Providing for consideration of the conference report to accompany 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, 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, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 829 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart), and all time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

General Leave

I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 829.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, House Resolution 829 provides for consideration of the conference report to accompany H.R. 2892, the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act of 2010. The rule waives all points of order against the conference report and against its consideration. The rule provides that the conference report shall be considered as read. And finally, the rule provides that the previous question shall be considered as ordered without intervention of any motion, except 1 hour of debate and one motion to recommit, if applicable.

This conference report appropriates over $42 billion in funds necessary to protect the American people and enhance our national security. Through terrorist threat mitigation, natural disaster response, and immigration enforcement, this appropriations bill provides the funding to fulfill the many essential responsibilities of a range of important governmental agencies, from the Coast Guard to FEMA to Customs and Border Protection to the Transportation Security Administration.

Particularly critical in this legislation are the partnerships established with State and local communities to prepare for and protect against a range of emergency situations, including natural disasters and acts of terrorism and violence. The funding provided for emergency response resources demonstrates the need for collaboration among Federal, State, and local governments in providing for effective security. It's worth noting a few of the major initiatives contained in this conference report.

This legislation helps secure our borders by providing over $10 billion for Customs and Border Protection, including funding for over 20,000 Border Patrol agents, which represents an increase of 6,000 agents since 2006. In addition, this report extends authorization of the E-Verify program for 3 years, under which employers are able to check the legal status of their workers. This legislation provides the funding to operate and improve the existing E-Verify program.

Ensuring the safety and security of our Nation's infrastructure is a critical part of this legislation. This conference report provides the necessary funding to the Transportation Security Administration and the Coast Guard to protect our Nation's vast transportation network, including airports, seaports, subways, trains, and buses. With this funding, the TSA will be able to improve explosive detection equipment at airports, and the Coast Guard will be able to replace aging ships and aircraft, which is much needed, modernizing a force that is essential to our national security.

Madam Speaker, I have always praised the Federal Emergency Management program for the fine work they do in helping distressed communities. In my home State of Florida, we are frequently plagued with natural disasters, including hurricanes and flooding. These disasters profoundly impact Florida's residents, particularly when so many individuals and families experience severe damage to their homes and communities.

I'm pleased with the funding levels indicated in this report for the firefighter grants, flood map modernization, predisaster mitigation, and emergency food and shelter programs. I know that the men and women at FEMA work hard and are dedicated to relieving the plight of Americans faced with the hardships of natural disasters.

At the same time, I've never been shy about making my voice heard on matters important to my constituents and all residents of Florida and our Nation that experience disasters. I have been outspoken on the need for FEMA to improve temporary housing.

I'm also pleased to have included language in this bill requiring the Florida Long Term Recovery Office, located in Orlando, to remain open. And a footnote there, Representatives Alan Grayson and Suzanne Kosmas are deserving of a lot of consideration from

us for that action that I, along with Robert Wexler and others, began quite some time before they came to Congress. In order to enhance communication and relief operations, this is necessary in the event of a natural disaster.

Madam Speaker, I do want to address the provisions in this report relating to the detainees at Guantanamo Bay. I know that this body has been very focused on this matter, as rightly we should be, as President Obama has committed his administration to close the detention facility at Guantanamo by January of 2010. This conference report prohibits current detainees from being transferred to the United States, except to be prosecuted, and then only after Congress receives a detailed plan on the risks involved, the legal rationale for their transfer, and a notification from the Governor of the affected State.

This is all well and good, but the language in this bill, while a good step forward, is not going to solve the problem of what to do with the hundreds of individuals we have detained, and those in the future that we may have to detain, whether they are detained at Guantanamo or Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan or any other facility where they may be detained by the United States.

The debate over Guantanamo, in my opinion, is missing the larger picture, and that is a need to reform our entire detainment policy. As I have maintained, the problem is policy, not the place. Without a system of justice to deal with suspected terrorists, wherever they are held, we are left with a broken system that has been a significant recruiting tool for al Qaeda and other groups which threaten our Nation's security. We need to deny them that image of America.

We need a judicial process that accomplishes at least three things: Number 1, protects our national security by holding and prosecuting those who have committed crimes or who pose an imperative threat to our country; number 2, upholds international standards of human rights; and 3, strengthens our Nation's image as a country that upholds the rule of law and does not resort to arbitrary justice, even while under threat.

This appropriations season has, so far, brought forth a number of bills, almost all with language relating to Guantanamo and a whole lot of that ``not in my backyard'' stuff. At some point soon, we're going to need to move beyond trying to legislate this matter into appropriations bills and, instead, deal with what is necessary, and that is, new policies and guidelines to bring our national security needs in line with our historic national values.

