A bill to designate the Federal building and United States courthouse located at 1300 Victoria Street in Laredo, Texas, as the "George P. Kazen Federal Building and United States Courthouse".

Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 829, I call up the conference report on the bill (H.R. 2892) making appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2010, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include tabular and extraneous material on the conference report to accompany H.R. 2892.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to present the conference report for the Department of Homeland Security appropriations for fiscal year 2010. This agreement provides $42.78 billion for the Department, $2.64 billion, or 7 percent, above the fiscal year 2009 level.

I want to thank the distinguished ranking member, Mr. Rogers, for his advice and counsel and help in making this a better bill, and also his staff for working so closely and constructively with us. I want to highlight the work of all staff on both sides of the aisle who have helped us present such a strong legislative product to the Congress.

This is a critical year for the Department of Homeland Security, as it has weathered its first leadership transition with the new administration, in the midst of a global economic recession. I commend the Department's new leadership on its strong efforts to enhance our Nation's security posture and its willingness to reach out to Congress to make adjustments and to promote change when needed.

This conference report, carrying the seventh annual appropriation for the Department since its inception, addresses the needs and challenges that this still-young Department faces. It also represents a considered approach to funding critical domestic security requirements and other core departmental missions within a bipartisan consensus on fiscal responsibility.

Madam Speaker, one can make an argument for increasing funding for many of the programs contained in this report. When discussing homeland security, worst-case scenarios often abound, as do advocates for fixating on one threat while downplaying others.

Our obligation, by contrast, is to take a balanced, realistic approach, to weigh risks carefully, and to set priorities and make prudent investments in smart, effective security. I believe this conference agreement supports the Department's efforts to focus on the highest priorities for protecting our country and to prevent, prepare for, and respond to legitimate threats, whether natural or man-made.

To conserve time, Madam Speaker, I will highlight just a few items in the proposed agreement, items I believe are of interest to all Members.

First, the conference agreement provides the resources to support the readiness of our State and local partners, our first responders out on the front lines. This includes $810 million for firefighters, $887 million for the Urban Areas Security Initiatives grants and $340 million for emergency managers. It also includes over $900 million to strengthen FEMA's operational response capabilities and to enhance the agency's emergency management mission.

The conference agreement includes $1.5 billion for more effective efforts by U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement to identify and remove illegal aliens who have committed crimes, a priority we share with the President and Secretary Napolitano. Of this total, $200 million furthers development of the Secure Communities Program, which offers a productive approach for Federal immigration agents to work closely with State and local law enforcement, while maintaining the distinction between the traditional Federal role of enforcing immigration law and the local role of prosecuting criminal violations.

The conference agreement includes $800 million for infrastructure and technology to secure the border, with an emphasis on developing technological surveillance and improving tactical communications so our Border Patrol can make smart use of its resources to police an expansive border. It includes $40 million to minimize adverse environmental impacts of border infrastructure and operations, and maintains strong oversight requirements to ensure the Secure Border Initiative delivers as promised.

The conference agreement provides a total of $7.66 billion for the Transportation Security Administration to improve aviation security and efficiency. Two areas of note are over $1 billion available to deploy explosives detection systems at airports throughout the country that have less capable and slower screening systems, and $122 million for air cargo security so TSA can meet the August 2010 deadline for screening 100 percent of cargo in the hold of passenger planes.

This conference agreement continues to take steps to increase the Coast Guard's contribution to national security, including protection of our waterways and those who use them and stemming the flow of illegal drugs into this country. Overall, this bill includes $10.14 billion for the Coast Guard, $170 million more than the administration requested. Most of this increase is to purchase materials for a new national security cutter and to complete the refurbishment of a heavy icebreaker that will help secure America's interests in the Arctic. It also boosts support for the existing fleet, making investments above the administration's request for backlogged vessel maintenance.

The conference agreement includes nearly $400 million for DHS cybersecurity programs, 26 percent above fiscal year 2009, to ramp up our protections for governmental computer networks and to bring on more professionals with cybersecurity expertise. In addition, DHS will be able to initiate new efforts to help those responsible for critical infrastructure and other private networks, reducing their vulnerability to cyberattacks.

Also, the conference agreement includes $11 million to promote legal paths to U.S. citizenship by expanding the successful immigration integration program of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.

