amendment. mr. royce: i appreciate that. this is an amendment supported by chairman lamar mist, chairman of the judiciary committee. the reason he and i are in support of this is because this amendment reduces the office of the secretary and executive management account by $1 million and increases funding for immigration and customs enforcement by $1 million in order to facilitate new agreements urn the 287-j program this bill this amendment will provide for better enforcement of our immigration laws. 287-g has been very successful, it allows state and local law enforcement agencies to cooperate with the department of homeland security to enforce immigration law, it was enacted back in 1996 and congress implemented this program to give local communities help with illegal immigration in their area. a couple of points i would like to make, mr. chairman, there are a maybe 5,000 or 6,000

i.c.e. agents in the united states. there are 650,000 state and local law enforcement officers. 650,000. so the 10 million to 12 million illegal aliens in the country are much more likely to come into contact with local law enforcement than they are with an i.c.e. agent. and for local law enforcement, it's important that they be properly trained so that they don't profile, don't discriminate but properly identify those here illegally who are breaking our laws. now, there is a backlog of cities that want 287-g agreements, and what this legislation does is assist in covering that problem. one of the reasons so many cities want to be involved in this is because criminal alien gangs generally victimize people in the cities often

victimizing other immigrants, often victimize legal immigrants. and frankly law enforcement should be trained in how to identify and remove criminal aliens. and this assists in that. it's a great force multiplier for i.c.e. it provides i.c.e. with assistance such as following up on leads, providing research and surveillance, it has had a positive influence on the workload for i.c.e. for identifying removable aliens and it gives i.c.e. in directing the immigration resources. i want to make a point here. the c.b.o. scores this amendment as costing zero in budget authority. also, i think we should reflect on the fact that given that one of the 9/11 hijackers, mohamed atta, was pulled over in traffic two days before the 9/11 attack, there is a significant benefit to checking

the immigration status of all individuals who are arrested. had the officer inquired about atta he then could have found out that atta was in the country illegally and may well have prevented his participation in the attacks. that is one of the benefits of having local law enforcement trained in this area. i also wanted to make an additional point. this brings tens of thousands of local law enforcement to help enforce our immigration laws. there are now 70 jurisdictions with these agreements, but many more communities want help. the 287-g program also provides training to state and local police giving them additional tools they can use to prosecute crimes committed by illegal immigrants, especially gang violence and document fraud. over the last few years the open borders law has been successful in getting the administration to curtail the use of this program.

while the 287-g program is a solid improvement in terms of enforcing immigration laws, particularly with the gang activity we have today, with the drug lords sending local gangs across the border in order to participate in crimes here, it is very clear that we need this kind of a program, and before it was created many illegal immigrants stopped by state and local law enforcement went free. immigration laws were not enforced. since the program was developed, it's helped the state and local law enforcement not only fight crime, as i've indicated, but to get the gang leaders, to get the serious criminals off the streets and enforce our laws. so instead of curtailing the program we should be promoting the expansion of it. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment and help local communities to enforce our immigration laws. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does -- the question is on the -- for what

purpose does the gentleman from north carolina rise? >> mr. chairman, i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. price: the bill before us provides full funding for the department's request for the 287-g program and $1 million simply is not needed. the increased proposal of the gentleman comes at the expense of the secretary of homeland security, an account which is significantly reduced in this bill and will likely be reduced further based on amendments we have seen already. further cuts in these accounts would eliminate key staffing positions, limiting the department's ability to respond to national emergencies and to provide for a stable leadership in the event of a large disaster or a terrorist attack. i should also note that while this bill flashes funding for many worthwhile and needed homeland security programs that support first responders, it cuts homeland security research, much-needed research.

but the bill piles more funding on the immigration enforcement. in fact, it adds $28 million in unrequested funding for immigration detention and removal. now, the bill provides full funding for the full securities program. to continue expanding this program across the country, allowing the immigration and customs enforcement, or i.c.e., to identify aliens in local custody. i bring this up because it accomplishes the 287-g program but much more efficiently and without dep ue tiesing local police to enforce immigration law, a proposition that is rite with potential abuses. so if we are really serious about deficit reduction and efficiency, we would tell i.c.e. to transition out of this duplicative program, 287-g, and to concentrate on

making secure communities work efficiently and fairly and well to identify and remove convicted criminal aliens. i'd also like to note for my colleagues that g.a.o. and the inspector general have refuted the 287-g program. in some cases at our subcommittee's request. and they found serious flaws in the implementation of this program and in i.c.e.'s ability to oversee its operation in local communities. the i.g. found 33 major deficiencies in 287-g last year and have found 16 more when it recently reassessed the program. so this is an unwise and unneeded amendment, and i urge its rejection. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the question -- amendment offered by the gentleman from california, mr. royce. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it.

the -- for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? mr. royce: mr. chairman, on that i'd like to ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california will be postponed. the clerk will read. the clerk: office of the undersecretary for management. $234,940. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas -- the gentlewoman from texas rise? ms. jackson lee: meask. -- mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by ms. jackson lee of texas. the chair: the gentlewoman from texas is recognized for five minutes in support of her amendment. >> mr. chairman, i reserve a point of order on the gentlewoman's amendment. the chair: the gentleman reserves a point of order.

the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. jackson lee: mr. chairman, i've served on the homeland security committee tragically since the formation of the select committee and ultimately the full committee. for many of us who were here in the united states congress and watched the planes attack the pentagon and ultimately visited ground zero in the early stages are well aware of the need to protect america. as the ranking member of the transportation security committee, working with my colleague from alabama as the chairman, we well recognize the importance of transportation facilities and modes. for some reason, terrorist are attracted to airlines and freeways and trains. and so this amendment is a very simple amendment that i believe

provides security to the american public. it was no doubt that after the killing of osama bin laden discovered papers suggested had a al qaeda operatives were considering attacking the u.s. rail system on the 10th year anniversary of the september 11 attacks. yes, it was 2010, but if we recall we were unaware that we were going to be attacked on 9/11. los angeles m.t.a. planned security upgrades in response to bin laden's killing and discovery of rail attack plans. that is the american public's sensitivity that we must protect our modes of transportation. my amendment is a simple amendment that restores $5 million to the transportation security account at the president's submitted request by reducing the office of the undersecretary for management and transportation threat assessment and credentialing.

since the demise of osama bin laden has come to light, that al qaeda had ambitious plans to launch attacks against our nation's mass transit systems and their riders, our constituents. now more than ever we must ensure that our mass transit and surface transportation are secure by developing risk-based policies and programs that develop appropriate resources to securing these systems against terrorist attacks. this amendment wo increase the surface transportation security -- would increase the surface transportation security account by $5 million bringing the account in line with the president's request for f.y. 2012. and washington -- in washington, $5 million may not sound enough but it is an increase to the transportation security account at t.s.a. which has historically been underfunded. this account funds front line personnel in the form of surface transportation inspectors with, who in addition to reviewing

compliance, improving security transportation and operational protocols. the american public, whether it's amtrak or long-distance rail, need our involvement. we cannot afford to diminish the protection of our rail lines where grandmothers and grandchildren, college students, commuters use. this is a smart investment at a critical time. be remembered, be reminded, we got no notice about 9/11, and we will get no notice about attacks on our rail system. the fund is reduced by $2.5 million from two different accounts. this is a wise decision at this time to help our communities and mitigate the terrorist threat that our local transit systems as well as for improving security for passenger and freight rail. be the community that would be impacted by a terrorist attack, whether it's through the neighborhoods of houston,

whether it's in los angeles or the midwest, all of our communities and constituents are serviced by some form of transportation or mass transit. and as we have seen abroad, this mode of transportation is vulnerable to terrorist attacks. from spain to london, they know the truth, and we must stand vigilant to providing this increased funding for our surface transportation inspectors is a wise investment on behalf of the american people. and i ask my colleagues to support this amendment. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. ms. jackson lee: i yield back at this time. the chair: does the gentleman from alabama, the chairman of the subcommittee, seek recognition? mr. aderholt: mr. chairman, i withdraw my reservation but i rise in opposition. the chair: the gentleman withdraws his reservation. the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. aderholt: the bill already reduces the office of undersecretary substantially. 6% below the request and 26%

below the f.y. 2011 c.r. it includes no funding to continue construction of the department of homeland security headquarters. the bill has reduced management to a bare minimum with reduction of 29% to leadership and management offices. the department of homeland security is an agency of 230,000 employees. the number of employees in oscm is 00 or less than a third of a percent. and funding provided is also a third of a percent for the total d.h.s. budget. this is extremely small for assets need to manage a major security department. additional reductions would prevent filling key staffing positions and thus limit the ability of the department to respond to national emergencies and provide stable leadership to the public and the nation in the event of a large disaster or terrorist event. these reductions are not compatible with running a cabinet agency. no other federal department has asked to manage such large

responsibilities and operating components with such a small and stretched headquarters element. therefore, i urge the members to oppose this amendment. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from texas. for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina rise? mr. price: mr. chairman, i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. price: and would like to yield to my colleague from texas so she can respond to the last speaker. the chair: the gentleman must remain on his feet as he controls the time. and the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. jackson lee: i thank the ranking member. and i think it's important i listen to the gentleman, mr. aderholt, list a lot of numerical and factual points about personnel. let me be very clear, as senator lieberman said, all of our sisters need to be on high alert and all of our citizens need to be on high alert as we

approach the 10th anniversary of 9/11. . it is clear, mr. chairman, and our colleagues, that something is awry with al qaeda. al qaeda is interested in transportation modes and they're interested in our rail systems. they have already done mumbai, they have done london and they have done madrid. and therefore, they are looking at the united states. no, we don't have specifics, but we do have the potential of our rail lines crossing america, being ripe targets for al qaeda. this is a very small amount that would allow us to have surface inspectors who are truly crucial to the protection of the nation's mass transit, freight, and long-distance rail. every state is impacted from new hampshire to florida. to the midwest, to the west, texas, houston has as its city

insignia a rail. why? because trains crisscross our community. and therefore, i think it behooves us to be bipartisan and to actually support an amendment that provides a cushion of protection and a cushion and an armor, if you will, against the thoughts and the mindset of al qaeda. yes, they are franchised, they are splintered, but that makes it all the easier for them to find their way here to the united states. i remind my colleagues that prevention, prevention is worth a pound of cure. an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. i ask my colleagues to consider the small investment it would take to be able to secure the nation's railways. and as a member of the homeland security committee, the authorizing committee, i can assure you that we are seeing these kinds of threats in terms

of the vastness of our system, and we need to be able to protect our system. i ask my colleagues to support this amendment. i yield back to the gentleman. mr. price: i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from texas. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. the clerk will read. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? >> mr. speaker, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment being offered by mr. broun of georgia. mr. broun: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent -- the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman rise? mr. broun: i ask unanimous consent we dispense with the reading. the chair: without objection, the amendment will be considered as having been read. the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. broun: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to offer my amendment to h.r. 2717.

