Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2017) making appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2012, and for other purposes.

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

It is my honor to present the fiscal year 2012 appropriations bill for the Department of Homeland Security.

This bill before us today, perhaps more than any other bill, exemplifies the difficult choices that need to be made in order to address our Nation's fiscal crisis.

This bill demonstrates how we can fully fund vital security programs while also reducing spending overall. Furthermore, this bill does not represent a false choice between fiscal responsibility and security. Both are national security priorities, and both are vigorously addressed in this bill.

I am under no illusion that everyone here in this Chamber will agree with the spending reductions included in this legislation; but now, more than ever, our government needs fiscal discipline, and this bill takes the necessary steps toward that goal.

The bottom line: more money and more government do not equal more security. So in this time of skyrocketing debt and persistent threats, we must get our homeland security priorities right.

The bill before us today provides $40.6 billion in discretionary funding, or almost $3 billion, which is 7 percent below the request, and $1.1 billion, or almost 3 percent below the fiscal year 2011 level. In addition, the bill also includes $1 billion in offset, emergency supplemental funding for FEMA's disaster relief fund immediately upon enactment. There are no earmarks that are set out in this bill or the accompanying report.

The bill places priority on funding our Nation's greatest security needs--fully funding all frontline personnel such as Border Patrol, CBP officers, ICE officers, Coast Guard military personnel, and Secret Service agents, and fully funding all intelligence, watchlisting, and threat targeting functions.

In addition, the bill provides funding where the administration and the Department of Homeland Security have failed. This bill makes up for the nearly $650 million shortfall handed to us by the Department through phony, unauthorized fee collections. It is irresponsible for the administration to submit a budget based on the illusion that Congress is going to raise taxes or fees in this current economy.

This bill also addresses the wholly inadequate request for disaster relief funding and provides the resources to help our communities recover from natural disasters, like the unprecedented flooding across the Mississippi

River Valley; the tornadoes that devastated my home State of Alabama a few weeks ago; and the horrific tornado that destroyed much of Joplin, Missouri, just a little over a week ago.

However, programs that have been underperforming and failing to execute their budgets or which have repeatedly ignored congressional directives to measure their results are significantly reduced.

In short, this bill places a priority on the taxpayers' limited dollars towards the security programs that will have an immediate impact upon our national security and responsibly reduces spending wherever possible.

The bill is constructed around three core priorities: number one, fiscal discipline; number two, targeted investments in security operations and disaster relief; and, number three, meaningful, hard- hitting oversight.

First on fiscal discipline. The bill goes further than simply cutting spending. This bill insists upon real reform--reform in how the Department justifies its budget; reform on how FEMA manages its first responder grants; and reform on how FEMA, the Department, and the administration budget for the costs of disaster relief.

Number two, on security, the bill includes nearly $150 million worth of targeted investments above the budget request for security operations--the frontline programs that are among the most critical at keeping our Nation secure and these activities that directly countered recent terrorist attacks and address known threats.

On disaster relief, I have seen firsthand what natural disasters can do over the past few weeks, and I can tell you that my constituents in Alabama are expecting FEMA to get it right. So this bill picks up from where we left off in FY 2011 and provides an increase of $850 million above the request and within the budget for FEMA's disaster relief fund to address the known and expected cost of disasters in FY 2012. And as we added unanimously in our full committee markup of the bill last week, $1 billion in offset, emergency supplemental funding is provided to FEMA to ensure that disaster relief efforts stay on track this year and well into 2012.

And, three, finally, is oversight. Our subcommittee has a long tradition of insisting upon results for each and every taxpayer dollar that is appropriated. This is a testament to the previous leadership on this subcommittee that was exhibited by our founding chairman of this subcommittee, Chairman Rogers, and also my predecessor and now the subcommittee's ranking member, Mr. Price.

This bill continues the dedication to frontline security programs and robust oversight by including numerous spend plan requirements, reporting requirements, and operational requirements, such as border patrol staffing levels and an increase to ICE's detention capacity.

Now, I know there has been some criticism on the funding level this bill is recommending for FEMA's first responder grants. Let me emphasize that there is more than $13 billion in the pipeline that has not been spent, but FEMA has yet to establish a credible method for measuring the impact of these grants.

So this bill takes bold steps to get FEMA's fiscal house in order-- requiring accountability for every dollar spent, requiring a plan for drawing down the enormous unexpended balances, consolidating duplicative grant programs, putting priority on high-risk needs, and rewarding programs like the Emergency Management Performance Grants that actually spend their funds wisely and are willing to measure their results.

I know how important first responders are to this Nation. We see it every day. But we simply cannot keep on throwing money into a clogged pipeline when our debt is soaring out of control. I believe it's our duty to reform these grant programs.