I'm pleased to have introduced H.R. 3728, the Detainment Reform Act, which will move us forward on this matter, and I urge my colleagues and the President and his administration to give some vent to supporting this effort, revising it, or doing what is necessary in order for this bill or others to establish the policy that's needed for detaining individuals who would be imperative threats or conduct themselves in a criminal manner against this Nation.

Madam Speaker, ultimately, the conference report before us today provides the necessary funding for the Federal, State, and local agencies, programs and efforts that will protect our Nation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased and privileged at this time to yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from New York, the distinguished Chair of the Committee on Rules and my good friend, Ms. Louise Slaughter.

Madam Speaker, I especially appreciate the remarks of the distinguished woman, the Rules Chair, Ms. Slaughter, and echo her sentiments.

I am now pleased to yield 3 minutes to my colleague from the Rules Committee, a good friend, Jared Polis of Colorado.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, the men and women of the numerous agencies under the Homeland Security umbrella are dedicated and hardworking public servants who deserve the full support of this body. We have a responsibility to provide them with the funds necessary to perform activities essential to protecting our country--preparing for emergencies, mitigating natural disasters and defending against acts of terrorism and violence.

I commend our colleagues on both sides of the aisle on the Appropriations Committee with reference to discharging their functions. I especially commend Subcommittee Chair Price and the work that he and his committee have done. As well, I commend the distinguished chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, Bennie Thompson from Mississippi, and the extraordinary Members who serve with him in that capacity.

As I've discussed before, Madam Speaker, I hope this body will move beyond the debate of whether or not to close Guantanamo and, instead, will work to develop comprehensive detainment policies that uphold Federal law and the United States Constitution, that uphold human rights and international law.

I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.

The material previously referred to by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida is as follows:

Amendment to H. Res. 829 Offered by Mr. Diaz-Balart

At the end of the resolution, insert the following new

section:

Sec. 2. On the third legislative day after the adoption of

this resolution, immediately after the third daily order of

business under clause 1 of rule XIV and without intervention

of any point of order, the House shall proceed to the

consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 554) amending the

Rules of the House of Representatives to require that

legislation and conference reports be available on the

Internet for 72 hours before consideration by the House, and

for other purposes. The resolution shall be considered as

read. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on

the resolution and any amendment thereto to final adoption

without intervening motion or demand for division of the

question except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and

controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the

Committee on Rules; (2) an amendment, if offered by the

Minority Leader or his designee and if printed in that

portion of the Congressional Record designated for that

purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII at least one legislative

day prior to its consideration, which shall be in order

without intervention of any point of order or demand for

division of the question, shall be considered as read and

shall be separately debatable for twenty minutes equally

divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent; and

(3) one motion to recommit

which shall not contain instructions. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX

shall not apply to the consideration of House Resolution 554.

I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Madam Speaker, I'd like to thank my good friend and fellow cochairman of the Florida Congressional Delegation, Mr. Hastings, for the time. I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, several years ago I had the distinct privilege to bring to this floor, first, the rule bringing the legislation to the floor that created the Department of Homeland Security, and then the first rule for a Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill. Since then, the Department of Homeland Security has begun to mature. It has improved the process for which it was created, the oversight of and coordination of many departments related to the safety of the Nation.

As we know, the department was created in the wake of the attacks of September 11, 2001, to help mobilize and to organize the government to the best of its ability to secure the homeland from further terrorist attacks, to protect the Nation's borders, and to prepare for natural disasters. And thanks to our new concerted approach, I think we've made key investments to secure the United States from further terrorist attacks.

But clearly we must not let our guard down.

Just a few weeks ago, we heard about a disrupted terrorist attack in New York City. The Attorney General of the United States has called the plot, ``one of the most serious in the United States since September 11, 2001.'' That is why I am pleased that the underlying legislation provides the Department with the tools and resources that it needs in order to continue to help to protect the Nation from other terrorist attacks. We must not lose our focus. We must continue our efforts to protect the United States from deadly attacks.

This legislation will provide much-needed funding to help secure our borders, with $800 million for Southwest border investments, over $3 billion for the Border Patrol, including over 20,000 Border agents, an increase of more than 50 percent since 2006.

The State that I am honored to represent, Florida, has seen, as my dear friend has pointed out, its share of natural disasters, from Hurricane Andrew in 1992 to the series of very disastrous back-to-back hurricanes in the middle of this decade. That is why having a prepared and professional staff at FEMA, ready to coordinate disaster preparedness, response, recovery and mitigation efforts, is of vital importance to Florida.

I am pleased the conference report will provide FEMA and the new FEMA administrator--we Floridians are very proud of him, Craig Fugate--the resources needed to help in the aftermath of any natural disaster, whether it's a hurricane in Florida, an earthquake in California, or the flooding in the Midwest.

