[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 10]
[House]
[Pages 14449-14454]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




    EMERGENCY BORDER SECURITY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2010

  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules 
and pass the bill (H.R. 5875) making emergency supplemental 
appropriations for border security for the fiscal year ending September 
30, 2010, and for other purposes.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 5875

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,  That the 
     following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the 
     Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the fiscal year 
     ending September 30, 2010, and for other purposes, namely:

                    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

                   U.S. Customs and Border Protection

                         salaries and expenses

       For an additional amount for ``Salaries and Expenses'', 
     $356,900,000, to remain available until September 30, 2012, 
     of which $78,000,000 shall be for costs to maintain U.S. 
     Customs and Border Protection Officer staffing on the 
     Southwest Border of the United States, $58,000,000 shall be 
     for hiring additional U.S. Customs and Border Protection 
     Officers for deployment at ports of entry on the Southwest 
     Border of the United States, $208,400,000 shall be for hiring 
     additional Border Patrol agents for deployment to the 
     Southwest Border of the United States, $2,500,000 shall be 
     for forward operating bases on the Southwest Border of the 
     United States, and $10,000,000 shall be to support integrity 
     and background investigation programs: Provided, That section 
     104 shall not apply to $151,000,000 of the amount under this 
     heading.

        border security fencing, infrastructure, and technology

       For an additional amount for ``Border Security Fencing, 
     Infrastructure, and Technology,'' $14,000,000, to remain 
     available until September 30, 2012, for costs of designing, 
     building, and deploying tactical communications for support 
     of enforcement activities on the Southwest Border of the 
     United States.

 air and marine interdiction, operations, maintenance, and procurement

       For an additional amount for ``Air and Marine Interdiction, 
     Operations, Maintenance, and Procurement'', $32,000,000, to 
     remain available until September 30, 2012, for costs of 
     acquisition and deployment of unmanned aircraft systems.

                 construction and facilities management

       For an additional amount for ``Construction and Facilities 
     Management'', $9,000,000, to remain available until September 
     30, 2012, for costs to construct up to three forward 
     operating bases for use by the Border Patrol to carry out 
     enforcement activities on the Southwest Border of the United 
     States.

                U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement

                         salaries and expenses

       For an additional amount for ``Salaries and Expenses'', 
     $30,000,000 to remain available until September 30, 2012, for 
     law enforcement activities targeted at reducing the threat of 
     violence along the Southwest Border of the United States.

                  Federal Emergency Management Agency

                        state and local programs

       For an additional amount for ``State and Local Programs'', 
     $50,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 2011, 
     for Operation Stonegarden.

                Federal Law Enforcement Training Center

                         salaries and expenses

       For an additional amount for ``Salaries and Expenses'', 
     $8,100,000, to remain available until September 30, 2011, for 
     costs to provide basic training for new U.S. Customs and 
     Border Protection Officers and Border Patrol agents.

                           GENERAL PROVISIONS

                        (including rescissions)