my amendment simply cuts $600,000 from the office of the undersecretary and the department of homeland security and places those funds in the deficit reduction account. during this economic emergency, we must find cuts wherever we can, especially when a department is not being a good steward of the finding that congress provides it. if you look at this bill, the secretary has been allocated nearly $127 million of which $6 million goes to the office of legislative affairs. i think the american people would agree with me that $6 million is a lot of money for political appointees who refuse to do their job and participate in the oversight process. on several occasion this is year, mr. speaker, the department has either refused to sit on the same panel as other witnesses or is outright refused to appear before various house committees and subcommittees. in fact, as chairman of the house subcommittee on

investigations and oversight, i held a hearing on behavioral sciences security with the goal of understanding how science informed the development of t.s.a. spot program. the department refused my request for a witness from t.s.a. for their own program, and i'm not the only chairman who has received such shabby and unacceptable treatment. this pattern of arrogance makes fulfilling our oversight responsibilities to the executive branch very difficult, if not impossible. in the end, if the american people, mr. speaker, lose -- if its government cannot perform its most basic constitutional responsibilities. if the department is not going to meet its obligations of appearing before congress when requested, it is prudent to apply the funds rescinded in this, my amendment, to more

constructive uses such as reducing our deficit. if 10% is good enough for the lord, i think the office of legislative affairs can part with 10% of their funding to aid in our efforts of reducing the burden of our debt on our children and grandchildren. i can think of no higher priority than reducing the deficit. and creating jobs in america. and i would urge all of my colleagues to support this amendment today. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina rise? for what purpose does the gentleman from alabama rise? mr. aderholt: we accept the gentleman from georgia's amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina rise? mr. price: mr. chairman, i rise in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized 35. -- the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. price: i will not go on at length but i simply don't believe the case has been made

for a further reduction. the suspicion passenger, the observation technique programs that have been cited aren't even under the jurisdiction of the undersecretary being cut, and the bill already cuts $4,993,000 off the fiscal 2011 level for the undersecretary for management. and it cuts $14,118,000 off the administration's request. now, mr. chairman, i know this is an easy target, who knows even what the undersecretary for management does. it's a very common technique around here to go after these accounts, these administrative and front-office accounts just for the sake of cutting or maybe to pay for something else that sounds good. but i don't think it's wise, i don't think it's responsible, and i would urge rejection of the amendment. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the

amendment offered by the gentleman from georgia. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: will the gentleman specify which of his two amendments in this paragraph he wishes to have considered? >> the original number is 124. the chair: amendment 124. the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment 8 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. poe of texas. the chair: the gentleman from texas, mr. poe, is recognized for five minutes in support of his amendment. mr. poe: i want to thank the chairman. this amendment takes $10 million from the office of the undersecretary of management of d.h.s. and moves it to the

border security fencing, infrastructure, and technology account with the purpose of being used for border cell phone communications, to help border residents to disseminate border security information to border patrol and law enforcement for the protection of their lives and their border. i appreciate the support of congressman altmire from pennsylvania in this bipartisan amendment. this amendment really is the idea of congresswoman gabby giffords from arizona. after having been to the border of arizona with her staff, i learned firsthand the problems of texas and other states, that arizona specifically has with communication when ranchers are on their property. on march 27, 2010, rancher bob krentz of arizona was murdered 20 miles north of the border in mexico in an isolated area of arizona. the lack of communications capability made krentz more

vulnerable than he would have been otherwise and complicated the search for the assailants. his wife believes it was in a cell phone dead zone he was killed and that he was trying to call for help but his cell phone would not work. since that time, congressman giffords has been working diligently on this issue, and i have had the opportunity to work with her on other border security issues as well as this one. these dead zones are so common that oftentimes border ranchers in arizona and texas rely on short-wave radios to communicate and call for help when they are in trouble or they see illegal crossings into their property. the inability of the u.s. government to secure the u.s.-mexico border creates public safety hazards for residents of border areas and the law enforcement agents who patrol them. many border areas are rural and lack wireless communication capabilities like phone service and exacerbate the border related public safety concern. once again, i want to thank

congresswoman giffords and her staff for this legislation. i yield whichever time -- how much time he wishes to spend to the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. altmire. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. altmire: i thank the gentleman from texas. and we are joining in the office of congresswoman giffords in offering this amendment. i had the opportunity last week to travel to congresswoman giffords' district in the 114-mile border that she has along the mexican border and her district, and when you see, as my colleague from texas knows, these ranchers and the territory that they have to cover, and we have a national community campaign now, if you see something, say something. while these are areas where you don't have the communications, even if you see something, there's no one to tell. there's no way to get that message out. so what the gentleman from texas is trying to do with this amendment is make sure that the equipment is there so that these ranchers and community

citizens, if they see somebody coming across the border, if they see something that is alarming to them, they're able to communicate it. right now that technology does not exist. they are literally in the dark as far as communicating. there is a public safety aspect to this amendment, and there is a border patrol aspect, the ability of our law enforcement personnel to communicate with each other and communicate with the local citizens who in some cases are out miles and miles away from any form of mobile communication. so i strongly support this amendment. i thank the gentleman from texas for his leadership in offering it. and i thank congresswoman giffords and her office for leading the charge on this very important technology, and i would yield back to the gentleman from texas. the chair: does the gentleman yield back the balance of his time. mr. poe: i would like to close, mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. poe: this money is necessary so people who live on border areas can communicate

with law enforcement. cell phone service a basic necessity for security. it is a national security issue. it is a homeland security issue. and it is a border security issue. i urge adoption of this amendment. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from alabama, the chairman of the subcommittee rise? >> mr. chairman, i reluctantly rise to oppose the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. aderholt: again, this proposal would further create cuts to the department's management functions below what is responsible for our nation's security. the committee has already cut the department's headquarters and management historic levels. as i had mentioned earlier, they include the zeroing out of the funding for the department's new headquarters. it zeros out funding for the data center migration, it slashes other initiatives we cannot afford at this time. the department must still have robust funding to manage the many organizations under its authority. the department was created for

nearly two dozen agencies and still faces challenges in achieving the unified homeland security enterprise. more importantly, the gentleman's amendment proposes the department pay for cell towers to provide phone services to the general public. i'm very sympathetic to the needs of rural communities. i'm from a rural community. and certainly i'm sympathetic to remote ranchers as well. but this is not a cause the homeland -- cost the holds can cost the hole land security can bear at this time. i oppose the amendment and reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from texas. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the noes have it. mr. poe: mr. chairman? the chair: the gentleman from texas. mr. poe: i ask for the nains.

the chair: pursuant to clause 8, the amendment offered by the gentleman from texas will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from district columbia, ms. eleanor holmes norton rise? ms. homes norton: i rise to offer an amendment -- the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. loiment amendment offered by ms. norton of columbia. page 19, insert after necessary expenses -- >> mr. norton: i waive the reading of the amendment. the chair: without objection, the amendment will be considered as having been read. for what purpose does the gentleman from alabama rise? mr. aderholt: i reserve a point of order. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. norton: this would help the

department of homeland security that was cut by this appropriation. this is the most construction, private or public, ongoing in our country today because it involves the -- a secure facility that the congress has voted to consolidate in order to protect the united states of america on the main land. the -- this entire appropriation cuts millions of dollars in -- or billions of dollars in order to reduce spending. i wager that there is no cut quite like this one because this cut guarantees that the taxpayers will be charged more precisely because of this cut. already the reduction in funding to 2011 appropriation for consolidation of the department of homeland security has cost taxpayers $69 million.

