Providing for consideration of 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.

Madam Speaker, I want to begin by expressing my appreciation to my very good friend, a new member of the Rules Committee, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Perlmutter) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

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

Madam Speaker, I am going to begin by doing something that I don't believe I have ever done when managing a rule here in the House. Traditionally when Mr. Boehner, our Republican leader, gets up or my Rules Committee colleagues, Messrs. Diaz-Balart and Sessions or Ms. Foxx, would stand up here, we rise to basically make the case for Members of the minority. We're Republicans. We make the Republican case about how important it is for us to ensure the rights of the minority, something that James Madison talked about very eloquently 220 years ago.

Today I rise on behalf of all of my colleagues; and I rise, especially today, for Democrats because it's unprecedented that we would be in the circumstance that we are today. Now I've seen an awful lot in this institution in the years that I've been privileged to serve here. I've observed the way this House is run. In most instances, under both Democrats and Republicans, I have been very proud of the work product that has emerged. But in many of those instances, I have been less than proud of the way the greatest deliberative body known to man--or what has been described as such by people like the distinguished Chair of the Committee on Appropriations, Mr. Obey, is no longer the greatest deliberative body known to man, or at least we're slipping away from that--because we're undermining the deliberative process.

Usually when we get off-track, which has happened under both Republicans

and Democrats, and put our short-term goals ahead of the long-term interest of the institution, it is not a good thing. It is, we often believe, noble for us to put our short-term goals there because we have an important priority. When my friends in the majority asked the Nation to give them control of this House, they correctly criticized me personally and others within the Republican leadership because we said that we limited their voices in amendment and debate. It didn't happen often, but it did happen. And I will say that without the ability to offer improvements to legislation and ideas, Members of this body could not do the job that they are charged with doing; and that is, pursuing the hopes, dreams and aspirations of their constituents. We all represent a little less than three-quarters of a million people; and we have a responsibility, Democrats and Republicans alike, to do just that. That's why I say again, Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the effort to ensure that my Democratic colleagues are not shut out of this process.

Now as you know very well, Madam Speaker, when our California colleague, Speaker Pelosi, took the gavel, she promised that they would do better than I did as chairman of the Rules Committee, and better than our Republican leadership had done in the past. Unfortunately this rule before us really illustrates just how far we have fallen from those great words that were put forward by Speaker Pelosi.

With this rule, it's very difficult for me to know exactly where to begin with criticism; but let's start with the very nature of the rule itself. We all know that the House has allowed less debate and fewer amendments in its consideration of bills over the last few years. The one great exception to that has been the appropriations process. Why? Because we all know article I, section 9 of the Constitution places the responsibility to spend the people's money in our hands as Members of Congress. We've always taken this responsibility very seriously in a bipartisan way. And we've always--under both Democrats and Republicans--allowed Democrats and Republicans to engage in a free- flowing and rigorous debate.

Everyone is very, very concerned about what happened last week. My Democratic colleagues are concerned with the number of votes that were held and the outrage that we demonstrated. We Republicans are horrified that we began down that route. Unfortunately, last week's act was just the warm-up to what we're seeing today. Today we are beginning what can only be described as the main event. This is because today's rule will become the model for every appropriations bill that we consider in the future. It is very likely that this rule, Madam Speaker, will become the model for every bill that we consider in this Congress.

Rather than any Member, Republican or Democrat, being able to offer any germane amendment on behalf of their constituents and the Nation, this resolution from the Rules Committee, under the direction of Chairman Obey and Speaker Pelosi, limits what ideas can be debated on this floor; and as I said, it limits the ideas proposed by my Democratic colleagues. So anyone who wants to say that I'm standing here, Madam Speaker, just whining on behalf of the minority, it is preposterous. Democrats sat in line before the Rules Committee until nearly 11 o'clock last night; and Democrats have been shut out of this process. So unfortunately I, representing the minority, am the only one who can stand here on behalf of our Democratic colleagues. It means, unfortunately, that our constituents--and I say this to my colleagues-- our constituents in Democratic districts and Republican districts alike are unfortunately being held hostage by the chairman of the Appropriations Committee. If he's having a bad day, the American people will have no recourse. That means that our constituents' concerns about spending will go unheeded, and we all know that that's what this is about. If you doubt it, look no further than last week's funding bill for this institution alone. We fought for several amendments that could bring about a reduction in the 16.2 percent increase in spending for the Legislative Branch appropriations bill. We had some large cuts, but we had the most modest cut imaginable. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Broun) offered an amendment in the Rules Committee to allow for a one- half of 1 percent reduction in the 16.2 percent increase that we put into place. While the American people are struggling to make ends meet, while people are trying to keep their jobs, their homes, we in this institution allowed for a 16.2 percent increase; and we simply said in the appropriations process that maybe we should debate on the floor whether or not we would have a one-half of 1 percent cut. Unfortunately that was completely denied.

I also want to take a moment to discuss some of the more creative aspects of this rule, as were read by the Reading Clerk. For the first time ever, the rule allows the Chair to impose 2-minute voting. Now previously 2-minute voting was something that was done with a bipartisan agreement. Democrats and Republicans came together and said, We have got so many votes here, rather than having Members sit around with 5-minute voting, we would agree to 2-minute voting. Now I will say that ignoring this process that has existed in the past, including the provision that allows the Chair to actually impose 2-minute voting, we ignore the stress that 2-minute voting places on the nonpartisan professionals who tally our votes. It increases the opportunity for error.

I would commend to my colleagues the report of the Select Committee to Investigate the Voting Irregularities of August 2, 2007; and on page 10 under The Events Surrounding Roll Call Number 814, it makes very clear that one of the factors involved in this was the fact that there were 11 2-minute votes held leading up to that. I know full well, as I look at the wonderfully dedicated and hardworking rostrum staff, what a litany of 2-minute votes is imposed on them.

And we want to make sure that what happened on August 2 of 2007 never happens again. And allowing the Chair to impose 2-minute voting does create the potential for that.

I also have to say, Madam Speaker, that I'm very concerned about the fact that this rule does create a scenario that puts people in an awkward position. I have a number of very, very close friends with whom I have been privileged to serve here. One of those is my colleague from North Carolina (Mr. Price), who works closely with Mr. Rogers in a bipartisan way dealing with the issue of our Nation's homeland security.

I have already said, Madam Speaker, that I am very troubled with amendment No. 68 that was put forward, and I don't mean to get too far down into the weeds here, but we have another unprecedented action put into place here. Amendment No. 68 simply said, page 93, line 13, ``strike `the.' '' This is the amendment that was submitted to the Rules Committee. This amendment was submitted, and a revised version of it was submitted; and now, Madam Speaker, the revised version makes in order seven amendments, one of which actually required waivers to allow it to proceed. Now, this has not been done before and it's unfortunate. It was really sort of a bait and switch. We saw this amendment that said ``strike `the,' '' and then it's revised all of a sudden with seven amendments being made in order. Unfortunately, this is not the kind of transparency that we were promised when the new majority came to power.

