Congressional Record, Volume 157 Issue 77 (Wednesday, June 1, 2011)

[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 77 (Wednesday, June 1, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H3855-H3867]
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 further consideration of the bill,
H.R. 2017.

{time} 1858

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 further 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. Dold (Acting Chair) in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The Acting CHAIR. When the Committee of the Whole House rose earlier
today, the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Cuellar)
had been disposed of, and the bill had been read through page 6, line
22.
Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Alabama is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. ADERHOLT. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama for the purpose
of a colloquy.
Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. I want to thank Chairman Aderholt, my good
friend from Alabama, for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I commend you for bringing this important legislation
to the floor and for your hard work during these difficult budget
times. As chairman of the subcommittee with sole authorizing
jurisdiction over the Transportation Security Administration in the
House, I welcome our continued

[[Page H3856]]

collaboration on transportation security issues.
Specifically today, I want to discuss with you the need to increase
the number of explosive detection canines within TSA for aviation and
surface transportation security. Within the area of passenger
screening, we all know that explosive detection canines are one of the
most effective screening means, and they do it without many of the
concerns and costs of other types of detection technology.

{time} 1900

They do not impede the flow of traffic, and they avoid privacy
concerns because they do not come into direct contact with passengers.
We know that the military canine units in Iraq and Afghanistan can
detect improvised explosive devices with an 80 percent rate, much
higher than the 50 percent expected from those units with other
technologies.
And for all the good that canines do, they do it at a better price
than other technologies. If there is a better, more cost-efficient
option to increasing canines, I am open to any suggestion.
In fact, according to published reports, the elite Navy SEAL team
that killed Osama bin Laden likely carried at least one canine with
them on that mission into Pakistan. Surely, then, canines can and do
provide invaluable bomb detection services here at home.
Especially in these times of heightened terrorist threats, along with
the information that we gathered from killing bin Laden, we need to
prudently increase the number of detection canines in TSA.
Mr. ADERHOLT. Chairman Rogers, I too look forward to continuing to
work with you on this issue involving the TSA. I completely agree that
the explosive detection canines are a cost-effective, proven critical
part of the TSA security. As we continue to work together on both
appropriations and your efforts on reauthorizing and transforming TSA,
I look forward to exploring all of the potential options to utilize
detection canines to patrol our transportation systems.
Thank you for your work in making our transportation systems more
secure.
Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Thank you, Chairman Aderholt. I also want to
thank my colleague, Representative Jason Chaffetz, for his work on this
issue and my friend and colleague, Representative Sheila Jackson Lee,
for her dedication to it as well.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Bass of New Hampshire). The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

TITLE II

SECURITY, ENFORCEMENT, AND INVESTIGATIONS

U.S. Customs and Border Protection

salaries and expenses

For necessary expenses for enforcement of laws relating to
border security, immigration, customs, agricultural
inspections and regulatory activities related to plant and
animal imports, and transportation of unaccompanied minor
aliens; purchase and lease of up to 8,000 (7,000 for
replacement only) police-type vehicles; and contracting with
individuals for personal services abroad; $8,769,518,000, of
which $3,274,000 shall be derived from the Harbor Maintenance
Trust Fund for administrative expenses related to the
collection of the Harbor Maintenance Fee pursuant to section
9505(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (26 U.S.C.
9505(c)(3)) and notwithstanding section 1511(e)(1) of the
Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 551(e)(1)); of which
not to exceed $45,000 shall be for official reception and
representation expenses; of which not less than $287,901,000
shall be for Air and Marine Operations; of which such sums as
become available in the Customs User Fee Account, except sums
subject to section 13031(f)(3) of the Consolidated Omnibus
Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (19 U.S.C. 58c(f)(3)),
shall be derived from that account; of which not to exceed
$150,000 shall be available for payment for rental space in
connection with preclearance operations; and of which not to
exceed $1,000,000 shall be for awards of compensation to
informants, to be accounted for solely under the certificate
of the Secretary of Homeland Security: Provided, That for
fiscal year 2012, the overtime limitation prescribed in
section 5(c)(1) of the Act of February 13, 1911 (19 U.S.C.
267(c)(1)) shall be $35,000; and notwithstanding any other
provision of law, none of the funds appropriated by this Act
may be available to compensate any employee of U.S. Customs
and Border Protection for overtime, from whatever source, in
an amount that exceeds such limitation, except in individual
cases determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security, or
the designee of the Secretary, to be necessary for national
security purposes, to prevent excessive costs, or in cases of
immigration emergencies: 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
Inspection and Detection Technology that identifies for each
technology--
(1) the inventory of Inspection and Detection Technology by
location and date of deployment;
(2) the proposed appropriations included in the budget
subdivided by the proposed appropriations for procurement,
including quantity, deployment, and operations and
maintenance;
(3) projected funding levels for procurement in quantity,
deployment, and operations and maintenance for each of the
next three fiscal years; and
(4) a current acquisition program baseline that--
(A) aligns the acquisition of each technology to mission
requirements by defining existing capabilities of comparable
legacy technology assets, identifying known capability gaps
between such existing capabilities and stated mission
requirements, and explaining how the acquisition of each
technology will address such known capability gaps;
(B) defines life-cycle costs for each technology, including
all associated costs of major acquisitions systems
infrastructure and transition to operations, delineated by
purpose and fiscal year for the projected service life of the
technology; and
(C) includes a phase-out and decommissioning schedule
delineated by fiscal year for existing legacy technology
assets that each technology is intended to replace or
recapitalize.

Amendment Offered by Mr. King of Iowa

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

Page 7, line 13, after the first dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(reduced by $1,000,000) (increased by
$1,000,000)''.

The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Iowa is recognized for 5 minutes
in support of his amendment.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, my amendment goes in and strikes out
a million dollars and inserts that million dollars back in again and
directs that, in our dialogue here in the Congressional Record, for the
purpose of taking out the lookout points, the spotter locations that
have been formed by the drug smugglers on the U.S. side of the border
between primarily Arizona and Mexico.
A number of times I have been down to the border to review these
lookout posts, these spotter locations, and on certain occasions I have
climbed to the top of those small mountains where they overlook the
transportation links that we have the intersections, and the drug
smugglers have actually taken paramilitary positions on top of these
mountains overlooking U.S. transportation for the purposes of being
able to warn their drug and people smugglers when the Border Patrol and
other law enforcement are coming along the way. I have gone to the top
of these mountains with Border Patrol and with the Shadow Wolves down
there on the border and flown to the top of some of these mountains to
take the positions that are taken by the spotters.
This is something that this Congress has spoken to before. This
amendment has passed in the past, and what it does is it directs the
Border Patrol and their security personnel to take those locations out,
not to concede these tactical locations inside the United States that
go as far up as Tucson and on north towards Phoenix.
And, in fact, about 4 years ago, I and a couple of others put
together a map of these locations. I stood with some of our law
enforcement personnel, and I said, Show me where on the map. They
started drawing X's on the map. I took it along the Arizona border, and
when we were done, I had over 75 locations of mountaintops that were
manned by drug smuggling personnel. They are supplied and resupplied,
Mr. Chairman.
This Congress can't tolerate those kinds of locations here in the
United States, and I urge the adoption of my amendment, which simply
directs the law enforcement personnel to use that million dollars to
take out the spotters on the lookouts on the mountains that control the
transportation and let smuggling happen within the United States.
I urge adoption.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. Does any Member seek recognition?
Mr. ADERHOLT. I have no objection and accept the gentleman's
amendment.

[[Page H3857]]

The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

automation modernization

For expenses for U.S. Customs and Border Protection
automated systems, $334,275,000, to remain available until
September 30, 2014, of which not less than $140,000,000 shall
be for the development of the Automated Commercial
Environment: Provided, That the Commissioner of U.S. Customs
and Border Protection 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 the Automated
Commercial Environment program including results to date,
plans for the program, and a list of projects with associated
funding from prior appropriations and provided by this Act:
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 the funds made available
under this heading 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 proposed in such budget or underway;
(3) a detailed accounting of operations and maintenance and
contractor services costs; and
(4) current acquisition program baselines for the Automated
Commercial Environment and TECS Modernization respectively,
that--
(A) note and explain any deviations in cost, performance
parameters, schedule, or estimated date of completion from
the original acquisition program baseline;
(B) align these acquisition programs 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) define life-cycle costs for these programs.

border security fencing, infrastructure, and technology

For expenses for border security fencing, infrastructure,
and technology, $500,000,000, to remain available until
September 30, 2014: Provided, That of the total amount made
available under this heading, $150,000,000 shall not be
obligated until the Committees on Appropriations of the
Senate and the House of Representatives receive a detailed
expenditure plan prepared by the Secretary of Homeland
Security, and submitted not later than 90 days after the date
of enactment of this Act, for a program to establish and
maintain a security barrier along the borders of the United
States, of fencing and vehicle barriers where practicable,
and of other forms of fencing, tactical infrastructure, and
technology: 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 the Border Security
Fencing, Infrastructure, and Technology account, that
includes for each tactical infrastructure and technology
deployment--
(1) the funding level in that budget and projected funding
levels for each of the next three fiscal years, including a
description of the purpose of such funding levels;
(2) the deployment plan, by border segment, that aligns
each deployment to mission requirements by defining existing
capabilities, identifying known capability gaps between such
existing capabilities and stated mission requirements related
to achieving operational control, and explaining how each
tactical infrastructure or technology deployment will address
such known capability gaps; and
(3) a current acquisition program baseline that--
(A) notes and explains any deviations in cost, performance
parameters, schedule, or estimated date of completion from
the most recent acquisition program baseline approved by the
Department of Homeland Security Acquisition Review Board;
(B) includes a phase-out and life-cycle recapitalization
schedule delineated by fiscal year for existing and new
tactical infrastructure and technology deployments that each
deployment is intended to replace or recapitalize; and
(C) includes qualitative performance metrics that assess
the effectiveness of new and existing tactical infrastructure
and technology deployments and inform the next multi-year
investment and management plan related to achieving
operational control of the Northern and Southwest borders of
the United States.