cost for construction of federal property comes from, in this case, lease holdovers, short-term extensions, further -- and horrific, horrific inefficiencies now imposed because the sbecombration of construction of this mammoth facility integration of construction of this mammoth facility will be increased even more. the total con-- cost of this huge project, the largest since the pentagon, until now it was on budget and on time. remember why congress voted to consolidate these 22 agencies in the first place. congress has never formed an agency of -- one agency of 22

different agencies. they are spread all over this region, far and in between. that is why the bush and the obama administrations and the congress has construed a program for the department of homeland security. these tenants now reside in the most expensive lease space in the united states because that's what it is in this region, barring none, except perhaps new york city. the department spends hundreds of millions of dollars on leases throughout the entire region. the rapid consolidation of the department of homeland security now under way will save billions. that's b, billions, in real estate costs in addition to

directing lease revenue to the g.s.a. federal building fund which instead of using taxpayer dollars, appropriated dollars, uses agency rental payments to fund the construction and maintenance of federal real estate -- of the federal real estate portfolio, giving taxpayers added savings. currently the d.h.s. is scheduled for full occupation by 2017. every day of delay costs the taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars. this is no way to do cutting. you don't cut what then costs you more in the short term and in the long term. the significant progress has already been made. 45% of the construction is

complete. the department of homeland security headquarters is the security plant, the coast guard headquarters. you just don't interrupt a massive complex building like this unless you want to spend more money than was anticipated. the timing of this amendment is critical to ensure that the project is not costling further. the critically important department necessary for our security undermines the d.h.s. mission itself by impeding its operations here and throughout the country. as ranking member of the subcommittee with jurisdiction over the g.s.a. and this project and part of it's funded out of this appropriations -- the chair: the time of the

gentlewoman has expired. for what purpose does the chairman of the subcommittee rise? mr. aderholt: does the gentlelady withdraw her amendment? ms. norton: yes. i must say unless someone wants to speak on this amendment i am prepared to withdraw it. the chair: the gentlewoman has withdrawn her amendment. ms. norton: unless someone wants to speak on it. mr. price: mr. speaker, i'd like to briefly address the amendment. the chair: the gentleman -- mr. price: strike the last word. the chair: does the gentleman from alabama consider to reserve a point of order against the amendment? mr. aderholt: continue to reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from north carolina is recognized. mr. price: thank you. i want to commend our colleague from the district of columbia for her persistent advocacy of this headquarters consolidation and construction and also for the history she's recounted for us today. i think it's time well spent to understand how both the bush and obama administrations and the subcommittee on homeland

security appropriations through both parties' leadership have until now supported this project. the bill before us, however, provides no funding for the new d.h.s. headquarters or for the consolidation of leased property in 2012. that's a penny-wise and pound foolish decision. based on the delay and finalizing the 2011 bill and the resources provided in that bill for d.h.s. headquarters construction activities the cost of the headquarters has grown. it's grown by $20 million from a cost of $3.4 billion to $3.6 billion. the decision to deny another $159.6 billion in 2012 to finalize construction of the first phase of the new headquarters project and to begin construction on the second phase will result in yet higher costs. in the outyears. and delay by at least two years. when the coast guard can move

into its new headquarters facility, which is already under construction. similarly, the bill doesn't provide $55.6 billion requested for lease consolidation activities. last year this subcommittee held a very informative hearing with d.h.s. and the general services administration on this activity. we heard testimony about the significant financial benefits of reducing the number of leases d.h.s. has from 70 buildings across 46 locations in the greater d.c. area to six to eight buildings. witnesses testified that this massive footprint disrupts the effectiveness and the cohesiveness of departmental operations and adds needless layers of costs and comprecksities to facilities' management. additionally, the leases will consume increasingly larger share of the department's budget through overhead costs in the coming years. in the time of fiscal constraint the department will not have extra dollars to pay for all these lease increases without shortchanging front

line and mission essential programs. so, mr. chairman, at the time when real estate prices continue to be low in the greater washington, d.c., area, and construction and material costs are relatively low as well, this is the time to make this kind of investment. funding this activity would save taxpayers money for years to come. with that i, again, commend the gentlewoman's time has expired -- commend the gentlewoman for her argument on this point and yield the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. does the gentleman from alabama continue to reserve his point of order? mr. aderholt: we continue to reserve. the chair: the gentlewoman from the district of columbia. ms. norton: i appreciate the opportunity to speak and i withdraw my amendment. the chair: the gentlewoman withdraws her amendment. without objection the amendment of the gentlewoman from the district of columbia is withdrawn. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas, mr. poe, rise? mr. poe: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will

designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 7 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. poe of texas. the chair: the gentleman from texas, mr. poe, is recognized for five minutes in support of his amendment. for what purpose does the gentleman from alabama rise? mr. aderholt: mr. chairman, i reserve a point of order. the chair: the gentleman reserves a point of order. the gentleman from texas is recognized for five minutes in support of his amendment. mr. poe: this bill has to do for housing for people who are illegally in this country in order to be detained and deported back to where they came from. this past sunday morning in houston, texas, police officer kevin will was on patrol. he was working an accident scene talking to a witness at that accident scene when a person comes barreling through the police barricade in spite of the warning lights that were on top of the police cruisers. when kevin will saw that the was coming toward him he told the witness to jump out of the way. the witness jumps out of the way and this car kills kevin

will. he was charged with evading arrest. he was charged with possession of cocaine and charged with intoxication, manslaughter of a police officer and was in this country illegally. he'd been previously deported twice. the district attorney says this person is a member of ms-13 gang and is still in the united states committing crimes. there are not enough places to house these people like this criminal after they serve their time and house them so they can be deported back where they came from. what this bill does is allocate more money for detention beds so that we can detain these people while we are awaiting to deport them back where they came from, so we can have a safer community, so these people aren't running loose somewhere in the united states. i would like to yield as much time as he wishes to consume to the gentleman from texas, mr. culberson.

the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. culberson: thank you, mr. speaker. this -- i rise in strong support of this amendment, and i thank the chairman of the subcommittee and the very capable staff in putting strong language in the bill encouraging the immigrations and customs enforcement office to fill as many beds as possible. we've given the agency an unprecedented amount of money and leeway and guidance in this bill to fill every available bed, public, private, county, state bed with individuals that cross the border illegally, with individuals released from county and state prisons that are supposed to be deported criminally. the solution to the problem of illegals crossing the border, the guns, the gangs, the drugs, the crime is not complicated. it's called laurment. we want to enforce existing law with the support of the local community. we have very strong support from the communities on the border.

in fact, we are enforcing existing law which is six months of jail if you cross the border illegally. with great success in the del rio sector. it's being put in the laredo sector. we have been working with our good friend, henry cuellar, ted poe and i with the support of the local community, the local prosecutors, the border patrol, the prosecutors, great success. and if i could i would like to yield briefly to my friend, mr. cuellar, to talk about the success. the chair: the gentleman from texas, mr. poe, controls the time. mr. poe: i yield back to -- mr. culberson: i yield back. mr. poe: i yield to the gentleman from texas, mr. cuellar. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. cuellar: i want to thank both of my colleagues from texas. it's a program that's worked. we've gone from laredo, we've seen it work in the del rio area. we're now working in laredo. in fact, the last time we sat with the chief we talked about how we could make this work.

they do need some space. certainly want to work with both my colleagues to make sure we get more of that space, more of the beds to make sure it works. all we're doing is enforcing a 1954 law that's on the books already. nothing new except enforcing the law. support what you're doing. i yield back the balance of my time. mr. poe: i would urge this amendment to be adopted. what it does is provide more space so we can detain people and deport them back where they came from. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from alabama is recognized. mr. aderholt: mr. chairman, the amendment proposes to amend portions of the bill not yet read. the chair: does the gentleman raise a point of order? reserve a point of order? mr. aderholt: point of order. the chair: will the gentleman state his point of order? mr. aderholt: the amendment process not yet read. the amendment may mott be considered en bloc under clause

2-f of rule 21 because the amendment proposes to increase the level of outlays in the bill and i ask a ruling from the chair. the chair: does anyone wish to be heard in opposition to the point of order? if not the chair is prepared to rule. an amendment must not propose to increase the levels of budget authority or outlays in the bill. because the amendment offered by the gentleman from texas proposes a net increase in the level outlays in the bill as argued by the chairman of the subcommittee, it may not avail itself of clause 2-f to address portions of the bill not yet read. . the point of order is sustained. for what purpose does the gentleman from alabama rise? for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? does the gentleman from alabama seek recognition? does the gentleman from alabama

seek recognition? for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk, number 11. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. mccall of texas, page 3, line 9, after the dollar amount, insert reduced by $50 million. page 7 -- mr. mccall: i ask to dispense with the reading. the chair: without objection, the amendment will be considered as having been read. for what purpose does the gentleman from alabama rise? mr. aderholt: i reserve a point of order for the gentleman's amendment. the chair: the gentleman reserves a point of order. mr. price: we've not seen the amendment. the chair: is the gentleman objects by the unanimous consent request from the gentleman from texas as propounded as having not been read. the clerk will read the amendment. the clerk: after the first dollar amount increase by $50 million. page 7, line 21 a after the

dollar amount insert increase by $50 million. the chair: does the gentleman from north carolina seek recognition? the gentleman from alabama continues to reserve a point of order. mr. aderholt: i continue to reserve. the chair: and the gentleman from texas is recognized in support of his amendment. mr. mccall: thank you. my amendment will increase funding by $50 million for customs and border protection, air and marine operations. it will include funding for at least two a.v. systems as well as much-needed helicopters and marine vessels to assist c.v.b. operations on the border. it will increase flight crews and support the mounting request for aerial surveillance missions and boat crews to patrol the rivers and lakes along our border. mr. mccaul: it supports our

agents on the ground allowing c.v.p. to deploy fewer in the area. the marine currently operates seven u.a.v.'s and intend to grow the treat from 18 to 24 by 2016. i have seen the benefits of these missions personally along with my good friend and colleague from the homeland security committee, who i yield as much time as he may consume. dd >> thank you very much. i want to thank the ranking members for what they've done. mr. cuellar: i feel we need to have the u.m. and u.a.v.'s -- we've been down to corpus and think they've done a great job. what they do is fly eyes on the skies flying at 8,000 feet and can see what's happening and provide the intelligence to the

state and federal and local and certainly something i support and i want to thank you again to my friend mr. mccaul for the work you've done on this amendment. thank you. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: does the gentleman from texas yield back the balance of his time. mr. mccaul: i reserve my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back his time. does the gentleman from alabama continue to reserve his point of order. mr. aderholt: i insist on my point of order. the chair: the gentleman is recognized will state his point of order. mr. aderholt: the amendment may not be considered en bloc under clause 2-f of rule 21 because of outlays in the bill. i ask for ruling from the chair. the chair: any member wish to be recognized to the opposition of the point of order? if not the chair is rep -- prepared to rule, similar to the last ruling considered to be en bloc current to clause 2-f of rule 1 an amendment

must not propose to increase the levels of budget authorities or outlays in the bill. because the amendment offered by the gentleman from texas proposes a net increase in the level of outlays in the bill as argued by the chairman of the subcommittee, it may not avail itself of clause 2-f to address portions of the bill not yet read. the gentleman from texas have additional amendments? mr. mccaul: i do, amendment 12. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment from the gentleman from texas. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. mccaul of texas. page 3, line 9, after the dollar amount reduce by $10 million, page 45, line 18, after the dollar amount, insert increase by $10 million. page 47, line 10, after the dollar amount, insert increase by $10 million. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from alabama rise? mr. aderholt: i reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment. the chair: the gentleman

reserves the point of order. the gentleman from texas is recognized for five minutes in support of his amendment. mr. mccaul: thank you. it will increase funding by operation stone garden by $10 million. while the underlying bill increases it to $55 million it is not enough. operation sun guarden is a grant program that provides funding to county level governments along the border to prevent, protect against and respond to border security issues as well as enhance cooperation and coordination between federal, state and local agencies. at the last house homeland security emergency communications preparedness and response subcommittee hearing sheriff gonzalez's zapata county and sheriff deaver of arizona explained the need for drastic increases in the funding. while $55 million is woefully inadequate when spread around, i believe an additional $10 million would advance the cause and with that i yield against my good friend from texas, mr. cuellar.