There are other elements to the rule that I don't want to discuss, but suffice it to say that each and every provision of this rule, Madam Speaker, is designed to restrict and limit the rights of Democrats and Republicans to debate and improve this bill, as has always been done in the 220-year history of this great institution.

Now, why is any of this important? Because, Madam Speaker, process is substance. In committee there were many amendments defeated even though they would have gone a long way to improving the bill and reducing problems like illegal immigration, an issue that Mr. Rogers has worked very closely on. One of those is the E-Verify program that my California colleague (Mr. Calvert) has worked on. He made an attempt to offer that amendment. It was defeated. And Mr. Kingston similarly offered an amendment to require government contractors to use E-Verify to deal with our Nation's border security. His amendment was also defeated. I supported both of those

amendments up in the Rules Committee.

Now we won't get the opportunity to debate the kinds of things that Mr. Rogers, Mr. Calvert, and Mr. Kingston wanted us to be able to address. I personally believe that, while I support E-Verify, I believe that the bill that I have worked on, H.R. 98, which would establish a smart counterfeit-proof Social Security card, is the best way to end the magnet that draws people into the country illegally. But I do think that E-Verify is a very important step in the direction of dealing with our security.

Under the traditional process, Madam Speaker, as you know very well, we could address all of these issues. All of these issues from both Democrats and Republicans could have been considered, but, unfortunately, it ain't going to happen.

One of the most senior Members of this institution once said, ``We have gotten so far from the regular order that I fear that the House will not have the capacity to return to the precedents and procedures of the House that have given true meaning to the term `representative democracy.' The reason that we have stuck to regular order as long as we have in this institution is to protect the rights of every Member to participate. And when we lose those rights, we lose the right to be called the greatest deliberative body left in the world.''

Now, that Member was David Obey. He said that in the fall of 2000. While he was concerned about how the House was handling an appropriations conference report, those were the words of Chairman Obey at that time. His words have never been truer than they are right now. The problem is that now the shoe is on the other foot. Today Chairman Obey is the one who is circumventing regular order.

What we have here is, Madam Speaker, what tragically is becoming the new normal. And it's all being done in the name of dramatically increasing spending because we have seen over the last 2 years an 85 percent increase in nondefense spending, an 85 percent increase in nondefense spending. And now we're denied any opportunity to bring about the kinds of reductions that we need to utilize.

Madam Speaker, I know that we have schedules to keep. That's the argument that is regularly propounded by the Chair of the Rules Committee and others in the Democratic leadership. We understand the exigencies of that schedule. But throwing aside the quaint notion of democracy and debate is something that I believe would lead, as Republican leader John Boehner said earlier today, Thomas Jefferson to be spinning in his grave. It would lead James Madison to be horrified, the notion of casting aside democracy and debate because we have to maintain our schedules.

And I will say again on this scheduling notion, Madam Speaker, last week, rather than 127 amendments, we would have had, I believe, 30 amendments, and before we had gotten to consideration of the legislative branch bill, I am sure that hours and hours and hours ahead of that we would have been completed with the work of the Commerce- Justice-Science Appropriations bill.

I urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to stand up for the rights of Democratic Members of this institution who are being denied this. Reject this rule. Let's come back with what has been the case for 220 years under both political parties, that being an open process.

With that, Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank my friend for yielding. Well, I would first inquire of my friend if he has any speakers before I respond.

Let me just say at this juncture we do have several speakers, and I would ask my friend if he might want to yield some of his time because I know we have several speakers who would gladly utilize the time.

I will say to my friend that it does seem to me rather unfortunate that, with the exception of our very brave and courageous friend from Colorado, there is no one on the majority side who wants to stand up and defend the notion of denying Democrats----

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

I will be happy to yield to my friend if he wants to engage on this issue at all.

First, to his last point, as he talked about the challenge that our wonderful rostrum staff before us, who are so dedicated and hard working, have to deal with with repeated votes. So the answer to that is to allow the Chair to impose on this institution 2-minute voting? I know this is all inside baseball stuff, but all one needs to do is go back and look at that report on the August 2, 2007, vote, which I have right here and look at page 10, and the issue of 2-minute votes is raised.

I am happy to yield to my friend.

Reclaiming my time, Madam Speaker, let me just say that, again, if you look at the middle paragraph on page 10, the issue of 2- minute voting is raised, and I think common sense would say with the argument just put forward by my friend from Colorado about the challenge of votes, the notion of going from 5-minute to 2-minute votes does not improve the situation that they face.

To my friend's first point, Madam Speaker, I would like to say the following: the American people did send us here to act. They're expecting action. They want us to act. The American people are hurting. I come from Los Angeles, California. We have a 12\1/2\ percent unemployment rate in the City of Los Angeles. I represent suburban Los Angeles and part of the Inland Empire, and I will say that we are dealing with very serious economic challenges. People are losing their businesses, people are losing their homes, and people are obviously losing their jobs. They want us to get our economy back on track. And one of the things that they were promised was that if we passed the economic stimulus bill, the unemployment would not exceed 8 percent. Right now we all know that the unemployment rate, as was said by President Obama, is now 9.4 percent; and based on reports we have received in the last few days, it reportedly is probably going to go higher. I hope and pray that that is not the case.

But one of the things that we've found is that over the last couple of years, an 85 percent increase in nondefense spending has not provided what the American people want, and that is some security when it comes to their jobs, getting their jobs back, saving their businesses, and saving their homes. That's the action they want us to take. And the process we are in the midst of right now denies us any opportunity, Democrats or Republicans, the chance to bring about meaningful cuts in expenditures.

At this point, Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 4 minutes to the distinguished ranking member of the Subcommittee on Homeland Security from the Appropriations Committee, my very, very good friend and classmate (Mr. Rogers).

Madam Speaker, at this time, I'm happy to yield 1 minute to the son of a 20-year veteran of the House Rules Committee, the gentleman from Bowling Green, Ohio (Mr. Latta).

I yield 1 minute to my very good friend from Athens, Georgia, who had an amendment that he would have been allowed to debate if we had an open rule, and unfortunately, he is not (Mr. Broun of Georgia).

Madam Speaker, let me say that there were a number of Members who were expected to be joining us, I would say to my friend, and the fact is that they were anticipating a debate taking place on the rule. And very, very courageously, my friend has been the only Member on the Democratic side to stand up, and I am the one standing here defending the rights of Democrats I'm happy to say. So the gentleman might want to talk for a couple of minutes while I wait for some of my colleagues who thought the debate might be taking place later if he wants to.

Madam Speaker, well, I guess then that I will close the debate. I thought we were expecting some other people.

Madam Speaker, this debate is all about spending. The American people are hurting. Jobs are being lost. Businesses are being lost. Homes are being lost. And the American people are expecting us to put into place policies that will get the economy back on track.

We were promised by President Obama that if we passed the $787 billion, really $1 trillion, stimulus bill

that the unemployment rate would not exceed 8 percent. Today the unemployment rate is at 9.4 percent, and tragically it appears to be getting worse. And what is our answer? Well, it is to continue a pattern that has been going on for 2 years now. In nondefense spending, we have had an 85 percent increase in Federal spending, an 85 percent increase.