The conference agreement includes $1.1 billion for departmental operations, up $90 million or 17 percent above fiscal year 2009, to improve DHS management and make it more cost-effective, to secure sensitive information, and to ensure that contractors are overseen by trained government professionals, not by other contractors.

The agreement provides $221 million to continue efforts to safeguard international commerce and to prevent the use of cargo containers to carry or deliver weapons. This includes an increase of $12.5 million, or 8 percent, above fiscal 2009 to build on the Secure Freight Initiative and Container Security Initiative, as well as funding to sustain programs targeting high-risk cargo and shippers. DHS is also required to submit a realistic strategy for achieving effective cargo and supply chain security.

To ensure that DHS can adequately protect public safety in its efforts to identify and prepare for biological or agricultural threats, the conference agreement requires DHS to conduct a thorough risk assessment to determine requirements for safe operation of the National Bio and Agro Defense Facility scheduled for Manhattan, Kansas.

It calls for the National Academy of Sciences to provide an independent evaluation of the Department's safety, planning, and mitigation efforts in connection with this project.

In addition, the conference report extends authorizations for the E- Verify program and for visas for physicians serving in rural areas, religious workers, and investors, each of these by 3 years. These are all short-term solutions until comprehensive immigration reform can be considered by the authorizing committees and by the Congress.

Finally, I want to discuss two items that have been raised repeatedly, the release of photographs and videos of individuals detained by U.S. Armed Forces since 9/11, and restrictions on the administration's ability to transfer detainees from Guantanamo Bay Naval Station to the United States or elsewhere in the world.

On the first topic, the conference report codifies the President's decision to allow the Secretary of Defense to bar the release of detainee photos for a period of 3 years.

On the second topic, the conference report establishes strict safeguards on the movement of Guantanamo's detainees, and if the administration chooses to address their cases in U.S. courts, this legislation ensures that that will be done with due consideration, planning, and forethought.

It prohibits current detainees from being released into the United States or any U.S. territory. It allows the transfer of a detainee to custody inside the United States only for the purpose of prosecuting that individual and only after Congress receives a plan detailing

the risks involved and a plan for mitigating such risks, the cost of the transfer, the legal rationale and court demands, and a copy of the notification provided to the governor of the receiving State 14 days before a transfer, with a certification by the Attorney General that the individual poses little or no security risk.

Our bill also prevents current detainees from being transferred or released to another country, including freely associated states, unless the President submits to the Congress 15 days prior to such transfer the name of the individual and the country the individual will be transferred to, an assessment of risks posed and actions taken to mitigate such risks, and the terms of the transfer agreement with the other country, including any financial assistance.

It requires the President to submit a report to Congress describing the disposition of each current detainee before the facility in Guantanamo Bay can be closed. It bars the use of funds to provide any immigration benefits to Guantanamo detainees, other than to allow them to be brought to the U.S. for prosecution, and it mandates the inclusion of all detainees on the TSA No Fly List. These are provisions that have been supported on a bipartisan basis in Appropriations Committee markups and on the floor of this House.

Madam Speaker, the conference report before us today represents hard work in a cooperative and bipartisan spirit. It invests in critical government efforts designed to keep the American people safe. I strongly support the proposed agreement, and urge my colleagues to do the same.

Madam Speaker, I include the following for the Record:

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH15OC09.001

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH15OC09.002

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH15OC09.003

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH15OC09.004

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH15OC09.005

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to our valued colleague from New York (Mrs. Lowey), a member of the subcommittee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to another fine member of our subcommittee, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Rothman).

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to another valued subcommittee colleague, Mr. Ruppersberger of Maryland.

(Mr. RUPPERSBERGER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to one of our hardest working subcommittee members, Mr. Farr of California.

Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is available on both sides.

Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes at this point to the distinguished chairman of the authorizing committee with whom we work very closely, Mr. Thompson of Mississippi.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker, I reserve.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the remainder of our time.

Madam Speaker, I rise once again to urge colleagues to support this carefully worked out conference report. And since no debate is permitted on the motion to recommit, I do wish to say a few words about the motion and strongly urge its rejection.

The motion to recommit would derail $42.8 billion in Homeland Security investments, investments in critical efforts to protect the American people from the threat of terrorist attacks and natural disasters, and to secure our borders, ports and skies.

