chaos in the aftermath. The speedy and 
effective response by the city is directly related to the funding they 
have received through UASI grants.
  Without these important investments, public warnings and 
communications, disaster response, and first responder training will be 
compromised.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment so that all American 
cities with real security needs continue to have access. to UASI 
funding.
  Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Alabama is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, the bill before us today was born out of 
the need for reform. It consolidates various grant programs and 
provides discretion to the Secretary. These reforms include funding 
reductions, requirements for measurement, and requirements for spending 
languishing dollars.
  In total, this bill provides $1.7 billion for Homeland Security first 
responder grants. However, as we are all aware, not all programs are 
funded at the previous year's level.
  The consolidation in this bill requires the Secretary to examine the 
intelligence and risk and put scarce dollars where they are most 
needed, whether it is a port, rail, surveillance, or access and 
hardening projects--or whether it is to high-risk urban areas or to 
States--as opposed to reverse engineering projects to fill the amount 
designated for one of many programs.
  Additionally, as noted by the gentleman from Rhode Island, the bill 
limits the Urban Areas Security Initiative grants to the top 10 highest 
cities. Again, this puts scarce dollars where they are most needed. 
This does not mean lower risk cities will lose all funding; it just 
means the funds will come from other programs such as State Homeland 
grants that are risk and formula based.
  These cuts will not be easy, but they are long overdue and necessary 
to address our out-of-control Federal spending.
  Furthermore, the offset proposed by the gentleman is unacceptable. A 
reduction to the Border Security Fencing, Infrastructure, and 
Technology account would: impact operations and maintenance on the 
border fence; reduce investments in critical border security 
communications; and affect the Border Patrol's ability to procure 
proven technologies to increase border security immediately.
  I urge my colleagues to support fiscal discipline, and I urge a 
``no'' vote on this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from North Carolina is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, let me state it very 
plainly: We need to increase funding for Urban Areas Security 
Initiative grants, UASI grants, to a minimum of the 2011 level of $725 
million. I offered amendments in full committee and asked for a waiver 
from the Rules Committee in order to do just that.
  Now, the majority has taken over $2.2 billion appropriated for these 
grant programs in 2011 and has consolidated them into a block grant of 
$1 billion. If you take that $1 billion, which includes all of these 
State and local grants, and then you reduce this for the statutory 
carve-outs, and then you reduce it again, assuming the minimum 
statutory funding for the States, what is going to be left? There is 
going to be half a billion dollars for UASI, for ports, for rail, for 
transit, and for other key grants all together. This is simply not 
enough.
  Unfortunately, the proposed offset is also unacceptable. This bill, 
just like the 2011 final CR, greatly reduced fencing, infrastructure, 
and technology projects to secure our borders. While some of this 
reduction is due to a termination of the SBInet contract, this proposed 
additional cut would prevent CBP from acquiring off-the-shelf 
technology to support our Border Patrol along the southwest border, as 
well as to conduct pilot projects on our northern border. So the offset 
would be a damaging reduction.
  But this simply illustrates the impossible dilemma posed by this 
bill. The root problem is an inadequate allocation, and it is 
compounded by the majority's refusal to call an emergency an emergency.
  So I commend the gentleman from Rhode Island for his initiative to 
address the dangerous gap left by the majority's bill when it comes to 
protecting our Nation's urban areas.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Chairman, I rise to strike the last word.
  The CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.
  The intention of this amendment is to restore funding to the Urban 
Areas Security Initiative, or as we call it, UASI.
  In my district of Sacramento, California, funding from the UASI 
program has gone to critical counter- terrorism initiatives, giving law 
enforcement officials and first responders the tools and training to 
protect our community. -
  Sacramento is the capital of California, the most populous State in 
the Union and the seventh largest economy in the world. It is critical 
to continue to support the antiterrorist work being done there, and it 
is unacceptable to leave this region without appropriate funds for 
protection. With potential targets like the Folsom Dam, which is 
upstream of the city of Sacramento, key transportation systems, and 
numerous State and Federal facilities, UASI funding for the Sacramento 
region ensures protection from attacks

[[Page H3843]]

and cooperation among local, State, and Federal agencies.
  Not receiving UASI funds would devastate one of the Nation's most 
proficient counter- terrorist and readiness task forces, located at the 
former McClellan Air Force Base in my district. This facility creates 
greater collaboration and communication among State and Federal law 
enforcement and first responders.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment will bolster our Nation's security by 
giving our communities the tools and training necessary to keep us 
safe. I urge my colleagues to vote in support of this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. Mr. Chair, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chair, this bill represents a gross abdication of our shared 
responsibility with our state and local governments to provide for the 
safety and security of our constituents and our communities.
  Cuts to the Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response, or 
SAFER, grants and the Assistance to Firefighters, or FIRE, grants will 
be devastating for communities in each of our home states. In addition, 
changes to the Urban Areas Security Initiative will put our high-risk 
communities at further risk.
  As we prepare to mark the 10th anniversary of the attacks of 9/11 
later this year, the wounds are still fresh in the memory in my home 
community of Northern Virginia. This bill will actually cut by more 
than 50 percent the very public safety assistance Congress deemed 
essential, on a bipartisan basis, to address public safety and security 
concerns in our communities as a result of those terrorist attacks.
  How is that providing for the homeland security? I would argue that 
we're actually putting it at risk.
  The threat of a terrorist attack has not dissipated. In fact, it 
probably has increased since U.S. forces killed Osama bin Laden earlier 
this spring.
  In the wake of 9/11, we identified significant shortfalls in our 
public safety capabilities. Congress created these grant programs to 
help our cities and counties meet the demands for interoperable 
communication, hazardous materials response and other recommendations 
from local, state and federal threat assessments, including the 9/11 
commission.
  Still today, thousands of fire stations, both career and volunteer, 
across the country do not have sufficient staffing to adequately 
protect their communities. Many still do not have the ability to 
respond to all-hazards emergencies or communicate with one another.
  The SAFER and FIRE grants help provide staffing, training and 
equipment to public safety agencies in every state. As the former 
Chairman of the largest local government in the National Capital Region 
and the Chairman of the region's Emergency Preparedness Council, I know 
firsthand how critical these funds are to ensure the safety of our 
communities.
  Even before the recession, local governments had difficulties meeting 
their public safety needs, and now many have been forced to cut back on 
those services as their budgets are still reeling from the affects of 
the Great Recession. The reductions proposed by this legislation will 
only exacerbate the problem and further delay, if not gravely harm, our 
preparedness efforts.
  Mr. Chair, we came together in a bipartisan fashion to turn back 
similar cuts in the Continuing Resolution for the current fiscal year, 
and I urge my colleagues to once again stand alongside our firefighters 
and public safety personnel in support of this critical funding.
  Mr. Pascrell and Mr. LaTourette are once again offering a bipartisan 
amendment that would restore most of the requested grant funding. While 
the amendment does not preserve the entire funding request, it ensures 
that our local and state partners do not bear a further undue burden 
because the federal government is not living up to its own 
responsibility.
  If this bill is supposed to represent our Homeland Security values, 
then it's done a pretty poor job by turning its back on those sworn to 
protect us on the front lines, namely the firefighters, police officers 
and other first responders in our communities. I urge my colleagues to 
either restore this funding or reject this attack on our basic public 
safety.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Rhode Island will be 
postponed.


                  Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Royce

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

       Page 2, line 10, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $1,000,000)''.
       Page 16, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $1,000,000)''.
       Page 17, line 10, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $1,000,000)''.

  The CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 minutes 
in support of his amendment.
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment supported by Chairman 
Lamar Smith, chairman of the Judiciary Committee. The reason he and I 
are in support of this is because this amendment reduces the Office of 
the Secretary and Executive Management account by $1 million and 
increases funding for immigration and customs enforcement by $1 million 
in order to facilitate new agreements under the 287(g) program. This 
bill, this amendment, will provide for better enforcement of our 
immigration laws.