Mr. Chairman, this bill is about putting a priority on limited dollars and robustly supporting the most essential functions. The Department of Homeland Security, with all its critical missions, is not immune from fiscal discipline. That means the Department has to find the most cost-effective way to meet its mission requirements. The American people are demanding no less.

In closing, let me thank Ranking Member Price. Although we have certainly had a turbulent year, he has been a statesman and a true partner as we worked on this vital bill. I sincerely thank him for his input and his contributions that he has made on this bill.

In addition, I would like to thank the distinguished chairman and ranking member of the full committee, Chairman Hal Rogers and Ranking Member Norm Dicks. As much as we have had to make difficult choices and tradeoffs at subcommittee level, I know that both of these gentlemen have had to make much more difficult decisions dealing with all 12 subcommittee budgets.

Finally, I would like to take a moment to thank the committee staff for their hard work on this bill, namely: Stephanie Gupta and Paul Cox on the minority staff; and Jeff Ashford, Kris Mallard, Kathy Kraninger, Miles Taylor, Rebecca Ore, Brian Rell, Mark Dawson, Anne Marie Malecha, and Ben Nicholson, who is the clerk of this committee, on the majority side.

I believe this bill reflects our best efforts to address our Nation's most urgent needs: security and fiscal discipline. I urge my colleagues to support this measure.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murphy).

I would be happy to. And I congratulate the Energy and Commerce Committee on pursuing the CFATS authorization on an expedited basis this year. We do hope and expect that CFATS will be authorized under regular order prior to the start of the new fiscal year. However, it was important that we include funding for the 2012 appropriation bill for CFATS, and we do not want that line item to appear to be in conflict with the currently enacted sunset date of October 4, 2011.

I look forward to a long-term authorization extension so that these chemical facilities and the people that work in them can have a long- range certainty with respect to antiterrorism plans and investments. We look forward to a good authorizing bill becoming law in time to guide our final 2012 agreements on the CFATS funding.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished chairman of the full Appropriations Committee, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Carter).

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen).

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent).

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. King).

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to reluctantly oppose the amendment.

As I mentioned, I reluctantly rise to oppose this amendment, which would slash the funding for the Department's management functions below what is responsible for the Nation's security and move funding to the grants.

I was hoping that we would be able to work something out on this, but it was not possible. The committee has already cut the Department's headquarters management at historic levels. In fact, the bill reduces the funding for these activities 21 percent below what the President requested himself.

This includes zeroing out the Department's new headquarters in Washington, D.C., zeroed out the funding for data center migration, and we have slashed other initiatives we cannot afford at this time. Many of these cuts were unavoidable because the President's budget request for the Department of Homeland Security was filled with phony offsets.

Since 9/11, Congress has provided $6.7 billion for this program and for the last 3 years has included a waiver for the cost share requirements with local governments. Given our Nation's dire fiscal situation, we must take a stand that it's not the Federal Government's job to bail out every municipal budget or to serve as a fire marshal for every city and town across the Nation. In today's fiscally constrained environment, the 350 million that we have included in here is a lot of money.

Again, while I support the gentleman's intentions, I would urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the bill before us today was born out of the need for reform. It consolidates various grant programs and provides discretion to the Secretary. These reforms include funding reductions, requirements for measurement, and requirements for spending languishing dollars.

In total, this bill provides $1.7 billion for Homeland Security first responder grants. However, as we are all aware, not all programs are funded at the previous year's level.

The consolidation in this bill requires the Secretary to examine the intelligence and risk and put scarce dollars where they are most needed, whether it is a port, rail, surveillance, or access and hardening projects--or whether it is to high-risk urban areas or to States--as opposed to reverse engineering projects to fill the amount designated for one of many programs.

Additionally, as noted by the gentleman from Rhode Island, the bill limits the Urban Areas Security Initiative grants to the top 10 highest cities. Again, this puts scarce dollars where they are most needed. This does not mean lower risk cities will lose all funding; it just means the funds will come from other programs such as State Homeland grants that are risk and formula based.

These cuts will not be easy, but they are long overdue and necessary to address our out-of-control Federal spending.

Furthermore, the offset proposed by the gentleman is unacceptable. A reduction to the Border Security Fencing, Infrastructure, and Technology account would: impact operations and maintenance on the border fence; reduce investments in critical border security communications; and affect the Border Patrol's ability to procure proven technologies to increase border security immediately.

I urge my colleagues to support fiscal discipline, and I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman. I reserve a point of order on the gentlewoman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation, but I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the bill already reduces the Office of Under Secretary substantially, 6 percent below the request and 26 percent below the FY11 CR, reflecting the fact that the bill includes no funding to continue the construction of the Department of Homeland Security headquarters. The bill has reduced management to a bare minimum, with reduction of 29 percent to leadership and management offices.

