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 consideration of the bill, H.R. 2638.
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 2638) making appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and for other purposes, with Mr. Frank of Massachusetts in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The Chairman: Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the first time.
The gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price) and the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina.
Mr. Price of North Carolina: Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I want to start by saying how proud I am of the work of our subcommittee and its fine staff that has been done over the last number of months.
Through the 20 hearings we have held so far this year, featuring testimony from Department officials, watch dog agencies and outside experts, numerous security vulnerabilities and management problems have been identified and solutions offered. I believe that the bill reported by the committee is well informed by what we learned in these hearings.
I want to express my gratitude to the distinguished gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), both for his leadership as the inaugural chairman of this subcommittee and more recently for his significant contributions as ranking member. Mr. Rogers established a strong, bipartisan approach to providing vigilant oversight of the Department, and I have endeavored to continue on that path.
I also want to pay tribute to Martin Sabo, the former ranking member of this subcommittee, who is an example to all of us not only for his expertise and leadership on homeland security issues, but also his commitment to public service and to this institution.
And I don't want to go any further without expressing my respect for and gratitude to the professional staff of the subcommittee, both majority and minority. Beverly Pheto has been an exemplary clerk. Her mastery of the issues facing the Department and each of its components has been invaluable. And I cannot underestimate the contributions of Stephanie Gupta, Jeff Ashford, Jim Holm, and Shalanda Young on the majority side; and Tom McLemore, Ben Nicholson, and Christine Kojac on the minority side, as well as Darek Newby of my personal staff. Our subcommittee relies on the professionalism and expertise of these individuals. They are performing an invaluable service to the country.
Mr. Chairman, in total, the bill before us contains $36.3 billion in discretionary funding, which is $2.5 billion, or more than 7 percent, above the funding appropriated in 2007, including funding given an emergency designation in the 2007 bill. That so-called "emergency" funding was primarily for border security needs that have necessarily been absorbed into the baseline for fiscal year 2008. The bill contains $2 billion, or 5 percent, more than the amounts requested by President Bush. I hope my colleagues will agree that the country's outstanding homeland security vulnerabilities, including border security, more than justify this level of funding.
This bill does four important things: First, it provides funding to address our country's most pressing security vulnerabilities with a new emphasis on our ports and on rail and transit systems.
Secondly, the bill provides critically needed funding to our States and communities to confront not only the threat of terrorist activity but also natural disasters and the emergency situations that must be dealt with in our community every day. Homeland security requires a faithful partnership among the Federal Government, States, and local communities. And this bill honors that partnership.
Thirdly, the bill helps to ensure that taxpayer dollars are well spent by requiring specific management reforms related to contracting, procurement, and competition. It cuts $1.2 billion below the fiscal 2007 levels and $244 million below the requested amounts for programs and activities that are not performing well or for which increased or level funding has not been adequately justified; and it withholds a total of $1.9 billion for various programs until the Department submits detailed expenditure plans.
And, fourth, the bill takes a long-term approach by requiring outside reviews of several major programs and activities to ensure that long- term investments of taxpayer money are made wisely and productively. For example, we are commissioning studies by the National Academies of Science on the current direction of the BioWatch program and on the Department's risk analysis capabilities and the improvements needed to ensure that investments are well targeted.
The funding increases provided in this bill address the security vulnerabilities identified by numerous expert groups, including the 9/ 11 Commission and the Hart-Rudman Commission. They also fund security actions mandated in the SAFE Ports Act and the Katrina Reform Act.
Aviation explosive detection systems are funded in total at $849 million, $324 million more than the regular 2007 bill. Air cargo security is funded at $73 million, $18 million more than the 2007 bill. And the bill directs TSA to double the amount of cargo it screens prior to loading onto passenger aircraft.
Transit security grants are funded at $400 million, $225 million more than the 2007 bill. Port security grants are funded at $400 million, $190 million more than the 2007 bill. An additional $40 million is provided for the Coast Guard to implement the requirements of the SAFE Ports Act.
Emergency Management Performance Grants are funded at $300 million, $100 million more than the 2007 bill. Metropolitan Medical Response System Grants are funded at $50 million, $17 million more than 2007. State Homeland Security and Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention grants are funded at $950 million; that is $50 million more than 2007. Urban area security grants are funded at $800 million, $30 million more than the 2007 bill. REAL ID and interoperable communication grants are funded in total at $100 million, in contrast to no funding provided in 2007. Fire grants are funded at $800 million, $138 million more than 2007. And FEMA management and administration is funded at $685 million, $150 million more than 2007.
Mr. Chairman, I want to highlight a number of other provisions in the bill that are particularly important. We have all heard about contracts and awards from the Department that were not competed. FEMA recently submitted a list of nearly 4,000 contracts that were never competitively bid. This bill mandates that all grant and contract funds be awarded through full and open competitive processes except when other funding distribution mechanisms are required by statute. This approach creates a level playing field and also ensures that there are no congressional or administration earmarks in this bill.
In addition, the bill addresses a major immigration vulnerability that exists today. It requires that ICE contact correctional facilities throughout the U.S. on a monthly basis to identify incarcerated immigrants who are subject to deportation. Although ICE deports some number of these individuals now, it is not systematically identifying and deporting them. There is simply no excuse for failing to identify every deportable alien and deporting them immediately upon their release from prison.
These are undocumented individuals who have served time in jail for committing crimes, and we are now, unfortunately, releasing them all too often back into the population. So asking prisons for information about these individuals so they can be deported should be among the first priorities in our illegal immigration enforcement strategy. This bill provides the direction and the funding to ICE to make this happen.
The bill funds the Secure Border Initiative at the requested level of $1 billion, while requiring the Department to clearly justify how it plans to use these funds to achieve operational control of our borders. For each border segment, the Department will have to produce an analysis comparing its selected approach to alternatives based on total cost, on level of control achieved, impact on affected communities, and other factors.
We are also requiring the Department to seek the advice and support of each local community affected by a border infrastructure project. I want to be clear that this does not give border communities a veto on border projects and it will not result in any project delays if the Department efficiently carries out its responsibilities. The provision simply requires the Department to actively and faithfully consult affected communities to ensure that our border security efforts minimize adverse community impacts. That is reasonable to ask of the Department, and the Department agrees that such consultation is appropriate.
We are also directing the Department to increase by over 40 percent the number of Border Patrol agents on the northern border to comply with the levels called for in the Intelligence Reform Act. In addition, the bill addresses a Customs and Border Protection staffing problem that we heard about on a February congressional delegation to the southwest border.
Because CBP officers are not considered law enforcement officers, despite the increasing role of law enforcement in their duties, they don't receive the same benefits as DHS personnel who are considered law enforcement officers. This has made it extremely difficult to hold on to CBP officers. In a nutshell, the bill would allow eligible CBP officers to transition to law enforcement status beginning in fiscal 2008.
The Transportation Security Administration's loss of the personal data of thousands of its employees is only the most recent example of the privacy problems plaguing the Department. The bill withholds funding for certain DHS programs until the proper privacy protections are in place because security and privacy can and should go hand in hand.