the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. cuellar: i want to thank the gentleman and the ranking member for the work they've done for border security. again, we feel both mr. mccaul and i ought to add more help to the local sheriffs and police that get this assistance. one of the things we've seen is of course making sure we don't have that spillover coming in from the republic of mexico, and by giving this assistance, whether it's the sheriff down there in brownsville or going all the way up to el paso, it's something that's needed and i certainly support my friend to make sure we increase the funning for sun garden for the amount he's asked for. thank you for your leadership and again thank you to the chairman and ranking member for the work they've did not on border security. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: does the gentleman yield back his time? mr. mccaul: i yield back. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from alabama rise? mr. aderholt: mr. chairman, the amendment proses --

the chair: does the gentleman insist on his point of order? the gentleman will state his point of order. mr. aderholt: the amendment may not be considered enblock under rule 2-f of 21 because it proposes to increase the outlays in the bill and i ask for a ruling from the chair. the chair: any member seeking to speak in opposition to the point of order? the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. mccaul: just a question for my good friend from alabama. it's my understanding these moneys are actually offset by the undersecretary of management's office. there's not an increased outlay. the chair: does the gentleman from alabama wish to be heard further? mr. aderholt: the amendment proposes to increase the level of outlays in the bill. i insist on my point of order. the chair: the gentleman insists. does anyone else seek to be heard on the point of order? if not the chair is prepared to rule. for the reasons stated by the chair on the previous ruling, the amendment may not avail

itself of clause 2-f of rule 21 to address portions of the bill not yet read. the point of order is sustained. for what purpose does the gentleman from alabama rise? mr. aderholt: i -- the chair: does the gentleman from texas have further amendments? mr. mccaul: amendment at the desk number 14. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. mccaul of texas, page 3, line 9, after the dollar amount, insert reduce by $10 million. page 16, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert, increased by $10 million. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from alabama rise? mr. aderholt: i reserve a point of order on the amendment. the chair: the gentleman reserves a point of order. the gentleman is recognized for five minutes in support of his amendment. mr. mccaul: it will increase funding for enforcement, salaries and expenses in order to increase the number of border enforcement security

task force teams. i, along with mr. cuellar have been down to the border and seen the direct benefits of the best teams in terms of interdicting the southbound flow of cash and weapons. it's my sincere hope with additional resources that we can stop the flow of weapons going south into mexico but also seize the cash and asset forfeiture money that could in turn help pay for our border security operations. with that i yield to my good friend from texas, mr. cuellar. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. cuellar: thank you, mr. chair. i want to thank my colleague from texas and again i want to thank the chairman and ranking member for all the work that they've done for border security. the best program is a program that works. basically what it does is coordinate state, federal, local and also the international partners both canada to mexicans to work together to make sure they're able to focus on the same thing and that is by transnational crime. it's an idea that worked very well, in fact got started in

laredo, texas, and has expanded to the northern and southern part of the united states, and i certainly support my friend to make sure that we work and make sure the best program gets stronger and with that i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: does the gentleman from texas -- mr. mccaul: i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back his time. does the gentleman from alabama insist on his point of order? mr. aderholt: yes, we insist on point of order. the chair: the gentleman will state his point of order. mr. aderholt: the amendment may not be considered en bloc under clause 2-f of rule 21 because the amendment proposes to increase the level of outlays in the bill. i ask for a ruling from the chair. the chair: any member wish to speak in opposition to the point of order? if not, the chair is prepared to rule. for the reasons stated by the chair in the previous rulings, the amendment may not avail itself of clause 2-f of rule 21 to address portions of the bill not yet read. the point of order is sustained.

the gentleman from texas have additional amendments? mr. mccaul: i have an amendment the desk number 10. the chair: the clerk will report amendment number 10. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. mccaul of texas, page 3, line 9, after the dollar amount, insert reduce by $10 million. page 7, line 13, after the first dollar amount, insert increase by $10 million. page 12, line 6, after the dollar amount, insert increase by $10 million. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five innocents in support of his amendment. -- for five minutes in support of his amendment. mr. mccaul: it will increase by $10 million for a secured border. the initiative delays the deployment of technology to secure it. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from alabama seek recognition? mr. aderholt: i reserve a point of order for the gentleman's amendment. the chair: the gentleman's reservation is not timely. the gentleman from texas has

been recognized for five minutes in support of his amendment. mr. mccaul: thank you, mr. chairman. the backbone of the proposed new system to integrated six towers will not be in place until january 13, in place of it, the new border technology plan has been developed that abandons the fixed sensor tower, the original s.b.i. plan and replaces it with multiple technologies. the new plan consists of a reduced number of sensor towers and visions in the s.b.i. net plan and in their place lower cost technologies such as mounted radar and camera systems, affordable image systems and thermal imaging devices. the secretary said that technology will not be deployed to cover the entire southern border until the year 2025. i believe that is unacceptable. this amendment provides funding for readily available technology that we can deploy quickly to secure the border before that time frame. and with that i yield back, mr. chairman.

the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. any member seek time in opposition to the amendment? for what purpose does the gentleman from alabama rise? mr. aderholt: i oppose because of bridge and outlays. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. aderholt: i -- mr. chairman, this will breach outlays and i oppose the amendment and i reserve -- and i yield back. the chair: does the the gentleman yield back his time. mr. aderholt: yes, sir. mr. price: mr. chairman? the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina rise? mr. price: i want to back the chairman in this instance and urge rejection of the amendment. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. mccaul: i yield back my time. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from texas. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair,

the noes have it, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. page 16 after the dollar amount insert increase by $20 million. page 18, line 23, after the dollar amount, insert increased by $10 million. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from alabama rise? mr. aderholt: i reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes in support of his amendment. mr. mccal: this amendment will increase funning for immigrations and custom office.

while the bill does increase funding by $26 million, we need more. this provides money for i.c.e. they are severely underresourced. they do not have the resources to do their job. i.c.e. stated repeatedly they don't have the power and resources to deport illegal aliens. the federal government has this responsibility and needs to step up to the plate. with that, mr. chairman, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from alabama rise? mr. aderholt: i insist on my point of order. the chair: the gentleman will state his point of order. mr. aderholt: the amendment may not be considered en bloc under clause 2-f of rule 21 because the amendment proposed increases the level of outlay.

the chair: any member wishing to speak in opposition to the point of order? if not, the chair is prepared to rule. due to the reasons cited, the point of order of sustained. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. mccal: amendment number 15. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: offered by mr. mccal of texas, page 3, line 9 after the dollar amount, insert reduced by $10 million. page 16, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert increased by $10 million. page 7, line 10, after the dollar amount, insert increased by $10 million. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from alabama, the chairman of the subcommittee rise? mr. aderholt: i reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment. the chair: the gentleman from texas, mr. mccall is recognized for five minutes. mr. mccaul: this amendment will triple the am of funding for the popular 287-g program which

authorized the secretary to authorize officers to ap rehepped or investigate aliens in a time frame and under federal supervision by i.c.e. it is an important force multiplier for i.c.e. allowing them to apprehend and remove illegal aliens found during the course of their duties. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the chairman yields back the balance of his time. does the gentleman insist on his point of order? mr. aderholt: i insist on the point of order. the chair: the gentleman will state his point of order. the chair: the -- mr. aderholt: the amendment proposes to increase the level ofout lays in the bill. i ask for a ruling on the point of order. the chair: once again, for the reasons stated by the chair in the previous rule the amendment may not avail itself of clause

2-f of rule 21 to address portions of the bill not yet read. the point of order is sustained. the chair: the gentleman from texas, mr. cuellar, seeks recognition? mr. cuellar: we reserve. the chair: does the gentleman from texas, mr. cuellar, seek recognition? mr. cuellar: yes i do. the chair: does the gentleman wish to offer an amendment? mr. cuellar: yes, i do i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment uh offered by mr. cuellar of texas, page 3, line 9, after the dollar amount incest reduced delirs 16 million. page 14, line 2, after the dollar amount, insert increased by $32 million. page 63, insert reduced by $16 million. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from alabama rise? mr. ader holt: i reserve a

point of order. the chair: the gentleman from texas, mr. cuellar, is recognized for five minutes in support of his amendment. mr. cuellar: thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank the chairman and ranking member mr. price for all the work they've done for border security. this is an amendment similar to mr. mccaul's, that adds $32 million to the marine interdiction and recruitment and takes $60 million away from the office of undersecretary for management and another $60 million from the science and technology management administration. again this is to purchase at least two additional u.a.v.'s, and make sure that they have the operations and maintenance and with that, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman may not reserve the balance of his time. does the gentleman yield back? mr. cuellar: i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from alabama insist on his point of order?

