[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 11]
[House]
[Pages 15871-15922]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




        DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2008

  Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that, during further 
consideration of H.R. 2638 pursuant to House Resolution 473, the Chair 
may reduce to 2 minutes the minimum time for electronic voting under 
clause 6 of rule XVII and clauses 8 and 9 of rule XX.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Wisconsin?
  There was no objection.

[[Page 15872]]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 473 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. 2638.

                              {time}  2044


                     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. 2638) making appropriations for the Department of 
Homeland Security for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and 
for other purposes, with Mr. Ross (Acting Chairman) in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose on 
Wednesday, June 13, 2007, the bill had been read through page 3, line 
10, and pending was amendment No. 9 by the gentlewoman from Virginia 
(Mrs. Drake).
  Pursuant to the order of the House of today, that amendment shall be 
debatable for 10 further minutes, equally divided and controlled by the 
proponent and opponent. No further amendment to the bill may be offered 
except those specified in the previous order of the House of today, 
which is at the desk.
  The gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. Drake) and the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Serrano) each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Virginia.
  Mrs. DRAKE. Mr. Chairman, this amendment reduces the Office of the 
Secretary of Management $10.4 million, and increases ICE salaries and 
the expense account by $9.1 million, restoring the funding that was in 
the President's budget to fund the 287(g) program.

                              {time}  2045

  I chose this account because between 2007 and 2008 budgets, it has 
increased 60 percent, or a total increase of $89 million. The 287(g) 
program provides training, technology, and resources to local law 
enforcement officers to work with the Federal Government, with ICE, to 
identify illegal aliens who have broken our laws.
  This is a voluntary program available to both our State and local 
governments. Currently, it is implemented in 13 locations. One of the 
most prominent of these is Sheriff Pendergraf in North Carolina, who 
has detained and deported 1,900 illegal criminal aliens in the last 
year.
  America saw the very tragic accident that occurred in Virginia Beach 
that took the lives of two beautiful young women at the hands of an 
illegal alien drunk driver. And, Mr. Chairman, this individual had been 
arrested and detained on DUI offenses in the past and was released onto 
our streets.
  I believe that immigration is a Federal responsibility, but we need 
the help of local and State law enforcement officials. We need to 
identify the gaps and figure out how to bridge those gaps.
  The 287(g) program can also be used to better coordinate with our 
DMVs; none of us want fraudulent documents used and driver's licenses 
issued for our States, and can also be used with our Departments of 
Corrections, so that when an illegal alien has served time in our 
prisons and jails, they're deported immediately, and there's no 
additional expense to us.
  Contrary to the report language in this bill, by the end of June 
there will only be $1 million remaining in the 287(g) coffers. Due to 
the success of this program such as in Mecklenberg, North Carolina, and 
high-profile cases like in Virginia Beach, there is an increased 
awareness and an increased demand for this program.
  I ask my colleagues to support this amendment, make our communities 
safer, and allow better coordination between local, State, and Federal 
governments.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. DRAKE. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I want to compliment the gentlelady again on 
an excellent amendment, the hard work that she's put into this issue. I 
have some problem with the offset, but that's overridden by the urgent 
need that the gentlelady has illuminated in her amendment.
  Allowing our local law enforcement officials and first responders to 
have authority in illegal immigration problems is the only way, in my 
judgment, that we will ever be able to solve this problem. And so I 
commend the gentlelady for this wonderful amendment.
  Mrs. DRAKE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may 
consume.
  It's clear, it should be clear to Members what this amendment does 
and what this program does. This, in fact, has local law enforcement 
enforcing immigration law.
  This is the most unpopular and rejected program within law 
enforcement in this country when it comes to these types of programs. 
Department after department, police department after police department, 
sheriff's department after sheriff's department has said we don't want 
this responsibility, we don't want this job.
  In fact, that is the reason why the number of communities that have 
participated in this program is not anywhere where the proponents would 
want it to be, because the mainstay, the strength of local law 
enforcement is the ability to fight crime, to protect the community, 
and, yes, even to flush out possible terrorist acts by getting 
information from the community.
  Granted, there is an immigration issue. But the police departments, 
the local law enforcement do not want to play the role of immigration 
officers because they want the ability to be able to speak to members 
of the community and get information.
  Now, that information may be who did you see near that car that is 
now missing from that corner. But that information can also be, where 
did you see and who did you see going into that building where we later 
found equipment to make bombs that could in fact be involved in a 
terrorist attack.
  Local law enforcement have told us, in big cities and in small cities 
throughout this country and the rural communities, that they want the 
ability to work with their communities, and they don't want to be 
hampered by being asked to enforce immigration law.
  And how it works is very simply this. There are people who are in 
this country without proper documentation. You call them illegal 
aliens; some of us call them undocumented. But they still live in the 
community. They still have information and law enforcement needs to 
work with them.
  If they now know that the local police officer, if they now know that 
the local sheriff's deputy is going to be dealing with them in terms of 
an immigration situation, they will not open up to that person and give 
them any information. And in the long run, we will suffer as a Nation.
  That's why I think that this is a bad program. I'm sorry it has even 
a penny assigned to it. But to add more money to it would be a total 
waste of time.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield 
briefly?
  Mr. SERRANO. To you, always.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. The 287(g) program is voluntary by local 
communities, is it not?
  Mr. SERRANO. It may be voluntary, but what happens is that local 
elected officials who sound like some of us here begin to put pressure 
on the police department to get into the program when, indeed, just 
about every law enforcement agency, local law enforcement in the Nation 
has gone public to say we don't want it. And in this case, we don't 
even want people to ask us to join it.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Well, if the gentleman would yield very 
briefly, every community has the decision to make. If they don't want 
to participate, that's their business. But for those communities that 
do want to participate, it seems to me like we ought to allow the local 
option to take effect.
  Mr. SERRANO. Reclaiming my time, it's just, with all due respect to 
my brother, Mr. Rogers, it's just bad policy. It is not the way to get 
at an issue.

[[Page 15873]]

  We are now dealing with the Senate, and we will be dealing in the 
House with an immigration reform bill. We will eventually deal with 
that issue. In the meantime, we have other business to take care of in 
this country, other protections to offer to our citizens.
  To have the local police officer, on top of the fact that they're 
busy already, now you're going to give them another assignment. But to 
have them enforce immigration law, I can't tell you how much all the 
people I speak to say they don't want that. They want the freedom to 
get information at all levels of the community and not be seen as an 
immigration officer.
  There used to be a bad joke about somebody would come into a 
restaurant and yell out ``immigration'' and a lot of people would leave 
and jump out the window. And that's funny, and it's sad at the same 
time.
  But if you adjust that to a police department in a neighborhood 
looking for information and having people run away from them because 
they see them as immigration enforcement agents, then we lose the 
opportunity to really protect our communities.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. If the gentleman would briefly yield, do you 
have a problem, though, if Mecklenberg County, North Carolina, wants to 
do the 287(g) program? You don't have to do it. But is it okay for them 
to do it?
  Mr. SERRANO. I have a problem if we set in motion a wave of desire 
and push to force local people to do it. And what we hear from local 
law enforcement is that they're under incredible pressure, political 
pressure, from elected officials to join a program that they know is 
not a good program.
  Mrs. DRAKE. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. 1\1/2\ minutes.
  Mrs. DRAKE. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina 
(Mr. McHenry).
  Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chairman, this past March, Burke County authorities 
pulled over an SUV in Morganton, North Carolina, packed with 11 illegal 
immigrants. Local law enforcement officials were forced to release the 
illegals after being notified that there were not enough Immigration 
and Customs Enforcement agents available to check on the group's 
immigration status, even though they admitted that they were illegal.
  Law enforcement officials, not the illegal aliens, were handcuffed 
that night on I-40. Our hands were tied by red tape and bureaucracy and 
underfunding.
  The 287(g) program is working efficiently in my home county of 
Gaston, and our sheriff there, Sheriff Cloninger, is doing a fantastic 
job of cross-training deputies to also enforce our immigration laws of 
this land and gives them the authority, the legal authority, to 
investigate, detain and arrest illegal aliens on civil and criminal 
grounds. It paves the way for local law enforcement to be a part of our 
homeland security.
  Mrs. DRAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield the remaining 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon).
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, this is a very good amendment. 
The State of Arizona reports it has saved $10.2 million by removing 
illegal aliens into Federal custody.
  The City of Nashville, Tennessee, in it's first year of implementing 
this program, is reportedly on track to deport as many as 4,200 illegal 
immigrants.
  This is a good program. It needs to be expanded. The lady should be 
commended. All of my colleagues should vote in support of this very 
valuable amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. All time on the amendment having expired, the 
question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Virginia 
(Mrs. Drake).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Mrs. DRAKE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Virginia 
will be postponed.


               Amendment Offered by Mr. King of New York

  Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. King of New York:
       Page 2, line 16, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $35,000,000)''.
       Page 31, line 18, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $5,000,000)''.
       Page 51, line 17, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $40,000,000)''.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. King) and the gentleman from North 
Carolina (Mr. Price) each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, at the outset let me commend Chairman Price and Ranking 
Member Rogers for the outstanding job, I believe, and the effort they 
put into putting this legislation together. And I commend them on an 
issue which is so vital to our Nation, homeland security.
  My amendment would restore $40 million to the Domestic Nuclear 
Detection Office, DNDO, specifically relating to the Securing the 
Cities Initiative and the Radiation Portal Monitor program.
  Mr. McCaul, as the cosponsor of the amendment, will address himself 
in a few moments to the Radiation Portal Monitor program. I'm going to 
stress the STC.
  Mr. Chairman, intelligence and recent terrorist attacks overseas have 
led to the conclusion that the next attack against our cities may very 
well come from outside the city, from suburban areas. And certainly, in 
New York City, it's been concluded that the STC is the only program 
which is dedicated to protecting cities against this threat.
  Specifically, the STC program involves a ring of radiological 
detectors on highways, bridges, tunnels and waterways leading into 
cities. Indeed, the police commissioner of New York, Commissioner 
Kelly, has said that this program is our best last defense to keep a 
nuclear or dirty bomb from being detonated within cities.
  So this should be a bipartisan matter. While it directly affects New 
York at this moment, this is a pilot program which will affect the 
entire Nation.
  There's already been two full exercises run. I was present at one of 
them last week, seeing how effective it was. It involves 90 counties, 
three States, numerous cities and many agencies. And it, to me, serves 
no purpose at all to be taking, in effect, $20 million out of a 
valuable program, a program which very well could end up saving 
thousands and thousands of lives. And I say that as someone who came 
from a district that lost well over 100 people on September 11 and 
certainly doesn't want to go through that again.
  This is a very effective, meaningful program, and I would, again, 
implore the House to restore this money, $40 million, to the DNDO.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to 
the gentleman from New York's amendment to add a total of $40 million 
to the funding recommended by the committee for the Domestic Nuclear 
Detection Office.
  I have concerns, first of all, about two of the proposed offsets. 
First, the amendment proposes to reduce funding for the Office of the 
Under Secretary for Management by $35 million. The amendments adopted 
earlier this week already cut the Office of the Under Secretary for 
Management by 17 percent. This amendment, if adopted, would reduce the 
office by another 18 percent.

                              {time}  2100

  This means that DHS will be unable to consolidate its 60 locations in 
the D.C. metro area into a new headquarters facility at St. 
Elizabeth's.
  Secondly, the amendment would reduce $5 million from the Coast 
Guard's research, development, testing, and evaluation program. This 
decrease would eliminate priority research to

[[Page 15874]]

resolve how the Coast Guard can best operate unmanned aerial vehicles 
at sea after recent failures in the deepwater program as well as find 
ways to better manage invasive species such as zebra muscles and 
ballast water.
  At this time, I don't believe, Mr. Chairman, that funding for the 
Domestic Nuclear Detection Office needs to be increased by $40 million. 
The committee has already increased the total funding for the office 
above last year's level by $35 million, excluding the supplemental 
funding.
  The bill before you did make some reductions within this office: a 
reduction of $20 million for the Securing the Cities program, and a 
reduction of $20 million for procuring radiation portal monitors. Let 
me briefly explain those items.
  The Securing the Cities program is a proposed pilot program that 
assumes a radioactive device is heading to the heart of New York City 
and, in order to detect this device, an elaborate network of radiation 
detection devices will be installed in a ring around the city. Congress 
provided $10 million in 2007 to begin this effort. Yet, to the best of 
my knowledge, very little of this funding has been spent because the 
Department of Homeland Security has not reached agreement with New York 
and New Jersey officials on the architecture for this initiative or 
developed a mutually acceptable deployment plan. DHS testified that 
this would not occur until at least the summer of 2007.
  The amendment being offered by the gentleman from New York would 
restore funding that we reduced from the President's budget request for 
this program for 2008. In total we appropriate $19.7 million instead of 
the $39.7 million requested because of the delays in beginning the 
pilot program. It is premature to quadruple this program in 1 year 
without a clear architecture and deployment plan that has been agreed 
to by all the parties in place.
  The bill before you also reduced funding to procure radiation portal 
monitors for two reasons. First, the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office 
provided information after the submission of their budget request that 
reduced the number of radiation portal monitors it planned to procure 
from 149 to 127 systems in 2008. We fully fund this revised figure, not 
a higher level that DNDO no longer plans to procure.
  Secondly, the recently enacted supplemental provided $100 million for 
the procurement of radiation portal monitors. This funding, coupled 
with the House level for 2008, means we are actually $80 million above 
the funding level requested in 2008. So more is not needed.
  I urge Members to oppose this amendment.
  Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman stated that no 
agreement has been reached and would not be reached until the summer of 
2007. We are talking about several weeks from now. The summer of 2007 
is coming upon us. And also as far as the agreement's being reached, I 
have a letter which I would like to introduce into the Record, signed 
by officials from New York State, New Jersey, and Connecticut, all of 
whom say all that is delaying the agreement is the finalizing of this 
appropriation. They are ready to go. They have an agreement in place 
ready to go, just subject to this appropriation.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, this 
agreement is not now in place; is that right?
  Mr. KING of New York. But it will be. Again, this is a letter signed 
by all the ranking officials in New York State, New Jersey, and 
Connecticut. All that is holding it up is this appropriation. Once the 
amount is known, they will go ahead. But other than that, they cannot 
go ahead.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is saying 
that the present appropriation, the money in the pipeline, is not 
sufficient, that their ability to pull their plan together depends on 
whether your amendment passes.
  Mr. KING of New York. Yes, that is true.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. That is a strange way to plan.
  Mr. KING of New York. It was done in concert with DNDO and with the 
three States.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, at this time I would like 
to yield the balance of my time to my colleague Mr. Israel.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5 
seconds.
  Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I actually had a question. I support the spirit and intent of this 
amendment, and I was hoping to ask a question to the gentleman from New 
York.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's time has expired.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from North Carolina is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to Mr. 
Israel.
  Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished chairman of the 
subcommittee for yielding.
  I serve on the Appropriations Committee. As I said, I support the 
spirit and the intent of this amendment. I am concerned that New York 
City has not effectively advocated for these funds, didn't, in my view, 
do a sufficient job of alerting the members of the Appropriations 
Committee to this problem, hasn't lined up its ducks, but I am willing 
to put that behind us.
  I would just ask the gentleman, will the gentleman work with me to 
pressure New York City to ensure that this agreement is signed? The 
concern I have is that if it is not signed, it is entirely possible 
that the bureaucracy at the Department of Homeland Security will take 
the money meant for New York and send it elsewhere.
  So would my very good friend from Long Island, with whom I have a 
wonderful partnership on so many issues, commit to work with me to 
pressure the city of New York to get this agreement signed so that the 
money goes to where it is intended?
  Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I would be happy to yield 30 seconds for 
a response.
  Mr. KING of New York. Yes. I will absolutely assure him that I will 
work with the city of New York and the Department of Homeland Security 
to ensure that this money is allocated and used for this purpose and 
that the agreement be expedited as quickly as possible.
  Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman. I understand 
the concerns he has. I am deeply disappointed in how the city of New 
York approached the committee or did not approach the committee on 
this. But I will work closely with the gentleman from Long Island in 
pressuring the city to conclude this agreement.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I must 
say to the gentleman, the sponsor of the amendment, that we on the 
committee have heard nothing from DNDO about this pending agreement.
  I will say this, though: that if between now and the conference on 
this bill, if this agreement is forthcoming and if we feel that the 
basis exists to move ahead, then we will certainly be happy to work 
with the gentleman in considering the final appropriations level. But 
as I said earlier, I do not believe the basis for an increase of this 
magnitude currently exists. We just can't responsibly do it.
  Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the coauthor 
of the amendment, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. McCaul).
  Mr. McCAUL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding.
  In response to the issues raised, the DNDO has reached an agreement 
in principle with State and local stakeholders, and it is about 95 
percent there. I submit we cannot wait another year for the 
appropriations cycle to take place.
  This amendment is important. It restores $40 million to the Domestic 
Nuclear Detection Office. The lack of

[[Page 15875]]

these funds threatens to delay the completion of the radiation portal 
monitor program and significantly impair the implementation of securing 
the cities initiative. Both of these initiatives aim to strengthen the 
Nation's defenses against a terror attack by a nuclear device or a 
radioactive ``dirty bomb.''
  There is no doubt that the risks are real. We know that nuclear 
terrorism is the number one threat facing our country and that the 
economic costs associated with a dirty bomb could reach about $1 
trillion. We know that Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda terrorist 
network have been attempting to acquire a nuclear bomb. We also know 
that hundreds of tons of the necessary ingredients of nuclear weapons 
are dangerously insecure all over the world. There have been numerous 
documented cases of theft of weapons-grade nuclear material.
  But nuclear terrorism is, in fact, preventable, and we should be 
spending Homeland Security dollars on preventing what could be a 
catastrophic attack against the United States. Twenty million dollars 
of the cuts to the DNDO comes out of the radiation portal monitor 
program. It would delay the completion of these until the year 2013. 
Acquisition of systems for five ports of entry, including the Port of 
Houston in my home State of Texas, would be delayed, and this means 
that more unscreened cargo would get into this country.
  Such a delay is unacceptable. And the best deterrence against 
terrorism is to disrupt the ability of terrorists to do what they want 
to do, and that is to kill Americans.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from Staten Island, Brooklyn, (Mr. Fossella), who lost more 
than 300 people on September 11.
  Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I very strongly urge the adoption of this amendment. The focus, as we 
all know, should be on preventing another 9/11, as the police 
commissioner from New York has underscored many, many different times, 
that to place this ring around New York City and major urban areas will 
be a strong deterrent to anybody even contemplating. So I strongly urge 
the adoption of this great amendment by my good friend from Long 
Island, New York (Mr. King).
  Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  Let me again at the outset commend the gentleman from North Carolina 
for his good faith and effort. We have an honest disagreement on this, 
but I certainly commend him for the time and concern he has shown on 
this issue, and I certainly appreciate his offer to work with me.
  I would just ask to introduce into the Record this letter from 
virtually every law enforcement official from New York, New Jersey, and 
Connecticut, State police, local police, fire commissioners in New York 
City, Nassau County, Suffolk County, Westchester County, and all of the 
State officials of New Jersey and Connecticut.
  I urge the adoption of the amendment.

         New York Regional Joint Working Group on Securing the 
           Cities,
                                                    June 12, 2007.
     Subject: FY08 Appropriation for Securing the Cities 
         Initiative.

     Hon. Peter T. King,
     Ranking Member, House Homeland Security Committee, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Ranking Member King: We are writing to urge you to 
     fully fund the President's FY08 request for the Securing the 
     Cities (STC) initiative: $30 million for procurement and $10 
     million for R&D.
       We are profoundly concerned by the prospect of a terrorist 
     attack against New York involving a radiological weapon or 
     improvised nuclear weapon. We know al-Qaeda and its 
     affiliates are interested in perpetrating such an attack and 
     will do so if they can. The STC initiative is the only 
     federal initiative dedicated to defending New York from this 
     catastrophic possibility. A Congressional decision to provide 
     less than the full amount requested by the President for this 
     new and important program will significantly impair our 
     region's ability to defend against, and prepare for, the most 
     terrible threat imaginable.
       The STC initiative is an extraordinary example of 
     interagency and intergovernmental collaboration. Together, we 
     represent three layers of government, three states, over 
     ninety counties, numerous cities, and many different 
     agencies. In partnership with the Domestic Nuclear Detection 
     Office (DNDO) of the Department of Homeland Security, we are 
     working together in a truly unprecedented fashion. In the 
     short time since STC began, for instance, we have conducted 
     two full-scale exercises (with a third planned for this week) 
     in which a radiological substance was surreptitiously 
     transported in a vehicle on a highway and then intercepted by 
     our agencies; we have coordinated our procurement of 
     radiological detection equipment and have designed a concept 
     of operations for the larger regional system envisioned in 
     the STC initiative. A regional deployment plan for FY08 is 
     nearing completion and has been delayed mainly by uncertainty 
     over the total amount of funding that will be available from 
     the Federal Government.
       We appreciate your full consideration of this request. We 
     welcome the opportunity to brief Members of Congress or their 
     staffs on the progress of this initiative either in the New 
     York region or in Washington, DC. We believe the Securing the 
     Cities initiative in the New York region should be a model 
     for the nation which was indeed one of its intended purposes.
           Sincerely,
       Raymond W. Kelly, Commissioner, New York City Police 
     Department.
       Nicholas Scoppetta, Commissioner, New York City Fire 
     Department.
       Preston L. Felton, Acting Superintendent, New York State 
     Police.
       Colonel Joseph R. Fuentes, Superintendent, New Jersey State 
     Police.
       Colonel Thomas Davoren, Connecticut State Police.
       James H. Lawrence, Commissioner of Police, Nassau County 
     Police Department.
       Richard Dormer, Commissioner, Suffolk County Police 
     Department.
       William A. Morange, Deputy Executive Director, Metropolitan 
     Transportation Authority Police Department.
       Michael Balboni, Deputy Secretary for Public Safety, New 
     York State.
       F. David Sheppard, Director, New York State Office of 
     Homeland Security.
       James F. Kralik, Sheriff, Rockland Couty Sheriffs Office.
       Thomas Belfiore, Commissioner, Westchester County Police 
     Department.
       Richard Canas, Director, New Jersey Office of Homeland 
     Security and Preparedness.
       James M. Thomas, Commissioner, Connecticut Office of 
     Emergency Management and Homeland Security.
       Samuel J. Plumeri, Jr., Superintendent of Police, Port 
     Authority of New York and New Jersey.
       Emily Lloyd, Commissioner, New York City Department of 
     Environmental Protection.
       Thomas R. Frieden, Commissioner, New York City Department 
     of Health and Mental Hygiene.
       Joseph Bruno, Commissioner, New York City Office of 
     Emergency Management.
       Janette Sadik-Khan, Commissioner, New York City Department 
     of Transportation.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. King).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York 
will be postponed.


      Amendment No. 13 Offered by Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite of Florida

  Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 13 offered by Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite of 
     Florida:
       Page 2, line 16, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced 
     by $89,125,000)''.
       Page 11, line 24, after the dollar amount insert 
     ``(increased by $89,125,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite) and the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Price) each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Florida.
  Ms. GINNY BROWN WAITE of Florida. Mr. Chairman, Americans are in a 
crisis of confidence. They hear Members of this Congress proclaiming 
the importance of border, port, and airport security. But then they 
hear about lapses. They hear about neglect.
  For instance, several of my constituents contacted me about an 
immigration reform rally in the Tampa area. It

[[Page 15876]]

was widely understood that illegal aliens were going to be present. 
Well, a constituent called ICE to report this information, and they 
told her they did not have credible intelligence or staff capable of 
going to the rally to investigate. When my local sheriffs call ICE 
because they have apprehended an illegal alien, ICE says they can't 
come because they are far too busy.
  But when this Congress said that they will build 700 miles of a 
border fence last year, DHS, it seems, said, No, thank you, we will 
stick to 370 miles, we will take a lot of time and money to do it.
  And, frankly, I am fed up with some elected officials and nonelected 
people promoting amnesty while ignoring the illegal presence in our 
country. Congress said build a fence. That means now.
  My amendment is very simple. It takes $89 million from the Under 
Secretary for Management's account, keeping the account at the fiscal 
year 2007 levels, and transfers that amount to the border security 
fencing, infrastructure, and technology account. CBO has scored this 
amendment as budget neutral.
  Congress must not accept anything less than the 700 miles of fencing 
in the exact locations that we authorized. With this money we send both 
a stark wakeup call to the department and we will be keeping promises 
to our constituents. The people of America deserve better than what DHS 
is giving them. So far a measly 1.8 percent of the fence is completed.
  Leaving funds at the fiscal year 2007 levels for the department shows 
that we are serious. Why should their management be rewarded with 
bigger budgets when they haven't completed their work for fiscal year 
2007?

                              {time}  2115

  Let me see: fence. Build a fence or build a bureaucracy? I think our 
constituents would answer that very clearly, build a fence.
  I want to be able to say that we kept our promise to America. Mr. 
Chairman, this amendment simply says build a fence, and a vote for this 
amendment is to complete the fence we promised. A vote against this 
amendment is a vote to leave our borders unsecured.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  This amendment would increase funding for the Border Security, 
Fencing, Infrastructure and Technology account by 9 percent above the 
administration request.
  The bill funds the $1 billion request, bringing funding for the 
Border Security program, since its inception, to $2.54 billion, but the 
amendment would increase this further.
  Now, the requested fiscal year 2008 funding that we have included 
will enable CBP to complete construction of 370 miles of primary 
fencing and 200 miles of vehicle barriers. While the specific mix of 
technology and infrastructure has yet to be determined, the Department 
has confirmed that those are the current limits of such infrastructure 
required to achieve operational control of the southwest border, with 
the remainder being addressed through technology or existing assets.
  In part, because of the requirements for a detailed expenditure plan, 
the Department has broken out its proposed investments in a way that 
aligns its requirements with its resources. There is no rationale in 
its plans for additional funding at this time.
  In short, additional funding for this program would be based on no 
rationale and no known program needs. On the other hand, the proposal 
to reduce funding for the office that oversees departmental management 
is arbitrary. I must say, it fits the pattern of the last couple of 
days of simply going after the departmental secretary of this 
Republican administration. But it is an arbitrary cut. It would have 
the effect of degrading the capacity of the Department to oversee 
itself and thus reduce the very accountability we want to establish.
  I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I now yield to my colleague from California (Mr. Farr).
  Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I rise also in opposition, and I'll tell you 
why. I've been to the border and I've traveled the area that you're 
talking about. It's in the Barry Goldwater range. It's a very rural 
area. It's actually an area where you have Indian tribes. I mean, this 
is so rural you can't believe it. I am really surprised that the 
gentlewoman rose on this because she doesn't have any border in her 
State, nor fence. I come from the State of California which not only 
has a border; it has the busiest border in the world.
  I am also in opposition to this because I have talked to the Border 
Patrol. This is not a fence that they are asking for. What this fence 
is for is a fence in the military range. It should be coming out of the 
military budget because it is just in the middle of absolutely nowhere, 
where there is very little, if any, crossings. You would be much more 
effective in detection rather than fences. Border Patrol once said, you 
know, a 12-foot fence, you just need a 13-foot ladder.
  I respect the fact that you think that this is going to get you 
somewhere, but I can tell you that it's not wisely spent money. There 
are much more cost-effective ways to do border detection than building 
a fence in the middle of nowhere.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. I would inquire as to the time 
remaining on my side.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Florida has 2 minutes 
remaining.
  Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. I would like to yield 1 minute to 
my friend from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito).
  Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of my colleague 
from Florida and her amendment that will enhance the ability to secure 
our borders.
  The enactment of the Secure Fence Act last year was a step in the 
right direction because this act recognized that most illegal 
immigrants do enter from the southern border. The Secure Fence Act 
directs the Department of Homeland Security to construct hundreds of 
miles of reinforced fencing, not just fencing, but additional physical 
barriers, roads, lighting, cameras and sensors along that southwest 
border.
  Building the fence is a very expensive and urgent construction 
project. My constituents in West Virginia, who do not have a border, 
say, What is taking so long, and why are so many people still able to 
enter our country illegally? Unfortunately, part of it has been a lack 
of funding.
  So with this amendment, I think the gentlewoman from Florida has put 
forth a good-faith effort to see that this fence not only is built, but 
is built quicker and that the border becomes more secure.
  I support her amendment.
  Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 
45 seconds to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, in response to a comment that was just 
made, I would remind my colleague that in this day and age and in this 
time in which we find ourselves, every State is a border State and 
every town is a border town because of the situation that we find on 
the southern border of this Nation.
  Mr. Chairman, 283 Members of this body voted to build a fence, so it 
is incumbent upon us to appropriately and fully fund that fence.
  I support the amendment of the gentlelady from Florida. I rise to 
support her efforts. I commend her for this. The bill before us 
underfunds the effort of building the fence.
  Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. I thank the gentlewoman from 
Tennessee.
  Mr. Chairman, it is not just the border States that are affected by 
illegal immigrants who come into our country. They are not all coming 
here for jobs, folks, and I think we are very naive if we believe that. 
Some are coming here to form terrorist cells. And a fence may not be 
the perfect answer,

[[Page 15877]]

but it is the answer that this Congress voted on last year.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, let me just reiterate that 
anyone who will look at this bill for a minute or two will realize that 
the border infrastructure, including the fencing, is fully funded in 
this bill. It is not underfunded; it is fully funded at the 
administration's request.
  We do provide for the very careful consideration of what is the 
appropriate mix of technology and infrastructure to create this barrier 
along the border. That is what the Department, of course, has requested 
and it's what, I think, rationally they should undertake.
  So I reiterate that there is no reason for this additional funding, 
and I ask my colleagues to oppose it.
  Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to the 
amendment being offered by my colleague, Ms. Brown-Waite.
  I want to prevent criminals and terrorists from coming into this 
county. I believe we should enforce our immigration laws. As a lifelong 
resident of the border region, I also know how interdependent border 
communities are on movement back and forth. Families live on both sides 
of the border. People cross back and forth to shop, go to school, and 
attend church. Endangered and unique species of birds and wildlife need 
access to habitat found on both sides of the border to survive.
  A physical fence along the portion of the U.S.-Mexico border that I 
represent would be devastating. It would cut off livestock from access 
to our scarce water resources and hinder the ability of our irrigation 
districts to get water to our farmers. It would require the 
condemnation of private property.
  It would undo everything that has been done and the millions that 
have been spent over the last few decades to create Federal wildlife 
refuges and parks to protect unique habitat. It will destroy our new 
multi-million dollar ecotourism industry. I ask unanimous consent to 
include in the Record an article from the Houston Press on the 
environmental and economic impact of the fence in the Rio Grande 
Valley.
  We just learned this week that the proposed fence would divide the 
University of Texas Brownsville in half leaving part of the campus on 
the wrong side.
  Our residents are protected from flooding by a levee system that is 
in disrepair and would become even less effective by the addition of 
fencing. Fences would inhibit the ability of our first responders and 
emergency coordinators to evacuate people during natural disasters.
  A physical fence tells the people of Mexico: We don't want you. Keep 
the billions of dollars you would have spent in our stores and 
restaurants. Don't come here and help create the jobs that have finally 
brought my district's unemployment rate down from 23 percent to 7 
percent.
  If all of these arguments don't sway you, then maybe fiscal reality 
will. A physical fence is three times more expensive than a virtual 
fence. We will spend billions upon billions of dollars building this 
physical fence. My constituents don't understand why this Congress can 
find such huge sums to build a fence that could destroy the border 
economy and take away their jobs, yet we can't find $100 million to fix 
their levees and save millions of lives or a few million dollars to 
build them the veteran's hospital for which they have been begging for 
years. Frankly, I don't have a good answer for them.
  We have the technology to create a virtual fence. The money saved by 
not constructing a physical fence could be used to hire more Border 
Patrol agents and law enforcement personnel who are still going to be 
needed even if we build a physical fence.
  At the very least, my communities, who are going to have to live with 
the consequences of this fence, should be able to have their concerns 
heard and taken seriously before a fence is constructed.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance 
of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded 
vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Florida 
will be postponed.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Burgess

  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Burgess:
       Page 2, line 16, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $15,000,000)''.
       Page 23, line 16, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $15,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess) and the gentleman from North 
Carolina (Mr. Price) each will control 2\1/2\ minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Chairman, this is a very simple amendment. The 
Secure Flight offset amendment will reduce the Department of Homeland 
Security Office of Under Secretary for Management by $15 million and 
increase the Transportation Threat Assessment account by $15 million.
  The Department of Homeland Security Under Secretary for Management 
oversees the Audit Liaison Office at the Department of Homeland 
Security. This liaison office helps to oversee the Department's efforts 
to coordinate with the Government Accountability Office, the Office of 
Inspector General, and DHS component agencies.
  The liaison officers have not been meeting the goal for which they 
were first funded, that is, to keep the agencies updated and to avoid 
duplication, to avoid gaps and to avoid inefficiency. The liaison 
officers have not been successful in providing a centralized and 
coordinated process. Therefore, this amendment reduces funding for this 
office by $15 million and increases the funding for the Transportation 
Threat Assessment Act by $15 million.
  The funding would be used by the Transportation Security 
Administration to further the development of the passenger pre-
screening program called Secure Flight. When fully implemented, Secure 
Flight will be able to more effectively compare passenger information 
to information that is contained within the Federal terrorist watch 
list.
  Secure Flight will decrease the chance for compromised watch list 
data by centralizing the use of comprehensive watch lists. It will 
further provide earlier identification of potential threats, allowing 
for expedited notification of law enforcement and threat management. 
And, finally, it will offer consistent application of an expedited and 
integrated redress process for passengers who have been misidentified 
as a threat.
  Secure Flight is a critical part of the TSA's overall strategy to 
secure the Nation's commercial air transportation system and deserves 
more money to be fully implemented as soon as possible. It will give 
cleaner and more efficient data to our air carriers.
  Constituents throughout our country, certainly constituents in my 
district, have contacted my office because they have been misidentified 
by the Transportation Security Administration, and they simply cannot 
be removed from the watch list. Increasing the Secure Flight initiative 
would help that process, and it is time we did increase the funding for 
that.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  I am opposed to this amendment, and I will briefly explain my 
reasoning.
  I do support the development of an effective screening program that 
would prevent known terrorists from boarding airlines headed to the 
United States; of course we all favor that. For that reason, I 
recommended $10 million more for Secure Flight than what Congress 
appropriated last year, and that is in this bill. Further funding is 
premature.
  Many times tonight, I am sure we are going to be dealing with 
questions of priorities and objectives with which we all agree. But as 
many people on both

[[Page 15878]]

sides of the aisle are fond of saying, it doesn't solve anything just 
to throw money at something. You have to look at what can be 
intelligently and wisely spent, and we have done that throughout this 
bill.
  This Secure Flight program is troubled in ways that make us reluctant 
to throw the kind of money at it that the gentleman is suggesting. 
While earlier this year TSA completed the year-long assessment of the 
program, the assessment didn't include total cost estimates for 
development of the program and did not assure the committee that 
privacy rights will be protected.
  The Government Accountability Office has reported multiple times this 
year on concerns it has with the Secure Flight program. It has 
recommended a variety of management actions that TSA should undertake 
to get this program back on track. The agency must have to have 
incentives to undertake those improvements. We don't do them any favors 
simply by loading more money onto existing appropriations. TSA 
continues to provide our subcommittee with conflicting information on 
how the budget requests for Secure Flight will be spent in 2008. And, 
finally, recent documents show that the operational testing of this 
program has now slipped into 2009.
  For all of these reasons, we very carefully calibrated what the 
traffic will bear and what the appropriation should be. It's an 
increase, but there is no rationale for the kind of increase the 
gentleman is suggesting.
  Now, like many other people, the gentleman has targeted Secretary 
Chertoff's office for the offset, a cut of $15 million. Well, if 
everybody does that, and many plan to, then we are going to reduce 
these accounts to the point that DHS simply cannot consolidate its 60 
locations into this new headquarters facility and they can't carry on 
their basic operations.
  So, Mr. Chairman, until TSA can get a firm handle on what Secure 
Flight will do, the milestones to develop this program, its costs, and 
how it will protect the privacy of U.S. citizens, it is premature to 
provide additional funding for this troubled program.
  I urge Members to oppose this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's time has expired.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Chairman, I would just simply say this is a good 
amendment. I would encourage my colleagues to vote in favor of this. As 
someone who travels frequently, I want this program to be upfunded and 
running well.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas will 
be postponed.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word for purposes of engaging in a colloquy with the gentleman from 
Rhode Island.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. As the designee of the full committee chairman, 
the gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I yield to the gentleman from Rhode 
Island (Mr. Langevin).
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, as chairman of the Homeland Security 
Subcommittee on Emerging Threats, Cybersecurity and Science and 
Technology, I have worked to bring greater attention to the issue of 
cybersecurity, which remains a vulnerability in our national 
infrastructure.
  I believe it is critical that adequate funding for cybersecurity 
research and development be made a priority at the Science and 
Technology Directorate.