The motion to recommit would reopen the compromises made with the Senate that allowed us to provide $2.5 billion in additional resources for our homeland security efforts.

My colleagues should make no mistake, this motion to recommit will dissolve our conference and kill the bill. Now, that should be reason enough for voting against the motion, but let me talk about the substance of the motion as well, because I do want to make certain that Members understand what we're dealing with.

The motion to recommit would dismantle the agreement that we on the majority side had with the minority in our full committee, which was passed by a large bipartisan vote in the House as a whole. In listening to our colleagues debate today, you would hardly understand that. But as a matter of fact, they readily agreed, eagerly agreed, in the markup in the Appropriations Committee that of course there should be an exception for bringing detainees to this country for prosecution if that was determined to be the best way of dealing with their case. I think it's fair to say that no matter what President was in the White House, he or she would insist on this flexibility, and we should insist on it for them.

This motion to recommit would guarantee, I'm afraid, no progress in resolving the status of detainees for a year. It goes against the basic American principles of due process and access to a fair trial. It goes against America's basic interests as well, the interest in closing down Guantanamo--and that, I remind colleagues, is an objective articulated by President Bush as well as by President Obama--our interest in closing down Guantanamo and in bringing related cases to an orderly conclusion.

The motion to recommit unreasonably and unwisely exalts these detained individuals above the most savage prisoners in the U.S., saying we just can't handle them, we just can't handle these dangerous people in our court system. This, I would say, emboldens the terrorists, perhaps even helps their recruiting efforts. We have tried, convicted, and punished people who are the worst of the worst in this country repeatedly, and we can do so again.

Similar provisions, Madam Speaker, were rejected by this body just last week in a motion to recommit the Defense authorization bill, and they should be rejected today.

Now, we heard a lot of arguments today about ``Mirandizing'' prisoners and reading them their rights on the battlefield. That is a red herring, unrelated to this bill. Legal protections are a matter for the courts; they are a matter for other committees in this body. Our conference report does not reach these matters.

We have assurances, as a matter of fact, from General Petraeus that U.S. military forces are not and will not Mirandize detainees. The Department of Justice has said there has been no policy change nor blanket instruction issued for FBI agents to Mirandize detainees overseas. There have been specific cases in which FBI agents have done this at Bagram and in other situations in order to preserve the quality of some evidence, but there has been no overall policy change.

In fact, the whole issue of Mirandizing terrorists on the field of battle shows a lack of understanding of what ``Miranda rights'' are. Miranda warnings are given prior to interrogation for collecting evidence from a suspect in a crime. They are a protection against a suspect's making self-incriminating statements. They are not a part of arrest or detention procedures. The courts have held that they do not prevent questioning about identity and that they do not apply in cases where public safety is threatened, such as on the field of battle or at the site of a terrorist attack. We don't interrogate on the field of battle. It's a red herring.

By the way, we're also not reaching the question of the future of military tribunals, but the ranking member's motion to recommit would very definitely shut off access to U.S. courts. We need to ask ourselves whether that is something we want to do in cases where that may be the most appropriate venue for prosecution.

My colleague seems to think that three convictions by military tribunals in the entire period of their existence is an impressive record. One of those was by a guilty plea. It's not an impressive record. By contrast, a recent analysis of the 119 terrorism cases involving 289 defendants tried over the last 20 years in U.S. courts shows a 91 percent conviction rate for the cases that had been resolved as of June 2.

Is that an option that we simply summarily want to close off?

I've already indicated, Madam Speaker--and I won't repeat--the layered protections that our bill contains with respect to the movement of detainees, the transparency it requires and the accountability it enforces. This bill contains multiple protections, and I stress again that they're based on an earlier bipartisan consensus. They reflect not just the wording in our bill but the language in several of the appropriations bills.

This move today to recommit this bill makes me wonder just how much our colleagues have really meant it when they have urged us to consider this bill quickly and to act with dispatch. We heard this through much of September.

The Guantanamo provisions that they asked for were included in the bill. We brought the bill with those provisions intact from the conference. They've been clamoring for weeks to get this bill to the floor, to pass it as a free-standing bill. But all of a sudden as the conference proceeded, again they cried, ``Stop.''

