[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.
____________________