                              {time}  2130

  Unfortunately, this issue has been largely overlooked within the 
Department of Homeland Security. In fact, out of the $22.7 million in 
fiscal year 2007 funding appropriated for the S&T Directorate for 
Cybersecurity R&D, only $13 million actually has been spent on 
cybersecurity. The rest has been reallocated to other programs at the 
directorate. For fiscal year 2008, the President slashed the budget 
again, requesting only $14.8 million, which is an $8 million cut from 
the previous year.
  As the chairman knows, my subcommittee has raised attention to this 
issue, and the full committee authorized $50 million for cybersecurity 
research and development. As the committee's authorization and 
appropriations bills move forward, I would like to work with the 
chairman so that we can assure appropriate funding for cybersecurity 
research.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
Rhode Island for raising this important issue, and I agree that our 
Nation must protect its critical infrastructure from cyberattacks. 
Research and development efforts at the S&T Directorate will be vital 
to our homeland security activities. I look forward to working with the 
gentleman to bring greater attention to the issue of cybersecurity and 
to provide adequate funding for these efforts, and I very much 
appreciate his vigilance, outstanding among all the Members of this 
body, in attending to this issue.
  Mr. LANGEVIN. I thank the gentleman, and again I want to thank you 
for your attention to this matter of national significance, and I do 
look forward to working with you. And I also appreciate all your hard 
work on the Homeland Security appropriations bill in general. Again, I 
appreciate the gentleman's efforts.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance 
of my time.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Ferguson

  Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Ferguson:
       Page 2, line 16, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced 
     by $50,000,000)''.
       Page 39, line 14, after the dollar amount insert 
     ``(increased by $50,000,000)''.
       Page 40, line 5, after the dollar amount insert 
     ``(increased by $50,000,000)''.
       Page 40, line 21, after the dollar amount insert 
     ``(increased by $50,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Ferguson) and the gentleman from North 
Carolina (Mr. Price) each will control 2\1/2\ minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. Chairman, I want to first thank the chairman of the 
subcommittee and the ranking member for the good work they have done on 
this bill.
  I rise to offer this amendment which holds great importance not only 
to my home State of New Jersey, but really to the entire Nation. My 
amendment is a simple one and it is one that is a step in acknowledging 
the dangers that we are still faced with following the attacks of 
September 11, 2001.
  My amendment would transfer $50 million from the DHS Office of Under 
Secretary for Management to grants, contracts and cooperative 
agreements to State and local law enforcement agencies for terrorism 
prevention activities.
  Specifically, this amendment would increase funding for DHS buffer 
zone protection grants. These funds can be used to enhance security and 
protection around sites of national importance. These areas of national 
importance include not only banking and financial sites, but also 
government buildings and mass transit systems, such as the PATH in New 
York and New Jersey, the T in Boston, the BART in San Francisco. 
However, most importantly, this applies to chemical plants, which pose 
one of the most dangerous threats to our domestic security today.
  These funds could be used to provide increased law enforcement 
patrols around chemical plants and to protect these critical 
infrastructures, as well as enhance information sharing among

[[Page 15879]]

Federal, State and local officials and those in the intelligence 
community.
  For example, in 2007, the State of California received $4.6 million 
of these grant funds. My home State of New Jersey received $1.5 million 
in these grant funds. Other States that have benefited from this grant 
program include Maryland and South Carolina, which have each received 
nearly $1 million. States like Illinois have benefited. Even States 
like Idaho, Delaware and Montana have benefited from this program. They 
have each received over $180,000 in these funds. In fact, in 2006, all 
50 States in America received grants from this important program.
  New Jersey ranks as one of the leading States for chemical 
production. Most unsettlingly, New Jersey chemical plans are 
specifically listed by Federal authorities as ripe targets for 
potential terrorist attack. Millions of people and essential 
transportation routes surround these chemical plants. An attack on one 
of these plants could not only cause tremendous loss of life, but also 
irreversible environmental damage by unleashing secondary explosions or 
toxic fumes and substances.
  Make no any mistake, this amendment wouldn't only benefit New Jersey.
  Countless states throughout the Nation that are home to high-risk 
targets also would benefit from this amendment, which would increase 
DHS funding for grants, contracts, and cooperative agreements to state 
and local law enforcement agencies for terrorism prevention activities.
  In 2005, 225 members of the House voted in favor of nearly identical 
amendment, and dozens of lawmakers are on record as supporting 
increased DHS funding to bolster protections at our Nation's most high-
risk targets. I encourage you to continue this record of support and 
show the American people that national security is a top priority for 
this Congress by supporting my amendment.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment would halve the budget for the 
Department's new headquarters campus. That may seem like an easy 
target, but as a matter of fact, this Department's functions are 
scattered all over Washington, DC.
  We all agree in wanting an effective, strong Department of Homeland 
Security. We also know the obstacles that have stood in the way of 
integrating this Department and making it function smoothly, because it 
involves integrating 22 separate agencies into a functioning 
department. So for years now, we have known that this central facility 
needs to be constructed. The Bush administration has put a very high 
priority on it. Secretary Chertoff has talked about it repeatedly.
  It is just baffling that members of the minority would get up and 
show so little regard for that kind of priority. They seem to think 
that this departmental budget is some kind of cash cow that can be 
dipped into at will.
  Without this funding, the Coast Guard won't be able to move into its 
new headquarters. How about that? The Department wouldn't be able to 
consolidate its management functions at this modern facility. So it is 
not a costless amendment, Mr. Chairman, not by any means.
  The amendment would increase the buffer zone protection program by 
$50 million. There might be a case to be made for this if we had 
underfunded the buffer zone protection program. But the bill already 
funds the President's budget for this program, equal to the amount 
provided in fiscal year 2007, which the President deemed sufficient.
  The gentleman wants to double that funding, throw money at it, and at 
the same time remove money from this critically needed facility to pull 
all these 22 agencies together in a functioning department. It is 
unwise, it is unneeded, and it simply disregards the kind of careful 
consideration of this account, the kind of careful balancing of these 
needs that has gone into the production of this bill.
  So, although I appreciate the gentleman's intentions and his support 
of this program, I have to ask my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Ferguson).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey 
will be postponed.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. McHenry

  Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. McHenry:
       Page 2, line 16, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $34,000,000)''.
       Page 48, line 9, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $30,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry) and the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Price) each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry).
  Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, a major contributor to America's illegal immigration 
problem is the inability of the U.S. Customs and Immigration Service to 
process legal immigration applications in a timely manner. USCIS uses 
horribly antiquated systems for processing applications. So antiquated, 
in fact, they are still tracking immigration applications using paper 
and sending them around the country with the U.S. Postal Service.
  Every customer of a major bank in this country can track his or her 
accounts, payments, and transactions on line in real time. But the 
Federal Government is still using stone age technology, or paper age, 
rather, when it comes to the basic functioning of granting citizenship.
  Take, for instance, a constituent of mine, Mete Adan. Mete Adan 
actually was born in Turkey. He spent 16 years trying to become a 
United States citizen the right way, the legal way.
  My office has worked with him for a number of years in fact, helping 
him through this bureaucratic process and cutting through this outdated 
redtape. But due to the inefficiency of the current system, which 
processes over 7 million immigration applications per year using paper 
printouts, Mete's case has been a 2\1/2\-year debacle marked by 
mistakes, errors and blunders.
  The amendment I am offering today would prevent this sort of horror 
from continuing to happen in the future.
  A few years ago, USCIS embarked on a major technological overhaul for 
how it handles the millions of immigration applications it receives 
every year. The problem, though, is that they are not really putting 
this into place fast enough. That is why I am proposing that we take 
$30 million and apply it to carrying out the strategic information 
transformation through USCIS.
  Their plan includes on-line accounts that Federal agencies and 
applicants themselves can use to track their immigration status as it 
moves through the initial application process, to background checks, to 
adjudication and to final approval. It is a very commonsense way for us 
to track immigration applications.
  Beyond that, what we have to understand is USCIS estimates that it 
handles 7 million immigration applications using paper today. We should 
use Information Age technology to make sure that we have a fair process 
for those seeking to come to our country, and thereby reducing illegal 
immigration in the process.
  But the bulk of those 7 million applications, applications for 
citizenship and non-immigration residency, require up to 11 different 
forms apiece. That means the USCIS has to handle tens of millions of 
forms annually just to keep track of the people currently in the 
system. That is why there are just reported 15,000 pending cases from 
the 1986 amnesty plan passed by Congress and enacted into law. That is 
right, 21 years later there are still more than 15,000 unresolved 
cases.

[[Page 15880]]

  If we want people to immigrate to the United States legally and come 
to our country without sneaking across our border or breaking our laws 
or coming under the cover of darkness, then we must remove the barriers 
of illegal immigration.
  The $30 million I am proposing to devote to the USCIS strategic 
transformation will significantly aid that process.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment would put funding not requested by the 
administration into the business transformation program.

                              {time}  2145

  Once again, it would take funds from the efforts to consolidate DHS 
operations on the St. Elizabeth's campus, which Secretary Chertoff has 
cited as one of his top priorities for improving the efficiency and the 
performance of the Department of Homeland Security.
  This amendment puzzles me, though, Mr. Chairman, because CIS is 
updating its programs by utilizing user fees. My understanding is that 
this is a program funded by user fees and that it really is not in need 
of appropriated funding.
  Knowing the gentleman's support for economies in government--we have 
heard a lot about that the last couple of days, for many, many hours, 
in fact--why would we not want to have this program pay for itself, so 
to speak? And why would we want to dip into appropriated funds to make 
this kind of increase? I just raise that as a question.
  Maybe I should let the gentleman answer it before reaching my final 
conclusion.
  Mr. McHENRY. I certainly appreciate it. I thank my friend and 
colleague for yielding. I agree with you. USCIS should be fee-based and 
continue to be fee-based. However, in discussions with them, I realize 
we have a severe problem and they're not going to actually put in place 
this plan until 2013. And so the time frame I don't think is fast 
enough, and I think that is very deserving for us to appropriate funds 
so we can actually have a more efficient process.
  No matter where you are on the immigration debate, whether you want 
amnesty or border security, this actually is a pretty sensible thing 
from both sides.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Reclaiming my time, the gentleman is 
arguing that this $30 million would make a significant impact on what I 
think is about a $250 million program. If the Department is so 
encouraging of this, why do you suppose we didn't get a request from 
them when the budget was sent up?
  Mr. McHENRY. If the gentleman will yield.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Yes, I will.
  Mr. McHENRY. I spoke last night about a lack of competence within 
some of our bureaucracies, even those led by Republicans, my fellow 
Republican brethren. I see a failure in the bureaucracy and an 
unwillingness for them to step forward and make this happen faster. And 
you are correct, it is a much larger price tag. However, limited by the 
offsets available to me within this legislation and the confines of the 
rules, $30 million would be a good start in this process and hopefully 
pull that date closer to being enacted.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Reclaiming my time, I understand the 
pilots for this project are already under way. The answer about the 
bureaucracy, though, is somewhat troubling. If there are problems that 
the gentleman has identified, it doesn't seem like a very 
discriminating response to just simply throw appropriated funds at the 
agency, I must say.
  Now, if the point is to make sure that this program comes online, to 
make sure that it does what it is supposed to do, that it's monitored 
carefully, that we exercise our oversight responsibilities and that we 
encourage the Department to ask for whatever kind of support it needs, 
then that's another matter. But simply reaching into appropriated funds 
and throwing them at this program in this way, I must say to the 
gentleman, it's not something that I can accept.
  He might want to withdraw this amendment and let us work with him on 
trying to give this program appropriate emphasis, but that, of course, 
is his option.
  I yield if he wishes to respond.
  Mr. McHENRY. I would actually like to have a vote on this so that we 
can begin that process. I do think that they have a good plan in place 
to go into the information age and finally get out of this sort of 
1950s mentality of paperwork being shifted around. I would like to at 
least take a step forward in the process. But ongoing after that, I 
would certainly like to work with the chairman, because I know he very 
much cares about efficiency of the money appropriated.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Reclaiming my time, we'll work on this 
in any case; but I must say if there are the kinds of problems that the 
gentleman has identified, simply throwing appropriated funds at them in 
what seems to me to be a fairly undiscriminating way doesn't seem to be 
a very promising remedy.
  For that reason, Mr. Chairman, I do urge a ``no'' vote on this 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's time has expired.
  Mr. McHENRY. How much time do I have remaining, Mr. Chairman?
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from North Carolina has 1\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. McHENRY. I thank the chairman.
  Reclaiming my time, to address the issues raised, I do think USCIS 
actually has a good plan in place for moving forward to an electronic 
or digital age level of technology. What concerns me is this 
bureaucracy that deals with 7 million applications each year, tens of 
millions of pages of paper each year, doesn't move to technology sooner 
than 2013, which is their current plan. And so I would like to start 
that process, give them the money to begin earlier on moving to the 
information age.
  With that, I would be happy to yield to the ranking member of the 
subcommittee.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I'll be 
brief. I understand my chairman's concerns that he has expressed.
  Notwithstanding that, though, this agency is so far behind with this 
backlog, and trying to catch up with equipment and procedures that are 
decades old. I think this demands that we do something different. And 
so I appreciate the gentleman bringing this forward. I think it's a 
good idea. I'm going to support it.
  Mr. McHENRY. I thank my colleague from Kentucky.
  In closing, Mr. Chairman, when we have 15,000 pending cases from the 
1986 amnesty plan still stuck in the system, I think we have a flaw in 
the system. We need to update that and use current technology so that 
we can fairly bring legal immigration to this country.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's time has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from North 
Carolina (Mr. McHenry).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from North 
Carolina will be postponed.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, point of order.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized to state his point 
of order.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Do the rules not stipulate that the Chair is to 
be an impartial arbiter of the proceedings of the House?
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Chair's count is not subject to appeal.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized to 
state his parliamentary inquiry.

[[Page 15881]]


  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Do the rules not state that the Chair of the 
House is to be an impartial arbiter of the proceedings?
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Chair calls each voice vote as he hears it, 
and that call is not subject to appeal.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I thank the Chair.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Are there any other amendments to this pending 
paragraph?
  If not, the Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                 Office of the Chief Financial Officer

       For necessary expenses of the Office of the Chief Financial 
     Officer, as authorized by section 103 of the Homeland 
     Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 113), $32,000,000.


        Amendment No. 19 Offered by Ms. Corrine Brown of Florida

  Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at 
the desk.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 19 offered by Ms. Corrine Brown of Florida:
       Page 3, line 14, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced 
     by $1,000,000)''.
       Page 39, line 14, after the dollar amount insert 
     ``(increased by $1,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Corrine Brown) and a Member opposed each 
will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Florida.
  Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  I rise to offer an amendment that would add $1 million to the FEMA 
management and administration account so that children's disaster 
planning materials can be developed and implemented.
  Children are often neglected when it comes to preparedness and 
response. Nothing shows this more than the chaotic evacuations during 
Hurricane Katrina when hundreds of children were separated from their 
parents or guardians because a simple system of writing down names of 
evacuated children was not implemented.
  Children's unique needs are often overlooked because of the fallacy 
that children can be treated like ``little adults.'' Children are among 
the most vulnerable members of the population and their needs are 
vastly different.
  For example, I had a meeting with the chief of the Division of 
Community Pediatrics from the University of Florida and he brought to 
my attention that emergency evacuation equipment is often bought for 
adults, but children can't be transported in adult equipment and often 
that type of equipment is missed.
  My amendment would make sure children don't go unnoticed when we are 
thinking about preparedness materials. Children represent nearly 25 
percent of the population, and they need their own set of disaster 
planning materials. Children should be learning the importance of 
making an emergency plan, what to ask their parents and about the need 
for an emergency contact and identification card.
  In addition, children often take the preparedness message back home 
to their families. Involving and educating children is the best way to 
get many of the adults who don't always hear the planning message. 
Getting children ready for disasters can make the difference between 
success and failure. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment to 
increase funding for children's disaster preparedness materials.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I want to say I appreciate the 
gentlewoman's efforts in this important area. We expect FEMA to develop 
these materials to ensure that children are adequately prepared when 
disasters strike.
  I will be happy to accept the amendment.
  Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Thank you.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Does anyone seek recognition in opposition to 
the amendment?
  If not, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman 
from Florida (Ms. Corrine Brown).
  The amendment was agreed to.


        Amendment No. 17 Offered by Ms. Corrine Brown of Florida

  Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 17 offered by Ms. Corrine Brown of Florida:
       In title I, in the item relating to ``Office of the Chief 
     Financial Officer'', after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $500,000)''.
       In title I, in the item relating to ``Inspector General, 
     operating expenses'', after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $500,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Corrine Brown) and a Member opposed each 
will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Florida.
  Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an 
amendment to grant additional funding to the Inspector General's office 
so that they may enforce section 8 and small disadvantaged business 
contracts at the Department of Homeland Security.
  Procurement at the Department of Homeland Security increased 189 
percent between 2003 and 2005, which was 11 times faster than the 
growth of the rest of the government. Yet according to the Federal 
Procurement Data System, the percentage of contracting for small 
disadvantaged businesses has decreased. In 2003, small disadvantaged 
businesses accounted for 16 percent of contracts. In 2004, the number 
decreased to 9.5 percent, and in 2005 the number decreased to 7.6 
percent. If spending is increasing at the Department of Homeland 
Security, then why aren't minority and small business contracts 
increasing, too?
  I've heard from several businesses about their frustration with being 
awarded Federal contracts as a member of the Congressional Black Caucus 
and Women's Caucus, as well as talking with members from the 
Congressional Hispanic Caucus. Going around my district and speaking 
with many small businesses in general, they also feel like the 
government has shut them out. Of course, with the abundance of 
noncompetitive contracts in the Bush administration, it seems like the 
first place the Department does not look are minority businesses or 
small business. No-bid contracts go to large companies that are not 
minority-owned. Waste, fraud and abuse have been rampant at the 
Department of Homeland Security.
  It has long been the policy of the Federal Government to assist 
minority and other ``socially and economically disadvantaged'' small 
businesses to become fully competitive and viable business concerns. 
This policy must be taken seriously by all agencies, especially the 
Department of Homeland Security.
  This amendment is important to members of the Congressional Black 
Caucus, the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, and the Congressional 
Women's Caucus. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment and the 
longstanding policy for assisting minority and small, disadvantaged 
businesses.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  2200

  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  I simply want to say on this side we accept this amendment and 
commend the Congresswoman for her good work.
  Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I am very grateful.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Does any Member claim the time in opposition?
  If not, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman 
from Florida (Ms. Corrine Brown).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Are there any other amendments to the pending 
paragraph?

[[Page 15882]]

  If not, the Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                Office of the Chief Information Officer

       For necessary expenses of the Office of the Chief 
     Information Officer, as authorized by section 103 of the 
     Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 113), and Department-
     wide technology investments, $258,621,000; of which 
     $79,921,000 shall be available for salaries and expenses; and 
     of which $178,700,000 shall be available for development and 
     acquisition of information technology equipment, software, 
     services, and related activities for the Department of 
     Homeland Security, to remain available until expended: 
     Provided, That none of the funds appropriated shall be used 
     to support or supplement the appropriations provided for the 
     United States Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator 
     Technology project or the Automated Commercial Environment: 
     Provided further, That the Chief Information Officer shall 
     submit to the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and 
     the House of Representatives, not more than 60 days after the 
     date of enactment of this Act, an expenditure plan for all 
     information technology acquisition projects with an estimated 
     cost of $2,500,000 or more: Provided further, That such 
     expenditure plan shall include each specific project funded, 
     key milestones, all funding sources for each project, details 
     of annual and lifecycle costs, and projected cost savings or 
     cost avoidance to be achieved by the project: Provided 
     further, That notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     none of the funds made available in this or any other Act may 
     be obligated to provide for the oversight or management of 
     the Integrated Wireless Network program by any employee of 
     the Office of the Chief Information Officer.

                        Analysis and Operations

       For necessary expenses for information analysis and 
     operations coordination activities, as authorized by title II 
     of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 121 et seq.), 
     $291,619,000, to remain available until September 30, 2009, 
     of which not to exceed $5,000 shall be for official reception 
     and representation expenses.

      Office of the Federal Coordinator for Gulf Coast Rebuilding

       For necessary expenses of the Office of the Federal 
     Coordinator for Gulf Coast Rebuilding, $3,000,000: Provided, 
     That $1,000,000 shall not be available for obligation until 
     the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the House 
     of Representatives receive an expenditure plan for fiscal 
     year 2008.

                           Inspector General


                           operating expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Inspector General in carrying 
     out the provisions of the Inspector General Act of 1978 (5 
     U.S.C. App.), $99,111,000, of which not to exceed $150,000 
     may be used for certain confidential operational expenses, 
     including the payment of informants, to be expended at the 
     direction of the Inspector General.

          TITLE II--SECURITY, ENFORCEMENT, AND INVESTIGATIONS

              United States Customs and Border Protection


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses for enforcement of laws relating to 
     border security, immigration, customs, and agricultural 
     inspections and regulatory activities related to plant and 
     animal imports; purchase and lease of up to 4,500 (2,300 for 
     replacement only) police-type vehicles; and contracting with 
     individuals for personal services abroad; $6,629,733,000, of 
     which $3,093,000 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)) 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 $207,740,000 
     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 2008, 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 United States 
     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 of the amount made available under this heading, 
     $202,816,000 shall remain available until September 30, 2009, 
     to support software development, equipment, contract 
     services, and the implementation of inbound lanes and 
     modification to vehicle primary processing lanes at ports of 
     entry, of which $100,000,000 may not be obligated until the 
     Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the House of 
     Representatives receive a report on the results of pilot 
     programs used to develop and implement the plan required by 
     section 7209(b)(1) of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism 
     Prevention Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-458; 8 U.S.C. 1185 
     note), which includes the following information: (1) 
     infrastructure and staffing required, with associated costs, 
     by port of entry; (2) updated milestones for plan 
     implementation; (3) a detailed explanation of how 
     requirements of such section have been satisfied; (4) 
     confirmation that a vicinity-read radio frequency 
     identification card has been adequately tested to ensure 
     operational success; and (5) a description of steps taken to 
     ensure the integrity of privacy safeguards.


                Amendment No. 128 Offered by Mr. Pearce

  Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 128 offered by Mr. Pearce:
       Page 6, line 5, after the first dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $125,000,000)''.
       Page 22, line 9, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $125,000,000)''.
       Page 22, line 13, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $125,000,000)''.
       Page 22, line 14, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $125,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce) and the gentleman from North 
Carolina (Mr. Price) each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Mexico.
  Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, I would like to amend this bill in order to 
make our borders more secure. I am one of the Members who lives on a 
border and on the southern border. In New Mexico we experience many of 
the problems of having a porous border. We find drugs, human 
trafficking, and other problems at the border because of our failure to 
secure the border, and many of our residents are affected daily.
  With an overwhelming amount of funding and preexisting TSA full-time 
employees, I think it is proper for us to divert funding from TSA to 
border security. The TSA, and I have heard my constituents call it 
``thousands standing around,'' seems to have plenty of people to do its 
work, and yet we do not have enough people to put on the border. We are 
simply requesting a move of less than 3 percent of the funds. Less than 
3 percent of an agency, and every single American who travels on 
airlines understands the number of people they see standing around when 
they walk through the checkpoints.
  We are asking that less than 3 percent of that money be sent over to 
where we can use it along the borders. Our calculation is that we can 
hire over 4,000 new people to help us secure the southern border of the 
United States.
  CBO recognizes the value of this and scores this as a $43 million 
savings. We would like to draw that to the attention of the body.
  Every year, between 500,000 and 1 million illegal immigrants come 
into the United States. We need more people to help on the southern 
border. Many problems are coming into this country and many problems 
are affecting each State, but especially the States that lie on the 
border.
  Mr. Chairman, I respectfully ask Members to support this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume, and rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The gentleman's amendment is well-intentioned and understandable, 
particularly given the part of the country that he represents. But I 
would like to explain to colleagues briefly why I believe this 
amendment is ill-advised.
  It would cut $125 million from the Transportation Security 
Administration in order to fund activities by Customs and Border 
Protection. I do appreciate the gentleman's wish to further strengthen 
the frontline agency

[[Page 15883]]

for our borders and our ports of entry. The fact is, though, I believe 
we have addressed his concerns very adequately in this bill.
  The bill fully funds the 3,000 additional Border Patrol agents 
requested by the administration. Any more, I believe, would exceed CBP 
capacity to recruit and to absorb.
  The bill also provides for 250 additional CBP officers above the 
request to strengthen port and cargo inspection security. So it seems 
that putting more money into the agency at this time would be, at best, 
symbolic and, at worst, wasteful.
  On the other hand, let's look at the offset.
  A reduction of this magnitude from TSA's aviation security program 
could, for instance, slow to a crawl plans to move explosive detection 
machines out of crowded airport lobbies and in line with the airport's 
baggage conveyer systems. We are aware of at least 60 airports that 
need these necessary improvements. Without them, airport lobbies will 
remain congested for the foreseeable future and the use of technology 
underdeveloped.
  After years of stalling, this cut could delay improvements that are 
finally underway at TSA with airport check points, such as installing 
next-generation systems to better detect explosives and weapons that 
passengers might carry on their bodies or in their checked baggage.
  A reduction of this size in TSA could thwart efforts to double the 
amount of air cargo screened for explosives and other dangerous items 
before it is placed on passenger aircraft.
  Explosive detection equipment is the key technology we use to screen 
for these dangerous objects.
  Finally, this reduction could require TSA to lay off something like 
3,000 screeners. For the past 2 years, we have seen record air travel, 
resulting in longer lines at many airports and screening check points. 
A reduction in aviation screeners could exacerbate this problem. So we 
reluctantly, Mr. Chairman, oppose this amendment for these reasons.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I join the chairman in opposing the 
amendment, reluctantly, because the gentleman from New Mexico makes a 
compelling argument for better border security. Coming from his State, 
I can fully understand that.
  But as the chairman has said, we have increased in this bill moneys 
for an additional 3,000 Border Patrol agents, and the gentleman was 
arguing strongly for that and I appreciate that. But we have 
accommodated his request to that extent, as well as 500 additional 
Customs and Border Patrol officers, and we increase the salaries and 
expenses by over $50 million. So I think there is more help on the way 
that the gentleman has been asking for.
  But the moneys that the gentleman would take from TSA is not for 
screeners. It wouldn't come from screeners, it would come from the 
equipment that we are trying to furnish airports with, explosive 
detection machines, X-ray machines to locate explosives, so that we can 
clear the lobbies of many airports that have the trace detection 
machines in the lobbies so that passengers in small- and medium-sized 
airports really can't get through to fly. And that has been a pet 
project of this Member for some time.
  So that is where the money would come from, $125 million, and that 
really is my objection, because if we take that money from these 
explosive detection machines, which are already underfunded, and this 
bill increases the number quite a bit but is still underfunded, it 
would severely cripple the effort to bring more technology to the 
airports.
  I join the chairman in opposing the amendment.
  Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman from North Carolina 
yield?
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I would be glad to yield.
  Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, we spent a lot of money on the puffer 
machines that are at the airports. We have spent hundreds of millions 
of dollars on those, and I would ask the gentleman about the quality of 
product that we are getting from those puffer machines.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. What is the quality?
  Mr. PEARCE. Where you walk in and they puff.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's time has expired.
  Mr. PEARCE. I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I appreciate the chairman and the ranking member bringing their 
observation. I would point out that $125 million is what we are 
requesting to be taken from TSA. TSA has a budget of over $4 billion, 
and $125 million represents less than 3 percent.
  I would also point out that over 450 miles exist of border, and we 
have 13,000 Border Patrol agents, and yet we have 43,000 employees in 
TSA to do screening. I am telling the American people that we have 
underfunded consistently for the last decades, the last 30, 40, 50 
years, the efforts that are needed on the southern border, and today is 
not the day to find 3 percent to be an onerous fee.
  I sat on the Transportation Committee and watched some of the 
elements two terms ago. Last year I was on Homeland Security. I saw the 
waste, fraud and abuse, and I will tell the American people that 
tonight we must make the stand that our border must be secured.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word to address the gentleman's very legitimate question.
  The gentleman asked about the puffer machines which, indeed, do have 
some utility but have some very obvious shortcomings, as he observed. 
That is not what we are talking about funding in this bill. We are 
talking about the explosive detection machines that we can move in line 
with the baggage conveyer systems in crowded airports; and that, 
unfortunately, is the account out of which the gentleman's cuts would 
come.
  Mr. PEARCE. Would the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I yield to the gentleman from New 
Mexico.
  Mr. PEARCE. My simple point was that the same agency that approved 
the puffer machines is going to approve the explosion devices; and my 
feeling is that the agency has been ill-managed since the beginning.
  We have a desperate need on the southern border today, right now. The 
TSA, in finding equipment and funding equipment, both now and in the 
past, has been shown to be very, very ineffective. I would just say, we 
have an emergency crisis on the southern border and all along the 
northern borders. We have 13,000 Border Patrol agents to work that 
entire range of 5,400 miles and we have 43,000 TSA officers and 
inspectors.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Reclaiming my time, the case has been 
stated, and I repeat my request for a ``no'' vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Mexico 
will be postponed.


             Amendment No. 104 Offered by Mr. King of Iowa

  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 104 offered by Mr. King of Iowa:
       Page 6, line 5, after the first dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $1,000,000) (increased by $1,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the

[[Page 15884]]

gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King) and the gentleman from North Carolina 
(Mr. Price) each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Iowa.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, this amendment that I bring and the 
simple function of it goes into the large $6 billion appropriations 
piece, takes out $1 million and puts back in $1 million, and it is for 
the purposes of directing customs and border protection and our border 
protection people to go in and take out the lookout posts that have 
been established, I will call them my military positions, from the 
Mexican border all the way up to Phoenix, through Tucson all the way up 
to Phoenix.

                              {time}  2215

  In the time that I've spent on the southern border, the Border Patrol 
people have pointed out to me, the shadow wolves have pointed out to 
me, ICE people have pointed out to me that the lookouts that have been 
established there will be on top of those small mountains that overlook 
the transportation routes. And so what they do with their 
sophisticated, the drug smugglers, the drug cartel, with their 
sophisticated surveillance equipment, good optical equipment, good 
radio equipment, with scramblers and descramblers ahead of us, they 
position one or two people on top of those lookout mountains, and then 
they can tell their own people exactly where the Border Patrol are. 
They can run a decoy through those routes, and as soon as the Border 
Patrol converges on that decoy, they will sacrifice 200 pounds of 
marijuana. I've been there to help interdict that. Meanwhile, they run 
the truckload through when all those focused resources are on that 
lookout. That's one of the tactics.
  They deploy a number of tactics, but they are occupying and 
controlling what we would describe as military positions way inside the 
United States, all the way to Tucson and all the way to Phoenix. I've 
been there, I've looked at them, I've seen them, and Congressman Feeney 
is actually on his way to add to this debate. He's gone to the top of 
these mountains. We have pictures.
  I helped produce a map. This is a map of at least 75 locations. It 
may well go over 100 locations. I sat there and watched our border 
protection people put the Xs on the map. I stood there and looked at 
the mountains to them. I presented this to the Vice President. I 
presented this to the Secretary of Homeland Security, and what I get is 
a letter that is more or less designed to pacify me.
  And I believe that, if you're going to play cat and mouse with drug 
smugglers, you ought to take those tools away from them. We should be 
taking these drug smugglers off of these tactical positions the instant 
they arrive there and not let them sit up there and control military 
positions inside the United States, controlling the transportation 
routes for their drug smuggling, all the way to Phoenix.
  This is a fact. It's a well-established fact, and this Congress needs 
to send a message that the Department of Homeland Security needs to 
take them out the minute they're occupied.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I agree with the gentleman that traffickers are using 
lookouts to spy on law enforcement operations and to assess where our 
agents are, just as we're looking at them. But I don't see any 
rationale for dedicating funding for an initiative of the sort that he 
describes.
  The bill provides funding for an additional 3,000 Border Patrol 
agents and $1 billion to continue and expand the border security 
program. The identification and the elimination of the kind of lookout 
posts that he's describing on U.S. territory is a matter for CBP to 
deal with if it involves crossing the border, and for other law 
enforcement agencies to deal with if it's strictly a domestic 
violation.
  Now, the funding in this bill has been increased, increased a great 
deal, to provide the Border Patrol all these new agents, and to better 
meet the cargo and port security vulnerabilities addressed, for 
example, in the SAFE Port Act. So this is not a costless funding shift. 
It's a shift in funding that would reduce resources for these 
departmental priorities, priorities in which the committee fully 
concurs and, in fact, in some cases has increased.
  So although the gentleman's intention is admirable, I do believe it's 
unnecessary to designate funds for these purposes. I think shifting the 
funds around in this way could do some damage as we attempt to develop 
the Department, and so I reluctantly ask Members to oppose the 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, could I inquire as to how much time I 
have remaining.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Iowa has 2\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I seek to close in this period of 
time, and I appreciate the chairman's remarks on this, but he's asking 
us to accept the argument that out of $6.6 billion Homeland Security is 
not going to spend $1 million to take out the lookout outpost on top of 
the mountains that the drug cartels are manning.
  And they man these things full-time, often two at a time, often with 
assault weapons on top. They build a little fortress up there with 
setting up stones like sandbags, and it's a military position. They sit 
up there with optical equipment, infrared equipment at night. They can 
see further than we can see, and they can communicate as well as we can 
communicate, many times better.
  So it wouldn't be rational to say we're playing a game of cat and 
mouse, but we're going to let this cat do whatever he wants to do and 
we're going to play the mouse.
  So Mr. Feeney and I authored a letter that went to Secretary of 
Homeland Security Chertoff on August 30 of last year and asked him to 
take out these lookout posts and take those drug smugglers off the top 
of those mountains. That's the short version of it.
  We got the letter back, the answer back from the Deputy Assistant 
Secretary of Homeland Security, not the Secretary, and their 
explanation from the letter was, ``Recently, agents in the San Diego 
sector, using advanced technology, discovered that scouts for a drug 
trafficking organization were watching Border Patrol movements and were 
trying to coordinate the crossing of narcotics into the United States. 
Using this intelligence, Border Patrol agents seized 400 pounds of 
marijuana and the vehicle used to transport the narcotics.''
  That's their huge accomplishment for $65 billion worth of drugs 
pouring across our southern border and drug smugglers with assault 
weapons taking up tactical military positions to control our 
transportation routes. And so they explain to us that they have 
interdicted 400 pounds of marijuana, which isn't even an indictable 
offense in that region of the world. It was 250 pounds, but they had 
too many criminals so they had to raise to it to 500 pounds. These guys 
get a pass, and that's all the Department of Homeland Security is 
doing.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Feeney) who has just arrived, and I'm ready for his 
vigor and hope a chance to close.
  Mr. FEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I really appreciate the gentleman's 
amendment.
  I want to share with you I'm a skeptic even when my friends tell me 
things. When Congressman King told me about the problem on the border, 
I thought he was exaggerating. I went down last summer, sat 75 miles 
inside the American border, saw a machine gun that's run by coyotes.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's time has expired.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. I yield a minute to the gentleman.
  Mr. FEENEY. I'm very grateful. This is very important.
  As Congressman King just told you, we have a problem on our border 
most

[[Page 15885]]

Congressmen and few Americans know about.
  I'm a skeptical guy, even when a good patriot and friend of mine like 
Steve King tells me something. So I went down personally and inspected 
a machine gun nest 75 miles inside the Arizona border run by coyotes. 
It was the 13th in a list of machine gun nests where they were armed 
with surveillance techniques, where they were armed with radios, and 
they used these facilities inside our border to facilitate drug 
trafficking and illegal immigration.
  I do not believe that our government is enforcing our own security. 
There's nothing more important we can do than to support symbolically 
the King amendment to send a message we want to take these machine gun 
nests out.
  It was the Bureau of Land Management that took me up there. Why? 
Because they are cleaning up the mess that these coyotes leave behind 
them as they are smuggling poison drugs and illegals across our border.
  I saw it with my own eyes, or I would not have believed it. Please 
support the King amendment, if nothing else than to send a message we 
want our borders secure and our laws enforced.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from 
Iowa 30 seconds to close.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. I thank the gentleman from Kentucky for his 
gracious step that's he taken here and appreciate making sure that the 
breathless Mr. Feeney had an opportunity to say a few words because I 
know he ran up the stairs.
  This is an important symbolic vote, and we've worked on this for 
years. I didn't realize how difficult it was to convince the Department 
of Homeland Security what was going on here, but this letter in 
response that they have written where they bragged about interdicting 
one person with 400 pounds of marijuana is just somehow that's 
addressing all of these tactical positions that look over all of our 
transportation routes inside the United States.
  Congress needs to send a message we can't tolerate that inside this 
country. We wouldn't if we were at war. We're in a drug war.
  I thank the ranking member.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word for the purposes of a colloquy with the gentlewoman from New York 
(Ms. Clarke), and I'm happy to yield to her at this time.
  Ms. CLARKE. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from North 
Carolina (Mr. Price) for the time and for the opportunity to discuss an 
important issue to me.
  With every passing day, I hear more talk about how to prevent illegal 
immigration. We're discussing it at this very moment. Many proposals to 
deal with undocumented immigrants involve punishing them through 
deportation or what has been termed as ``touchback,'' which requires 
immigrants to expel themselves and pay a heavy, extremely punitive 
fine.
  However, we could best reduce the number of undocumented immigrants 
by improving and reforming our own government bureaucracy. While many 
Members of this body believe that every undocumented immigrant walked 
across the southern border, the fact is that 40 percent of them enter 
our country legally, and many of them have only broken the law after 
falling through the cracks of a vast bureaucracy.
  Back home in Brooklyn, New York, an area that boasts immigrants from 
every corner of the world, I have personally talked to countless people 
who were frustrated because they had no intention of breaking the law, 
but simply became tied up in an overly complicated and backlogged 
system as their applications were delayed until their visas expired and 
suddenly they were here illegally.
  I'm further concerned with the proposed fee increases at CIS to 
process applications. All of the people who emigrate here from other 
countries have come looking for a better life. Many of these people 
work hard at jobs that pay so little that most Americans do not want to 
take them.
  We cannot expect these individuals to pay astronomical fees that they 
cannot afford, as this effectively creates another barrier to 
citizenship for many immigrants who only want to make an honest living, 
and leaves those who cannot pay in undocumented limbo. We in Congress 
must ensure that CIS has the funding it requires to be efficient and 
effective without resorting to taking money from those who cannot 
afford the extremely punitive costs.
  As the debate on immigration reform progresses, it is vital that we 
address these issues and ensure that CIS will be able to help everyone 
who desires to play by, and be in compliance with, the rules. It is 
simply not right that many people have been deemed criminals simply 
because our government is ill-equipped to process these applications or 
because we have made it totally unaffordable.
  I thank the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price) for his efforts 
at improving the legal immigration process, and I look forward to 
working together to bring about improvements and reforms to an 
immigration system that is reflective of the 21st century United 
States.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman 
from New York for her perspective on this issue.
  While the Appropriations Committee has no direct control over the 
fees that CIS charges or the revenues that it collects, the committee 
report encourages the Department to continue regular reviews of its 
cost estimates and to apply any savings generated by business 
transformation to reducing fees in the future.
  The committee also requires CIS to report on the performance measures 
it will implement to ensure that the increased fees charged to its 
customers result in commensurate improvements in the service provided 
by the agency.
  So I encourage the gentlewoman to work closely with the Judiciary 
Committee to address these concerns, since the authorities to collect 
immigration fees are ultimately within that body's jurisdiction.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Shays

  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Shays:
       Page 7, line 16, after ``which'' insert the following: 
     ``$100,000 is to promote information and education exchange 
     with nations friendly to the United States in order to 
     promote sharing of best practices and technologies relating 
     to homeland security, as authorized by Sec. 879 of Public Law 
     107-296 and:

  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I just want to make sure the Clerk has the 
proper amendment. Maybe she should read it.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the Clerk will report the 
amendment.
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Connecticut.