In conclusion, let me mention a few other provisions, Mr. Chairman. First, the bill includes language mandating that stricter State and local chemical security laws and regulations cannot be preempted by the Federal Government. Secondly, the bill mandates that all grant and contract funds comply with Davis-Bacon prevailing wage requirements. Thirdly, the $101 million in the bill for the new DHS campus facility at St. Elizabeth's will not be available until the Department submits an explosive detection equipment spending plan and promulgates long overdue regulations on U-Visas for victims of domestic violence, rape, and involuntary servitude.
This withholding of funds should not be interpreted as a signal of lukewarm support for the development of the St. Elizabeth's campus. On the contrary, the Department and the country would be better served by colocating most of its headquarters components onto this single campus. This is simply our way of signaling that any further delay on an explosive detection plan or on the overdue U-Visa rule is completely unacceptable.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Rogers of Kentucky: Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Let me start, Mr. Chairman, by commending the subcommittee chairman on putting together a thoughtful bill, his first as the chairman of this important subcommittee. I must also recognize the chairman's continuation of this subcommittee's bipartisan tradition as well as to state how much I appreciate the chairman's willingness to listen to the concerns on this side of the aisle and accommodate us as much as possible.
I would, however, like to briefly say a few words about some specific items of concern. First, fiscal responsibility.
The 302(b) allocation for the Department of Homeland Security is $36.25 billion. That is $2.1 billion above what was requested of us and amounts to a 13.6 percent increase above fiscal 2007. And that doesn't even include the billions in one-time emergency funding that has been added to the DHS budget over the last year, including the $1.05 billion in unrequested funding just approved in the supplemental last month.
If you include that figure in the increase, it is almost a 17 percent increase over the current year. By comparison, the budget request would give the Department a 7.2 percent increase, and I think that recommendation is more than sufficient, even generous, for the Department.
The public is demanding accountability and fiscal responsibility, and I don't think we can exclude any Federal agency from fiscal discipline, even the Department of Homeland Security. More money and more government do not equal more security.
Therefore, I will offer an amendment later today to limit the budget to a more than generous and responsible 7.2 percent increase over current spending. I am hopeful my colleagues will support that effort.
And when I use the term "responsible," Mr. Chairman, I am also stating that we must ensure DHS has sufficient resources to carry out legislative direction. The bill includes a bold mandate for ICE to contact every correctional facility in the country, over 5,000 of them, at least once a month to identify incarcerated aliens and initiate deportation proceedings against them. That is a laudable goal, and I support the policy and the goal. But, Mr. Chairman, it is going to be very, very difficult to do mechanically and it is unfunded.
We are going to be asking the States and localities to pay, assumedly, for the review of who is in their jails.
Number two, they don't have the authority nor the capability to determine whether or not Joe Blow in cell 18 is an undocumented alien or not. It's not their job, and they don't have the capability to do that. So I don't know what will be the result of this mandate. It is unfunded, and it is going to be very difficult to put in practice. The Department already surveys routinely the most probable jails where the most probable criminal aliens are being held anyway.
Despite the requirement for ICE to report on the resources needed to carry out this unfunded mandate, I am concerned that the bill presupposes ICE can simply transfer or reprioritize monies from other sources within their budget, for example, the fugitive apprehension program. They are out there trying to catch the criminals on the streets that are loose. It seems to me they are a bigger danger than those incarcerated in the jails.
These enforcement activities involve many duties, duties that include tracking down at-large criminals, investigating smuggling networks, preventing child pornography, preventing the exploit of sensitive national security technology, and taking down employers who are exploiting illegal immigrants to the point of abuse.
From which of these critical missions should ICE take monies in order to comb the Nation's jails and correctional facilities, most of which never have any criminal aliens in them anyway? So to suggest that ICE should refocus its resources almost exclusively on jailed illegal aliens at the expense of trying to catch fugitives on the street who are raping and plundering seems to me as short-sighted as it is potentially very dangerous.
There must be a balance among ICE's many critical missions. And I am concerned this bill falls short in that regard. I am hopeful the Chairman will work with me and others to develop a more realistic implementation of this policy as we move forward.
I have other concerns as well. Any immigration policy starts out with securing the border. If we can't control who crosses our Nation's borders, all other possible immigration initiatives will fail. To address this critical issue, Congress has authorized and appropriated for substantial infrastructure on the southwest border. But the bill contains a number of onerous restrictions on funding for fencing and other tactical infrastructure along our borders until the Department performs certain actions.
At first glance, these individual fencing and tactical infrastructure requirements appear to be based upon sound policy. However, added together, they are a series of obstacles that can potentially impede installation of critical border security systems. I fear that securing the border will be greatly deterred.
While I am pleased with the continuation of robust planning requirements for SBInet, I am absolutely committed to securing our borders as rapidly as possible. We will work with the Chairman to ensure that DHS accomplishes that critical task on time and on budget. There must be a balance between prudent oversight and timely execution of the Department's border security mission.
In addition, Mr. Chairman, the bill removes for the first time the cap on the number of TSA screeners that was put into this bill in 2002, and every year since. That cap was established for very good reasons, reasons that still exist. TSA was created by Congress in 2001. At that time, I chaired the Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee, and we put in this cap because TSA was demonstrating absolutely no discipline in its planning, hiring and use of technology. TSA's mindset was to hire an army of screeners, 70,000 of them, while advancements in research and technology were largely ignored.
By requiring in law that TSA could not exceed 45,000 screeners, TSA was forced to refocus its decision-making. They began to place better, cheaper, and more effective technologies and machines in the airport, x-ray machines and the like, and started to slowly clear out the more expensive, manpower-intensive trace detection machines in the lobbies of airports.
The screener cap, Mr. Chairman, works. Without it, I am fearful that TSA will go back to its old ways of solving screener problems by simply adding more people, a very short-sighted, costly, and dangerous solution. Given these concerns, I plan to offer an amendment to restore the 45,000 screener cap later today.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, I am concerned about the annual expectations we may be setting for State and local grants. These funds are intended to address counterterrorism needs and disaster preparedness, the Homeland Security portion of local first responders' budgets and duties. These agencies are certainly happy, of course, to get these grant funds, and now even expect it. I am concerned that we are transforming the mission and purpose of these grant programs from risk reduction to that of revenue sharing, something it was never intended to be.
Rather than just adding billions to these grant programs, as this bill does, what we ought to be doing is working with the authorizing committees to change the way these grant programs are authorized and administered, and lay out specifically what the Federal Government expects for the grants that we do make.
Grants to States and local communities are intended to reduce our vulnerabilities and are not immune from fiscal discipline, particularly when you consider that there is nearly $5 billion in unspent first responder grant dollars simply laying there waiting to be spent. We should be working on seeing that the pipeline is unclogged. Why put billions more dollars in the hopper when it's full already, waiting to be drained out the bottom in a clogged pipeline?
Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, I believe this bill has the potential to do a lot of good. There are many provisions and funding recommendations that I agree with. I applaud Chairman Price's efforts to keep the Department on track to produce results, provide strong oversight, and continuing the subcommittee's tradition of strict accountability.
I look forward to working with him and the Members of the House and the Senate as the bill moves forward.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Price of North Carolina: Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks).
Mr. Dicks: Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage in a colloquy with the chairman of the subcommittee to inquire about the language in the report accompanying this bill relating to funding for the capability replacement laboratory that is being built as part of the Pacific Northwest Laboratory complex in the 300 Area at Hanford. This lab is being constructed in order to replace facilities that are being demolished as a result of the environmental cleanup program managed by the Department of Energy. The existing lab provides critical science and technology capabilities to the Department of Homeland Security, including radiation detection and analysis, information, analytics and testing, evaluation and certification capabilities.
To maintain these capabilities, DHS, along with two agencies within DOE, has entered into a memorandum of understanding to share the cost for replacing this laboratory complex.
I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. Hastings of Washington: I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I would like to point out that DHS provided approximately $2.25 million in prior years for conceptual design of this project. In addition, the FY07 Homeland Security appropriation bill provided $2 million for the continued design and initial construction of this facility. And I thank the gentleman from Kentucky for his help last year. However, no funds were included in the FY08 budget request from DHS. The MOU calls for $25 million to be contributed by DHS to begin construction. If this funding is not included, the project will likely be delayed into future years, causing both DHS and DOE to lose important laboratory capabilities they need to keep our country safe.
Mr. Dicks: I thank the gentleman for those important points. It is my understanding that there is language in the report to accompany the bill addressing the funding commitment made by DHS in the MOU.
I would yield to the chairman of the subcommittee for clarification.
Mr. Price of North Carolina: The gentleman is correct. Language in the report directs the science and technology directorate to fulfill the funding obligation to which it committed itself in the MOU signed last November.
Mr. Dicks: I thank the chairman for his response, and I ask him to continue to work with me and my colleague from Washington to ensure that this obligation is fulfilled by DHS.
Mr. Price of North Carolina: I would be happy to work with you and Mr. Hastings to ensure that the Department adheres to the direction provided in the report.
Mr. Dicks: Thank you.
I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. Hastings of Washington: Thank you for yielding. I thank the gentleman, and I thank the Chair as well, and look forward to working with both of you in this regard.
Mr. Rogers of Kentucky: Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to a very hardworking member of our committee, Mr. Peterson of Pennsylvania.
Mr. Peterson of Pennsylvania: I want to thank the gentleman from Kentucky, Ranking Member Rogers, for yielding time and for the leadership he and Chairman Price have given this committee. It has been a pleasure to serve.
I rise today to speak about an issue of vital importance to me, the infrastructure protection and our energy delivery system protection.
This bill has $532 million to protect the infrastructure of this country. Our transportation system has been a very high focus because that is how we were attacked, the use of our transportation system. But in my view, the vulnerability of America is very much its infrastructure on energy. We lack oil refineries and cannot afford to have any refineries offline from a terrorist attack. We now import 13 percent of our gasoline from foreign countries and often have to bid for it when it's in the ship.
Our natural gas system is struggling to furnish adequate and affordable natural gas for us to heat our homes and run our businesses because we are using huge amounts of it now to generate electricity. We are using large amounts of it now to make ethanol because it is a fuel. Ninety-six percent of all the new ethanol plants use natural gas.
We are finding that natural gas is the mother's milk of this country, and any disruption in our pipeline system, because we are not able to produce adequate amounts of natural gas without any disruption in the current delivery system.
Our electric grid, in my view, we were short on generating capacity; that has been beefed up because we have built a lot of natural gas electric generators. But we have not adequately invested, or in some cases have not been able to build the grid that connects our country. We need to have all of our country criss-crossed with a stronger grid, so that if any portion of it goes down, another portion, we can come in the back door with electricity.
Our dependence on electricity and our use of electricity is growing every day. And in my view, with wind and solar slowly coming online, those are often in areas that we don't have a good hookup to the grid, and we need to build transmission lines to bring that capacity to the system.
I believe the Department of Homeland Security must be more stringently identified as a priority within the Department of Homeland Security. I have said throughout the process of marking up this bill that the vulnerabilities of our electric grid, our pipeline system and our refinery system need to be a higher priority. I am thankful for the language that was accepted in this bill to require the Department of Homeland Security, with input from the Department of Energy, to provide a report on the most critical capacity limit segments of the North American electricity transmission and distribution network. And we probably ought to be doing the same for all of our other energy infrastructures.
It is critical that we identify these segments and also identify if disruption of any of these segments would generate a cascading affect that could cripple the economy of our country. It is vital that we protect our energy infrastructure.
I want to thank Mr. Rogers and Mr. Price for their dedication on this bill and their willingness to work with me on what I believe are the vulnerabilities that need to be beefed up to make sure this country has the energy it needs.
Mr. Price of North Carolina: Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to our colleague on the subcommittee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano).
(Mr. Serrano asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. Serrano: Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this bill and would like to commend Chairman Price, Ranking Member Rogers, and their wonderful staff for their hard work in bringing this bill to the floor.
The bill provides adequate funding for programs that are crucial to the Nation's security, many of which the President chose to underfund or eliminate in his request.
Although we have not suffered a terrorist attack since the morning of 9/11, the threat remains real. Therefore, it is crucial that we provide sufficient resources to support those who represent our first line of defense.
I am pleased that the bill acknowledges this reality and restores proposed cuts to grant programs such as the Metropolitan Medical Response System and the SAFER program, which helps our struggling local fire departments fulfill ever-increasing homeland security missions.
I know that my own City of New York is making good use of all of these grants, including those provided to the Urban Areas Security Initiative grant program.
Beyond helping our States and municipalities, I would also like to express my support for the way the committee handles the balance between the different demands in the different departments and their ongoing missions. These critical missions, such as stopping the flow of illegal drugs and approving visas, have not gone away since 9/11. This bill properly recognizes this reality and provides support.
Finally, I am pleased that the chairman and ranking member chose to address issues related to the treatment and deportation of immigrants. As we work to secure our borders, it is important that we never lose touch with America's enduring spirit as a nation that stands ready to welcome all who come in search of a better life.
Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, I believe the bill does a good job of providing adequate funds for programs crucial to the security of the homeland and strengthens the partnership between the Federal, State and local governments and all the local communities. I truly believe it includes all the ingredients necessary for success.
Therefore, I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I would ask for their vote.
Mr. Rogers of Kentucky: Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Carter), one of the hardest working members of our subcommittee.
Mr. Carter: I thank the chairman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, first, I would like to thank Chairman Price and Ranking Member Rogers for the hard work that they have done on this Homeland Security bill. What we are trying to do is secure our Nation with our Homeland Security bill, and this goes a long way to doing that. But I have some concerns about this bill, and I have expressed them.