And what is it we have said? We believe, Madam Speaker, that we can responsibly put into place spending cuts. We have made attempts. My friend, Mr. Broun, whom I mentioned earlier, wanted to offer a one-half of 1 percent spending cut in the 16.2 percent increase that was put into place for our spending for the legislative branch last week, and he was denied his chance to bring about that modest cut.

As we look at the appropriations process now, bringing about reductions in spending is not an option. They are simply increases in spending time and time again.

Now what is being utilized to make sure that we can continue to increase spending? Well, unfortunately, Madam Speaker, what is being done is we are shutting out the opportunity for both Democrats and Republicans to have a right to offer amendments. Now I will say, having been here for more than a couple of years, one of the most exhilarating experiences that one can have as a Member of Congress is to stand up under an open rule, especially during the appropriations process, ask that they strike the last word, and be recognized for 5 minutes to engage in what can really be a free-flowing debate. We have two members of the Rules Committee who have never served in this institution before, and they have never experienced the opportunity for that free- flowing debate on any legislation. And an open rule has not been an option so far.

But Madam Speaker, I never thought that I would see the day when we would, on the sacrosanct article 1, section 9 power in the Constitution dealing with spending, prevent Democrats and Republicans from having an opportunity to engage in that. I think about my colleagues who want to regularly engage in debate, Democrats like Dennis Kucinich and Marcy Kaptur. I may not agree with them often, but I believe they should be able to participate in the process. We have Republicans like Devin Nunes, Jeff Flake and others who want to be able to stand up. Mr. Broun, who just spoke, Mr. Rogers, Mr. Calvert and others want to have a chance to stand up. And guess what, Madam Speaker? They unfortunately are denied that in this process.

Justice Felix Frankfurter in 1943 made the following statement. He said, The history of liberty is largely due to the history of procedural safeguards.

Now, Madam Speaker, I believe that the Federal Government is too big and spends too much, as our Leader Boehner regularly says. And I believe that we should have a right to bring about those reductions so that we can get our economy back on track to ensure that Americans aren't going to lose their jobs, their businesses and their homes. And we are denied that chance today.

But I want to say to my Democratic colleagues and my Republican colleagues, Madam Speaker, we have an opportunity. And it is before us right now. All we need to do is vote ``no'' on the previous question, and what will happen? We will be continuing the 220-year tradition of appropriations under an open amendment process. If we can defeat the previous question, I, Madam Speaker, will offer an amendment that will allow us to do exactly what Chairwoman Obey in the year 2000 said needed to be done. We need to allow for a free-flowing, open debate so that deliberative democracy can, in fact, once again flourish. So I urge my colleagues to vote against the previous question and allow us to have the opportunity to offer an open rule.

And with that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the amendment be printed in the Record immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

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

Madam Chair, I am pleased to present the fiscal year 2010 Homeland Security Appropriations bill, as reported by the Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee. It is the product of extensive information gathering and analysis, with 15 hearings touching every Department of Homeland Security component. The bill provides the resources and the direction that the Department needs for the coming fiscal year.

This bill also reflects our subcommittee's tradition of bipartisan cooperation initiated by its first chairman and now ranking member, Hal Rogers. I want to thank the distinguished ranking member for his advice and help on making this a better bill, and to his staff, too, for working so closely and constructively with us. We agree on most of this bill, if not every item, and I believe this is a bill that every Member in this body can get behind.

In total, the bill contains $42.625 billion in discretionary appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security. This is $2.6 billion, or 6.5 percent, above the comparable fiscal year 2009 amount, and about 1 percent below the administration request, excluding Coast Guard overseas contingency operations. This level reflects our share of the $10 billion cut made in the budget resolution to the administration's overall request.

Homeland security requires identification and response to all threats, whether man-made or natural. This ``all-hazards'' approach is the hallmark of our subcommittee, an approach we are happy to see President Obama and Secretary Napolitano embrace. The persistent threat of pandemic flu is an unmistakable reminder of why we must prepare for all hazards, as is the annual and predictable onslaught of natural disasters, from hurricanes and floods to wildfires and ice storms. Accordingly, this bill will enable our government to better protect the American people against all major threats.

Appropriately for the start of hurricane season, the bill maintains a robust $844 million for FEMA management and administration, and $2 billion for disaster relief. In addition, the bill and report specifically place FEMA at the forefront of disaster response management, thereby avoiding confusion when working with our State and local partners.

State and local emergency managers and first responders are equal partners in disaster preparedness and response, and I am pleased that the administration's budget request recognizes this important partnership. This bill strengthens our commitment to our State and local partners by providing $3.96 billion for grant and training programs, including: $330 million for Emergency Management Performance Grants, our one true all-hazards grant program; $950 million for State homeland security grants; $887 million for the Urban Area Security Initiative, which targets the highest risks of terrorism; and $800 million for firefighter assistance grants.

Within that $800 million for firefighter assistance grants, $420 million is for SAFER staffing grants, or personnel grants, and $380 million is for basic equipment and training grants. The additional funding for SAFER is part of a targeted and temporary effort to stem the tide of layoffs and ensure our communities are protected by an adequate number of firefighters.

In addition to the increased funding, the supplemental appropriations bill just passed allows the waiver of certain restrictions and broadens the use of SAFER to allow the grants to be used for the hiring, rehiring and retention of firefighters for fiscal years 2009 and 2010.

Madam Chairman, one could make an argument for increasing nearly any account in this bill; but since we can't spend the whole Federal Treasury on homeland security, we must base our priorities on risk. The subcommittee has done this with respect to the identification and removal of illegal aliens who have committed crimes; in other words, illegal aliens who have proven their capacity to do harm in our communities.

The bill continues the tradition of recent bills by targeting $1.5 billion of Immigration and Customs Enforcement appropriations for this priority, an effort that the President and Secretary Napolitano wholeheartedly support.

Part of this funding 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 distinguishing the traditional Federal role of enforcing immigration law from the local role of prosecuting criminal violations. We have heard from many law enforcement and community groups about the importance of keeping a bright line between immigration enforcement and local community policing, and the Secure Communities program does just that.

Taking on the international drug cartels along our southwest border is another major priority we support in this bill. The bill enhances funding for CBP and ICE to combat illegal narcotics smuggling from Mexico and the cartels' trafficking in weapons and bulk currency. The bill supports a realistic and strategic approach to southwest border infrastructure and maintains a historically robust Border Patrol force.

Other specific priorities we have funded included: $800 million for explosive detection systems at airports and $122.8 million for air cargo security to meet the 100 percent screening requirement for air cargo in the hold of passenger planes by August of 2010; $804 million to continue developing systems to screen inbound land- and sea-based cargo for weapons or nuclear materials, which includes $162 million to strengthen overseas operations to monitor and target cargo; $241.5 million for the Coast Guard to support overseas contingencies in the Persian Gulf and off the coast of Somalia; $382 million for cybersecurity, to help protect vulnerable computer infrastructure from the escalating sophistication and intensity of cyberattacks; and $10 million above the administration's request to expand the Alternatives to Detention program nationwide. Alternatives to Detention is a cost- effective alternative for low-risk individuals such as asylum seekers, families, and the elderly.