                              {time}  2230

  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I first want to thank Mr. Price for the work 
he has done on this legislation, and Mr. Rogers. I know we are going to 
be spending a lot more money, but this is Homeland Security, and I 
intend to support this legislation.
  The amendment would appropriate $100,000 to allow the Department of 
Homeland Security, DHS, and the International Criminal Police 
Organization, Interpol, to share counterterrorism and stolen and lost 
travel document information. The DHS Secretary has already publicly 
stated he hopes to integrate the Interpol information at points of 
entry.
  This amendment simply provides funding for that stated activity. The 
funding would provide the necessary startup costs for the minimum IT 
equipment to set up the data sharing, as well as additional funds to 
facilitate travel and professional exchanges.

[[Page 15886]]

  Interpol currently maintains a database of 14.4 million lost and 
stolen internationally recognized travel documents from 123 countries. 
This includes 67 million passports, of which over a third are from 
countries that participate in the visa waiver program. Interpol 
currently has a list of over 48,000 blank passports that have been 
stolen around the world. Blank passports are better than blank checks 
for terrorists, as the 9/11 Commission rightly concluded. For 
terrorists, travel documents are as important as weapons.
  I will just conclude by saying in a test of 1.9 million passport 
records collected over 15 days by U.S. border officials, DHS identified 
273 lost or stolen documents used in Interpol data, 64 of which could 
not be resolved.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  Mr. Chairman, I would simply say that the gentleman has raised an 
important and legitimate issue.
  We gladly accept his amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).
  The amendment was agreed to.


           Amendment No. 114 Offered by Mr. Kuhl of New York

  Mr. KUHL of New York. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 114 offered by Mr. Kuhl of New York:
       Page 8, line 5, insert before the period the following: ``: 
     Provided further, That the Comptroller General of the United 
     States and the Secretary of Homeland Security conduct a study 
     that examines the potentially adverse economic impact of the 
     requirement for land and sea travelers of the Western 
     Hemisphere Travel Implementation Act (WHTI) upon businesses 
     in neighboring regions.''.

  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on 
the gentleman's amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. A point of order is reserved.
  Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Kuhl) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. KUHL of New York. Mr. Chairman, constituents of mine have wisely 
questioned the U.S. Department of Homeland Security's plan to require 
United States citizens to present passports to travel between Canada 
and the United States.
  In addition to standard application fees, the plan will require 
American citizens to pay for passport photos and travel to a passport 
application center just to take their families to the Toronto Blue Jays 
game or to Niagara Falls.
  There is no question in my mind that we must protect our borders, I 
think all of our citizens agree with that, from illegal immigrants and 
potential terrorists. But we should not turn away legitimate business 
and visitors, as the U.S. and Canadian economies have become 
interdependent.
  Therefore, my amendment requires that the Governmental Accounting 
Office conduct a study of the potentially adverse economic impact that 
this new requirement for land and sea travelers may have upon American 
business. I believe that we have a long, long way to go before our 
borders are finally and fully secured. But I believe that this 
amendment gets us moving in the right direction, without slamming the 
door on our neighbors to the north.
  Mr. Chairman, I understand that there is potentially a legal problem 
with this amendment. Having actually put it before the Congress for its 
consideration, certainly the chairman, I believe it's appropriate to 
withdraw the amendment at this time, and I would do so.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the amendment is 
withdrawn.
  There was no objection.


           Amendment No. 115 Offered by Mr. Kuhl of New York

  Mr. KUHL of New York. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 115 offered by Mr. Kuhl of New York:
       Page 8, line 5, insert before the period the following: ``: 
     Provided further, That the Comptroller General of the United 
     States and the Secretary of Homeland Security conduct a study 
     that examines security at the Northern Border, evaluates the 
     ability of United States Customs and Border Protection to 
     identify and stop all potential threats from crossing the 
     Northern Border, lists all breaches of security and the 
     reason for such breaches since 2005, and contains 
     recommendations to concerning how and what must be done to 
     improve United States Customs and Border Protection and 
     security at the Northern border.''.

  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on 
the gentleman's amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. A point of order is reserved.
  Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Kuhl) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. KUHL of New York. Mr. Chairman, earlier this month a security 
breach occurred along our northern border when an individual on the no-
fly list carrying a dangerous strain of tuberculosis successfully 
crossed the United States border.
  This breach highlights the security gaps at our northern border that 
must be immediately addressed. If the Department of Homeland Security 
cannot adequately meet our Nation's growing security needs, then we in 
Congress must step in to provide our citizens with the oversight and 
action that they deserve, so that both our northern and our southern 
borders will be safe from future threats.
  I am offering this amendment to take us a step in the right direction 
of securing our northern border. Most of the action that you are 
hearing today in this Chamber is dealing with the southern border. This 
amendment requires the Government Accountability Office to conduct a 
study examining the security of the northern border.
  Specifically, it requires that the GAO evaluate the Customs and 
Border Patrol's ability to identify and eliminate all potential threats 
to the northern border under current funding levels.
  In closing, this is a commonsense amendment that will take us a step 
in the right direction towards securing our northern border, and I 
encourage my colleagues to support this amendment.
  I also understand, Mr. Chairman, that my colleague, the ranking 
minority member, has a problem with the correctness of this amendment.
  So not dealing in wanting to further challenge this, I would withdraw 
my amendment and my statement addressing the needs that I feel are 
appropriate at this time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. If there are no further amendments to this 
paragraph, the Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


                        automation modernization

       For expenses for customs and border protection automated 
     systems, $476,609,000, to remain available until expended, of 
     which not less than $316,969,000 shall be for the development 
     of the Automated Commercial Environment: Provided, That of 
     the total amount made available under this heading, 
     $216,969,000 may not be obligated for the Automated 
     Commercial Environment program until 30 days after the 
     Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the House of 
     Representatives receive a report on the results to date and 
     plans for the program from the Department of Homeland 
     Security that includes:
       (1) a detailed accounting of the program's progress up to 
     the date of the report in meeting prior commitments made to 
     the Committees relative to system capabilities or services, 
     system performance levels, mission benefits and outcomes, 
     milestones, cost targets, and program management 
     capabilities;
       (2) an explicit plan of action defining how all unobligated 
     funds for the program from prior appropriations and all 
     fiscal year 2008 funds are to be spent to meet future program 
     commitments, with sufficient detail to link

[[Page 15887]]

     the planned expenditure of funds to the milestone-based 
     delivery of specific capabilities, services, performance 
     levels, mission benefits and outcomes, and program management 
     capabilities;
       (3) a listing of all open Government Accountability Office 
     and Office of Inspector General recommendations related to 
     the program, with the status of the Department's efforts to 
     address the recommendations, including milestones for fully 
     addressing them;
       (4) a written certification by the Chief Financial Officer 
     of the Department of Homeland Security that the program has 
     been reviewed and approved in accordance with the 
     Department's investment management process, and that this 
     process fulfills all capital planning and investment control 
     requirements and reviews established by the Office of 
     Management and Budget, including Circular A-11, part 7, as 
     well as copies of all investment decision memoranda and 
     supporting analyses generated by and used in the Department's 
     process;
       (5) a written certification by the Chief Information 
     Officer of the Department of Homeland Security that an 
     independent validation and verification agent has and will 
     continue to actively review the program, as well as summaries 
     of reviews conducted by the agent during the preceding 12 
     months;
       (6) a written certification by the Chief Information 
     Officer of the Department of Homeland Security that: the 
     system architecture is sufficiently aligned with the 
     department's information systems enterprise architecture to 
     minimize future rework, including: a description of all 
     aspects of the architectures that were and were not assessed 
     in making the alignment determination; the date of the 
     alignment determination; any known areas of misalignment; any 
     associated risks; and corrective actions to address any such 
     areas;
       (7) a written certification by the Chief Information 
     Officer of the Department of Homeland Security that the 
     program has a risk management process that regularly and 
     proactively identifies, evaluates, mitigates, and monitors 
     risks throughout the system life cycle, and communicates 
     high-risk conditions to United States Customs and Border 
     Protection and Department of Homeland Security investment 
     decision makers, as well as a listing of the program's high 
     risks and the status of efforts to address them;
       (8) a written certification by the Chief Procurement 
     Officer of the Department of Homeland Security that the plans 
     for the program comply with the Federal acquisition rules, 
     requirements, guidelines, and practices, and a description of 
     the actions being taken to address areas of non-compliance, 
     the risks associated with them along with any plans for 
     addressing these risks and the status of their 
     implementation; and
       (9) a written certification by the Chief Human Capital 
     Officer of the Department of Homeland Security that human 
     capital needs of the program are being strategically and 
     proactively managed, and that current human capital 
     capabilities are sufficient to execute the plans discussed in 
     the report.


        Border Security Fencing, Infrastructure, and Technology

       For expenses for customs and border protection fencing, 
     infrastructure, and technology, $1,000,000,000, to remain 
     available until expended: Provided, That of the amount 
     provided under this heading, $700,000,000 shall not be 
     obligated until the Committees on Appropriations of the 
     Senate and the House of Representatives receive and approve a 
     plan for expenditure, prepared by the Secretary of Homeland 
     Security and submitted within 60 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, for a program to establish a security 
     barrier along the borders of the United States of fencing and 
     vehicle barriers, where practicable, and other forms of 
     tactical infrastructure and technology, that--
       (1) defines activities, milestones, and costs for 
     implementing the program, including identification of the 
     maximum investment related to the Secure Border Initiative 
     network (SBInet) or successor contract, estimation of 
     lifecycle costs, and description of the methodology used to 
     obtain these cost figures;
       (2) demonstrates how activities will further the objectives 
     of the Secure Border Initiative (SBI), as defined in the SBI 
     multi-year strategic plan, and how the plan allocates funding 
     to the highest priority border security needs;
       (3) identifies funding and staffing (including full-time 
     equivalents, contractors, and detailees) requirements by 
     activity;
       (4) describes how the plan addresses security needs at the 
     Northern Border and the ports of entry, including 
     infrastructure, technology, design and operations 
     requirements;
       (5) reports on costs incurred, the activities completed, 
     and the progress made by the program in terms of obtaining 
     operational control of the entire border of the United 
     States;
       (6) includes an analysis by the Secretary, for each segment 
     of fencing or tactical infrastructure, of the selected 
     approach compared to other, alternative means of achieving 
     operational control; such analysis should include cost, level 
     of operational control, possible unintended effects on 
     communities, and other factors critical to the decision-
     making process;
       (7) includes a certification by the Chief Procurement 
     Officer of the Department of Homeland Security that 
     procedures to prevent conflicts of interest between the prime 
     integrator and major subcontractors are established and that 
     the SBI Program Office has adequate staff and resources to 
     effectively manage the SBI program, SBInet contract, and any 
     related contracts, including the exercise of technical 
     oversight, and a certification by the Chief Information 
     Officer of the Department of Homeland Security that an 
     independent verification and validation agent is currently 
     under contract for the projects funded under this heading;
       (8) complies with all applicable acquisition rules, 
     requirements, guidelines, and best systems acquisition 
     management practices of the Federal Government;
       (9) complies with the capital planning and investment 
     control review requirements established by the Office of 
     Management and Budget, including Circular A-11, part 7;
       (10) is reviewed and approved by the Department of Homeland 
     Security Investment Review Board, the Secretary of Homeland 
     Security, and the Office of Management and Budget; and
       (11) is reviewed by the Government Accountability Office:

     Provided further, That the Secretary shall report to the 
     Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the House of 
     Representatives on program progress to date, and specific 
     objectives to be achieved through the award of current and 
     remaining task orders planned for the balance of available 
     appropriations (1) at least 30 days prior to the award of any 
     task order requiring the obligation in excess of 
     $100,000,000; and (2) prior to the award of a task order that 
     would cause cumulative obligations to exceed 50 percent of 
     the total amount appropriated: Provided further, That of the 
     funds provided under this heading, not more than $2,000,000 
     shall be used to reimburse the Defense Acquisition University 
     for the costs of conducting a review of the SBInet contract 
     and determining how and whether the Department is employing 
     the best procurement practices: Provided further, That none 
     of the funds under this heading may be obligated for fencing 
     or tactical infrastructure on lands administered by the 
     National Park Service, the United States Fish and Wildlife 
     Service, the Forest Service, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, or 
     the Bureau of Land Management unless the Secretary of 
     Homeland Security coordinates such decision with that agency, 
     and makes every effort to minimize impacts on wildlife and 
     natural resources: Provided further, That none of the funds 
     under this heading may be obligated for a fencing or tactical 
     infrastructure project or activity unless the Secretary 
     formally consults with affected State and local communities 
     to solicit their advice and support of such project or 
     activity: Provided further, That no funds under this heading 
     may be obligated for any project or activity for which the 
     Secretary has exercised waiver authority pursuant to section 
     102(c) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant 
     Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1103 note) until 15 days 
     have elapsed from the date of the publication of the decision 
     in the Federal Register.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Carter

  Mr. CARTER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Carter:
       Page 11, line 25, strike ``: Provided,'' and all that 
     follows through page 16, line 2, and insert a period.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Carter) and the gentleman from North Carolina 
(Mr. Price) each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. CARTER. I thank the chairman for recognizing me. I would also 
like to thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) my colleague, 
who has joined me as a cosponsor of this amendment. I am very pleased 
to thank the chairman of this subcommittee, who has done a wonderful 
job on this bill, and I am very honored to serve with him. I would also 
like to thank the ranking member, Mr. Rogers, for all the hard work has 
done on this bill.
  We all agree, our southern borders are in crisis. We don't want to 
create any problems to get our fencing that's authorized and 
appropriated for. We don't want to have any interference. This 
amendment removes bureaucratic and environmental obstacles that 
restrict funding for the construction of the fence on our southern 
border.
  This amendment strikes a number of restrictions on the border funding 
of fencing and tactical infrastructure, including various reporting 
requirements

[[Page 15888]]

attached to funding restrictions, requirements that DHS must coordinate 
with Interior agencies to minimize the impact on wildlife and natural 
resources, requires DHS must formally consult with State and local 
communities and solicit their advice and support of the projects, 
ultimately giving them some sort of veto, and restricts the funding for 
the use of the Secretary's environmental waiver until the waiver has 
been published in the Federal Register for a period of 15 days.
  Each one of these things has the potential to slow down or interfere 
with or stop the construction of the fence. Bureaucratic hurdles are 
not what we are looking for on the southern border. It's protection for 
our southern border.
  To ask for advice and support gives local communities potential for a 
veto. Our border security shouldn't be held hostage to some group like 
that. We do consult with the landowners, over 400 have been consulted, 
one Governor has been consulted, 60 Governors' assistants have been 
consulted. A multitude of city and council officials have been 
consulted as border and fencing plans are developed.
  We are doing the job. We don't want funding withheld. That's what 
this does.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to my colleague from Georgia (Mr. Price).
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I thank Mr. Carter for his leadership on this 
issue.
  Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this amendment is to prevent further 
delay in the construction of border fencing as prescribed in the Secure 
Fence Act.
  Last Congress, Republicans responded to public opinion and national 
need and authorized the creation of more than 700 miles of fence along 
the southern border. Instead of providing resources for the border 
fencing and surveillance, however, the majority has crafted a lengthy 
list of reporting requirements to delay the building of the fence.
  One requirement would require the Secretary of Homeland Security to 
wait before taking any border security action that warrants the use of 
environmental waiver authority. This invites frivolous litigation and 
inhibits the Department's ability from addressing vulnerabilities.
  Another requirement would require the Secretary of Homeland Security 
to solicit local advice and support before constructing infrastructure. 
This gives communities veto authority over Federal policy to control 
the border, including some sanctuary cities. The American people are 
watching Congress and what it is doing on immigration reform.
  The American people are looking to trust the Federal Government 
again.
  The American people are looking to trust the Federal Government again 
to live up to its promises and enforce the rule of law. The provisions 
of this act undermine the people's trust and signals that it is 
business as usual in Washington, that it's not serious about dealing 
with our immigration crisis. Many believe that the clear goal of this 
bill is not to fund border security. This amendment will go a long way 
toward moving us in the right direction.
  Mr. CARTER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to 
the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I would suggest, as the last speaker said, that if many 
people seem to be suggesting that this bill will be doing one thing or 
the other, they would actually find it useful to read the bill. In this 
case, the relevant language is on page 15 of the bill, and the 
requirement says, quite plainly, that in developing these 
infrastructure projects, the Secretary is required to ``consult with 
affected State and local communities to solicit their advice and 
support of such project or activity.'' It's pretty clear that isn't a 
veto. It's pretty clear, though, that it is a requirement for serious 
consultation.
  I must say to the sponsor of the amendment that the mayors of the 
border cities of Texas have led the parade in coming to members of the 
committee, from both sides of the aisle I am sure, to say that this 
kind of attentiveness to local communities and their needs and their 
views is essential as this effort moves forward. There is nobody who 
was more convincing on that than the mayors from El Paso to Brownsville 
to Laredo. We heard from them, and we heard from them very decisively.
  The gentleman's amendment would eliminate all requirements for an 
expenditure plan for this $1 billion appropriation, as well as all 
requirements to consult with affected Federal agencies, and State and 
local communities. It would eliminate the requirement to provide a 15-
day advance notice before waiving environmental or other laws that 
might otherwise interfere with construction or infrastructure 
development.

                              {time}  2245

  Now, I understand some of the gentleman's concerns. But I feel 
obligated to point out that the effect of this amendment would be to 
give this Department carte blanche to spend these funds as it will, 
with no requirements to explain or justify or consult or coordinate.
  Now, for 3 days on this floor we've heard railing against the 
bureaucracy and the insensitivity of the bureaucracy, and harrowing 
descriptions of malfeasance and ineptitude in the bureaucracy. I hope 
the irony doesn't escape our colleagues that this amendment would place 
full discretion in the hands of those very same bureaucrats to proceed 
as they will.
  So I object to this amendment because it would simply be an 
abdication of responsibility to exercise meaningful oversight. The goal 
that all in this Chamber should embrace is realistic but meaningful 
progress in getting effective control over our borders.
  This amendment would guarantee nothing, I'm afraid, but negative 
Inspector General and GA reports for years to come. Besides, the 
Department hasn't asked for these requirements to be removed. In fact, 
they are quick to assure us that they intend to undertake a 
consultation, and this bill simply spells out in more detail what we 
expect that consultation to include.
  I yield such time as he may consume to my colleague from California 
(Mr. Farr) who traveled with us to the southwest border and has some 
insight on this.
  Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I'm just sorry that my colleague and good 
friend wasn't on the border with us, because he would have heard from 
the mayors.
  And I'm also kind of shocked at the statements here that this is what 
the American people want. Who do you think these people along the 
border are? They're on our side of the border. They're our communities, 
they're our city councils, they're our mayors. And if this were any 
other Federal entity coming into your hometown and saying that you 
don't have to tell anybody about what you're doing or consult with them 
or get any cooperation, you're going to have border failure.
  This is the community that supports the homes of the Border Patrol, 
supports the children of the families that protect the border, and 
you're saying that they, with removing this language, the chairman was 
very astute in pointing out that the administration has not asked for 
this.
  This language does not allow any veto. It allows for a consultation 
process. And that's absolutely essential, because if you don't have 
that, you're going to have those mayors coming back here and city 
council persons and saying, What the hell are you doing building this 
without talking to us? We're going to try to stop it. And they'll try 
to file lawsuits and things like that.
  So if this border is going to work, it's a living border. My 
frustration is that we're all paying attention only to one side. And I 
can assure you that meanness and arrogance and just trying to plow your 
way through it is not the way to build a secure border. It's the way to 
build people that hate the Federal Government.
  Mr. CARTER. To my colleagues whom I highly respect, let me say this: 
I'm concerned about the part about withholding funds as we consult.
  I agree that we should consult. I do not agree that they have to 
support it. And the question I would raise is, what

[[Page 15889]]

happens if they don't? Do we then not build the fence that the Border 
Patrol in Laredo, Texas, told me they had to have to survive? So that's 
the secret word that I'm concerned about.
  Consult, I'm all for. But if they vote 4-3 on the city council not to 
do it, then what happens to the funds? What happens to the fence?
  On the issue of wildlife in Texas, we have wildlife-proof fences in 
south Texas on literally every ranch there because, quite frankly, the 
deer on those ranches are very expensive and they protect them. And 
already we are providing water gaps for those whose cattle graze in the 
Rio Grande.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, if we can't control who crosses our Nation's border, 
all other possible immigration initiatives will fail.
  Now, the gentleman's amendment prevents the undue delay of urgently 
needed border security. It still maintains the flexibility to use any 
and all tools to protect the border and secure the border, like 
fencing, vehicle barriers, and technology; but it takes away all of the 
strings and conditions upon which the money was appropriated to build 
the fence.
  How many times does Congress have to say to the Department, build the 
fence?
  The money's here. Take these strings and conditions away from this 
project. That's what it was designed and financed for and authorized by 
the Congress.
  Now, DHS should absolutely be consulting with the mayors and the 
local officials; and they are, very vigorously. They spend hours and 
hours meeting and talking with the local communities. They're doing 
that with vigor.
  This amendment also removes the possibilities of frivolous 
litigation. This bill invites frivolous litigation. This amendment 
would strike that frivolous language.
  I'm supportive of the funding levels and planning requirements in 
this bill for border security and immigration enforcement. I've 
maintained that onerous restrictions for fencing and tactical 
infrastructure are contrary to our homeland security needs.
  Now, this amendment does strike planning requirements for SBInet. But 
the program has demonstrated sound management over the last year. It's 
met and exceeded every legislative requirement from the 2007 bill. In 
fact, the majority conducted a substantial oversight of SBI through 
hearings and a Codel to the southwest border and saw fit to release all 
of the $950 million withheld from obligation until a fair expenditure 
plan was submitted.
  I have read this expenditure plan and can report to you that this 
program is on track to meet some very noteworthy goals by the end of 
2008, including the installation of 370 miles of fencing, another 200 
miles of vehicle barriers, and over 640 miles of technology along the 
southwest border.
  Bottom line, Mr. Chairman, it's time to stop talking and start 
digging and building that fence. The money is there. Take away these 
conditions that have been placed on building the fence that Congress 
ordered and make it happen.
  Mr. CARTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. CARTER. Chairman Price, in Texas, it's my understanding that over 
400 landowners have already been consulted. The Governor of the State 
has been consulted. Sixty of the Governors, Homeland Security advisers 
in our State and other States have been consulted. Thirty-five city 
mayors and county judges have been consulted. Twenty-eight local 
sheriffs have been consulted, and seven town hall-type meetings have 
been held to discuss the border.
  We are a part of the country where private property borders Mexico 
from Brownsville all the way to El Paso. And so we are very, very aware 
of private property rights and the rights of our cities, and we are 
consulting with them.
  My concern is the withholding, the stall or withholding of funds when 
the process is already in place. We've already been working with our 
landowners on wildlife. And the environmental concerns, should we hold 
back our homeland security because of a fear that trial lawyers are 
going to file frivolous lawsuits to try to stall this fence on 
environmental concerns?
  I think we need to take a hard look at what our goal is. And, quite 
frankly, our goal is to secure the people of the United States along 
the border and protect our borders from incursions.
  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Bilbray).
  Mr. BILBRAY. My dear colleague from California, we've worked on 
environmental issues. I was a border mayor. I saw groups that were 
trying to use environmental regulations to stop the construction of the 
border fence in San Diego when the fence ended up being the best 
benefit to the protection of the environment, and the use of 
environmental issues as an excuse to stop the fence.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I hadn't intended to speak on this matter until I heard 
my friend from Kentucky refer to certain words in the language that 
would be stricken by this amendment as being ``frivolous.'' Let me tell 
you what he apparently considers frivolous to be.
  The language reads as follows: ``Provided further that none of the 
funds under this heading may be obligated for fencing or tactical 
infrastructure project or activity unless the Secretary formally 
consults with affected State and local communities to solicit their 
advice and support of such project or activity.''
  Isn't that a terrible thing to do? Can you imagine the Congress of 
the United States, in all of its imperial wisdom, having the temerity 
to allow someone else besides all-knowing Members of Congress to 
comment before the Secretary proceeds with the activity outlined on 
this page?
  I thought that people in this Congress had the feeling that local 
people ought to have a say in what happens. I did not realize that the 
new motto of the minority party, of the Republican party was: ``Only 
the Feds know.''
  Now, in another appropriation bill, with respect to energy, we had 
the issue of whether or not local governments should be consulted 
before the Federal Government imposed the route for a power line which 
would run through the property of private property owners, run through 
farms, run through homes of the elderly. And the question was whether 
or not those folks would have some say, and whether the State 
government would have some say, or whether all-knowing Uncle Sam would 
impose its judgment.
  What an incredible confession of arrogance. What an incredible 
confession that ``I know better than anybody else''. You might. But the 
language you're striking simply says that we should formally consult 
other levels of government before a unilateral decision is required of 
the Secretary.
  I think the language speaks for itself. This amendment is incredibly 
arrogant, and I would suggest a ``no'' vote on the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Carter).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. CARTER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas will 
be postponed.


                Amendment No. 16 Offered by Mr. Conaway

  Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 16 offered by Mr. Conaway:
       Page 11, line 24, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced 
     by $5,000,000) (increased by $5,000,000)''.


[[Page 15890]]


  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate being able to offer this 
amendment tonight. What I would like to do is establish the legislative 
history for a pilot project that would help eradicate a tactical cover 
along the Rio Grande.
  My amendment simply adds $5 million to title II and subtracts $5 
million from title II, but would take $5 million from the environmental 
regulatory assessments funding, which would lower that back to what the 
President requested.

                              {time}  2300

  The Border Patrol would use this money to create a pilot project to 
eliminate, eradicate, noxious, invasive species of weeds along the Rio 
Grande. The Rio Grande creates the border between the Republic of 
Texas, United States, and Mexico; and many long stretches are inundated 
with a noxious weed such as Russian olive and salt cedar. These weeds 
can grow from 10 to 15 feet in height. They provide excellent tactical 
cover for anyone trying to sneak across the border, or in what is on 
this side of the United States, stage in ways that our Border Patrol 
agents can't see them.
  I have spoken with leadership of the Border Patrol, along with former 
sector chief Simon Garza for the Marfa sector in relation to this 
project, and it is an idea that they would support if they were able to 
get funding for that.
  This is a win on two different levels. One, it would eliminate this 
tactical cover that the folks trying to sneak across could use, and it 
would make our cameras and UAVs much more effective because of the loss 
of that cover. But it would also have a conservation issue in that 
these weeds, such as the salt cedar, will use up to 200 gallons of 
water a day. If these weeds were eliminated along the Rio Grande, that 
would put additional water in the Rio Grande, which would of course 
make that much better of a barrier to folks trying to sneak into this 
country.
  The safety of our Border Patrol would be improved as they walk up and 
approach the river. If this cover was eliminated, they would be able to 
see what was going on along our border to better do their job.
  This amendment would also ask or require that the Border Patrol 
report on how they spent the money and whether or not this is a program 
that they would want to pursue going forward.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CONAWAY. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman has 
offered a very thoughtful amendment. I think it is worthwhile, and I 
would like to add my name to it and support it.
  Mr. CONAWAY. Thank you, sir.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman for a very useful 
amendment. The amendment would shift some funding around in ways that I 
think are well justified. It would apply $5 million to study the 
eradication of invasive cover species such as Cariso cane, Russian 
olive trees, salt cedar. It is a well-crafted amendment and I am happy 
to support it.
  Mr. CONAWAY. I accept that.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Ross). The question is on the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


 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, and rental payments for facilities occupied by the 
     air or marine interdiction and demand reduction programs, 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, $477,287,000, to remain available until 
     expended: Provided, That no aircraft or other related 
     equipment, except aircraft that are one-of-a-kind and have 
     been identified as excess to United States 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 2008 without the prior 
     approval of the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate 
     and the House of Representatives: Provided further, That none 
     of the funds under this heading may be obligated for 
     procurement of additional unmanned aerial systems until the 
     Commissioner of United States Customs and Border Protection 
     certifies to the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate 
     and House of Representatives that they are of higher priority 
     and more cost effective than other items included in the Air 
     and Marine Strategic Recapitalization and Modernization plan.


                Amendment No. 106 Offered by Mr. Souder

  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 106 offered by Mr. Souder:
       Page 16, line 20, strike ``Provided, That no aircraft'' and 
     insert ``Provided further, That no aircraft''.
       Page 16, line 20, insert after the colon the following: 
     ``Provided, That of the amount made available under this 
     heading, $100,000,000 may not be obligated until Congress 
     receives a report detailing the number of requests United 
     States Customs and Border Protection receives for use of air 
     and marine assets by United States Immigration and Customs 
     Enforcement and other Federal, State, and local agencies and 
     the number of such requests that are denied:''.

  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on 
the gentleman's amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3\1/2\ minutes.
  Ever since we created the Department of Homeland Security, we have 
had a problem of what to do with our air assets.
  This amendment would hold $100 million from the Customs and Border 
Protection, CBP, Air and Marine interdiction, operations, maintenance, 
and procurement account until a report is received detailing the number 
of requests CBP receives from the use of assets and the number of those 
requests that are denied.
  One of the problems we had when we, in effect, set up ICE and CBP was 
to to do with the division called Air and Marine. Air and Marine 
Division did not stay parked right along the border. The Air and Marine 
Division has assets down in Colombia. They have assets in the 
Caribbean, assets in the Eastern Pacific, assets at various points, 
because the whole point of the Air and Marine Division was both with 
boats and air to be able to follow in particular drug traffickers, 
other traffickers of contraband in high value or mass targets in the 
sense of illegal immigration or of terrorism.
  But when we put the air assets underneath CBP and they put them under 
Border Patrol, the nature of what we were doing with our Air and Marine 
assets have fundamentally changed.
  As the now ranking member of the Border Subcommittee and a member of 
the Homeland Security Committee since its creation, I have spent a lot 
of time on this issue, as well as being head of Speaker Hastert's drug 
task force. I have spent my entire career working on narcotics issues. 
This has been a huge issue. In particular, one of our problems right 
now is that many, if not all, of the critical assets are now

[[Page 15891]]

more or less chained to the border; that one of the P-3s, which are 
critical for long-range surveillance, right now, because of their 
usage, and it hasn't been made a priority because the maintenance is 
going to the helicopters along the border, all 16, and let me repeat, 
all 16 air assets that are supposed to be used in counternarcotics are 
now down for serious maintenance, leaving the counterdrug mission 
severely impacted. And if we can't work out to some degree over in the 
Florida and the Gulf of Mexico range, they fixed this short term by 
having legacy Air and Marine or Customs pilots be the regional Border 
Patrol people and managing their assets. But along the border, we don't 
have that luxury.
  We have been trying in the authorizing committee for some time to get 
a report from the agency, and I have spent hours with the relevant 
people in my office, as well as questioning at hearings, trying to get 
the data of how exactly they are using these assets. What are they 
denying? ICE can't get the assets to do the big-risk things. This has 
been one of the historic conflicts between these agencies.
  I support a picket fence. We need to have a border fence. But you 
also have to have the ability to go behind and forward and track and 
take down systems. And Air and Marine is a critical part of this, and 
we need this report. And I hope that if we can't work this out tonight, 
that it can be worked out in conference committee, because this must be 
resolved.
  May I inquire of the chairman of the subcommittee for a brief, 
informal colloquy here, would you be willing to continue to work with 
me on this subject and with the Department of Homeland Security, 
because it is very critical to how we are going to do counternarcotics 
and high-risk terrorism and how CBP is going to work with ICE in 
resolving the Air and Marine issue?
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SOUDER. I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
raising this issue. And I am, of course, willing to work with him on 
this.
  I do not believe the withholding of the $100 million is necessary or 
desirable in this case. But I believe we need to get the confirmation 
that you are talking about from CBP, and I am not eager to delay the 
release of needed funds, but I certainly am willing to work with the 
gentleman to make certain that we get the information we need and the 
confirmation that we need that the agency is on track.
  Mr. SOUDER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman, 
and with that assurance, I am not really anxious to hold up any money 
in this bill either. But I would like them to be accountable to 
Congress because they have not resolved how they are going to move and 
deal with Air and Marine assets related to ICE and investigations. They 
sometimes have even sent helicopters where we needed a P-3. This just 
isn't functioning, and narcotics terrorism is ripping up this country. 
We have 20,000 to 30,000 deaths a year. And if we have loads of cocaine 
coming in, loads of heroin coming into our society, because we have got 
all our planes lined up on the border and our P-3s down, it will not 
function. And with your assurance that you will continue to work with 
this, watch this, and we continue to talk about it between the 
authorizing and the appropriators, I will be happy to withdraw my 
amendment tonight.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SOUDER. I will yield.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. It is my expectation that CBP Air and 
Marine with enormous aviation and maritime operations, they should have 
as one of their priority missions supporting the investigative or other 
DHS agencies, in particular ICE. That was done by the legacy Air and 
Marine arm of the old Customs Service, and it should not decline.
  So I appreciate the gentleman's raising the matter. I am happy to 
work with him to further the issue he has raised.
  Mr. SOUDER. Thank you.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Indiana?
  There was no objection.