We have got to secure our Nation, and it is of primary importance to this country that we secure this Nation at every level. We have been working diligently and hard to do that. We have tried to use an open process in the Homeland Security Subcommittee, and that is, we lay all our cards on the table in our appropriations bill. We have historically let all the spending on homeland security be laid out before this House so that the daylight and reality of how we are spending the American people's money is in the bill.
I am concerned, and I wish to express the concern that in the appropriations process this year there is a lot that is going to be done in the dark. In this particular bill, it is a very small item as compared to what is coming down the road at us, but there is $16 million for bridges which we won't know exactly how that is going to be spent for this House to examine it, but it will be "air dropped" in in the conference committee. That is an indicator of what we are looking at as we deal with Member-initiated spending with the nickname of "earmarks" in the future.
At present, the plan is to set aside the money but not tell us how to spend it, and, oh, by the way vote for it. But I think in the last election the American people told us that they wanted sunlight on this process. They wanted to be able to see how we spend our money, including they wanted our names put on the things that were individually requested. In fact, the Republican House passed such a rule, to put the names on every earmark.
Yet we see in a very small part in this bill, and much expanded in the bills to follow, that there is going to be no sunshine on this process. In fact, it is going to be inside closed doors in the conference committee where there is really not a whole lot this House can do about it.
With increased nonemergency spending of $81.4 billion, these are issues that American people want to know about it. They want their elected Representatives to take a look at it and be able to figure out how the money is being spent. We debated this process the last session of Congress. We made it important to us as individual Members. We talked about it and discussed it and voted on it.
Now, all of a sudden, we have a process that has gone behind closed doors in secrecy, and as we vote these things out, as Members of Congress we are voting a bill which has a fund set- aside which we are not told how that fund is going to be spent. We are told it could be published over the break. This is inexcusable.
Mr. Price of North Carolina: Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr), another member of our committee.
Mr. Farr: I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I rise as a member of this committee and want to commend the style of this committee. I don't think any committee has had more hearings with more substantive issues than this Committee on Appropriations for security.
In fact, this bill appropriates a record amount of spending, $36.3 billion. What we tried to do in the committee, and I want to commend Mr. Rogers and Mr. Price, was starting out asking what are the risk issues that we really need to face in the Nation. This whole emphasis has been essentially an antiterrorism effort, when, in reality, in creating this huge, huge bureaucracy and moving the Department of Agriculture and everybody else into it, what we have found from a lot of experts is that you really have to deal with issues such as the first responders would be the same for a terrorist activity as they would be for a natural disaster, and that we really have to base our decisions on risk-based management.
It was no more clear than in a place that we are just sort of throwing money at, which is the border between Mexico and the United States. In testimony, we found that there are more terrorist incidents--in fact, there have been none on the Mexican-U.S. border, but there have been several on the U.S.-Canadian border where we have very little security whatsoever. So if you were acting just on risk management, you would put more assets on the Canadian border than on the Mexican border. But the emphasis here isn't about homeland security; it is more about immigration.
I think hearing all the things put together, this is a really good bill.
One of the things Mr. Rogers mentioned that I would like to just disagree with, all of our local law enforcement say that the biggest problem they are having is they arrest people who don't have papers and then they release them because nobody from INS will come around and check it out. Everybody on the committee was concerned about the fact that there wasn't enough effort put into what they call "jail checks," and this committee bill addresses that.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to commend the Members, and point out that this is not just a spending bill, because they cut a lot of things and they put conditions on spending.
Mr. Rogers of Kentucky: Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp), a very hard-working member of our committee.
Mr. Wamp: Mr. Chairman, I rise to enter into a colloquy with the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee.
I commend the gentleman from North Carolina for putting together a bill that meets the security needs of this country. As a former member of the Homeland Security Subcommittee, I respect the enormous task the subcommittee has in providing oversight to a department that is still finding its way.
Of particular concern to me are the Department's Infrastructure Protection analysis centers, which provide basic analytic services to the Department of Homeland Security. PSAC, the Protective Security Analysis Center, is one such tool. PSAC is a collaborative effort between a number of Department of Energy national labs and industry partners which exist to collect, analyze and share infrastructure risk information within DHS, as well as with the communities in which the infrastructure is located.
PSAC integrates infrastructure information, risk analysis and data collection through assessment tools to support the process of risk- based decision-making. PSAC also hosts a number of DHS systems supporting chemical facility security and bombing prevention, as well as the National Asset Database, all of which are essential to accomplishing the DHS mission.
It is also important to note that DHS has made a $52 million investment in PSAC over the past 4 years to develop these capabilities and expertise. Without continued support, this significant investment would be lost and DHS would be left with numerous unfunded mission requirements. It is my understanding the committee has approved $78.9 million for identification and analysis.
Chairman Price, I ask if you will work with me, please, to ensure that the Department of Homeland Security provides adequate funding for these analysis centers, particularly the PSAC, in FY 08.
Mr. Price of North Carolina: Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Tennessee for his kind words on our bill, and I appreciate his interest in the Protective Security Analysis Center, or PSAC.
As the gentleman noted, the bill includes $78.9 million for the Assistant Secretary for Infrastructure Protection to carry out identification and analysis programs. This funding supports the analytical work done by DHS to identify risks to infrastructure and to model the effects of terrorist attacks and natural disasters.
The PSAC is an important part of these activities. I look forward to working with the gentleman to ensure that these important activities are adequately funded in our bill.
Mr. Price of North Carolina: Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), a member of the full Appropriations Committee.
Ms. Lee: Mr. Chairman, let me thank the gentleman for yielding and for his leadership.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of this Homeland Security appropriations bill. For too long, this Congress has failed to fund our critical homeland security priorities. I am pleased, however, that this bill today takes significant steps towards addressing these issues.
As a Member who represents the Port of Oakland, I want to just mention port security, which has been long neglected by the Bush administration. In this bill, we make an important commitment to provide at the authorized level $400 million in port security grants, which is $190 million over the President's request.
To protect critical transit infrastructure, this bill provides $400 million in grants, which is $225 million over the President's request.
On the issue of ensuring that first responders are able to communicate between themselves, this bill provides $50 million for essential interoperable communications.
Mr. Chairman, this Congress is making good on its promise to provide a clear and new and realistic direction on homeland security. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
Mr. Rogers of Kentucky: Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Rogers), a member of the authorizing committee for homeland security in the House.
Mr. Rogers of Alabama: Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2008. I would like to thank Chairman Price and Ranking Member Rogers for including a solid increase for funding for detection canine teams used by DHS. The bill includes an increase of $17.3 million that will add more canine teams for air cargo inspections. The bill also includes funding for 1,506 canine teams for CBP, which represents an increase of 272 teams over last year's level.
These increases reflect a provision I supported in the Rail and Public Transportation Safety Act of 2007 and H.R. 659, the Canine Detection Team Improvement Act, which I introduced earlier this year.
However, I am deeply concerned about section 527 that would classify instructors at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center as inherently governmental. This provision would impose a dangerous ban on using non-Federal trainers after a national emergency and the resulting needed times of surge.