Now they're objecting to provisions that they, themselves, endorsed in the Appropriations Committee and on the House floor. They're objecting to our good faith safeguards on the movement of detainees to other countries and to the transparency requirements. They're simply saying, ``Stop.'' Once again, ``Stop.''

Well, we can't afford to stop, Madam Speaker. We're already into the fiscal year. We have no reason to stop, and we cannot afford to stop. We will not hold up the $1.5 billion in this conference report to identify and to remove illegal aliens who have been convicted of crimes. We will not delay $800 million to secure our borders. We will not delay $4.2 billion for Homeland Security grants to ensure our first-responder community is well-prepared to meet all hazards. We will not delay funding for our Coast Guard, for our Secret Service, for disaster assistance, or for cybersecurity.

We will, in fact, pass this bill today. We've worked with our colleagues. We've debated the priorities. We've operated in good faith. We've accommodated interests by Members throughout this body. Now it is time to get on with it, to get past the political games, to get past the ``gotcha'' amendments and motions, and to fund Homeland Security. This body has a responsibility to legislate. Let's get the job done.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this motion to recommit and to vote enthusiastically for this conference report.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Let me begin by sincerely thanking Chairman Price for his partnership during this 2010 appropriations cycle. Through the transition in administrations, the very late submission of the 2010 budget request and the truncated appropriations process, he has been fair and respectful and has been willing to listen to our concerns and accommodate the minority's interests where possible. So I want to thank the chairman for his friendship and his ability to work with everyone to write the best possible bill.

This subcommittee, Madam Speaker, since its inception in 1993, has a longstanding tradition of bipartisanship, a tradition that stands in stark contrast, I might add parenthetically, to the exclusionary tactics of the House's Democrat leadership that trounced the rights of the minority and stifled debate during floor consideration of the House bill.

But in spite of some of that partisan mischief, I am truly grateful for Chairman Price's efforts to maintain the long-standing comity that has defined this Chamber's appropriation process, as well as Chairman Obey's work to move this vital spending bill towards completion.

So I am thankful that we were able to hammer out an agreement in conference, for the most part. After all, the safety and security of our Nation's citizens should be the number one priority of the Congress. This urgency is underscored by the recent terrorism cases being investigated in Colorado, New York, Texas, Illinois and North Carolina, as well as the persistent acts of terrorism and violence by radical extremists overseas.

What this terrorist activity tells me is that real security demands persistent commitment. Eight years after 9/11 and 6 years after the Department was created, we must remain vigilant in addressing every threat and every vulnerability. I am pleased to see the conference report is willing to honor that commitment by properly resourcing our homeland security needs.

While I can't say that I agree with everything in the conference report, I think it represents a fairly reasonable compromise on most of our homeland security priorities. However, there is a notable provision that I must respectfully take issue with that the chairman has referred to.

Section 552 of this conference report permits the terrorists detained at Guantanamo Bay to be brought to the U.S. for purposes of prosecution. Since the President announced the decision to close Guantanamo some 9 months ago, we have seen nothing, Madam Speaker, no plan, in spite of the requests of this Congress, this subcommittee, this committee, no plan, no idea of how to dispose of the detainees remaining there, and no legal rationale for the prosecution, sentencing and incarceration of these terrorists wherever.

Instead, those detainees who pose a minimal security threat have been shuttled off to other foreign countries by way of backroom deals, leaving hundreds of suspected terrorists potentially bound for American soil because no one else in the world will let them be brought to their soil. Apparently we have tried, to no avail.

So I for one see no reason why we should afford enemy combatants who have been caught on the battlefield battling American soldiers, to allow them the same constitutional rights as American citizens or the same due process even as criminal defendants in the civilian courts of the U.S., and I see no reason why these terrorists can't be brought to justice right where they are in Cuba before military tribunals, as we have in the past there. In fact, we know military tribunals work. We have completed three tribunals and convicted and sentenced terrorists right there in Gitmo.

It is clear that the majority of Members in this Chamber and in the Senate agree with this point of view, given the clear passage of the motion to instruct two weeks ago in this body, and the Senate's near unanimous adoption of a total prohibition of detainee transfers to this country with the passage of their Defense appropriations bill just last week. Both bodies have spoken by huge majorities: Keep these detainees off sacred American soil.