mr. ader holt: i withdraw my reservation but oppose the amendment. the chair: the reservation of the point of order is withdrawn and the gentleman is recognized for five minutes in opposition to the amendment of the gentleman from texas. mr. aderholt: we oppose the amendment because it is within $30 million of the -- we've already added $30 million nor request, above the qurks and therefore we believe this is sufficient funding for this portion of the bill. the chair: does the gentleman yield back? mr. aderholt: i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina rise? >> to address the -- to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. price: i want to underscore what the gentleman has said about this, the offcelts are

maybe easy for whom this looks like just an abstract front office expenditure but in fact they carry real costs. i urge rejection of the amendment. the chair: the gentleman yield back the balance of his time? mr. price: i yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from texas. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. mr. cuellar: mr. chairman. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. cuellar: i ask for a record vote on this amendment. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from texas will be postponed. the clerk will read. the clerk: page 3, line 20, office of the chief financial officer. $50,860,000, office of the

chief information officer, $261,300,000, of which $155,800,000 to remain available until september 30, 2014. analyst and operations, $344,368,000 of which $58,757,000 shall remain available until september 30, 2013. office of inspector general, $124 million. the chair: the clerk will suspend reading. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, proceedings will now resume on those amendments on which further proceed wrgs postponed in the following order. an amendment by mr. latourette of ohio, an amendment by mr. cicilline of rhode island, an amendment -- amendment number 2 by mr. royce of california. amendment number 8 by mr. poe

of texas. and amendment -- an amendment by mr. cuellar of texas. the chair will reduce to two minutes the time for any electronic vote after the first vote in the series. the unfinished business is the question for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from ohio, mr. latourette, on which further proceed wrgs postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. k4r0eu7 amendment offered by mr. latourette of ohio. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having risen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is

expressly prohibited by the

the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 333, the nays are 87 and the amendment is agreed to. oh the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from rhode island, mr. cicilline, on which further proceed wrgs postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. clerk will deres. -- redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. cicilline of rhode island. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of taking a

recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having risen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 15 , the nays are 266, the amendment is not agreed to. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 2, printed in the congressional record, offered by the gentleman from california, mr. royce, on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. clerk will redesignate the

amendment. the clerk: amendment number 2, printed in the congressional record, offered by mr. royce of california. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in favor of a request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having risen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: all time having expired on this vote the ways are 268, the nay 1s51. the amendment is agreed to. the unfinished business is a request for a recorded vote on amendment 8 printed in the congressional record offered by the gentleman from texas, mr. poe, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clergd -- the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. poe of texas. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of a requested vote willize. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote has been ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device.

this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: all time having expired on this vote the yeas are 327, the nays are 93, the amendment is agreed to. the unfinished business is a request for a recorded vote on amendment offered by the gentleman from texas, mr. cuellar on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment.

the clerk: amendment offered by mr. cuellar of texas. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of taking this by recorded device will rise. evidently a a sufficient number having arisen, those in favor will vote aye. those opposed will vote no. members will record their vote by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: all time having expired on this vote the yeas are 162, the nays are 256. and the amendment is not agreed to. the committee will be in order. for what purpose does the gentleman from alabama, mr. aderholt, rise? mr. aderholt: mr. chair, i move the committee do now rise. the chair: the gentleman from alabama, mr. aderholt -- does the gentleman from, mr. aderholt, seek recognition? mr. aderholt: i move the committee do now rise. the chair: the amendment is on the motion to rise. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the eyes have it. accordingly, the committee rises.

the ayes have it, accordingly, the committee rises. the chair: mr. speaker -- the speaker pro tempore: mr. chairman? the chair: the committee on the whole house under the state of the union having had under consideration h.r. 2017 directs me to support it has come to no resolution thereon. the speaker pro tempore: the chairman of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports that the committee has had under consideration h.r. 2017 and has come to no resolution therein. -- thereon.

for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? >> mr. speaker, i send to the desk a privileged report from the committee on rules for filing under the rule. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title. the clerk: report to accompany house resolution 288, resolution providing for consideration of the bill. r. 2055, making appropriations for military construction, the department of veterans' affairs and related agencies for fiscal year ending september 30, 2012 and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: referred to the house calendar and ordered printed. the house will be in order. members please take your conversations off the floor. the house will be in order.

pursuant to house resolution 287 and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the further consideration of h.r. 2017. will the gentleman from illinois, mr. doyle, kindly take the chair? will the gentleman from illinois, mr. dold, kindly take the chair. the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for further consideration of the bill h.r. 2017. which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill making appropriations for the department of homeland security for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2012, and for other purposes. the chair: when the committee of the whole rose earlier today, the amendment offered by the gentleman from texas, mr. cuellar, had been disposed of,

and the bill had been read through page 6, line 22. for what purpose does the gentleman from alabama rise? mr. aderholt: to strike the last word and yield to the gentleman from alabama for the purpose of a colloquy. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> i thank you, mr. chairman, and i want to thank mr. aderholt, my good friend from alabama, for queeling for the purposes of this colloquy. i commend you for bringing this important legislation to the floor and for your hard work during this difficult budget times. as chairman of the committee with so authorizing jurisdiction over the transportation security administration in the house, i welcome our continued collaboration on transportation and security issues, specifically today i want to discuss with you the need to increase the number of explosive detection canines within t.s.a. for aviation and service transportation security. within the area of passenger screening, we all know that explosive detection canines are one of the most effective

screening means and do it without many of the concerns and costs of other types of detection technology. they do not impede the flow of traffic and avoid privacy concerns because they do not come in direct contact with passengers. we know the military canine units in iraq and afghanistan can we detect explosive devices with an 80% rate. much higher than 50% expected from those units with other technologies. mr. rogers: and for all the good that canines do, they do it in a better -- at a better price than other technologies. . if there's a better, more cost effective way than canines, i'm all for it, but it's been reported that the leader of the group that went after bin laden had at least one canine with

him. if it's good enough for them, surely it's good enough to detect bombs here at home. i yield to chairman aderholt. mr. aderholt: i too look forward to continuing to work on this issue involving the t.s.a. i agree that the explosive detection canines are a cost effective, proven, critical part of t.s.a. curt is. as we continue to work together on appropriations and re-authorizing and transforming t.s.a., i look forward to exploring all the potential options to utilize detection canines to patrol our transportation systems. thank you for your work in making our transportation systems more secure and i yield back to the gentleman. mr. rogers: thank you, chairman, and i want to thank mr. chabot for his work on this issue and my friend and colleague sheila jackson lee as

well. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. does any other member seek recognition? the clerk will re-- will read. the clerk: u.s. cut toms and border protection salaries and expenses. $,769,518,000. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from iowa seek recognition? the clerk will read. >> mr. chairman. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from iowa seek recognition? mr. king: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. king of yea, page 7, line 13, after the dollar amount, insert the following, reduced by $1 million, increased by $1

million. the chair: the gentleman from iowa is recognized in fare of his amendment. mr. king: my amendment strikes $1 million and puts out $ million, for the purpose of take ought the lookout points formed by drug smugglers on the u.s. side of the border between primarily arizona and mexico. i've been down to the border to review these spotter locations. on certain occasions, i've climbed to the top of those small mountains where they overlook the transportation links we have, the intersection, and the drug smugglers have taken paramilitary poppingses on top of these mountains, overlooking u.s. transportation, for the purposes of being able to warn their drug and people smugglers when the border patrol and other law enforcement are coming along the way.

i've gone to the top of these mountains with border patrol and shadow wolves and flown to the top of some of the these -- some of these mountains to take the position taken by the spotters. this is something congress has spoken to before this amendment has passed in the past, it directs the border patrol and security personnel to take those locations out, not to concede these tactical locations inside the united states that go as far up as tucson and on north toward phoenix. about four years ago, i and a couple of others put together a map of these locations. i stood with law enforcement personnel and said, show me where on the masm they started drawing x ose on the map, we took it along the arizona border, and when we were done, i had 70% of mountaintops that were manned. this congress can't tolerate those kind of locations here in

the united states and i urge the adoption of my amendment which directs law enforcement personnel to use the million dollars to take out the spotters, the lookout thopes mountains and let smuggling -- that let smuggling happen in the united states. i urge adoption and yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. who seeks recognition? the gentleman from alabama. mr. aderholt: i have no objection and accept the gentleman's amendment. the chair: is there objection? seeing none, the question is on the adoption of the amendment offered by the jilt fromi. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is adopted. the clerk will read. the clerk: $345,270,000 to remain available until

september 30, 2014. border security, fencing infrastructure and technology. $500 million to remain available until september 30, 2014. the chair: the clerk will read. the clerk: air and marine interdiction operations, maintenance and procurement, $499,666,000 to remain available until september 30, 2014. construction and facilities management. $234,096,000 to remain available until september 30, 2016. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will --

does the gentleman seek unanimous consent to have his amendment considered out of order at this point? >> objection. the chair: objection is heard. the clerk will read. the clerk: page 16, line 19, u.s. immigration and customs enforcement salaries and expenses. $5,522,474,000. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from iowa seek recognition? mr. king: i have an amendment on page 12. the chair: the gentleman from iowa should be advised the clerk has passed that point in the reading. does the gentleman seek unanimous consent -- does the gentleman have an amendment to the this portion of the reading? mr. king: mr. chairman, i ask unanimous consent to take up the amendment on page 12.

the reading was faster than i was prepared for here. the chair: the chair hears objection. does the gentleman have an amendment to this portion of the bill? mr. king: no, sir. mr. chairman. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from iowa seek recognition? mr. king: i have an amendment that goes to page 16, line 24. i hope it's in order. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: page 16, line 4, reduce by $1 million, increase by $1 million. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from alabama seek recognition? >> i reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment. the chair: point of order is reserved. the gentleman from iowa is recognized for five minutes in support of his amendment. mr. king: thank you, mr. chairman this amendment is an amendment that strikes $1 million and puts $1 million back in.