I also remain concerned about the ability of DHS to recruit and train an additional 3,000 new Border Patrol agents funded by the bill. Given attrition rates, this means that Border Patrol will need to hire and train approximately 4,400 agents a year. While I support putting more boots on the ground as quickly as possible, I am convinced that the current approach DHS is using cannot meet this goal.
I am also concerned that it continues to cost $187,000 to recruit, train and deploy just one Border Patrol agent. The Subcommittee on Management Investigations and Oversight plans to hold another hearing on Border Patrol agent training costs in its capacity next Tuesday. It is my hope that the findings from this hearing will be considered by the House and Senate conferees on this bill to improve the way DHS recruits and trains Border Patrol agents.
Mr. Price of North Carolina: Mr. Chairman, I gladly yield 2 minutes to a very fine Member, the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), the chairman of our authorizing committee on homeland security.
Mr. Thompson of Mississippi: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman giving me the time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2638. This legislation goes a long way to meeting the Nation's homeland security needs. It also provides funding in a number of areas at the Department of Homeland Security that have repeatedly been shortchanged.
Specifically, the bill before us today provides DHS with $36.3 billion, a $2.1 billion increase over the President's request. Additionally, H.R. 2638 addresses many of the areas identified in the authorization bill that the Committee on Homeland Security developed.
The House overwhelmingly approved the authorization bill in early May. At the same time, it also is shaped by many of the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, as well as programmatic changes called for in H.R. 1, legislation that I authored and that passed the House in January on a bipartisan basis.
For instance, this bill includes $78 million to double the amount of cargo screened on passenger aircraft. This would put TSA on the path of inspecting 100 percent of cargo, a key provision in H.R. 1.
Chairman Price is to be commended for producing a bill that makes the homeland more secure, especially given the tight budget constraints. We all know that to get border security right, we need to put more trained "boots on the ground." H.R. 2638 provides funding for 3,000 additional Border Patrol agents to bring the number of agents to 17,819 by the end of the fiscal year.
It also makes some major enhancements to the operations of the Department. It mandates that all grants and contracts can only be used for projects that comply with Davis-Bacon. It also allows State and local governments to set chemical security rules that are stronger than those issued by the Federal Government. And it sets information protection standards for vulnerability and security plans for chemical facilities.
I support this bill and urge its passage.
Mr. Rogers of Kentucky: Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the ranking member on the Border and Terrorism Subcommittee of the Homeland Security authorization committee, Mr. Souder from Indiana.
(Mr. Souder asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. Souder: I thank the distinguished ranking member and chairman of the subcommittee.
Mr. Chairman, I want to point out a tremendous irony that is happening here in the Capitol Building today. In the other body, the President of the United States has come over to lobby for an immigration bill and the other body is considering this. Yet we are debating a homeland security bill where we have had Republicans come down to the floor who say it's too expensive, that it's spending too much money, but if you took this times four on an annual basis for 5 years, you couldn't begin to meet the standards that are in the Senate bill. We have people like Mr. Rogers of Kentucky pointing out that we're mandating Homeland Security to go check everybody in these detention centers but without any money for it. Unless your intention is complete and pure amnesty, how would you do that if you don't fund programs?
Mr. Rogers of Alabama pointed out that we don't have a realistic program for training Border Patrol, that it's costing too much. Yeah. Well, how are we going to ramp this up two or three times if we don't have money to do the Border Patrol people?
This bill is an advertisement, a walking billboard for the gaping holes in the bill of the other body. On pages 12 and 13 of this bill, and I agree with all these criticisms as we worked through our subcommittee, it says that they have to define activities, milestones and costs of implementing the program for the Secure Border Initiative. You mean they don't have that? You mean they're promising that we're going to have a secure border and they don't even have the cost estimates? Yes, that's correct.
Number 2 here on page 12 says, demonstrate how the activities will further the objectives of it and have a multi-year strategic plan. You mean they don't have a multi-year strategic plan? No, they don't.
Identify funding and staffing. You mean they haven't done that?
Describe how the plan addresses security needs at the northern border. They don't even have the date set for when they're going to develop a plan for the northern border, yet we're debating a bill in the other body that says that we're supposedly securing our border?
On page 37, it says, complete the schedule for the full implementation of a biometric exit program or certification that such program is not possible within 5 years. Well, I've talked to US-VISIT. They haven't even been talked to about it. Of course they can't meet 5 years. We're talking 10 years minimum.
What are they debating over in the other body? When the American public looks at what's happening in the Capitol Building on the same day and we're passing an appropriations bill that has theoretically looking at a biometric exit maybe in the next 5 years and the other body is acting like it's done, what's going on here?
On page 59, there's a direct challenge to the question of our matching system. Now, the other day we had somebody with TB who had the warning on the screen, one we actually caught and we released him. But what we have is a question of are our lists even valid and there are restrictions on that.
Other parts of the bill are actually going to delay the implementation of the fence by saying that, for example, 75 percent of the land in Arizona is actually either government-owned, Native- American-owned, it's a wilderness area, it's a range; and it says we have to work out each of those things before we can put any fence in.
Another part of the bill says we have to work with State and local governments in their areas. How in the world can the other body be making these promises when this bill points out the gaping holes?
Mr. Price of North Carolina: Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island who's worked with us on this bill, Mr. Langevin.
(Mr. Langevin asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. Langevin: I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I want to say that I rise in strong support of the FY 2008 Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill. I want to begin by commending Chairman Price's leadership in crafting a measure that will provide an additional $2.1 billion above the President's request and fill many of our remaining security gaps.
As chairman of the Homeland Security Subcommittee on Emerging Threats, Cybersecurity and Science and Technology, I am particularly pleased that this bill incorporates language I worked on to strengthen chemical security by allowing State and local governments to set chemical safety rules that are stronger than Federal mandates.
Further, this legislation incorporates an additional $307 million for aviation security, an area the 9/11 Commission highlighted as a priority. This bill will allow TSA to install vital explosive detection systems at commercial airports nationwide and will double the amount of cargo screened on passenger aircrafts.
This bill also takes the critical step of lifting the cap on TSA airport screeners, a provision which is of tremendous importance to T.F. Green Airport in my district.
In addition, H.R. 2638 incorporates robust funding to strengthen border protection, including $8.8 billion to fund an additional 3,000 Border Patrol agents for FY08.
Finally, this legislation will help our first responders who place their lives on the line each and every day by restoring funding to the local law enforcement terrorism prevention program and the assistance to firefighter grants program.
Of course, no appropriations measure is perfect and this bill is no exception. I am especially disappointed with the inadequate funding level for R&D for cybersecurity. Cybersecurity poses potentially devastating threats to our Nation's critical infrastructure, and I hope we can improve the bill in this area. I have a later amendment to that effect that I hope to discuss with the chairman.
Overall, however, this is an excellent bill. I again want to commend the chairman and the committee for their outstanding work on this measure. It provides support to many critical programs, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting it.
Mr. Price of North Carolina: Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Cuellar).
Mr. Cuellar: I want to thank, Mr. Chairman, Chairman David Price and Ranking Member Harold Rogers for the leadership and bipartisan work that they have done in this bill.