air and marine interdiction, operations, maintenance, and procurement

For necessary expenses for the operations, maintenance, and
procurement of marine vessels, aircraft, unmanned aircraft
systems, and other related equipment of the air and marine
program, including operational training and mission-related
travel, the operations of which include the following: the
interdiction of narcotics and other goods; the provision of
support to Federal, State, and local agencies in the
enforcement or administration of laws enforced by the
Department of Homeland Security; and at the discretion of the
Secretary of Homeland Security, the provision of assistance
to Federal, State, and local agencies in other law
enforcement and emergency humanitarian efforts, $499,966,000,
to remain available until September 30, 2014: Provided, That
no aircraft or other related equipment, with the exception of
aircraft that are one of a kind and have been identified as
excess to U.S. Customs and Border Protection requirements and
aircraft that have been damaged beyond repair, shall be
transferred to any other Federal agency, department, or
office outside of the Department of Homeland Security during
fiscal year 2012 without the prior approval of the Committees
on Appropriations of the Senate and the House of
Representatives: Provided further, That the Secretary of
Homeland Security shall report to the Committees on
Appropriations of the Senate and the House of
Representatives, not later than 90 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, on the update to the five-year
strategic plan for the air and marine program directed in
conference report 109-241 accompanying Public Law 109-90 that
addresses missions, structure, operations, equipment,
facilities, and resources including deployment and command
and control requirements, and includes a recapitalization
plan with milestones and funding, and a detailed staffing
plan with associated costs to achieve full staffing to meet
all mission requirements.

construction and facilities management

For necessary expenses to plan, acquire, construct,
renovate, equip, furnish, operate, manage, oversee,
administer, and maintain buildings and facilities and to
provide facilities solutions and related infrastructure along
with program management support necessary for the
administration and enforcement of the laws relating to
customs, immigration, and border security, $234,096,000, to
remain available until September 30, 2016: Provided, That the
Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection shall
submit an expenditure plan 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 for the projects funded under this heading: 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, an inventory of the real property of
the U.S. Customs and Border Protection and a plan for each
activity and project proposed for funding under this heading
that includes the full cost by fiscal year of each activity
and project proposed and underway in fiscal year 2013.

Mr. CLARKE of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the
desk.
The Acting CHAIR. Does the gentleman from Michigan seek unanimous
consent to have his amendment considered out of order at this point?
Mr. CLARKE of Michigan. Yes.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection?
Mr. ADERHOLT. I object.
The Acting CHAIR. Objection is heard.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement

salaries and expenses

For necessary expenses for enforcement of immigration and
customs laws, detention and removals, and investigations; and
purchase and lease of up to 3,790 (2,350 for replacement
only) police-type vehicles; $5,522,474,000, of which not to
exceed $7,500,000 shall be available until expended for
conducting special operations under section 3131 of the
Customs Enforcement Act of 1986 (19 U.S.C. 2081); of which
not to exceed $15,000 shall be for official reception and
representation expenses; of which not to exceed $2,000,000
shall be for awards of compensation to informants, to be
accounted for solely under the certificate of the Secretary
of Homeland Security; of which not less than $305,000 shall
be for promotion of public awareness of the child pornography
tipline and activities to counter child exploitation; of
which not less than $5,400,000 shall be used to facilitate
agreements consistent with section 287(g) of the Immigration
and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1357(g)); and of which not to
exceed $11,216,000 shall be available to fund or reimburse
other Federal agencies for the costs associated with the
care, maintenance, and repatriation of smuggled aliens
unlawfully present in the United States: Provided, That none
of the funds made available under this heading shall be
available to compensate any employee for overtime in an
annual amount in excess of $35,000, except that the
Secretary, or the designee of the Secretary, may waive that
amount as necessary for national security purposes and in
cases of immigration emergencies: Provided further,

[[Page H3858]]

That of the total amount provided, $15,770,000 shall be for
activities to enforce laws against forced child labor, of
which not to exceed $6,000,000 shall remain available until
expended: Provided further, That of the total amount
available, not less than $1,600,000,000 shall be available to
identify aliens convicted of a crime who may be deportable
and aliens who may pose a serious risk to public safety or
national security who may be deportable, and to remove them
from the United States once they are judged deportable, of
which $194,064,000 shall remain available until September 30,
2013: Provided further, That the Assistant Secretary of
Homeland Security for U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement shall report to the Committees on Appropriations
of the Senate and the House of Representatives, not later
than 45 days after the end of each quarter of the fiscal
year, on progress in implementing the preceding proviso and
the funds obligated during that quarter to make such
progress: Provided further, That the Secretary shall
prioritize the identification and removal of aliens convicted
of a crime by the severity of that crime: Provided further,
That the funding made available under this heading shall
maintain a level of not less than 34,000 detention beds
through September 30, 2012: Provided further, That of the
total amount provided, not less than $2,750,843,000 is for
detention and removal operations, including transportation of
unaccompanied minor aliens: Provided further, That of the
total amount provided, $10,300,000 shall remain available
until September 30, 2013, for the Visa Security Program:
Provided further, That none of the funds provided under this
heading may be used to continue a delegation of law
enforcement authority authorized under section 287(g) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1357(g)) if the
Department of Homeland Security Inspector General determines
that the terms of the agreement governing the delegation of
authority have been violated: Provided further, That none of
the funds provided under this heading may be used to continue
any contract for the provision of detention services if the
two most recent overall performance evaluations received by
the contracted facility are less than ``adequate'' or the
equivalent median score in any subsequent performance
evaluation system: Provided further, That nothing under this
heading shall prevent U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement from exercising those authorities provided under
immigration laws (as defined in section 101(a)(17) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(17)))
during priority operations pertaining to aliens convicted of
a crime.

Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I had an amendment on page 12.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Iowa should be advised that the
reading has progressed beyond that point in the bill.
Does the gentleman have an amendment to this portion of the bill?
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to take up
the amendment on page 12.
Mr. DICKS. I object.
The Acting CHAIR. The Chair hears objection.
Does the gentleman have an amendment to this portion of the bill?
Mr. KING of Iowa. No, sir.

Amendment Offered by Mr. King of Iowa

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

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

Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the
gentleman's amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. A point of order is reserved.
The gentleman from Iowa is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his
amendment.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is an amendment that
strikes $1 million and puts a million back in. It's an amendment that
has been before this Congress before. It's one that supports the Shadow
Wolves, and the Shadow Wolves are a part of CBP. They are stationed at
Sells, Arizona. They are within, mostly the Tohono O'odham reservation.
They are Native Americans that defend our border and interact
culturally and regionally in that area. They have been very, very
effective. Their numbers have gone up, approaching 20, but their
numbers have diminished now down to only five Shadow Wolves left. They
have been excellent about tracking smugglers through the desert.
They have been very effective in law enforcement, and they have been
shifted back and forth out of Border Patrol into Customs and Border
Protection in the past, but still their numbers are reduced, and this
is $1 million that directs them to go forward and expand the Shadow
Wolves again, to sustain them.
I think it's a compliment to the Native Americans all across this
country, the effectiveness the Shadow Wolves have provided on the
border. Again, I have been down to visit them a number of times,
watched them in action, participated with them in action.

{time} 1910

Actually with Shadow Wolves, we did a one-strut landing of a
Blackhawk on top of those lookout points that were my previous
amendment.
And so I urge this Congress to take action today to preserve what's
left of the Shadow Wolves, the five that are there, and encourage and
direct that there be the employees added to those works. If we let that
funding reduce any further, the Shadow Wolves are gone probably
forever, and their effectiveness has been something that's been a
challenge to the rest of law enforcement along the border.
I urge the adoption of my amendment, and I yield back the balance of
my time.
Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw the point of order and accept
the gentleman's amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The reservation is withdrawn.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa
(Mr. King).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Barrow

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

Page 16, line 24, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced
by $5,000,000) (increased by $5,000,000)''.