                              {time}  1700

  287(g) has been very successful. It allows State and local law 
enforcement agencies to cooperate with the Department of Homeland 
Security to enforce immigration law. It was enacted back in 1996, and 
Congress implemented this program to give local communities help with 
illegal immigration in their area.
  A couple of points I would like to make, Mr. Chairman. There are 
maybe 5,000, 6,000 ICE agents in the United States. There are 650,000 
State and local law enforcement officers--650,000. So the 10 million to 
12 million illegal aliens in the country are much more likely to come 
into contact with local law enforcement than they are with an ICE 
agent. And for local law enforcement, it's important that they be 
properly trained so that they don't profile, don't discriminate, but 
properly identify those here illegally who are breaking our laws.
  Now, there is a backlog of cities that want 287(g) agreements, and 
what this legislation does is assist in covering that problem. One of 
the reasons so many cities want to be involved in this is because 
criminal alien gangs generally victimize people in the cities, often 
are victimizing other immigrants, often victimize legal immigrants. 
And, frankly, law enforcement should be trained in how to identify and 
remove criminal aliens, and this assists in that.

[[Page H3844]]

  It's a great force multiplier for ICE. It provides ICE with 
assistance such as following up on leads and performing investigative 
research and surveillance. It's had a positive effect on the workload 
for ICE by identifying removable aliens, and it gives ICE greater 
flexibility in directing its immigration law enforcement resources.
  Now, I want to make another point here. The CBO scores this amendment 
as costing zero in budget authority. Also, I think we should reflect on 
the fact that given that one of the 9/11 hijackers, Mohammed Atta, was 
pulled over in traffic 2 days before the 9/11 attack, there is a 
significant benefit to checking the immigration status of all 
individuals who are arrested. Had the officer inquired about Atta, he 
then could have found out that Atta was in the country illegally and 
may well have prevented his participation in the attacks. That is one 
of the benefits of having local law enforcement trained in this area.
  I also want to make an additional point. This brings tens of 
thousands of local law enforcement to help enforce our immigration 
laws. There are now 70 jurisdictions with these agreements, but many 
more communities want help. The 287(g) program also provides training 
to State and local police, giving them additional tools that they can 
use to prosecute crimes committed by illegal immigrants, especially 
gang violence and document fraud.
  Over the last few years, the open borders lobby has been successful 
in getting the administration to curtail the use of this program. Well, 
the 287(g) program is a solid improvement in terms of enforcing 
immigration laws. Particularly with the gang activity that we have 
today, with the drug lords sending local gangs across the border in 
order to participate in crimes here, it is very clear that we need this 
kind of a program.
  Before it was created, many illegal immigrants stopped by State and 
local law enforcement went free. Immigration laws were not enforced. 
Since the program was developed, it's helped the State and local law 
enforcement not only fight crime, as I've indicated, but get the gang 
leaders, get the serious criminals off the streets and enforce our 
laws.
  So instead of curtailing the program, we should be promoting the 
expansion of it. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and 
help local communities to enforce our immigration laws.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to 
this amendment.
  The bill before us provides full funding for the Department's request 
for the 287(g) program, and $1 million more simply is not needed.
  The increase proposed by the gentleman comes at the expense of the 
Secretary for Homeland Security, an account which is already 
significantly reduced in this bill and will likely be reduced further, 
based on amendments that we have seen already. Further cuts in these 
accounts would eliminate key staffing positions, limiting the 
Department's ability to respond to national emergencies and to provide 
for stable leadership in the event of a large disaster or a terrorist 
attack.
  I should also note that while this bill slashes funding for many 
worthwhile and needed Homeland Security programs that support first 
responders, it cuts Homeland Security research, much-needed research. 
But the bill piles more funding onto immigration enforcement. In fact, 
it adds $28 million in unrequested funding for immigration detention 
and removal.
  Now, the bill provides full funding for the Secure Communities 
program to continue expanding this program across the country, allowing 
Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, to identify criminal 
aliens who are in local custody. I bring up the Secure Communities 
program because it accomplishes the objectives of the 287(g) program 
but much more efficiently and without deputizing local police to 
enforce immigration law, a proposition that is rife with complications 
and potential abuses. So if we were really serious about deficit 
reduction and efficiency, we would tell ICE to transition out of this 
duplicative program, 287(g), and to concentrate on making Secure 
Communities work efficiently and fairly and well to identify and remove 
convicted criminal aliens.
  I'd also like to note for my colleagues that GAO and the Inspector 
General have reviewed the 287(g) program, in some cases at our 
subcommittee's request; and they found serious flaws in the 
implementation of this program and in ICE's ability to oversee its 
operation in local communities. The IG found 33 major deficiencies in 
287(g) last year and then found 16 more when it recently reassessed the 
program.
  So this is an unwise and unneeded amendment, and I urge its 
rejection.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Royce).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from California will be 
postponed.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

              Office of the Under Secretary for Management

       For necessary expenses of the Office of the Under Secretary 
     for Management, as authorized by sections 701 through 705 of 
     the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 341 through 345), 
     $234,940,000, of which not to exceed $3,000 shall be for 
     official reception and representation expenses: Provided, 
     That of the total amount made available under this heading, 
     $5,000,000 shall remain available until September 30, 2016, 
     solely for the alteration and improvement of facilities, 
     tenant improvements, and relocation costs to consolidate 
     Department headquarters operations at the Nebraska Avenue 
     Complex; and $16,686,000 shall remain available until 
     September 30, 2014, for the Human Resources Information 
     Technology program.


          Amendment No. 12 Offered by Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas

  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the 
desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 3, line 9, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $2,500,000)''.
       Page 24, line 23, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $5,000,000)''.
       Page 25, line 6, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $2,500,000)''.

  Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman. I reserve a point of order on the 
gentlewoman's amendment.
  The CHAIR. A point of order is reserved.
  The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes in support of her 
amendment.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I have served on the Homeland 
Security Committee, tragically, since the formation of the select 
committee and then ultimately the full committee.
  For many of us who were here in the United States Congress and 
watched the plane attack the Pentagon and ultimately visited Ground 
Zero in the early stages are well aware of the need to protect America. 
As the ranking member of the Transportation Security Committee, working 
with my colleague from Alabama, the chairman, we well recognize the 
importance of transportation facilities and modes.
  For some reason, terrorists are attracted to airlines and freeways 
and trains. So this amendment is a very simple amendment that I believe 
provides security to the American public.

                              {time}  1710

  It was no doubt that after the killing of Osama bin Laden discovered 
papers suggested that al Qaeda operatives were considering attacking 
the U.S. rail system on the 10-year anniversary of the September 11 
attacks. Yes, it was 2010, but if we recall, we were unaware that we 
were going to be attacked on 9/11. Los Angeles MTA planned security 
upgrades in response to bin Laden's killing and the discovery of rail 
attack plans. That is the American public's sensitivity, that we must 
protect our modes of transportation.
  My amendment is a simple amendment that restores $5 million to the 
Transportation Security account at the President's submitted request by

[[Page H3845]]