This is a critical issue that I think we must get right, so I am disappointed that the conferees did not follow the convincing and bipartisan votes that both Chambers have taken over the past few weeks and deny these terrorists access to the United States.

Now, having said all that, and in spite of my opposition to the section on the Gitmo detainees, I believe the base of this conference agreement will go indeed a long way towards the protection of our great country.

I once again thank Chairman Price for his consideration of our concerns and all of his good work throughout the year on this very important bill.

I reserve my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the very distinguished ranking member of the Homeland Security authorization committee in the House, the gentleman from New York (Mr. King).

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to one of the hardest working members of this body and a valued member of our subcommittee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Culberson).

I yield the gentleman another 1 minute.

I yield such time as he may consume to the very distinguished ranking member of the full Appropriations Committee in the House, Mr. Lewis of California.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Announcement By the Speaker Pro Tempore

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a hardworking member of our subcommittee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert).

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time.

In closing, I regret that this bipartisan and well-balanced conference report contains permission to bring Guantanamo Bay detainees onto American soil.

At the conclusion of today's general debate, I intend to offer a motion to recommit that will give this Chamber the opportunity to once again voice its will to the conferees just as it did 2 weeks ago by way of a clear and convincing bipartisan vote.

I appreciated your overwhelming vote then, and I ask the Members once again to register your objection to bringing these enemy combatants, caught in battle with American soldiers, onto America's sacred soil.

The conferees ignored our instructions of 2 weeks ago, which prohibited detainees from being released, transferred, or detained in the United States for any reason, period. My motion today will have the same effect as the language Members voted for then and has the same effect as what the Senate voted for 93-7.

This motion will keep these terrorists off American soil, out of our Federal civilian courts, and in a place that is far more appropriate, given their status as enemy combatants apprehended on a battlefield with American soldiers.

This motion will correct the flaw in the conference report's language and aligns the will of Congress with that of the U.S. Senate as reflected by the strong bipartisan votes on this issue over the last 2 weeks in both bodies of the Congress.

I would hope Members would join me in supporting this motion so that we can further improve and strengthen this critical conference report.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I have a motion at the desk.

I am in its current form.

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

I want to thank Chairman Price.

The members of our subcommittee have a good personal working relationship. One of the things I enjoy most about this wonderful committee on appropriations is that there are no real partisan differences between us. We always work together for the good of the country. We have always worked together without regard to our party label. And this subcommittee, in particular, is one that has worked well together to protect the country from a very severe terrorist threat that we know we all face since 9/11.

I want to thank the chairman and our ranking member for the support that this committee has given to our Border Patrol; for Immigration and Customs Enforcement funding; for Operation Stone Garden, a very successful program that allows cooperation between local law enforcement agencies on the border and our border patrol. That program has been a great success.

My good friends Ciro Rodriguez and Henry Cuellar, we've worked together very successfully in Texas in implementing Stone Garden, as well as a program called Operation Streamline that the country needs to know is working very well. If you cross the Texas border between Lake Amistad and Zapata County, you will be arrested, you will be prosecuted, you will be deported. And as a result, the crime rate has dropped by over 70 percent in Del Rio. We've seen a 60 percent drop in the crime rate in the Laredo sector. The local community, which is 96 percent Hispanic, loves this program. What mom or dad wouldn't like their streets safer? As a result of simply using existing law and a little additional resources and using the good judgment, the good sense and the good hearts of uniformed law enforcement officers on the border, we have secured the border in Texas, and with the help of the chairman and the committee members, we're working to expand that up and down the border.

There are many great, good things about this bill, but one very serious concern that I have that Mr. Rogers has already expressed is that this bill puts into law a policy that has never, in the history of this country, been followed, and that is that as soon as the President issues a plan to Congress for the disposition of the prisoners in Guantanamo, 45 days after the President submits that plan, this bill explicitly authorizes the prosecution of enemy soldiers in U.S. courts. Now, that's unprecedented.

And my good friend Mr. Ruppersberger, whom I've worked with before on so many good causes, we all in this House voted to make sure that we would not bring enemy soldiers to the U.S. for prosecution, giving them all the constitutional rights as if they were captured on the streets of New York or Los Angeles. We voted not to bring these prisoners from Guantanamo to be incarcerated in U.S. jails.