       Sec. 101.  For an additional amount for the Department of 
     Justice for necessary expenses for increased law enforcement 
     activities related to Southwest border enforcement, 
     $201,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 2012: 
     Provided, That funds shall be distributed to the following 
     accounts and in the following specified amounts--
       (1) ``Administrative Review and Appeals'', $2,118,000;
       (2) ``Detention Trustee'', $7,000,000;
       (3) ``Legal Activities, Salaries and Expenses, General 
     Legal Activities'', $3,862,000;
       (4) ``Legal Activities, Salaries and Expenses, United 
     States Attorneys'', $9,198,000;
       (5) ``United States Marshals Service, Salaries and 
     Expenses'', $29,651,000;
       (6) ``United States Marshals Service, Construction'', 
     $8,000,000;
       (7) ``Interagency Law Enforcement, Interagency Crime and 
     Drug Enforcement'', $21,000,000;
       (8) ``Federal Bureau of Investigation, Salaries and 
     Expenses'', $25,262,000;
       (9) ``Drug Enforcement Administration, Salaries and 
     Expenses'', $35,805,000;
       (10) ``Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, 
     Salaries and Expenses'', $39,104,000; and
       (11) ``Federal Prison System, Salaries and Expenses'', 
     $20,000,000.
       Sec. 102. (a) From unobligated balances made available to 
     U.S. Customs and Border Protection ``Border Security Fencing, 
     Infrastructure, and Technology'', $100,000,000 are rescinded: 
     Provided, That section 104 shall not apply to this 
     subsection.
       (b) From unobligated balances of prior year appropriations 
     made available for ``Transportation Security Administration--
     Aviation Security'' in chapter 5 of title III of Public Law 
     110-28, $15,500,000 are rescinded.
       (c) From unobligated balances of prior year appropriations 
     made available for ``Federal Emergency Management Agency--
     Administrative and Regional Operations'' in chapter 4 of 
     title II of Public Law 109-234, $34,500,000 are rescinded.
       (d) From unobligated balances of prior year appropriations 
     made available for ``Department of Commerce--Bureau of the 
     Census--Periodic Censuses and Programs'' in title I of Public 
     Law 111-117; 123 Stat. 3115, $51,000,000 are rescinded:  
     Provided, That section 104 shall not apply to this 
     subsection.
       Sec. 103.  Notwithstanding any other provision of law, from 
     available funds, the Department of Defense shall pay in 
     fiscal years 2010 and 2011 the full costs associated with the 
     deployment of the National Guard along the Southwest Border 
     of the United States.
       Sec. 104.  Each amount made available herein is designated 
     as an emergency requirement and necessary to meet emergency 
     needs pursuant to sections 403(a) and 423(b) of S. Con. Res. 
     13 (111th Congress), the concurrent resolution on the budget 
     for fiscal year 2010.
        This Act may be cited as the ``Emergency Border Security 
     Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2010''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Price) and the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) 
each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina.


                             General Leave

  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent 
that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their 
remarks on H.R. 5875.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from North Carolina?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill provides a total of $701 million to support 
high-priority Homeland Security and Justice programs to enhance 
security along the Southwest border, where violence on the Mexican side 
is intensifying due to turf battles among murderous transnational 
criminal organizations competing for drug, alien, and weapons 
trafficking business. The funding would enable DHS and DOJ, in 
cooperation with the National Guard, to build on the current border 
enforcement surge.
  This bill is largely uncontroversial. It simply re-proposes funding 
the House already approved as part of the war and disaster supplemental 
bill on July 1. As we all know, these funds, along with funds to stop 
teacher layoffs, were stripped by the Senate, leaving only funding for 
the wars, the Disaster Relief Fund, and Haiti earthquake relief. This 
funding is required now to improve security on our border and in our 
border communities.
  I want to thank the dedicated Members from the Southwest border 
region who have kept the focus on this issue and are responsible for 
bringing us here today. We will hear from a good number of these 
Members tonight. I especially want to thank Gabby Giffords and 
Silvestre Reyes for their effort leadership on this effort, along with 
Ciro Rodriguez, a member of our subcommittee who is a tireless advocate 
of these border communities; Alan Mollohan, who helped shape the 
Department of Justice items in the bill; and

[[Page 14450]]

many others who helped substantially: Chet Edwards, Ann Kirkpatrick, 
Harry Teague, Henry Cuellar, Solomon Ortiz, Ruben Hinojosa, Susan 
Davis, and Gene Green, among others.
  Very briefly, the bill would fund several critical initiatives, 
including 1,200 new border patrol agents to sustain current levels on 
the Southwest border and build up capacity for when the National Guard 
is withdrawn next year, and 500 new Customs and Border Protection 
officers for the Southwest border to keep up staffing at ports of entry 
as customs and immigration fee funding continues to fall.
  The bill includes funding for integrity programs to ensure CBP 
personnel operate at the high standards we expect and to combat efforts 
by the cartels to corrupt CBP personnel.
  The bill would fund three new forward operating bases and better 
tactical communications to enable the border patrol to operate close to 
the border and to close gaps that can be exploited by smugglers.
  It would establish four new Border Enforcement Security Task Forces 
on the border and build up a permanent ICE presence in joint 
counterdrug efforts in the region, as well as provide for a surge in 
ICE's criminal alien removal efforts.
  It would add $50 million to expand support for State and local joint 
law enforcement efforts on the border.
  It would add two additional Predator unmanned aircraft systems to 
ensure better coverage of the Southwest border, in particular on the 
Texas border.
  And finally, it provides $201 million for Justice Department staffing 
to surge agents and U.S. attorneys to high-crime areas in the Southwest 
border region, to provide more robust assistance to Mexican law 
enforcement authorities, and to better handle criminal aliens referred 
by the Department of Homeland Security.
  On June 22 of this year, the President requested a $600 million 
border security supplemental, offsetting $100 million of these funds 
and designating the rest as an emergency.