reducing the Office of the Under Secretary for Management and 
Transportation Threat Assessment and Credentialing.
  Since the demise of Osama bin Laden, it has come to light that al 
Qaeda had ambitious plans to launch an attack against our Nation's mass 
transit system and their riders, our constituents. Now more than ever 
we must ensure that our mass transit and surface transportation is 
secure by developing risk-based policies and programs that devote 
appropriate resources to securing these systems against a terrorist 
attack. This amendment would increase the surface transportation 
security account at TSA by $5 million, bringing the account in line 
with the President's request for FY 2012. In Washington terms, $5 
million may not sound like much, but it is a critical increase to the 
Surface Transportation Security account at TSA, which has historically 
been underfunded. This account funds frontline homeland security 
personnel in the form of surface transportation inspectors who, in 
addition to reviewing regulatory compliance, consult with transit 
agencies and rail companies in improving security infrastructure and 
operational protocols.
  The American public, whether it's Amtrak or long-distance rail, need 
our involvement. We cannot afford to diminish the protection of our 
rail lines that grandmothers and grandchildren, college students and 
commuters use. This is a smart investment at a critical time. Be 
reminded, we got no notice about 9/11, and we will get no notice about 
attacks on our rail system.
  To fund this increase, my amendment simply reduces $2.5 million from 
two different accounts. This is a wise decision at this time to help 
our communities and mitigate the terrorist threat to our local transit 
systems, as well as to improve security for passenger and freight rail. 
Just be the community that would be impacted by a horrific terrorist 
act. Whether it is through the neighborhoods of Houston, whether it's 
in Los Angeles or the Midwest, all of our communities and constituents 
are serviced by some form of surface transportation or mass transit, 
and as we have seen abroad, this mode of transportation is vulnerable 
to terrorist attack. From Spain to London, they know the truth, and we 
must stand vigilant. Providing this increased funding for our surface 
transportation inspectors is a wise investment on behalf of the 
American people, and I ask my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation, but I rise in 
opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman withdraws his reservation.
  The gentleman from Alabama is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, the bill already reduces the Office of 
Under Secretary substantially, 6 percent below the request and 26 
percent below the FY11 CR, reflecting the fact that the bill includes 
no funding to continue the construction of the Department of Homeland 
Security headquarters. The bill has reduced management to a bare 
minimum, with reduction of 29 percent to leadership and management 
offices.
  The Department of Homeland Security is an agency of 230,000 
employees. The number of employees in OSEM is 700, or less than one-
third of 1 percent, and funding provided is also one-third of 1 percent 
for the total DHS budget. This is extremely small for assets needed to 
manage a major security department. Additional reductions would prevent 
filling key staffing positions and thus limit the ability of the 
Department to respond to national emergencies and provide stable 
leadership to the public and the Nation in the event of a large 
disaster or terrorist event.
  These reductions are not compatible with running a Cabinet agency. No 
other Federal department is asked to manage such large responsibilities 
and operating components with such a small and stretched headquarters 
element. Therefore, I urge the Members to oppose this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I would like to yield to my colleague 
from Texas so that she can respond to the last speaker.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank the ranking member.
  I think it's important; I listened to the gentleman, Mr. Aderholt, 
list a lot of numerical and factual points about personnel. Let me be 
very clear, as Senator Lieberman said, all of our systems need to be on 
high alert and all of our citizens need to be on high alert as we 
approach the 10th anniversary of 9/11.
  It is clear, Mr. Chairman, and my colleagues, that something is awry 
with al Qaeda. Al Qaeda is interested in transportation modes, and 
they're interested in our rail systems. They have already done Mumbai, 
they have done London, and they have done Madrid; and therefore, they 
are looking at the United States. No, we don't have specifics, but we 
do have the potential of our rail lines crossing America being ripe 
targets for al Qaeda. This is a very small amount that would allow us 
to have surface inspectors who are truly crucial to the protection of 
the Nation's mass transit, freight, and long-distance rail.
  Every State is impacted, from New Hampshire to Florida, from the 
Midwest to the West, Texas. Houston has as its city insignia a rail. 
Why? Because trains crisscross our community. Therefore, I think it 
behooves us to be bipartisan and to actually support an amendment that 
provides a cushion of protection and a cushion and an armor, if you 
will, against the thoughts and the mindsets of al Qaeda. Yes, they are 
franchised, they are splintered, but that makes it all the easier for 
them to find their way here to the United States.
  I remind my colleagues that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound 
of cure. I ask my colleagues to consider the small investment it would 
take to be able to secure the Nation's railways. And as a member of the 
Homeland Security Committee, the authorizing committee, I can assure 
you that we are seeing these kinds of threats in terms of the vastness 
of our system, and we need to be able to protect our system.
  I ask my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. Chair, I rise before you and my colleagues to take the 
opportunity to explain my amendment to H.R. 2017, ``Making 
appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security for the fiscal 
year ending September 30, 2012, and for other purposes.'' My amendment 
would increase the Transportation Security Administration's (TSA) 
Surface Transportation Security's account by $5 million and restore 
funding for this account at the President's submitted request, offset 
by reducing the Office of the Under Secretary for Management, and 
Transportation Threat Assessment and Credentialing (TTAC).
  Since the demise of Osama bin Laden, it has come to light that al-
Qaeda had ambitious plans to launch an attack against our Nation's mass 
transit systems and their riders, our constituents.
  Now more than ever, we must ensure that our mass transit and surface 
transportation is secure by developing risk-based policies and programs 
that devote appropriate resources to securing these systems against 
terrorist attack.
  This amendment would increase the Surface Transportation Security 
account at TSA by $5 million, bringing the account in line with the 
President's request for FY 2012.
  In Washington terms, $5 million may not sound like much, but it is a 
critical increase to the Surface Transportation Security account at 
TSA, which has historically been underfunded.
  This account funds front line homeland security personnel in the form 
of surface transportation inspectors who, in addition to reviewing 
regulatory compliance, consult with transit agencies and rail companies 
in improving security infrastructure and operational protocols.
  Surface inspectors also help disseminate best practices to transit 
and rail entities across the Nation.
  This is a smart investment at a critical time for surface 
transportation security.
  To fund this increase, my amendment reduces $2.5 million from the 
Transportation Threat and Credentialing program and $2.5 million from 
the Office of the Under Secretary for Management at the Department of 
Homeland Security. Both of these programs are well funded--TTAC at $183 
million and the Under Secretary's office at $234 million.
  This is a wise decision at this time to help our communities address 
and mitigate the terrorist threat to our local transit systems, as well 
as for improving security for passenger and freight rail.

[[Page H3846]]

  All of our communities and constituents are serviced by some form of 
surface transportation or mass transit, and as we have seen abroad, 
this mode of transportation is vulnerable to terrorist attack.
  We must be vigilant in recognizing the threat, make wise investment 
in security, and collaborate with industry stakeholders to secure this 
transportation mode that is essential to our economy and way of life.
  Mr. Chair, I ask my colleagues to support my amendment.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance 
of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  The amendment was rejected.


               Amendment Offered by Mr. Broun of Georgia

  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Page 3, line 9, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced 
     by $600,000)''.
       Page 92, line 7, after the dollar amount insert 
     ``(increased by $600,000)''.

  Mr. BROUN of Georgia (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask 
unanimous consent to dispense with the reading.
  The CHAIR. Without objection, the amendment will be considered as 
having been read.
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes in support of 
his amendment.
  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer my 
amendment to H.R. 2017. My amendment simply cuts $600,000 from the 
Office of the Under Secretary in the Department of Homeland Security 
and places those funds in the deficit reduction account.
  During this economic emergency, we must find cuts wherever we can, 
especially when a Department is not being a good steward of the funding 
that Congress provides it.
  If you look at this bill, the Secretary is being allocated nearly 
$127 million, of which $6 million goes to the Office of Legislative 
Affairs. I think the American people would agree with me that $6 
million is a lot of money for political appointees who refuse to do 
their job and participate in the oversight process.
  On several occasions this year, Mr. Chairman, the Department has 
either refused to sit on the same panel as other witnesses or has 
outright refused to appear before various House committees and 
subcommittees. In fact, as chairman of the House Science Subcommittee 
on Investigations and Oversight, I held a hearing on behavioral science 
and security with the goal of understanding how science informed the 
development of TSA's SPOT program.

                              {time}  1720

  The Department refused my request for a witness from TSA for their 
own program, and I'm not the only chairman who has received such shabby 
and unacceptable treatment. This pattern of arrogance makes fulfilling 
our oversight responsibilities of the executive branch very difficult, 
if not impossible.
  In the end, it's the American people, Mr. Chairman, who lose if its 
government cannot perform its most basic constitutional 
responsibilities. If the Department is not going to meet its 
obligations of appearing before Congress when requested, it is prudent 
to apply the funds rescinded in this, my amendment, to more 
constructive uses such as reducing our deficit.
  If 10 percent is good enough for the Lord, I think the Office of 
Legislative Affairs can part with 10 percent of their funding to aid in 
our efforts of reducing the burden of debt on our children and 
grandchildren.
  I can think of no higher priority than reducing the deficit and 
creating jobs in America. I would urge all of my colleagues to support 
this amendment today.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, we accept the gentleman from Georgia's 
amendment.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I will not go on at length.
  I simply don't think the case has been made for a further reduction. 
The suspicious passenger, the observation techniques programs that have 
been cited aren't even under the jurisdiction of the Under Secretary 
being cut. And the bill already cuts $4,993,000 off of the fiscal year 
2011 level for the Office of Under Secretary for Management; and it 
cuts $14,118,000 off of the administration's request.
  Now, Mr. Chairman, I know this is an easy target. Who knows even what 
under Secretary for Management does. It's a very common technique 
around here to go after these accounts, these administrative and front 
office accounts, just for the sake of cutting or maybe to pay for 
something else that sounds good. But I don't think it's wise. I don't 
think it's responsible. And I would urge rejection of the amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Georgia (Mr. Broun).
  The amendment was agreed to.


              Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Poe of Texas

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

       Page 3, line 9, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced 
     by $10,000,000)''.
       Page 12, line 6, after the dollar amount insert 
     ``(increased by $10,000,000)''.