The terrorist attacks of September 11 heightened concerns regarding aviation security. In response, Congress passed the Aviation and Transportation Security Act of 2001. That legislation established a Federal screener workforce and required the screening of all checked baggage using explosive detection systems, EDS. EDS machines can quickly determine if a baggage contains a potential threat. If a weapon or explosive is detected, the machines alert security officers so they can manage the baggage appropriately.

Funding and reimbursement for EDS installation, however, continues to be a serious concern. Miami International Airport, which is in my congressional district, has incurred over $78 million in in-line EDS terminal modification costs and continues to seek reimbursement for the Federal share of those costs. I am pleased that this conference report provides $778 million in discretionary funding to purchase and install EDS at airports. Those funds will help reimburse Miami International Airport and other airports in their efforts to complete EDS installations.

Our Nation's maritime industry contributes approximately $750 billion to the gross domestic product each year. Florida has some of the largest ports in the country. The Port of Miami serves as the primary maritime gateway to Latin America and the Caribbean. It is a strategic hub for international commerce throughout the hemisphere, and obviously it is the cruise ship capital of the word.

Since 9/11, the Port of Miami has faced unprecedented security costs due to the expense of complying with Federal security mandates. While ports across the Nation are facing similar challenges, the problem at the Port of Miami is particularly serious. Annual operating security costs at the Port of Miami have increased from just over $4 million in 2001 to over $20 million today.

The legislation we are bringing to the floor provides $300 million in grants to assist ports in enhancing their security measures to prevent, detect, and respond to possible terrorist attacks.

So I wish to thank Chairman Price and Ranking Member Rogers for their clearly bipartisan work on this conference report that makes critical investments in the priorities facing the Department of Homeland Security, including securing our transportation

systems, strong border security, a well-prepared and able FEMA, and so much more.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I very much appreciate the contributions during this debate, enlightening our colleagues with regard to the merits of the legislation that we are bringing to the floor today.

You know, one of the, I think, most interesting aspects of the American representative democracy is that we differ from other representative democracies probably because our two parties are, in effect, great coalitions. We have a two-party system by virtue of that; both parties represent different coalitions of thought on numerous issues.

So it's interesting that today, for example, while my friend and the distinguished chairwoman of the Rules Committee expressed an opinion contrary to the position maintained by the President of the United States on an important issue--and I think it's appropriate to do so--I commend the President of the United States for his position with regard to the release of detainee photos.

The legislation before us codifies the President's decision to allow the Secretary of Defense to bar the release of detainee photos. I commend the President because, obviously, his leadership and support on that aspect has been decisive in the inclusion of that provision in this legislation.

So our system is unique. This constant manifestation of our two great coalitions is fascinating to me as a student of comparative politics. It is another reason I am so proud of this body--the great sovereign Congress of the United States which represents the most sovereign and the freest people in the world, the American people.

Madam Speaker, over the last few months, the American people have written and called their Members of Congress or they've made their opinions known at meetings throughout the Nation. They've asked their Members of Congress whether they will pledge to read bills before they vote on them. The reason is, I think, that people were outraged after finding out that the majority leadership forced Congress to vote on a number of sweeping and expensive bills without giving Members time to understand or to really even read the bills.

I remember a very glaring example of that when we on the Rules Committee were faced with an entire new bill on this legislation that was known as cap-and-trade, which in effect became a manager's amendment to the legislation at 3 o'clock in the morning, and a few hours after that, we were here voting on it. We were forced to vote on the final so-called ``stimulus'' bill, on the omnibus appropriations bill and, as I mentioned, on that cap-and-trade bill with less than 24 hours to read them--in some instances, as I mentioned before with regard to cap-and-trade, much, much less than 24 hours. Many people believe that that is no way to run the House, and many constituents are rightly upset.

A recent survey found that over 80 percent of Americans believe that legislation should be posted online and in final form and should be available for everyone to read before Congress votes on legislation. You would think, Madam Speaker, that this would really not be an issue as the distinguished Speaker is on record as saying, ``Members should have at least 24 hours to examine bills and conference reports before floor consideration.'' It's even on her Web site. Yet, often, the majority leadership have refused to live up to their pledge.

That is why a bipartisan group of 182 Members of this House has signed a discharge petition to consider a bill that would require that all legislation and conference reports be made available to Members of Congress and to the general public for 72 hours before they are brought to the House floor for a vote.

So, today, I will be asking for a ``no'' vote on the previous question so that we can amend this rule and allow the House to consider that legislation--House Resolution 544, a bipartisan bill by my colleagues and friends, Representatives Baird and Culberson.

I know that Members are concerned that this motion may jeopardize the Department of Homeland Security's Appropriations conference report, but I would like to make clear that the motion I am making provides for the separate consideration of the Baird-Culberson bill within 3 days so that we can pass the conference report today funding the Department of Homeland Security. Then, once we are done, we would consider House Resolution 544.

Having said that, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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.