                              {time}  2010

  This bill is consistent with that request, funding $500 million under 
an emergency designation and offsetting $201 million from unobligated 
balances in TSA Aviation Security, FEMA Administrative and Regional 
Operations, the Census Bureau, and CBP's delayed virtual fence effort, 
or SBInet.
  Consistent with past practices for supplemental appropriations, we 
consider our challenges on the southwest border as important as our 
military's work to secure Afghanistan from the Taliban or to promote 
stability in Iraq, and some would argue that the southwest border 
mission is more important. That's why this President, like past 
Presidents, has requested the funding under an emergency designation. I 
know the minority has agreed with this point of view repeatedly in the 
past, and I hope we can count on their support now.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill will help us counter the pressures on our law 
enforcement agencies and our border communities, and I urge my 
colleagues to adopt it.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I 
may consume.
  Let me start, Mr. Speaker, by saying that I take a backseat to no one 
on border security. I have read the intelligence reports, the 
briefings. I have been on this subcommittee since it started in 2003, 
chaired it for its first years, now ranking member on the subcommittee.
  I have led and supported the robust funding for the Coast Guard, CBP, 
ICE, DOJ, all the other law enforcement agencies, even the local ones.
  I have implored, in fact, practically begged, the White House and the 
Democrat majority to recognize the spillover violence from this heinous 
drug war raging on the border with Mexico.
  I have even pushed for a new joint command along the southwest border 
for all of the American agencies.
  Finally, I have been first in line calling for a serious, sustained 
approach to breaking the backs of the cartels and enforcing our 
immigration laws.
  Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, this bill is not a serious, sustained 
response. Rather, this is little more than a cynical knee-jerk, 
political ploy.
  I have three concerns with this bill:
  This suspension bill is not paid for. At a time of record deficit 
spending, why can't we at least attempt to find the prudent offsets 
necessary to address our Nation's border security needs, as $600 
million of this money will be borrowed money. Is this so important that 
we will ask our children and our grandchildren to pay for it?
  Secondly, this bill circumvents regular order. These expenditures 
should be considered as part of the 2011 Homeland Security bill, the 
very same process that was derailed by the majority only yesterday when 
the Homeland bill was to be considered by the full committee. Ten 
minutes before we were to meet, they cancelled the meeting.
  Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly and disappointing, this bill is 
woefully inadequate and the wrong mix of security, leaving gaping holes 
at the Judiciary, CBP, and the Coast Guard.
  If we are going to do this, let's do it right, as $500 million out of 
this bill's $700 million price tag, as I said before, is borrowed 
money. So, in many ways, in bill is addressing one urgent security 
issue and creating another. While border security is, indeed, a 
priority, our skyrocketing debt and continued deficit spending have the 
makings of a genuine national security crisis. We can no longer ignore 
our debt and continue to recklessly spend, call everything an emergency 
and simply hope it will go away. We have to make the tough, disciplined 
decisions at every level and on every issue.
  So these border security enhancements can and should be paid for by 
way of responsible offsets. More to the point, why can't we consider 
these obvious funding needs as part of the 2011 Department of Homeland 
Security appropriations bill? That's where it belongs.
  The majority took 6 months to consider a true emergency, funding our 
troops at war, and sent that bill through a tangled, politicized 
labyrinth. The White House only woke up to this drug violence on the 
border in June with a haphazard request, which begs the question: Where 
is the administration's and Democrat majority's commitment to security?
  Instead, yesterday, the Democrat majority cancelled the full 
committee markup of the 2011 Homeland Security appropriations bill, 
where this belongs, just 10 minutes before it was scheduled to begin. 
And for what? So that we can turn to this suspension bill, borrow half 
a billion dollars, and then ignore all the other vital Homeland 
Security issues for the coming year. Addressing the critical needs 
facing our Nation's aviation security, immigration enforcement, 
disaster response, and cybersecurity are now left dead in the water 
with little hope of resurrection.
  Or was the last-minute cancellation of the markup for some other more 
political reason, like the fact that Arizona's new tough immigration 
enforcement law is in the midst of a contentious lawsuit?
  Mr. Speaker, the murderous drug war along our border with Mexico 
demands serious solutions, not reckless spending in the middle of the 
night after no preparation or no hearings, a flawed process, and, worst 
of all, political games.
  As it were, I was prepared to offer yesterday, at the full committee 
markup of our annual bill, I was prepared to offer a responsible, 
completely offset amendment that would have achieved this goal and 
would have included many of Chairman Obey's ideas. And the minority was 
prepared to take a strong stand in defense of the Arizona immigration 
enforcement law, a law that simply makes being illegally present in the 
United States against the law. Sadly, thanks to the dictatorial tactics 
of the Democrat majority, we don't get a chance to offer, let alone 
debate, these sound amendments.
  So, let's get our border security right. Let's provide the right mix 
of enforcement resources to combat the ruthless drug cartels, but let's 
do so through regular order in a fiscally responsible way.