The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for 5
minutes in support of his amendment.
Mr. BARROW. Mr. Chairman, I recently returned from a trip to our
southern border at the invitation of our colleague, Gabrielle Giffords.
While I think it's fair to say that advances have been made since my
most recent trip to the border in 2007, I feel it's also necessary to
report that significant challenges remain.
Successful border security requires a multi-pronged strategy. We need
the physical presence of boots on the ground. We need to enforce the
laws on the books to deny benefits to those who are here illegally, and
we need to identify illegal immigrants who may pose a serious risk to
public safety or national security and deport them.
One of our main tools in identifying those public safety risks is the
Law Enforcement Support Center, or the LESC. The LESC serves as a
clearinghouse for local law enforcement officials, providing real-time
information and help on immigration status of illegal immigrants
suspected, arrested, or convicted of criminal activity.
In fiscal year 2010, the LESC fielded over 1 million requests for
information from local law enforcement, and recent changes to State law
will surely increase those requests. My amendment expresses the intent
of Congress to prioritize LESC funding, and I urge my colleagues to
support it.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. ADERHOLT. I have no objection and accept the gentleman's
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barrow).
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

automation modernization

For expenses of immigration and customs enforcement
automated systems, $23,860,000, to remain available until
September 30, 2016: Provided, 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 funds made available under
this heading that includes--
(1) the proposed appropriations included for each project
and activity tied to mission requirements and outcomes,
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 proposed in such budget or underway;
(3) a detailed accounting of operations and maintenance and
contractor services costs; and

[[Page H3859]]

(4) current acquisition program baselines for Atlas and
TECS Modernization respectively, that--
(A) note and explain any deviations in cost, performance
parameters, schedule, or estimated date of completion from
the original acquisition program baseline;
(B) align these acquisition programs 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) define life-cycle costs for these programs.

Transportation Security Administration

aviation security

For necessary expenses of the Transportation Security
Administration related to providing civil aviation security
services pursuant to the Aviation and Transportation Security
Act (Public Law 107-71; 115 Stat. 597; 49 U.S.C. 40101 note),
$5,224,556,000, of which $1,692,000,000 shall be available
until September 30, 2013, and of which not to exceed $10,000
shall be for official reception and representation expenses:
Provided, That of the total amount made available under this
heading, not to exceed $4,155,813,000 shall be for screening
operations, of which $555,003,000 shall be for explosives
detection systems; of which $181,285,000 shall be for
checkpoint support; and not to exceed $1,068,743,000 shall be
for aviation security direction and enforcement: Provided
further, That of the amount made available in the preceding
proviso for explosives detection systems, $222,738,000 shall
be available for the purchase and installation of such
systems, of which not less than 10 percent shall be available
for the purchase and installation of certified explosives
detection systems at medium- and small-sized airports:
Provided further, That notwithstanding section 44923 of title
49, United States Code, for fiscal year 2012 any funds in the
Aviation Security Capital Fund established by section
44923(h) of title 49, United States Code, may be used for the
procurement and installation of explosives detection systems
or for the issuance of other transaction agreements for the
purpose of funding projects described in section 44923(a):
Provided further, That none of the funds made available in
this Act may be used for any recruiting or hiring of
personnel into the Transportation Security Administration
that would cause the agency to exceed a staffing level of
46,000 full-time equivalent screeners: Provided further, That
the preceding proviso shall not apply to personnel hired as
part-time employees: Provided further, That not later than 90
days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary
of Homeland Security shall submit to the Committees on
Appropriations of the Senate and the House of Representatives
a detailed report on--
(1) the Department of Homeland Security efforts and
resources being devoted to develop more advanced integrated
passenger screening technologies for the most effective
security of passengers and baggage at the lowest possible
operating and acquisition costs;
(2) how the Transportation Security Administration is
deploying its existing passenger and baggage screener
workforce in the most cost effective manner; and
(3) labor savings from the deployment of improved
technologies for passenger and baggage screening and how
those savings are being used to offset security costs or
reinvested to address security vulnerabilities:

Provided further, That any award to deploy explosives
detection systems shall be based on risk, the airport's
current reliance on other screening solutions, lobby
congestion resulting in increased security concerns, high
injury rates, airport readiness, and increased cost
effectiveness: Provided further, That security service fees
authorized under section 44940 of title 49, United States
Code, shall be credited to this appropriation as offsetting
collections and shall be available only for aviation
security: Provided further, That the sum appropriated under
this heading from the general fund shall be reduced on a
dollar-for-dollar basis as such offsetting collections are
received in fiscal year 2012, so as to result in a final
fiscal year appropriation under this heading from the general
fund of not more than $3,194,556,000: Provided further, That
any security service fees collected in excess of the amount
made available under this heading shall be available for
fiscal year 2013: Provided further, That Members of the House
of Representatives and the Senate, including the leadership;
the heads of Federal agencies and commissions, including the
Secretary, Deputy Secretary, Under Secretaries, and Assistant
Secretaries of the Department of Homeland Security; the
Attorney General, Deputy Attorney General, Assistant
Attorneys General, and United States Attorneys; and senior
members of the Executive Office of the President, including
the Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall not
be exempt from Federal passenger and baggage screening.

Surface Transportation Security

For necessary expenses of the Transportation Security
Administration related to surface transportation security
activities, $129,748,000, to remain available until September
30, 2013.

Transportation Threat Assessment and Credentialing

For necessary expenses for the development and
implementation of screening programs of the Office of
Transportation Threat Assessment and Credentialing,
$183,954,000, to remain available until September 30, 2013.

Transportation Security Support

For necessary expenses of the Transportation Security
Administration related to providing transportation security
support and intelligence pursuant to the Aviation and
Transportation Security Act (Public Law 107-71; 115 Stat.
597; 49 U.S.C. 40101 note), $1,032,790,000, to remain
available until September 30, 2013: Provided, That the
Secretary of Homeland Security shall submit to the Committees
on Appropriations of the Senate and the House of
Representatives detailed expenditure plans for air cargo
security, checkpoint support, and explosives detection
systems procurement, refurbishment, and installation on an
airport-by-airport basis for fiscal year 2013: Provided
further, That these plans shall be submitted not later than
60 days after the date of enactment of this Act.

Federal Air Marshals

For necessary expenses of the Federal Air Marshals,
$961,375,000.

Coast Guard

operating expenses

For necessary expenses for the operation and maintenance of
the Coast Guard, not otherwise provided for, purchase or
lease of not to exceed 25 passenger motor vehicles, which
shall be for replacement only; purchase or lease of small
boats for contingent and emergent requirements (at a unit
cost of no more than $700,000) and repairs and service-life
replacements, not to exceed a total of $28,000,000; purchase
or lease of boats necessary for overseas deployments and
activities; minor shore construction projects not exceeding
$1,000,000 in total cost at any location; payments pursuant
to section 156 of Public Law 97-377 (42 U.S.C. 402 note; 96
Stat. 1920); and recreation and welfare; $7,071,061,000, of
which $598,278,000 shall be for defense-related activities,
of which $258,278,000 is designated as being for the global
war on terrorism pursuant to section 301 of H. Con. Res. 34
(112th Congress); of which $24,500,000 shall be derived from
the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund to carry out the purposes
of section 1012(a)(5) of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (33
U.S.C. 2712(a)(5)); and of which not to exceed $20,000 shall
be for official reception and representation expenses:
Provided, That none of the funds made available by this Act
shall be for expenses incurred for recreational vessels under
section 12114 of title 46, United States Code, except to the
extent fees are collected from owners of yachts and credited
to this appropriation: Provided further, That the Coast Guard
shall comply with the requirements of section 527 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (10
U.S.C. 4331 note) with respect to the Coast Guard Academy:
Provided further, That of the funds provided under this
heading, $75,000,000 shall be withheld from obligation for
Coast Guard Headquarters Directorates until (1) a revised
future-years capital investment plan for fiscal years 2012
through 2016, as specified under the heading ``Coast Guard,
Acquisition, Construction, and Improvements'' of this Act,
that is reviewed by the Comptroller General of the United
States; (2) the fiscal year 2012 second quarter acquisition
report; and (3) the polar operations high latitude study are
submitted to the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate
and the House of Representatives: Provided further, That
funds made available under this heading designated as being
for the global war on terrorism pursuant to section 301 of H.
Con. Res. 34 (112th Congress) may be allocated by program,
project, and activity, notwithstanding section 503 of this
Act.

environmental compliance and restoration

For necessary expenses to carry out the environmental
compliance and restoration functions of the Coast Guard under
chapter 19 of title 14, United States Code, $10,198,000, to
remain available until September 30, 2016: Provided, That an
expenditure plan that itemizes the costs associated with each
project identified in the Coast Guard's Environmental
Compliance and Restoration backlog report dated April 11,
2011, shall be included at the time that the President's
budget is submitted each year under section 1105(a) of title
31, United States Code, to the Committees on Appropriations
of the Senate and the House of Representatives.

reserve training

For necessary expenses of the Coast Guard Reserve, as
authorized by law; operations and maintenance of the Coast
Guard reserve program; personnel and training costs; and
equipment and services; $131,778,000.

acquisition, construction, and improvements

For necessary expenses of acquisition, construction,
renovation, and improvement of aids to navigation, shore
facilities, vessels, and aircraft, including equipment
related thereto, and maintenance, rehabilitation, lease and
operation of facilities and equipment, as authorized by law,
$1,151,673,000, of which $20,000,000 shall be derived from
the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund to carry out the purposes
of section 1012(a)(5) of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (33
U.S.C. 2712(a)(5)); of which $427,691,000 shall be available
until September 30, 2016, to acquire, effect major repairs
to, renovate, or improve vessels, small boats, and related
equipment; of which

[[Page H3860]]