The Department of Homeland Security is an agency of 230,000 employees. The number of employees in OSEM is 700, or less than one- third of 1 percent, and funding provided is also one-third of 1 percent for the total DHS budget. This is extremely small for assets needed to manage a major security department. Additional reductions would prevent filling key staffing positions and thus limit the ability of the Department to respond to national emergencies and provide stable leadership to the public and the Nation in the event of a large disaster or terrorist event.

These reductions are not compatible with running a Cabinet agency. No other Federal department is asked to manage such large responsibilities and operating components with such a small and stretched headquarters element. Therefore, I urge the Members to oppose this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, we accept the gentleman from Georgia's amendment.

I reluctantly rise in opposition to this amendment.

Again, this proposal would further create cuts to the Department's management functions below what is responsible for the Nation's security. The committee has already cut the Department's headquarters and management at historic levels.

As I had mentioned earlier, they include the zoning act, the zeroing out of the funding for the Department's new headquarters. It zeroes out funding for the data center migration. It slashes other activities we cannot afford at this time.

The Department must still have robust funding to manage the many organizations under its authority. The Department was created from nearly two dozen agencies and still faces challenges in achieving the unified homeland security enterprise.

More importantly, the gentleman's amendment proposes that the Department pay for cell towers to provide phone services to the general public.

I'm very sympathetic to the needs of rural communities. I'm from a rural community, and certainly I'm sympathetic to remote ranchers as well. But this is not a cause that the Homeland Security can bear at this time, especially under the constraints that we have. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the gentlelady's amendment.

I continue to reserve a point of order.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may utilize.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that we're considering the fiscal year 2012 Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill in a timely fashion and under an open rule. Chairman Aderholt has been a true professional in the drafting of this bill, and I appreciate his willingness to include input from our side all along the way. And I certainly want to share in his commendation of all of our staff on both sides of the aisle.

For the second year in a row, overall funding for the Department of Homeland Security will drop. The bill decreases funding for Homeland Security by 6.8 percent below the President's request and essentially returns funding to the 2009 level, which is concerning to many people, including myself.

This allocation has required Chairman Aderholt to make some tough decisions. He has been able to retain adequate funding for the frontline employees of the Department of Homeland Security to continue conducting critical operations along our borders, to protect our Nation's airports and seaports, and to respond to the wave of natural disasters that our country has experienced this spring.

The same, however, is not true, unfortunately, of Homeland Security grant programs, which are cut radically. Providing a total of $1 billion for all State and local grants, or 65 percent below the President's request, and providing $350 million for firefighter assistance grants--that's almost 50 percent below an already reduced request--breaks faith with the States and localities that depend on us as partners to secure our communities. These cuts will be especially harmful as many of our States and municipalities are being forced to slash their own budgets.

For example, according to the International Association of Fire Fighters, 1,600 fewer local firefighters will be on the job if the cuts in this bill are enacted. I can't conceive of any defensible argument for cuts of this magnitude, cuts that come on top of cuts to grants already made in the fiscal 2011 appropriations. They will do great damage to local preparedness, to emergency response in our communities, and to the recovering economy.

These grant programs equip our State and local partners to be ready for a disaster so they can mitigate its impact and respond effectively. While this bill rightly seeks to help States and localities rebuild after a disaster strikes, it decimates the work required to prepare for a disaster before it happens. That exposes our communities to greater risk, and it potentially raises the cost of attacks and disasters when they do occur. And we shouldn't ignore the impact of first responder layoffs on our economic recovery.

This bill recommends other drastic reductions, for example, by cutting research funding in half. At this level, the Science and Technology Directorate informed us that it would concentrate its remaining resources on

aviation security and explosive detection devices and on two cutting- edge, near-term research projects. But other critical research underway, including research on cyber security, disaster resiliency, and detection of chemical and biological threats, this research simply wouldn't be funded in 2012, if ever.

The bill also greatly reduces funds for information technology needs and construction activities. It includes no funding for the new DHS headquarters that are already under construction and the related lease consolidation efforts. We've been told repeatedly by the administration that deferring these investments will ultimately affect frontline operations and cost us more money in the future, and I believe that they are absolutely correct.

Now, I recognize that the administrations budget left Chairman Aderholt some holes to fill, but the real problem here is the bill's allocation in the budget resolution. That's thanks to a completely unrealistic spending cap set by the House Republican budget. We are now seeing the real implications of that deeply flawed plan. It simply leaves no room to keep departmental operations strong, and at the same time to fund our dual responsibility to prepare for and respond to all hazards.