[[Page 14451]]

  This bill, just like President Obama's flawed request, neglects our 
countersmuggling needs in the source and transit zones, fails to fully 
address aerial surveillance shortfalls, and ignores the judicial 
resources required to follow through on enforcement actions.
  If only the Democrat majority would be willing to take up the regular 
2011 Homeland Security Department and Commerce and Justice Department 
appropriations bills, we could consider and debate the improvement of 
our border security in such a way that all of these issues could be 
addressed and paid for without passing along the bill to our kids and 
grandkids. Sadly, that's not the case here tonight.
  I have grave reservations about this bill, Mr. Speaker, as you may 
have noticed, and this process. While I wholeheartedly believe we can 
and must do more to shore up our porous border, I believe we can do it 
far better and be willing to pay for it.
  I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  2020

  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to an 
outstanding member of our subcommittee, Mr. Rodriguez of Texas.
  Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 5875.
  I want to personally thank Chairman Price for his work on these 
issues. The chairman has joined me on the border touring--I represent 
more border than anybody else in the Congress, over 785 miles along the 
Mexican border. We've had the opportunity to tour all the way from 
Texas to San Diego, including the northern border. And I want to thank 
him for bringing forth this piece of legislation. Let me also just 
indicate that this is a major piece of legislation that's critical to 
making sure that we secure our border. If anything is important, it is 
making sure that this country remains secure.
  Earlier this month, the House passed a supplemental appropriation 
bill that continued to fund our operations both in Iraq and 
Afghanistan, and in addition included $701 million in much needed 
border security funding. This is the funding that our men and women on 
the border are asking for and need to get the job done.
  We all know that violence in Mexico has escalated, and we need to 
ensure that U.S. borders are not left vulnerable. We were disappointed 
when the Senate did not include the border funding in their version of 
the supplemental appropriations bill. So earlier this week, I was 
joined by Congressman Teague from New Mexico, as well as Congresswoman 
Giffords from Arizona, in writing a letter to our leadership asking 
them for the emergency border funding for this piece of legislation. We 
could not let the Senate gridlock sacrifice our ability to keep the 
border secure.
  Last night, we were pleased to join Chairman Price in cosponsoring 
H.R. 5875, the bill that will provide these resources for the border. 
This bill is paid for, and not a penny will be borrowed. This bill will 
target funds just as the previous House-passed supplemental bill. It 
includes additional Border Patrol people that we need on the border, 
additional officers right at the points of entry. I ask support for 
this piece of legislation.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to an 
outstanding chairman of our authorizing subcommittee, Mr. Cuellar of 
Texas.
  Mr. CUELLAR. I want to thank Chairman Price for taking the leadership 
in making sure that we provide the funding for the border. I certainly 
want to thank the authorizing chairman, Mr. Bennie Thompson, and all 
the Members here that have worked so hard, and the ranking member, 
also, for all the work that he has done.
  I live on the border, my family lives on the border, my brother is a 
sheriff there on the border in Webb County, so I understand what's been 
happening there on the border for the last 54 years that I have lived 
there. I would have to say that this would be the largest infusion of 
resources that the border has ever gotten at one particular time: 1,200 
Border Patrol, ICE agents, ATF, FBI, other folks who make sure that we 
have the right mixture of technology, including two UABs that are so 
important to put eyes in the sky, and certainly to make sure that we 
get other communications to do this. This will allow us to make sure 
that we stop the drugs and make sure that we secure the border. And 
this is one point that is very important: if we secure the border, then 
we secure the rest of the United States. This is why this effort is so 
important.
  So, Chairman Price and the ranking member, I thank all of you for the 
work that you have done. And again, Members, I ask you to support this 
very important funding for the security of our Nation.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to 
another outstanding Member who has worked tirelessly to secure the 
border, Mr. Teague of Arizona.
  Mr. TEAGUE. Thank you, Chairman Price, and thank you for the work 
that you've done.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight in support of a supplemental 
appropriation bill to secure our border now.
  A drug war is being waged along our border, threatening communities, 
families and our livelihoods in border States. And while the violence 
only continues to escalate, Congress seems content to step back and 
ignore the issue.
  The drug violence is an immediate threat, and it calls for immediate 
action. It is deeply troubling that the Senate failed to take this 
opportunity to protect our national security and secure our borders. 
That is why I am proud to bring this bill to secure our borders to the 
floor tonight.
  Mr. Speaker, deploying our National Guard troops to the border is 
critical, but we also need an increased and sustained presence of 
Border Patrol to protect our citizens. This bill does that by providing 
additional Border Patrol agents and resources for local law enforcement 
agencies located near the border through important programs like 
Operation Stonegarden.
  Something important that this bill will fund are added forward 
operating bases for our Border Patrol. FOBs get our agents on the 
ground, on the border, where they can protect our citizens 24 hours a 
day, 7 days a week.
  Currently, to protect the fine Americans living in the New Mexico 
boot heel, Border Patrol agents must travel 85 miles from their station 
in Lordsburg, New Mexico. This costs the Border Patrol agents hours in 
travel time before they even begin their work. This bill will get 
agents on the line protecting New Mexican citizens.
  Mr. Speaker, the safety of our communities and our country is too 
important to subject to partisan politics. The House has already passed 
this legislation, and I urge my colleagues to stand up for our national 
security once more. Vote ``yes'' to protect the communities along the 
southern border.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how 
much time is remaining.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Schauer). The gentleman from North 
Carolina has 10 minutes remaining.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I yield 2 minutes to Ms. Giffords of 
Arizona, who is a sponsor of this bill and has also worked with 
citizens in her region ever since she came to this Congress to secure 
the border and to make certain that the citizens of Arizona on the 
border region were safe and protected.
  Ms. GIFFORDS. Thank you, Chairman Price, for your leadership.
  Mr. Chairman, the last couple of days have been extremely difficult 
for me because I represent the most porous part of the U.S.-Mexico 
border.
  I'm thinking right now about Rob Krentz, a fifth-generation Arizona 
rancher whose family ranched on their land since before Arizona even 
achieved statehood. On March 27, Rob Krentz was heartlessly murdered on 
his land, murdered on his land that was in his family's hands for over 
100 years.
  Five years ago, the Tucson sector of the Border Patrol apprehended 
over