it's been before the congress before. it's one that supports the shadow wolves and the shadow wolves are a part of c.b.p. they are stationed in arizona, within mostly the reservation, they're native americans that defend our border and interact culturally and regionally in that area. they've been very effective. their numbers have gone up, approach 20g, but their numbers have diminished down to only five shadow wolves left. they've been excellent about tracking smugglers through the desert. they've been very effective in law enforcement. they've been shrifted -- shifted back and forth from border patrol to custom border protection in the past. but still their numbers have been reduced. this $1 million directs them to go forward and grow the shadow wolves an sustain them. i think it's a testament to the native americans across the

country, the support they provide on the border. i've watched them in action, participated with them in action, it was with shadow wolves that we did a train with blackhawks on the lookouts that i spoke about previously. this amendment will encourage those five shadow wolves continue and help them grow. if they go to less than five, they are probably gone forever. i yield back my time. the chair: who seeks time? the gentleman from alabama. mr. aderholt: i withdraw the point of order and accept the gentleman's amendment. the chair: the reservation is withdrawn. are there other members seeking time on this amendment? if not, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from iowa, those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it.

the ayes have it, the amendment is adopted. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. barrow of georgia. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. barrow: i returned from a trip to our southern border at the invitation of our colleague, gabrielle giffords. while i think it's safe to say changes have been made since my trip in 2007, i think it's important to report that significant challenges remain. successful border security requires a multipronged strategy. we need the physical strategy of boots on the grounds and we need to deny benefits to those here illegally and identify illegal immigrants who may pose a serious risk to public safety

or national security and deport them. one of our main tools in identifying those risks is the law enforcement support center or l.e.s.c. the lesc is a clearing-house for law enforcement officials to provide realtime information on illegal imgrants arrested or suspected of criminal activity. in 2010, they fielded over one million requests from local law enforcement and recent changes to state law wail increase those requests. my amendment shows the intent of congress to fund this. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. aderholt: i have no jacksons ott -- objections to the amendment. the chair: the the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no.

the ayes have it. the amendment is adopted. clerk will raze. the clerk: modernization and -- $236 million to remain available until september 30, 2016. security, $2,245 million, 560,000, of which $1,565 million will remain available until 2016. transportation threat assessment and credentialing. $183,954,000 to remain available until september 30, 2013. transportation security support, $1,0 32,790,000 to remain available until september 30, 2013. federal air marshals.

$961,375,000. coast guard, operating expenses. $7,071,061,000. environmental compliance an restoration. $10,198,000 to remain available until september 30, 2016. reserve training. $131,778,000. accusation construction and improvement. $1,151 -- $1,151,653,000 of which $4 1 million shall be available until september 30, 2016 to acquire or improve vessels of which $328,900,000 shall be available until september 30, 2014, or improved aircraft of which $171,140,000

shall be available until september 30, 2014, for other equipment of which $116 million shall be available until september 30, 2016, for aids to navigation facilities of which $4 million may be derive fled coast guard housing fund of $ 470 million shall be available for personal compensation benefits and related costs. reserge development tests and evaluation, $12,779,000 to remain available until september 30, 2016. retired pay, $1,440,157,000. united states secret service salaries and expenses, $1,6 -- $1,066,000,000 of which $6 million shall be for

investigations of missing and exploited children and shall remain available until september 30, 2013. acquisition, construction improvements and related expenses, $6,780,000 to remain available until september 30, 2016. title 3, protection preparedness response and recovery, national protection and programs, directorate management and administration. $42,511,000. infrastructure, protection, information security, $891,243,000. federal protective service, revenues and collections, credited to this account shall be available until expended for expenses related to the protection of federally owned buildings, united states visitor and immigrant status indicator technology, $297,402,000.

office of health affairs, $165,949,000. federal emergency management agency, management and administration, $707,298,000. state and local programs, $1 billion. the chair: for what purpose does the gentlelady from california seek recognition? >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk, it's a richardson amendment number 2. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: -- the gentleman from texas. >> i reserve a point of order on the gentlewoman's amendment. the chair: point of order is reserved. the clerk will report. the clerk: -- ms. richardson: as former chair -- the chair: will the gentlelady suspend? the clerk has not reported the amendment yet. the clerk: amendment offered by

ms. richardson of california, page 47, line 10, after heading, insert the following, at least $10 million shall be for buffer zone protection plan grants, $50 million shall be for port security grants, $100 million shall be for public transportation security assistance and railway -- railroad security assistance, $50 million shall be for inoperable emergency communications, $42,337,000 shall be for metropolitan medical response systems. the chair: the gentleman from texas. mr. carter: mr. chairman, i reserve a point of order on the gentlewoman's amendment. the chair: a point of order is reserved. the chair recognizes the gentlelady from california for five minutes in support of her amendment. ms. richardson: mr. chairman, as former chair and current ranking member on the homeland security emergency preparedness subcommittee and member of the transportation and infrastructure committee, i offered this amendment in good faith to save lives and to protect american citizens. like my republican colleague,

chairman king, i have a strong concern with the current appropriations bill in its current form which in and of it self could potentially cause dangerous threats to our national security by drastically cutting vital response and prevention programs, leaving americans and their visitors vulnerable when we are most in time of need. my amendment will make great strides to remedy this danger by ensuring that the department of homeland security secretary allocates $50 million for port security programs, $100 million for public transportation security assistance and railroad security assistance programs, $50 million for inner operable emergency communications grant programs, $10 million for the buffer zone protection program and $42.3 million for the metropolitan medical response system. the richardson amendment dedicates $252 million of the $1 billion authorized all while

still preserving the chairman's original intent by allowing 50% of those dollars to remain flexible under the direction of what the committee had originally provided. and also still maintaining the $247 million that the committee designated for the stone garden and for training. mr. chairman, each and every day americans face threats to our national security. certainly the most well known are the threats to our ports and our transit systems which i have particularly been focused on given the fact that my district covers two of the largest ports in the entire united states. however, these programs that i've mentioned so far go beyond the l.a. area. when you consider the recent tornados in alabama and missouri, the floods in tennessee and other natural disasters and large scale emergency situations facing our nation, strong and effective security and response programs are vital to the lives of all americans coast-to-coast.

it seems counterintuitive to undermine port and rail security, medical response and communications efforts by cutting the grant programs or should i say not ensuring that these particular categories have sufficient funds in this them. my amendment ensures that the funds will be available for port and rail security assistant grant programs. now, despite the recent strides that we have made on the war on terror, we recently found through the killing of bin laden in his diary, we learned that already he was in the process of having discussions about attacking our transportation infrastructure system. at heart of the american infrastructure and fundamental to our success in our economy is clearly protecting our ports and our rail system. these systems have been known to be targeted in the past. all we have to think of is madrid, london and tokyo. across the country, port and transit security forces are

already stretched to the limits and thanks to the substantial cuts that were already made via the end of the year appropriations bill for fiscal year 2011 their jobs were made even more difficult and are expected to do it with less. the same is true for other important state and local grant programs like the metropolitan medical response system that aids emergency medical first responders and interoperable communication grants that are so important to our first responders. finally i also want to talk about the buffer zone grants that were available. it's important for people to understand when i first -- when you think of buffer you think maybe a sea area. actually, what it is is a regional assessment done to determine if critical infrastructure is properly protected. and if it's not, those grants go out of that particular area to fix it. thus while prioritizing and dedicated 25% of the funds to fund port and rail transit grants, medical response and emergency communication efforts,

my amendment preserves the secretary's flexibility as the committee had initially directed. therefore i urge the chair to please withdraw their point of order and to find my amendment in order while still not cutting other programs that have been considered and also not adding to the deficit. i ask my colleagues to vote yes on this amendment and provide these key elements to our national security and funding that we need. i yield back the balance of my time. and i do have a second amendment at the desk. the chair: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from texas. mr. carter: mr. chairman, i understand the gentlelady's argument and i'm sympathetic but i must insist upon my point of order. the chair: the gentleman will state his point of order. mr. carter: i make a point of order against the amendment because it provides an appropriation for an unauthorized program and therefore violates clause 2, rule 21, clause 2 of rule 21

states in pertinent part, an appropriation may not be in order as an amendment for an expenditure not previously authorized by law. mr. chairman, the amendment proposes to appropriate funds for an iraqi -- earmark, that is not authorized. this amendment therefore violates clause 2, rule 21, and i ask for a ruling from the chair. the chair: does any other member wish to be heard on the point of order? seeing none, the chair will rule. the amendment proposes to earmark certain funds in the bill, such an earmarking must be specifically authorized by law. the burden of establishing authorization rests with the proponent of the amendment. finding that this burden has not been carried, the point of order is sustained and the amendment is not in order. for what purpose does the gentlelady from california seek recognition? ms. richardson: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk and it's the richardson amendment number 3. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by

ms. richardson of california after stone garden, insert -- the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. carter: i reserve a point of order. the chair: point of order is reserved. clerk will report. the clerk: amendment offered by ms. richardson of california, page 47, line 10, after stone garden, insert $50 million shall be for interoperable emergency grants. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes in support of her amendment. ms. richardson: thank you, mr. chairman. for allowing me to explain my amendment to h.r. 2017. the richardson amendment directs $50 million in funding for interoperable emergency communications grants programs. while the amendment is simple, it's important to keep in mind that being able to connect is a matter of life and death. in this information age, it seems inconceivable that this bill is suggesting that we would not invest in the technology to

allow our first responders to communicate with one another. how many lives would have been saved on 9/11 had new york firefighters and police officers been able to communicate? in jop lynn, missouri, in alabama, every day that passes without interoperable communications we put american lives at risk. those who are serving and those who are being served. now is the time for this investment. we simply can't afford to delay. the richardson amendment number 3 will help to ensure that public safety officials across the united states would have the resources needed to communicate with one another across jurisdictions and across discipline. hence, being able to prevent the unnecessary loss of life lie -- lives and property in the event of a disaster. whether it's natural or man-made. my amendment recognizes the immense importance of the interoperable emergency communications grant program and the work still that is required to establish a nationwide infrastructure for reliable

emergency communications. mr. chairman, when i talk about interoperable equipment, i'm looking to preserve that when we have a first responder who picks up his or her radio, that they'll be able to get in touch with the appropriate people to gain critical information when it matters most. throughout the united states public safety agencies, law enforcement, firefighters, emergency technicians, public health officials and others often cannot communicate effectively with one another. even within the same jurisdiction or with other public safety agencies at the federal, state and local level when responding to emergencies. as the ranking member of the subcommittee on emergency communications, preparedness and response, i've worked tirelessly to ensure that our communities' first responders are equipped with the best possible equipment. interoperable communications allows our nation's first responders to communicate in realtime, in an emergency.