The security question is one thing, but the one that really concerns me is the fact that this bill gives explicit authorization. For the first time in American history, we will, if we pass this legislation as it is, be authorizing what we now know is going to be the policy of this President for U.S. soldiers, for the first time in history, to be police officers. Our soldiers in the field, in addition to trying to protect themselves and their friends, are going to have----

Never before in our history have American soldiers had to worry about protecting the chain of evidence. Never before in history have American soldiers had to worry about whether or not they were reading the Miranda rights to enemy soldiers captured on foreign battlefields. Now, this bill makes that explicit. In fact, Chairman Obey's fact sheet that he has issued on his Web site says this bill prohibits the transfer of Guantanamo detainees except for legal proceedings.

Now, anyone standing in a U.S. court in front of a U.S. judge is given all the protections of the U.S. Constitution. Now, that is what concerns me more than anything else is that we are explicitly changing--this is a monumental change in American policy. We cannot and should not burden our soldiers in the field with having to worry about the U.S. constitutional rights of enemy soldiers.

Do you think Sergeant York read Miranda warnings or was worried about the constitutional rights of the Germans that he captured during World War I? Do you think that the brave men who landed on Omaha Beach were worried about the constitutional rights of the Nazis at Omaha Beach or Normandy? I mean, this is an extremely important point that we have to raise, and we need to make sure that all the Members of the House are aware of it.

In fact, during the subcommittee hearing, during the conference committee meeting, my good friend, the chairman, Mr. Price, made it clear that this is the policy of the majority that's going to bring these--you'll want to bring these enemy soldiers to the United States to be prosecuted in U.S. courts.

That means that these enemy soldiers will be clothed in the protection

of the U.S. Constitution. That means that enemy soldiers, these terrorists, can lawyer up at U.S. taxpayer expense. They're going to be given Miranda warnings. U.S. soldiers are going to have to protect the chain of evidence, just like a police officer on the streets of Los Angeles or New York, and make sure that the chain of evidence is protected, that all their rights are protected, and that we have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that these enemy soldiers committed whatever it is crime that they're going to be prosecuted for.

Let me remind the Congress that in 1942 a number of German terrorists landed on the beaches of Long Beach and in Florida. In June of 1942, they were prosecuted in military tribunals--the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that's the proper way to handle enemy soldiers captured on a foreign battlefield--and they were executed by the end of August 1942.

It is unacceptable to put this burden on U.S. soldiers. It's a monumental and unacceptable change in American policy. We cannot let enemy soldiers lawyer up at taxpayer expense.

Madam Speaker, I stand in strong support of the Homeland Security Appropriations Conference Report for FY 2010. The security of our Nation is clearly our top priority. And this bill dedicates more money for homeland security when compared to 2009 levels.

Homeland security is not a Democratic or Republican issue. It is USA first--our community, our families, and our country. I want to thank Chairman Price and Ranking Member Rogers, as well as our friends in the Senate, for their bipartisan and bicameral efforts in crafting this conference report. And I'd like to speak about two key issues, two key components in this bill: the Coast Guard and cybersecurity. But before I do that, I have to respond to my friend John Culberson's comments. I disagree with his comments.

Number 1, as far as prisoners are concerned, if, in fact, there are prisoners that are so dangerous that would hurt our country, I would much rather have us control those prisoners. If we need to bring them to the United States of America to try them, I have more confidence in our court system and our prison system than some of the countries they go back to where they could escape and come back and do harm to our citizens. That's step one.

The second thing I disagree with my friend about is the issue about Miranda rights in theater. Now, those of us who have been to Iraq and Afghanistan know that that is not the case. It started when a friend of mine--I am on the Intelligence Committee--another Mr. Rogers came back and said that he got information that soldiers were having to give Miranda warnings to people, to the enemy. That is not the case. We've had hearings. I've done my own due diligence. That is not what our men and women are required to do. So let's get the facts straight. Let's get the politics off the table, and let's talk about this Homeland Security bill, how it affects and protects our country, our families, and that is very important and relevant.