[[Page 14452]]

500,000 illegal immigrants in my community. Last year, 242,000 illegal 
immigrants were apprehended in the Tucson sector of the Border Patrol, 
and year to date we are at over 180,000 illegal immigrants apprehended 
in the Tucson sector. Last year we hit another record, 1.2 million 
pounds of marijuana seized in the Tucson sector. So for those of you 
who are saying that this is not critical, that keeping Americans safe 
is not critical, whether you live directly on the border or you live in 
other parts of the country, is outrageous.
  The Federal Government needs to step up and take responsibility now 
and stop pointing fingers and blaming other people. So for those 
Senators who voted ``no'' last week, they said no to those ranchers who 
live along the U.S.-Mexico border, they said no to those National Guard 
troops who are being deployed next week, not in a vacuum, with 
resources coming in behind them, and they said no to Federal law 
enforcement officials, those who are not going to be receiving 
Operation Stonegarden grants.
  Mr. Chairman, this is outrageous that the Federal Government, the 
United States Congress, Democrats and Republicans working together, are 
not fixing this problem. Because in Arizona, in my sector with my 
constituents, this is our BP oil spill crisis. But this crisis has not 
been going on for a couple of months. It's been going on for years--
years and years. And now tonight is our opportunity to step up and 
finally do something about it. So, Mr. Chairman, you can only imagine 
how outrageous I find this debate to be. I urge Members to support this 
bill.