The bill includes several policy items requested by the administration. It clarifies fee authorities for temporary protected status petitions and visa fraud investigations; it extends the E-Verify program for 2 years; and it continues a longstanding provision related to imported prescription drugs.

As it did last year, this bill contains Member-requested and Presidential earmarks. Each Member's project has

been vetted by DHS and deemed eligible, if part of a grant program, or consistent with the Department's mission otherwise.

We did have to reduce earmarks by 5 percent below last year's level.

This is a good bill, one I hope every Member will support.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute, to be followed by 4 minutes for a colloquy. But before we go any further in this debate today, I do want to pay tribute to our staff by name. These staff members have worked day and night for weeks now up to the committee markup, and now up to this floor consideration.

Our chief clerk, Stephanie Gupta, Shalanda Young, Jeff Ashford, Jim Holm, Will Painter, Adam Wilson, Matt Behnke; and from my staff, Paul Cox, who spends full time on Homeland Security matters. On the minority side, the able minority clerk, Ben Nicholson, as well as Allison Dieters. We need to again and again thank these staff members, these true professionals, for the way they back up our work.

And now, Madam Chairman, I would like to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis) for purposes of a colloquy.

I want to thank Representative Polis and Representative Roybal-Allard, a fine, hardworking member of our subcommittee, for the work they've done on this issue, for highlighting the financial cost and the human impact of ICE'S current detention policy. I, too, believe we can do better.

While the average cost of detention is about $100 per person per day, alternative programs such as telephone reporting, unannounced home visits, local office reporting, and electronic monitoring cost, on average, less than $20 per person per day and are very successful. According to a recent ICE analysis of the program, the Intensive Supervision Appearance Program currently has a 99 percent total appearance rate for all immigration hearings, a 95 percent appearance rate at final removal hearings, and a 91 percent compliance rate with removal orders.

This program has been successful at pilot sites in Colorado, California, Maryland, Kansas, Florida and Pennsylvania; so, therefore, I sought funding to expand it. Our bill increases the budget for alternatives to detention programs by 16 percent above the President's request.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to another fine member of our subcommittee, Mrs. Lowey.

I thank the gentleman, and I certainly recognize the important role that canine teams play in screening perishable items like fruits and vegetables. It's my intention that TSA use a portion of these funds to train additional canine teams for air- cargo screening.

Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes for the purpose of a colloquy to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hare).

Well, I thank the gentleman from Illinois for recognizing this important issue. The FEMA policy on levee assistance was intended to clarify the roles and responsibilities of Federal agencies in providing critical flood recovery work.

I understand that the gentleman and the other members of the Illinois delegation have concerns that the policy may not be accurate in its accounting of Federal responsibility and may have the unintended consequence of leaving gaps in assistance for local communities in levee districts. As the gentleman mentioned, FEMA and the Army Corps are reevaluating the policy to ensure there are no gaps in disaster assistance.

I would like to stress this is only a policy, not a rule, so FEMA could easily make adjustments to this document. If changes are necessary, FEMA should do so in consultation with the Army Corps to ensure accurateness. This issue is also being evaluated with the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, the authorizing committee of jurisdiction.

I will monitor the issue as our bill progresses. I will work with the gentleman, the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, and the Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee as we go forward.

I welcome a colloquy with my distinguished colleague.

I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for highlighting this issue. I agree that the flood-map program is an instrumental tool in reducing the loss of life and property from floods. This subcommittee will work with the gentleman to review the recent contract solicitation.

I am committed to ensuring that DHS invests acquisition dollars in projects that are well planned, competitively awarded, well managed and closely overseen.

Madam Chairman, I would like to recognize our colleague, Mr. Cuellar, for 2 minutes.

Madam Chairman, I would like to yield 2 minutes to one of our outstanding new Members from Florida, Ms. Kosmas.

Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Arizona (Mrs. Kirkpatrick).

I am pleased to enter into a colloquy with my distinguished colleague from Arizona.

I appreciate the gentlewoman's strong commitment to securing our Nation's borders and her hard work on this issue as a Member from a border State and a member of the authorizing committee on Homeland Security.

I assure her I will work with her to provide information about how it meets requests for air support on the border, as well as any program changes or resources required to optimize CBP Air and Marine effectiveness at the border.

Madam Chairman, I would like to yield 2 minutes to a distinguished subcommittee member from the authorizing committee, our colleague, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

I thank my colleague for her good work on this issue and her very effective pointing out of our unmet needs in the area of surface transportation security. I do, indeed, pledge to work with her as we move toward conference to see what kind of resources we can identify.

Madam Chair, may I inquire how much time we have remaining?

We have no further speakers on the floor at this point. There may be one on the way.

I would like to reserve the balance of my time.

I want to thank our distinguished former chairman and ranking member for those remarks. He is a student of history, as he's just demonstrated. He came to this subcommittee as its founding chairman with a great deal of understanding of just how big this challenge was after 9/11, bringing these 22 agencies together, but also with an instinct for how to put it all together and make this department work. We've made great strides. I agree with him also on the work yet to be done, of course, but over these 7 years we can look back on considerable progress.

Mr. Rogers talked about the careers of civil servants and others, the Border Patrol agents, Coast Guard men and women, the people who staff these agencies every day. One of the benefits of the process we had this year, holding more broad-gauged hearings before we had a budget and before we had the agency heads in place, was for us to get a closer look at some of these career people and the good work they've done. We took a broader look at agency operations and gained some appreciation for what is being achieved and a better fix on some of the things that we need to improve.

I hope and believe that our bill reflects that experience. It has been put together in a cooperative fashion. We look forward to taking it on from the House today and, by the start of the new fiscal year, being ready to put the program we envision in place. We're delighted to work with the new Secretary and the President's appointees at the agencies who are now assuming their roles. This bill today, I'm confident, is a very positive step in the process of putting this department's program together in cooperation with the new administration for the benefit of all Americans.

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

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

My amendment, I believe, is noncontroversial. It includes a number of amendments put forth by other Members that we believe would be good additions to the bill, including: First, additional funding for the Firefighter grant program that draws on proposals from Representatives Altmire, Pascrell, Austria, Peter King and Biggert; additional funding for nonprofit security grants, from Representatives Cohen and Weiner; additional funding for the Metropolitan Medical Response System, from Representative Kosmas; additional funding to implement the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative, from Representative Mitchell; ensuring that DHS employees who interact with the public can use personal protective equipment without negative personnel action, from Representative Lynch; a prohibition on funds in this bill being used for first-class travel, with certain exceptions, from Representative Cuellar; and a prohibition of funds in this bill from being used to close or transfer operations of a FEMA recovery office, coming from Representative Hastings.