Now, the Coast Guard. The Coast Guard of the United States of America, since 1790, has been a critical part of our Nation's defenses. They handle everything from water rescues, as an example, in the Baltimore harbor, which I represent, to drug interdictions off our Nation's coast. Since 9/11, the Coast Guard has been asked to do even more. They have stepped up to the plate and kept watch on our Nation's waterways to keep our country safe.

I support the $8.8 billion for the Coast Guard included in this legislation. This is more than $275 million above the 2009 level. I am proud to represent the Coast Guard Yard at Curtis Bay in Congress in my district. The yard is in my district near the Port of Baltimore. The men and women of the yard do an excellent job maintaining and repairing the entire Coast Guard fleet.

Now I want to get to the issue of cyber. The second thing, and one of the most important issues that we're dealing with as far as national security, is cyberattacks. I would support $283 million to address the growing threats to our Nation's networks. Our Nation's networks control much of what we do every day. They power our computers and our cell phones. They power the electrical grid that allows us to turn the lights on and the classified military and intelligence networks that keep our country safe. It's all too easy to use basic Internet hacking techniques to wreak havoc on our Nation's information infrastructure. Imagine if the Bank of America was suddenly cyberattacked.

Fifty-nine million customers in 150 countries would suddenly be unable to access their accounts, their debit cards or their money, credit cards. It would cripple the economy. Think of what an attack would do to our electrical grid system, our security, our national security.

This threat is real. We must shore up our defenses. We must ensure that the Federal Government, the private sector, and our citizens beef up our cybersecurity efforts. This funding for cybersecurity will be a step in the right direction.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this bill.

The Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act for 2010 continues to fund a series of important public safety and disaster preparedness initiatives. To help us better protect our borders, the bill provides $3.587 billion, $86 million above 2009, to fully support 20,163 Border Patrol agents--which has expanded by 6,000 since 2006. The bill also provides $373.7 million, $73.7 million above 2009, for the US-VISIT program. US-VISIT uses biometrics to track the entry of visitors to the United States. The bill directs that a total of $50 million be used to implement a biometric air exit capability so that we can determine if individuals have overstayed their visas.

Ensuring that 100 percent of air cargo is screened for explosives is essential to our efforts to thwart future terrorist attacks. To that end, the bill provides $122.8 million, including $3.5 million above the budget request for 50 additional inspectors to ensure compliance with the 100 percent screening mandate set for August 2010 in the 9/11 Act. Regarding rail security, the bill builds on my previous work by providing $300 million to protect critical transit infrastructure, including freight rail, Amtrak and ferry systems in high-threat areas. I remain very concerned that Amtrak in particular has been extremely slow to make the kind of security upgrades that are necessary to make the system less vulnerable to the kinds of attacks that killed so many in Madrid, London, and Mubai over the last 5 years, and I will continue to press Amtrak officials to quickly implement security improvements for the system.

I am also pleased that some key needs in my district are being met in this bill. The Township of Old Bridge will receive $500,000 to upgrade its emergency communications system, and the City of Trenton will receive $300,000 to help protect its water filtration plant from periodic Delaware River floods. Even as we take measures to protect our country and communities from potential terrorist attacks, it's important to remember that the most common calamities that strike our towns come from nature and other sources. We must ensure that our communities are prepared to meet the full range of threats they may face.

I am disappointed that this bill allows the Secretary of Defense to withhold indefinitely from public release photographs of potential detainee abuse by U.S. government personnel. The assumption underlying this provision is that the release of the photographs would lead to increased violence against U.S. government personnel (civilian and military) overseas in the Middle East and southwest Asia. I would respectfully submit that our repeated mistargeting of civilians in Afghanistan and Pakistan, along with our continuing and expanding military presence in Afghanistan, provide our enemies with far better recruiting tools than the photographs in question might ever provide.

I regret that the conferees did not direct the Attorney General to review the photos to determine if any do in fact show evidence of violations of either domestic or international law

with respect to the treatment of detainees. Using one law to shield from disclosure information that might be prosecutable under another law undermines the very foundation of our legal system and sends a clear signal to the world that we will cast aside our obligations under international law if it is politically expedient for us to do so. The best way we can protect our soldiers and civilians working overseas is to show that we will not tolerate the abuse of other human beings in our custody and that we will not hide our complicity in such acts behind politically expedient legal contortionisms.

Despite this serious flaw in the bill, I will support it and urge my colleagues to do likewise.