                              {time}  2030

  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I yield myself such time as I may 
consume to respond to some of the pertinent questions raised by our 
ranking member.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman has raised a series of questions which 
deserve answers. I will briefly attempt to provide those answers, and 
then we will, perhaps, bring this debate to a close.
  The gentleman asked: Why this bill in this form at this point?
  The answer to that is very simple, which is that it was only this 
week that the Senate stripped these provisions from the supplemental 
appropriations bill. Up until this point, our hope was--and, indeed, 
our expectation was--that the Senate would find a way to pass these 
border security provisions, or some major portion of them, in the 
supplemental appropriations bill. It is only because that did not 
happen that we find ourselves in this position here tonight, offering 
those provisions as a free-standing bill.
  The gentleman asked: Does this somehow supplant the regular bill?
  Absolutely not. As the gentleman knows, we have worked cooperatively 
in putting together the 2011 Homeland Security bill, and that bill 
addresses border security in serious ways. It builds on the work we 
have done in the last number of years to fortify that border, to equip 
those who are protecting the border and to have adequate personnel at 
the border. So the 2011 bill is going to address these matters and in a 
serious way. We still hope and expect to send that bill to the 
President this fall.
  This, however, is an emergency supplemental, a supplemental which was 
debated on this floor weeks ago, which addresses the urgent needs. Our 
colleagues from the border regions have made it very, very clear 
tonight, I believe, that these urgent needs really shouldn't have to 
wait for that regular bill, but it absolutely takes nothing away from 
the regular 2011 bill.
  The gentleman made some assertions as to what might have happened had 
the markup gone forward on schedule yesterday. The fact is that neither 
of us knows exactly what would have been offered, much less how the 
votes might have gone.
  I do want to address one very serious matter, though, and that is the 
question of offsets, the question of where this bill fits in the 
overall budget picture.
  As I said in my opening statement, when the President requested a 
$600 million border security supplemental on June 22, he proposed the 
offsetting of $100 million of these funds, and he designated the rest 
as an emergency. This bill is consistent with that request. It funds 
$500 million under an emergency designation. It offsets $201 million 
from unobligated balances from DHS and DOJ.
  As I said, this is entirely consistent with past practice under the 
leadership of both parties. When Mr. Rogers was chairman of the 
Homeland Security Appropriations Committee and when the Republicans 
were in control of this body and were in control of the administration, 
Congress passed three emergency spending bills for the Southwest 
border, and none were offset.
  Of these bills, the administration, in fact, requested only one as an 
emergency. The other two bills contained border security funding, added 
by a Republican-controlled Congress, not even requested by the 
administration, and congressional Republicans unilaterally deemed this 
as emergency funding.
  The situation on the border necessitates immediate action. It makes 
it a true emergency. Why would the minority or anybody else consider 
this a less emergent priority than fighting the Taliban or stabilizing 
Iraq? No questions are ever raised about the emergency status of those 
funds. These are missions that are much more expensive, I might add.
  Finally, let me quote a letter that we got from Mr. Rogers, Mr. 
Lewis, and other leading Republican Members a mere week ago. This has 
to do with the kind of enforcement efforts that might be undertaken on 
the Southwest border:
  While cross-border criminal activity is not a new phenomenon, it has 
escalated into an unquestionably clear and present threat to the 
security of the United States. Therefore, we believe it is necessary to 
pursue any and all means of addressing this threat within the 
parameters of the law.
  Mr. Speaker, I submit that that is exactly what our supplemental 
emergency appropriations bill does, and for that reason, I urge its 
adoption.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is correct. Years ago, when we requested 
and put in the bill funding for the border, some of it was so-called 
``emergency spending,'' but that was at a time when we did not have a 
$1.4 trillion annual deficit. Times were different. We are in a 
monetary crisis in the country now. So that is the reason that I 
believe now is not the time to use what is called ``emergency money,'' 
which means borrowed money. It means not paying for it. This is not the 
time to do that.
  Mr. Speaker, the drug cartels have demonstrated that they will not 
relent so long as there is a viable way to smuggle their drugs and 
money--blood money--across our border. To take this threat lightly or 
to address it with only half-baked ideas which are brought up under 
suspension, at night and without any preparation, will only, I think, 
get us further into the morass. The last thing we want to do is to 
cause trouble for President Calderon as the drug war reaches its 
boiling point, because he has been so diligent in his efforts. We must 
not rush into something that does not have their, President Calderon's, 
complete understanding and agreement.
  So that means we must get our border security right through serious 
solutions, having thought through them carefully and having worked with 
our allies in the matter rather than through reckless spending and 
flawed political gimmicks like this bill is. It is not paid for. It is 
incomplete, and it is absolutely no substitute for the urgently needed 
fiscal 2011 Homeland Security appropriations bill.
  Now, as to this funding and as to the urgent need that it is said to 
represent, the Congressional Budget Office told me that none of this 
bill's funding will outlay in this fiscal year. According to the CBO, 
this money will not be used in this year. What that tells me is that 
this bill is really padding the fiscal 2011 regular bill process.
  Where is our fiscal 2011 bill?
  It is almost August. We're going on recess for 6 weeks, and there is 
no bill