            Amendment No. 98 Offered by Mr. McCaul of Texas

  Mr. McCAUL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 98 offered by Mr. McCaul of Texas:
       Page 17, strike the proviso beginning on line 2.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. McCaul) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. McCAUL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 2638, as currently written, 
prohibits the use of funds for additional unmanned aerial vehicles, or 
UAVs, until the Customs and Border Patrol informs the House and Senate 
Appropriations Committees that their use is cost-effective. I submit 
today that they are worth every penny. My amendment would strike that 
provision which would otherwise be protected by the rule.
  These eyes of the sky bring exceptional operational capabilities to 
the table. They can stay airborne for 30 to 40 hours and can carry 
state-of-the-art technology through day and night cameras, radar 
tracking systems, and other surveillance tools.
  UAVs working the borders have flown over 2,000 hours and aided in the 
arrests of nearly 3,900 illegal immigrants and the seizure of over 
13,000 pounds of marijuana.
  UAVs are not in sufficient quantities to provide economies of scale 
and, as such, will always be more expensive to operate than a pilot in 
a small aircraft. But, Mr. Chairman, cost is not the only 
consideration.
  On March 20, 2007, a UAV detected and tracked six illegal aliens 
trying to cross the southern border. When border officials arrived on 
the scene, they seized 395 pounds of marijuana and arrested all six. 
Among the six was a fugitive wanted in Kings County, Washington, on 
charges of third-degree rape of a child.
  We should be providing our border authorities with more technology 
and tools. We talked a lot about the fence but this is the technology 
piece. More technology and tools, not less. Had a UAV not detected the 
entry of those illegal immigrants, how many more children may have been 
victimized by sexual predators?
  I think this is an important piece to our overall security of the 
border, and I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of my amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, this is an issue that came up when our 
committee traveled to the border and had discussions with the Border 
Patrol. And what you are talking about here is striking language that 
gives some ability for comparing the expenditure of costs on one piece 
of intelligence equipment versus the other. And what the gentleman 
didn't tell you is that of all the assets on the border, this is the 
most expensive, $10 million, $8 to $10 million per unmanned vehicle. 
The other assets that are on the border, which everybody agreed was 
much more effective, is the new radar system, which costs about 
$700,000, that are portable.
  We have others. We have balloons. We have helicopters. We have as 
many assets looking at the border as there are in Iraq. And what the 
language in the bill says is that before you go out and just buy more 
Predators at 8 million bucks, there is already $50 million in the 
account and we want to know before you spend that whether it is cost-
effective compared to other issues that you have to do.
  You have on the border not only the Customs and Border Patrol, and I

[[Page 15892]]

would submit that the arrests were not made by that unmanned vehicle, 
and I don't think that was the only system they used to discover that. 
It was just one. It happened to be a very, very expensive one. The 
radar systems are the most effective. The most effective. And you have 
responding to that Customs and Border Patrol that are in aircraft, in 
different kinds of helicopters, including Black Hawk helicopters, you 
have all-terrain vehicles, you have Border Patrol on horseback, you 
have Border Patrol with SUVs, with four-wheel-drive vehicles. You have 
all kinds of response mechanisms and all kinds of detection mechanisms.
  But to suggest that we shouldn't even ask the question of whether an 
$8 million expense is more cost-effective than another kind of assets, 
I think, is just ridiculous.
  And, frankly, that is one thing the committee found out, that there 
isn't all the money you always want to spend on everything here. There 
have got to be some priorities. And if you have made the priority that 
of the Customs and Border Patrol, this is not what they would spend it 
on.

                              {time}  2315

  So I think the amendment and the language in the bill is particularly 
appropriate. It doesn't prohibit the expenditures. It just says before 
you come back and spend up to another $8 billion, compare this to what 
other assets you can buy, and you make the suggestion to us as to what 
is the best expenditure of limited public funds.
  Mr. McCAUL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas has 2\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. McCAUL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, let me simply just say we 
obviously do not have enough manpower down at the border. These ``eyes 
in the skies,'' as we call them, provide the surveillance technology 
that is just absolutely critical to surveilling the border to stop this 
flood of illegal immigration and potential terrorism.
  Mr. Chairman, with that, I would yield the remainder of my time to 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray).
  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, I find it hard to believe my dear 
colleague from California can really believe that an unmanned 
observation platform like the Predator is not more cost effective than 
having a rotor wing with twin crews that have to switch off at least 
every 6 hours. Where you are able to do an unmanned observation, you 
can switch off crews while they're on site. You don't have to take the 
vehicles off station to be able to do the transformation from one crew 
to the other.
  And I don't know what data, where you're getting the saying that the 
unmanned vehicle is somehow not as cost effective as having rotor-
winged manned vehicles on site in very remote areas. It just doesn't 
pencil out. This is the same kind of argument we heard 5 years ago in 
the military saying unmanned vehicles would never work in some place 
like Afghanistan, where you and I know the great hero of the Afghan war 
was the Predator. So I've just got to say sincerely, you've been in 
government long enough to understand that putting a rotor wing, a major 
helicopter up with two individuals to do aerial observations compared 
to an unmanned vehicle that has proven its technology over time and 
time again, that is able to stay on station, and this is one key along 
the border that most people won't talk about, they are able to stay on 
station so that the smugglers don't know when they're coming off 
station to switch crews to go down. A crew actually switches in the 
trailer on site. One guy says, you've got it now, Joe, I have it now, 
and the smugglers never know when you're going through. And to do the 
same kind of test to your manned vehicles and other aerial observations 
that you are proposing for this technology, this technology is the 
greatest success in the world.
  Mr. FARR. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BILBRAY. I will yield.
  Mr. FARR. First of all, the Predator has to be monitored. There is 
manpower on the Predator. And as I recall, there are three people that 
it takes to fly it.
  But that's not the issue of this, because you would have money to buy 
Predators. All it says is that the same people that operate them, 
Customs and Border Patrol, that this isn't a high priority for them. 
That is all it says.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's time has expired.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I am happy to yield such time as he 
needs to Mr. Farr to complete his argument.
  Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, the language is that the very people that are 
operating these vehicles, the Customs and Border Patrol, certify that 
these are the higher priority and the more cost effective than other 
items included in the Air and Marine Strategic Recapitalization and 
Modernization plan. It puts the burden on them. If this is what they 
think is the most cost effective, fine. It doesn't block it; it just 
says do that analysis.
  I am really just surprised, because I sat here all these days and 
just heard riling after riling, people getting up on the other side 
talking about money, and we need to be very conscientious about how we 
spend money. There is language in there that says, Customs and Border 
Patrol, you certify that this is a high priority for you and it's cost 
effective. What's wrong with that? Why do you want to strike that 
language? It doesn't make any sense at all.
  Mr. BILBRAY. Would the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I would be happy to yield.
  Mr. BILBRAY. You and I have both operated in local and State 
government and we've worked on this. If you really think that you 
should place that kind of condition on one technology that is a proven 
technology that even the military originally did not think was going to 
be cost effective and which now admits that they were wrong to 
underestimate the cost effectiveness of, the fact is, why apply it to 
this technology and not apply that condition to every other application 
along here?
  The fact is, this technology has been the breakthrough that has 
shocked the world. And it is absolutely astonishing that we would pick 
out the hero and the technology that opened the eyes to the fact that 
remote technology was a great break through for effectiveness and cost 
effectiveness. Why would you back off from the fact of doing that and 
not apply to every other technology going except for this one?
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I'm happy to yield to Mr. Farr.
  Mr. FARR. Because as the gentleman knows, this is an almost $10 
million per cost item. And you know what? The one we had crashed, and 
the other one we have is about to be delivered. And there is $50 
million in the account. If they want to come back and use that $50 
million to buy more of them, that's what we are asking. You tell us 
what is the most cost-effective use. Frankly, and I wish you were 
there, the new equipment that is coming out, this technology on radar, 
for 100 miles can detect when even rabbits are crossing the border. 
It's very cost effective. The Border Patrol is very excited about it. 
They would like to have more, but they can't because they're spending 
money like this.
  So, with all due respect, these are professionals that are on the job 
every single day, you want to let them tell you what they think is the 
most effective tool to do their job. That is all this language does. I 
don't know why you would oppose that.
  Mr. BILBRAY. Would the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. BILBRAY. I appreciate your concern. But again, I come back to the 
fact that you do not place the same condition on the other 
technologies. And if you want to do this, then let's talk about it 
through the entire technologies, that we are not going to apply that. 
And the fact is, history has

[[Page 15893]]

proven, and even though you may not like to admit it, the things like 
the fence in San Diego that some people thought wouldn't work and the 
so-called experts said wouldn't work have worked extraordinarily well 
because we gave it a chance to work before we started cutting it off. 
And that is exactly what we are seeing here. This is a technology that 
has proven itself around the world, but you don't want to give it a 
chance to prove itself along our national frontier.
  Mr. FARR. Don't read in this language what isn't there. That's not 
what it is about.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, let me 
say to the gentleman from California that this language, I think, could 
be widely applied. If he has items he wishes to apply to it, he should 
propose that. We are asking simply for a determination that these items 
are of higher priority and more cost effective than other items 
included in the Air and Marine Strategic Recapitalization and 
Modernization plan.
  We focused on this system because there are particular challenges 
here. But as Mr. Farr says, it is just a basic principle of good 
responsible government.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's time has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. McCaul).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. McCAUL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas will 
be postponed.
  If there are no further amendments to this paragraph, the Clerk will 
read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


                              construction

       For necessary expenses to plan, construct, renovate, equip, 
     and maintain buildings and facilities necessary for the 
     administration and enforcement of the laws relating to 
     customs and immigration, $249,663,000, to remain available 
     until expended.

           United States 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; $4,146,300,000, of which not to 
     exceed $10,000,000 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 $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; 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 illegal aliens: 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 
     of Homeland Security, or a designee of the Secretary, may 
     waive that amount as necessary for national security purposes 
     and in cases of immigration emergencies: Provided further, 
     That of the total amount provided, $15,770,000 shall be for 
     activities to enforce laws against forced child labor in 
     fiscal year 2008, of which not to exceed $6,000,000 shall 
     remain available until expended: Provided further, That at 
     least once per month the Secretary of Homeland Security or a 
     designee of the Secretary shall obtain information from every 
     prison, jail, and correctional facility in the United States 
     to identify incarcerated aliens who may be deportable and 
     make every reasonable effort to remove such aliens judged 
     deportable upon their release from custody.


             Amendment No. 105 Offered by Mr. King of Iowa

  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 105 offered by Mr. King of Iowa:
       Page 17, line 23, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $5,000,000) (increased by $5,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King) and the gentleman from North Carolina 
(Mr. Price) each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Iowa.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, my amendment strikes $5 million and 
puts it back in. It is directed to encourage the promotion of the Basic 
Pilot Program.
  We have had a number of hearings on this in the subject matter that 
has come before the Immigration Subcommittee of which I am the ranking 
member. And the statistics on that look very encouraging to the 
effectiveness of the Basic Pilot Program, the Employment Verification 
Program, if you will, or I will call it the ``Instant Check Program.''
  What that program does is it allows an employer to take the 
information off the I-9 document from an employee applicant and 
introduces that into an Internet page, where that Internet goes off and 
checks the database of the Social Security Administration and the 
Department of Homeland Security and comes back and verifies if you have 
the documents before you and the information from the documents that 
ensure that that is a legal applicant, at least the documents from a 
legal applicant.
  What we have seen is that 98.6 percent of the legal applicants are 
approved in the first try. And when they have to go back and clean up 
their records a little bit, you get to well over 99 percent accuracy 
within the Basic Pilot Program, and yet we don't have enough employers 
that are using it.
  This has been the substance of many of the proposals for 
Comprehensive Immigration Reform on how we are going to hold employers 
accountable and how they are going to verify that the applicants before 
them are applying with real documents and if those documents identify 
real people that are lawful to work in the United States.
  And so as much success as we have had with this, I want to ensure 
that we have the Department of Homeland Security promoting the Basic 
Pilot Program. They have the dollars in their budget to do that. This 
just commits those dollars and dedicates $5 million to promotion of the 
Basic Pilot Program.
  I will say that I have this program. I have run it myself. I have 
tried to fool it, everything I could do. The longest delay I could 
create was 6 seconds on an applicant, and the error rate, of course, is 
minimal.
  I would add that if we have flaws in our database, it isn't 
necessarily a problem with the Basic Pilot Program. It may well be that 
the Social Security Administration records are wrong, or the Department 
of Homeland Security criminal records in the NCIC perhaps need to be 
corrected. So the only way that I can see that you can complete that 
narrow area, that less than 1 percent that are flawed, is to use the 
program. If you use the program, you clean up the mistakes.
  That is what this amendment does, Mr. Chairman, is it directs $5 
million and encourages the Department of Homeland Security to promote 
the Basic Pilot Program. And this has been something that has been 
consistent with those that promote the Comprehensive Immigration Reform 
plan, as well as those of us who believe we should do enforcement 
first.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  I mainly am confused about exactly what the gentleman is proposing 
and would like to try to clarify it if I might.
  The effort here is to attempt to carve out $5 million for the ICE 
Mutual Agreement Between Government Employers Program, which he is, I 
believe, confusing with the Basic Pilot Program. ICE does not 
administer the Basic Pilot Program. The bill already includes $30 
million for CIS to carry out Basic Pilot.
  And it is indeed a well-regarded program to do exactly the same thing 
as the gentleman is describing here. But I don't understand the 
rationale for carving $5 million out of the ICE budget for a program 
that, as I understand

[[Page 15894]]

it, would be totally duplicative. So maybe you can clarify.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. I appreciate the gentleman yielding.
  This is actually an amendment that I offered a previous year or two. 
And I don't recall if it was successful or not, I actually think it 
was, but I can't speak to that factually here tonight. But I can say 
that since ICE has the authority to go in and enforce on the work site, 
and they do do that, that also puts them in a position, in their 
cooperative effort with employers, to be able to use these resources to 
promote the Employment Verification Program, or the Basic Pilot 
Program, within the auspices of their regular enforcement, where they 
are interrelating with the employers on the work site.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I'm sorry. I believe the gentleman is 
mistaken about the bureaucratic location of the Basic Pilot Program.
  The concern he expresses is certainly a legitimate one. Given the 
fact that we may be talking about duplicative efforts here, though, 
could I suggest that the amendment be withdrawn and we work with him as 
we go to conference to see how we might accommodate his concerns.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I will yield.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. I appreciate the privilege to make another point, 
and that is that I believe that since we have ICE working all across 
this country, working with many of the employers, that the knowledge 
base and the promotion of Basic Pilot would be something that would be 
mobile and portable and flexible.

                              {time}  2330

  Since it is an Internet-based program, all of these employers, at 
least the larger employers, have computers and Internet access. So the 
flexibility of this and the mobility of it I think is clear. The 
message that comes from this I don't think constrains ICE, but 
encourages them to do something I think they should be doing as part of 
their overall process.
  I would encourage the chairman to consider my remarks in his 
response.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, is the gentleman saying he 
is willing to withdraw the amendment?
  Mr. KING of Iowa. The gentleman believes that this is a well thought 
out and constructive amendment, and although I appreciate the sentiment 
of the chairman, I would be reluctant to withdraw the amendment.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I can 
understand the need for flexibility and for these programs not to be in 
totally separate spheres, but I just have to say that CIS administers 
the Basic Pilot Program. It can't be in two agencies. The bill has $30 
million for this purpose. I simply do not, cannot, grasp the rationale 
for carving $5 million out of the ICE budget for the same purpose. 
There does seem to be confusion here. That is why I am offering to take 
the concern forward and suggesting the amendment be withdrawn.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. If the gentleman will yield further, I hope I have 
made my point that ICE is in a position to enforce. They are hands-on 
with the employers in the work site, and that is where the utilization 
of Basic Pilot takes place. I believe it is incumbent upon this 
Congress to encourage that ICE incorporates the promotion and education 
of this as part of the work that they do as they interrelate with the 
employers. Not just go in and raid and lock people up and haul them 
off, but to help work so employers can have confidence.
  If we leave this strictly within USCIS, they are not out into the 
employer workforce. They don't have that access to employers in the 
fashion that ICE does.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, Basic 
Pilot is a program which lets employers check the employment status of 
people they are hiring. It is not an enforcement program, and it can't 
be located in two agencies. So I have no choice but to oppose the 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman 
from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Iowa, and I 
do rise to support his amendment.
  As a point of clarification, I think the gentleman from Iowa, who has 
worked in the business world and has dealt with ICE on employment 
issues, has such a good understanding of how this works. To the 
esteemed chairman from North Carolina, who has spent much of his life 
in academia, I think that what we have got is apples and oranges and 
what we need to do is pull it together.
  Having trained people with ICE who are in the field, who actually 
would help encourage employers to use this program, it is an important 
part of internal enforcement for our employers, knowing how to use it, 
having that tool to be certain that they know how to use the Basic 
Pilot Program, to be certain that individuals who are going to work for 
them are indeed who they say they are and that they are in the country 
legally. That is important for employers. It is an important tool for 
having immigration enforcement in this country.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, moving forward in my last minute in 
conclusion, I just want to emphasize that ICE is out there in the field 
and they are dealing with employers on a daily basis face-to-face. 
USCIS is a stationary operation and they operate out of their offices 
wherever they might be located with the databases they have and the 
access that they have to the information. But USCIS wouldn't be in a 
position to come out and promote Basic Pilot on a face-to-face basis 
with employers.
  I would say the only entity out there that has better capability of 
interacting with employers, other than ICE, would be the IRS. It may be 
a good idea for us at some point to take up the idea of eliminating the 
tax deductibility of wages and benefits paid to illegals and let the 
IRS help with this enforcement.
  But what this amendment does is it encourages and directs that ICE go 
out and interact with the employers and promote with $5 million the 
utilization of the Basic Pilot Program.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge the adoption of the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa will be 
postponed.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. If there are no further amendments to this 
paragraph, the Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


                       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 none of the funds provided 
     in this or any other Act, and none of the revenues or 
     collections of security fees credited to this account, may be 
     obligated for any activity that reduces the number of in-
     service Federal Protective Service police officers below the 
     number of such officers as of October 1, 2006, unless--
       (1) the Director of the Federal Protective Service provides 
     to the head of the relevant lead State and local law 
     enforcement agencies for the jurisdiction concerned a report 
     on the number and type of cases handled by the Federal 
     Protective Service police in that jurisdiction for the 
     previous two fiscal years;
       (2) the Director of the Federal Protective Service 
     negotiates a Memorandum of Agreement with the head of each 
     relevant State and local law enforcement agency for the 
     jurisdiction concerned that explains how the work identified 
     in the report described in section (1) will be addressed in 
     the future; and
       (3) the Director of the Federal Protective Service submits 
     copies of each report under paragraph (1) and each memorandum 
     under paragraph (2) to the Committees on Appropriations of 
     the Senate and the House of

[[Page 15895]]

     Representatives by not later than 15 days before the number 
     of in-service Federal Protective Service police officers is 
     reduced for the concerned jurisdiction.


                        Automation Modernization

       For expenses of immigration and customs enforcement 
     automated systems, $30,700,000, to remain available until 
     expended: Provided, That none of the funds made available 
     under this heading may be obligated until the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the Senate and the House of Representatives 
     receive and approve a plan for expenditure prepared by the 
     Secretary of Homeland Security that--
       (1) meets the capital planning and investment control 
     review requirements established by the Office of Management 
     and Budget, including Circular A-11, part 7;
       (2) complies with the Department of Homeland Security 
     information systems enterprise architecture;
       (3) complies with the acquisition rules, requirements, 
     guidelines, and systems acquisition management practices of 
     the Federal Government;
       (4) includes a certification by the Chief Information 
     Officer of the Department of Homeland Security that an 
     independent verification and validation agent is currently 
     under contract for the project;
       (5) is reviewed and approved by the Department of Homeland 
     Security Investment Review Board, the Secretary of Homeland 
     Security, and the Office of Management and Budget; and
       (6) is reviewed by the Government Accountability Office.


                              construction

       For necessary expenses to plan, construct, renovate, equip, 
     and maintain buildings and facilities necessary for the 
     administration and enforcement of the laws relating to 
     customs and immigration, $6,000,000, to remain available 
     until expended: Provided, That none of the funds made 
     available in this or any other Act may be used to solicit or 
     consider any request to privatize facilities currently owned 
     by the United States Government and used to detain illegal 
     aliens until the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate 
     and the House of Representatives receive and approve a plan 
     for carrying out that privatization.

                 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), 
     $5,198,535,000, to remain available until September 30, 2009, 
     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 
     $4,218,194,000 shall be for screening operations, of which 
     $560,000,000 shall be available only for procurement and 
     installation of checked baggage explosive detection systems; 
     and not to exceed $980,116,000 shall be for aviation security 
     direction and enforcement: 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 during fiscal year 2008, so as to 
     result in a final fiscal year appropriation from the General 
     Fund estimated at not more than $2,488,310,000: Provided 
     further, That any security service fees collected in excess 
     of the amount made available under this heading shall become 
     available during fiscal year 2009.


                    surface transportation security

       For necessary expenses of the Transportation Security 
     Administration related to providing surface transportation 
     security activities, $41,413,000, to remain available until 
     September 30, 2009.


           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, 
     $49,490,000, to remain available until September 30, 2009: 
     Provided, That if the Assistant Secretary of Homeland 
     Security (Transportation Security Administration) determines 
     that the Secure Flight program does not need to check airline 
     passenger names against the full terrorist watch list, then 
     the Assistant Secretary shall certify to the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the Senate and the House of Representatives 
     that no security risks are raised by screening airline 
     passenger names only against a subset of the full terrorist 
     watch list.


                    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), $526,615,000, to remain available 
     until September 30, 2009: Provided, That the Secretary of 
     Homeland Security shall submit to the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the Senate and the House of Representatives 
     no later than 60 days after the date of enactment of this Act 
     a detailed expenditure plan for checkpoint support and 
     explosive detection systems refurbishment, procurement, and 
     installations on an airport-by-airport basis for fiscal year 
     2008: Provided, further, That notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, the acquisition management system shall be 
     subject to the provisions of the Small Business Act (15 
     U.S.C. 631 et seq.).


                          federal air marshals

       For necessary expenses of the Federal Air Marshals, 
     $722,000,000.

                              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; payments pursuant to section 156 of 
     Public Law 97-377 (42 U.S.C. 402 note; 96 Stat. 1920); and 
     recreation and welfare; $5,885,242,000, of which $340,000,000 
     shall be for defense-related activities; 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 or any other Act shall be available 
     for administrative expenses in connection with shipping 
     commissioners in the United States: Provided further, That 
     none of the funds made available by this Act shall be for 
     expenses incurred for yacht documentation under section 12114 
     of title 46, United States Code, except to the extent fees 
     are collected from yacht owners and credited to this 
     appropriation.


                Amendment No. 107 Offered by Mr. Souder

  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 107 offered by Mr. Souder:
       Page 25, line 3, after the first dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $21,500,000)''.
       Page 31, line 13, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $8,000,000)''.
       Page 26, line 10, after the first dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $29,500,000)''.
       Page 26, line 22, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $29,500,000)''.
       Page 26, line 25, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $29,500,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder) and the gentleman from North 
Carolina (Mr. Price) each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment in effect transfers money from the 
alteration of bridges account, $8 million, and $21.5 million allocated 
from the operating expenses allocated to airborne use of force account, 
and moves it over to buy a Coast Guard maritime patrol aircraft.
  The challenge here in Deepwater, which has had admitted problems, but 
which is one of the most important long-term programs of the Coast 
Guard for reaching out into beyond just harbor patrol to be able to 
protect our country, whether it be illegal contraband, such as 
narcotics or anthrax or whatever, or high risk terrorists, is that we 
don't have enough assets that are operating and functional, and part of 
this is aircraft.
  The MH-68, the HITRON, leases have expired, and we have moved to the 
M-65s, which are replacing them in the field. The Coast Guard then 
requested four more, to bring it up to 12, of assets that go out with 
the Deepwater Program. This bill already cuts Deepwater $197 million. 
This is the only Coast Guard plus-up that we would have related to 
Deepwater. They deeply need these air assets.
  Now, one of the challenges here is, what is this $8 million 
alteration of bridges account? The Coast Guard in the report language 
here, it suggests that the Coast Guard has asked and said we don't have 
people who maintain bridges and we don't want to do this. The committee 
is ordering the Coast Guard to do the bridges, rather than the 
Department of Transportation.
  We also have a question of what is this $21.5 million, and it looks 
like it is for an MH-68 that the Coast Guard didn't want in a lease 
that expired.

[[Page 15896]]

  A former Homeland Security Department official now works for a 
lobbying firm who has been lobbying the Hill to continue this lease, in 
spite of the fact that the Coast Guard doesn't want the lease. We have 
been unable to identify which Members have actually been advocating 
renewing the lease that the Coast Guard doesn't want for a helicopter 
we don't need, and they cut the committee request from four to two for 
a helicopter the Coast Guard desperately needs and wants. This would 
put that back in.
  While it is not absolutely clear whether this is a closet earmark, it 
hasn't exactly been coming forward on the helicopter part or the 
designation in this bill, which actually doesn't designate the $21.5 
million. It asks the Coast Guard to submit a plan. But the lobbyist has 
been all over the Hill today and recently saying this is for the MH-68 
helicopter we don't want.
  My amendment merely says, let's help Deepwater. Let's give them the 
helicopter they need and want, rather than giving them money they don't 
want for something they don't do that the Department of Transportation 
does in bridges and for a helicopter they don't want with an expired 
lease.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment would cut the Coast Guard operating 
expenses account, the budget that pays for military officers and 
personnel, by $21.5 million. Given our country's need for port 
security, marine environmental protection and search and rescue 
operations, it doesn't seem like a very good time to be cutting back on 
Coast Guard personnel.
  The amendment would also cut the alteration of bridges program by $8 
million. That is half of the budget for that program included in the 
bill. The amendment would instead move this money to the Coast Guard 
aircraft acquisitions budget in the Deepwater Program.
  The question is not whether these aircraft are needed. We know that 
they are. But there is a serious question about whether the Coast Guard 
is or would be prepared to utilize the funding that the gentleman is 
suggesting. The Coast Guard's aircraft acquisitions are behind 
schedule. The newest planes that the service is buying have not even 
been shown to meet the Coast Guard's needs through flight testing.
  So, again, as with many items in this budget, the question is not 
whether this is a worthy expenditure or a worthy object of expenditure. 
The question is what the traffic will bear in terms of next year's 
budget and the money that can be wisely and usefully spent. Our 
judgment, after carefully looking at this, is that the bill provides 
adequate funding for aircraft acquisition.
  Moreover, these items that would be cut to make room for this funding 
would have a negative impact on the day-to-day operations of the Coast 
Guard. In particular, they would delay the replacement of bridges in a 
major way, bridges that are a hazard to maritime safety.
  For all these reasons, though we certainly want to work with the 
gentleman in trying to push this aircraft acquisition forward. We want 
to do that in a prudent way, and we think this amendment is basically 
not helpful.
  So we reluctantly urge a no vote.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe that what the chairman was referring to was a 
general account of the things that I referred to which were inside the 
general account. I am not trying to cut funding for personnel. There is 
$8 million in the bill for alteration of bridges. The report language 
says the committee denies the request to transfer personnel devoted to 
maintaining safe passage of marine traffic. That means that the Coast 
Guard had requested to the committee that they didn't want these funds. 
The reason they don't want the funds is they don't have personnel that 
does bridges. They said this should be, according to your report 
language, within the Department of Transportation's Maritime Division 
to do bridges.
  I don't know what kind of fight is occurring between Transportation 
and Coast Guard here, but basically the Coast Guard wants the money to 
do their mission, not to do bridges, and this amendment tries to 
address this.
  Then also in the airborne use of force, there is a discussion about 
the $21.5 million, which just happens to be the amount that the 
lobbying firm is seeking to continue the MH-68 HITRON helicopter, which 
is a great helicopter, I have been in it, but it is not armed. It is 
outdated and they are moving to the M-65s. They have the M-65s on line 
or in production, the ones that you said that are off-the-shelf 
helicopters that they are now adapting, of which they had eight and 
they wanted four more and you gave them two more.

                              {time}  2345

  The money for the account that they don't want and don't have people 
to do and the 21.5 for a contract they don't want would buy the 
additional helicopter that they do want that's off the shelf and merely 
would need to be added to.
  I would ask the chairman respectfully, can you identify who is 
requesting this, because we haven't been able to figure out who's 
pushing this MH-68 contract of which the amount of money is the exact 
amount of money. And the lobbyist is all over the Hill saying that 
that's what this is for.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SOUDER. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. The item that the gentleman is 
discussing, let me just clarify. We're talking about $21.5 million. It 
requires that the Coast Guard shall submit a plan for the use of this 
money to the committee by November 1.
  Mr. SOUDER. Reclaiming my time, can I ask the chairman a follow-up 
question?
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Well, it calls for a submission of a 
plan. It does not say how the money shall be spent otherwise.
  Mr. SOUDER. I agree with that. My question then would be, given what 
we've been hearing and we have been suggested and it is all over that 
this amount just happens to be the amount that was proposed for the 
lease and that it's intended for a lease.
  Will the chairman assure me that in fact the Coast Guard is 
submitting an independent request to you for 21.5 and it's not intended 
to buy an MH-68?
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Yes, I can assure you of that.
  Mr. SOUDER. Thank you very much.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's time has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Souder).
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. If there are no further amendments to this 
paragraph, the Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


                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, $15,000,000, to 
     remain available until expended.