I rise in support of this Homeland Security appropriations bill because I am a Member who represents part of the U.S.-Mexico border and this is strong on homeland security.
One of the things I would like to emphasize is that it allows input from the local communities. I think before a fence is put, that I think it's very, very important that we get the input of the local county officials, city officials, the business sector before any sort of fence is put in there.
The second part of it is we're doing a lot to help Border Patrol, but I think it's also important to provide incentives for customs officers; and by giving them law enforcement officer status, that will improve the Department of Homeland Security to recruit and retain those officers.
The last point is the criminal alien program. By providing extra funding, the $50 million to make sure that we contact the local jails, this is important to make sure that we deport anybody who is in one of the local jails and move them out.
Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the leadership you have provided.
Mr. Price of North Carolina: Mr. Chairman, how much time do we have remaining?
The Chairman: The gentleman has 6½ minutes. The gentleman from Kentucky has 6 minutes.
Mr. Price of North Carolina: Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
(Ms. JAckson-Lee of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)
Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas: I thank the chairman very much, and I thank the ranking member for their work.
I want to point out particularly in the interest of our subcommittee on the authorizing committee, chairwoman of the Transportation Security and Critical Infrastructure, is the importance of the added amount of dollars for the Transportation Security Administration, a figure that is $307 million above the 2007 request, $6.62 billion. I am hoping that that means that we will begin to look at the entire operations of airports, to ensure that the grounds, the back side of the airport as well, are as safe as the front side, that we will be able to screen all of the employees that come on the airport grounds.
I am very happy to see that the port security grants are there, representing Houston and the Port of Houston. Lastly, let me say that I hope we will be able to work together on ensuring that when we have outreach and security training that we include the neighborhoods surrounding the items that may generate the kind of nonsecure incident that may occur. We must provide security for neighborhoods.
I hope that we will pass this bill and add the issue of securing neighborhoods to the bill. Mr. Chairman, September 11, 2001, is a day that is indelibly etched in the psyche of every American and in the minds of many throughout the world. Much like the unprovoked attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, September 11 is a day that will live in infamy. And as much as Pearl Harbor changed the course of world history by precipitating the global struggle between totalitarian fascism and representative democracy, the transformative impact of September 11 in the course of American and human history is indelible. September 11 was not only the beginning of the global war on terror, but moreover, it was the day of innocence lost for a new generation of Americans.
Since that catastrophic day, I have put the protection of our homeland at the forefront of my legislative agenda. I believe that our collective efforts as Americans will all be in vain if we do not achieve our most important priority: the security of our Nation. Accordingly, I became then and continue to this day to be an active and engaged member of the Committee on Homeland Security, and chairwoman of the Transportation Security and Infrastructure Protection Subcommittee.
Our Nation's collective response to the tragedy of September 11 exemplified what has been true of the American people since the inception of our Republic--in times of crisis, we come together and always persevere. Despite the depths of our anguish on the preceding day, on September 12 the American people demonstrated their compassion and solidarity for one another as we began the process of response, recovery, and rebuilding. We transcended our differences and came together to honor the sacrifices and losses sustained by the countless victims of September 11. Let us honor their sacrifices by passing H.R. 2638, which funds the important work of the Department of Homeland Security.
The Homeland Security Appropriations bill makes significant strides forward toward implementing the suggestions of the 9/11 Commission report, as well as addressing the most pressing security issues that we, as Americans, face. In particular, new emphasis has been placed on port, rail, and transit security; on the need to support state and local efforts to prevent and respond to terrorism threats and natural disasters; on aviation security; and on border and immigration security.
Earlier in this Congress, we passed H.R. 1684, the Department of Homeland Security Authorization Act for 2008. This legislation included many significant provisions I ensured were incorporated either into the base bill or through amendments at the full committee markup, and I am pleased that my amendments are reflected in H.R. 2638, making appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security for FY 2008. These amendments were designed to strengthen and streamline management, organizational, personnel, and procurement issues at the Department to facilitate execution of its homeland security mission. Among these was an amendment to strip the Department's authority to develop a personnel system different from the traditional GS schedule Federal model, known as MAX-HR. In a number of critical ways, the personnel system established by the Homeland Security has been a litany of failure, and my amendment repealed a personnel system that eviscerated employee due process rights and placed in serious jeopardy the agency's ability to recruit and retain a workforce capable of accomplishing its critical missions.
I also worked with Chairman Thompson to incorporate into H.R. 1684 language authorizing Citizen Corps and the Metropolitan Medical Response System programs to strengthen emergency response and recovery efforts. The Citizen Corps Program is a critical program within the Department of Homeland Security that engages the community in emergency preparedness through public education and outreach, training, and volunteer service. My language ensured that funding will enable local Citizen Corps Councils to more adequately provide education and training for populations located around critical infrastructure.
Today, we are here on the floor to ensure that the department entrusted with protecting the security of our Nation is adequately funded. I believe that H.R. 2638 does exactly that, while also requiring specific new accountability and management reforms related to contracting, procurement, and competition. These reforms serve to ensure that American taxpayers get the greatest possible value for the money they provide.
H.R. 2638 provides $4.52 billion in funding for First Responder and Port Security Grant Programs. This figure is $1.97 billion above the President's request, and $863 million above the 2007 funding level. Even though homeland security costs continue to rise, funding levels for these grants have been cut every year since their inception in 2004. These funds are used for grants to train first responders, aid preparedness in high threat communities, and protect critical infrastructure.
This bill also provides $6.62 billion for the Transportation Security Administration, a figure that is $307 million above 2007 funding and $219 million above the President's request. This funding will be used for a number of key programs, including explosive detection systems to protect commercial aircraft, increased and expanded air cargo explosive screening for passenger aircraft, and a secure flight certification program requiring the Administrator of TSA to certify that no security risks are raised by TSA's Secure Flight plans that would limit screening of airline passenger names only against a subset of the full terrorist watch list.
Additionally, this legislation appropriates significant funds for efforts to secure America's borders: $8.8 billion is provided for customs and border protection, including border security fencing and other tactical infrastructure, as well as 3,000 additional border security agents. The committee mark adds $27 million for 250 additional Customs and Border Patrol officers for commercial operations and Customs Trade Partnership against Terrorism validation, verifying that "trusted shippers" have in place necessary security measures, as mandated in the SAFE Port Act. Additionally, $4.8 billion is appropriated for immigrations and custom enforcement, including the Federal Protective Service, a figure which is $322 million above 2007 and $15 million above the President's request.
This appropriations bill also funds a number of other crucial programs. It provides $272 million for infrastructure protection, $32 million above the President's request and $44 million above 2007 funding, to be used to identify critical infrastructure, and assess security vulnerabilities.
Additionally, $685 million, $17 million above the President's request and $150 million above 2007, is appropriated for FEMA management, including funding for regional offices responsible for assisting state and local communities prepare for and respond to disasters. This money will fund the necessary improvements to FEMA's management operations, whose weaknesses were laid bare in the shamefully catastrophic response to Hurricane Katrina. This bill provides a further $1.7 billion to assist State and local governments following a declared disaster or emergency, and $120 million for projects that reduce the risks associated with disasters.