[[Page 14453]]

that this Congress has produced that the Democrat majority has put 
before us to fund the department a few days later.
  Where is the bill?
  We had it scheduled to be heard in the full committee yesterday. Ten 
minutes before we were to convene and mark up the fiscal 2011 bill, 
which could have included moneys like this in the regular process, they 
canceled the hearing. They pulled the rug out. We are not worried, they 
apparently said, about the Nation's security.
  Where is the bill?
  This is neither a substitute for the regular department bill that 
funds everything nor is it the substitute for one that funds the border 
war. Bypassing regular order and throwing more money at the border is 
not responsible leadership with regard to our Nation's security needs.
  Though, Mr. Speaker, it is not too late. The Democrat majority can 
still make up for all of the lost time and for all of the inaction this 
year, and it can move the DHS fiscal 2011 and CJS appropriations bills 
to properly address our border security and enforcement needs. That is 
what I would have proposed had we actually convened our markup 
yesterday, had we moved the fiscal bill through regular order, and had 
we had a genuine and thoughtful debate on our security priorities. 
Somehow, I don't think I'm going to get that chance.
  So I caution Members to consider this bill very carefully, and I urge 
the Democrat majority to move the regular appropriations bills through 
regular order with all due haste.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I believe we are ready to 
move to a vote. I appreciate the comments of the gentleman from 
Kentucky, and I, of course, share his hope that we will in reasonably 
short order have progress to report on the fiscal 2011 Homeland 
Security bill.