All increases are appropriately offset elsewhere in the bill. While the bill includes earmarks in it, which have been properly disclosed according to House procedures, this amendment does not contain any congressional earmarks. I ask Members to support this amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I would like to yield 1 minute to one of the sponsors of one of these amendments that has been included in this chairman's amendment, Representative Altmire, who has been working very hard on the firefighter grant program.

Madam Chairman, I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen), who likewise is the initiator of one of our amendments.

Madam Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Madam Chairman, this is an amendment that the Department of Homeland Security did not request and does not support.

I do, however, want to salute the distinguished ranking member for his support of the Border Patrol. That support is widely shared in this body, on both sides of the aisle. But as the honorable ranking member knows, this committee has been fully a part of that effort to build up the Border Patrol. We're second to none in supporting, on a bipartisan basis, robust increases in Border Patrol numbers in recent years. We have dramatically enhanced border enforcement measures overall.

Since the start of the 110th Congress, we have funded an increase of 5,100 agents. That's a 33 percent increase over the number funded through 2007. By October of this year, CBP will have 20,019 Border Patrol agents. That's more than double the workforce in 2003.

A level of 20,000 agents has been a bipartisan goal. Both the current and the prior administrations used it as a target. Indeed, the Republican majority in its report on the 2007 DHS authorization bill affirmed this when they wrote, and I'm quoting: ``It's estimated that a force of 18,000 to 20,000 agents will be necessary along with implementation of border technologies to secure the Nation's borders.'' So this amendment does somewhat move the goal posts in the middle of the game, you might say.

The amendment ignores the fact that CBP can't absorb this unplanned increase. They are right this minute pulling out all the stops to hire before October another 760 Border Patrol agents as well as 250 mission support staff to ensure that agents are out patrolling and not sitting behind desks. This is not the time to burden the recruitment system with unrequested new agents, not to mention to impose unfunded costs for their vehicles and facilities and ID support.

Just a word, Madam Chairman, about the offsets. The amendment uses as an offset several management accounts, about 5 percent cuts in most of these areas. It doesn't seem so bad until you realize that when this bill came to the floor, we were already more than 10 percent below the administration's request in this account. The Chief Information Officer takes the largest cut. We are already $39 million below the request for this office, and cuts here would undermine key efforts to improve information security and reduce risks at the Department's data centers. So cutting more funds now means less core support for Department operations, less oversight, more waste, and an even longer road to getting the DHS the American taxpayers deserve.

For all these reasons, Madam Chairman, I urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment.

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

Madam Chairwoman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

I want to first commend my New York colleagues, particularly Nita Lowey, Jose Serrano and Steve Israel, all on the Appropriations Committee, for promoting Securing the Cities and the work that it has made possible in their State. Indeed, their tireless advocacy for New York's regional security has resulted in notable increases in grant allocations to regional governments and first responders.

New York State homeland security grants rose from $27 million in 2006 to $112 million in 2009. That is a four-fold increase. And New York's Urban Area Security Initiative grants grew from $124 million in 2006 to $145 million in 2009. It remains the largest recipient of urban area funds.

I couldn't agree more that Securing the Cities is a valuable pilot program demonstrating how State and local Governments could develop, with Federal agencies, an architecture to prevent a nuclear or radiological attack on New York. But I must emphasize that Securing the Cities is a 3-year pilot project, and this period is over. DHS requested no 2010 program because it is already positioned to accomplish its goals as a pilot program. So what we have here today is, in effect, an earmark for New York.

The next steps are to conclude the program, assess the results, and identify candidates of future pilots, if any, outside of New York. Funding remains available for New York to continue this program well into 2010. About 84 percent of the 2009 funding and 10 percent of the 2008 funding are presently unobligated. Award decisions for these funds are pending with one quarter left in the fiscal year. DHS knows of no unfunded requirements for this program. Remaining balances will enable New York to transition from a pilot to an ongoing regional operation. And that is what needs to happen.

Adding money to continue a completed pilot is not the answer. New York surely does not want to be dependent on year-to-year appropriations amendments to continue this vital protective function. This needs to move to a sustainment mode, run by New York and its partner communities. It needs to identify funding sources that can be used for this purpose, including these urban area security grants, of course, the Transit Security grants, and others. The New York area has received about $1.4 billion through these grants since 2003 and can expect about $298 million in new funding this year.

The amendment also earmarks $10 million for new radiation portal monitors. But here again, there is no identified requirement for additional funding. The ability to put this to use in 2010 is highly questionable.

The amendment's offsets, $5 million from the Office of the Secretary and Executive Management and $45 million from the Under Secretary For Management, are particularly troubling. We are already well below the request in these areas. We have trimmed salary increases. We rejected new investments in departmental facilities. Cutting more funds will result in a longer road to getting the Department of Homeland Security the American taxpayers deserve.

So I appreciate the intention of this amendment. I certainly appreciate the achievements of the Securing the Cities program. We know that this is a vital program and that these protective functions are important. But for that very reason, we need to get away from an earmark, and get away from a pilot program, and put this on the sustainment mode.

It is in that spirit and for that reason that I ask my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Let me start, Madam Chairman, by commending the chairman on putting together a thoughtful bill. I also want to sincerely thank him for listening to our concerns on this side and for continuing this subcommittee's traditions of bipartisanship, professionalism and, where possible, accommodating the minority's interests.

However, I must also express my grave concern over an issue that casts a long and sad shadow over this important bill. The fact that we are not here today debating this bill under an open rule breaks with long-cherished traditions concerning appropriations bills.

I, for one, am outraged that today's debate on the critical issue of homeland security has been arbitrarily constrained. Such dictatorial tactics are contrary to the very purposes of this Chamber and our legislative process. To add insult to injury, the majority also denies the ability of a hardworking member of our subcommittee, the gentleman from California, and even the ranking member of this subcommittee, to offer amendments on E-Verify. Both amendments were clearly in order, and both amendments pertain to a critical issue that is germane to this bill. To deny us the ability to offer such legitimate amendments is a complete travesty.

Now, as to the FY10 bill, Chairman Price has already discussed many of the details, so I will refrain from repeating them. But I think it is important to note that with this bill before us today, the chairman has significantly improved the hand that we were dealt by the administration, a hand that included an extremely late and bureaucracy- laden budget request with huge increases for policy and administrative offices at headquarters at the expense of operations, and also a somewhat tightened 302(b) allocation that is nearly a half billion dollars below the budget estimate. These conditions present a somewhat mixed picture about how this new administration and the current House leadership are prioritizing security nearly 8 years after 9/11.

Indeed, I find it incredibly ironic and disappointing that just 2 weeks ago President Obama released a 77-page strategy on stopping the Mexican drug cartels that professes the need to enhance our intelligence and drug interdiction capabilities, yet his FY10 budget only marginally increases Homeland's intelligence office and Border Patrol and actually proposes cuts to Customs and Border Patrol's operational assets and Coast Guard personnel. This is a prime example of where the President's rhetoric doesn't match reality.

Given the current threat environment, now is not the time to shortchange our investment in security and leave our front-line personnel in the lurch wanting for the tools required to fulfill their mission.