$328,900,000 shall be available until September 30, 2014, to
acquire, effect major repairs to, renovate, or improve
aircraft or increase aviation capability; of which
$171,140,000 shall be available until September 30, 2014, for
other equipment; of which $116,000,000 shall be available
until September 30, 2016, for shore, infrastructure, military
housing, and aids to navigation facilities, including
waterfront facilities at Navy installations used by the Coast
Guard, of which $14,000,000 may be derived from the Coast
Guard Housing Fund, established under section 687 of title
14, United States Code; and of which $107,942,000 shall be
available for personnel compensation and benefits and related
costs: Provided, 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 future-years
capital investment plan for the Coast Guard that identifies
for each requested capital asset--
(1) the proposed appropriations included in that budget;
(2) the total estimated cost of completion, including and
clearly delineating the costs of associated major acquisition
systems infrastructure and transition to operations;
(3) projected funding levels for each fiscal year for the
next five fiscal years or until acquisition program baseline
or project completion, whichever is earlier;
(4) an estimated completion date at the projected funding
levels; and
(5) a current acquisition program baseline for each capital
asset, as applicable, that--
(A) includes the total acquisition cost of each asset,
subdivided by fiscal year and including a detailed
description of the purpose of the proposed funding levels for
each fiscal year, including for each fiscal year funds
requested for design, pre-acquisition activities, production,
structural modifications, missionization, post-delivery, and
transition to operations costs;
(B) includes a detailed project schedule through
completion, subdivided by fiscal year, that details--
(i) quantities planned for each fiscal year; and
(ii) major acquisition and project events, including
development of operational requirements, contracting actions,
design reviews, production, delivery, test and evaluation,
and transition to operations, including necessary training,
shore infrastructure, and logistics;
(C) notes and explains any deviations in cost, performance
parameters, schedule, or estimated date of completion from
the original acquisition program baseline and the most recent
baseline approved by the Department of Homeland Security's
Acquisition Review Board, if applicable;
(D) aligns the acquisition of each asset to mission
requirements by defining existing capabilities of comparable
legacy assets, identifying known capability gaps between such
existing capabilities and stated mission requirements, and
explaining how the acquisition of each asset will address
such known capability gaps;
(E) defines life-cycle costs for each asset and the date of
the estimate on which such costs are based, including all
associated costs of major acquisitions systems infrastructure
and transition to operations, delineated by purpose and
fiscal year for the projected service life of the asset;
(F) includes the earned value management system summary
schedule performance index and cost performance index for
each asset, if applicable; and
(G) includes a phase-out and decommissioning schedule
delineated by fiscal year for each existing legacy asset that
each asset is intended to replace or recapitalize:

Provided further, That the Secretary shall ensure that
amounts specified in the future-years capital investment plan
are consistent, to the maximum extent practicable, with
proposed appropriations necessary to support the programs,
projects, and activities of the Coast Guard in the
President's budget as submitted under section 1105(a) of
title 31, United States Code, for that fiscal year: Provided
further, That any inconsistencies between the capital
investment plan and proposed appropriations shall be
identified and justified: Provided further, That subsections
(a) and (b) of section 6402 of Public Law 110-28 shall apply
with respect to the amounts made available under this
heading.

research, development, test, and evaluation

For necessary expenses for applied scientific research,
development, test, and evaluation; and for maintenance,
rehabilitation, lease, and operation of facilities and
equipment; as authorized by law; $12,779,000, to remain
available until September 30, 2016, of which $500,000 shall
be derived from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund to carry
out the purposes of section 1012(a)(5) of the Oil Pollution
Act of 1990 (33 U.S.C. 2712(a)(5)): Provided, That there may
be credited to and used for the purposes of this
appropriation funds received from State and local
governments, other public authorities, private sources, and
foreign countries for expenses incurred for research,
development, testing, and evaluation: Provided further, That
a detailed expenditure plan for the amount requested under
this heading shall be included with the President's annual
budget submission.

retired pay

For retired pay, including the payment of obligations
otherwise chargeable to lapsed appropriations for this
purpose, payments under the Retired Serviceman's Family
Protection and Survivor Benefits Plans, payment for career
status bonuses, concurrent receipts and combat-related
special compensation under the National Defense Authorization
Act, and payments for medical care of retired personnel and
their dependents under chapter 55 of title 10, United States
Code, $1,440,157,000, to remain available until expended.

United States Secret Service

salaries and expenses

For necessary expenses of the United States Secret Service,
including purchase of not to exceed 652 vehicles for police-
type use for replacement only; hire of passenger motor
vehicles; purchase of motorcycles made in the United States;
hire of aircraft; services of expert witnesses at such rates
as may be determined by the Director of the Secret Service;
rental of buildings in the District of Columbia, and fencing,
lighting, guard booths, and other facilities on private or
other property not in Government ownership or control, as may
be necessary to perform protective functions; payment of per
diem or subsistence allowances to employees in cases in which
a protective assignment on the actual day or days of the
visit of a protectee requires an employee to work 16 hours
per day or to remain overnight at a post of duty; conduct of
and participation in firearms matches; presentation of
awards; travel of United States Secret Service employees on
protective missions without regard to the limitations on such
expenditures in this or any other Act if approval is obtained
in advance from the Committees on Appropriations of the
Senate and the House of Representatives; research and
development; grants to conduct behavioral research in support
of protective research and operations; and payment in advance
for commercial accommodations as may be necessary to perform
protective functions; $1,666,451,000, of which not to exceed
$25,000 shall be for official reception and representation
expenses; of which not to exceed $100,000 shall be to provide
technical assistance and equipment to foreign law enforcement
organizations in counterfeit investigations; of which
$2,366,000 shall be for forensic and related support of
investigations of missing and exploited children; and of
which $6,000,000 shall be for a grant for activities related
to investigations of missing and exploited children and shall
remain available until September 30, 2013: Provided, That up
to $18,000,000 for protective travel shall remain available
until September 30, 2013: Provided further, That up to
$12,307,000 for National Special Security Events shall remain
available until September 30, 2013: Provided further, That
the United States Secret Service is authorized to obligate
funds in anticipation of reimbursements from Federal agencies
and entities, as defined in section 105 of title 5, United
States Code, for personnel receiving training sponsored by
the James J. Rowley Training Center, except that total
obligations at the end of the fiscal year shall not exceed
total budgetary resources available under this heading at the
end of the fiscal year: Provided further, That none of the
funds made available under this heading shall be available to
compensate any employee for overtime in an annual amount in
excess of $35,000, except that the Secretary of Homeland
Security, or the designee of the Secretary, may waive that
amount as necessary for national security purposes: Provided
further, That none of the funds made available to the United
States Secret Service by this Act or by previous
appropriations Acts may be made available for the protection
of the head of a Federal agency other than the Secretary of
Homeland Security: Provided further, That the Director of the
United States Secret Service may enter into an agreement to
provide such protection on a fully reimbursable basis:
Provided further, That of the total amount made available
under this heading, $43,843,000, to remain available until
September 30, 2014, is for information integration and
transformation: Provided further, That none of the funds made
available in the preceding proviso shall be obligated to
purchase or install information technology equipment until
the Chief Information Officer of the Department of Homeland
Security submits a report to the Committees on Appropriation
of the Senate and the House of Representatives certifying
that all plans for such integration and transformation are
consistent with Department of Homeland Security enterprise
architecture requirements: Provided further, That none of the
funds made available to the United States Secret Service by
this Act or by previous appropriations Acts may be obligated
for the purpose of opening a new permanent domestic or
overseas office or location unless the Committees on
Appropriations of the Senate and the House of Representatives
are notified 15 days in advance of such obligation.

acquisition, construction, improvements, and related expenses

For necessary expenses for acquisition, construction,
repair, alteration, and improvement of facilities,
$6,780,000, to remain available until September 30, 2016.

[[Page H3861]]

TITLE III

PROTECTION, PREPAREDNESS, RESPONSE, AND RECOVERY

National Protection and Programs Directorate

management and administration

For salaries and expenses of the Office of the Under
Secretary for the National Protection and Programs
Directorate, support for operations, information technology,
and the Office of Risk Management and Analysis, $42,511,000:
Provided, That not to exceed $5,000 shall be for official
reception and representation expenses.

infrastructure protection and information security

For necessary expenses for infrastructure protection and
information security programs and activities, as authorized
by title II of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C.
121 et seq.), $891,243,000: Provided, That of the amount made
available under this heading, $219,420,500 may not be
obligated for the National Cyber Security Division program
and $148,639,500 may not be obligated for the Office of
Infrastructure Protection until the Committees on
Appropriations of the Senate and the House of Representatives
receive and approve a plan for expenditure for each of these
programs that describes the strategic context of the
programs, the specific goals and milestones set for the
programs, and the funds allocated to achieving each of those
goals and milestones: 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, (1) an expenditure plan for the Office of
Infrastructure Protection and the National Cyber Security
Division that describes the strategic context of the
programs, the specific goals and milestones set for the
programs, and the funds allocated to achieving each of those
goals and milestones for the fiscal year being appropriated;
and (2) a multi-year investment and management plan for the
National Cybersecurity Protection System that identifies--
(1) the inventory of nests and sensors by location and date
of deployment;
(2) the proposed appropriations included in that budget for
each increment sub-divided by procurement, including
quantity, deployment, and operations and maintenance;
(3) projected funding levels for procurements including
quantity, deployment, and operations and maintenance for each
increment for each of the next five fiscal years; and
(4) a current acquisition program baseline that--
(A) aligns the acquisition to mission requirements by
defining existing capabilities, identifying known capability
gaps between such existing capabilities and stated mission
requirements, and explaining how the acquisition of each
technology will address such known capability gaps; and
(B) defines life-cycle costs for each technology, including
all associated costs of major acquisitions systems
infrastructure and transition to operations, delineated by
purpose and fiscal year for the projected service life of the
technology.