                            reserve training

       For necessary expenses of the Coast Guard Reserve, as 
     authorized by law; operations and maintenance of the reserve 
     program; personnel and training costs; and equipment and 
     services; $126,883,000.


              acquisition, construction, and improvements

                    (including rescissions of funds)

       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; 
     $941,767,000, 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 $9,200,000 shall be available 
     until September 30, 2012, to acquire, repair, renovate, or 
     improve vessels, small boats, and related

[[Page 15897]]

     equipment; of which $113,600,000 shall be available until 
     September 30, 2010, for other equipment; of which $37,897,000 
     shall be available until September 30, 2010, for shore 
     facilities and aids to navigation facilities; of which 
     $82,720,000 shall be available for personnel compensation and 
     benefits and related costs; and of which $698,350,000 shall 
     be available until September 30, 2012, for the Integrated 
     Deepwater Systems program: Provided, That of the funds made 
     available for the Integrated Deepwater Systems program, 
     $257,400,000 is for aircraft and $219,500,000 is for surface 
     ships: Provided further, That $400,000,000 of the funds 
     provided for the Integrated Deepwater Systems program may not 
     be obligated until the Committees on Appropriations of the 
     Senate and the House of Representatives receive and approve a 
     plan for expenditure directly from the Coast Guard that--
       (1) defines activities, milestones, yearly costs, and 
     lifecycle costs for each procurement of a major asset, 
     including an independent cost estimate for each;
       (2) identifies lifecycle staffing and training needs of 
     Coast Guard project managers and of procurement and contract 
     staff;
       (3) identifies competition to be conducted in each 
     procurement;
       (4) describes procurement plans that do not rely on a 
     single industry entity or contract;
       (5) contains very limited indefinite delivery/indefinite 
     quantity contracts and explains the need for any indefinite 
     delivery/indefinite quantity contracts;
       (6) complies with all applicable acquisition rules, 
     requirements, and guidelines, and incorporates the best 
     systems acquisition management practices of the Federal 
     Government;
       (7) complies with the capital planning and investment 
     control requirements established by the Office of Management 
     and Budget, including circular A-11, part 7;
       (8) includes a certification by the Head of Contracting 
     Activity for the Coast Guard and the Chief Procurement 
     Officer of the Department of Homeland Security that the Coast 
     Guard has established sufficient controls and procedures and 
     has sufficient staffing to comply with all contracting 
     requirements and that any apparent conflicts of interest have 
     been sufficiently addressed;
       (9) includes a description of the process used to act upon 
     deviations from the contractually specified performance 
     requirements and clearly explains the actions taken on such 
     deviations;
       (10) includes a certification that the Assistant Commandant 
     of the Coast Guard for Engineering and Logistics is 
     designated as the technical authority for all engineering, 
     design, and logistics decisions pertaining to the Integrated 
     Deepwater Systems program;
       (11) identifies use of the Defense Contract Auditing 
     Agency; and
       (12) is reviewed by the Government Accountability Office:

     Provided further, That the Commandant of the Coast Guard is 
     authorized to dispose of surplus real property, by sale or 
     lease, and the proceeds shall be credited to this 
     appropriation as offsetting collections and shall be 
     available until September 30, 2010: Provided further, That of 
     amounts made available under this heading in Public Law 109-
     90 for the Offshore Patrol Cutter, $68,841,000 is rescinded: 
     Provided further, That of amounts made available under this 
     heading in Public Law 109-90 and Public Law 109-295 for 
     unmanned aerial vehicles, $38,608,000 is rescinded: Provided 
     further, That the Secretary of Homeland Security shall submit 
     to the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the 
     House of Representatives, in conjunction with the President's 
     fiscal year 2009 budget, a review of the Revised Deepwater 
     Implementation Plan that identifies any changes to the plan 
     for the fiscal year; an annual performance comparison of 
     Deepwater assets to pre-Deepwater legacy assets; a status 
     report of legacy assets; a detailed explanation of how the 
     costs of legacy assets are being accounted for within the 
     Deepwater program; and the earned value management system 
     gold card data for each Deepwater asset: Provided further, 
     That the Secretary shall submit to the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the Senate and the House of Representatives 
     a comprehensive review of the Revised Deepwater 
     Implementation Plan every five years, beginning in fiscal 
     year 2011, that includes a complete projection of the 
     acquisition costs and schedule for the duration of the plan 
     through fiscal year 2027: Provided further, That the 
     Secretary shall annually submit to the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the Senate and the House of 
     Representatives, at the time that the President's budget is 
     submitted under section 1105(a) of title 31, United States 
     Code, a future-years capital investment plan for the Coast 
     Guard that identifies for each capital budget line item--
       (1) the proposed appropriation included in that budget;
       (2) the total estimated cost of completion;
       (3) projected funding levels for each fiscal year for the 
     next five fiscal years or until project completion, whichever 
     is earlier;
       (4) an estimated completion date at the projected funding 
     levels; and
       (5) changes, if any, in the total estimated cost of 
     completion or estimated completion date from previous future-
     years capital investment plans submitted to the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the Senate and the House of 
     Representatives:

     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.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Bilbray

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Bilbray:
       Page 26, line 10, after the first dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $150,000,000)''.
       Page 26, line 22, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $150,000,000)''.
       Page 39, line 14, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $150,000,000)''.
       Page 41, line 7, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $150,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray) and the gentleman from North 
Carolina (Mr. Price) each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, after the tragedy of 9/11, the 9/11 
Commission came forth with some very distinct recommendations. And one 
of their most distinct recommendations was that we need to have a 
secure minimum standard for identification within the United States. 
The REAL ID bill was our answer to that and it was a bipartisan effort 
to make sure that we correct a deficiency that was identified by the 9/
11 Commission. My amendment is very clear. It strikes $150 million out 
of the integrated Deepwater system program which has been identified 
with major problems, moves it over to a program that we all admit is 
underfunded and needs to be addressed and aids in the implementation of 
this most essential program.
  All it says is that we now are going to commit $150 million to the 
program which will raise it up to $200 million to help our States 
fulfill their responsibility to provide viable, verifiable 
identification for every American and every legal resident within the 
United States.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant 
opposition to this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman seeks to add $150 million to fund REAL ID 
grants while cutting the Coast Guard's Deepwater program. I'm certainly 
sympathetic to the gentleman's basic idea of providing some funding for 
REAL ID. In fact, we added in this bill $50 million that was not 
requested by the administration in order to put some seed funds out 
there, to get the department in gear to adequately assess what the 
Federal Government must do to assist States in complying with this 
Federal mandate, which many of us have heard concerns about from our 
home States.
  I am certainly sympathetic with the idea of getting some seed funding 
out there for REAL ID. But I have to take issue with the offset, with 
the source of these funds. The gentleman is proposing to take $150 
million from the Coast Guard's Deepwater program.
  Now, he rightly notes that the Deepwater program has had financial 
management problems. The committee is well aware of that. We have 
explored them thoroughly both under the former chairman, Mr. Rogers, 
and this year. Deepwater is one of the items in this bill that, while 
we place great importance on it, great emphasis on it, we are trying to 
make a very careful decision about the amount provided and the 
conditions under which it is provided.
  The bottom line is that this bill is already $197 million below the 
President's request for the Coast Guard's Deepwater acquisition 
program. There are reductions to projects with high carryover funding. 
There are reductions in projects where the lead asset,

[[Page 15898]]

the first of a series to be purchased, has not yet been tested. In 
fact, we've been discussing some of those situations tonight. So we're 
reducing the program. We're also restoring accountability. $400 million 
of Deepwater funding is withheld pending the submission of a detailed 
management and expenditure plan.
  So we are well aware of the Deepwater challenges. But I think in 
light of the way we have dealt with them and the level of funding we 
have provided, another $150 million cut would be most unwise. So my 
opposition is more out of a concern for that than it is out of any 
inclination to downplay the REAL ID challenge. It's more in terms of 
this offset that I have to oppose this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Like the chairman, I am sympathetic with the 
gentleman's concern about funding for REAL ID. It is a mandate that we 
put on the States that we need to match money for. And we've done that. 
As the chairman indicated, there's $50 million in this bill which was 
unrequested by the administration. In addition to that, there's $40 
million that was put in this program in '06 and most of that is 
unobligated. So there will be around $90 million that REAL ID has. So 
there's plenty of money, I think, in the REAL ID program. The 
gentleman, I think, should be pleased with that.
  But at the same time, I must say that we can't afford to take more 
money out of the Deepwater program. This subcommittee has maintained 
aggressive oversight of that program. But this bill also makes, as the 
chairman said, substantial cuts already of almost $200 million to 
Deepwater that will, in effect, slow down the program's acquisition 
schedule and delay the much-needed modernization of the Coast Guard's 
ships and aircraft.
  Specifically, the bill cuts $60 million from the National Security 
Cutter, $70 million from the Maritime Patrol Aircraft, and over $50 
million from the Fast Response Cutter. Now, those reductions are made 
in the name of good oversight, but I fear that the security of shores 
will be further delayed by these sizable reductions, and may 
unnecessarily prolong the operation of antiquated systems, some dating 
back to World War II.
  We're confident the Coast Guard is putting in place the right 
managerial tools and controls and organizational improvements to get 
Deepwater heading in the right direction. But let me be clear. Mr. 
Chairman, no one has been harder on Deepwater than this Member. Too 
much of our national security is at stake for the Coast Guard to 
continue to struggle with inadequate managerial and budgetary controls. 
I think the commandant of the Coast Guard now has seized control of 
this program, and I am convinced that he is on the right track and will 
have the capability to make it work.
  And so while we're cutting Deepwater in this bill and putting 
controls on how they spend their money, they still need this money, and 
this amendment would cut too much from the Deepwater program for a REAL 
ID program that is flush with money already.
  So I oppose the amendment reluctantly and congratulate the gentleman 
for his thoughtful but misplaced amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, there have already been three States that 
have opted out of REAL ID because they say they don't have the money to 
implement it. The terrorists of 9/11 did not slip through the Coast 
Guard along our coastline. I represent a coastal district. The fact is 
we need to make some priority decisions here. What is the real threat 
to the American people? The threat is the use of false identification 
to get on airplanes, to get access into government buildings, to do 
other types of wrongful deeds against the American people is because we 
do not have a secure ID today. The 9/11 report did not say a critical 
national defense purpose to defend our Nation from terrorism is that we 
need Deepwater. But they did say we absolutely need to have secure 
documentation within this country.
  So we have to make a priority decision. And as somebody of a naval 
family, somebody of a coastal community, I understand the Coast Guard 
is important, but this is a priority decision. REAL ID not only should 
and needs to be implemented now, it should have been implemented years 
ago. But the lack of funding should not be an excuse for us to do the 
right thing that is essential. If you're not going to follow the 9/11 
report, then why the heck even have the committee report? If you're 
going to follow the bureaucracy that says let's keep defending America 
the way we did for the last hundred years and not upgrade to the 
realities of today?
  The 9/11 report has said, one of the first priorities must be 
securing our documentation. With this amendment, we will be saying we 
will not only be economically viable, we will be intellectually smart 
in the way we defend our country.
  This amendment is quite simple. It says, you have problems with the 
Deepwater project right now, let's talk about it and work those 
problems out, but we know right now we do not have the time to delay at 
implementing a secure identification system for this country. Let's 
work with our States, let's give them the grants so they don't have an 
excuse not to do the right thing, to make sure that when our citizens 
get on an airplane, we know that everyone who got on that airplane got 
on with a secure document and that they can be reassured that it's safe 
to fly in America and that America is safe because the Congress did the 
right thing and gave the resources for secure identification so we can 
have a secure Nation.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I yield to Mr. Farr from California.
  Mr. FARR. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for yielding.
  I wasn't even going to speak on this issue, but I have to concur with 
my Chair and ranking member, and I'll tell you why, Mr. Bilbray. The 
Deepwater project, the first Deepwater vessel is being delivered to 
Alameda, California. As you know, the Alameda office is in charge of 
the entire ocean from California to the Indian Ocean, half the world. 
The other half is monitored by this side. If you think that that 
operation isn't about national security with the vessels that are in 
the entire Pacific and with the drugs that are being run up through the 
ocean from South America, I don't think we can afford to take the 
newest vessel which is going through all its trials and sea trials and 
is going to be stationed in our own State and cut funding that's going 
to affect that. I hear you. I think we need to do something about 
identification, but I frankly think that if you're thinking that REAL 
ID is going to solve that identification problem, all IDs tell you is 
that you are who you are. There is no national ID. There is no 
citizenship ID. There's nobody in this room that has a card in their 
wallet that shows that they're an American citizen. You may have a 
driver's license. You don't have to be an American citizen to have a 
driver's license. You may have a Social Security card. You don't have 
to be an American citizen to have a Social Security card. There is no 
card. You may have a passport. Very few Americans have them, but those 
who have them, that shows that you are an American citizen.
  The issue is whether these fake IDs which the States are working with 
can be made more secure, and I think that's important to do, but I 
don't think that's going to answer your national ID issue. It's not.

                              {time}  0000

  Frankly, this is a debate worth having. We are not having it here, we 
are not having it on your amendment, we are not having it tonight 
because I think the real debate is: Is this the

[[Page 15899]]

time in the development of our country where we really ought to form an 
ID? I have been opposed to it. If you look at the politics, the left 
and the right have been very much opposed to having a national ID 
program. But if you are going to do it, it is going to need to make 
much more sense than 58, our States plus our territories, all having 
different measurements and not having any one way to tell if it is a 
citizenship issue which you want to talk about, which is what this 
Border Patrol and Customs is all about. This is not the way to do it, 
and certainly not cutting money from a budget that has already been 
whacked and oversighted and conditioned more than any other budget item 
than in this bill.
  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I yield to the gentleman from 
California.
  Mr. BILBRAY. The Governor of California supports this legislation. 
The fact is, the Fraternal Order of Police, because they say we have a 
standard now, it is REAL ID, but allow us to implement it. It is a 
time-sensitive issue. I understand Deepwater needs to be addressed. But 
you have to admit, there are major problems with Deepwater. But right 
now, there is a major crisis in getting the resources to the local 
States to implement the REAL ID bill.
  You may not agree with the REAL ID bill, but our own Governor and the 
Fraternal Order of Police understand. This is one of those little 
things that don't seem important, but law enforcement and the Governor 
say please, this is one of the things that local government can do to 
fulfill.
  Mr. FARR. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I yield to the gentleman from 
California.
  Mr. FARR. It is very interesting. I am from California, and I sit on 
the committee and I have never heard from the Governor about your 
amendment, nor anyone else in California. I support the chairman and 
the ranking member's opposition.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance 
of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California 
will be postponed.
  If there are no further amendments to this paragraph, the Clerk will 
read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


                         alteration of bridges

       For necessary expenses for alteration or removal of 
     obstructive bridges, as authorized by section 6 of the Act of 
     July 16, 1952 (chapter 409; 33 U.S.C. 516), $16,000,000, to 
     remain available until expended.


              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; $22,583,000, to remain 
     available until expended, 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.


                              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, $1,184,720,000, 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 645 vehicles for police-
     type use for replacement only, and 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 where a 
     protective assignment during 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; $1,392,171,000, of which not to exceed 
     $25,000 shall be for official reception and representation 
     expenses: Provided, That up to $18,000,000 provided for 
     protective travel shall remain available until September 30, 
     2009: Provided further, That the United States Secret Service 
     is authorized to obligate funds in anticipation of 
     reimbursements from Executive agencies, as defined in section 
     105 of title 5, United States Code, 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 notwithstanding section 
     503(b) of this Act, none of the funds provided to the United 
     States Secret Service by this or any previous appropriations 
     Act shall be available for obligation or expenditure for 
     programs, projects, or activities through a reprogramming of 
     funds in excess of $2,500,000 or 5 percent, whichever is 
     less, that: (1) augments existing programs, projects, or 
     activities; (2) reduces by 5 percent funding for any existing 
     program, project, or activity, or reduces by 5 percent 
     numbers of personnel as approved by the Congress; or (3) 
     results from any general savings from a reduction in 
     personnel that would result in a change in existing programs, 
     projects, or activities as approved by Congress; unless the 
     Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the House of 
     Representatives are notified 15 days in advance of such 
     reprogramming of funds.


                 Amendment No. 102 Offered by Mr. Dent

  Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 102 offered by Mr. Dent:
       Page 33, line 15, after ``of which'' insert the following: 
     ``$853,690,000 is for protective missions and''.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I rise today to offer this amendment to help the United States Secret 
Service meet its protection obligations.
  This Homeland Security appropriations bill funds the Secret Service 
to the tune of $1.39 billion. The plain language of the bill does not 
specify how these moneys should be allocated as between the Secret 
Service's protection and investigative operations. However, the 
committee report provides that $849.6 million should go to protective 
missions, while approximately $314.5 million is allocated to 
investigations.
  While I sincerely commend the Appropriations Committee for providing 
these funds to the Secret Service, I would respectfully submit that the 
committee has underestimated the demands placed upon the Service's 
protection mission during this Presidential election cycle. 
Accordingly, my amendment would add approximately $4 million to that 
protection function from those moneys that would otherwise go to 
investigations.
  This funding upgrade is required because of the increased 
responsibilities

[[Page 15900]]

 thrust upon the Secret Service's protection component within the last 
few years. Before 9/11, the Secret Service had 20 protectees. Since 9/
11, that number has increased to 54. Just last month, the number of 
protectees reached 55 when a Presidential hopeful was given Secret 
Service protection, at an estimated cost of about $44,000 per day. This 
additional expenditure was never considered in the President's budget 
request.
  Now is not the time to strip $4 million from the Service's protective 
missions, particularly when the cost to protect Senator Obama for just 
the first 4 months of fiscal year 2008 are estimated at $5.456 million. 
This amendment ensures that the Secret Service is not bound by the 
report language which would transfer $4 million from the Joint 
Operations Center relocation to the field investigations account.
  I believe that the actions by the committee have made sure that the 
Secret Service will still be able to perform its investigatory 
functions with its usual skill and alacrity. In that regard, the 
committee had the foresight to provide the field investigation units of 
the Secret Service a plus-up of $10.4 million over and above the amount 
the President requested for investigations.
  On May 29, 2007, just a few weeks ago, the Washington Post reported 
that the Secret Service was transferring agents from investigations to 
security details and borrowing law enforcement officers from other 
Federal agencies in order to meet its protection obligations. Faced 
with wartime security needs, the threat of terrorism, and a field of 20 
Presidential contenders, the Washington Post continued that the Service 
was ``showing signs of strain'' even before the Department of Homeland 
Security ordered protection for Senator Obama. It is my hope that this 
amendment will help to ease that strain and allow this dedicated group 
of professionals to keep performing at the high level to which we have 
all become accustomed.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Does any Member wish to oppose the amendment?
  Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Are there any other amendments to this 
paragraph?
  If not, the Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


     acquisition, construction, improvements, and related expenses

       For necessary expenses for acquisition, construction, 
     repair, alteration, and improvement of facilities, 
     $3,725,000, to remain available until expended.

       TITLE III--PROTECTION, PREPAREDNESS, RESPONSE AND RECOVERY

              National Protection and Programs Directorate


                     management and administration

       For salaries and expenses of the immediate Office of the 
     Under Secretary for National Protection and Programs, the 
     National Protection Planning Office, support for operations, 
     information technology, and Risk Management and Analysis, 
     $40,346,000: 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.), $532,881,000, of which $471,787,000 shall 
     remain available until September 30, 2009.


    United States Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology

       For necessary expenses for the development of the United 
     States Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology 
     project, as authorized by section 110 of the Illegal 
     Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 
     (8 U.S.C. 1365a), $462,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended: Provided, That of the total amount made available 
     under this heading, $232,000,000 may not be obligated for the 
     United States Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator 
     Technology project until the Committees on Appropriations of 
     the Senate and the House of Representatives receive and 
     approve a plan for expenditure prepared by the Secretary of 
     Homeland Security that--
       (1) meets the capital planning and investment control 
     review requirements established by the Office of Management 
     and Budget, including Circular A-11, part 7;
       (2) complies with the Department of Homeland Security 
     information systems enterprise architecture;
       (3) complies with the acquisition rules, requirements, 
     guidelines, and systems acquisition management practices of 
     the Federal Government;
       (4) includes a certification by the Chief Information 
     Officer of the Department of Homeland Security that an 
     independent verification and validation agent is currently 
     under contract for the project;
       (5) is reviewed and approved by the Department of Homeland 
     Security Investment Review Board, the Secretary of Homeland 
     Security, and the Office of Management and Budget;
       (6) is reviewed by the Government Accountability Office;
       (7) includes a comprehensive strategic plan for the United 
     States Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology 
     project;
       (8) includes a complete schedule for the full 
     implementation of a biometric exit program or a certification 
     that such program is not possible within five years; and
       (9) includes a detailed accounting of operation and 
     maintenance, contractor services, and program costs 
     associated with the management of identity services:

     Provided further, That quarterly status reports on the US-
     VISIT program submitted to the Committees on Appropriations 
     of the Senate and House of Representatives shall include 
     reporting on coordination with Western Hemisphere Travel 
     Initiative planning and implementation, the Secure Border 
     Initiative, and other Departmental efforts that relate to US-
     VISIT goals and activities.

                        Office of Health Affairs

       For the necessary expenses of the Office of Health Affairs, 
     $117,933,000; of which $25,750,000 is for salaries and 
     expenses; and of which $92,183,000 is for biosurveillance, 
     BioWatch, medical readiness planning, chemical response, and 
     other activities, to remain available until September 30, 
     2009: Provided, That not to exceed $3,000 shall be for 
     official reception and representation expenses.

                  Federal Emergency Management Agency


                     management and administration

       For necessary expenses for management and administration of 
     the Federal Emergency Management Agency, $685,000,000, 
     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 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.), and the 
     Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 101 et seq.): 
     Provided, That not to exceed $3,000 shall be for official 
     reception and representation expenses: Provided further, That 
     of the total amount made available under this heading, 
     $35,000,000 shall be for Urban Search and Rescue, of which 
     not to exceed $1,600,000 may be made available for 
     administrative costs: Provided further, That no less than 
     $6,000,000 shall be for the Office of the National Capital 
     Region Coordination.


                 Amendment No. 97 Offered by Mr. Jindal

  Mr. JINDAL. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 97 offered by Mr. Jindal:
       Page 38, line 17, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $5,000,000)''.
        Page 44, line 20, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $5,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Jindal) and the gentleman from North 
Carolina (Mr. Price) each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. JINDAL. Mr. Chairman, as witnessed in 2005, the response to 
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita was hampered by failure of identifying 
needs, and delays in delivering support. In preparation for this year's 
hurricane season, FEMA has engaged each of the 18 hurricane impact 
States, including the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and the Territories, 
in a focused effort to identify strengths and weaknesses in their 
preparedness capabilities.
  FEMA used a gap analysis tool that was developed in coordination with 
the State of New York Emergency Management Office and the New York City 
Office of Emergency Management. This tool was successful in identifying

[[Page 15901]]

vulnerabilities in New York, and it is now being implemented to provide 
FEMA, States, and local governments in the hurricane-prone regions of 
the country with a snapshot of asset gaps.
  Although FEMA has not yet released its full analysis, the agency has 
found significant gaps and shortfalls in hurricane preparedness among 
the targeted areas.
  Indeed, according to recent testimony before both the House and 
Senate Homeland Security Committees, FEMA Administrator David Paulison 
recognized Louisiana, in particular, as having a fragile state of 
recovery. He indicated that the State still needs assistance in finding 
shelter space in adjacent States, ensuring sufficient transportation 
resources to conduct timely and effective evacuation, positioning 
commodities, and caring for those with critical medical needs.
  We are already now several days into the current hurricane season, 
and there is an urgent need to assist States and local governments in 
addressing their hurricane preparedness weaknesses.
  It makes no sense to identify but not address these gaps. My 
amendment adds $5 million to the Disaster Relief Fund, specifically the 
Disaster Support Account, to enable FEMA to begin assisting these 
States and local governments by strengthening their preparedness 
capabilities.
  The initiative would build upon a joint effort between State 
Emergency Management representatives and FEMA regional representatives 
to understand and bridge potential disaster response asset gaps in the 
critical area of debris removal, evacuation, sheltering, interim 
housing, health care facilities, commodity distribution, 
communications, fuel, or other vulnerabilities intrinsic to those 
areas.
  The $5 million would be offset by a reduction in FEMA management and 
administration. The underlying bill allocates $685 million for this 
purpose, which is $17 million above the requested amount from the 
administration.
  In my State, levees and floodwalls are still under repair and 
thousands of disaster victims are still housed in temporary travel 
trailers. Louisiana and other impacted States cannot afford to 
exacerbate vulnerabilities with shortfalls in emergency planning, 
communication and supplies. It is imperative that we provide the 
resources necessary to protect the lives of our citizens. Hurricanes 
Katrina and Rita demonstrated the awful consequences of not being 
prepared before the next natural disaster.
  I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to 
the gentleman's amendment, but I rise mainly to raise questions with 
him and see if we can't work something out on this because I very much 
identify with what he is trying to achieve here. After all, North 
Carolina is very hurricane-prone.
  We certainly support your goals, support the gentleman's goals in 
building up preparedness. But I believe moving money around within 
FEMA, as the gentleman has proposed, is unlikely to achieve the goal. 
Let me explain why I think that is so.
  The gentleman is proposing to move funds from the management and 
administration account at FEMA to the disaster relief account. However, 
FEMA tells us and I believe this is accurate, the very account that 
FEMA uses to support the activity that the gentleman is interested in 
is the management and administration account. Now we are providing a 
good bit of money here. We are providing adequate funding, I believe, 
for identifying hurricane-related preparedness gaps within the FEMA 
management and administration accounts. We are funding it at $685 
million. That is $150 million above the current fiscal year. But we 
don't want to take money from that account, particularly when it is 
being applied to the very purpose the gentleman identifies.
  So here is what I would like to suggest, Mr. Chairman. If the 
gentleman would be willing to withdraw the amendment, I would certainly 
be happy to work with him to ensure that FEMA is fulfilling its 
responsibilities on identifying preparedness gaps related to 
hurricanes.
  The season is approaching, and we need to assure ourselves about 
that. I fully appreciate that goal. And as the conference approaches, 
if there are further ways that we can address this, we should. But I do 
suggest that the amendment be withdrawn because I think there needs to 
be some further investigation of exactly which accounts we are talking 
about to perform the functions that the gentleman is concerned about.
  Mr. JINDAL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. JINDAL. I certainly appreciate the chairman's support. Based on 
his commitment, I would like to work with him.
  My concern is in talking to FEMA, they didn't think that funds had 
been allocated to actually act on the gaps that have been identified. I 
know that in previous instances, we have used this account, the 
disaster support account, with the disaster relief fund, we have used 
that for support activities previously to support disasters; for 
example, the National Processing Service Center.
  My intent was to make sure that there was actually funding to act on 
these gaps. Again in our conversations with FEMA staff, it had been 
expressed to us they hadn't identified funding to address these gaps. 
It is not important to me which fund it comes out of. I want to make 
sure that there is funding and that FEMA understands it is 
congressional intent for them to actually act on these gaps now that 
they have been identified.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I can assure the gentleman, Mr. 
Chairman, that I will work with him in communicating that priority.
  We have also had our staff in consultations, and we are told that 
management and administration is the correct account for what the 
gentleman is talking about.

                              {time}  0015

  We'll need to do a little more work on that. We'll confer with you. 
So we will appreciate the chance to collaborate going forward.
  Mr. JINDAL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. JINDAL. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman, I want to 
thank the ranking member for their work with me, not only on this 
amendment, but on the stated goal of helping our States become 
prepared.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to compliment the 
gentleman. He's been very hard working on these whole issues, and I 
appreciate him bringing this to our attention and appreciate the 
chairman being willing to listen further to your request.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.
  Mr. JINDAL. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


                        state and local programs

       For grants, contracts, cooperative agreements, and other 
     activities, including grants to State and local governments 
     for terrorism prevention activities, notwithstanding any 
     other provision of law, $3,101,000,000, which shall be 
     allocated as follows:
       (1) $550,000,000 for formula-based grants and $400,000,000 
     for law enforcement terrorism prevention grants pursuant to 
     section 1014 of the USA PATRIOT ACT (42 U.S.C. 3714): 
     Provided, That the application for grants shall be made 
     available to States within 45 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act; that States shall submit applications 
     within 90 days after the grant announcement; and the Federal 
     Emergency Management Agency shall act within 90 days after 
     receipt of an application: Provided further, That not less

[[Page 15902]]

     than 80 percent of any grant under this paragraph to a State 
     or to Puerto Rico shall be made available by the State or 
     Puerto Rico to local governments within 60 days after the 
     receipt of the funds.
       (2) $1,858,000,000 for discretionary grants, as determined 
     by the Secretary of Homeland Security, of which--
       (A) $800,000,000 shall be for use in high-threat, high-
     density urban areas;
       (B) $400,000,000 shall be for port security grants pursuant 
     to section 70107 of title 46, United States Code;
       (C) $10,000,000 shall be for trucking industry security 
     grants;
       (D) $11,000,000 shall be for intercity bus security grants;
       (E) $400,000,000 shall be for intercity rail passenger 
     transportation (as defined in section 24102 of title 49, 
     United States Code), freight rail, and transit security 
     grants;
       (F) $50,000,000 shall be for buffer zone protection grants;
       (G) $20,000,000 shall be for Commercial Equipment Direct 
     Assistance grants;
       (H) $50,000,000 shall be for Metropolitan Medical Response 
     System grants;
       (I) $17,000,000 shall be for Citizen Corps grants;
       (J) $50,000,000 shall be for interoperable communications 
     grants; and
       (K) $50,000,000 shall be for Real ID grants pursuant to 
     Public Law 109-13:

     Provided, That for grants under subparagraph (A), the 
     application for grants shall be made available to States 
     within 45 days after the date of enactment of this Act; that 
     States shall submit applications within 90 days after the 
     grant announcement; and that the Federal Emergency Management 
     Agency shall act within 90 days after receipt of an 
     application: Provided further, That no less than 80 percent 
     of any grant under this paragraph to a State shall be made 
     available by the State to local governments within 60 days 
     after the receipt of the funds: Provided further, That for 
     grants under subparagraphs (B) through (K), the applications 
     for such grants shall be made available for competitive award 
     to eligible applicants not later than 75 days after the date 
     of enactment of this Act, that eligible applicants shall 
     submit applications not later than 45 days after the date of 
     the grant announcement, and that the Federal Emergency 
     Management Agency shall act on such applications not later 
     than 60 days after the date on which such an application is 
     received.
       (3) $293,000,000 for training, exercises, technical 
     assistance, and other programs:

     Provided, That none of the grants provided under this heading 
     shall be used for the construction or renovation of 
     facilities, except for emergency operations centers: Provided 
     further, That the preceding proviso shall not apply to grants 
     under subparagraphs (B), (C), (D), (F), (G), (H), (I), (J), 
     and (K) of paragraph (2) of this heading: Provided further, 
     That grantees shall provide additional reports on their use 
     of funds, as determined necessary by the Secretary of 
     Homeland Security: Provided further, That funds appropriated 
     for law enforcement terrorism prevention grants under 
     paragraph (1) of this heading and discretionary grants under 
     paragraph (2)(A) of this heading shall be available for 
     operational costs, including personnel overtime and overtime 
     associated with certified training, as needed.


               Amendment Offered by Mr. Davis of Kentucky

  Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Davis of Kentucky:
       Page 39, line 14, after the dollar amount insert 
     ``(increased by $5,000,000)''
       Page 39, line 16, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced 
     by $5,000,000)''.
       Page 39, line 17, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced 
     by $5,000,000)''.
       Page 40, line 5, after the dollar amount insert 
     ``(increased by $15,000,000)''.
       Page 40, line 8, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced 
     by $5,000,000)''.
       Page 40, line 10, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced 
     by $5,000,000)''.
       Page 40, line 17, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced 
     by $5,000,000)''.
       Page 40, line 23, after the dollar amount insert 
     ``(increased by $30,000,000)''.
       Page 42, line 25, after each dollar amount insert 
     ``(reduced by $5,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Davis) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an 
amendment to restore funding that directly impacts the emergency 
response capabilities of rural and small community first responders.
  The Commercial Equipment Direct Assistance Program, or CEDAP, is a 
critical resource for equipping first responders in rural and small 
communities around the country, especially in America's heartland. For 
each of the last 3 fiscal years, Congress has wisely provided $50 
million for CEDAP. CEDAP is designed to help first responders in small 
and rural communities to purchase much-needed equipment.
  This year's bill would cut that funding by 60 percent, but increases 
other grant programs by over $2.6 billion. It would cut from $50 
million in last year's CEDAP funding to only $20 million this year. 
It's also worth noting that the House-passed bill for fiscal year 2007 
would have provided $75 million, a 50 percent increase to assist our 
small cities and rural communities.
  My amendment will restore funding for this vital program to $50 
million. To offset this funding increase, my amendment would take $5 
million from each of six other very large grant programs, totaling a 
$2.6 billion increase in grant security spending overall, each of which 
will still receive a massive increase over last year, even if my 
amendment is adopted.
  By only approving $20 million in this year's bill, we risk severely 
impacting the capabilities for emergency response in our small and 
rural communities. In addition, CEDAP is a program with a proven track 
record of accountability and success.
  While the committee responsibly proposed increasing State and local 
grant programs by hundreds of millions of dollars and anticipates this 
will benefit some of these same communities, that result is no means a 
guarantee. CEDAP is designed to guarantee that our small communities 
receive needed first responder equipment. And I believe it's our 
mandate from Congress to assure that small communities are protected.
  The committee report says it expects overall increased funding to 
benefit the CEDAP communities, but that is not guaranteed in statute. 
We must not cut this critical funding.
  If my amendment is adopted, the House will affirm its commitment to 
safety and prosperity of our rural communities, without severely 
burdening any other program. Each of the programs selected as a part of 
this offset would still receive a massive increase over last year's 
enacted amount if my amendment is adopted.
  The House should maintain level funding for CEDAP to ensure that 
communities continue to benefit from this direct assistance program. 
The proposed cut I believe is a terrible message for the new Congress 
to send to rural and small communities who benefit directly from this 
program despite the soundness of the underlying overall bill.
  With funding at the $50 million level, the Department issued 
approximately 1,800 CEDAP grants in fiscal year 2006 to small town and 
rural community police departments, fire departments, EMS units, 
sheriff departments, cities, towns, counties, universities and others. 
If this $20 million number stands for fiscal year 2008, this Congress 
will likely be cutting these rural and small town grants from roughly 
1,800 to 720. This is the wrong direction for this Congress and for 
this important homeland security program, just as the fiscal year 2007 
application process is under way.
  The committee increased funding for urban grants by $50 million for a 
total of $800 million. Certainly we can maintain CEDAP for rural 
communities at a level of $50 million, instead of cutting it 60 
percent. In this year's bill, funding for a majority of programs is 
hugely increased, including important urban programs. I mentioned 
before $2.6 billion of critical grant increases while cutting this one 
by 60 percent.
  My amendment would only reduce these programs by $5 million. While 
the increases are important, the committee has unreasonably targeted 
the CEDAP account for a 60 percent cut, while finding hundreds of 
millions of dollars in new spending.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  I rise to thank the gentleman for his amendment and indicate that I'm 
hopeful we can work with him on this

[[Page 15903]]

CEDAP program. I certainly support it. Many on our side of the aisle 
support it. We understand the value that it provides for rural 
communities in need of emergency response equipment.
  We were frankly surprised that the President zeroed out this program. 
We think that was unwise. As the gentleman has stated, we restored the 
CEDAP program to $20 million, but we were faced with the challenge of 
needing to work on a number of the grant programs to bring them up to 
the levels needed.
  The gentleman presumably not knowing quite where else to turn has 
proposed reducing some of those programs to make up the difference here 
with CEDAP. Some of those offsets we're not particularly happy with, 
the State grants, the fire grants, the port security grants and so 
forth.
  So it's a difficult problem. The gentleman knows quite well that this 
program has strong support in this House. I'm well aware of that. It 
has strong support in the other body. We will be going to conference 
and trying to come to an understanding of what level we can afford here 
and what level is wise.
  So while I can't support the amendment in its present form, I 
certainly don't want to downplay the challenge here, and I want to 
assure the gentleman that going forward we're aware of this need. We're 
aware of his concern in particular, and we will work very hard to 
address it.
  Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I respect greatly the work of 
the chairman and the ranking member to craft I think a very strong bill 
overall.
  We face problems in protecting our rural communities. I believe the 
three of us all have many rural communities that face challenges. 
Working in another committee, we've faced challenges in protecting 
rural housing grants for affordable housing programs to make sure 
they're not subsumed by the large urban areas in the States.
  And I'd ask the gentleman if he would consider in this conference 
process finding a way to segment or protect, if not in the form 
directly of the CEDAP dollars, but to make sure that a mechanism is 
considered to protect our rural communities and small towns to have 
access to this needed equipment.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Reclaiming my time, I most certainly do 
make that pledge to you both in terms of looking at the CEDAP dollars 
and also in terms of finding other ways that we can address this need.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  I want to first thank the chairman for including $20 million in this 
program when it was zeroed out in the budget request and also to 
congratulate my colleague from Kentucky (Mr. Davis) for this amendment 
which I strongly support.
  It increases the funds for this CEDAP program by $30 million to get 
it back up to the historic funding level of $50 million. That's what 
we've always had in this program. In fact, Mr. Chairman, this program 
was created by this subcommittee in fiscal year 2005, and the reason 
was we found that a lot of small towns and small communities were not 
being able to get grants out of their State allocations or these other 
grant programs because the moneys were being consumed by the larger 
cities. And this was the only way we could find to get money directly 
to those smaller communities.
  These are not grants that go to the State. These grants go directly 
from here to the local community, designed to target those areas that 
may not directly benefit from the large amounts of grant funding 
because of competing priorities within the States or larger urban 
areas. It gets basic first responder equipment into all first responder 
hands.
  And it's been one of the most successful programs DHS has run. It 
made close to 4,000 awards in fiscal 2005 and 2006, another 2,000 
awards for fiscal 2007.
  There is some report language in the bill that changes how the 
program is run from a direct assistance program to a grant program. I 
don't necessarily agree with that, but I think it is very important to 
get the level of funding back to the 2007 level of $50 million.
  Listen to what some of the local communities say about this program: 
``Your program is one of the absolutely best run and organized programs 
I have ever seen in the rescue service. The equipment you offer to 
emergency responders for homeland security is right on target for our 
needs in the field.''
  Another one says: ``The CEDAP program has allowed us to obtain, train 
with, and deploy an essential fire fighting tool that we would have 
otherwise not have had available to us.''
  Another one says: ``This award represents a purchase that would have 
not been possible for my agency. Thank you for giving us this 
ability.''
  So, Mr. Chairman, this is a popular program. It is effective. It 
helps communities that otherwise are not getting help and there's no 
other place for them to turn. So I urge our colleagues to support the 
gentleman's amendment and restore funding for this worthwhile program 
to the previous year's level and the level it was set at in 2005 and 
every year since.
  And I want to congratulate Mr. Davis for bringing this amendment 
forward. It's thoughtful, it is needed, and it fits the bill; and I 
congratulate the gentleman and support his amendment.
  Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  I thank the gentleman from Kentucky, I thank the chairman for their 
work on this and the commitment to work on this problem.
  The real issue is not the superficial presenting question itself in 
the form that it takes, but ensuring that our small towns, our rural 
communities have access to these funds in some kind of a manner that 
can be protected. For example, in my district along the Ohio Valley, in 
fact many districts, small towns sit aside critical infrastructure, 
locks, dams, chemical plants, other areas that could be vulnerable to 
threats, and they are the only means of response. And by having this 
access, it will protect them.
  With that commitment, I thank both the ranking member and the 
chairman.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman's amendment is 
withdrawn.
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


                     firefighter assistance grants

       For grants authorized by the Federal Fire Prevention and 
     Control Act of 1974 (15 U.S.C. 2201 et seq.), $800,000,000, 
     of which $570,000,000 shall be available to carry out section 
     33 of that Act (15 U.S.C. 2229) and $230,000,000 shall be 
     available to carry out section 34 of that Act (15 U.S.C. 
     2229a), to remain available until September 30, 2009: 
     Provided, That not to exceed 5 percent of the amount 
     available under this heading shall be available for program 
     administration.


                emergency management performance grants

       For necessary expenses for emergency management performance 
     grants, as 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 Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977 (42 
     U.S.C. 7701 et seq.), and Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978 
     (5 U.S.C. App.), $300,000,000: Provided, That grants provided 
     under this heading shall be distributed based on the formula 
     used by the Department of Homeland Security in fiscal year 
     2007: Provided further, That total administrative costs shall 
     not exceed 3 percent of the total amount appropriated under 
     this heading.


              radiological emergency preparedness program

       The aggregate charges assessed during fiscal year 2008, as 
     authorized in title III of the Departments of Veterans 
     Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and Independent 
     Agencies Appropriations Act, 1999 (42 U.S.C. 5196e), shall 
     not be less than 100 percent of the amount the Secretary of 
     Homeland Security anticipates is necessary for the 
     radiological emergency preparedness program of the Department 
     of Homeland Security for the next fiscal year: Provided, That 
     the methodology for the assessment and collection of fees 
     shall be fair and equitable and shall reflect the cost of 
     providing such services, including the administrative cost of 
     collecting such fees: Provided further, That

[[Page 15904]]

     fees received under this heading shall be deposited in this 
     account as offsetting collections and shall become available 
     for authorized purposes on October 1, 2008, and remain 
     available until expended.


                   united states fire administration

       For necessary expenses of the United States Fire 
     Administration and for other purposes, as authorized by the 
     Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act of 1974 (15 U.S.C. 
     2201 et seq.) and the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 
     101 et seq.), $43,300,000.