The majority further exacerbated the allocation's inadequacy by adding $850 million in disaster relief beyond the President's request to respond to recent flooding and tornado emergencies. Now, that's fine; that's important to do. But contrary to bipartisan tradition, the additional spending was not designated as an emergency for budget purposes, and as a result these disaster funds come out of the hide of first responder funding.

We gave the majority two chances to correct this flaw by designating the funding increase, that is, the increase beyond the President's request, as an emergency, once in last week's appropriation committee markup and yesterday in the Rules Committee. Unfortunately, the majority refused and passed up the opportunity to get us to a point where both parties might be able to support this bill.

I want to close by reiterating my appreciation for the chairman's efforts, for the staff's efforts to work with us on many, many issues in this bill, and for their valiant efforts to sustain our frontline Federal homeland security operations; but the bill does fall short of our obligations in critical aspects. The inadequate allocation makes it difficult to repair this bill, but I and other Members will be offering amendments to move it in a positive direction.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the ranking member of our full committee, the distinguished gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks).

I yield 3 minutes to one of our fine subcommittee members from California (Ms. Roybal-Allard).

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in qualified support of the LaTourette-Pascrell amendment. The bill before us more than halves the total amount of funding for firefighter assistance grants compared to 2011 and 2010.

If this bill is adopted as written, the hiring grants known as SAFER grants are going to be cut by 63 percent below 2011, and equipment grants will be cut by 51 percent. That is simply unacceptable. These cuts would result in thousands of fewer firefighters on the job. It would leave fewer departments able to maintain safe staffing levels. It would prevent many fire departments from purchasing equipment, purchasing breathing apparatus and protective gear that our firefighters depend on during a time of emergency.

This bipartisan amendment provides $320 million to restore this funding to the President's requested level. Mind you, that's still below the 2011 level, but it comes at least to the President's requested level. And it would divide the funds between SAFER and equipment grants as we've been urged to do by the various fire associations.

Retaining this funding when local governments are cutting firefighter budgets will help preserve public safety and security. This amendment will help keep thousands of firefighters on the job.

And the notion that we are talking here about some kind of Federal take-over of local security responsibilities, I think everyone in this Chamber knows that that is not an accurate characterization of what's going on here. Of course, these expenditures are still mainly occurring at the local level, but we're in a world where our fire departments are being asked to equip themselves in new ways, to train themselves in new ways, to meet new kinds of threats and hazards, and these FIRE grants-- the personnel grants and the equipment grants--have been a critical way of establishing a partnership whereby our local fire departments can do what they need to do in this new era when they confront all kinds of new hazards.

Now, I don't believe the offsets in this amendment are workable at the end of the day. I want to acknowledge that. But the inadequate Republican budget allocation, combined with the decision to transfer $850 million from first responder grants to disaster relief and to refuse emergency designation for disaster relief leaves my colleagues no good place to cut and no good options to find offsets for the absolutely essential restoring of these grants to firefighters.

So I support the amendment, but I will work diligently to restore these funding cuts as the bill progresses; and we will get down, at the end of day, I trust, to responsible budget negotiations with the Senate and the White House.

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

Mr. Chairman, let me state it very plainly: We need to increase funding for Urban Areas Security Initiative grants, UASI grants, to a minimum of the 2011 level of $725 million. I offered amendments in full committee and asked for a waiver from the Rules Committee in order to do just that.

Now, the majority has taken over $2.2 billion appropriated for these grant programs in 2011 and has consolidated them into a block grant of $1 billion. If you take that $1 billion, which includes all of these State and local grants, and then you reduce this for the statutory carve-outs, and then you reduce it again, assuming the minimum statutory funding for the States, what is going to be left? There is going to be half a billion dollars for UASI, for ports, for rail, for transit, and for other key grants all together. This is simply not enough.

Unfortunately, the proposed offset is also unacceptable. This bill, just like the 2011 final CR, greatly reduced fencing, infrastructure, and technology projects to secure our borders. While some of this reduction is due to a termination of the SBInet contract, this proposed additional cut would prevent CBP from acquiring off-the-shelf technology to support our Border Patrol along the southwest border, as well as to conduct pilot projects on our northern border. So the offset would be a damaging reduction.

But this simply illustrates the impossible dilemma posed by this bill. The root problem is an inadequate allocation, and it is compounded by the majority's refusal to call an emergency an emergency.

So I commend the gentleman from Rhode Island for his initiative to address the dangerous gap left by the majority's bill when it comes to protecting our Nation's urban areas.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

The bill before us provides full funding for the Department's request for the 287(g) program, and $1 million more simply is not needed.