it has been well documented, including the 9/11 commission report, that the lack of sufficient handheld communications devices may have contributed to the deaths of 343 firefighters in new york city on september 11, 2001. when police could not communicate effectively with firefighters prior to the collapse of the twin towers. similarly the lack of adequate equipment exasperated the difficulties in evacuating people during hurricane katrina where many could have been saved if effective communications equipment were available. not only for public safety workers, but to transit authorities and others who were involved in that evacuation. more recent national catastrophes including the floods, tornados, tsunamis and beyond clearly continue to make that argument. mr. chairman, i seek the effort on behalf of the chairman on the other side that our amendment would be found in order and i urge my colleagues to join me in

putting public safety first. over politics. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. carter: i must insist upon my point of order. the chair: the gentleman will state his point of order. mr. carter: mr. chairman, i make a point of order against the amendment because it provides an appropriation for an unauthorized program and therefore violates clause 2 of rule 21. clause 2 of rule 21 states in part, an appropriation may not be in order as an amendment for an expenditure not previously authorized by law. mr. chairman, the amendment proposes to appropriate funds for a program that is not authorized by law. the amendment therefore violates clause 2 of rule 21 and i ask for a ruling of the chair. the chair: does any member wish to be heard on the point of order? seeing none, the chair is prepared to rule. as previously ruled by the chair, the proponent of the

amendment is not earned the burden of proofing that the appropriation in the amendment is specifically authorized by law and the point of order is sustained. who seeks recognition? the gentleman from michigan. >> thank you. i place an amendment on the desk. mr. clarke: and this amends page 45 of the bill. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. clark of michigan, page 45rks line 18, after $1 billion, insert -- mr. clarke: mr. chairman, i ask unanimous consent to waive the reading requirement. the chair: without objection, so ordered. >> objection. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. carter: i reserve a point

of order. the chair: the gentleman reserves a point of order on the amendment. the gentleman is recognized. mr. clarke: the effect of this amendment would be to fully restore the funding of this program to fiscal year 2010 levels. we've got to do this. american families are at risk right now. they're at risk of having their homes and businesses demolishes, of being injured and even killed, either by a natural disaster as occurred in the past few weeks as a tornado swept across this country or by a terrorist attack which is more likely to come from within our borders. so we need this funding to hire new firefighters, police officers, emergency medical providers and to properly equip them and to provide the radio an communication systems that allow our first responders to communicate with their counterparts in other jurisdictions. the problem is this, our local

governments are state -- our local governments, our state governments, don't have the money to fund homeland security investments. that's in part because this congress chose not to effectively address the foreclosure crisis. the property value upon which our locals are depending to fund first responders have fall son dramatically, they don't have the resources to do this. it's up to us, this congress, it's our duty. to secure the safety of the american people. and my amendment will do so by taking a portion of the money the billions of dollars we spend overseas in afghanistan, to provide that country's security, i say let's take a portion of that, redirect it back home to protect americans right here in our country because it's american tax dollars in the first place, mr. chairman, i appreciate your support and i urge this committee to support this amendment.

the chair: the gentleman yields back his time. the gentleman from texas. mr. carter: i continue to reserve my point of order. the chair: the gentleman continues to reserve his point of order. does anyone else seek recognition? the gentleman from texas is recognized for five minutes. mr. carter: mr. chairman, in total this bill provides $1.7 billion for homeland security, first responders grants. of that, the bill provides $1 billion, millions for -- $1 billion for the secretary to provide a program that addresses the highest need and risk. however, as we are all aware, not all programs are funded at previous years' levels. several issues drove these reductions. first, as of today, almost a decade after the establishment

of d.h.s., there's no method of measures what our nation is receiving for the $38 billion investment in d.h.s. grants. there are no metrics that indicate how much safer we are today, or much safer we will be if we provide additional funds. this lack of qualitative measurement, quantitative measurement is intolerable. particularly in today's tight economic times. second, grant recipients are not spending the funds that have been provided. of the $38 billion provided for the first responder grants, $13 billion remain unspent. in these trying times, we cannot afford to leave funds sitting on the table when other programs need additional resources and the debt skyrockets. these cuts will not be easy,

but they're long overdue and necessary to address the out of control federal spending. i urge my colleagues to oppose this moment and now i must insist upon my point of order. the chair: the gentleman will state his point of order. mr. carter: i make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriation bill and therefore violates clause 2 of rule 21. the rule states in pertinent part, an amendment to the nene appropriation bill shall not be ined or fer changing existing law. this amendment constitutes a transfer not permitted under rule 21 and i ask for a ruling of the chair. the chair: does any other member wish to be heard on the point of order? the gentleman from michigan. mr. clarke: what i hear is that my amendment may not be in

accordance with the rule. but i know one thing. it's in accordance with what we need in this country. we need to take a share of what we're spending in afghanistan to secure those people and our people here back home. that money you say is not being spent, give it to me, the city of detroit, we'll spend that mup, we need firefighters, police officers -- the chair: the gentleman must confine his remarks to the point of order. mr. clarke: i will do so. i move to withdraw my amendment and i will offer separate legislation, to protect the american people. we need to bring that money back home, it's our money in the first place. the chair: without objection the amendment is withdrawn. the gentleman from michigan. mr. clarke: thank you, mr. chairman. i offer another amendment, amending page 47 of h.r. 2017. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment.

the clerk: amendment offered by mr. clarke of michigan, page 47, beginning at line 14 -- the gentleman from texas. mr. carter: i reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment. the chair: the point of order is reserved. the clerk will read. the clerk: page 47, beginning at line 14, strike beginning -- the chair: the gentleman from michigan. mr. clarke: i move to waive the reading requirement. the chair: is there objection? seeing none, the gentleman is recognized for five mins in support of his amendment. the chair: thank you, mr. chairman. what this amendment does is remove the restriction that the urban area security initiative funding should be restricted to the top 10 urban areas by risk. you see, there are other

metropolitan areas in this country that i believe are at similar or even higher risk of terrorist attack or damage through any other type of catastrophe. the metro detroit area is one of those. that area, the area i represent, has the busiest border crossing in all of north america. it has an international airport, it has a huge metropolitan population center, it has the rural headquarters of general motors. we're at high risk of an attack yet right now, according to homeland security risk matrix, we're not rated in the top 10. we should be eligible for this funding as well as other metropolitan areas. here's the point. even though bin laden is now gone, we are still at risk of a terrorist attack in this country. but it's more than likely that that terrorist will likely come from within the borders. so the first defense we have

against terrorism or any other natural disaster is our first responders. we need more firefighters, more police officers, more emergency medical providers, they need to be properly trained and have the equipment, the radios and communication devices to communicate to each other. the best way to protect our citizens, it's not spending it only overseas, all of our tax dollars, but investing it here right at home. this amendment will make sure that urban areas who are at high risk of an attack, such as metro detroit, get the funds that they need. the bottom line point is this, the reason why we should step in and support our local units of government is because this congress in the past did not effectively address the foreclosure crisis which is really -- which has robbed the local units of government of their power to fund first responders. the property values drop sod low the money isn't there. i'm asking congress now, don't turn your back on this

obligation to the american people. let's redirect money to homeland security budget, to our first responders, our people that are there at the first line of defense against an attack from a terrorist or against any type of national -- natural disaster that could impact our people. mr. chairman, i urge this committee's support for this amendment. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. carter: i withdraw my reservation on the point of order. the chair: the reservation is withdrawn. who seeks recognition? the gentleman from texas. mr. carter: i rise in opposition to this amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. carter: the bill before us today is born out of the need for reform. it consolidates disparty grant programs and provides discretion to the secretary. these reforms include funding reductions, requirements for

measurement, and requirements for spending languishing dollars. the consolidation in this bill forces the secretary to examine the intelligence and risk and puts scare dollars where they are needed most. whether it's a port, rail, surveillance, or access to hardening -- access and hardening of projects, or whether it is to high-risk urban areas or to states, as opposed to reverse engineering projects to fill the amount designated for -- of many programs or granting funds to lower risk. additionally, as noted by the gentleman, the bill limits urban area security initiative grants to the top 10 highest cities. again, puts scare dollars to where they are needed most. that means that cities like new york are funded at significantly higher levels

than other cities because they are the highest threat urban area. i don't think anyone here can argue with that. this does not mean low risk areas will lose all funding. it just means funds will come from other programs such as state homeland grants that are risk and formula based. i urge my colleagues to support fiscal discipline by aligning funding with the areas of highest risk and vote no on this amendment. the chair: does the gentleman yield back? mr. carter: i yield back. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from new york rise? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: there is currently an amendment pending. >> strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. >> our amendment would enhance public safety by striking the provision in the bill that

would limit participation in the urban area security participation -- program to just 10 cities. secretary napolitano said the homeland security begins in the homeland. this protects the hometown by allowing first responders and emergency officials to practice coordinating response scenarios against across jurisdictional lines. until recently, they supported these activities in 64 communities, including my own. judged by the department of homeland security to be vulnerable to terrorist attack. that was until we decimated the program by cutting 20% of its funding in the continuing resolution. rather than allow all communities to suffer cuts proportionately, the department made matters worse by deciding to eliminate half of the 64 communities from the program, including all communities, all four communities in upstate new

york. let us not make the third mistake this year by limiting participation that important program to even fewer urban areas. mr. chairman, my community of western new york includes four bridge crossings, the larblingest electricity producers in new york state and the homegrown al qaeda terrorist cell. it sits along two great lakes which contain the largest freshwater supply in the world and it is within 500 mile radius of 55% of the american population and 62% of the canadian population. for eight years, the department evaluated western new york to be a highly vulnerable area and thus eligible for the urban area security initiative. now this year, the department wants to eliminate us if the program and this bill would codify that decision. why? what has changed? we are still vulnerable, according to the department.