                            disaster relief

       For necessary expenses in carrying out the Robert T. 
     Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 
     U.S.C. 5121 et seq.), $1,700,000,000, to remain available 
     until expended.


            disaster assistance direct loan program account

       For activities under section 319 of the Robert T. Stafford 
     Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 
     5162), $875,000, of which $580,000 is for administrative 
     expenses to carry out the direct loan program under that 
     section and $295,000 is for the cost of direct loans: 
     Provided, That gross obligations for the principal amount of 
     direct loans under that section shall not exceed $25,000,000: 
     Provided further, That the cost of a modification of such a 
     loan shall be as defined in section 502(5)(D) of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 661a).


                      flood map modernization fund

       For necessary expenses under section 1360 of the National 
     Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4101), $230,000,000, 
     and such additional sums as may be provided by State and 
     local governments or other political subdivisions for cost-
     shared mapping activities under subsection (f) of such 
     section, to remain available until expended: Provided, That 
     total administrative costs shall not exceed 3 percent of the 
     total amount appropriated under this heading.


                     national flood insurance fund

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For activities under the National Flood Insurance Act of 
     1968 (42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.) and the Flood Disaster 
     Protection Act of 1973 (42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.), 
     $145,000,000, which is available as follows: (1) not to 
     exceed $45,642,000 for salaries and expenses associated with 
     flood mitigation and flood insurance operations; and (2) no 
     less than $99,358,000 for flood hazard mitigation, which 
     shall be derived from offsetting collections assessed and 
     collected under section 1307 of the National Flood Insurance 
     Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4014), to remain available until 
     September 30, 2009, including up to $34,000,000 for flood 
     mitigation expenses under section 1366 of that Act (42 U.S.C. 
     4104c), which shall be available for transfer to the National 
     Flood Mitigation Fund under section 1367 of that Act (42 
     U.S.C. 4104) until September 30, 2009: Provided, That any 
     additional fees collected pursuant to section 1307 of that 
     Act shall be credited as an offsetting collection to this 
     account, to be available for flood hazard mitigation 
     expenses: Provided further, That in fiscal year 2008, no 
     funds shall be available from the National Flood Insurance 
     Fund under section 1310 of that Act (42 U.S.C. 4017) in 
     excess of: (1) $70,000,000 for operating expenses; (2) 
     $773,772,000 for commissions and taxes of agents; (3) such 
     sums as are necessary for interest on Treasury borrowings; 
     and (4) $90,000,000 for flood mitigation actions with respect 
     to severe repetitive loss properties under section 1361A of 
     that Act (42 U.S.C. 4102a) and repetitive insurance claims 
     properties under section 1323 of that Act (42 U.S.C. 4030), 
     which shall remain available until expended: Provided 
     further, That total administrative costs shall not exceed 4 
     percent of the total appropriation.


                     national flood mitigation fund

                     (including transfer of funds)

       Notwithstanding subparagraphs (B) and (C) of subsection 
     (b)(3), and subsection (f), of section 1366 of the National 
     Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4104c), $34,000,000, 
     to remain available until September 30, 2009, for activities 
     designed to reduce the risk of flood damage to structures 
     pursuant to such Act, of which $34,000,000 shall be derived 
     from the National Flood Insurance Fund under section 1310 of 
     that Act (42 U.S.C. 4017).


                 national pre-disaster mitigation fund

       For a predisaster mitigation grant program under title II 
     of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency 
     Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5131 et seq.), $120,000,000, to 
     remain available until expended: Provided, That grants made 
     for predisaster mitigation shall be awarded on a competitive 
     basis subject to the criteria in section 203(g) of such Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 5133(g)): Provided further, That the total 
     administrative costs associated with such grants shall not 
     exceed 3 percent of the total amount made available under 
     this heading.


                       emergency food and shelter

       To carry out an emergency food and shelter program pursuant 
     to title III of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 11331 et seq.), $153,000,000, to remain available 
     until expended: Provided, That total administrative costs 
     shall not exceed 3.5 percent of the total amount made 
     available under this heading.

       TITLE IV--RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, TRAINING, AND SERVICES

           United States Citizenship and Immigration Services

       For necessary expenses for citizenship and immigration 
     services, $30,000,000: Provided, That collections made 
     pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 1356(u) may not be obligated until the 
     Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the House of 
     Representatives, and the Committee on the Judiciary of the 
     House of Representatives, receive a strategic transformation 
     plan for United States Citizenship and Immigration Services 
     that has been reviewed and approved by the Secretary of 
     Homeland Security and reviewed by the Government 
     Accountability Office.

                Federal Law Enforcement Training Center


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Federal Law Enforcement 
     Training Center under section 884 of the Homeland Security 
     Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 464), including materials and support 
     costs of Federal law enforcement basic training; purchase of 
     not to exceed 117 vehicles for police-type use and hire of 
     passenger motor vehicles; expenses for student athletic and 
     related activities; the conduct of and participation in 
     firearms matches and presentation of awards; public awareness 
     and enhancement of community support of law enforcement 
     training; room and board for student interns; a flat monthly 
     reimbursement to employees authorized to use personal mobile 
     phones for official duties; and services as authorized by 
     section 3109 of title 5, United States Code, $219,786,000, of 
     which up to $43,910,000 shall remain available until 
     September 30, 2008 for materials and support costs of Federal 
     law enforcement basic training; of which $300,000 shall 
     remain available until expended for Federal law enforcement 
     agencies participating in training accreditation, to be 
     distributed as determined by the Federal Law Enforcement 
     Training Center for the needs of participating agencies; and 
     of which not to exceed $12,000 shall be for official 
     reception and representation expenses: Provided, That section 
     1202(a) of Public Law 107-206 (42 U.S.C. 3771 note) is 
     amended by striking ``December 31, 2007'' and inserting 
     ``December 31, 2008''.


     acquisition, construction, improvements, and related expenses

       For acquisition of necessary additional real property and 
     facilities, construction, and ongoing maintenance, facility 
     improvements, and related expenses of the Federal Law 
     Enforcement Training Center, $43,270,000, to remain available 
     until expended: Provided, That the Center is authorized to 
     accept reimbursement to this appropriation from Government 
     agencies requesting the construction of special use 
     facilities.

                         Science and Technology


                     management and administration

       For salaries and expenses of the Office of the Under 
     Secretary for Science and Technology and for management and 
     administration of programs and activities, as authorized by 
     title III of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 181 
     et seq.), $130,787,000: Provided, That not to exceed $10,000 
     shall be for official reception and representation expenses.


           research, development, acquisition and operations

       For necessary expenses for science and technology research, 
     including advanced research projects; development; test and 
     evaluation; acquisition; and operations; as authorized by 
     title III of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 181 
     et seq.); $646,325,000, to remain available until expended: 
     Provided, That none of the funds made available under this 
     heading shall be obligated for the Analysis, Dissemination, 
     Visualization, Insight, and Semantic Enhancement program 
     until the Secretary of Homeland Security completes a Privacy 
     Impact Assessment.

                   Domestic Nuclear Detection Office


                     management and administration

       For salaries and expenses of the Domestic Nuclear Detection 
     Office as authorized by the second title XVIII of the 
     Homeland Security Act of 2002 and for management and 
     administration of programs and activities, $31,176,000: 
     Provided, That not to exceed $3,000 shall be for official 
     reception and representation expenses.


                 research, development, and operations

       For necessary expenses for radiological and nuclear 
     research, development, testing, evaluation and operations, 
     $316,900,000, to remain available until expended.


                          systems acquisition

       For expenses for the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office 
     acquisition and deployment of radiological detection systems 
     in accordance with the global nuclear detection architecture, 
     $168,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 2010: 
     Provided, That none of the funds appropriated under this 
     heading shall be obligated for full-scale procurement of 
     Advanced Spectroscopic Portal Monitors until the Secretary of 
     Homeland Security submits to the Committees on Appropriations 
     of the Senate and the House of Representatives a report 
     certifying that a significant increase in operational 
     effectiveness will be achieved by that procurement.

[[Page 15905]]



                      TITLE V--GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 501. No part of any appropriation contained in this 
     Act shall remain available for obligation beyond the current 
     fiscal year unless expressly so provided herein.
       Sec. 502. Subject to the requirements of section 503 of 
     this Act, the unexpended balances of prior appropriations 
     provided for activities in this Act may be transferred to 
     appropriation accounts for such activities established 
     pursuant to this Act: Provided, That balances so transferred 
     may be merged with funds in the applicable established 
     accounts and thereafter may be accounted for as one fund for 
     the same time period as originally enacted.
       Sec. 503. (a) None of the funds provided by this Act, 
     provided by previous appropriations Acts to the agencies in 
     or transferred to the Department of Homeland Security that 
     remain available for obligation or expenditure in fiscal year 
     2008, or provided from any accounts in the Treasury of the 
     United States derived by the collection of fees available to 
     the agencies funded by this Act, shall be available for 
     obligation or expenditure through a reprogramming of funds 
     that: (1) creates a new program; (2) eliminates a program, 
     project, office, or activity; (3) increases funds for any 
     program, project, or activity for which funds have been 
     denied or restricted by the Congress; (4) proposes to use 
     funds directed for a specific activity by either of the 
     Committees on Appropriations of the Senate or House of 
     Representatives for a different purpose; or (5) enters into a 
     contract for the performance of any function or activity for 
     which funds have been appropriated for Federal full-time 
     equivalent positions; unless the Committees on Appropriations 
     of the Senate and the House of Representatives are notified 
     15 days in advance of such reprogramming of funds.
       (b) None of the funds provided by this Act, provided by 
     previous appropriations Acts to the agencies in or 
     transferred to the Department of Homeland Security that 
     remain available for obligation or expenditure in fiscal year 
     2008, or provided from any accounts in the Treasury of the 
     United States derived by the collection of fees available to 
     the agencies funded by this Act, shall be available for 
     obligation or expenditure for programs, projects, or 
     activities through a reprogramming of funds in excess of 
     $5,000,000 or 10 percent, whichever is less, that: (1) 
     augments existing programs, projects, or activities; (2) 
     reduces by 10 percent or more the total amount of funding for 
     any existing program, project, or activity, or numbers of 
     personnel by 10 percent or more as approved by the Congress; 
     or (3) results from any general savings from a reduction in 
     personnel that would result in a change in existing programs, 
     projects, or activities as approved by the Congress; unless 
     the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the House 
     of Representatives are notified 15 days in advance of such 
     reprogramming of funds.
       (c) Not to exceed 5 percent of any appropriation made 
     available for the current fiscal year for the Department of 
     Homeland Security by this Act or provided by previous 
     appropriations Acts may be transferred between such 
     appropriations, but no such appropriations, except as 
     otherwise specifically provided, shall be increased by more 
     than 10 percent by such transfers: Provided, That any 
     transfer under this section shall be treated as a 
     reprogramming of funds under subsection (b) and shall not be 
     available for obligation unless the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the Senate and the House of Representatives 
     are notified 15 days in advance of such transfer.
       (d) Notwithstanding subsections (a), (b), and (c), no funds 
     shall be reprogrammed within or transferred between 
     appropriations after June 30, 2008, except in extraordinary 
     circumstances which imminently threaten the safety of human 
     life or the protection of property.
       Sec. 504. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available to the Department of Homeland Security may be used 
     to make payments to the ``Department of Homeland Security 
     Working Capital Fund'', except for the activities and amounts 
     allowed in the President's fiscal year 2008 budget, excluding 
     sedan service, shuttle service, transit subsidy, mail 
     operations, parking, and competitive sourcing: Provided, That 
     any additional activities and amounts shall be approved by 
     the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the House 
     of Representatives 30 days in advance of obligation.
       Sec. 505. Except as otherwise specifically provided by law, 
     not to exceed 50 percent of unobligated balances remaining 
     available at the end of fiscal year 2008 from appropriations 
     for salaries and expenses for fiscal year 2008 in this Act 
     shall remain available through September 30, 2009, in the 
     account and for the purposes for which the appropriations 
     were provided: Provided, That prior to the obligation of such 
     funds, a request shall be submitted to the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the Senate and the House of Representatives 
     for approval in accordance with section 503 of this Act.
       Sec. 506. Funds made available by this Act for intelligence 
     activities are deemed to be specifically authorized by the 
     Congress for purposes of section 504 of the National Security 
     Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 414) during fiscal year 2008 until the 
     enactment of an Act authorizing intelligence activities for 
     fiscal year 2008.
       Sec. 507. The Federal Law Enforcement Training 
     Accreditation Board shall lead the Federal law enforcement 
     training accreditation process, to include representatives 
     from the Federal law enforcement community and non-Federal 
     accreditation experts involved in law enforcement training, 
     to continue the implementation of measuring and assessing the 
     quality and effectiveness of Federal law enforcement training 
     programs, facilities, and instructors.
       Sec. 508. None of the funds in this Act may be used to make 
     grant allocations, discretionary grant awards, discretionary 
     contract awards, or to issue a letter of intent totaling in 
     excess of $1,000,000, or to announce publicly the intention 
     to make such awards, unless the Secretary of Homeland 
     Security notifies the Committees on Appropriations of the 
     Senate and the House of Representatives at least three full 
     business days in advance: Provided, That no notification 
     shall involve funds that are not available for obligation: 
     Provided further, That the Administrator of the Federal 
     Emergency Management Agency shall brief the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the Senate and the House of Representatives 
     five full business days in advance of announcing publicly the 
     intention of making an award of formula-based grants, law 
     enforcement terrorism prevention grants, or high-threat, 
     high-density urban areas grants: Provided further, That such 
     notification shall include a description of the project or 
     projects to be funded including the city, county, and state.
       Sec. 509. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no 
     agency shall purchase, construct, or lease any additional 
     facilities, except within or contiguous to existing 
     locations, to be used for the purpose of conducting Federal 
     law enforcement training without the advance approval of the 
     Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the House of 
     Representatives, except that the Federal Law Enforcement 
     Training Center is authorized to obtain the temporary use of 
     additional facilities by lease, contract, or other agreement 
     for training which cannot be accommodated in existing Center 
     facilities.
       Sec. 510. The Director of the Federal Law Enforcement 
     Training Center shall schedule basic or advanced law 
     enforcement training at all four training facilities under 
     the control of the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center to 
     ensure that these training centers are operated at the 
     highest capacity throughout the fiscal year.
       Sec. 511. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act may be used for expenses for any 
     construction, repair, alteration, or acquisition project for 
     which a prospectus, if required under chapter 33 of title 40, 
     United States Code, has not been approved, except that 
     necessary funds may be expended for each project for required 
     expenses for the development of a proposed prospectus.
       Sec. 512. None of the funds in this Act may be used in 
     contravention of the applicable provisions of the Buy 
     American Act (41 U.S.C. 10a et seq.).
       Sec. 513. (a) None of the funds provided by this or 
     previous appropriations Acts may be obligated for deployment 
     or implementation, on other than a test basis, of the Secure 
     Flight program or any other follow on or successor passenger 
     prescreening program, until the Secretary of Homeland 
     Security certifies, and the Government Accountability Office 
     reports, to the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate 
     and the House of Representatives, that all 10 conditions 
     under paragraphs (1) through (10) of section 522(a) of the 
     Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2005 
     (Public Law 108-334; 118 Stat. 1319) have been successfully 
     met.
       (b) The report required by subsection (a) shall be 
     submitted within 90 days after the Secretary provides the 
     requisite certification, and periodically thereafter, if 
     necessary, until the Government Accountability Office 
     confirms that all ten conditions have been successfully met.
       (c) Within 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 plan that describes: (1) the dates 
     for achieving key milestones, including the date or 
     timeframes that the Secretary will certify the program under 
     subsection (a); and (2) the methodology to be followed to 
     support the Secretary's certification, as required under 
     subsection (a).
       (d) During the testing phase permitted by subsection (a), 
     no information gathered from passengers, foreign or domestic 
     air carriers, or reservation systems may be used to screen 
     aviation passengers, or delay or deny boarding to such 
     passengers, except in instances where passenger names are 
     matched to a Government watch list.
       (e) None of the funds provided in this or any other Act to 
     any part of the Department of Homeland Security may be 
     utilized to develop or test algorithms assigning risk to 
     passengers whose names are not on Government watch lists.
       (f) None of the funds provided in this or any other Act may 
     be used for data or a database that is obtained from or 
     remains

[[Page 15906]]

     under the control of a non-Federal entity: Provided, That 
     this restriction shall not apply to Passenger Name Record 
     data obtained from air carriers.
       Sec. 514. None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be 
     used to process or approve a competition under Office of 
     Management and Budget Circular A-76 for services provided as 
     of June 1, 2004, by employees (including employees serving on 
     a temporary or term basis) of United States Citizenship and 
     Immigration Services of the Department of Homeland Security 
     who are known as of that date as Immigration Information 
     Officers, Contact Representatives, or Investigative 
     Assistants.
       Sec. 515. None of the funds appropriated to the United 
     States Secret Service by this or any other Act may be made 
     available for the protection of the head of a Federal agency 
     other than the Secretary of Homeland Security: Provided, That 
     the Director of the United States Secret Service may enter 
     into an agreement to perform such a service on a fully 
     reimbursable basis.
       Sec. 516. (a) Section 513 of the Department of Homeland 
     Security Appropriations Act, 2005, is amended by striking 
     ``triple'' and inserting ``double''.
       (b) The amendment made by subsection (a) shall apply to the 
     percentage of cargo inspected as required by Security 
     Directives in effect as of the date of enactment of this Act.
       Sec. 517. (a) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall 
     research, develop, and procure new technologies to inspect 
     and screen air cargo carried on passenger aircraft at the 
     earliest date possible.
       (b) Existing checked baggage explosive detection equipment 
     and screeners shall be used to screen air cargo carried on 
     passenger aircraft to the greatest extent practicable at each 
     airport until technologies developed under subsection (a) are 
     available.
       (c) Not later than 45 days after the end of the quarter, 
     the Transportation Security Administration shall submit to 
     the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the House 
     of Representatives a report on air cargo inspection 
     statistics by airport and air carrier, including any reason 
     for non-compliance with section 516.
       Sec. 518. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used by any person other than the Privacy Officer 
     appointed under section 222 of the Homeland Security Act of 
     2002 (6 U.S.C. 142) to alter, direct that changes be made to, 
     delay, or prohibit the transmission to Congress of any report 
     prepared under paragraph (6) of such section.
       Sec. 519. No funding provided in this or any other Act 
     shall be available to pay the salary of any employee serving 
     as a contracting officer's technical representative (COTR), 
     or anyone acting in a similar capacity, who has not received 
     COTR training.
       Sec. 520. Except as provided in section 44945 of title 49, 
     United States Code, funds appropriated or transferred to 
     Transportation Security Administration ``Aviation Security'', 
     ``Administration'' and ``Transportation Security Support'' 
     for fiscal years 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007 that are 
     recovered or deobligated shall be available only for the 
     procurement or installation of explosive detection systems, 
     for air cargo, baggage, and checkpoint screening systems, 
     subject to notification: Provided, That quarterly reports 
     shall be submitted to the Committees on Appropriations of the 
     Senate and the House of Representatives on any funds that are 
     recovered or deobligated.
       Sec. 521. Section 525 of the Department of Homeland 
     Security Appropriations Act, 2007 (Public Law 109-295), is 
     amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(2)(A) by inserting ``identifies and 
     describes the specific risk to the national transportation 
     system and therefore'' after ``information'';
       (2) in subsection (d) by striking ``like that'' and 
     inserting ``identical to those''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(e) For the purposes of this section, the term `party's 
     counsel' includes any employee who assists counsel in legal 
     proceedings and who is so designated by counsel and approved 
     by the judge overseeing the legal proceedings.''.
       Sec. 522. The Department of Homeland Security Working 
     Capital Fund, established pursuant to  section 403 of Public 
     Law 103-356 (31 U.S.C. 501 note), shall continue operations 
     during fiscal year 2008.
       Sec. 523. (a) The report required by Public Law 109-62 and 
     Public Law 109-90 detailing the allocation and obligation of 
     funds for ``Disaster Relief'' shall hereafter be submitted 
     monthly and include: (1) status of the Disaster Relief Fund 
     including obligations, allocations, and amounts 
     undistributed/unallocated; (2) allocations, obligations, and 
     expenditures for Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma; (3) 
     information on national flood insurance claims; (4) 
     information on manufactured housing data; (5) information on 
     hotel and motel data; (6) obligations, allocations, and 
     expenditures by State for unemployment, crisis counseling, 
     inspections, housing assistance, manufactured housing, public 
     assistance, and individual assistance; (7) mission assignment 
     obligations by agency, including: (A) the amounts reimbursed 
     to other agencies that are in suspense because the Federal 
     Emergency Management Agency has not yet reviewed and approved 
     the documentation supporting the expenditure; and (B) a 
     disclaimer if the amounts of reported obligations and 
     expenditures do not reflect the status of such obligations 
     and expenditures from a government-wide perspective; (8) the 
     amount of credit card purchases by agency and mission 
     assignment; (9) specific reasons for all waivers granted and 
     a description of each waiver; and (10) a list of all 
     contracts that were awarded on a sole source or limited 
     competition basis, including the dollar amount, the purpose 
     of the contract and the reason for the lack of competitive 
     award.
       (b) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall, at least 
     quarterly, obtain and report from each agency performing 
     mission assignments each such agency's actual obligation and 
     expenditure data and include such data in the report referred 
     to in subsection (a).
       (c) For any request for reimbursement from a Federal agency 
     to the Department of Homeland Security to cover expenditures 
     under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency 
     Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.), or any mission 
     assignment orders issued by the Department of Homeland 
     Security for such purposes, the Secretary of Homeland 
     Security shall take appropriate steps to ensure that each 
     agency is periodically reminded of Department of Homeland 
     Security policies on--
       (1) the detailed information required in supporting 
     documentation for reimbursements; and
       (2) the necessity for timeliness of agency billings.
       Sec. 524. Within 45 days after the close of each month, the 
     Chief Financial Officer of the Department of Homeland 
     Security shall submit to the Committees on Appropriations of 
     the Senate and the House of Representatives a monthly budget 
     and staffing report that includes total obligations and on-
     board versus funded full-time equivalent staffing levels.
       Sec. 525. Section 532(a) of Public Law 109-295 is amended 
     by striking ``2007'' and inserting ``2008''.
       Sec. 526. None of the funds made available by this Act 
     shall be used in contravention of the Federal buildings 
     performance and reporting requirements of Executive Order No. 
     13123, part 3 of title V of the National Energy Conservation 
     Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 8251 et seq.), or subtitle A of title I 
     of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (including the amendments 
     made thereby).
       Sec. 527. The functions of the Federal Law Enforcement 
     Training Center instructor staff shall be classified as 
     inherently governmental for the purpose of the Federal 
     Activities Inventory Reform Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 501 note).
       Sec. 528. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used in contravention of section 303 of the Energy Policy 
     Act of 1992 (42 U.S.C. 13212).
       Sec. 529. None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to take an action that would violate Executive Order 
     No. 13149 (65 Fed. Reg. 24607; relating to greening the 
     Government through Federal fleet and transportation 
     efficiency).
       Sec. 530. (a) In General.--Any contract, subcontract, task 
     or delivery order described in subsection (b) shall contain 
     the following:
       (1) A requirement for a technical review of all designs, 
     design changes, and engineering change proposals, and a 
     requirement to specifically address all engineering concerns 
     identified in the review before the obligation of further 
     funds may occur.
       (2) A requirement that the Coast Guard maintain technical 
     warrant holder authority, or the equivalent, for major 
     assets.
       (3) A requirement that no procurement subject to subsection 
     (b) for lead asset production or the implementation of a 
     major design change shall be entered into unless an 
     independent third party with no financial interest in the 
     development, construction, or modification of any component 
     of the asset, selected by the Commandant of the Coast Guard, 
     determines that such action is advisable.
       (4) A requirement for independent life-cycle cost estimates 
     of lead assets and major design and engineering changes.
       (5) A requirement for the measurement of contractor and 
     subcontractor performance based on the status of all work 
     performed. For contracts under the Integrated Deepwater 
     Systems program, such requirement shall include a provision 
     that links award fees to successful acquisition outcomes 
     (which shall be defined in terms of cost, schedule, and 
     performance).
       (6) A requirement that the Commandant of the Coast Guard 
     assign an appropriate officer or employee of the Coast Guard 
     to act as chair of each integrated product team and higher-
     level team assigned to the oversight of each integrated 
     product team.
       (7) A requirement that the Commandant of the Coast Guard 
     may not award or issue any contract, task or delivery order, 
     letter contract modification thereof, or other similar 
     contract, for the acquisition or modification of an asset 
     under a procurement subject to subsection (b) unless the 
     Coast Guard and the contractor concerned have formally agreed 
     to all terms and conditions or the head of contracting 
     activity of the Coast Guard determines that a compelling need 
     exists for the award or issue of such instrument.
       (b) Contracts, Subcontracts, Task and Delivery Orders 
     Covered.--Subsection (a) applies to--

[[Page 15907]]

       (1) any major procurement contract, first-tier subcontract, 
     delivery or task order entered into by the Coast Guard;
       (2) any first-tier subcontract entered into under such a 
     contract; and
       (3) any task or delivery order issued pursuant to such a 
     contract or subcontract.
       (c) Reports.--Not later than 30 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Commandant of the Coast Guard 
     shall submit to the Committees on Appropriations of the 
     Senate and the House of Representatives, the Committee on 
     Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate, and the 
     Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House 
     of Representatives: (1) a report on the resources (including 
     training, staff, and expertise) required by the Coast Guard 
     to provide appropriate management and oversight of the 
     Integrated Deepwater Systems program; and (2) a report on how 
     the Coast Guard will utilize full and open competition for 
     any contract entered into after the date of enactment of the 
     Act that provides for the acquisition or modification of 
     assets under, or in support of, the Integrated Deepwater 
     Systems program.
       Sec. 531. None of the funds provided by this or any other 
     Act may be obligated for the development, testing, 
     deployment, or operation of any system related to the MAX-HR 
     project, or any subsequent but related human resources 
     management project, until any pending litigation concerning 
     such activities is resolved, and any legal claim or appeal by 
     either party has been fully resolved.
       Sec. 532. (a) Amendments.--Section 550 of the Department of 
     Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2007 (6 U.S.C. 121 
     note) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (c), by striking ``consistent with 
     similar'' and inserting ``identical to the protections 
     given'';
       (2) in subsection (c), by striking ``, site security plans, 
     and other information submitted to or obtained by the 
     Secretary under this section, and related vulnerability or 
     security information, shall be treated as if the information 
     were classified material'' and inserting ``and site security 
     plans shall be treated as sensitive security information (as 
     that term is used in section 1520.5 of title 49, Code of 
     Federal Regulations, or any subsequent regulations relating 
     to the same matter)''; and
       (3) by adding at the end of the section the following:
       ``(h) This section shall not preclude or deny any right of 
     any State or political subdivision thereof to adopt or 
     enforce any regulation, requirement, or standard of 
     performance with respect to chemical facility security that 
     is more stringent than a regulation, requirement, or standard 
     of performance issued under this section, or otherwise impair 
     any right or jurisdiction of any State with respect to 
     chemical facilities within that State.''.
       (b) Regulatory Clarification.--Not later than 30 days after 
     the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of 
     Homeland Security shall update the regulations administered 
     by the Secretary that govern sensitive security information, 
     including 49 CFR 1520, to reference all information required 
     to be protected under section 550(c) of the Department of 
     Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2007 (6 U.S.C. 121 
     note), as amended by subsection (a).
       Sec. 533. The Commissioner of United States Customs and 
     Border Protection shall, not later than July 1, 2008, 
     establish for the United States Customs and Border Protection 
     Officer (CBPO) position, a new classification (``CBPO/LEO''), 
     which shall be identical to the current position description 
     for a CBPO, and include, but not be limited to, eligibility 
     for treatment accorded to law enforcement officers under 
     subchapter III of chapter 83, and chapter 84 of title 5, 
     United States Code. In developing the new classification, the 
     Commissioner shall consult with the Office of Personnel 
     Management, as well as employee groups that represent CBPOs. 
     The option to elect to serve as a CBPO/LEO shall be available 
     to all CBPOs who enter into service on or after July 1, 2008, 
     as well as to incumbent CBPOs currently serving on July 1, 
     2008, who meet the maximum age requirements to serve in a law 
     enforcement officer position.
       Sec. 534. In fiscal year 2008, none of funds made available 
     in this or any other Act may be used to enforce section 
     4025(1) of Public Law 108-458 if the Assistant Secretary 
     (Transportation Security Administration) determines that 
     butane lighters are not a significant threat to civil 
     aviation security: Provided, That the Assistant Secretary 
     (Transportation Security Administration) shall notify the 
     Committee on Appropriations of the Senate and the House of 
     Representatives 15 days in advance of such determination 
     including a report on whether the effectiveness of screening 
     operations is enhanced by suspending enforcement of the 
     prohibition: Provided further, That if the Assistant 
     Secretary has previously submitted a report pursuant to 
     Section 530 of Public Law 108-458, no further report shall be 
     required.
       Sec. 535. None of the funds provided in this Act may be 
     used to alter or reduce operations within the Civil 
     Engineering Program of the Coast Guard nationwide, including 
     the civil engineering units, facilities, design and 
     construction centers, maintenance and logistics command 
     centers, and the Coast Guard Academy, except as specifically 
     authorized by a statute enacted after the date of enactment 
     of this Act.
       Sec. 536. None of the funds appropriated in this Act may be 
     used for a grant or contract for any project that does not 
     comply with the requirements of subchapter IV of chapter 31 
     of title 40, United States Code: Provided, That the President 
     may suspend the provisions of such subchapter during a 
     national emergency.
       Sec. 537. (a) None of the funds appropriated in this Act 
     may be obligated for a grant or contract awarded by a means 
     other than full and open competition, other than a grant 
     distributed by a formula or other mechanism that is required 
     by statute. The Secretary of Homeland Security may waive the 
     application of this subsection during a national emergency.
       (b) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall establish an 
     objective of awarding at least 3 percent of the total value 
     of all contracts to be carried out with amounts appropriated 
     in this Act to small business concerns.
       Sec. 538. None of the funds provided in this Act shall be 
     available to carry out section 872 of Public Law 107-296.
       Sec. 539. Section 44940(a)(2) of title 49, United States 
     Code, is amended by striking the last sentence of 
     subparagraph (A), and clause (iv) of subparagraph (B).


                         (rescission of funds)

       Sec. 540. From the unobligated balances of funds 
     transferred to the Department of Homeland Security when it 
     was created in 2003, excluding mandatory appropriations, 
     $55,273,000 is rescinded, of which $12,084,003 shall be 
     rescinded from Departmental Operations.
       Sec. 541. None of the funds provided by this or previous 
     appropriation Acts shall be used to fund any position 
     designated as a Principal Federal Official during any 
     declared disasters or emergencies.
       Sec. 542. Section 46301(a) of title 49, United States Code, 
     is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(6) Failure To Collect Airport Security Badges.--
     Notwithstanding paragraph (1), any employer (other than a 
     governmental entity or airport operator) who employs an 
     employee to whom an airport security badge or other 
     identifier used to obtain access to a secure area of an 
     airport is issued before, on, or after the date of enactment 
     of this paragraph and who does not collect or make reasonable 
     efforts to collect such badge from the employee on the date 
     that the employment of the employee is terminated and does 
     not notify the operator of the airport of such termination 
     within 24 hours of the date of such termination shall be 
     liable to the Government for a civil penalty not to exceed 
     $10,000.''.

  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask 
unanimous consent that the remainder of the bill through page 74, line 
10, be considered as read, printed in the Record and open to amendment 
at any point.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from North Carolina?
  There was no objection.


            Amendment No. 99 Offered by Mr. McCaul of Texas

  Mr. McCAUL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 99 offered by Mr. McCaul of Texas:
       Strike section 531 (page 69, beginning at line 4).

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. McCaul) and the gentleman from North Carolina 
(Mr. Price) each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. McCAUL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, section 531 prohibits the 
implementation of MAX-HR. MAX-HR is the human resources program that 
allows DHS wide latitude in personnel matters such as transferring 
workers to areas where they may be needed during a national emergency. 
Congress gave the Department this ability so that it could move quickly 
to protect the country from terrorist threats.
  While some authority is currently under judicial review, the bill as 
currently written would enjoin the entire program until courts decide.

                              {time}  0030

  If this section were to pass as written, it would result in an action 
that is not consistent with the purposes of Homeland Security.

[[Page 15908]]

  My amendment would strike section 531 of this bill and allow current 
regulations to continue until the courts make their final judgment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment would remove a restriction that the 
committee included in order to prevent the Department of Homeland 
Security from wasting more money developing a human capital system that 
would, we believe, be judged illegal. DHS has not been willing to 
negotiate with its employees unions to develop a human capital system 
that lines up with the negotiated labor contracts.
  That becomes our committee's problem, when money that gets 
appropriated is wasted on projects that are judged illegal and in 
violation of contractual agreements. DHS shouldn't be spending millions 
of dollars on systems that will need to be thrown away simply to 
frustrate unions and to intimidate their employees. It's a waste of 
taxpayers' money and from what I have heard, Mr. Chairman, has led to 
many morale problems at the Department.
  I will remind Members that unfortunately the Department of Homeland 
Security ranked dead last in employee morale across government agencies 
in a survey taken recently. We need to reject this amendment, and I ask 
my colleagues to do so.
  Mr. McCAUL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I respect the distinguished 
gentleman from North Carolina, but I would say I believe it's important 
that we let the courts decide this matter. It's under judicial review, 
just a small part of the human resources program at the Department of 
Homeland Security.
  I think it would be a tremendous mistake for us in the Congress, as a 
separate branch of government, to essentially enjoin, essentially 
enjoin the executive branch in the human resource program that has 
combined 22 agencies, developed the human resources program that has 
been efficient in many respects, only because the courts have enjoined 
a very small portion. Again, let's let the courts decide this issue, 
and let's let the rest of the program go forward.
  I know that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle would like 
to move the Department into a more unionized system that is not merit 
based. My view is that that would cripple our ability to respond in 
emergency situations. That was the view of the Congress at the time 
that we developed the Department of Homeland Security, and that is the 
view of this Congressman at this time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. McDermott). The question is on the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. McCaul).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. McCAUL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas will 
be postponed.


            Amendment Offered by Mr. Thompson of Mississippi

  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Thompson:
       In section 537 of the bill, strike subsection (b).

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson) and a Member opposed each 
will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Mississippi.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, the amendment I offer 
tonight will ensure that businesses can continue their current level of 
participation in contracting opportunities with the Department of 
Homeland Security.
  The current governmentwide goal for small minority and disadvantaged 
business's participation established by the SBA is 23 percent. The 
current language of this bill places that contracting goal within the 
Department of Homeland Security at 3 percent.
  Small businesses are often best able to provide the kind of 
innovative technologies we need to protect this Nation. This language 
would strike the 3 percent language, returning small business 
participation at DHS to the governmentwide goals.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  I commend my friend, the chairman of the Homeland Security 
authorizing committee, for a fine amendment, and I am pleased to 
suggest that it be adopted.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance 
of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson).
  The amendment was agreed to.


        Amendment No. 18 Offered by Ms. Corrine Brown of Florida

  Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Ms. Corrine Brown of Florida:
       Page 61, after line 11, insert the following:
       (d) Orlando International Airport and Miami International 
     Airport shall be two of the seven airports selected to 
     implement a pilot program to screen airport workers who enter 
     or re-enter secure airport space.