federal protective service

The revenues and collections of security fees credited to
this account shall be available until expended for necessary
expenses related to the protection of Federally-owned and
leased buildings and for the operations of the Federal
Protective Service: Provided, That the Director of the
Federal Protective Service shall include with the submission
of the fiscal year 2013 budget a strategic human capital plan
that aligns fee collection to personnel requirements based on
the current threat assessment; Provided further, That an
expenditure plan for program, project, and activity and by
objective for fiscal year 2012 shall be provided 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: Provided further, That an expenditure
plan for program, project, and activity and by objective for
fiscal year 2013 shall be submitted at the time that the
President's budget is submitted each year under section
1105(a) of title 31, United States Code, to the Committees on
Appropriations of the Senate and the House of
Representatives.

united states visitor and immigrant status indicator technology

For necessary expenses for the United States Visitor and
Immigrant Status Indicator Technology program, as authorized
by section 110 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and
Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1365a),
$297,402,000: Provided, That of the total amount made
available under this heading, $194,295,000 is to remain
available until September 30, 2014: Provided further, That of
the total amount provided, $50,000,000 may not be obligated
for the United States Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator
Technology program until the Committees on Appropriations of
the Senate and the House of Representatives receive a plan
for expenditure, prepared by the Secretary of Homeland
Security, not later than 90 days after the date of enactment
of this Act, that meets the statutory conditions specified
under this heading in Public Law 110-329: 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
the United States Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator
Technology program that includes--
(1) the proposed appropriations for each activity tied to
mission requirements and outcomes, program management
capabilities, performance levels, and specific capabilities
and services to be delivered, noting any deviations in cost
or performance from the prior fiscal year expenditure or
investment and management plan;
(2) the total estimated cost, projected funding by fiscal
year, and projected timeline of completion for all
enhancements, modernizations, and new capabilities proposed
in such budget and underway, including and clearly
delineating associated efforts and funds requested by other
agencies within the Department of Homeland Security and in
the Federal Government, and detailing any deviations in cost,
performance, schedule, or estimated date of completion
provided in the prior fiscal year expenditure or investment
and management plan; and
(3) a detailed accounting of operations and maintenance,
contractor services, and program costs associated with the
management of identity services.

Office of Health Affairs

For necessary expenses of the Office of Health Affairs,
$165,949,000; of which $30,171,000 is for salaries and
expenses and $115,164,000 is for BioWatch operations:
Provided, That $45,615,000 shall remain available until
September 30, 2013, for biosurveillance, BioWatch Generation
3, chemical defense, medical and health planning and
coordination, and workforce health protection: Provided
further, That not to exceed $3,000 shall be for official
reception and representation expenses: Provided further, That
an expenditure plan for program, project, and activity and by
objective for fiscal year 2012 shall be provided 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: Provided further, That an expenditure
plan for program, project, and activity and by objective for
each fiscal year shall be submitted at the time that the
President's budget is submitted each year under section
1105(a) of title 31, United States Code, to the Committees on
Appropriations of the Senate and the House of
Representatives.

Federal Emergency Management Agency

management and administration

For necessary expenses for management and administration of
the Federal Emergency Management Agency, $707,298,000,
including activities authorized by the National Flood
Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.), the Robert T.
Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42
U.S.C. 5121 et seq.), the Cerro Grande Fire Assistance Act of
2000 (division C, title I, 114 Stat. 583), the Earthquake
Hazards Reduction Act of 1977 (42 U.S.C. 7701 et seq.), the
Defense Production Act of 1950 (50 U.S.C. App. 2061 et seq.),
sections 107 and 303 of the National Security Act of 1947 (50
U.S.C. 404, 405), Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978 (5 U.S.C.
App.), the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 101 et
seq.), and the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act
of 2006 (Public Law 109-295): Provided, That not to exceed
$3,000 shall be for official reception and representation
expenses: Provided further, That the Secretary of Homeland
Security shall submit an expenditure plan detailed by office
for the Federal Emergency Management Agency 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: Provided further, That of the total amount made
available under this heading, not to exceed $5,863,000 shall
remain available until September 30, 2013, for capital
improvements at the Mount Weather Emergency Operations
Center: Provided further, That of the total amount made
available under this heading, $35,250,000 shall be for the
Urban Search and Rescue Response System, of which not to
exceed $1,600,000 may be made available for administrative
costs; and $5,493,000 shall be for the Office of National
Capital Region Coordination: Provided further, That for
purposes of planning, coordination, execution, and decision-
making related to mass evacuation during a disaster, the
Governors of the State of West Virginia and the Commonwealth
of Pennsylvania, or their designees, shall be incorporated
into efforts to integrate the activities of Federal, State,
and local governments in the National Capital Region, as
defined in section 882 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002
(Public Law 107-296).

state and local programs

(including transfer of funds)

For grants, contracts, cooperative agreements, and other
activities, $1,000,000,000, which shall be distributed at the
discretion of the Secretary of Homeland Security based on the
following authorities:
(1) The State Homeland Security Grant Program under section
2004 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 605).
(2) The Urban Area Security Initiative under section 2003
of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 604),
notwithstanding subsection (c)(1) of such section, funds
provided under this paragraph may be used for grants to
organizations (as described under

[[Page H3862]]

section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and
exempt from tax section 501(a) of such code) determined by
the Secretary to be at high risk of a terrorist attack.
(3) The Metropolitan Medical Response System under section
635 of the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of
2006 (6 U.S.C. 723).
(4) The Citizen Corps Program, notwithstanding the
requirements of subtitle A of title XX of the Homeland
Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 603 et seq.).
(5) The Public Transportation Security Assistance and
Railroad Security Assistance, under sections 1406 and 1513 of
the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act
of 2007 (6 U.S.C. 1135 and 1163): Provided, That such public
transportation security assistance shall be provided directly
to public transportation agencies.
(6) Over-the-Road Bus Security Assistance under section
1532 of the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11
Commission Act of 2007 (6 U.S.C. 1182).
(7) Port Security Grants in accordance with 46 U.S.C.
70107.
(8) The Driver's License Security Grants Program in
accordance with section 204 of the REAL ID Act of 2005 (49
U.S.C. 30301 note).
(9) The Interoperable Emergency Communications Grant
Program under section 1809 of the Homeland Security Act of
2002 (6 U.S.C. 579).
Provided, That of the amount provided under this heading,
$55,000,000 shall be for Operation Stonegarden and
$192,663,000 shall be for training, exercises, technical
assistance, and other programs, of which $107,000,000 shall
be for training of State, local, and tribal emergency
response providers: Provided further, That funds provided
under section 2003 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6
U.S.C. 604) shall only be provided to the top 10 highest risk
urban areas: Provided further, That notwithstanding
subsection (c)(4) of section 2004 of the Homeland Security
Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 605), for fiscal year 2012, the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico shall make available to local and
tribal governments amounts provided to the Commonwealth of
Puerto Rico under the State Homeland Security Grant Program
in accordance with subsection (c)(1) of such section 2004:
Provided further, That 10 percent of the amounts provided
under this heading shall be transferred to ``Federal
Emergency Management Agency, Management and Administration''
for program administration, and the Secretary of Homeland
Security shall provide an expenditure plan for program
administration to the Committees on Appropriations of the
Senate and the House of Representatives within 60 days after
the date of enactment of this Act: Provided further, That the
Secretary shall provide a detailed expenditure plan for
program administration for each fiscal year 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: Provided further, That notwithstanding section
2008(a)(11) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C.
609(a)(11)), or any other provision of law, a grantee may use
not more than five percent of the amount of a grant made
available under this heading for expenses directly related to
administration of the grant: Provided further, That for
grants under paragraphs (1) through (4), the applications for
grants shall be made available to eligible applicants not
later than 25 days after the date of enactment of this Act,
that eligible applicants shall submit applications not later
than 90 days after the grant announcement, and that the
Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency
shall act within 90 days after receipt of an application:
Provided further, That for grants awarded under paragraphs
(5) through (9), the applications for grants shall be made
available to eligible applicants not later than 30 days after
the date of enactment of this Act, that eligible applicants
shall submit applications within 45 days after the grant
announcement, and that the Federal Emergency Management
Agency shall act not later than 60 days after receipt of an
application: Provided further, That for grants under
paragraphs (1) and (2), the installation of communications
towers is not considered construction of a building or other
physical facility: Provided further, That grantees shall
provide reports on their use of funds, as determined
necessary by the Secretary: Provided further, That (a) the
Center for Domestic Preparedness may provide training to
emergency response providers from the Federal Government,
foreign governments, or private entities, if the Center is
reimbursed for the cost of such training, and any
reimbursement under this subsection shall be credited to the
account from which the expenditure being reimbursed was made
and shall be available, without fiscal year limitation, for
the purposes for which amounts in the account may be
expended, and (b) the head of the Center for Domestic
Preparedness shall ensure that any training provided under
(a) does not interfere with the primary mission of the Center
to train State and local emergency response providers:
Provided further, That not later than 60 days after the date
of enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the Federal
Emergency Management Agency shall submit to the Committees on
Appropriations of the Senate and the House of Representatives
a plan to expend by the end of fiscal year 2012 all
unexpended balances of funds appropriated for fiscal years
before fiscal year 2008 under this heading.