  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 minutes in 
support of his amendment.
  Mr. POE of Texas. I thank the Chairman.
  This amendment takes $10 million from the Office of the Under 
Secretary for Management of DHS and moves it to the Border, Security, 
Fencing, Infrastructure, and Technology account with the purpose of 
being used for border cell phone communications to help border 
residents disseminate border security-related information to Border 
Patrol and law enforcement for the protection of their lives and our 
border.
  I appreciate the support of Congressman Altmire from Pennsylvania in 
this bipartisan amendment.
  This amendment really is the idea of Congresswoman Gabby Giffords 
from Arizona. After having been to the border of Arizona with her 
staff, I learned firsthand the problems that not only Texas and other 
States but Arizona specifically has with communication when ranchers 
are on their property.
  On March 27, 2010, rancher Bob Krentz of Arizona was murdered 20 
miles north of the border from Mexico in an isolated area of Arizona. 
The lack of communications capability made Krentz more vulnerable than 
he would have been otherwise and complicated the search for the 
assailants. His wife believes it was in a cell phone dead zone where he 
was killed and that he was trying to call for help, but his cell phone 
would not work.
  Since that time, Congresswoman Giffords has been working diligently 
on this issue, and I have had the opportunity to work with her on other 
border security issues as well as this one.
  These dead zones are so common that often times border ranchers in 
Arizona and Texas rely on shortwave radios to communicate and call for 
help when they are in trouble or they see illegal crossings into their 
property.
  The inability of the U.S. Government to secure the U.S.-Mexico border 
creates public safety hazards for residents of border areas and the law 
enforcement agents who patrol them. Many border areas are rural and 
lack wireless communication capabilities like phone service, and they 
exacerbate the border-related public safety concern.
  Once again, I want to thank Congresswoman Giffords and her staff for 
this legislation.
  I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. ALTMIRE. I thank the gentleman from Texas, and we are joining the 
Office of Congresswoman Giffords in offering this amendment.
  I had the opportunity last week to travel to Congresswoman Giffords' 
district and the 114-mile border that she has along the Mexican border 
and her district. And when you see, as my colleague from Texas knows, 
these ranchers and the territory that they have to cover--and we have a 
national community campaign now: ``If you see something, saying 
something.'' Well, these are areas where you don't have the 
communications. Even if you see

[[Page H3847]]

something, there's no one to tell. There's no way to get that message 
out.
  So what the gentleman from Texas is trying to do with this amendment 
is trying to make sure that the equipment is there so that these 
ranchers and community citizens, if they see somebody coming across the 
border, if they see something that is alarming to them, they're able to 
communicate it. Right now that technology does not exist. They are 
literally in the dark as far as communicating it. There is a public 
safety aspect to this amendment. And there is a Border Patrol aspect--
the ability of our law enforcement personnel to communicate with each 
other and communicate with the local citizens who, in some cases, are 
out miles and miles away from any form of mobile communications.
  So I strongly support this amendment. I thank the gentleman from 
Texas for his leadership in offering it, and I thank Congresswoman 
Giffords and her office for leading the charge on this very important 
technology.
  Mr. POE of Texas. This money is necessary so that people who live in 
border areas can communicate with law enforcement. Cell phone service 
is a basic necessity for security. It is a national security issue. It 
is a homeland security issue, and it is a border security issue. I urge 
adoption of this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. I reluctantly rise in opposition to this amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Alabama is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. Again, this proposal would further create cuts to the 
Department's management functions below what is responsible for the 
Nation's security. The committee has already cut the Department's 
headquarters and management at historic levels.
  As I had mentioned earlier, they include the zoning act, the zeroing 
out of the funding for the Department's new headquarters. It zeroes out 
funding for the data center migration. It slashes other activities we 
cannot afford at this time.
  The Department must still have robust funding to manage the many 
organizations under its authority. The Department was created from 
nearly two dozen agencies and still faces challenges in achieving the 
unified homeland security enterprise.
  More importantly, the gentleman's amendment proposes that the 
Department pay for cell towers to provide phone services to the general 
public.
  I'm very sympathetic to the needs of rural communities. I'm from a 
rural community, and certainly I'm sympathetic to remote ranchers as 
well. But this is not a cause that the Homeland Security can bear at 
this time, especially under the constraints that we have. Therefore, I 
urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Poe).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas will be postponed.

                              {time}  1730


                    Amendment Offered by Ms. Norton

  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Page 3, line 19, after the period insert ``In addition, for 
     necessary expenses of the Office of the Under Secretary for 
     Management to plan, acquire, construct, renovate, remediate, 
     equip, furnish, and occupy buildings and facilities for the 
     consolidation of the Department of Homeland Security 
     headquarters, $500,673,000.''.

  Ms. NORTON (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent to waive the reading of the amendment.
  The CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman from 
the District of Columbia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the 
gentlelady's amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman reserves a point of order.
  The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would restore $500,673,000 
to the Department of Homeland Security that has been cut entirely from 
this appropriation. This is the most important construction, private or 
public, ongoing in our country today, because it involves a secure 
facility that the Congress has voted to consolidate in order to protect 
the United States of America in the homeland.
  This entire appropriation cuts billions of dollars in order to reduce 
spending. I wager that there is no cut quite like this one, because 
this cut guarantees that the taxpayers will be charged more precisely 
because of this cut. Already, the reduction in funding to the 2011 
appropriation for consolidation of the Department of Homeland Security 
has cost taxpayers $69 million. Increased costs for this construction 
of Federal property come from, in this case, lease holdovers, short-
term lease extensions, and horrific inefficiencies now imposed because 
the integration of construction of this mammoth facility will be 
delayed and interrupted. Any further reduction in funding will 
substantially increase even more the total costs of this huge project, 
the largest since the Pentagon. Until now, it was on budget and on 
time.
  Remember why Congress voted to consolidate these 22 agencies in the 
first place. Congress has never formed one agency of 22 different 
agencies. They are spread all over this region. That is why the Bush 
and the Obama administrations and the Congress have pursued a 
consistent program to consolidate critical elements of the Department 
of Homeland Security.
  These DHS tenants now reside in the most expensive lease space in the 
United States, because that's what it is in this region, barring none 
except perhaps New York City. DHS spends hundreds of millions of 
dollars on leases throughout the entire region. The rapid consolidation 
of the Department of Homeland Security now underway will save billions, 
that's B, billions, in real estate costs, in addition to directing 
lease revenue to the GSA Federal Buildings Fund, which instead of using 
appropriated taxpayer dollars, uses agency rental payments to fund the 
construction and maintenance of Federal real estate giving taxpayers 
added savings.
  Currently, DHS is scheduled for full occupation by 2017. Every day of 
delay costs the taxpayers thousands of dollars. This is no way to do 
budget cutting. You don't cut what then costs you more in the short 
term and in the long term.
  Significant progress has already been made. Forty-five percent of the 
construction is complete, including the Coast Guard National Operations 
Center and the Coast Guard headquarters. You just don't interrupt a 
massive, complex building like this unless you want to spend more money 
than was anticipated.
  The timing of this amendment is critical to ensure that the project 
does not increase costs further. The continued dispersal of vital 
elements of this critically important agency, necessary for our 
security, undermines the DHS mission by impeding its operations here 
and throughout the country. We need quickly to fund this project.
  Mr. Chair, I rise to offer an amendment to restore funding for the 
consolidation of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) headquarters 
construction at St. Elizabeths in the District of Columbia. This 
amendment would restore $500,673,000 to the DHS management and 
operations appropriations account for the project. The amendment would 
fully fund the President's fiscal year 2012 DHS request for the 
project, as well as fund the outstanding balance of the President's 
fiscal year 2011 DHS request.
  The reduction in funding in fiscal year 2011 is expected to increase 
the total project cost by $69 million because of the loss of integrated 
construction sequencing and efficiencies between the U.S. Coast Guard 
building and the adjacent DHS Operations Center construction, in 
addition to the costs caused by lease holdovers and the short-term 
lease extensions for the delay for Mission Support consolidation. Any 
further reduction in funding will substantially increase the total cost 
of this huge project, which, until the cuts began, was on budget and on 
time.
  The benefits of the consolidation of the DHS headquarters at St. 
Elizabeths are twofold.