In conclusion, I stand here remembering those who still suffer, whose hearts still ache over the loss of so many innocent and interrupted lives. My prayer is that for those who lost a father, a mother, a husband, a wife, a child, or a friend will in the days and years ahead take comfort in the certain knowledge that they have gone on to claim the greatest prize, a place in the Lord's loving arms. Mr. Chairman, the best way to honor the memory of those lost in the inferno of 9/11, is to do all we can to ensure that it never happens again. The best way to do that is to bolster the efficacy, accountability, and our oversight over the Department of Homeland Security, which we created in the aftermath of 9/11 to protect and preserve our Nation which we all hold so dear. I encourage all my colleagues to vote for this legislation, and to ensure that the Department of Homeland Security can continue its important work protecting our homeland from all manner of threats.
Ms. Woolsey: Mr. Chairman, providing our police forces, firefighters, emergency medical service personnel, and public health personnel with the resources they need to effectively confront and overcome the threats posed by terrorism, natural disasters, and other emergencies requires our continued commitment and dedication. Our first responders work tirelessly to protect and aid victims of disasters across our country. It's our responsibility to make sure they have the support necessary to perform their jobs.
The dedicated men and women who serve the people of California's 6th District understand the importance of adequate homeland security resources. Each day, ships arrive to dock in ports throughout the Bay Area, commuters travel across the Golden Gate Bridge and the Richmond- San Rafael Bridge, and travelers fly all over the world. In order to best utilize the well-trained first responders in my District, we need to enhance the security of the Bay Area's waterways, expand our ability to better prepare for disasters, and improve our ability to mitigate their effects once they occur.
In 2004, Congress provided $4.92 billion in grants for port security and our first responders. Since then, the Bush Administration and the last Republican Congress cut funding for these programs every year, despite the fact that the costs of preparing for new homeland security threats have steadily increased. The President has continued to deny the importance of sufficiently funding our first responders by asking for only $2.55 billion for these grant programs this year.
We cannot expect local communities to be the first to respond to an emergency unless we give them the resources to do so. Additionally, we cannot assure safe passage for those traveling into our country, nor that the containers transported aboard the airplanes and ships do not conceal weapons of mass destruction unless we provide adequate funds toward improving the safety and security of both our ports and our airlines.
Fortunately, the Homeland Security Appropriations bill for Fiscal Year 2008 represents an important step in remedying past failures to support our first responders and to strengthen our national security. This bill provides $4.52 billion for first responder and port security grant programs, $1.97 billion above President's request and $863 million above the total these programs received in Fiscal Year 2007. Specifically, it provides $800 million for firefighter assistance grants, $800 million for urban security grants, and $400 million for port facilities and infrastructure security grants. This bill also eliminates the cap on the number of federal airport screeners that the Transportation Security Administration can employ, which will help to improve security at airports nationwide.
In addition to funding measures to address our country's most pressing security vulnerabilities, the Homeland Security Appropriations bill also increases funding for our country's Disaster Relief Fund to $1.7 billion in order to assist state and local governments following a declared disaster or emergency and provides $230 million to modernize over 100,000 flood maps used to determine rates for the National Flood Insurance Program. Additionally, this important piece of legislation will require that all homeland security contracts will be awarded in an open, competitive process, ending the Bush Administration's practice of awarding large-scale contacts to companies with political connections to the White House. Furthermore, this bill will make sure that all funds allocated in this bill can only be used for projects that comply with the Davis-Bacon mandate, requiring that federal contractors pay workers no less than the local prevailing wage.
Securing our homeland demands a strong partnership between the federal government, state governments, and local communities, and I commend the Democratic leadership and the members of the Appropriations Committee for their diligence in working to strengthen our homeland security. By allocating our country's resources to where they are most needed, we will be able to better prepare for and respond to disasters that that threaten the safety of the American people.
Mr. Rogers of Kentucky: Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Price of North Carolina: Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Chairman: All time for general debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment under the 5-minute rule.
During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chair may accord priority in recognition on the basis of whether the Member offering an amendment has caused it to be printed in the portion of the Congressional Record designated for that purpose. Those amendments will be considered read.
The Chair wants to make clear that the Committee is considering this bill under the 5-minute rule. Amendments are in order when the appropriate paragraph is read. If Members wish to offer an amendment in a timely fashion, Members should rise and orally seek recognition when the appropriate paragraph is read.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
H.R. 2638
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the Department of Homeland Security for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and for other purposes, namely:
TITLE I--DEPARTMENTAL MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONS
Office of the Secretary and Executive Management
For necessary expenses of the Office of the Secretary of Homeland Security, as authorized by section 102 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 112), and executive management of the Department of Homeland Security, as authorized by law, $102,930,000: Provided, That not to exceed $40,000 shall be for official reception and representation expenses.
Mr. Crowley: Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Chairman: The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 21 offered by Mr. Crowley:
Page 2, line 9, after the dollar amount insert "(reduced by $15,000,000)".
Page 2, line 16, after the dollar amount insert "(reduced by $35,000,000)".
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 8, after the dollar amount insert "(increased by $50,000,000)".
Mr. Crowley: Mr. Chairman, my colleagues, Representatives Fossella, Matsui, Garrett, and I are offering an amendment to increase by $50 million the funding for the high-threat, high-density urban area program. If passed, our amendment would ensure that the program receives a total of $850 million in fiscal year 2008.
As many of you know, this initiative, also referred to as the Urban Area Security Initiative, is the only homeland security initiative specifically targeted to assist the cities and States most vulnerable to a terror attack.
The Urban Area Security Initiative was created by myself and my fellow New Yorker, Representative Fossella, in the months following the attack of 9/11. Its creation was a bipartisan effort, and it continues to be a bipartisanly supported program. Specifically, I want to thank Representative Price, chairman of the Homeland Security appropriations subcommittee, and the Democratic majority of the Homeland Security authorization committee for their hard work and dedication to the urban area initiative and to keeping Americans safe. Both of these committees understand the threats that America faces, both here at home as well as abroad, and they are working to make the investments that we need to make in order to secure our Nation.
Although the majority of this Congress understands the threats in the world that we face, I believe some of my colleagues do not fully understand them. There are some Members in this Chamber who oppose the urban area initiative and all homeland security grant initiatives, calling them, and I quote, revenue sharing, unquote, or secret earmarks. I think that's nonsense. Would my colleagues prefer we return to the pre-9/11 days? As someone who has known personal loss from that day, I for one do not want to.
The chief role for the Federal Government is to protect its citizens from attack and the Urban Area Security Initiative, like many other of the important domestic security programs in this bill, help to accomplish this. While some on the other side may try to play cute games with words, our Nation's security is more important than word games or photo ops.
I come from the State of New York where my hometown was hit and knows firsthand the act of terror. My own family knows firsthand the striking of terror. That is why I urge my colleagues to join me in strengthening the Urban Area Grant Initiative as a way to maintain our vigilance in the face of continuing threats against America that are both at home and abroad.