Now, having said all that, I do think the chairman has endeavored to make up for these deficiencies by somewhat scaling back on the administration's plans for more bureaucrats, making some prudent enhancements to operations and producing a pretty good bill for FY10. That's not to say it is absolutely perfect. There are some areas where I would have changed and am concerned about.

One of the concerns I have is the bill's funding levels for operational and surveillance assets. While the chairman has made some enhancements to operations, more could and should be done to equip our operators in the field. With a drug war raging in Mexico and the drug supply lines bustling from South America, we must not only step up operations along the southwest border, but also increase our interdiction efforts in the source and transit zones.

Second, I would be remiss, Madam Chairman, if I didn't clarify my position on a piece of language contained in the report accompanying today's bill. On page 49, the report says ``that ICE must have no higher immigration enforcement priority,'' referring to the identification and removal of criminal aliens. Now, I know the issue of criminal aliens is near and dear to Chairman Price's heart, as it is mine. Over the past 2 years, I have supported his efforts in this regard with one major caveat, that an emphasis upon criminal aliens will not come at the expense of other critical immigration and enforcement functions. Every time I hear someone on the other side of the aisle profess that ICE should have no higher immigration enforcement priority than criminal aliens, I must remind them that not one of the 9/11 hijackers could be classified as so-called ``criminal aliens'' and that all of the 9/11 terrorists exploited the legal immigration system. So immigration enforcement matters to our homeland security, and we must not lose sight of that fact.

Now, in addition to these concerns, I think it is imperative that the homeland security implications of closing the Guantanamo Bay facility be thoroughly addressed. So I am thankful that through a bipartisan effort during our committee markup we adopted my amendment to require the Department to conduct a thorough threat assessment for each and every Guantanamo detainee, to add their names as well to the no-fly lists, and prevent the possibility of immigration benefits being used as a loophole that could lead to the release of these detainees into the United States.

This is a deadly serious issue. We need to know the threat posed by a possible transfer of these terrorists to both our hometowns and to susceptible inmate populations in our prisons across our country. And this need to know is exacerbated by the fact that the President is moving forward with detainee transfers and resettlements as we speak, ignoring Congress' bipartisan, bicameral calls for better planning and risk analysis. The adoption of that amendment is a prime example of how this body can work together in the name of responsible oversight and security, and I believe it's an absolutely vital addition to the bill.

Madam Chairman, it is my hope that we can continue to address these issues and further improve what I believe to be a well-crafted bill. While I have made it clear that it is my intention to support this bill, I will also continue to voice my suggestions for how it can be strengthened.

In closing, let me again voice my disappointment and indignation with the majority's decision to close down a full and open debate on today's bill. This misguided decision by the Democrat leadership clouds what should be a thorough discussion of the safety and security of our Nation.

I look forward to working with the chairman of the subcommittee and the committee as we continue to move the bill through the 2010 process, a process that I hope can salvage some vestige of the long-standing and cherished traditions of open and fair debate.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to a very hardworking member of our subcommittee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert).

Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes for the purpose of a colloquy to the gentleman from Washington State, Mr. Hastings.

Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).

Madam Chairman, could I inquire of the time remaining.

I yield 4 minutes to one of our hardest- working members of our committee and subcommittee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Culberson).

Madam Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to a hardworking Member of this Congress, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan).

Madam Chairman, I would like to recognize now for such time as he may consume the ranking Republican on the full Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis).

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Latta).

I yield myself the balance of my time.

You know, since 9/11 I think we've come a long way in securing the country. It's been 8 long years. Laborious tasks have been undertaken. First, the formation of the Department of Homeland Security, attempting to merge some 22 different agencies of the government into a single agency under the umbrella of the Department of Homeland Security. And yes, we've made progress--I think substantial progress--in aviation security and the protection of goods coming into the country by container box. We've made substantial gains across the board in securing our American homeland. But we're still a long way from being where we need to be.

It seems like it's been terribly slow in many of the areas that we need to work on. But you know, it's amazing to me. I was just reading a book about World War II and just how quickly the Nation responded to the attack on Pearl Harbor, 1941. In just 4 years, Madam Chair, half the time since 9/11, the Nation geared up and produced 6,500 ships. It produced some 300,000 airplanes, hundreds of thousands of tanks and rifles, ammunition, warships, liberty ships, transport ships, thousands upon thousands of howitzers and weapons of war in just 4 short years. And we've had double that time since 9/11 to gear up for the protection of the country from the newest threat in the globe.

And yes, I am disappointed at times about the progress that we lack. But I've got to say that we've got some very brave people in all these agencies that now make up the Department of Homeland Security, that take their responsibilities deadly serious. They work hard; they don't get much thanks from anyone for the good work that they do; and we should take a moment the next time we go through an airport and thank that TSA worker or that Coast Guard worker or that FEMA helper in our home districts. I recently had the great opportunity to thank the FEMA response to a terrible flood in my district over Mother's Day weekend. But we need to thank these people because they don't get much of that, and they are doing a great service in defending us on our home turf.

With that, Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I rise to claim the time in opposition.

Madam Chair, it saddens me that the long- standing cherished traditions of debate within this Chamber have come to this--a so-called manager's amendment that is more about limiting the time on today's debate and placating the interests of Democrats than truly improving this bill. So I rise in opposition to this amendment, not on the substance of the amendment itself, mind you, but on the flawed and misguided procedure under which it is being offered. We seldom do manager's amendments on appropriations bills on the floor; and when on the rare occasion that we have, it's been a true manager's amendment, one that is noncontroversial and bipartisan. This amendment meets the interests of nine Democrats, and the minority was never consulted on the substance and construction of this amendment--never.

Furthermore, this amendment includes a provision that would be subject to a point of order during a normal debate to make this provision in order, then included in this flawed amendment. And finally, denying other Members the right to offer their amendments that were clearly germane and in order, including one of this ranking member. It's beyond the pale.

The majority also denies the ability of a hardworking member of our subcommittee, and myself as well, an opportunity to offer an amendment on E-Verify, the way that employers in this country can be sure that an applicant for work is not an illegal alien. Both amendments were clearly in order. Both amendments pertain to a critical issue that's germane to this bill. To deny us the ability to offer such legitimate amendments is a complete travesty, especially in light of this amendment before us.

So it is clearly not a manager's amendment, in my view. Instead, it's a vehicle for the majority to further ramrod this bill off the floor through what is perhaps the most closed and arbitrarily constrained debate I have seen in my 28 years or so in Congress.

I am very troubled by the road the majority is heading down with actions such as this, actions that muddle what should be an open debate on one of the most critical bills that this body will consider this year. Today should be about our homeland security, not partisan politics.

I urge Members to reject this flawed procedure and oppose this misnamed manager's amendment.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I object to this amendment on procedural grounds. It's not a bipartisan amendment as manager's amendments are supposed to be, so I urge a ``no'' vote.

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

Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Will the gentleman yield?