[[Page H3848]]

First, Congress voted to consolidate the location of 22 DHS agencies 
because of the urgent need to improve the management of the agencies in 
the DHS, which are currently scattered in 40 different locations in the 
Washington metropolitan region. Consequently, the Bush and Obama 
Administrations and the Congress have pursued a program to consolidate 
critical elements of DHS on the federally-owned St. Elizabeths Campus. 
The DHS components identified for consolidation at the headquarters 
include the Office of the Secretary of the Department of Homeland 
Security, the Transportation Security Administration, Customs and 
Border Protection, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the Federal 
Emergency Management Agency, the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) and liaisons 
for agencies not being relocated there.
  Second, the General Services Administration (GSA) will relocate DHS 
tenants currently in expensive leased space to federally-owned space. 
DHS annually spends hundreds of millions of dollars for leases 
throughout the Washington region. The rapid consolidation of DHS, which 
is now underway, will allow the federal government to save billions of 
dollars in real estate costs, in addition to directing lease revenue to 
the GSA Federal Buildings Fund, which, instead of using taxpayer 
dollars, uses agency rental payments to fund the construction and 
maintenance of the federal real estate portfolio, an additional saving 
to taxpayers. The consolidation on St. Elizabeths is expected to 
include 4.5 million gross square feet of office space, with 3.5 million 
square feet on the West Campus and 750,000 square feet on the East 
Campus. Currently, the St. Elizabeths site is scheduled for full 
occupation in 2017.
  The DHS headquarters consolidation is expected to cost a total of 
$3.6 billion, with $2.2 billion coming from GSA and $1.4 billion from 
DHS. To date, the project has received $1.24 billion and there has been 
significant progress, including the groundbreaking for the first 
building on the site, a 1.2 million square foot project that includes a 
central utility plant and two seven-story parking garages, that will 
house the USCG headquarters. There has also been significant investment 
in the infrastructure of the campus, including construction of a 
perimeter fence and adaptive reuse of historic buildings. As of March 
31, 2011, the USCG headquarters is 45% complete.
  Full funding of the FY 2012 request would ensure complete funding 
for, and allow occupation and use of, the USCG headquarters. My 
amendment is critical to ensure that the cost of the project does not 
increase because of delays. The continued dispersal of vital components 
of DHS, a critically important department, undermines its mission by 
seriously impeding its operations here and throughout the country. As 
ranking member of the subcommittee with jurisdiction over GSA and this 
project, I have held nearly half a dozen hearings and roundtables on 
the co-location and consolidation of DHS at St. Elizabeths. I am 
anxious to move forward with this project and look forward to the 
completion of the consolidation so that DHS can turn its full attention 
to its core mission.
  Unless somebody wants to speak on my amendment, I am prepared to 
withdraw it.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I would like to briefly 
address the amendment.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. I continue to reserve a point of order.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Alabama continues to reserve his point 
of order.
  The gentleman from North Carolina is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend our 
colleague from the District of Columbia for her persistent advocacy for 
this headquarters consolidation and construction, and also for the 
history she has recounted for us today. I think it's time well spent to 
understand how both the Bush and Obama administrations and the 
Subcommittee on Homeland Security Appropriations, through both parties' 
leadership, have until now supported this project.
  The bill before us, however, provides no funding for the new DHS 
headquarters or for the consolidation of leased property in 2012. 
That's a penny-wise and pound-foolish decision. Already based on the 
delay in finalizing the 2011 bill and the reduced resources provided in 
that bill for DHS headquarters construction activities, the cost of the 
headquarters project has grown. It's grown by $200 million, from a 
total cost of $3.4 billion to $3.6 billion.
  The decision to deny an additional $159.6 million in 2012 to finalize 
construction of the first phase of the headquarters project and to 
begin construction of the second phase will result in yet higher costs 
in the out-years, and will delay by at least 2 years when the Coast 
Guard can move into its new headquarters facility, which is already 
under construction.
  Similarly, the bill doesn't provide $55.6 million requested for lease 
consolidation activities. Last year, this subcommittee held a very 
informative hearing with DHS and the General Services Administration on 
this activity. We heard testimony about the significant financial 
benefits of reducing the number of leases DHS has from 70 buildings 
across 46 locations in the greater D.C. area to six to eight buildings. 
Witnesses testified that this massive footprint disrupts the 
effectiveness and the cohesiveness of departmental operations and adds 
needless layers of costs and complexities to facilities management. 
Additionally, the leases will consume an increasingly larger share of 
the Department's budget through overhead costs in the coming years.
  In a time of fiscal constraint, the Department will not have extra 
dollars to pay for all of these lease increases without shortchanging 
frontline and mission-essential programs.
  So, Mr. Chairman, at a time when real estate prices continue to be 
low in the greater Washington area and construction and material costs 
are relatively low as well, this is the time to make this kind of 
investment. Funding this activity would save taxpayers money for years 
to come.
  With that, I again commend the gentlewoman for her passionate and 
effective argument on this point.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. NORTON. I appreciate the opportunity to speak, and I withdraw my 
amendment.
  The CHAIR. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
  There was no objection.

                              {time}  1740


                   Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Poe

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

       Page 3, line 9, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $100,000,000)''.
       Page 16, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $100,000,000)''.
       Page 18, line 23, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $100,000,000)''.

  Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the 
gentleman's amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Alabama reserves a point of order.
  The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 minutes in support of 
his amendment.
  Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, this bill has to do with enough 
housing for people who are illegally in this country in order to be 
detained and deported back to where they came from.
  This past Sunday morning in Houston, Texas, police officer Kevin Will 
was on patrol. He was working an accident scene, talking to a witness 
at that accident scene, when a person comes barreling through the 
police barricade, in spite of the warning lights that were on top of 
the police cruisers.
  When Kevin Will saw that the car was coming towards him, he told this 
witness to jump out of the way. The witness jumps out of the way, and 
this individual runs over and kills Officer Kevin Will. He was charged 
with evading arrest, he was charged with possession of cocaine, and he 
was charged with intoxication manslaughter of a police officer, and he 
was in this country illegally. He had previously been deported twice.
  The district attorney's office said this individual is a member of 
the MS-13 gang, and now he is still in the United States committing 
crimes.
  There are not enough places to house these people like this criminal 
after they serve their time and house them so that they can be deported 
back where they came from.
  What this bill does is allocate more money for detention beds so that 
we can detain these people while we are awaiting to deport them back 
where they came from so that we can have a safer community, so that 
these people aren't running loose somewhere in the United States.
  I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

[[Page H3849]]

  Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this 
amendment.
  I thank the chairman of the subcommittee and their very capable staff 
in putting strong language in the bill and encouraging the Immigration 
and Customs Enforcement office to fill as many beds as possible. We 
have given the agency an unprecedented amount of money and leeway and 
guidance in this bill to fill every available bed, public, private, 
county, State bed with individuals who cross the border illegally, with 
individuals who are released from county and State prisons that are 
supposed to be deported criminally.
  The solution to the problem of illegals crossing the border, the 
guns, the gangs, the drugs, the crime, is not complicated. It is called 
law enforcement. We want to enforce existing law with the support of 
the local community. We have very strong support from the communities 
on the border and, in fact, we are enforcing existing law, which is 6 
months in jail if you cross the border illegally, with great success in 
the Del Rio sector, and it is being rolled out in the Laredo sector.
  We are working together with my good friend, my colleague, Henry 
Cuellar, Ted Poe, and I with the support of the local community, the 
local prosecutors, the Border Patrol, the prosecutors, with great 
success.
  If I could, I would like to yield briefly to my friend from Texas 
(Mr. Cuellar).
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe) controls the time.
  Mr. POE of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. CUELLAR. I want to thank both of my colleagues from Texas. It is 
a program that does work. We have sat down, we have gone to Laredo. We 
have seen it work in the Del Rio area. We are now working in Laredo.
  In fact, the last time we sat with Chief Harris we talked about how 
we can make this work. They do need some space, and so I certainly want 
to work with both of my colleagues to make sure we get more of that 
space, more of the beds to make sure it works.
  All we are doing is enforcing a 1954 law that is on the books 
already, nothing new except enforcing the law. I support what you are 
doing.
  Mr. POE of Texas. I would urge this amendment be adopted. What it 
does is provide more space so that we can detain people and deport them 
back where they came from.
  I yield back the balance of my time.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. ADERHOLT. I insist on my point of order.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, the amendment proposes to amend portions 
of the bill not yet read. The amendment may not be considered en bloc 
under clause 2(f) of rule XXI because the amendment proposes to 
increase the level of outlays in the bill.
  I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
  The CHAIR. Does any Member wish to be heard on the point of order?
  If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
  To be considered en bloc pursuant to clause 2(f) of rule XXI, an 
amendment must not propose to increase the levels of budget authority 
or outlays in the bill. Because the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Texas proposes a net increase in the level of outlays in the bill, 
as argued by the chairman of the subcommittee, it may not avail itself 
of clause 2(f) to address portions of the bill not yet read.
  The point of order is sustained.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. McCaul

  Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Page 3, line 9, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $50,000,000)''.
       Page 7, line 13, after the first dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $50,000,000)''.
       Page 7, line 21, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $50,000,000)''.