  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. A point of order is reserved.
  Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the gentlewoman from 
Florida (Ms. Corrine Brown) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Florida.
  Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to ask 
support for my amendment to allow Orlando International Airport and 
Miami International Airport to be named as two of the seven airports 
selected to implement a pilot program to screen airport workers who 
enter or reenter security airport space.
  My interest in this stems from a very serious security breach which 
occurred at the Orlando International Airport, OIA, earlier this year.
  On March 5, a Comair customer service employee boarded a Delta flight 
from Orlando International to San Juan, carrying 13 handguns, 1 assault 
weapon and 8 pounds of marijuana. Although passengers and flight crews 
are required to pass through screening to obtain access to gates, 
mechanics and other airline employees move through the airport without 
being screened.
  In fact, the men that were arrested had employee identification that 
allowed them to bypass screening altogether when they brought a duffel 
bag full of handguns into the airport. This serves as a perfect example 
of a striking gap in airline security, not only at OIA, but at airports 
nationwide.
  Moreover, given an employee was willing to take the risk of smuggling 
illegal weapons and drugs into a flight for a few thousand dollars, one 
would certainly imagine that it would be possible that the airline 
employee could be bribed by well-financed terrorists to obtain access 
to the airport infrastructure.
  In response to this incident, report language in the bill required a 
pilot program for seven airports nationwide to mandate the screening of 
all employees as prescribed in H.R. 1314.
  Of the seven airport pilot projects mentioned in the report language, 
my amendment would require that the Orlando International Airport and 
the Miami International Airport be named two of the designated 
programs. Miami International, in fact, already had a program in place, 
while Orlando International has undertaken a plan to screen 100 percent 
of all of its employees. Given the heavy international

[[Page 15909]]

traffic at both of these airports, I strongly believe that they serve 
as perfect places to begin a program which eventually needs to be 
implemented at all airports nationwide.
  The reason I include Miami is because Miami can be used as a model, 
since the airport has had a program in place for nearly a decade and 
spends about $5 million per year for this type of security. The Miami 
program has reduced smuggling by all employees. Under this program, all 
airport and airline employees are screened, though not at the same area 
as the passengers or flight crews.
  The Miami program also includes a provision that allows screening to 
instantly send a suspect's image to a New York center that operates 
around-the-clock with a staff of former NYPD technicians.
  As you know, the State of Florida, in particular, thrives on tourism, 
which forms the backbone of the State economy. Obviously, those 
traveling in the State need to feel safe during their commute, and 
increasing and enforcing the security process for airline employees 
would serve as an important step toward achieving this goal.
  I realize it is necessary to withdraw this amendment, and I am 
willing to do so, but this is a very, very serious situation not just 
for Florida, but for the entire country. I want all of us to work 
together to ensure that our system does not allow these huge security 
gaps to continue.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. 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, which states, in pertinent part: An amendment to 
a general appropriations bill shall not be in order if changing 
existing law.
  I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Does any other Member wish to be heard?
  Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent 
to withdraw my amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. If there are no further amendments to this 
section, the Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Sec. 543. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services to grant 
     an immigration benefit to any individual unless all criminal 
     history and other background checks required for the benefit 
     have been completed, the results of such checks have been 
     received by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, and 
     the results do not preclude the grant of the benefit.


           Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Rogers of Kentucky

  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. Rogers of Kentucky:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __. None of the funds made available under this Act 
     may be used to recruit or hire a total of more than 45,000 
     full-time equivalent airport screeners.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) and the gentleman from North 
Carolina (Mr. Price) each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, this is a simple amendment.
  It would restore to the bill the traditional historic 45,000-person 
cap on the number of screeners that the TSA can employ.
  The reason for this is simple. This screener cap has been in place 
since before there was a Department of Homeland Security.
  When we first created the Transportation Security Administration in 
2001, I think it was, or 2002, TSA was in the Department of 
Transportation. At the time, I chaired the subcommittee that funded 
that Department.
  When we first began to place federally employed screeners in the 
airports, TSA came to us and said we need 35,000 screeners. We said, 
okay, here is the money, hire them.
  They came back a few days later, a few months later, and said no, 
we're going to need 40,000. Then they came back a few months later and 
said no, we have to have 45,000. Then it was 50,000 and 60,000, and 
then finally they said we need to have 70,000. We said, wait a minute, 
time out. We can't afford this many. Where are you going to stop?
  What they did at the outset, TSA was poorly managed, poorly run, and 
was not operating properly. They made up for their difference, their 
shortcomings, by hiring more people. I remember going to an airport in 
the South, a moderate-sized airport. The lobby was full of the trace 
detection machines where they swab your briefcase and then run it 
through the machine, very time-consuming, very labor-intensive, and not 
very accurate.

                              {time}  0045

  And the lobby was full, passengers having trouble getting through the 
doorway to get to the boarding gates. And I called over the Federal 
director, security director for that airport and I said, when are you 
going to apply for an x-ray machine to more efficiently and more 
securely search people as they go to board the airplane? They said, oh, 
we don't need, we don't want an x-ray machine to replace these trace 
detection machines in the lobby. I said, why not? The person said, our 
people are perfectly happy. I said, you mean the passengers? No, the 
screeners. Of course they were perfectly happy. One machine, Mr. 
Chairman, would have taken the place of all of those trace detection 
machines in that lobby.
  And so we came up with a screener cap mainly to force TSA to bring 
technology to bear on the detection of explosive devices in briefcases 
and baggage of passengers. The 45,000 screener limit works. TSA now is 
placing the machines in airports.
  This committee, this subcommittee, has now appropriated many hundreds 
of millions of dollars in this bill, along with others, to buy more 
machinery.
  But the cap on screeners needs to be kept in place. It's been there 
since we first began TSA 5 years ago. You take that screener cap off, 
as this bill does, and TSA will go back to their old ways. I guarantee 
it. They'll go back to their old ways of hiring screeners to run trace 
detection machines, very unreliable, insecure, and disruptive, 
actually, of people trying to get on the airplane.
  So I urge our colleagues to keep in place, put back in place the 
45,000 screener limit that's been in the bill ever since we've had a 
Department of Transportation, TSA in the Department of Transportation 
and now Homeland Security.
  I know the bill contains funds only for some 44,000 screeners, and 
the argument can be made that we can control the number of screeners by 
the amount of money we appropriate. And this bill starts us along that 
line.
  But we all know that these agencies can come back to the 
Appropriations Committee and request a reprogramming of funds from one 
account to the next, and the pressure would be great if they came to us 
to assign that reappropriation of monies. But the limit works. Keep the 
limit.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, the amendment, as the 
gentleman has stated, would impose a statutory cap of 45,000 on the 
number of aviation screeners. I'm reluctantly opposed to this, because 
under the Committee mark, we fund considerably fewer than that amount, 
that number. We fund only 43,688 screeners. So we're nowhere close to 
the statutory cap that the gentleman would impose.
  The budget is what really controls how many screeners TSA can fund, 
as 53 percent of TSA's aviation security budget goes to screener 
salaries and benefits.
  Now, I agree with the gentleman that our goal should be to provide 
more efficient explosive detection systems, ones that rely less on 
humans and more on machines that identify possible threats.

[[Page 15910]]

  Instead of the cap, I think a better way to provide the funding for 
additional explosive detection systems for passengers and carry on 
baggage and checked baggage and air cargo is to fund those systems 
adequately. And the bill before us does that. It has $251 million more 
than the President's request for these systems.
  To make sure that DHS spends funding for better detection systems, 
we've withheld funding from a key asset, namely, their new headquarters 
building, until the Department submits an expenditure plan for 
checkpoint and explosive detection systems. We do believe that this 
will provide a rather powerful incentive for TSA to become less people 
dependent and more technology driven in the near term. But I just want 
to stress that I agree with the gentleman on that point, that priority.
  I should also say, Mr. Chairman, that our authorizers oppose this 
cap. They've specifically asked us not to include this bill language in 
fiscal 2008.
  I'm more than willing to work with the gentleman to ensure that the 
committee is kept well informed of screener staffing levels at 
airports. And if it appears that TSA is out of control regarding 
staffing, we will be the first to get on the case. But I cannot support 
this amendment.
  Speaking of authorizers, I yield such time as she may consume to the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
North Carolina, and I thank the ranking member. I agree with the 
ranking member's assessment that we can improve the training and the, 
if you will, work performance in many instances of the TSA screeners. 
But we also note that there are many hardworking screeners.
  I chair the subcommittee that oversees the work of TSA as it relates 
to airport screeners. And the reason the authorizers wanted to not have 
a cap is because, first of all, the Transportation Security 
Administration and the screeners staffing are engaging in what we call 
a spot program. They're dealing with the traveler document checking 
system. New programs need new personnel, new trained personnel.
  The cap was lifted in the 9/11 bill for a very important reason. It 
sends the wrong message for us to cap screeners of airports. Our 
airports are expanding. Air travel is growing. In fact, we have been 
looking at the utilization of screening employees in the airport to 
make the entire airport, front and back, safe. So we all can work 
toward more professional development for the screeners, the airport 
screeners; but our work is too important now, and our work is too 
important going forward, after 9/11, to send this message of capping 
these employees.
  I would respectfully oppose the amendment because of the work that we 
still have to do in securing the Nation's airports.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Kentucky 
will be postponed.


               Amendment No. 30 Offered by Mr. Ellsworth

  Mr. ELLSWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 30 offered by Mr. Ellsworth:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), add the 
     following new section:
       Sec. 544. None of the funds appropriated in this Act may be 
     used to enter into a contract in an amount greater than the 
     simplified acquisition threshold unless the prospective 
     contractor certifies in writing to the agency awarding the 
     contract that the contractor owes no Federal tax debt. For 
     purposes of the preceding sentence, the certification 
     requirement of part 52.209-5 of the Federal Acquisition 
     Regulation shall also include a requirement for a 
     certification by a prospective contractor of whether, within 
     the three-year period preceding the offer for the contract, 
     the prospective contractor--
       (1) has or has not been convicted of or had a civil 
     judgment rendered against the contractor for violating any 
     tax law or failing to pay any tax;
       (2) has or has not been notified of any delinquent taxes 
     for which the liability remains unsatisfied; or
       (3) has or has not received a notice of a tax lien filed 
     against the contractor for which the liability remains 
     unsatisfied or for which the lien has not been released.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Ellsworth) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on 
the gentleman's amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. A point of order is reserved.
  Mr. ELLSWORTH. Mr. Chairman, this amendment seeks to ensure that none 
of the funds appropriated in this bill may be used to enter into a 
contract greater than the simplified acquisition threshold unless the 
prospective contractor certifies in writing to the agency awarding the 
contract that the contractor owes no Federal tax debt.
  The Federal Acquisition Regulation already requires prospective 
contractors to certify within a 3-year period preceding the offer that 
they have not been convicted or had a civil judgment rendered against 
them for the various legal infractions such as tax evasion, forgery and 
bribery. This amendment simply adds the following three tax debt-
related offenses: the prospective contractor must certify that they, 
one, have or have not been convicted of a civil judgment rendered 
against the contractor for violating tax law or failing to pay any tax; 
two, have or have not been notified of any delinquent taxes for which 
the liability remains unsatisfied; and, three, have or have not 
received a tax notice or tax lien filed against the contractor for 
which the liability remains unsatisfied or for which the lien has not 
been released.
  Mr. Chairman, my constituents, like many of yours, sent me to 
Washington to ensure their tax dollars are spent wisely. And I guard 
their tax dollars wisely. They believe, as I do, that it's wrong for 
government contractors who owe millions and accumulated billions of 
dollars in unpaid taxes to continue to be awarded Federal contracts 
when their taxes are not paid. Not only do these bad actors cheat our 
government of tax revenue; they gain an unfair advantage over the 
businesses that play by the rules.
  Not all contractors are into gaming the system. Most are doing 
terrific work and putting our tax dollars to good use. But we have a 
responsibility to protect those businesses and the taxpayers' dollars 
by weeding out the corrupt contractors. The only way you do this is 
through increased oversight.
  At a time when our fiscal house is, some say, in complete disarray 
and deficits continue to grow, we cannot continue to allow companies to 
receive Federal tax dollars while shirking their own tax 
responsibilities.
  Mr. Chairman, I respectfully ask my colleagues to support this 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentleman from Indiana for this 
very well-conceived amendment, Mr. Ellsworth's proposing that the 
Department of Homeland Security be prohibited from awarding contracts 
to those that owe the Federal Government money. It seems pretty 
straightforward and sensible, and a rule that we need to adopt.
  This would apply to contractors that violate tax laws, that fail to 
pay Federal taxes, that have an unsatisfied Federal liability.
  The Federal Acquisition Regulation, fortunately, does have a rule-
making under way that we believe will eventually provide similar 
coverage to all Federal agencies, including DHS. But the gentleman has 
anticipated that

[[Page 15911]]

ruling. He's got language here that would offer protection earlier and 
would confirm what we hope will be more general policy.
  So it's a very well-conceived amendment, and I commend him for it and 
hope that we can adopt it. I urge its adoption.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against 
the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and 
constitutes legislation in an appropriations bill and, therefore, 
violates clause 2 of rule XXI.
  I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Does any Member wish to be heard?
  Mr. ELLSWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to thank Chairman Price for his 
support of this important amendment that would have taken an important 
step to address waste, fraud and abuse in the contracting process at 
the Department of Homeland Security. It's my hope that we can work 
together to have this commonsense approach to contractor certification 
included in the eventual conference report.
  Again, I'd like to thank the chairman for his support, but I do ask 
unanimous consent to withdraw this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
  There was no objection.


            Amendment No. 96 Offered by Mr. Deal of Georgia

  Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Ross). The Clerk will designate the 
amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 96 offered by Mr. Deal of Georgia:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title) insert the 
     following new section:
       Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to destroy or put to pasture any horse or mule 
     belonging to the United States that has become unfit for 
     service.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Deal) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I realize it's late, and I'll be 
brief.
  We've talked about a lot of things today. I'd like to talk about 
horses and mules for a few minutes. Under the current law, when a horse 
or a mule is deemed no longer fit for service in agencies such as the 
Border Patrol or Customs, the law requires that they either be turned 
out to pasture on Federal lands, where they usually are subject to 
predators, or that they be destroyed. This amendment would simply say 
that they would be allowed to be adopted by their handlers.
  This is an animal equity amendment, Mr. Chairman. We do the same 
thing for dogs who have been in the service and are allowed to be 
adopted by their handlers. This would simply allow the handlers of 
horses and mules to do exactly the same thing. And I would urge the 
adoption.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DEAL of Georgia. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. KUCINICH. I want to thank the gentleman. I want to thank him for 
sponsoring this. I think it is a very humane and proper thing to do, 
and I appreciate that you offered it.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DEAL of Georgia. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.

                              {time}  0100

  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentleman 
for the amendment. This is a horse of a different color that you have 
brought up here. And I think it is a humane thing to do, and I 
congratulate the gentleman. And being from horse country, I doubly 
appreciate it.
  Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Deal).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                  Amendment No. 28 Offered by Mr. Poe

  Mr. POE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 28 offered by Mr. Poe:
       At the end of title V, add the following new section:
       Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used by the Secretary of Homeland Security to implement a 
     plan under section 7209 of the Intelligence Reform and 
     Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-458; 8 
     U.S.C. 1185 note) that permits travel into the United States 
     from foreign countries using any document other than a 
     passport to denote citizenship and identity.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe) and the gentleman from North Carolina 
(Mr. Price) each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. POE. Mr. Chairman, the amendment I offer today will help reduce 
the lengthy delays consumers are facing when applying for passports, 
while at the same time strengthening security at our borders.
  The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 mandated 
that the U.S. Secretaries of Homeland Security and State develop and 
implement a plan to require all U.S. citizens and foreign nationals to 
present a passport or some other document when entering the United 
States, as of January 1, 2008.
  For many years United States citizens and citizens from other 
countries in the Western Hemisphere have not been required to present a 
passport to enter the United States. They were admitted by stating 
verbally that they were from a country that didn't require passports or 
by presenting a wide variety of less secure documentation, including up 
to 5,000 documents that our border agents must be versed in.
  The 9/11 Commission in their findings highlighted ``for terrorists 
travel documents are as important as weapons. . . . In their travels 
terrorists use evasive methods, such as altered and counterfeit 
documents, and they study and exploit America's vulnerabilities.'' The 
9/11 Commission rightfully recommended we end the practice of traveling 
without passports. I am glad Congress took action on that 
recommendation. However, here we are 2\1/2\ years later, and it seems 
we are still going further and further away from putting this policy in 
place due to the bureaucracy in the Department of Homeland Security and 
the State Department through the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative.
  It seems bureaucrats implementing the Western Hemisphere Travel 
Initiative continue to spend large amounts of time and money to come up 
with other ``alternative documents to passports'' to comply with this 
law. The answer is why? We have a secure document, the passport, that 
has been implemented and is being used. But the Department of Homeland 
Security and the Department of State, even though they continue to say 
the passport is the ``gold standard'' for identity and citizenship 
documents because of its security, have come up with all different 
types of forms and documents that they are studying. All of these 
documents are unproven. They are called the Pass card, the BCC card, 
the SENTRI card, the Nexus card, the Fast card. And we are spending 
taxpayer money experimenting on these, while not implementing the 
proven document like the passport.
  So this bill would require the Department of Homeland Security to use 
and implement only passports and quit spending money on documents that 
are unproven. And that is the purpose of this amendment: to spend money 
on passports only.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, this amendment prohibits 
funds in the act from implementing a plan to permit entry into the U.S. 
using any identification document other than a passport. I understand 
the security concerns that underlie this amendment, but I believe it 
overreaches considerably, and I will take

[[Page 15912]]

just a minute to explain why I think so.
  This amendment would effectively prohibit DHS efforts to develop 
infrastructure or systems to process State Department passport cards 
for U.S. citizens living near and commuting across the land borders of 
the U.S., thus requiring all U.S. citizens who leave the U.S. to 
possess a passport, which currently costs $97 for adults, $82 for 
children. A passport card would cost less than half of that.
  In addition, the language would effectively prohibit anyone who did 
not have a valid passport, such as permanent residents who lack other 
citizenship documents, from reentering the U.S. If I read it correctly, 
that is exactly what it would do. And it would effectively invalidate 
millions of Mexican border crossing cards issued by the State 
Department.
  So it is an overreach, I would say, Mr. Chairman. It represents a 
draconian approach to border security. It would adversely affect the 
ability of U.S. citizens and workers and residents to move easily 
across the border.
  So I urge the House to reject the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POE. Mr. Chairman, with all due respect to the chairman, I 
understand his concerns, but the problem is exactly as he stated. There 
are too many documents to allow people to travel back and forth across 
U.S. borders. The United States discriminates against citizens from 
other nations because we require all those people that enter the United 
States to have a passport. Because of the different special interest 
groups that have thwarted the implementation of passports by having 
other types of documents, those documents are unproven. In fact, 
Homeland Security is still studying those, which means they are 
spending money on trying to come up with various systems.
  So rather than have three or four or five systems, I think it is 
important that we have one system, as the 9/11 Commission recommended. 
And that passport system is the one that is the most foolproof. It will 
take time to implement, but these other systems haven't been 
implemented at all.
  So the purpose of this is to make sure that we are on the same page: 
Require a simple document, a passport document, one that I have here; 
one that is faster than trying to examine numerous documents; one that 
you can, as we say, slide and glide by coming across the border. It 
won't take any more time. In fact, it will take less time than some of 
these other unsecured documents.
  So with that, I ask the approval of this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield to our colleague 
from New York (Mr. Serrano).
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I think you said it well. The problem here is that we have in place 
documentation that is acceptable for these kinds of crossings. Yes, as 
we go forward, we have to make sure that we secure our borders. But to 
undo that which has been working for a while and that which is accepted 
by our State Department is just to take a step backwards. And rather 
than doing that, we should accept what we have now and build on it. And 
what you are proposing is really to take a step that would only hurt 
us.
  Throughout the years, the State Department has worked, in the case of 
the Mexican Government, to bring about a proper crossing of the border 
for work purposes and family visits and so on. That has been in place 
for years. That has worked. That is not the issue that we deal with 
when we talk about undocumented immigration into the country. That is 
not the issue we deal with when we talk about terrorist acts. This is 
the crossing of the border in a proper and safe and legal manner, and 
that is what we have in place, and we shouldn't be reinventing the 
wheel at this stage.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. POE. Mr. Chairman, just in summary, we are requiring people who 
fly into the United States to have passports. Even people from Mexico 
who fly into the United States will have to have passports. And when we 
fly to Mexico or Canada, we have to have passports. The same is true of 
people coming in by sea. And now it is appropriate that we have that 
same recommendation for those people who travel into the United States 
by land.
  That is why I recommend and ask for the adoption of this amendment, 
that the universal document for entry into another nation be adopted.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. POE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas will 
be postponed.


                  Amendment Offered by Mr. LaTourette

  Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. LaTourette:
       At the end of title V, add the following new section:
       Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to implement any plan developed under section 
     7209(b)(1) of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism 
     Prevention Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-458; 8 U.S.C. 1185 
     note) before June 1, 2009.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. LaTOURETTE. First of all, Mr. Chairman, I want to compliment you 
on the way you have conducted this debate. In happier times I had the 
privilege of being where you are, and I have to tell you, you have done 
a tremendous job and I appreciate it very much.
  I am pleased to offer this amendment with my friend, a colleague from 
Cleveland, Ohio, Congressman Kucinich.
  This amendment basically recognizes what I think that every Member of 
this House should recognize: that the implementation of the passport 
travel requirements in the Western Hemisphere has been a disaster. The 
State Department and Department of Homeland Security made an estimate, 
and they have been swamped. My constituents call me on a regular basis 
saying that they have applied for passports 12, 14, 20 weeks. They 
don't have their passports. Their trips are canceled. And this is a bad 
thing.
  You would think in the face of that track record that perhaps we 
wouldn't go to phase 2. Phase 2 says that we need to have documents as 
we cross the border by land into Canada. Where Congressman Kucinich and 
I are from, we go through Detroit or Buffalo and the southern border as 
well. But that hasn't been the case.
  On Friday the two agencies announced, reluctantly, that, you know 
what? We have got it wrong, and as a result we are not going to require 
passports for air travel to the Caribbean or to Canada anymore, and 
that a photo ID will be sufficient. However, even with this chaos, the 
administration has vowed that it will move forward with phase 2 on 
January 1.
  Now, I want to commend the chairman of the Rules Committee, 
Congresswoman Slaughter, for the work that she has done to put in this 
bill triggers that say maybe we don't have it right. Let's do some 
pilot programs and things of that nature. But those provisions were put 
in this bill before this disaster happened. And I don't assume that I 
am the only Member of this body that has received angry phone calls 
from their constituents and say, you know what? Maybe, maybe, we just 
need to slow it down.
  So this is a complete prohibition. It says to the Department of 
Homeland Security in this bill, and we will do it again in the State 
Department bill, saying we gave you until June of 2009 to get this 
right, to come up with the

[[Page 15913]]

Pass card, to come up with whatever you are going to come up. But 
please, please, don't do this to our constituents on January 1, 2008.
  Mr. Chairman, at this time it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to my 
good friend and colleague from Cleveland, Ohio, Congressman Kucinich.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, as my colleague Mr. LaTourette points 
out, our offices are getting deluged with requests and complaints from 
constituents who are suffering under this backlog that has been 
created, and some of the action that has been taken by our Federal 
Government is only going to compound it. So the amendment is aimed at 
being constituent-sensitive and also sensible with respect to the 
border crossings, particularly at Canada.
  I think that Members realize, and all of us are here as legislators, 
but another important part of our responsibility is constituent 
service. And every one of us knows that we have been swamped.
  So this amendment that I am proud to work with Mr. LaTourette on is 
aimed at not just deferring a problem, but at really taking a sound and 
sensible approach to what has become a nightmare in terms of our 
constituents not being able to get the kind of responsiveness they have 
the right to expect on these issues that relate to visas and passports.
  So thank you very much, Mr. LaTourette, for your work on this, and I 
am very grateful that I have a chance to work with you on it.
  Mr. LaTOURETTE. I thank my colleague.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to commend our colleagues for this amendment. I 
certainly will not be objecting to it and will be happy if it is 
adopted. It is not exactly the same approach that was taken in our 
bill. I must say that. But I do think it is consistent with the bill.
  The amendment would prohibit funds in the act from being used to 
implement a plan before June 1, 2009, to comply with the Intelligence 
Reform Act of 2004 requirement to require all who enter the U.S. to 
have passports or equally valid identification. The Western Hemisphere 
Travel Initiative is intended to reduce the likelihood of entry by 
people who mean us ill.
  We believe this could be done effectively in a way that doesn't 
sacrifice good relations with our neighbors, that doesn't cause undue 
hardship for U.S. citizens or doesn't affect legitimate travel and 
commerce.

                              {time}  0115

  But we are certainly not there yet.
  Our bill fences $100 million of the $225 million in funding until the 
Department reports on the results of pilot projects in Washington 
State, until it provides an update on project milestones, until it 
demonstrates that statutory requirements are met and the system has 
been operationally tested, and until it reports on privacy safeguards. 
So we do have those kinds of protections in this bill. We have not 
included a date certain, but as I said, I believe the inclusion of a 
date is compatible with what we've suggested, and so we will not object 
to this amendment. We commend the gentleman for offering it.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time is 
remaining.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio has 1\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. LaTOURETTE. I would like to thank Chairman Price for not only 
accepting this amendment, but also for the work that he has done on 
this bill.
  This has been a very difficult process. And just like you, Mr. 
Chairman, he has also had a tough go of it. It's tough to lead, it's 
tough to be in the majority, it's tough to govern, and I think Chairman 
Price has done great work.
  I commend the committee for the work they have done on this bill. And 
I mentioned Chairwoman Slaughter for the work that she put in, and that 
was her language, that $100 million.
  I don't want to be an obstructionist, but because the Republicans and 
Democrats are being killed on this passport issue, even though the 
chairman has indicated he will accept the amendment, I will ask for a 
recorded vote.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio will be 
postponed.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Tancredo

  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Tancredo:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. 544. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to carry out the visa waiver program under section 
     217 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1187).

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) and the gentleman from North 
Carolina (Mr. Price) each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado.
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, my amendment simply suspends the Visa 
Waiver Program for fiscal year 2008.
  The Visa Waiver Program was established in 1986 as a temporary, and I 
underline temporary, program to allow tourists or short-term business 
visitors to enter the United States for 90 days or less without 
obtaining a visa. The program was later made permanent by Congress and 
currently allows nationals of 27 countries into the United States with 
a simple stamp.
  The Visa Waiver Program ill advisedly trusts the security of our 
Nation to the background check capabilities and passport procedures of 
foreign governments. There are numerous instances of terrorists and 
would-be terrorists who have exploited this program, or easily could 
have.
  September 11 conspirator Zacharias Moussaoui is a great example of 
this. He exploited the Visa Waiver Program to travel to the United 
States. The 9/11 Commission stated that ``a maximum U.S. effort to 
investigate Moussaoui conceivably could have unearthed his connections. 
Those connections might have brought investigators to the core of the 
9/11 plot.''
  It's an interesting case because, of course, he was actually under 
investigation at the time by the French Government, by their secret 
service. Had we required a visa program that allowed for us to conduct 
that kind of background check, we may very well have identified those 
connections and not allowed him the visa. It seems clear that a maximum 
effort would include a thorough vetting of those seeking access to the 
United States.
  Would-be ``shoe bomber'' terrorist Richard Reid exploited the Visa 
Waiver Program to board the flight he tried to bomb. The London subway 
bombing was executed in large part by British citizens with known ties 
to terrorism. Under the Visa Waiver Program, any British citizen can 
travel to the United States without having to apply for a visa and 
without giving our government the ability to do even a cursory 
investigation as to whether he or she may have ties to a terrorist 
group. British citizen Hemant Lakhani is just such an example. He was 
busted in a sting in New Jersey in 2003 when he tried to sell shoulder-
fire surface-to-air missiles to a Federal operative who he believed to 
be a Somali terrorist plotting against American jetliners.
  Mr. Chairman, we cannot give those who wish to harm us open access to 
America under the cloak of the Visa Waiver Program. We need to suspend 
the program until we are equipped to check the criminal and terrorist 
background of every visitor who arrives at

[[Page 15914]]

any port of entry to confirm the identity of each visitor using the 
biometric identifiers.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield to our colleague, 
subcommittee member, Mr. Farr.
  Mr. FARR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for yielding.
  I rise as one of the cochairs of the Travel and Tourism Caucus, and I 
rise because I think you are trying to fix something here that isn't 
broken.
  We have not had problems with the Visa Waiver Program. In fact, it 
has worked very well. And the reason you get qualified as a country for 
the Visa Waiver Program is because the visitors from that country, all 
who have passports, those passports all are screened and have to pass 
the screening before they get on an airplane. And so if there is such a 
traveler that is on the ``no fly'' list, they would be selected out at 
that point.
  The reason these countries have qualified is because they haven't had 
people visiting our country who have skipped, who have stayed on, who 
have violated. The visa is time certain. These are frequent travelers; 
they are from the countries that are our allies, most of whom are 
members of NATO or other security forces. I think it is a very bad way 
to go. One is it's going to alienate the travel and tourism industry in 
the United States that relies a lot on foreign travelers; they spend a 
lot of money in this country. And, frankly, right now visiting America 
is a bargain. It is one of the best vacation packages you can buy 
compared to costs in Europe and so on. And what you do by cutting these 
funds, you would prohibit funds from this act from carrying out the 
Visa Waiver Program.
  Now, within that program is also the ability of DHS sharing 
information with the State Department, maintaining records of these 
visa-waiver applications. Remember, you have to apply for that. You 
would prohibit the administering of programs which air carriers use 
relating to verifying travelers as qualified, visa-waiver residents.
  So what you are going to do is you are not going to stop the program. 
You are just going to stop the sharing of inside information. And I 
think it's a fear that hasn't been demonstrated as a problem. 
Therefore, nothing is broken that needs fixing. There isn't support for 
this program among the travel and tourism industry, and particularly 
the air carriers. And I think the fact that all these visitors have to 
have a passport and those passports have to meet our standards, that 
these Visa Waiver Program visitors are very well protected.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, if passports alone provided the kind of 
security that the gentleman suggests they provide, then of course we 
would not need visas at all. Why would we impose this particular kind 
of background check if passports alone gave us the kind of security 
that we need to make sure that the people entering this country are, 
number one, who they say they are, and more importantly, that their 
backgrounds do not show anything that might suggest that they should 
not be allowed into the country.
  But don't just take my word for it. Listen to what former DHS 
Inspector General Clark Kent Ervin recently said: ``We ought to be 
ending the Visa Waiver Program, not expanding it. There is a reason why 
terrorists are keen to obtain passports from visa-waiver countries. 
They don't have to undergo extensive security checks.''
  So when you say there is no opposition to the program, I would 
suggest that that is not correct. There certainly are people involved 
with the program who feel as I do, that we need to abandon this 
particular visa-waiver idea.
  And the IG isn't alone. Last September, the Government Accountability 
Office found that stolen passports from visa-waiver countries are 
prized travel documents among terrorists, criminals and immigration law 
violators. Based on a State Department report from January 2002 until 
June 2004, 28 foreign governments reported 56,943 stolen blank foreign 
passports. The Director of the U.S. National Central Bureau of Interpol 
has said that for 55 of the 181 Interpol countries, there were probably 
over 10 million lost and stolen passports that might be in circulation. 
In August of 2004, according to CBP, their database contains 1.2 
million records of stolen passports. Notably, between January and June 
of 2005, DHS confiscated 298 passports issued by visa-waiver countries 
that travelers were attempting to use at ports of entry to fraudulently 
enter the United States.
  I encourage the adoption of the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's time has expired.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of our 
time to Mr. Farr.
  Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, none of the facts stated by the gentleman 
have anything to do with the amendment. The amendment cuts the ability 
for us to manage a program which is working very well. Every one of 
these travelers has to get a passport; those passports have to meet our 
standards. They have to go through the screening at airports. If they 
are on a ``no fly'' list, they won't be allowed on an airplane. This is 
not the way to try to prevent good visitors to this country who are 
allies of the United States.
  And, frankly, adopting this amendment is not only going to create an 
incredible bureaucracy for us; it is going to create an alienation 
among countries that we get along with very well and have allowed a 
visa waiver. Without it, every one of these would have to flood a 
foreign council. And you would have frequent travelers unable to get to 
the United States and be a good tourist and good visitors of our 
country and good friends.
  I don't think in nation building that this is the way that you want 
to attack the problem. So I ask for a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance 
of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado 
will be postponed.


             Amendment Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas:
       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Sec. __. Critical Infrastructure Vulnerability
       None of the funds in this Act may be used to limit the 
     implementation of Homeland Security Presidential Directive 7 
     (HSPD-7).

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, might I add my appreciation 
for the manner in which the chairman has conducted this process with 
the appropriations of the Homeland Security Appropriations Committee.
  Let me thank the ranking member of the committee and the chairman of 
the subcommittee for working with the authorizers. And let me thank my 
chairman, Chairman Thompson of the full committee, the Homeland 
Security Committee, for creating the committee which I Chair, the 
Transportation, Security and Critical Infrastructure.
  This amendment speaks directly to the immediacy of our concerns about 
pipeline security, refineries and other critical infrastructure.

[[Page 15915]]

  A CRS report indicates that there are now nearly half a million miles 
of oil and gas transmission pipelines across America. We got a wake-up 
call just a few weeks ago with the discovery of a possible plot to blow 
up the fuel lines at John F. Kennedy Airport. Now we understand that we 
have a dilemma, and that dilemma requires the Department of Homeland 
Security to consider assessing the vulnerability of pipelines, 
refineries and other critical infrastructure around America.
  Natural gas, gasoline, petroleum and other pipelines can produce 
catastrophic fires and explosions when they fall, and it is imperative 
that we begin to assess the vulnerabilities of such.
  A weekly bulletin from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and 
FBI told law enforcement officials and businesses this week that the 
Independence Day holiday might make an attack more appealing.

                              {time}  0130

  This was an article in 2005. The bulletin said important economic 
infrastructure like refineries are possible targets for terrorists.
  We need to assess the vulnerabilities of our refineries and 
pipelines.
  Another article said, apparently some international terrorists have 
targeted our oil refining assets in the United States as potential 
targets. FBI Director Mueller said between 1999 and 2001, the FBI 
prevented 10 possible domestic terrorist incidents, including two 
potentially large scale, high casualty attacks by right wing groups, 
and the planned bombing of a trans-Alaska pipeline in 1999. Our 
pipelines are on the front lines of terrorists.
  A New York Post article said for years, city residents have 
questioned the safety of the 40 year old artery that pumps jet fuel, 
heating and diesel oil and gasoline into the city, and some have even 
cited the pipeline as a potential terrorist attack.
  We saw what happened when this allegation of terrorism that is still 
being investigated was uncovered regarding the John F. Kennedy 
pipeline. We have to get in front of this. We have to be preventive. 
Our committee will go forward having oversight hearings on these 
important questions. But it is important for the Department of Homeland 
Security to adhere to its directive and to recognize that the 
responsibility of security of pipelines and critical infrastructure 
remains in the Department of Homeland Security.
  It is interesting as to whether or not beyond the question of 
impacting our security and our lives, that this damage to critical 
infrastructure can generate increased oil prices, something that many 
Americans are now saying, enough is enough.
  I would ask my colleagues to recognize that our responsibility, the 
Homeland Security Appropriations Committee that has put together a very 
inclusive appropriations bill, to answer the questions of the needs of 
America's homeland security. But we also have to recognize that we have 
to be diligent, we have to be vigilant, and we have to make sure that 
we are in front of the ideas, the threats, of those perpetrators who 
would want to do us harm.
  The half a million miles of pipelines, the many, many refineries, 
speaks loudly and volumes to the necessity of creating a vulnerability 
assessment of those pipelines and refineries and other critical 
infrastructure around the United States.
  I would ask that my colleagues support this amendment, and I would 
ask additionally that the Department of Homeland Security have as one 
of its chief responsibilities the vulnerability assessment of these 
critical infrastructure sites.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to commend our colleague for her effective focus 
on this issue of pipeline safety and her good work on the authorizing 
committee and her coming here at this very late hour to offer this very 
fine amendment. I am pleased on behalf of the majority to accept the 
amendment.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I am absolutely delighted. It 
means America will be safer.
  I thank the Chair for this opportunity to explain my amendment to 
H.R. 2638, the ``Homeland Security Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 
of 2008.'' As a member of the Homeland Security Committee and the chair 
of the Transportation Security and Infrastructure Protection 
Subcommittee, I am pleased to offer this amendment, which enhances the 
bill by requiring the Department of Homeland Security to conduct a 
security vulnerability study of the Nation's pipelines and refineries.
  Less than two weeks ago, four would-be terrorists were arrested for 
hatching a plot to blow up John F. Kennedy Airport and swaths of 
Queens by attacking fuel tanks and an underground pipeline in the hope 
of igniting a catastrophic explosion that would surpass the horrific 
devastation visited upon the Nation on September 11.