Amendment Offered by Ms. Richardson

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

Page 47, line 10, after ``heading'' insert the following:
``at least $10,000,000 shall be for Buffer Zone Protection
Plan Grants, $50,000,000 shall be for Port Security Grants,
$100,000,000 shall be for public Transportation Security
Assistance and Railroad Security Assistance, $50,000,000
shall be for interoperable emergency communications,
$42,337,000 shall be for the Metropolitan Medical Response
System.''.

Mr. CARTER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the
gentlewoman's amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. A point of order is reserved.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California for 5 minutes in
support of her amendment.
Ms. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chairman, as former chair and current ranking
member on the Homeland Security Emergency Preparedness Subcommittee and
member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, I offer this
amendment in good faith to save lives and to protect American citizens.
Like my Republican colleague, Chairman King, I have a strong concern
with the current appropriations bill in its current form which in and
of itself could potentially cause dangerous threats to our national
security by drastically cutting vital response and prevention programs,
leaving Americans and their visitors vulnerable when we are most in
time of need.
My amendment will make great strides to remedy this danger by
ensuring that the Department of Homeland Security allocates $50 million
for the Port Security program, $100 million for the Public
Transportation Security Assistance and Railroad Security Assistance
program, $50 million for Interoperable Emergency Communications Grant
program, $10 million for the Buffer Zone Protection program, and $42.3
million for the Metropolitan Medical Response System.
The Richardson amendment dedicates $252 million of the $1 billion
authorized, all while still preserving the chairman's original intent
by allowing 50 percent of those dollars to remain flexible under the
direction of what the committee had originally provided and also still
maintaining the $247 million that the committee designated for
Stonegarden and for training.

{time} 1920

Mr. Chairman, each and every day, America faces threats to our
national security. Certainly, the most well-known are the threats to
our ports and our transit systems, which I have particularly been
focused on given the fact that my district covers two of the largest
ports in the entire United States.
However, these programs that I've mentioned so far go beyond the LA
area. When you consider the recent tornadoes in Alabama and Missouri,
the floods in Tennessee, other natural disasters, and other large-scale
emergency situations facing our Nation, strong and effective security
and response programs are vital to the lives of all Americans coast to
coast. It therefore seems counterintuitive and shortsighted to
undermine port and rail security, medical response and communication
efforts by cutting the grant programs, or should I say, by not ensuring
that these particular categories have sufficient funds in them. My
amendment ensures that the funds will be available for port and rail
security assistance grant programs.
Now, despite the recent strides that we have made in the war on
terror, when we found bin Laden's diary, we learned that he was already
in the process of having discussions about attacking our transportation
infrastructure system.
At the heart of American infrastructure and fundamental to the
success of our economy is clearly protecting our ports and our rail
system. These systems have been known to be targeted in the past. All
we have to think of is Madrid, London and Tokyo. Across the country,
port and transit security forces are already stretched to the limit,
and thanks to the substantial cuts that were already made via the end-
of-the-year appropriations bill for fiscal year 2011, their jobs were
made even more difficult as they were expected to do more with less.
The same

[[Page H3863]]

is true for other important State and local grant programs, like the
Metropolitan Medical Response System, which aids emergency medical
first responders and interoperable communications grants that are so
important to our first responders.
Finally, I also want to talk about the buffer zone grants that are
available, which are important for people to understand. When you think
``buffer,'' you think maybe a sea area. Actually, they are regional
assessments that are done to determine if critical infrastructure is
properly protected. If it is not, those grants go out of that
particular area to fix it.
Thus, while prioritizing and dedicating 25 percent of the funds to
fund port and rail transit grants, medical response programs and
emergency communication efforts, my amendment preserves the Secretary's
flexibility to allocate funding as the committee had initially
directed.
Therefore, I urge my colleagues to please withdraw their points of
order, and I ask the Chair to find my amendments in order where they
are not cutting other programs or adding to the deficit. I ask my
colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this amendment and provide these key
elements of national security the funding that they need.
I yield back the balance of my time.

Point of Order

Mr. CARTER. Mr. Chairman, I understand the gentlelady's argument, and
I am sympathetic; but I must insist upon my point of order.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. CARTER. I make a point of order against the amendment because it
provides an appropriation for an unauthorized program and therefore
violates clause 2 of rule XXI. Clause 2 of rule XXI states in pertinent
part:
``An appropriation . . . may not be in order as an amendment . . . ,
for an expenditure not previously authorized by law.''
Mr. Chairman, the amendment proposes to appropriate funds for an
earmark that is not authorized. The amendment therefore violates clause
2 of rule XXI.
I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
The Acting CHAIR. The amendment proposes to earmark certain funds in
the bill. Under clause 2(a) of rule XXI, such an earmarking must be
specifically authorized by law. The burden of establishing
authorization in law rests with the proponent of the amendment. Finding
that this burden has not been carried, the point of order is sustained,
and the amendment is not in order.

Amendment Offered by Ms. Richardson

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

Page 47, line 10, after ``Stonegarden'' insert ``,
$50,000,000 shall be for Interoperable Emergency Operations
Grants,''.

Mr. CARTER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the
gentlewoman's amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. A point of order is reserved.
The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5 minutes in
support of her amendment.
Ms. RICHARDSON. I thank the Chair for allowing me to explain my
amendment to H.R. 2017. The Richardson amendment directs $50 million in
funding for the Interoperable Emergency Communications Grant Program.
While the amendment is simple, it is important to keep in mind that
being able to connect is a matter of life and death. In this
information age, it seems inconceivable that this bill is suggesting
that we would not invest in the technology to allow our first
responders to communicate with one another.
How many lives would have been saved on 9/11 had New York
firefighters and police officers been able to communicate? In Joplin,
Missouri, and in Alabama, every day that passes without interoperable
communications we put American lives at risk--those who are serving and
those who are being served. Now is the time for this investment. We
simply can't afford to delay.
My amendment will help ensure that public safety officials across the
United States would have the resources needed to communicate with one
another across jurisdictions and across disciplines, hence, being able
to prevent the unnecessary loss of life and property in the event of a
disaster whether it's natural or manmade. My amendment recognizes the
immense importance of the Interoperable Emergency Communications Grant
Program and the work that is still required to establish a nationwide
infrastructure for reliable emergency communications.
Mr. Chairman, when I talk about interoperable equipment, I am looking
to preserve that when we have a first responder who picks up a radio
that he or she will be able to get in touch with the appropriate people
to gain critical information when it matters the most. Throughout the
United States, public safety agencies--law enforcement, firefighters,
emergency technicians, public health officials, and others--often
cannot communicate effectively with one another even within the same
jurisdiction or with other public safety agencies at the Federal, State
and local levels when responding to emergencies.
As the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Emergency Preparedness,
Response, and Communications, I have worked tirelessly to ensure that
our communities' first responders are equipped with the best possible
equipment. Interoperable communications allow our Nation's first
responders to communicate in realtime during an emergency. It has been
well-documented, including in the 9/11 Commission Report, that the lack
of sufficient handheld communications devices may have contributed to
the deaths of 343 firefighters in New York City on September 11, 2001,
when police could not communicate effectively with firefighters prior
to the collapse of the Twin Towers. Similarly, the lack of adequate
equipment exacerbated the difficulties in evacuating people during
Hurricane Katrina, where many could have been saved if effective
communications equipment were available not only to public safety
workers but to transit authorities and others who were involved in that
evacuation. More recent national catastrophes, including the floods,
tornadoes, tsunamis, and beyond, clearly continue to make that
argument.
I ask of the chairman to find our amendment in order, and I urge my
colleagues to join me in putting public safety first over politics and
to support this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.

Point of Order

Mr. CARTER. Mr. Chairman, I must insist upon my point of order.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. CARTER. I make a point of order against the amendment because it
provides an appropriation for an unauthorized program and therefore
violates clause 2 of rule XXI. Clause 2 of rule XXI states in pertinent
part:
``An appropriation . . . may not be in order as an amendment . . . ,
for an expenditure not previously authorized by law . . . ''
Mr. Chairman, the amendment proposes to appropriate funds for a
program that is not authorized by law. The amendment therefore violates
clause 2 of rule XXI.
I ask for a ruling of the Chair.
The Acting CHAIR. The Chair finds that the proponent of the amendment
has not carried the burden of establishing that the appropriation in
the amendment is specifically authorized by law.
The point of order is sustained.

{time} 1930

Amendment Offered by Mr. Clarke of Michigan

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

Page 45, line 18, after ``$1,000,000,000,'' insert ``and in
addition $2,000,000,000 which is hereby transferred from
unobligated amounts provided under the heading `Afghanistan
Security Forces Fund' under title IX of Public Law 112-10,''.