  Mr. McCAUL (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask to dispense with 
the reading.
  The CHAIR. Without objection, the amendment will be considered as 
having been read.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Alabama reserves a point of order.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, we have not seen the 
amendment.
  The CHAIR. Is the gentleman objecting to the unanimous consent 
request propounded by the gentleman from Texas that the amendment be 
considered as having been read?
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Yes, I am. We have not seen the 
amendment.
  The CHAIR. Objection is heard.
  The Clerk will continue to read the amendment.
  The Clerk continued to read.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 minutes in 
support of his amendment.
  Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Chairman, my amendment will increase spending by $50 
million for Customs and Border Protection's Air and Marine operations. 
It will include funding for at least 2 UAV systems, as well as much 
needed helicopters and marine vessels to assist CBP operations along 
the border.
  This amendment will provide the resources to increase the number of 
flight crews, training, and ground operations needed to support the 
mounting requests for aerial surveillance missions and boat crews to 
patrol the rivers and lakes along our border.
  CBP air marine support supplements our agents on the ground, allowing 
CBP to deploy fewer agents in a specific area. CBP air marine currently 
operates 7 UAVs and intends to grow the fleet to a total of 18 to 24 by 
2016.
  I have seen the benefits of these missions personally, along with my 
good friend and colleague from the Homeland Security Committee, Mr. 
Cuellar, to whom I yield at this time.
  Mr. CUELLAR. I want to thank my good friend from Texas. I also want 
to thank the chairman and the ranking member for everything they have 
done for border security. We really appreciate it.
  We just feel that we ought to put a little bit of money to have the 
OM and, of course, the UAVs. We have gone down to Corpus. We have been 
there with General Kostelnik, who I think is doing a great job.
  What they do is provide ICE, in the sky, flying at 19,000 feet, they 
can see what is happening, and it provides the intelligence to the 
State, Federal and local. It is certainly something I support.
  I want to thank again my friend, Mr. McCaul, for the work that you 
have done on this particular amendment.
  Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, I insist upon my point of order.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, the amendment proposes to amend portions 
of the bill not yet read. The amendment may not be considered en bloc 
under clause 2(f) of rule XXI because of outlays in the bill.
  I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
  The CHAIR. Does any Member wish to be recognized on the point of 
order?
  If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
  Similar to the last ruling, to be considered en bloc pursuant to 
clause 2(f) of rule XXI an amendment must not propose to increase the 
levels of budget authority or outlays in the bill.
  Because the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas proposes a 
net increase in the level of outlays in the bill as argued by the 
chairman of the subcommittee, it may not avail itself of clause 2(f) to 
address portions of the bill not yet read. The point of order is 
sustained.

                              {time}  1750


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. McCaul

  Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Page 3, line 9, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $10,000,000)''.
       Page 45, line 18, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $10,000,000)''.
       Page 47, line 10, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $10,000,000)''.

  Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the 
gentleman's amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman reserves a point of order.
  The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 minutes in support of 
his amendment.

[[Page H3850]]

  Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Chairman, this amendment will increase funding for 
Operation Stonegarden by $10 million. And while the underlying bill 
increases funding from $50 million to $55 million, it is not enough.
  Operation Stonegarden is a grant program that provides funding to 
county-level governments along the border to prevent, protect against, 
and respond to border security issues as well as enhance cooperation 
and coordination between Federal, State, and local agencies.
  At the last House Homeland Security Emergency Communications, 
Preparedness, and Response Subcommittee hearing, Sheriff Gonzalez of 
Zapata County and Sheriff Larry Dever of Arizona explained the need for 
drastic increases in this funding. While $55 million is woefully 
inadequate when spread around, I believe an additional $10 million 
would advance the cause.
  With that, I yield again to my good friend from Texas.
  Mr. CUELLAR. Again, I want to thank the gentleman from Texas. I want 
to thank the chairman and the ranking member for the work that they 
have done for border security.
  Again, both Mr. McCaul and I feel that we ought to add a little bit 
more help to the local sheriffs and the police that get this 
assistance.
  One of the things that we've seen is, of course, making sure that we 
don't have that spillover coming in from the Republic of Mexico. And by 
giving this assistance, whether it's the sheriff down there in 
Brownsville or going all the way up to El Paso, it's something that's 
needed, and I certainly support my friend to make sure we increase the 
funding for Stonegarden by the amount he has asked for.
  Again, thank you for your leadership, and again, thank you to the 
chairman and ranking member for the work they have done on border 
security.
  Mr. McCAUL. I yield back the balance of my time.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, I insist on my point of order.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. The amendment may not be considered en bloc under 
clause 2(f) of rule XXI because the amendment proposes to increase the 
level of outlays in the bill.
  I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
  The CHAIR. Does any Member seek to speak on the point of order?
  Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Chairman, this is just a question for my good friend 
from Alabama.
  It's my understanding that these moneys are actually offset by the 
Under Secretary of Management's office. There is not an increased 
outlay.
  The CHAIR. Does the gentleman from Alabama wish to be heard further?
  The gentleman is recognized.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. The amendment proposes to increase the level of outlays 
in the bill.
  I insist on my point of order.
  The CHAIR. Does any other Member seek to be heard on the point of 
order? If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
  For the reasons stated by the Chair in the previous ruling, the 
amendment may not avail itself of clause 2(f) of rule XXI to address 
portions of the bill not yet read.
  The point of order is sustained.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. McCaul

  Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Page 3, line 9, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $10,000,000)''.
       Page 16, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $10,000,000)''.

  Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the 
gentleman's amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Alabama reserves a point of order.
  The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 minutes in support of 
his amendment.
  Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Chairman, this amendment will increase funding for 
Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the salaries and expenses in order 
to increase the number of Border Enforcement Security Task Force teams.
  I, along with Mr. Cuellar, have been down to the border and seen the 
direct benefits of the BEST teams in terms of interdicting the 
southbound flow of cash and weapons. It's my sincere hope that with 
additional resources we could stop the flow of weapons going south into 
Mexico, but also seize the cash and asset forfeiture money that could 
then, in turn, help pay for our border security operations.
  With that, I yield to my good friend from Texas.
  Mr. CUELLAR. Again, I want to thank my colleague from Texas. And 
again, I want to thank the chairman and the ranking member for all the 
work that they have done for border security.
  The BEST program is the program that works. Basically what it does is 
it coordinates State, Federal, local and also our international 
partners, both Canadians and Mexicans, to work together to make sure 
that they are able to focus on the same thing, and that is fight 
transnational crime. It's an idea that worked very well--in fact, it 
got started in Laredo, Texas. It expanded now to both the northern and 
southern part of the United States.
  And I certainly support my friend to make sure that we work and make 
sure that the BEST program gets stronger.
  Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, I insist on my point of order.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. The amendment may not be considered en bloc under 
clause 2(f) of rule XXI because the amendment proposes to increase the 
level of outlays in the bill.
  I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
  The CHAIR. Does any Member wish to speak to the point of order? If 
not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
  For the reasons stated by the Chair in the previous rulings, the 
amendment may not avail itself of clause 2(f) of rule XXI to address 
portions of the bill not yet read.
  The point of order is sustained.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. McCaul

  Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Page 3, line 9, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $10,000,000)''.
       Page 7, line 13, after the first dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $10,000,000)''.
       Page 12, line 6, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $10,000,000)''.

  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 minutes in 
support of his amendment.
  Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Chairman, this amendment will increase funding by $10 
million for border security fencing, infrastructure and technology. 
Secretary Napolitano's cancellation of the Secure Border Initiative 
delays the deployment of technology to secure the border.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's 
amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman's reservation is not timely.
  The gentleman from Texas has been recognized for 5 minutes in support 
of his amendment.
  Mr. McCAUL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  The backbone of the new proposed system, integrated fixed towers, 
will not be in place until January 2013. In place of SBInet, a new 
border surveillance technology plan has been developed that abandons 
the fixed sensor tower nature of the original SBInet plan and replaces 
it with multiple technologies. As a result, the new plan consists of a 
reduced number of sensor towers envisioned in the SBInet plan, and in 
their place, lower cost technologies such as mounted radar and camera 
systems, portable and imaging systems, and thermal imaging devices.
  The Secretary said that technology will not be deployed to cover the 
entire southern border until the year 2025. I believe that is 
unacceptable. This amendment provides funding for readily available 
technology that we can deploy quickly to secure the border before that 
timeframe.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Alabama is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, this will breach our outlays, and I 
oppose the amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.