I want to congratulate our leader for this very adequate amendment that will help us on the border where the drug war wages, and we can use that personnel. The meager increases in the number of agents the gentleman has referred to in the bill needs to be increased, and the gentleman's amendment does just that, and I congratulate him and support it fully.

I will continue to reserve.

How much time is remaining, Madam Chairman?

Madam Chairwoman, I will close and have no further speakers. But I do want, once again, to commend the gentleman for the spirit in which he offers this amendment and the zeal with which Members whom we all know and respect, like Mr. Israel, Mr. Serrano and Mrs. Lowey, protect their cities and have defended this program.

We take a backseat to no one with respect to those efforts. We understand New York's unique needs and how successful this pilot program has been.

As a matter of fact, though, the money for carrying out the remaining aspects of this program is already in the pipeline. And these very arguments for the importance of this program are exactly why we need to take a more long-term approach and get away from a pilot program, get away from yearly amendments, yearly earmarks, and make this part of our permanent, long-term protective efforts. Of course, we will work with the New York delegation to find the resources that will let them do just that.

So I pledge my cooperation in that endeavor.

I hope the spirit of this opposition is well understood. We do want to work on this matter. We just believe that this amendment is not the right approach. And therefore we do ask for its defeat.

Madam Chairman, I rise also to thank the gentleman for this amendment, which would increase the budget for the ICE Visa Security Program by $1.7 million. This addition would be offset by corresponding reductions to the Office of Secretary and Executive Management, but not a devastating cut.

The committee has fully funded the $30.2 million request for the Visa Security Program, which is $3.4 million over the 2009 appropriations level already. This program places ICE agents and investigators overseas in embassies and consulates to assist State Department officials by investigating the criminal and terrorist backgrounds of those who apply for visas to come to the United States.

The committee also expanded the program by more than 45 percent in the 2009 Appropriations Act, and I recognize its ongoing importance for the security of our country. The additional funds proposed in this amendment will allow ICE to continue to accelerate its Visa Security Program deployments in 2010. In other words, it would build in a very positive way on the progress we were making. And with this in mind, I am happy to accept the gentleman's amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

The amendment simply increases and decreases funding for CBP salaries and expenses by $1 million with no statutory direction.

Now, my colleague would have us understand this amendment would somehow provide funding for a targeted border enforcement effort. I must respectfully disagree. In fact, it will do nothing of the kind.

The procedure used in this amendment is meaningless, having no effect, and establishing no legislative mandate. With no statutory significance, it also will have no impact whatsoever on the conference outcome with the Senate. It neither identifies the activity being defunded nor the one being augmented.

On that basis alone, and to discourage the use of this kind of parliamentary tactic to stretch out the time for general debate, I urge colleagues to defeat this amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment with great respect for the gentleman from Tennessee who, after all, has labored in this body for many years in the areas of transportation and transportation security. I take what he believes very, very seriously. And I know that he offers this amendment in all earnestness.

I want to say more in a minute about what our committee has done to make certain some of the elements that he is looking for are indeed addressed; namely, by requiring a long-term assessment of the air marshal staffing needs. This is not something we should go on funding indefinitely without assessment or analysis; and we intend for that to occur. But I do not believe this amendment to simply flat-fund the Federal air marshals is the best approach.

The exact number of Federal air marshals is security-sensitive, but a reduction of $40.6 million, which the gentleman proposes, would result in a significant number of air marshals being let go, and TSA would have to put in place a hiring freeze for all of fiscal 2010. As a result, we would have fewer high-risk international and domestic flights covered. In fact, flight coverage would be below what it was in 2009.

With this funding reduction, it is possible that air marshals may not be on all flights during some high-consequence events, such as the 2010 Olympics or national special security events. Now, I'm sure that TSA would make every effort not to reduce coverage for such events, but we would need to worry about resources being spread thinly under the gentleman's amendment.

The funding reduction would limit the air marshals' ability to rapidly respond to unanticipated events as they did in the past, such as the U.K. liquid explosives threat, evacuation of U.S. citizens from Lebanon, or in response to hurricanes like Ike and Katrina. In addition, funding restrictions would affect air marshals' ability to support TSA's VIPR teams. These are teams that conduct unannounced, high-visibility exercises in mass transit and passenger rail facilities and are designed to disrupt possible threats determined by reports from our intelligence community. So these air marshals do perform vital functions, and we need to know what we're doing if we cut back personnel levels.

Having said that, I do want to call the attention of colleagues to our report, page 74 to be explicit, where we discuss the long-term prospects for this air marshals program. We go into some detail about these additional security measures that the gentleman outlined which, indeed, may change the picture in the longer term. We don't know. We want DHS to reassess what is the appropriate long-term staffing level for the Federal air marshals in light of its new risk assessment model that better targets staff deployments.

So we have ordered up this study. Until we receive it, we believe it is premature to reduce funding for air marshals without the kind of sound analysis that would demonstrate what threats might be addressed or what might not be addressed if there is a diminished effort by the air marshal program.

So, again, with appreciation for the gentleman's history on this issue, I do respectfully urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment. But I do pledge to Members that we are going to undertake an assessment of this program for the long-term. And this time next year we will expect to have a much better analysis of what the long-term prospects should be.

With that, Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

Madam Chairman, the gentleman seeks to add $32 million for predisaster mitigation grants by cutting the same amount from FEMA's management and operations programs.

Again, I appreciate the gentleman's support for predisaster mitigation. I come from a State where both predisaster and postdisaster mitigation have been very important and often successful programs. And I believe the funding levels recommended by our committee in recent years have reflected this favorable evaluation.

But the offset the gentleman proposes is just untenable. I have to say that, and I want to spend some time in explaining it because I do respect the motivation that he brings to this effort.

We have, today, correspondence from State and local emergency managers who also think this offset is unacceptable. They oppose this amendment because it cuts critical FEMA programs, and, in particular, I have a letter dated today from the International Association of Emergency Managers along these lines.

The Congress has spent the last 4 years since Hurricane Katrina rebuilding FEMA's management and operations capabilities. At the time of Katrina, the agency was understaffed and unable to effectively manage a catastrophic disaster. It's my belief that the increases over the last 2 fiscal years were a major factor in FEMA's return to strength as demonstrated during the response to Hurricane Ike and the Midwest floods.

I am afraid the gentleman's amendment could send us backwards. The gentleman would cut the account that supports the National Hurricane Program, the National Dam Safety Program, national continuity programs, disaster operations and disaster mitigation.

The committee supports predisaster mitigation. That's why we included a $10 million increase for predisaster mitigation grants above fiscal year 2009.

But the gentleman proposes a further increase, and I believe that should not come at the detriment of FEMA's operational readiness.

Besides, the grant program that the gentleman seeks to increase had $143 million that was unobligated or not spent at the time this bill was reported. In other words, there is a good deal of money in the pipeline.

So as a supporter of increased mitigation, and as the chairman of a committee that has championed increased mitigation, I believe we have enough funds for now to support ongoing mitigation work, and I think the offset would be detrimental to FEMA's readiness to respond to disasters.

So I respectfully urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition.