                              {time}  2040

  We have that bill assembled. We have put it through the subcommittee 
process, and we plan to proceed with it in due course.
  I stress, this bill tonight is in no way a substitute for that bill. 
This bill tonight is not new. This bill was passed by this House. The 
exact language, the exact provisions were passed by this House on July 
1 as part of a supplemental appropriations bill, and the only reason it 
is before us tonight as a freestanding measure is because of the 
Senate's unwise action in stripping these border security provisions 
from the bill.
  As for the emergency spending, we did run surpluses in this country 
in the 1990s. We remember that period when we were actually paying off 
part of the national debt. Unfortunately, that's not the period we're 
talking about when we talk about the previous precedents that have been 
set in this area.
  The emergency spending that was done during the last administration 
in this border security area on three occasions under Republican 
leadership, this was done not at a time of budget surpluses; it was 
done at a time, in fact, when this Nation was sinking deeper and deeper 
into debt.
  We have no more speakers on our side. I appreciate the attention of 
our colleagues, and especially the work that has gone into this measure 
from our colleagues on the southwest border. They have been absolutely 
tireless in standing up for their constituents and in calling to the 
rest of the Congress and the rest of the country this emergency 
situation that demands to be addressed.
  Mr. Cuellar, I think it was, this afternoon said to the press, 
however, that this isn't just a border matter. This isn't just a border 
security. This is a matter of national security. It's a matter of 
urgent national security.
  And so we're grateful for those who have worked very quickly now, 
after the developments in the Senate, have worked very quickly to put 
this bill forward in this form. We urge its passage. We want to send it 
along to the Senate and hope very much that this bill will be law in a 
matter of days and that we can get the emergency relief where it's 
needed. And then, of course, we will address all of these matters more 
systematically and in a more long-term basis in the regular 
appropriations bill.
  Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to shed light on the talk and 
walk Republicans in Congress. They are on the Sunday talk shows stating 
that we have an emergency situation at our Nation's borders. They are 
on the campaign trail saying that border security is broken. They 
criticize the administration on its efforts to keep our borders safe 
and secure and yet when it came time to vote on the $700 million to 
secure our borders, they walked away.
  Indeed, when the FY2010 Supplemental went to the Senate for a vote, 
not one Republican stood up for increased border security. On the 
contrary, they talked and then they walked. I was disappointed because 
even the Republican Senators from my home State of Texas voted against 
border security.
  The challenges our border communities face each and every day along 
the border are an emergency, and we need to do all we can to ensure the 
safety and security of our 2,000-mile long border with Mexico.
  But thanks to the House leadership, we are once again attempting to 
secure our border by moving to strengthen our border with $700 million 
in emergency funds. These funds will:
  Add 500 Customs and Border Patrol Officers to our understaffed ports 
of entry;
  Add 1,200 additional Border Patrol agents between ports of entry;
  Increase funds for Immigration and Customs Enforcement activities 
that would reduce the threat of narcotics smuggling and violence;
  Improve tactical communications for those on the ground;
  Provide funds for workforce integrity investigations and training for 
new officers and agents; and
  Support local law enforcement along the border with additional 
Stonegarden grants.
  I ask my colleagues to seriously consider the importance of giving 
our law enforcement officers who are working along the border the 
resources they need to enhance our border security. In particular, the 
500 additional Customs and Border Patrol Officers are of concern 
because GSA estimates that we need 5,000 more officers in order to 
fully staff our ports of entry--1,000 per year for five years.
  Increasing staffing of our CBP Officers is critical both to expedite 
the flow of trade and commerce and more effectively screen out illicit 
drugs, weapons, human smugglers, and any other potential criminals. It 
would also give us greater ability to conduct southbound checks so that 
we can also curb the supply of arms, illegal narcotics and cash going 
into Mexico and fueling violence there.
  Residents in our border states know this is an emergency because they 
live it each and every day. I urge my colleagues on the other side of 
the aisle to go beyond talking about supporting our borders. I urge you 
to turn that talk into action and vote for the Emergency Border 
Security Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2010.
  Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of 
H.R. 5875, but am disappointed the bill does not contain critical 
spending for the overwhelmed district courts along our Nation's 
Southwest border.
  During the last several years, stepped up enforcement and prosecution 
efforts in Southwest border jurisdictions have resulted in a 
significant increase in the number of drug, immigration, and weapons 
cases being filed in courts along the border. Consequently, the current 
workload experienced by the five district courts along the Southwest 
border is staggering. When combined, border districts handled nearly 75 
percent of criminal immigration cases in the Nation's 94 districts in 
fiscal year 2009 and almost 40 percent of all the Nation's federal 
criminal case filings.
  Here's a brief snapshot of the district court in Arizona:
  Last year in the Tucson division of the district court for Arizona, 
felony cases and defendants increased by more than 65 percent from the 
previous year. Ninety percent of those cases were drug and immigration 
related. In addition, there were 300,000 apprehensions during the first 
six months of 2009, and 1.2 million pounds of marijuana were seized. 
Although the court facility is sized to handle no more than 120 
detainees a day, at one point the Tucson court processed 323 detainees 
in a single day.
  It is clear that the Judiciary's resources must continue to keep pace 
with these workload increases.
  As written, the Border Security Emergency Supplemental provides a 
total of $701 million for border security. Spending in the bill 
includes critical funding for border patrol agents, Department of 
Justice programs, Customs and Border Protection, among other items.
  While this spending is needed to secure our border and protect our 
communities from the

[[Page 14454]]

escalating drug-related violence, it must be coupled with adequate 
resources to the Judiciary in order to keep pace with the anticipated 
growth in workload. As it stands now, the district courts along the 
Southwest border are already overwhelmed and understaffed.
  In June, the Judicial Conference of the United States wrote to the 
Office of Management and Budget Director, Peter Orszag, requesting $40 
million for the Judiciary. To ensure the federal government's stepped-
up border security plan is full-circle, several of my colleagues and I 
have urged Congressional Appropriators to make these funds available to 
the Judiciary.
  Unfortunately, the $40 million requested for the Judiciary is not 
included in this emergency spending bill. Without these resources, a 
bottleneck in the judicial system will occur because the courts will 
lack the resources necessary to process the additional criminal cases 
brought by the Department of Justice.
  As Congress continues to debate a comprehensive border security 
strategy, we must consider the Judiciary. It would be a shame to spend 
so much money on border security and then fail to provide the Judiciary 
the resources necessary to ensure justice is met along the border.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of 
my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price) that the House suspend the 
rules and pass the bill, H.R. 5875.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the 
rules were suspended and the bill was passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________