[[Page H3851]]

  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I simply want to back my 
chairman in this instance and also urge a rejection of the amendment.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. McCaul).
  The amendment was rejected.

                              {time}  1800


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. McCaul

  Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Page 3, line 9, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $10,000,000)''.
       Page 16, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $10,000,000)''.
       Page 18, line 23, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $10,000,000)''

  Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the 
gentleman's amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Alabama reserves a point of order.
  The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 minutes in support of 
his amendment.
  Mr. McCAUL. This amendment will increase funding for the Immigration 
and Customs Enforcement Office of Detention and Removal. While the 
underlying bill does increase funding by $26 million, we need more.
  DRO is the primary enforcement arm within ICE for the identification, 
apprehension and removal of illegal aliens from the United States. DRO 
is severely underresourced. It is overwhelmed and does not have the 
resources to do its job. ICE has stated repeatedly that they simply 
don't have the manpower and resources to deport illegal aliens, even 
criminal aliens identified through the 287(g) program. The Federal 
Government has its responsibility, and it needs to step up to the 
plate.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, I insist upon my point of order.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. The amendment proposes to amend portions of the bill 
not yet read. The amendment may not be considered en bloc under clause 
2(f) of rule XXI because the amendment proposes to increase the level 
of outlays in the bill.
  I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
  The CHAIR. For the reasons stated by the Chair in the previous 
rulings, the amendment may not avail itself of clause 2(f) of rule XXI 
to address portions of the bill not yet read.
  The point of order is sustained.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. McCaul

  Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Page 3, line 9, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $10,000,000)''.
       Page 16, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $10,000,000)''.
       Page 17, line 10, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $10,000,000)''

  Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the 
gentleman's amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Alabama reserves a point of order.
  The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 minutes in support of 
his amendment.
  Mr. McCAUL. This amendment will nearly triple the amount of funding 
for the popular 287(g) program, which authorizes the Secretary of 
Homeland Security to permit specially trained State and local law 
enforcement officers to apprehend, investigate or detain aliens during 
a predetermined time frame and under Federal supervision by ICE.
  It is an important force multiplier for ICE in allowing for enhanced 
capabilities to detain and remove illegal aliens identified by local 
law enforcement during the course of their duties.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, I insist upon my point of order.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. The amendment may not be considered en bloc under 
clause 2(f) of rule XXI because the amendment proposes to increase the 
level of outlays in the bill.
  I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
  The CHAIR. Once again, for the reasons stated by the Chair in the 
previous rulings, the amendment may not avail itself of clause 2(f) of 
rule XXI to address portions of the bill not yet read.
  The point of order is sustained.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Cuellar

  Mr. CUELLAR. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Page 3, line 9, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $16,000,000)''.
       Page 14, line 22, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $32,000,000)''.
       Page 63, line 17, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $16,000,000)''.

  Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the 
gentleman's amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Alabama reserves a point of order.
  The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 minutes in support of 
his amendment.
  Mr. CUELLAR. I want to thank the chairman and, of course, our ranking 
member, Mr. Price, for all the work that they have done for border 
security.
  This is an amendment similar to Mr. McCaul's. It adds $32 million to 
the CBP Air/Marine Interdiction, Operations, Maintenance, and 
Procurement. It takes $60 million away from the Office of Under 
Secretary for Management, another $60 million from the Science and 
Technology Management Administration. Again, this is to purchase at 
least two additional UAVs and to make sure that they have the 
operations and maintenance.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation, and I rise in 
opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIR. The reservation of the point of order is withdrawn.
  The gentleman from Alabama is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, we oppose the amendment because we have 
already added $30 million above the request. Therefore, we believe this 
is sufficient funding for this portion of the bill.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I would like to underscore 
what our chairman has said about the generous addition in this bill for 
this function. These offsets, again, may be easy for Members for whom 
this looks like just an abstract, front office expenditure; but in 
fact, they carry real costs. I urge rejection of the amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Cuellar).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. CUELLAR. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas will be postponed.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                 Office of the Chief Financial Officer

       For necessary expenses of the Office of the Chief Financial 
     Officer, as authorized by section 103 of the Homeland 
     Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 113), $50,860,000.

                Office of the Chief Information Officer

       For necessary expenses of the Office of the Chief 
     Information Officer, as authorized by section 103 of the 
     Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 113), and Department-
     wide technology investments, $261,300,000, of which 
     $105,500,000 shall be available for salaries and expenses; 
     and of which $155,800,000, to remain available until 
     September 30, 2014, shall be available for development and 
     acquisition of information technology equipment, software, 
     services, and related activities for the Department of 
     Homeland Security: Provided, That the Chief Information 
     Officer shall submit to the Committees on Appropriations of 
     the Senate and the House of Representatives, not later than 
     60 days after the date of enactment of this Act, an 
     expenditure plan for all information technology acquisition 
     projects that are funded under this heading or are funded by 
     multiple components of the Department of Homeland Security 
     through reimbursable agreements: Provided further, That such 
     expenditure plan shall include, for each project funded, the

[[Page H3852]]

     name of the project, its key milestones, all funding sources, 
     detailed annual and lifecycle costs, and projected cost 
     savings or cost avoidance to be achieved: Provided further, 
     That the Secretary of Homeland Security shall submit to the 
     Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the House of 
     Representatives, at the time that the President's budget is 
     submitted each year under section 1105(a) of title 31, United 
     States Code, a multi-year investment and management plan for 
     all information technology acquisition projects that 
     includes--
       (1) the proposed appropriations included for each project 
     and activity tied to mission requirements, program management 
     capabilities, performance levels, and specific capabilities 
     and services to be delivered;
       (2) the total estimated cost and projected timeline of 
     completion for all multi-year enhancements, modernizations, 
     and new capabilities that are proposed in such budget or 
     underway;
       (3) a detailed accounting of operations and maintenance and 
     contractor services costs; and
       (4) a current acquisition program baseline for each 
     project, that--
       (A) notes and explains any deviations in cost, performance 
     parameters, schedule, or estimated date of completion from 
     the original acquisition program baseline;
       (B) aligns the acquisition programs covered by the baseline 
     to mission requirements by defining existing capabilities, 
     identifying known capability gaps between such existing 
     capabilities and stated mission requirements, and explaining 
     how each increment will address such known capability gaps; 
     and
       (C) defines life-cycle costs for such programs.

                        Analysis and Operations

       For necessary expenses for intelligence analysis and 
     operations coordination activities, as authorized by title II 
     of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 121 et seq.), 
     $344,368,000, of which not to exceed $5,000 shall be for 
     official reception and representation expenses; and of which 
     $58,757,000 shall remain available until September 30, 2013.

                      Office of Inspector General

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General 
     in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector General Act 
     of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App.), $124,000,000, of which not to exceed 
     $300,000 may be used for certain confidential operational 
     expenses, including the payment of informants, to be expended 
     at the direction of the Inspector General.


                       Announcement by the Chair

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings will now 
resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were postponed, 
in the following order:
  An Amendment by Mr. LaTourette of Ohio.
  An Amendment by Mr. Cicilline of Rhode Island.
  Amendment No. 2 by Mr. Royce of California.
  Amendment No. 8 by Mr. Poe of Texas.
  An Amendment by Mr. Cuellar of Texas.
  The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.