-- the department's own assessment, and we still need the resources to prevent and respond to attacks. mr. chairman this body should not prevent my community or the other 54 communities the department has judged to be vulnerable from this essential homeland security program. i oppose this provision of the bill and urge adoption of our amendment. mr. chairman, finally, i'd like to thank the co-sponsors of this amendment, representative reichert, tonko, ellison, moore, wasserman schultz, capps, slaughter, cuellar, fudge and wilson. i'd like to yield to the gentlelady from nevada, ms. berkley. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. berkley: thank you, mr. higgins. i rise in support of the amendment to eliminate a provision in this bill that would harm las vegas, phoenix, denver, miami, baltimore, detroit and a dozen more cities around the country. this bill before us would eliminate any funding for the urban area security initiative for all but the top 10 highest risk urban areas, leaving over

50 u.s. cities off the list, including my own city of las vegas, one of the greatest tourist destiny -- destinations in the world, with over 37 million visitors a year. for almost a decade uasi program has worked to help cities prevent acts of terrorism. not too long ago, over 60 u.s. cities received funding to help them purchase equipment, develop recovery plans and implement counterterrorism strategies. in my home city of las vegas, for example, we've create creathed the southern nevada counterterrorism center where 18 state, local and federal agencies all work together to detect and prevent terrorist and other homeland security-related events. this kind of fusion centers based on the recommendations of the 9/11 commission to help law enforcement agencies communicate more effectively so they can put the pieces together that could prevent attacks. uasi funding has been an

aessential part that have center and cutting off funding to that center now would put their excellent and possibly life saving work at risk. southern nevada is home to an air force base and hoover dam and some of the largest hotels on the planet. we know that some of the 9/11 terrorists visited las vegas before the horrific attack on our nation. mr. speaker, after the capture and killing of osama bin laden we also know that terrorists are increasingly focusing their interests on midsized cities rather than large cities. many of those who will now not be receiving federal funding for this provision to become law. this is being done when the risk of retaliation by both homegrown terrorists and al qaeda and al qaeda affiliates is very hard. i implore my colleagues not to leave some of america's great of the cities vulnerable and without the necessary funding to protect themselves. at a time when states and local governments are struggling to balance their budgets, we need help more than ever to prevent

and prepare against terrorist attacks. this provision would be salt to the wounds. i urge support for this amendment and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady from new york. >> i rise to strike the last word. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. >> mr. speaker, i rise in opposition to the amendment. while i have serious misgivings about the funding levels for fema first responder grants, restoration of the urban area security initiative to its intended purpose is good policy. by limiting the recipients to the 10 highest cities, chairman aderholt would make sure that they're addressing the unique planning, equipment and training needs of high threat, high density urban areas in order to respond to acts of terrorism against the highest risk american targets. mrs. lowey: originally distributed to seven metropolitan areas, uasi

ballooned to 64 regions in f.y. 2010, many of which were neither high threat nor high density. by increasing the number of uasi recipients without additional funding, this amendment would deplete resources for cities most at risk for terrorist attacks. with intelligence about intent to attack the united states around the 10th anniversary of september 11, which is fast approaching, now is the time to focus our resources where they are most needed, not spread the wealth. every region, however, i want to make it clear to my colleague, every region is entitled to federal security resources. and that's why the state homeland security grant program provides funding to each state and territory. however, in addition congress has the responsibility to allocate funning to address unique needs and uasi was intentionally designed to

protect those densely popularitied -- populated areas most at risk. the 9/11 commission said it best and i quote, federal homeland security assistance should not remain a program for general revenue sharing. it should supplement state and local resources based on the risks, vulnerabilities that merit additional support. congress should not use this money as a pork barrel, end quote. so, i want to make a couple of other points and i urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment for the following reasons. for example, based on projections recently receive -- released by fema for f.y. 2011, new york state will receive more than $1441 million in d.h.s. funds separate from uasi. buffalo will be one of five cities in new york to receive funding from the metropolitan medical response system, that's $1.4 million for these cities. further, buffalo is scheduled to

receive more than $1.4 million from the port security grant program and f.y. 10 erie county also received $940,000 from the interoperable emergency communications grant program. a program which had a little bit to do to create. lastly the power plant was previously awarded a buffer zone protection grant in f.y. 2007, only 58% of which has been spent. so i want to make it very clear, i can go on. michigan got $21,468,166 and we have a whole list of what other cities have gotten and states because they deserve that money. every state, region and community is entitled to federal resources for homeland security. however, uasi was a program that was not intended to spread the wealth among every region and other d.h.s. initiatives better

address the needs in most areas of the country. so, i urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired who seeks time? the gentleman from new york. >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chair. i rise in support of the amendment offered by my colleague regarding the urban area security initiative. mr. tonko: as new yorkers we know firsthand the critical role that our state and local police and firefighters play in preventing and responding to attacks on the american homeland. the urban area security initiative administered or uasi administered by the department of homeland security is a program focused on enhancing regional preparedness in high risk areas, by fostering better communication and collaboration amongst local fire responders. given the struggles we have facen street, these are communities that increasingly cannot afford to provide their citizens, our

citizens with the same level of protection that uasi enables. this bill as written arbitrarily restricts uasi to allow only 10 urban areas to be eligible for the program and its funding, down from more than 60 in previous years. no one here today would argue that manhattan and los angeles are underserve -- undeserving of priority assistance. however, with this arbitrary cap we will endanger the progress that many other high risk urban areas have made to protect our citizens from attacks and crises. we will threaten the ability of these communities, including my community in upstate new york, to safeguard our citizens. we are making these cuts at home while we pay hundreds of billions of dollars each year for our military industrial complex to fight an incredibly expensive war in afghanistan, with the aim of preventing terror attacks in america. we are going to spend more than $12 billion this year to build

up afghan security forces while our own security forces in albany and the capital region and 50 other cities across america are stripped of their funding under uasi. it is our strategic thinking that backwards or is it just more lucrative to build a multibillion-dollar army halfway around the world than to help our police and firefighters here at home protect and defend our constituents? i would propose to take $1 billion of that $12 billion and put it back into a deserving and necessary program like uasi. but according to the rules set by the republican leadership, that is not allowed. so i stand here today in support of this amendment and in support of new york in my home district in upstate new york, the albany urban area working group has used uasi grants to make great strides forward in boosting the local cooperation and collaborative planning. this group unites participants from albany, saratoga, and other counties around a common goal of

protecting a region critical to the security of new york state and the stability of america. from building a truly interoperable regional communications network to securing the capital region's critical infrastructure, the work of this group is absolutely vital to protecting the empire state. whether threatened by natural or man-made disasters, it is clear that new york is and should be at the top of our priority list to protect. i represent new york's capital region, an area that bears tremendous economic and symbolic importance, 35 million people live within a 200-mile radius of our state capital in albany. albany also houses new york's most vital state government facilities and more than 11,000 state government employees that keep the empire state up and running. these functions are vital, not only to our area, but also to our fellow new yorkers, down state and across our state and to americans across this country who do business in, with and

through new york. the capital region is also home to the third fastest growing hub for science and technology jobs in our nation. that projected clustering alongside high profile research and development sectors add to the vital importance of this region to an american economy that needs more leaders in innovation. in albany we host a world renowned nanotechnology research center where 250 industry leaders partner with the united states army to push us past the current bounds of science. we host g.e.'s renewable energy headquarters. our reservoir provides a significant portion of new york city's water supply. we have a one-of-a-kind army arsenal and just a few miles away we host an atomic power laboratory doing world class r&d for the united states naval nuclear propulsion program. nearby is a facility that will soon be the most advanced chip fabrication plant in the world.

the hometown heroes who protect all of these facilities and more will lose their funding through uasi entirely if this bill passes in its current form. and so in support of new york's capital region and similar areas across this country, i stand in support of this amendment, this amendment that will remove an arbitrary 10-city restriction on the uasi program from this bill. this will not add one dollar to the debt or debt siff -- deficit. this will not cost us one single dollar but will rather provide us a commonsense approach. with that, mr. chair, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from ohio. >> thank you, mr. chair. i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> i rise to support the amendment offered by the gentleman from michigan, mr. clarke. i represent columbus, ohio, which has been one of the two cities that's received urban security initiative funds and the current version of this bill would restrict urban security initiative funds to only

tier-one cities which would be the top 10 riskiest cities. the problem is, the risks don't stop at number 10. and, you know, it's not clear that there's any significant reduction in risk between the 10th riskiest city and the 11th riskiest city. this is an arbitrary decision and the clarke amendment ends the arbitrary 10-city restriction and allows the department of homeland security to have discretion in funding risks. it does not increase funding one cent. i urge adoption of the clarke amendment and, you know, i'd just like to make it clear that the whole point of this amendment is to remove an arbitrary restriction and give the department of homeland security the ability to fund where the risks are. mr. stivers: this amendment does not add a dime to the cost and it just removes -- or increases flexibility and it won't necessarily cost cities like new york or any other city any

funds, all it does is allows cities to be eligible so that if there's real risk there and the department of homeland security chooses to fund that city, then they can fund it. so it's a commonsense approach, i ask my colleagues to support the clarke approach and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlelady from california. >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. >> mr. chairman, i rise today in support of the amendment offered by my colleague regarding uasi. ms. chu: this amendment will better ensure that all cities and localities will be eligible for critical uasi funding, not just those under the arbitrary cap that are in the underlying bill. uasi funding is critical to my district of sacramento, california, and a number of other major american cities. it has helped create and develop one of the nation's foremost counterterrorism and readiness task forces located at the