The increase proposed by the gentleman comes at the expense of the Secretary for Homeland Security, an account which is already significantly reduced in this bill and will likely be reduced further, based on amendments that we have seen already. Further cuts in these accounts would eliminate key staffing positions, limiting the Department's ability to respond to national emergencies and to provide for stable leadership in the event of a large disaster or a terrorist attack.

I should also note that while this bill slashes funding for many worthwhile and needed Homeland Security programs that support first responders, it cuts Homeland Security research, much-needed research. But the bill piles more funding onto immigration enforcement. In fact, it adds $28 million in unrequested funding for immigration detention and removal.

Now, the bill provides full funding for the Secure Communities program to continue expanding this program across the country, allowing Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, to identify criminal aliens who are in local custody. I bring up the Secure Communities program because it accomplishes the objectives of the 287(g) program but much more efficiently and without deputizing local police to enforce immigration law, a proposition that is rife with complications and potential abuses. So if we were really serious about deficit reduction and efficiency, we would tell ICE to transition out of this duplicative program, 287(g), and to concentrate on making Secure Communities work efficiently and fairly and well to identify and remove convicted criminal aliens.

I'd also like to note for my colleagues that GAO and the Inspector General have reviewed the 287(g) program, in some cases at our subcommittee's request; and they found serious flaws in the implementation of this program and in ICE's ability to oversee its operation in local communities. The IG found 33 major deficiencies in 287(g) last year and then found 16 more when it recently reassessed the program.

So this is an unwise and unneeded amendment, and I urge its rejection.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I would like to yield to my colleague from Texas so that she can respond to the last speaker.

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

I rise in opposition to the amendment.

I will not go on at length.

I simply don't think the case has been made for a further reduction. The suspicious passenger, the observation techniques programs that have been cited aren't even under the jurisdiction of the Under Secretary being cut. And the bill already cuts $4,993,000 off of the fiscal year 2011 level for the Office of Under Secretary for Management; and it cuts $14,118,000 off of the administration's request.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I know this is an easy target. Who knows even what under Secretary for Management does. It's a very common technique around here to go after these accounts, these administrative and front office accounts, just for the sake of cutting or maybe to pay for something else that sounds good. But I don't think it's wise. I don't think it's responsible. And I would urge rejection of the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to briefly address the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 287 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, the question before the House is: Should the House now consider House Resolution 287?

While the resolution waives all points of order against consideration of the bill, the committee is not aware of any points of order. The waiver is prophylactic in nature. Specifically, the Committee on Rules is not aware of any violation of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act nor has the Congressional Budget Office notified the Rules Committee of any violation of the act. Additionally, the open rule before the House today allows any Member of Congress to amend or strike any provision of the bill, which is the ultimate failsafe.

In order to allow the House to continue its scheduled business for the day, I urge Members to vote ``yes'' on the question of consideration of the resolution.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I will note that each of the comments that have been offered from the other side are not relevant to the point of order.

Yet, in response to the comments that have been tendered by my colleagues from the other side of the aisle, I would say that Republicans are not here to destroy Medicare. They are here to save Medicare.

We have put forth a responsible plan that has been openly and continuously debated in the public forum and in this Chamber about how we're going to move forward with the problem that we have in Medicare. It is a problem we cannot deny. Both sides of the aisle know that Medicare is on a path to bankruptcy. We have put forth a plan. We have put forth a plan that guarantees that we can deal with the problem in such a way that those who are on Medicare are not impacted and that those within a generation of retiring into Medicare are not impacted. Yet we're villainized by the other side for allegedly throwing grandma off the cliff--for taking away Medicare.

That is not being honest with the American public. We will be honest with the American public. We recognize the problem in Medicare. We put forth a plan. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle have not put forth a plan to deal with the problem. They want to engage in electioneering, politicking, and looking at the reelection efforts for 2012.

Well, we are here as members of this caucus and as Members of this body to deal with the problems of America in an honest and open fashion, and that is what we will do.

The House-passed budget guarantees that seniors will have coverage that is affordable. The House-passed budget guarantees seniors will be able to find a plan. It does not end Medicare as we know it. It does not throw our seniors off the cliff. It is a responsible plan that leads us to a situation that deals with the problem of Medicare that is a known problem. If we want to continue to live in denial and not be honest with the American public, then I tell the American people: follow the Democratic proposal of engaging in name-calling rather than sitting down and engaging in problem-solving. That's what we're about.