                  Amendment Offered by Mr. LaTourette

  The CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette) on 
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 333, 
noes 87, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 384]

                               AYES--333

     Ackerman
     Adams
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Austria
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baldwin
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (CA)
     Bass (NH)
     Becerra
     Berg
     Berkley
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boustany
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brooks
     Brown (FL)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Camp
     Canseco
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cassidy
     Castor (FL)
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cohen
     Cole
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dold
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Duffy
     Duncan (TN)
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Emerson
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farenthold
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Fudge
     Gallegly
     Garamendi
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grijalva
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Gutierrez
     Hall
     Hanabusa
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Heinrich
     Herrera Beutler
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hochul
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Hultgren
     Hurt
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly
     Kildee
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kissell
     Kline
     Kucinich
     Lance
     Landry
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Luetkemeyer
     Lujan
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Marchant
     Marino
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCollum
     McCotter
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKinley
     McNerney
     Meehan
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy (PA)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pingree (ME)
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Polis
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Reyes
     Ribble
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross (AR)
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Runyan
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Scalise
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Sutton
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Turner
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walberg
     Walden
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     West
     Whitfield
     Wilson (FL)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NOES--87

     Aderholt
     Amash
     Bachmann
     Benishek
     Bilbray
     Bishop (UT)
     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Calvert
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Carter
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Diaz-Balart
     Dreier
     Duncan (SC)
     Ellmers
     Flake
     Flores
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Graves (GA)
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hunter
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lankford
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     Long
     Lummis
     Mack
     McCarthy (CA)
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Neugebauer
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Pearce
     Pence
     Pitts
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Quayle
     Roby
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Roskam
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Southerland
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     Westmoreland
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Yoder
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Chaffetz
     Giffords
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Higgins
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Myrick
     Schwartz
     Tierney
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz

                              {time}  1838

  Messrs. McCARTHY of California, PEARCE, PENCE, WESTMORELAND, MACK, 
and Mrs. McMORRIS RODGERS changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. SERRANO, SCHOCK, BECERRA, NUNES, SESSIONS, FLEISCHMANN, 
SCALISE, FARENTHOLD, SHIMKUS, WITTMAN, FORBES, WOODALL, GARRETT, 
GALLEGLY, KLINE, HULTGREN, RIGELL, BONNER, MARCHANT, CRAWFORD, GRIFFIN 
of Arkansas, GUTHRIE, WOMACK, KELLY, BURGESS, ROGERS of Michigan, 
ALEXANDER, FLEMING and COLE, and Mrs. EMERSON, Mrs. BLACKBURN, Mrs. 
BLACK, Ms. GRANGER, and Ms.

[[Page H3853]]

BUERKLE changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Cicilline

  The CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. 
Cicilline) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the 
ayes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 154, 
noes 266, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 385]

                               AYES--154

     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Blumenauer
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Burgess
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cassidy
     Castor (FL)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Cooper
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (IL)
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Denham
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Green, Al
     Grijalva
     Grimm
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hanna
     Hastings (FL)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hirono
     Hochul
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     King (NY)
     Lance
     Langevin
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCaul
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--266

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Amash
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Capito
     Cardoza
     Carter
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Conyers
     Costa
     Costello
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Critz
     Culberson
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (KY)
     DeFazio
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dold
     Donnelly (IN)
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Gene
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Heinrich
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Inslee
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Kelly
     Kind
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kissell
     Kline
     Kucinich
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Landry
     Lankford
     Larsen (WA)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Long
     Luetkemeyer
     Lujan
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mack
     Marchant
     Marino
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peters
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Quayle
     Rahall
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Waxman
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Cantor
     Chaffetz
     Giffords
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Myrick
     Schwartz
     Tierney
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz


                       Announcement by the Chair

  The CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining on this 
vote.

                              {time}  1844

  Messrs. RUPPERSBERGER and KUCINICH changed their vote from ``aye'' to 
``no.''
  Mr. SCHIFF changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                  Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Royce

  The CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce) 
on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 268, 
noes 151, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 386]

                               AYES--268

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Amash
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Berkley
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Carter
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Connolly (VA)
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Critz
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     DeFazio
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donnelly (IN)
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Heinrich
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Higgins
     Hochul
     Holden
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Inslee
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kissell
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Long
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Marchant
     Marino
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pearce

[[Page H3854]]


     Pence
     Peters
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Rahall
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Scott, David
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Wu
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                               NOES--151

     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Cassidy
     Castor (FL)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Sires
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Barton (TX)
     Chaffetz
     Giffords
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Myrick
     Schwartz
     Slaughter
     Tierney
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz


                       Announcement by the Chair

  The CHAIR (during the vote). One minute is remaining in this vote.

                              {time}  1848

  Messrs. PALLONE and SCHIFF changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


              Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Poe of Texas

  The CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe) on which 
further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by 
voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 327, 
noes 93, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 387]

                               AYES--327

     Ackerman
     Adams
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Berkley
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boustany
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Braley (IA)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (FL)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Capito
     Capps
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cohen
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cooper
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (KY)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Dicks
     Doggett
     Dold
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Engel
     Farenthold
     Fattah
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (AZ)
     Fudge
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Green, Gene
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanabusa
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Heinrich
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Higgins
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hochul
     Holden
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Inslee
     Issa
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kildee
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kissell
     Kline
     Kucinich
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Landry
     Langevin
     Lankford
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Long
     Lowey
     Luetkemeyer
     Lujan
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mack
     Maloney
     Marchant
     Marino
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     Meehan
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Moore
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Olver
     Palazzo
     Pascrell
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Pence
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Petri
     Pingree (ME)
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Polis
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Quayle
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Reyes
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Rothman (NJ)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Scalise
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, Austin
     Scott, David
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sires
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Southerland
     Speier
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Turner
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Waters
     Watt
     Webster
     Weiner
     Welch
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (FL)
     Wilson (SC)
     Womack
     Woodall
     Wu
     Yarmuth
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                                NOES--93

     Aderholt
     Amash
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (NY)
     Bonner
     Butterfield
     Cantor
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Castor (FL)
     Chu
     Clarke (NY)
     Clyburn
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Costa
     Crenshaw
     Cummings
     Davis (IL)
     Denham
     Deutch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dingell
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Filner
     Foxx
     Frelinghuysen
     Garamendi
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Al
     Grijalva
     Grimm
     Gutierrez
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Keating
     Lance
     Larsen (WA)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     Meeks
     Miller, George
     Moran
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nunnelee
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor (AZ)
     Paul
     Payne
     Peterson
     Quigley
     Reed
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rivera
     Roby
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roybal-Allard
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Schrader
     Smith (NE)
     Stark
     Terry
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Towns
     Waxman
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Woolsey

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Chaffetz
     Giffords
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Myrick
     Schwartz
     Slaughter
     Tierney
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz


                       Announcement by the Chair

  The CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining in this 
vote.

                              {time}  1851

  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Cuellar

  The CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on

[[Page H3855]]

the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Cuellar) on 
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 162, 
noes 256, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 388]

                               AYES--162

     Ackerman
     Adams
     Andrews
     Bachmann
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Berkley
     Bilbray
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boustany
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Braley (IA)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Castor (FL)
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Clarke (MI)
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Conaway
     Critz
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     DeFazio
     Deutch
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Engel
     Farenthold
     Fattah
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gardner
     Gibson
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Green, Gene
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Higgins
     Hinojosa
     Hochul
     Holden
     Huelskamp
     Hunter
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     Lewis (CA)
     Loebsack
     Lynch
     Mack
     Marchant
     Marino
     Matheson
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moore
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Rahall
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Rothman (NJ)
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schiff
     Schmidt
     Schrader
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Sires
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sutton
     Thornberry
     Towns
     Upton
     Webster
     Weiner
     West
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                               NOES--256

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Amash
     Austria
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baldwin
     Bartlett
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Black
     Blumenauer
     Bonner
     Brown (FL)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Cicilline
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Cole
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dold
     Dreier
     Duncan (TN)
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Filner
     Fincher
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gingrey (GA)
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Al
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grijalva
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Harper
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Heinrich
     Hensarling
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hirono
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hurt
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Jenkins
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kildee
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kissell
     Kline
     Kucinich
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Langevin
     Lankford
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Long
     Lowey
     Luetkemeyer
     Lujan
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCollum
     McCotter
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McNerney
     Meehan
     Meeks
     Mica
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moran
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Noem
     Nunnelee
     Olver
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Pastor (AZ)
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Payne
     Pence
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Reed
     Ribble
     Richmond
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Roybal-Allard
     Runyan
     Rush
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Scalise
     Schakowsky
     Schilling
     Schock
     Scott (SC)
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Turner
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (FL)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth
     Yoder

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Chaffetz
     Chu
     Giffords
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Myrick
     Schwartz
     Slaughter
     Tierney
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters

                              {time}  1855

  Mr. NEAL and Mrs. MALONEY changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. ROGERS of Michigan and BROOKS changed their vote from ``no'' 
to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Fleischmann) having assumed the chair, Mr. Dreier, Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 2017) 
making appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security for the 
fiscal year ending September 30, 2012, and for other purposes, had come 
to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________