This amendment is about making targeted, smart and necessary investments to keep our country safe. The Urban Area Security Initiative works. It provides needed resources to the communities at greatest risk of an attack, and it helps to keep those who are defending us on our front lines of terror, our first responders, our fire fighters, EMTs, and police officers safe and protected.
This initiative has been a success, and I urge my colleagues to support the Crowley-Fossella-Matsui-Garrett amendment so we can continue to make the right investments in the protection of our homeland.
Mr. Rogers of Kentucky: Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The committee mark already includes huge increases in grants for the urban areas, and I am opposed to this further increase. I mean, there is only so much money to go around to all of the cities in the country and all that need help.
Just for an example, the urban area grants portion of the bill is increased already over current spending by some $30 million. It is up to $800 million just for the urban area grants.
Port security grants, all of which go to the large cities, increases from $210 million to $400 million in the bill already.
Rail and transit security grants go from $175 million currently to $400 million.
And then the SAFER fire grants, moneys that go to urban area fire departments for personnel costs, goes from $115 million to $230 million, double what it is now. There are huge increases in these grant programs, particularly for the urban areas.
I know the gentleman appreciates that. But we just don't have any more to go around unless you take it from another worthy cause.
I would oppose the gentleman's amendment.
Mr. Price of North Carolina: Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley).
I do understand these large urban areas are at high risk from a terrorism event. We have addressed that conscientiously in this bill. This committee is providing $30 million over last year's level of $770 million for the urban area grants.
The gentleman's amendment would increase the Urban Area Security Initiative grants by $50 million. At the same time it would reduce the Office of the Secretary and Executive Management and the office of the Under Secretary for Management. The Office of the Secretary and Executive Management would be reduced by $15 million, or 14 percent.
Funding for a number of offices is included in this appropriation, including the Secure Border Initiative Office, the Policy Office, the Privacy Office, the Civil Rights Office and the Office of Counternarcotics Enforcement. The bill provides only enough funding to support current on-board staff except for the Privacy and Civil Rights Offices, where staffing levels are increased slightly, and the Policy Office, where additional funding is provided for REAL ID and the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States.
If funding is reduced, these program enhancements, which are carefully designed and will help ensure privacy and civil rights, could be compromised or largely defunded.
The gentleman's amendment also proposes to reduce funding for the office of the Under Secretary for Management by $35 million, or 14 percent. The total increase in this office is due to $101 million provided for DHS headquarters facilities at St. Elizabeth's. We have already substantially reduced the request coming from the administration. We need to get the Department consolidated in this new headquarters; and of course, this amendment would make even less funding available for this new facility.
So I reluctantly ask for a "no" vote.
Ms. Matsui: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, the Department of Homeland Security made significant changes to our homeland security effort. They announced that for the first time areas such as Sacramento, San Diego and Las Vegas were at risk of losing their UASI grant funds.
Since learning of the changes to the UASI program, my colleagues and I have worked tirelessly to ensure that our most at-risk urban areas receive the funding they deserve. As a result, DHS has modified the UASI grant process. DHS's formula now includes more critical infrastructure such as dams and levees, and has also added a tiered system.
While I am glad that my work has ensured that Sacramento and other at-risk urban areas are eligible to apply for UASI funding this year, I believe my work is not done.
I have spent much of my time in the district working closely with local law enforcement and first responders of homeland security. I have seen firsthand the tremendous efforts to protect the millions of people living in the Sacramento area from a terrorist attack.
In Sacramento, I had the honor of attending the opening of the Sacramento Regional Homeland Security and Training Center. The new center was built using a wide range of Federal homeland security funding, including UASI. The center will improve intelligence sharing by housing all levels of law enforcement in one facility. This is just further proof of the truly unparalleled regional cooperation among Sacramento's law enforcement and first responders.
I have long been impressed by the local law enforcement and first responders in my community, and throughout the country. Now we need to make sure that Congress is giving them the necessary resources to do their job.
And so my colleagues, Mr. Crowley, Mr. Fossella, Mr. Mr. Garrett and I have offered an amendment to add $50 million to the UASI grant program.
While I commend the chairman and the ranking member for adding $30 million to the program, I believe an additional $50 million is warranted. Our first responders and law enforcement tackle impossible tasks daily. This increased funding will help in pursuit of their mission, to keep our country safe and secure.
Finally, I would like to add to what the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley) has said about the issue of revenue sharing. I, too, don't think this is an appropriate place for semantics. The point is, this grant program and the criteria for receiving funding is predicated on the assessment of risk and a community's vulnerability. I would argue that with the UASI program, the issue is not cost sharing but risk sharing. I think this is an appropriate role for the Federal Government in the post-9/11 world. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. Fossella: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.
I rise in support of the Crowley-Matsui-Fossella-Garrett amendment. I want to thank Chairman Price and Ranking Member Rogers for their work on this legislation.
Time after time we come to the floor to ensure that homeland security dollars are allocated on a reasonable and rational basis, and that is to protect the American people and those who come to our country.
Time after time, we wake up and realize that places like New York City and other high-threat areas are the subject of potential terrorist attack. There are many, including myself, who believe that our homeland security dollars should be based on the threats and the vulnerabilities and the consequences that come with the potential; or, God forbid, an attack itself, as was the case, the catastrophic case, on 9/11.
As has been mentioned, our amendment would add $50 million in funding for the high-risk, high-threat cities to fight terrorism. The additional funding would be directed to the Urban Area Security Initiative, which is the only homeland security grant program which distributes funding based on a risk-based formula, which is a key recommendation of the 9/11 Commission.
The President's budget on the underlying legislation funds UASI at about $800 million, $50 million short, we believe, of the all-time highest appropriation, which occurred in fiscal year 2005.
Despite the fact that America has not been attacked since September 11, our Nation is still at war with an evil enemy. Indeed, just a month ago, law enforcement captured four alleged terrorists on charges that they were plotting to blow up Kennedy Airport in New York City. Their plan was to top the attacks of the World Trade Center, to massacre more people, destroy more property, inflict more damage, and leave our city in ruins.
The threat of terrorism remains very real, making it essential for cities that face the greatest risk to have the tools and resources they need to stop attacks before they occur. The amendment will help our first responders prepare, train and be ready to protect innocent Americans from acts of terrorism.
I believe it will also provide greater consistency to UASI, which has been beset by funding fluctuations of hundreds of millions of dollars from year to year.
It is clear that major cities like New York remain the center of the bull's-eye for terrorists. UASI helps us fight terrorism, and ensures our first responders have the equipment they need to protect the American people.
In a way, just in the last couple of years, a number of attacks have been foiled thanks to the efforts of law enforcement and intelligence gathering, much of it because of the funding that has gone through programs like UASI. Wouldn't it be wonderful if we can keep having the news media focus on foiled terrorist plots rather than counting caskets.
I urge adoption of this amendment.
The Chairman: The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. Crowley: Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Chairman: Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York will be postponed.