At this point in time, I urge my colleagues to continue the consideration of the underlying rule and reject this point of order.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

House Resolution 287 provides for an open rule for consideration of H.R. 2017.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 287, to provide the rule for H.R. 2017, the Homeland Security Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2012. I am proud to be managing this rule, the first truly open rule since July 31, 2007, an Agriculture appropriations bill in the 110th Congress. The 112th Congress has made it clear that it supports an open process, and this rule exemplifies this initiative. For 119 Members of the 112th Congress, this is their first experience with an open rule, including six members of the Rules Committee. I am proud to be part of this body and this conference that is engaged in this transparency in government and this open process. Throughout the entire 111th Congress, only 810 amendments were considered. Only 6 months into this, the 112th Congress, 437 amendments have been considered.

The leadership of this Congress is directly listening to the American people and their call for an open and transparent process. In addition, this bill also follows the promise that we have made to the American people in that it does not include any earmarks either in the underlying bill or in the conference report. This commitment is what Americans desire and deserve, and this will continue the process in this Congress that we have committed ourselves to the American people to do.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as he my consume to the chairman of the Rules Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).

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

Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, before I yield to the gentleman from New York, I would just like to make it clear that in our House-passed budget, on page 58, lines 8 and 9, it is clearly articulated there that current Medicare benefits are preserved for those in and near retirement without changes.

I would also note for the record, to clarify and make sure the record is very clear, that the budget that we are talking about is not going to be presented to the President and enacted into law. What we are talking about here is nothing about ending Medicare as we know it.

At this point in time, I yield 2 minutes to my good friend, the chairman, Mr. King from New York.

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to remind my colleagues from the other side of the aisle that the budget

that they so referenced went through an open process. It was subject to debate. It was amended in this Chamber and passed by this body. And if they are so disinclined to approve that budget or stand with that budget, I would ask them to reach out to their colleagues in the opposing Chamber over in the Senate who have not passed a budget for the last 762 days and take the matter up with them.

At this point in time, Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan), chairman of the Budget Committee.

I would like to submit section 501 of House Concurrent Resolution 34 for the Record as we seem to be commenting about it to a great extent this afternoon. I just want the record to be clear.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall).

Mr. Speaker, I feel it is necessary to again correct the record that what we have done in the proposal that has just been referenced by my colleague from California is not to destroy Medicare; it is to save Medicare. In an open and honest way, it's to deal with the problem that we all know Medicare faces. It clearly states in the document, in the resolution that was passed, that any senior who is in Medicare, on Medicare or within a generation of retiring into Medicare will not be impacted by anything that we do in that budget.

I would also remind my colleague from California that we stand here today under a proposed open rule, where this body, this Chamber, will be able to express its will in an open and traditional process of open amendments.

Let me make clear to the American people what that means. That means that any elected Member of this Congress can come down and speak the voice of his or her constituents and offer amendments that can be debated on the floor of this House in an open and transparent manner-- on TV, in their living rooms--so that the American people know what we are doing in this Chamber.

I applaud you, Mr. Speaker, for honoring that commitment that you set forth when you assumed that chair.

At this point in time, Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my good friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Southerland).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Yoder).

Mr. Speaker, I would like to clarify for the record again that this proposed resolution that we are debating, this rule on Homeland Security appropriations, that is Homeland Security funding, it is but a simple resolution. It is not law. It will not become law. That is clearly articulated in the parliamentary guide entitled ``How Our Laws Are Made'' on pages 8 and 9.

So I again feel compelled to clarify the record to assure that this rule will not end Medicare. And even as our budget clearly states, Medicare under our budget will be saved. Not one senior on Medicare will be impacted by any action in that budget.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the Chair how much time both sides have.

I yield 1 minute to my good friend, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall).

I continue to reserve the balance of my time, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

We have had a spirited debate on the floor of this Chamber over this rule. I applaud that debate because that's what the American people sent us here to do, which is to have the debate in an open process on TV in front of the American people. And that's what this rule does.

This rule is a true open rule where any Member of this Chamber-- Democrat or Republican--can come down and submit an amendment, debate it in front of the American people, and have it voted on by each and every Member of this House so that this House will speak its will. I applaud our Speaker for accomplishing that clear goal he set out.

But as we have this debate, Mr. Speaker, I remind all my colleagues that America also sent us a message last November that we need to be honest with the American people. It means that we do not play games in this Chamber. And nothing could be further from the truth than the constant arguments that we had to stand up and clarify that this rule kills Medicare as we know it.

This rule has no legal effect. This rule will not be presented to the President for signature and become law of the land. And mind you, the reference to the House Republican budget, the ``Paul Ryan'' budget, the provision that has been talked about here to great extent clearly states that it is the policy of this Chamber, the policy as set forth in that budget, that all those on Medicare will not be impacted by that budget. All those seniors who are within 10 years of retiring and becoming eligible for Medicare will not be impacted by that budget.