I would reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the chairwoman of the Immigration Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Zoe Lofgren).

I thank our colleague for those clarifying remarks and yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk made in order by the rule.

Madam Chair, I yield myself 2 minutes.

This is an amendment that takes a million dollars out and puts a million dollars in, and it comes from time I spent on the border and time I worked with our Border Patrol officers, our law enforcement officers on the border over the last several years. I have been down to the border, traveled along primarily the Arizona border, and had our law enforcement officers point to the pinnacles and say, There are drug lookouts, drug smuggling lookouts and people smuggling lookouts up on top of the promontories. These are the equivalent of military positions.

I have actually personally walked a map around and had them put X's on the map to show me where these lookouts are, and over time, I developed this map that I have handed to the Secretary of Homeland Security. The locations are not disputed. This is a cat-and-mouse game that is going on between our law enforcement personnel all along the border, between ICE, the Shadow Wolves, and our Border Patrol personnel.

I had a conversation with John Morton, who is the new director of ICE. He recognizes this concern. I am encouraged that this administration has taken notice of the lookouts that control the smuggling routes and tip them off when our law enforcement personnel converge in.

Sometimes they will run a decoy, and this cat-and-mouse game has got to end. No nation can maintain its sovereignty if we are going to allow military positions, lookout positions to exist. So this million dollars is at the encouragement of ICE's people as well. A million dollars will be directed at taking out these lookout sites and removing this as a tool from our drug smugglers and our people smugglers on the border.

I think it is something that is a bipartisan piece of legislation and it ends the cat-and-mouse game. By the way, their request was Congress should have a voice on this when I had that conversation with ICE. And so I encourage support for this amendment.

I would be happy to yield to the ranking member.

I thank the gentleman, and I reserve my time.

I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.

I would respectfully disagree with the gentleman. As I read my amendment, I think the dialogue I heard was it increases and then decreases funding. Actually, this amendment decreases and then increases funding. I don't know if that changes the gentleman's analysis of what the amendment actually does. I don't add to this funding. I simply decrease it and then add it back in.

I would have been happy to work with some language that would have perhaps been made in order, but in order for this Congress to have a voice on these lookouts--and this is drug smugglers that hold military positions, the equivalent of military positions that have stones stacked up like sandbags and people in there with semiautomatic weapons and have their supplies brought up to them by patrols that make sure that they have food and water and sometimes other things. They come and go as they see fit. We let them sit on top of these mountains and smuggle into the United States 90 percent of the illegal drugs that are consumed in the United States of America. And accompanying that are all of the violence, the death, the things that are associated with illegal drugs.

This amendment is clearly in order, and how this Congress speaks to this amendment is how ICE and the balance of the law enforcement personnel on the border will react.

I'm asking that we simply join our voices together and ask for enforcement so we don't concede these locations to the people who are smuggling 90 percent of the illegal drugs into America.

I would be very happy to yield.

On U.S. soil.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time in order to close.

As the ranking member from Kentucky said, this is something that I have done a lot of work on, and I am not the only Member of Congress who has gone to these lookouts. I have gone there and walked across the desert with our Shadow Wolves, for example, and had them point up and say, On that mountain, they have a position and they have state-of-the- art optical equipment, state-of-the-art radio equipment. They are watching every move that our Border Patrol, ICE, Customs and Border Protection, and Shadow Wolves are making on that southern border.

Whenever we deploy manpower, if we set up our ground-base radar that picks up humans, personnel walking across the desert, they know where our locations are. They shift their traffic accordingly. I have watched them run the decoy. I have been part of picking up

230 or 240 pounds of marijuana in one load that probably helped 2,000- some pounds go through another load.

We simply cannot tolerate in the United States of America, at least as much as 70 miles inside the United States--and I will be going down next week to look at some of these locations that are actually north of Tucson on the road to Phoenix. This is the United States of America, our sovereign territory, and playing cat and mouse with people there with semiautomatic weapons, supplies, smuggling drugs through the United States has got to stop. And this Congress should join together and, with this amendment, ask them to do so to stop that activity and defend our soil and put an end to this. It would be a very good help to dramatically reduce the amount of illegal drug smuggling into the United States.

I urge adoption of the amendment.

Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk made in order by the rule.

I yield myself 2 minutes.

My amendment prohibits the Department of Homeland Security funds in this bill from being used to hire illegal immigrants. The Immigration and Nationality Act is very clear. Section 274(a) makes it a crime to knowingly hire or employ an illegal immigrant. There are no exceptions.

Despite the law, over 8 million illegal immigrants currently have jobs in the United States, and some of those are no doubt employed by and with DHS funds under Federal contracts.

Unemployment today is at over 15 percent for lower-skilled American workers. Congress should do anything possible to end the hiring of illegal immigrants and save those jobs for American workers, Madam Chair.

A 2006 audit report by the Office of Inspector General indicates that the U.S. Government was the Nation's most egregious employer of illegal aliens. Seventeen of the top 100 offending employers were Federal, State, or local government entities. This report also found that, of the sample, 44 percent of the government workers were unauthorized workers, and 3 percent of government workers had no immigration status whatsoever.

These numbers are alarming. The IG report raises a national security issue. The report states, ``Noncitizens who work without DHS authorization could affect homeland security because they may obtain employment in sensitive areas.''

The report goes on to say that the People's Republic of China ranked fourth and Iran ranked sixth among the top 10 countries of birth for employees that were audited in this report.

With the unemployment rate at 9.4 percent, we have got to stop the hiring of illegals, and the Federal Government has to lead the charge.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I'd yield such time as he may consume to the ranking member, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers).

Reclaiming my time, and thanking the ranking member from Kentucky, I would just add that we as employers on this Hill are now required to use E-Verify with our employees. This isn't too high a standard to ask of the balance of the Federal Government, particularly within this appropriation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, may I inquire as to how much time remains?

Thank you, Madam Chair. I yield myself the balance of my time.

I would just reiterate that the Federal Government is among the most egregious violators of hiring illegal workers, and that's been brought out in this IG report that I spoke to in my opening remarks.

Seventeen of the top 100 violating entities were government entities, with 44 percent of the government workers that were part of this study were unauthorized. It didn't mean they were all illegal; it meant they were not verified.

And so I recall back in 1986 when the amnesty bill was passed, the last big amnesty bill was passed, I remember the fear that the INS would come into my office, and I made sure that I dotted all the I's, crossed all the T's, verified the identification, and kept the I-9 file on record. And they're still on record someplace in my archives. I think that is the kind of due diligence that the Federal Government-- all government ought to support.

This is an amendment that one might argue that it doesn't directly change policy. I would agree with the gentlelady, the Chair of the Immigration Subcommittee, on that, but it reinforces and it reiterates a policy. There are no exceptions to violation of that section of the code.

This is an amendment also that passed on this particular appropriations bill in 2007. It's something that has had broad support across this country, and it really should not be controversial. It should be something that we should all join together with, and hopefully we will be able to move along and get to the point where the right, left, and middle hand knows what the others are doing.

I urge adoption of the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.