[[Page H3864]]

The gentleman from Michigan is recognized for 5 minutes in support of
his amendment.
Mr. CLARKE of Michigan. Mr. Chair, this amendment provides $3 billion
to the State and local Homeland Security grant program. The effect of
this amendment would be to fully restore the funding of this program to
fiscal year 2010 levels. We have got to do this. American families are
at risk right now. They are at risk of having their homes and their
businesses demolished, of being injured or even killed, either by a
natural disaster as occurred in the past few weeks as a tornado swept
across this country, or by a terrorist attack, which is more likely to
come from within our borders.
So we need this funding to hire new firefighters, police officers,
emergency medical providers and to properly equip them, and to provide
the radio and communication systems that allow our first responders to
communicate with their counterparts in other jurisdictions.
The problem is this: our local governments and our State governments
don't have the money to fund homeland security investments. It is in
part because this Congress chose not to effectively address the
foreclosure crisis. The property values upon which our locals are
depending to fund first responders have fallen so dramatically, they
really don't have the resources to do this. It's up to us. This
Congress, it is our duty to secure the safety of the American people.
My amendment will do so by taking a portion of the money, the
billions of dollars we spend overseas in Afghanistan to provide that
country's security. I say let's take a portion of that and redirect it
back home to protect Americans right here in our country because it is
American tax dollars in the first place.
Mr. Chair, I appreciate your support, and I urge this Committee to
support this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CARTER. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve my point of order.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman continues to reserve his point of
order.
The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. CARTER. Mr. Chairman, in total, this bill provides $1.7 billion
for Homeland Security first responder grants. Of that, the bill
provides $1 billion for the Secretary to provide a program that
addresses the highest need and risk. However, as we are all aware, not
all programs are funded at the previous year's level.
Several issues drove these reductions. First, as of today, almost a
decade after the establishment of DHS, there is no method of measuring
what our Nation is receiving for the $38 billion investment in DHS
grants. There are no metrics that indicate how much safer we are today
or how much safer we will be if we provide additional funds. This lack
of quantitative measurement is intolerable, particularly in today's
tight economic times.
Second, grant recipients are not spending the funds that have been
provided. Of the $38 billion provided for the first responder grants,
$13 billion remained unspent. In these trying times, we cannot afford
to leave funds sitting on the table when other programs need additional
resources and the debt skyrockets.
These cuts will not be easy, but they are long overdue and necessary
to address the out-of-control Federal spending. I urge my colleagues to
oppose this amendment.

Point of Order

Mr. CARTER. I must insist upon my point of order.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. CARTER. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the
amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes
legislation in an appropriation bill and therefore violates clause 2 of
rule XXI. The rule states in pertinent part: an amendment to a general
appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.
This amendment constitutes a transfer not permitted under rule XXI.
I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
The Acting CHAIR. Does any Member wish to be heard on the point of
order?
Mr. CLARKE of Michigan. I would like to address the point of order.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Michigan is recognized on the
point of order.
Mr. CLARKE of Michigan. Mr. Chair, what I heard is my amendment may
not be in accordance with the rule; but I know one thing, it's in
accordance with what we need in this country.
We need to take a share of that money that we are spending in
Afghanistan to secure those people to secure our people here back home.
That money that you say is not being spent, give it to me. The city of
Detroit, we'll spend that money. We need the police officers, the
firefighters, the emergency medical providers and radios to talk to
each other.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman must confine his remarks to the point
of order.
Mr. CLARKE of Michigan. I will do so, Mr. Chair, and to that end, I
ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment and will offer separate
legislation to protect the American people. We need to redirect that
money from Afghanistan and bring it back home. Our people need it. It
is our money in the first place.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
There was no objection.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Clarke of Michigan

Mr. CLARKE of Michigan. Mr. Chair, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Page 47, beginning at line 14, strike ``Provided further,
That funds provided under section 2003 of the Homeland
Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 604) shall only be provided to
the top 10 highest risk urban areas:''.

Mr. CLARKE of Michigan (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask
unanimous consent to dispense with the reading.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Texas?
There was no objection.
Mr. CARTER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the
gentleman's amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. A point of order is reserved.
The gentleman from Michigan is recognized for 5 minutes in support of
his amendment.
Mr. CLARKE of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, what this amendment does is
remove the restriction that the Urban Areas Security Initiative funding
should be restricted to the top 10 urban areas by risk. You see, there
are other metropolitan areas in this country that I believe are at
similar or even higher risk of terrorist attack or damage through any
other type of catastrophe.
The metro Detroit area is one of those. That area, the area that I
represent, has the busiest border crossing in all of North America and
has an international airport. It has a huge metropolitan population
center. It has the world headquarters of General Motors. We are at high
risk of an attack; but yet right now, according to the Homeland
Security risk metrics, we are not rated in the top 10. We should be
eligible for this funding, as well as other metropolitan areas.
Here's the point: even though bin Laden is now gone, we are still at
risk of a terrorist attack in this country. But it is more than likely
that terrorists will likely come from within the borders. So the first
defense we have against terrorism or any other natural disaster is our
first responders. We need more firefighters, more police officers, more
emergency medical providers. They need to be properly trained and have
the equipment, the radios and communication devices to communicate with
each other.
The best way to protect our citizens, it is not spending it only
overseas, all of our tax dollars, but investing it right here at home.
This amendment will make sure that urban areas that are at high risk of
an attack, such as metro Detroit, get the funds that they need.
The bottom line point is this: the reason we should step in and
support our local units of government is because this Congress in the
past did not effectively address the foreclosure crisis which has
really robbed local units of government of their power to fund their
first responders. The property values have dropped so low the money
isn't even there.
I am asking Congress now: don't turn your back on this obligation to
the

[[Page H3865]]

American people. Let's redirect money to the Homeland Security budget,
to our first responders, our people there at the first line of defense
against an attack from a terrorist or any type of natural disaster that
could impact our people.
Mr. Chairman, I urge this committee's support for this amendment, and
I yield back the balance of my time.

{time} 1940

Mr. CARTER. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation on the point of
order, and I rise in opposition to this amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. CARTER. The bill before us today is born out of the need for
reform. It consolidates disparate grant programs and provides
discretion to the Secretary. These reforms include funding reductions,
requirements for measurement, and requirements for spending languishing
dollars.
The consolidation of this bill forces the Secretary to examine the
intelligence and risk and put scarce dollars where they're needed most,
whether it's a port, rail, surveillance, or access and hardening of
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 many programs or granting funds to lower risk.
Additionally, as noted by the gentleman, the bill limits Urban Area
Security Initiative grants to the top 10 highest cities. Again, this
puts scarce dollars to where they are needed most. That means that
cities like New York are funded at significantly higher levels than
other cities because they are the highest-rent urban areas. I don't
think anyone here can argue with that. This does not mean lower-risk
areas will lose all funding. It just means that funds will come from
other programs such as State homeland grants that are risk and formula
based.
I strongly urge my colleagues to support fiscal discipline by
aligning funding with the areas of highest risk and vote ``no'' on this
amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HIGGINS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. HIGGINS. Mr. Chairman, our amendment would enhance public safety
in communities across the country by striking the provision in the bill
that would limit participation in the Urban Area Security Initiative
program to just 10 cities.
Homeland Security Secretary Napolitano has said that the architecture
of homeland security begins in the homeland. The Urban Area Security
Initiative program protects the hometown by allowing first responders
and emergency officials to practice coordinating response scenarios
across jurisdictional lines. Until recently, the program supported
these crucial activities in 64 communities, including my own, judged by
the Department of Homeland Security to be vulnerable to terrorist
attack. That was until we decimated the program by cutting 20 percent
of its funding in the continuing resolution.
Rather than allow all communities to suffer cuts proportionately, the
Department made matters worse by deciding to eliminate half of the 64
communities from the program, including all four communities in upstate
New York. Let us not make a third mistake this year by limiting
participation in this important program to even fewer urban areas.
Mr. Chairman, my community of western New York includes four
international bridge crossings and the busiest passenger crossing at
the northern border; the largest electricity producer in New York
State; and the homegrown al Qaeda terrorist cell, the Lackawanna Six.
It sits along two Great Lakes which contain the largest freshwater
supply in the world, and it is within a 500-mile radius of 55 percent
of the American population and 62 percent of the Canadian population.
For 8 years the Department evaluated western New York to be a highly
vulnerable area and thus eligible for the Urban Area Security
Initiative. Now, this year the Department wants to eliminate us from
the program, and this bill would codify that decision. Why? What has
changed? We are still vulnerable, according to the Department's own
assessment, and we will still need the resources to prevent and respond
to attacks.
Mr. Chairman, this body should not prevent my community, or the other
54 communities the Department has judged to be vulnerable, from this
essential Homeland Security program. I oppose this provision of the
bill, and I urge adoption of our amendment.
Mr. Chairman, finally, I would like to thank the cosponsors of this
amendment: Representatives Berkley, Tonko, Ellison, Moore, Wasserman
Schultz, Capps, Slaughter, Cuellar, Fudge, and Wilson.
Now I would like to yield to the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms.
Berkley).
Ms. BERKLEY. Thank you, Mr. Higgins.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Higgins amendment to eliminate
a provision in this bill that would harm Las Vegas, Phoenix, Denver,
Miami, Atlanta, Baltimore, Detroit, and dozens more cities around the
country.
This bill before us would eliminate any funding for the Urban Area
Security Initiative for all but the top 10 highest-risk urban areas,
leaving over 50 U.S. cities off the list, including my own city of Las
Vegas, one of the greatest tourist destinations in the world with over
37 million visitors a year.
For almost a decade, the UASI program has worked to help cities
prevent and protect themselves from threats and acts of terrorism. Not
too long ago, over 60 U.S. cities received funding to help them
purchase equipment, develop recovery plans, and implement
counterterrorism strategies.
In my home city of Las Vegas, for example, we've created the Southern
Nevada Counter Terrorism Center, where 18 State, local, and Federal
agencies all work together to detect and prevent terrorists and other
homeland security-related events. This kind of fusion center is based
on the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission to help law enforcement
agencies communicate more effectively so they can put the pieces
together that could prevent attacks. UASI funding has been an essential
part of that center, and cutting off funding to that center now would
put their excellent and possibly lifesaving work at risk.
Southern Nevada is home to Nellis Air Force Base and Hoover Dam and
some of the largest hotels on the planet. We know that some of the 9/11
terrorists visited Las Vegas before the horrific attack on our Nation.
Mr. Chairman, after the capture and killing of Osama bin Laden, we
also know that terrorists are increasingly focusing their interests on
mid-sized cities rather than large cities. Many of those would now not
be receiving Federal funding were this provision to become law. This is
being done when the risk of retaliation by both homegrown terrorists
and al Qaeda and al Qaeda affiliates is very high. I implore my
colleagues not to leave some of America's greatest cities vulnerable
and without the necessary funding to protect themselves.
At a time when States and local governments are struggling to balance
their budgets, we need help more than ever to prevent and prepare
against terrorist attacks. This provision would be salt to the wounds.
I urge support for this amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman from New York has
expired.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from New York is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
While I have serious misgivings about the funding levels for FEMA
first responder grants, restoration of the Urban Area Security
Initiative to its intended purpose is good policy. By limiting UASI
recipients to the 10 highest-risk cities, Chairman Aderholt would
ensure that UASI is focused on addressing the unique planning,
equipment, and training needs of high-threat, high-density urban areas
in order to prevent, respond to, and recover from acts of terrorism
against the highest-risk American targets.
Originally distributed to seven metropolitan areas, UASI ballooned to
64 regions in FY10, many of which were neither high threat nor high
density. By increasing the number of UASI recipients without additional
funding,