  Because of their length, ubiquity, and remoteness, pipelines can be 
nearly impossible to defend. Natural gas, gasoline, petroleum, and 
other pipelines can produce catastrophic fires and explosions when they 
fail. ``Environmental'' damage aside, these events can kill and injure 
people, and the casualties can be worse when pipelines are located near 
populated areas.
  We need to ensure that everything that can be done to secure the 
Nation's pipelines and refineries is being done. There may be, of 
course, other actions that pipeline and refinery operators can and must 
do to reduce the threats terrorists could present.
  My aim of my amendment is to increase the knowledge base pertaining 
to potential vulnerabilities of a critically important segment of the 
Nation's economic infrastructure so that effective countermeasures can 
be taken to protect the public health, safety, and welfare.
  For these reasons, I urge the adoption of this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I am very happy to yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Tancredo

  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 7 offered by Mr. Tancredo:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. 544. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used in contravention of section 642(a) of the Illegal 
     Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 
     (8 U.S.C. 1373(a)).

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado.
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment that I offered many times in the 
past. It was actually passed by the House, I believe, in the last 
session. The fact is that we need to, unfortunately, run at it again.
  My amendment would prevent State and local governments who refuse to 
share information with Federal immigration authorities from obtaining 
Federal funds under this act. These are so-called sanctuary policies, 
and they are not only misguided and dangerous, but they also are 
illegal.
  That is an interesting aspect of this that we have brought to the 
attention of the Congress many times in the past. There is in fact a 
law. It has been on the books now for over 10 years. Section 642 of the 
Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 
already makes it illegal for a State or local government to block 
communications between State and local police and Federal immigration 
enforcement authorities.
  Unfortunately, there are no provisions for enforcement. Therefore, 
many local governments adopt policies that explicitly prevent their 
police officers from cooperating with immigration and Customs 
enforcement agents.
  A recent example of this increasingly brazen defiance of Federal law 
is the City of San Francisco. Just a couple of months ago, Mayor Gavin 
Newsome assured a concerned audience that he

[[Page 15916]]

would ``not allow any of his department heads or anyone else associated 
with the city to cooperate in any way, shape or form with these 
immigration raids.'' Unfortunately, San Francisco is not is not the 
only jurisdiction in this category.
  When local governments refuse to share information with Federal 
immigration authorities, police departments often stop and/or arrest 
criminal aliens time and time again, only to release them without ever 
checking their immigration status. As a result, instead of being 
deported, these aliens move on to commit other crimes.
  The City of Denver also has a sanctuary city policy that violates 
Federal law. Their police manual explicitly prohibits officers from 
initiating actions whose objective is to ``discover the immigration 
status of a person.''
  Mr. Chairman, I can tell you from my own experience that there have 
been numerous occasions where this sanctuary city policy in Denver 
alone has resulted in the deaths of individuals, and certainly other 
kinds of crimes being perpetrated, because people that were involved 
with these murders and/or manslaughter charges that were brought 
against them were illegal aliens. They had come in contact at some time 
in the past with the authorities, but because of these sanctuary city 
policies, none of the authorities were able to communicate with ICE and 
therefore, of course, these people went undetected and otherwise almost 
certainly would have been taken into custody and deported and those 
crimes would not have been committed.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  Mr. Chairman, section 642(a) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and 
Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 prohibits governments from 
withholding immigration-related data when it is requested by other 
government entities with a legitimate need for the information. This 
amendment, which our friend from Colorado has offered many times 
before, would prevent DHS from awarding funds to any government entity 
that fails to comply with the law.
  Now, as far as I know, Mr. Chairman, the Department of Homeland 
Security has never reported a failure to comply with the law, with this 
underlying law. The Justice Department has never filed suit against any 
entity for violating this statute. So I don't know how our friend would 
explain that. I would say it renders unclear why this amendment is 
necessary or what effect it is likely to have.
  I would yield to the gentleman, and I would appreciate his responding 
to a few questions that would help us understand the thrust of this 
amendment.
  Does the gentlemen know of any DHS funding today that is used in 
contravention of section 642(a) of the 1996 Immigration Act?
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, the issue is not whether DHS funding is 
used in contravention. It is whether or not there is any penalty to be 
assessed to enforce the law that is on the books. Naturally there has 
been no suit brought or whatever because there is no penalty in the law 
itself. What we are doing here is providing a penalty for the violation 
of the law.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. The question is, do you know of any 
violations that have occurred?
  Mr. TANCREDO. Yes, I most certainly do, and I have brought them to 
the attention of the body. There are many, many more like this.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. You are aware of DHS funding that has 
been used in contravention?
  Mr. TANCREDO. No. The question was am I aware of any violations of 
the law, and the answer is yes, many violations of the law.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I am asking about DHS funding, Homeland 
Security funding, which, after all, is the department we are 
appropriating for.
  Mr. TANCREDO. That is correct. I am trying to assess a penalty for a 
violation of the law, and this is the penalty that I believe is 
appropriate.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Let me maybe phrase this another way. Is 
disaster relief funding being used in contravention of this section?
  Mr. TANCREDO. At the present time, it is not. But if we pass this 
amendment, it would be, yes. There has to be some sort of penalty 
assessed to the law that is already on the books or, of course, it is 
of no value. That is why so many cities have adopted these sanctuary 
city programs, and that is why we have to do something about it.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Let me ask about DHS grant dollars 
generally. Have they been used in contravention of this section?
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, any first responder money, any of the 
money we are talking about here in San Francisco, is currently 
appropriated in violation of the law, actually, and what this would do 
is establish that fact.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I am asking though what evidence exists 
that this is actually a problem.
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield further, 
there are innumerable cases we could cite, and certainly I did, of 
where cities were in contravention of the law. They described 
themselves as sanctuary cities. They have said they will not in fact 
obey the law, the 1996 law that I have already described, that we have 
laid out, section 642 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant 
Responsibility Act.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Reclaiming my time, New York City has a 
law on the books, for example, that prohibits the provision of 
Immigration information to the Federal Government, I understand. Would 
this amendment prohibit any DHS funding to New York City?
  Mr. TANCREDO. Yes. The fact is if they chose to maintain this 
particular program, it would prohibit the funding.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. The answer is yes. Reclaiming my time, 
it is a simple straightforward question. Border Patrol agents are 
funded in this bill. If DHS were to find that a border city or county 
were in contravention of section 642(a), would this provision require 
them to remove all Border Patrol agents from that city or county?
  Mr. TANCREDO. They are not protecting the city. They are protecting 
the border.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's time has expired. The gentleman 
from Colorado has 2 minutes remaining.
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I thank Mr. Tancredo for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I would take it to this, that one thing that has 
happened with these sanctuary policies is the cities have gotten 
together, I think I looked at the same attorney opinion, and tried to 
find a loophole, and in many of these sanctuary policies it says if you 
are an employee of the city, you shall not gather information. If you 
are prohibited from gathering, then you don't have any information to 
share with the law enforcement people who do enforce our Immigration 
laws. That is one of the loopholes that is there.
  But the philosophy here is really the difference. There are two 
trains of thought. One of them says if you enforce immigration law in 
my community, people won't come forward and report other laws, like 
domestic abuse or whatever. And the other side is, how in the world can 
you enforce some laws and not others?
  This is a statute that is clear on the books. Mr. Tancredo is seeking 
to enforce that statute. And the decision needs to be made by the 
cities, do you like your Homeland Security funding? Is the funding that 
comes from the Federal Government that provides that security in those 
cities worth more to you than your sanctuary policy? That is the bottom 
line. Federal law has got to prevail.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to the bill, and I claim the 
time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, this may be one of those classic moments 
where we are dealing with something that really isn't broken. The fact 
of life

[[Page 15917]]

is that everybody at every local government and in every locality 
throughout this country knows what the law is and knows how to react to 
that law. People are not withholding information from the Federal 
Government.
  What happens, however, on many occasions, is that local communities 
will make a statement, and basically it is a statement in many cases, 
in most cases, saying that that area is a sanctuary, meaning that they 
look at the immigration issue differently than you may in other parts 
of the country. But it doesn't mean that they flaunt the law, that they 
laugh at the law, that they will not participate.
  I assure you that in the case of New York City, where the scene of 
the crime took place on September 11, no one in that city government, 
no one in that State government, is interested in doing anything else 
but complying with every law that will help us secure our borders and 
protect our city.

                              {time}  0145

  But we in that city look at immigration different than other people 
in other parts of the country, perhaps. We don't see immigrants as a 
problem to society that we have to somehow create a problem for them.
  So sanctuary movements, which incidentally are growing throughout 
churches of all denominations throughout the country in very 
conservative and in very liberal areas, those movements are simply 
statements by communities saying we see the immigration issue from a 
humane point of view. We see it differently than other people. We don't 
think these people are problems for the country. Let's work to resolve 
the problem in a proper way.
  This, again, is a classic case of coming to the House floor and 
saying, one, we are going to tell local governments what to do, 
something that side does not usually like to do, and in this case 
freedom of speech. Simply a statement by many communities that they see 
immigration in a different way and we should not be badgering them and 
creating issues where issues do not exist.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, talking about not telling local 
communities what they should do, we have a law. It is on the book. I am 
not imposing new legislation telling communities what to do, I am 
simply assessing a penalty for the law that already exists.
  It is interesting that the gentleman would bring up New York City. As 
a matter of fact, in New York City there was a case where there was a 
woman brutally raped by five people, four of whom were illegal 
immigrants and had already come in contact with the police many times. 
It was that case that made New York City rethink, albeit temporarily, 
their whole sanctuary city policy, and they did take it away for a 
while because of that. They have sort of reimposed it.
  Also, the 9/11 hijackers, had we known that they had been stopped 
before, which they actually had, if they had come in contact with the 
police, which they did, we may have been able to stop them had we not 
had sanctuary city policies in place, not just in New York but 
throughout the country.
  These are cities violating the law at the present time. Honestly, I 
am not trying to make new law, just enforce existing law.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado 
will be postponed.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Royce

  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Royce:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act for 
     customs and border protection fencing, infrastructure, and 
     technology may be used for anything but at least two layers 
     of reinforced fencing and roads pursuant to section 102 of 
     Public Law 104-208.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Royce) and the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Farr) each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I want to start off by thanking Mrs. Blackburn, Messrs. King, Hunter, 
Franks, Bilbray, Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite, Mrs. Capito, and Mrs. Drake for 
all coming together and working towards this amendment.
  This amendment will give badly needed funding to the border security 
fence as provided by the law in the Secure Fence Act. Congress 
authorized it last year, provided funding to get it started in the 2007 
DHS spending bill.
  The point I would like to make, although Congress mandated the 
construction of 847 miles of fencing, to date only 13.01 miles have 
been completed. And as you know, it is supposed to be a double-border 
fence, and only one-half of the 13.01 miles is completed in the sense 
it is only one side of the fence.
  So the amendment being offered today takes funding made available in 
the bill for border protection and directs it to the fencing.
  This amendment will give the administration, I think, what it needs 
to construct the remaining portions of the border fence. It is vital to 
national security. I had a number of hearings down on the border when I 
was chairman of the Terrorism and Nonproliferation Subcommittee. But 
Border Patrol told me about the effectiveness of the fence. There are 
over 400 attacks on Border Patrol agents a year. They need this fence. 
They find it is a great force multiplier. It extends their capacity. It 
allows them the discretion to redeploy agents to areas where they are 
not vulnerable or at risk.
  Frankly, I think we have a difference of opinion on how important it 
is to follow the law under the Secure Fence Act with the 
administration.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. 
King).
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California 
for yielding.
  I want to clarify what this amendment does. It does really two 
things. One is it directs the $1 billion already in the bill to go to 
the 854 miles of the most critical areas of the border that were 
identified in the Secure Fence Act. The first thing is put the 
resources where they are the most critical, where Congress has, by more 
than a 2-to-1 margin in the House, said let's do this. And the Senate 
has said by a more than 4-to-1 margin, 80-19, let's build this 854 
miles.
  The second thing that the bill does is that it confines the billion 
dollars to fence and access roads. You have to have roads to build it, 
and you have to have roads to maintain it. What the administration has 
demonstrated is out of the $1.187 billion that we appropriated last 
year, they spent perhaps $30 million on real fence, the 13.01 miles 
that Mr. Royce addressed. The balance of that is on virtual technology.
  Now we need some virtual technology; but overall, this will provide 
in the end $2.2 billion. And of that, $1 billion is set aside for 
physical structures, fence and roads. The balance of that, the decision 
can be made by DHS as to whether that is virtual and real or whatever 
combination.
  So we are asking for $1 billion of the overall $2.2 billion to go to 
physical fence and access roads. That is consistent with what Congress 
has passed by a large margin.
  What is so important about this that isn't brought into this debate 
is the fact that there are $65 billion worth of illegal drugs coming 
across that southern border. Ninety percent of the illegal drugs that 
come into America come there. The force of that $65 billion is 
overpowering, and no amount of virtual fence is going to stop a real 
drug

[[Page 15918]]

cartel that is pushing on all 2,000 miles of that border and will find 
the weak spots.
  Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, and 
must say it has been very interesting tonight. There has been a lot of 
discussion about fences and very little discussion about Homeland 
Security which is what this budget is all about.
  It is interesting, in traveling the border and talking to the Border 
Patrol, there was never, never a request for this. What you are doing, 
very interesting in this amendment, you say ``none of the funds made 
available in this act for customs and border protection fencing, 
infrastructure, and technology may be used for anything but at least 
two layers of reinforced fencing and roads.''
  No technology, no infrastructure, just got to build two fences. Wait 
a minute. This committee went to a lot of effort to find out how to 
prioritize spending. What we heard from the experts is follow risk 
management principles.
  And the question was asked in committee: Where is the risk on our 
border? Where have we seen terrorism? And guess what the head of the 
Border Patrol said, the Customs and Border Patrol Commissioner said, 
when asked about how many terrorists we have apprehended or found on 
the Mexico-U.S. border? The answer was zero. How much material have you 
apprehended on that border? The answer was zero.
  When asked about the northern border the answer was yes, we have 
apprehended terrorists coming across that border, and we have 
apprehended material coming across that border.
  So based on risk management, if this is about terrorism, the fence is 
not an issue. I think this fence discussion here has created fence 
bulimia. That is all we can talk about, and it is only one fence, and 
now you want to build it double when the customs people don't even ask 
for that.
  We are sitting here as fence managers here in Washington and have 
nothing to do with trying to patrol that border. This is cutting off 
funds for technology and infrastructure. If there is anything that is 
needed along that border, it is infrastructure. This is like building a 
huge levee on one side of the river and not taking care of anything on 
the other side.
  I will tell you, if you are going to have security, you are going to 
have to have a much more comprehensive approach. Mexico is our 
important ally. It is our neighbor. It is our leading trade partner 
with the State of California which the gentleman is from. It has the 
busiest border between California and Mexico. More people cross that 
border every day and more legitimate commerce cross that border than 
any other place in the world.
  And we are doing that with existing resources. Guess what, they are 
working because the committee has put in some very good detection 
systems using smart cards and other things.
  I think this amendment does absolutely the opposite of what you want 
to do. This doesn't secure the border, this takes money away from 
technology and infrastructure development. Without a problem, you don't 
need to fix it.
  If you want to build a fence where the terrorists are coming, then 
build that fence across the Canadian border.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, yielding myself the time, I chaired the 
committee meetings down on the border. Mahmoud Qurani crossed that 
border in the trunk of a car, an agent for Hezbollah, whose brother, by 
the way, was in charge of the southern front in the attack on Israel 
recently. He came across in the trunk of a car.
  I have talked to Border Patrol agents who have made apprehensions on 
that border, and I can tell you the San Diego fence has not only cut 
the crime rate by half in San Diego, but also on the Mexican side, and 
nobody has designed a way to get around the San Diego fence. This 
double-border fence works. It is what the Border Patrol has asked me 
for and testified up here for.
  And 69 percent in the polling last night by Rasmussen, actually the 
polling was on the 12th, 69 percent of the public say they want, they 
favor an approach focusing on securing the border with this kind of 
approach. Only 20 percent of people want Congress to try to pass the 
immigration reform bill that failed in the Senate last week.
  Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, this gold-plated fence costs $3 million a 
mile. To do that takes money away from technology and infrastructure. 
It takes money from effective border control. Effective control is 
where they detect and apprehend. That is what they want the money spent 
on, being able to detect and apprehend. This takes money away from 
doing effective border security. I oppose the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  I am intrigued by the suggestion that Border Patrol officials have 
come requesting this kind of approach for protecting the border. I have 
never heard any Border Patrol official make such a request.
  On the contrary, during our travels on the southwest borders and in 
talking to officials here in Washington, Mr. Farr is absolutely 
correct. The first thing they say is this isn't an enforcement problem 
alone, it requires a comprehensive immigration reform effort.
  The second thing they say is that one size does not fit all in terms 
of border protection. The gentleman cites the San Diego example. Yes, 
that may well be a situation where a fence is called for. But the 
people who know the most about this and who are charged with protecting 
us every day invariably say that different technologies, different 
kinds of barriers, vehicle barriers, pedestrian barriers, barriers that 
might be suited to one kind of terrain rather than another, electronic 
surveillance, there are a range of technologies that are required here. 
This is an incredible amendment. This amendment forgoes any kind of 
analytical effort and examination of differences and simply says two-
layer fences will be erected everywhere.
  And by the way, this is far more expensive than other kinds of 
barriers. So whatever it is, we would build less of it. The number of 
miles we are talking about here, to build that with the kind of fencing 
that the gentleman wants to see would cost $2 billion. That is twice 
what we have in this bill; so, of course, it would protect far less of 
the border.
  The Department needs some discretion here, some discretion for the 
best minds in law enforcement and technology to decide what sort of 
protection makes sense in what portions of the border.

                              {time}  0200

  Our bill does that. Our bill has generous funding, but it also has 
some requirements about documenting the cost-effectiveness, the 
effectiveness in protecting the border, as well as the kind of effects 
we've talked about earlier this evening on the communities in the path 
of this.
  So it's a sensible approach. It's one that draws on the best 
expertise we've been able to engage, and I strongly urge that it be 
retained in the bill, and therefore, this amendment be rejected.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Royce).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California 
will be postponed.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Forbes

  Mr. FORBES. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Forbes:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. 544. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to extend the designation of any foreign state under 
     section

[[Page 15919]]

     244(b)(3)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 
     1254a(b)(3)(C)).

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Forbes) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. FORBES. Mr. Chairman, as you know, Congress has granted the 
Secretary of Homeland Security the authority to grant temporary refuge 
to aliens, usually illegal immigrants, from particular countries under 
temporary protected status. Congress intended this provision to live up 
to its name and be temporary. Unfortunately, a pattern of abuse has 
emerged in the temporary protected status, or TPS, program. DHS can 
grant TPS status to the nationals of a country for as long as 18 months 
and can later extend the TPS period indefinitely by adding extensions 
up to 18 months each.
  The administration has begun to utilize TPS as a de facto amnesty for 
illegal immigrants from certain Central American countries. TPS status 
was granted to Honduran and Nicaraguan nationals at the end of 1998 
following Hurricane Mitch. The administration has extended TPS for 
these individuals multiple times, the latest extension lasting until 
January 2009, more than 10 years after the hurricane. TPS status for 
Salvadoran nationals was granted early in 2001 as a result of 
earthquakes hitting the region. The latest TPS extension for Salvadoran 
nationals lasts until September 2007, again, long after temporary 
dislocations caused by the earthquakes.
  There are currently some 248,000 Salvadorans, 81,000 Hondurans and 
4,000 Nicaraguans, mostly aliens who came illegally to the United 
States, benefiting from TPS status. Our Nation currently has a growing 
gang problem, and we have had testimony in the Judiciary Committee that 
60 to 85 percent of some of the most violent gang members in the United 
States are here illegally. Of 5,000 gang members in a database that ICE 
compiled for Operation Community Shield, 291 El Salvadoran nationals, 
43 Hondurans, and 1 Nicaraguan had been granted temporary protected 
status, 6.7 percent of the total.
  At least one of the suspected MS-13 members accused in the 2002 rape 
of two deaf girls in Massachusetts had been in our country protected by 
TPS. In fact, currently, a criminal gang member could literally stand 
on a street corner and announce that they were a member of a violent 
criminal gang and that they came here illegally, and if protected under 
TPS, no law enforcement officer could touch them until they had 
actually committed a crime.
  TPS is being used to grant long-time residence, a perpetual amnesty, 
to illegal immigrants of certain favored nationalities. This amendment 
will return TPS to its original intent of providing temporary refuge 
during temporary periods of crisis. It would bar any funds made 
available in this Act from being used to extend TPS for nationals of a 
country beyond the original period of not more than 18 months.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose this amendment and in the strongest 
possible terms. The amendment would prohibit funds made available in 
the Act from being used to extend temporary protected status for 
countries covered under that program.
  Temporary protected status is a special immigration benefit for 
citizens of countries with severe hardships: civil wars, massive 
natural disasters, humanitarian crises, some of those troubled places 
in the world where people are fleeing absolutely horrendous conditions. 
This program offers the citizens of those countries temporary sanctuary 
in our country until their countries' troubles are resolved.
  In total, 4,198 people currently in the U.S. could be deported if 
their temporary protected status were not extended. These individuals 
would be sent back to countries with extreme conditions, places like 
Burundi, Somalia, the Sudan. Of course, we hope that these troubles 
will end and that these people could eventually return to their home 
countries. This is temporary status, but the notion that we would 
defund this program or refuse to extend it where it's called for.
  This amendment would also be detrimental to the effective 
administration and enforcement of immigration laws. It would create 
confusion about the degree to which the U.S. government can be trusted 
to maintain its commitment to those for whom it offers immigration 
benefits.
  So I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I'm opposed to the amendment, and I rise 
to claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this may go down as the meanest and most misguided 
amendment of the evening. TPS has been known and worked as a proper 
legal statement by the U.S. government to give protection to people who 
are in situations where they cannot go back home. These people did not 
come into the country illegally. In fact, in many cases, our actions 
being involved in those countries invited them to come here, and this 
is why we offer that protection.
  The countries that would be affected are countries where we either 
have had a standing tradition of being involved in trying to resolve 
some difficulties in those countries and participated militarily and 
otherwise in those countries and, as a result, gave them this 
protection. And secondly, there are also a set of countries which are 
going through very difficult situations.
  I'm thinking, as I hear the gentleman speak, if Mr. Frank Wolf was 
here now he would be up on our side talking to you about the Sudan and 
talking to you about other places where we should continue to give the 
temporary protection status.
  But here's the main point which I've already mentioned and needs to 
be mentioned again. This is a situation where these folks should not be 
looked at as people who are here illegally. They're here legally. 
They're here because this Congress, this administration and other 
administrations, have seen fit to give them this protection. They're 
here because they can't go back home.
  And again, we may disagree on this, and frankly, there might be 
people on this side that disagree with me, but in some of those 
countries our policies have played a role in creating a situation where 
they can't go back home. So to lump them in with the undocumented 
immigrant situation of the country is totally unfair because it's two 
different issues. This one is sanctioned.
  Interestingly enough, I notice that there's always a little bit of 
politics involved in this because the gentleman doesn't suggest that 
all Cubans go back to Cuba and that they should not get special 
treatment as they do under the Cuban Adjustment Act. We never touch 
that one. We touch this one.
  Well, that's sad. It shouldn't be, and we should continue to protect 
these folks and try to make situations back home bearable for them. In 
the meantime, we should not be throwing them out of the country.
  And lastly, we're not talking about 12 million people. We're not 
talking about 15 or 20 million people. We're talking about a much 
smaller number of people who need our protection.
  There's a lady in the harbor to the city where I live and where I've 
grown up. That lady, known as the Statue of Liberty, tells us to bring 
to these shores the people that are hurting.
  This is a fine example of America at its best. Don't lump it in with 
any other problem. That's not fair and that's not right.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.
  Mr. FORBES. Mr. Chairman, could you tell me how much time I have 
remaining?
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia has 2 minutes 
remaining.

[[Page 15920]]


  Mr. FORBES. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remaining time.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman stated that this would perhaps be the 
meanest and most misguided amendment of the night, but I would suggest 
that the gentleman look in the eyes of the father who had his deaf 
daughter raped and assaulted by individuals who were here illegally, 
protected only because we shielded them with temporary protected 
status, where they could have literally been standing on the street and 
have said, I'm a member of a violent criminal gang, I was here 
illegally, and there would have been nothing law enforcement could have 
done to have gotten rid of those individuals until they'd actually 
raped that little girl. One of those individuals was here protected by 
temporary protected status. The other one had applied for it and was in 
the process of getting it.
  The second thing, Mr. Chairman, we heard it mentioned that these 
individuals are here and we're protecting them on a temporary basis. 
It's mighty hard to look into the eyes of the American people, and say 
that when we have extended something for 10 years, that that is a 
temporary situation.
  And Mr. Chairman, I would just suggest to you when we talk about 
they're here legally, it is true they're here legally because we've put 
this shield of protection around them. If we're going to truly deal 
with the law and be honest with the American people and what this law 
says, we need to either take the word ``temporary'' out and just tell 
them it's protected status, or we need to let the law do what it's 
intended to do, which is to truly be temporary by being an 18-month 
period of time, not a 10-year period of time.
  Mr. Chairman, once again, I hope that it will be the pleasure of my 
colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Forbes).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. FORBES. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia 
will be postponed.


              Amendment Offered by Mr. Rogers of Kentucky

  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Rogers of Kentucky:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. 544. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to implement section 536 of this Act.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) and the gentleman from North 
Carolina (Mr. Price) each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is simple. It 
strikes the Davis-Bacon section in the bill. That section has 
consequences that I'm not sure the majority has thoroughly thought 
through.
  Requiring all DHS contract and grant funds to comply with Davis-Bacon 
could unfairly disadvantage communities that are unfortunate enough to 
be struck by a disaster. It could reduce funds available for their 
recovery. It could slow the pace of assistance and significantly 
increase non-Federal cost-share requirements. This section would likely 
cost already cash-strapped States and localities additional funds.
  The Congressional Budget Office says that Davis-Bacon will cost 
taxpayers more than $9.5 billion from 2002 to 2011. This expansion 
would only greater the burden on taxpayers.
  This expansion further disadvantages small, emerging and minority 
businesses new to the complex, inefficient wage and work restrictions 
which make it nearly impossible for them to compete with better 
capitalized corporations, disadvantaging the very companies we often 
seek to help following a disaster.
  And so I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and strike this 
onerous restriction on the Nation's communities.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  The amendment would eliminate the requirement that the funding 
provided in this bill comply with the prevailing wage requirements of 
the Davis-Bacon Act. Nobody remembers who Davis and Bacon were, but the 
Act was enacted back in 1931 by a Republican Congress and a Republican 
administration, that of one Herbert Hoover.
  It sets minimum labor standards for workers employed in Federal 
contract construction. It simply says that they've got to pay their 
employees, if they're using Federal funds, not less than the locally 
prevailing wage.

                              {time}  0215

  The Department of Homeland Security interpreted the application of 
Davis-Bacon far too narrowly. They said it applies only to Stafford Act 
grant programs, virtually no other DHS programs, despite the fact that 
a lot of these programs do involve construction projects like State and 
urban area Homeland Security grants, buffer zone protection grants, 
port security grants, airport security grants, transit security grants, 
and so forth.
  Our belief simply is that there is no good reason for denying 
prevailing wage protection to jobs involved in these activities. There 
is a waiver that the President can employ in situations where Davis-
Bacon requirements would truly have a detrimental impact, but for most 
jobs most of the time, carrying out the intent of this bill, fair, 
locally prevailing wages should prevail.
  If you are talking about the quality of construction, I think that 
adds an argument as well. Davis-Bacon encourages a higher quality of 
workmanship. It encourages enhanced productivity. It reduces the need 
for remedial work, probably saving dollars in many instances. So there 
are many, many arguments for this which I won't belabor at this late 
hour. I believe the inclusion of the Davis-Bacon requirements is 
prudent and fair, and I urge the rejection of this amendment.
  Mr. HARE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment 
offered by the Gentleman from Kentucky that would strip critical Davis-
Bacon protections from H.R. 2638, the fiscal year 2008 Department of 
Homeland Security Appropriations Act.
  The goal of the Davis-Bacon Act is to protect local construction wage 
standards by preventing contractors from bidding for federally funded 
contracts on the basis of wages lower than those prevailing in the 
area.
  Davis-Bacon applies to procurement of construction services by 
Federal agencies; however, it does not automatically apply to 
construction projects financed in whole or in part by federal grants 
and other forms of federal financial assistance to states and 
localities.
  Section 536 has therefore been included in H.R. 2638 in order to 
assure the consistent application of Davis-Bacon prevailing wage 
standards to construction projects funded with federal assistance.
  Contrary to arguments we have heard this morning, numerous recent 
academic studies demonstrate that the application of Davis-Bacon 
prevailing wage standards to construction projects does not 
substantially increase the cost of public works projects.
  Additionally, claims that the application of Davis-Bacon prevailing 
wage standards to recipients of DHS grants violates states' rights 
raise a legal argument that was resolved 70 years ago when the Supreme 
Court held that federal statutes which offer financial assistance 
subject to acceptance of federal standards do not invade state 
sovereignty. The statute simply extends the right for states and 
localities to accept or reject the opportunity to obtain DHS grants and 
other federal financial assistance to help meet security and recovery 
needs.
  By guaranteeing payment of the prevailing local wage rate, Davis-
Bacon provides a better standard of living and economic security for 
workers, particularly in rural communities and small towns like those 
in my Congressional

[[Page 15921]]

district. It is crucial that these protections remain in H.R. 2638. 
Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to reject the Rogers Amendment.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance 
of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Kentucky 
will be postponed.


           Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Rogers of Kentucky

  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Rogers of Kentucky:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __. Each amount appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act that is not required to be appropriated 
     or otherwise made available by a provision of law is hereby 
     reduced by 5.7 percent.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) and the gentleman from North 
Carolina (Mr. Price) each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, this is the final amendment, 
and it is the fiscal responsibility amendment. This amendment would 
implement an across-the-board cut in the bill of 5.7 percent, thereby 
limiting the increase of this bill to 7.2 percent over the current 
year, the amount the President requested, instead of the current 13.6 
percent in the current bill.
  Let me emphasize that point again. This amendment does not cut 
anything. It provides a more than generous and responsible 7.2 percent 
increase in Homeland Security funding over the current year. It's a 
small downpayment on fiscal discipline, an issue we heard a lot about 
last November.
  The national debt is burgeoning, the public is demanding that we gain 
control of Federal spending. Despite the President's overall budget 
request of $933 billion for fiscal year 2008, and an already generous 
$63 billion over the current year's level, the majority plans to add 
another $20 billion on top of that at the minimum. Where will it stop?
  This year's $20 billion could become $40 billion next year and on and 
on and on. The only thing this does is ensure our children and their 
children will be paying for this generations to come.
  The Homeland Security bill before us today represents 10 percent of 
that $20 billion increase in spending, more than $2 billion above the 
President's request. Nobody on this side is proposing that we cut 
Homeland Security, not our President, not this Member, certainly not 
this amendment.
  I agree with the funding level requested by the administration. It's 
a responsible 7.2 percent increase from the base 2007 level, a rate 
that is already over double the rate of inflation.
  As I said before, the public is demanding accountability and fiscal 
responsibility. I don't think we can exclude any Federal agency, even 
Homeland Security, from fiscal discipline. Otherwise, there will be no 
discipline at all.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment, a fiscally 
disciplined amendment still providing a 7.2 percent increase in 
Homeland Security security.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  The gentleman's amendment would reduce the funding in this bill by 
just over $2 billion, or 5.7 percent. As this debate began, we did 
discuss the comparison of the bill that we have reported to last year's 
level of funding, and I am going to just repeat those figures here, 
because I think it is important to put the increase in perspective.
  The fiscal 2007 bill, with the emergency funding included that was 
adopted at the time that bill was passed, when that is considered as 
the baseline for 2007, our bill represents a 7.5 percent increase over 
last year's funding. If the supplemental funding is included in the 
2007 base, then, actually, our bill represents a 7.5 percent decrease 
in funding.
  But the point is not just to throw abstract numbers around. The point 
of the considerable deliberation our subcommittee has undertaken is to 
match up the available resources with this country's needs.
  I believe we have done that in a conscientious way. I think it's 
extremely hard to find anything in this bill that is funded to excess, 
funded lavishly.
  That's the reason that the gentleman has chosen not to focus on 
specific items, but, rather, to propose an across the board cut, 
indiscriminately applied, across the country, of 5.7 percent. It would 
have consequences, even spread across all the accounts. It would mean a 
reduced level of funding for a number of things that we have put in 
this bill for very good reason. The SAFE Port Act, the authorization, 
has required that we apply more funding to port security. This cut 
would reduce that substantially. It would, in all likelihood, mean that 
we could provide very limited additional programs for fire grants or 
transit emergency security grants, or emergency grants, State and urban 
grants, other important programs to our hometowns.
  It would mean that border and immigration enforcement improvements 
would be hard to come by. It would make it very, very difficult to 
increase the amount of cargo that is carried on passenger aircraft that 
is screened and so forth. These cuts would be consequential.
  Although our friends on the other side of the aisle have been rather 
selective in their treatment of the President's budget request, the 
chairman has repaired that request in this measure. But I do need to 
point out that we have not, under his leadership in past years, or in 
our deliberations this year, taken the President's requests as serious 
requests, but we have not hesitated to alter them when we felt that was 
required. It's not unusual for the Homeland Security bill in the House 
of Representatives to increase President Bush's request. In fact, we 
have done it every time we have brought a bill to this floor.
  In 2004, the House bill contained $1 billion more than the Bush 
request; in 2005, $900 million more than the Bush request; in 2006, 
$1.3 billion more than the Bush request; in 2007, $1.1 billion more 
than the Bush request.
  So we are in that mode once again. There is no reason to be surprised 
that in some respects we found the Bush requests inadequate, and we 
have increased them. In other respects, we have reduced them. We have 
done both. But there is a net increase, and I think a net increase that 
is amply justified.
  The hour is late, I believe that the funding levels in this bill are 
quite carefully considered. This amendment would do some real damage to 
some things that we need to improve.
  So I ask my colleagues to vote against this amendment.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I urge an ``aye'' vote on the 
amendment.
  Before yielding back, I want to thank the Chair for being a very 
responsible and fair-minded chair tonight. We thank you for that 
service. I want to congratulate the chairman of the subcommittee, who 
has been easy to work with and understanding of issues on this side of 
the aisle, and he has been very forthcoming and cooperative, but, at 
the same time, disciplined in his own approach, and to the staff on 
both sides of the aisle. This has been a long week for them, as well as 
a long several months now. I want to thank the staff for the great work 
that they have done.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I simply want to echo his 
kind words. It's a pleasure to work

[[Page 15922]]

with him, it has been for these last 4 years, as he has chaired this 
committee, and it has been a pleasure to work with him this year, a 
real professional who takes oversight seriously and who takes writing 
this budget seriously.
  Mr. Rogers and his staff, the staff here on this side, I won't ask 
how many hours of sleep they have had in the last several days.
  But it has been a real pleasure. I hope we will have a chance in the 
presence of the whole body tomorrow morning to pay tribute a bit more 
formally. But we are grateful.
  We are also grateful to see this evening come to a close. We will, of 
course, with our colleagues tomorrow, be having, I think, probably a 
record number of roll call votes in rapid sequence.
  With that, we are ready to conclude, and I yield back my time.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I thank the chairman, and I am glad that he 
is continuing the tradition of this subcommittee in being a bipartisan, 
strong oversight subcommittee to see this new Department to a success 
one of these days, we hope.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge an ``aye'' vote, and I yield back the balance of 
my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Kentucky 
will be postponed.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee 
do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Serrano) having assumed the chair, Mr. Ross, Acting Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 2638) 
making appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security for the 
fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and for other purposes, had come 
to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________