We are acting in a responsible manner on this side of the aisle. And we are dealing with dire times. I was a little disappointed that we didn't have a more spirited debate on the actual substance of the rule that guides the bill upon which it applies, and that is the Homeland Security appropriations bill.

We live in dire fiscal times in the United States of America. And we're going to be honest with the American people: We have to make some tough choices. But this should send a message

to every man, woman, and child in America that the days of reckless spending have caught up to us because we do have to have the debate of where we're going to cut. And we are talking about cuts in the areas of homeland security. We better wake up as a body and as a Chamber and recognize that if we don't get our fiscal house in order not only will we jeopardize our national security, we will go bankrupt. That ends America as we know it. And also, it will destroy the American market that we are trying to ignite in our private sector because if we do not send a message that we've got our fiscal house in order, then people are not going to invest in America, and that will not put people back to work and put people back onto a payroll.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying bill.

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

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the LaTourette-Pascrell amendment, and I too recognize the challenges that Mr. Aderholt and Mr. Price faced in the confines of trying to address some difficult times. But as a Member of the Homeland Security Committee, I believe it is imperative that we look at the reality of the world in which we live. In an article dated April 24, 2011, out of the State of Texas, reads: hundreds of weary firefighters were racing against the clock on Sunday, pushing back massive brush fires that have destroyed near-record swatches of Texas countryside. Firefighters were hoping to make as much progress as possible before low humidity and strong winds set the stage for more potential flare-ups late Monday and Tuesday.

Fires were still burning in Texas. Firefighters are still being called upon. Cities and States across America are laying off firefighters. And we are reminded of the needs, if you will, that were addressed on 9/11 when firefighters from the City of New York rushed in to save their fellow New Yorkers and others, and many of them, many of them perished.

They are, in fact, first responders. And I believe it is important that we make the sacrifice, we find the adequate offset, and we support this amendment. I'm also reminded of a story that many of you may have heard, the sad story, it aired on local television, where firefighters from some locality watched while a man drowned and could not save him. The reasoning was that the particular team that would have had the skills and the equipment to save this drowning man in what has been called the most powerful Nation in the world, was fired, laid off, eliminated. And, therefore, from the shoreline many looked in horror as this particular man drowned.

Is this what America has come to?

I believe this amendment is extremely important, one, to be able to show appreciation to the firefighters across America who come to the aid of those in need from different States when a crisis or tragedy occurs.

I heard someone mention, it might have been Mr. LaTourette, but who is it that plucks you out of a burning house or rescues, when they do have the resources or the team, out of a predicament where you are stranded in some crisis, whether it is drowning, whether it's a fire, whether it is an emergency health condition or whether or not they are confronting a terrorist act? Firefighters are truly our first responders.

In the City of Houston they are considering closing out or shutting down 600-plus police officers. And firefighters have the same concerns.

So I think it is very important that we own up to our duties. And as I mentioned in a metaphor before, let the American people be winners today. Let the firefighters be present and accounted for. And let us be reminded of their great heroic acts of 9/11. This 10th year anniversary, let us not say thank you in the way that we deny them funding, but let us say thank you in the way that we provide them with the funding that they need.

I ask my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, I have served on the Homeland Security Committee, tragically, since the formation of the select committee and then ultimately the full committee.

For many of us who were here in the United States Congress and watched the plane attack the Pentagon and ultimately visited Ground Zero in the early stages are well aware of the need to protect America. As the ranking member of the Transportation Security Committee, working with my colleague from Alabama, the chairman, we well recognize the importance of transportation facilities and modes.

For some reason, terrorists are attracted to airlines and freeways and trains. So this amendment is a very simple amendment that I believe provides security to the American public.

It was no doubt that after the killing of Osama bin Laden discovered papers suggested that al Qaeda operatives were considering attacking the U.S. rail system on the 10-year anniversary of the September 11 attacks. Yes, it was 2010, but if we recall, we were unaware that we were going to be attacked on 9/11. Los Angeles MTA planned security upgrades in response to bin Laden's killing and the discovery of rail attack plans. That is the American public's sensitivity, that we must protect our modes of transportation.

My amendment is a simple amendment that restores $5 million to the Transportation Security account at the President's submitted request by

reducing the Office of the Under Secretary for Management and Transportation Threat Assessment and Credentialing.

Since the demise of Osama bin Laden, it has come to light that al Qaeda had ambitious plans to launch an attack against our Nation's mass transit system and their riders, our constituents. Now more than ever we must ensure that our mass transit and surface transportation is secure by developing risk-based policies and programs that devote appropriate resources to securing these systems against a terrorist attack. This amendment would increase the surface transportation security account at TSA by $5 million, bringing the account in line with the President's request for FY 2012. In Washington terms, $5 million may not sound like much, but it is a critical increase to the Surface Transportation Security account at TSA, which has historically been underfunded. This account funds frontline homeland security personnel in the form of surface transportation inspectors who, in addition to reviewing regulatory compliance, consult with transit agencies and rail companies in improving security infrastructure and operational protocols.