[[Page H3866]]

this amendment would deplete resources for cities most at risk for
terrorist attacks.

{time} 1950

With intelligence about intent to attack the United States around the
10th anniversary of September 11--which is fast approaching--now is the
time to focus our resources where they are most needed, not spread the
wealth.
Every region, however--I want to make it clear to my colleague--every
region is entitled to Federal security resources, and that's why the
State Homeland Security Grant program provides funding to each State
and territory. However, in addition, Congress has the responsibility to
allocate funding to address unique needs, and UASI was intentionally
designed to protect those densely populated areas most at risk.
The 9/11 Commission said it best, ``Federal Homeland Security
assistance should not remain a program for general revenue sharing; it
should supplement State and local resources based on the risks or
vulnerabilities that merit additional support. Congress should not use
this money as a pork barrel.''
I want to make a couple of other points, and I urge my colleagues to
oppose this amendment for the following reasons. For example, based on
projections recently released by FEMA for FY 2011, New York State will
receive more than $141 million in DHS funds separate from UASI. Buffalo
will be one of five cities in New York to receive funding from the
Metropolitan Medical Response System; that's $1.4 million for these
cities. Further, Buffalo is scheduled to receive more than $1.4 million
from the Port Security Grant program. In FY 2010, Erie County also
received $940,000 from the Interoperable Emergency Communications Grant
program, a program which I had a little bit to do to create. Lastly,
the Robert Moses Power Plant was previously awarded a buffer zone
protection grant in FY 2007, only 58 percent of which has been spent.
So I want to make it very clear--I can go on. Michigan got
$21,468,166, and we have a whole list of what other cities have gotten
and States because they deserve that money. Every State, region, and
community is entitled to Federal resources for homeland security.
However, UASI was a program that was not intended to spread the wealth
among every region. And other DHS initiatives better address the needs
of most areas of the country.
So I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered
by my colleague regarding the Urban Area Security Initiative.
As New Yorkers, we know firsthand the absolutely critical role that
our State and local police and firefighters play in preventing and
responding to attacks on the American homeland. The Urban Area Security
Initiative, or UASI, administered by the Department of Homeland
Security, is a program focused on enhancing regional preparedness in
high-risk areas by fostering better communication and collaboration
amongst local fire responders. Given the struggles we have faced since
the crisis on Wall Street, these are communities that increasingly
cannot afford to provide their citizens--our citizens--with the same
level of protection that UASI enables.
This bill, as written, arbitrarily restricts UASI to allow only 10
urban areas to be eligible for the program, and its funding, down from
more than 60 in previous years. No one here today would argue that
Manhattan and Los Angeles are undeserving of priority assistance.
However, with this arbitrary cap, we will endanger the progress that
many other high-risk urban areas have made to protect our citizens from
attacks and crises. We will threaten the ability of these communities--
including my community in upstate New York--to safeguard our citizens.
We are making these cuts at home while we pay hundreds of billions of
dollars each year for our military-industrial complex to fight an
incredibly expensive war in Afghanistan with the aim of preventing
terror attacks in America. We are going to spend more than $12 billion
this year to build up Afghan security forces while our own security
forces in Albany and the Capital Region and 50 other cities across
America are stripped of their funding under UASI. Is our strategic
thinking that backwards, or is it just more lucrative to build a
multibillion-dollar army halfway around the world than to help our
police and firefighters here at home protect and defend our
constituents?
I would propose to take $1 billion of that $12 billion and put it
back into a deserving and necessary program like UASI, but according to
the rules set by the Republican leadership, that is not allowed. So I
stand here today in support of this amendment and in support of New
York.
In my home district in upstate New York, the Albany Urban Area
Working Group has used UASI grants to make great strides forward in
boosting local cooperation and collaborative planning. This group
unites participants from Albany, Rensselaer, Saratoga, Schenectady, and
Schoharie Counties around a common goal of protecting a region critical
to the security of New York State and the stability of America.
From building a truly interoperable regional communications network
to securing the Capital Region's critical infrastructure, the work of
this group is absolutely vital to protecting the Empire State. Whether
threatened by natural or manmade disasters, it is clear that New York
is and should be at the top of our priority list to protect.
I represent New York's Capital Region, an area that bears tremendous
economic and symbolic importance. Thirty-five million people live
within a 200-mile radius of our State capital in Albany. Albany also
houses New York's most vital State government facilities and more than
11,000 State government employees that keep the Empire State up and
running. These functions are vital not only to our area, but also to
our fellow New Yorkers downstate and across our State, and to Americans
across this country who do business in, with, and through New York.
The Capital Region is also home to the third-fastest-growing hub for
science and technology jobs in our Nation. That projected clustering,
alongside high-profile research and development centers in our Tech
Valley corridor, add to the vital importance of this region to an
American economy that needs more leaders in innovation.
In Albany, we host the world-renowned Nanotechnology Research Center
where 250 industry leaders partner with the United States Army to push
us past the current bounds of science. In Schenectady, we host GE's
renewable energy global headquarters. In Schoharie, our reservoir
provides a significant portion of New York City's water supply. In
Watervliet, we have a one-of-a-kind Army arsenal. And just a few miles
away we host an atomic power laboratory doing world class R&D for the
United States Naval Nuclear Propulsion program. Nearby in Malta is a
facility that will soon be the most advanced chip fabrication plant in
the world. The hometown heroes who protect all of these facilities and
more will lose their funding through UASI entirely if this bill passes
in its current form.
And so in support of New York's Capital Region and similar areas
across this country, I stand in support of this amendment, this
amendment that will remove an arbitrary 10-city restriction on the UASI
program from this bill, this amendment, that will not add $1 to the
debt or deficit, this amendment that will not cost us one single dollar
but rather will provide us a commonsense approach.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. STIVERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Ohio is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. STIVERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the amendment offered by
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Clarke).
I represent Columbus, Ohio, which in the past has been one of the
Tier II cities that has received Urban Security Initiative funds. The
current version of this bill would restrict Urban Security Initiative
funds to only Tier I cities, which would be the top 10 riskiest cities.
The problem is the risks don't stop

[[Page H3867]]

at number 10, and it's not clear that there is any significant
reduction in risk between the tenth-riskiest city and the 11th-riskiest
city. This is an arbitrary decision, and the Clarke amendment ends the
arbitrary 10-city restriction and allows the Department of Homeland
Security to have discretion in funding risks. It does not increase
funding one cent.
I urge adoption of the Clarke amendment. And I would just like to
make it clear that the whole point of this amendment is to remove an
arbitrary restriction and give the Department of Homeland Security the
ability to fund where the risks are. This amendment does not add a dime
to the cost. It increases flexibility. And it won't necessarily cost
cities like New York or any other city any funds. All it does is allow
cities to be eligible so that if there is real risk there and the
Department of Homeland Security chooses to fund that city, then they
can fund it. So it's a commonsense approach.
I ask my colleagues to support the Clarke approach.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the amendment
offered by my colleague regarding UASI.
This amendment will better ensure that all cities and localities will
be eligible for critical UASI funding, not just those under the
arbitrary caps that are in the underlying bill.
UASI funding is critical to my district of Sacramento, California,
and a number of other major American cities. It has helped create and
develop one of the Nation's foremost counterterrorism and readiness
task forces located at the former McClellan Air Force Base in my
district. This facility has greatly enhanced the collaboration and
communication amongst local, State, and Federal law enforcement
agencies and first responders. From there, officials are better able to
prevent attacks by training, sharing information, and coordinating
investigations. And in the unthinkable scenario in which an attack does
occur, this facility, funded by UASI dollars, will better able the
region's law enforcement and first responders to react and respond to
an attack.

____________________