The American public, whether it's Amtrak or long-distance rail, need our involvement. We cannot afford to diminish the protection of our rail lines that grandmothers and grandchildren, college students and commuters use. This is a smart investment at a critical time. Be reminded, we got no notice about 9/11, and we will get no notice about attacks on our rail system.

To fund this increase, my amendment simply reduces $2.5 million from two different accounts. This is a wise decision at this time to help our communities and mitigate the terrorist threat to our local transit systems, as well as to improve security for passenger and freight rail. Just be the community that would be impacted by a horrific terrorist act. Whether it is through the neighborhoods of Houston, whether it's in Los Angeles or the Midwest, all of our communities and constituents are serviced by some form of surface transportation or mass transit, and as we have seen abroad, this mode of transportation is vulnerable to terrorist attack. From Spain to London, they know the truth, and we must stand vigilant. Providing this increased funding for our surface transportation inspectors is a wise investment on behalf of the American people, and I ask my colleagues to support this amendment.

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

I thank the ranking member.

I think it's important; I listened to the gentleman, Mr. Aderholt, list a lot of numerical and factual points about personnel. Let me be very clear, as Senator Lieberman said, all of our systems need to be on high alert and all of our citizens need to be on high alert as we approach the 10th anniversary of 9/11.

It is clear, Mr. Chairman, and my colleagues, that something is awry with al Qaeda. Al Qaeda is interested in transportation modes, and they're interested in our rail systems. They have already done Mumbai, they have done London, and they have done Madrid; and therefore, they are looking at the United States. No, we don't have specifics, but we do have the potential of our rail lines crossing America being ripe targets for al Qaeda. This is a very small amount that would allow us to have surface inspectors who are truly crucial to the protection of the Nation's mass transit, freight, and long-distance rail.

Every State is impacted, from New Hampshire to Florida, from the Midwest to the West, Texas. Houston has as its city insignia a rail. Why? Because trains crisscross our community. Therefore, I think it behooves us to be bipartisan and to actually support an amendment that provides a cushion of protection and a cushion and an armor, if you will, against the thoughts and the mindsets of al Qaeda. Yes, they are franchised, they are splintered, but that makes it all the easier for them to find their way here to the United States.

I remind my colleagues that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. I ask my colleagues to consider the small investment it would take to be able to secure the Nation's railways. And as a member of the Homeland Security Committee, the authorizing committee, I can assure you that we are seeing these kinds of threats in terms of the vastness of our system, and we need to be able to protect our system.

I ask my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. Chair, I rise before you and my colleagues to take the opportunity to explain my amendment to H.R. 2017, ``Making appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2012, and for other purposes.'' My amendment would increase the Transportation Security Administration's (TSA) Surface Transportation Security's account by $5 million and restore funding for this account at the President's submitted request, offset by reducing the Office of the Under Secretary for Management, and Transportation Threat Assessment and Credentialing (TTAC).

Since the demise of Osama bin Laden, it has come to light that al- Qaeda had ambitious plans to launch an attack against our Nation's mass transit systems and their riders, our constituents.

Now more than ever, we must ensure that our mass transit and surface transportation is secure by developing risk-based policies and programs that devote appropriate resources to securing these systems against terrorist attack.

This amendment would increase the Surface Transportation Security account at TSA by $5 million, bringing the account in line with the President's request for FY 2012.

In Washington terms, $5 million may not sound like much, but it is a critical increase to the Surface Transportation Security account at TSA, which has historically been underfunded.

This account funds front line homeland security personnel in the form of surface transportation inspectors who, in addition to reviewing regulatory compliance, consult with transit agencies and rail companies in improving security infrastructure and operational protocols.

Surface inspectors also help disseminate best practices to transit and rail entities across the Nation.

This is a smart investment at a critical time for surface transportation security.

To fund this increase, my amendment reduces $2.5 million from the Transportation Threat and Credentialing program and $2.5 million from the Office of the Under Secretary for Management at the Department of Homeland Security. Both of these programs are well funded--TTAC at $183 million and the Under Secretary's office at $234 million.

This is a wise decision at this time to help our communities address and mitigate the terrorist threat to our local transit systems, as well as for improving security for passenger and freight rail.

All of our communities and constituents are serviced by some form of surface transportation or mass transit, and as we have seen abroad, this mode of transportation is vulnerable to terrorist attack.

We must be vigilant in recognizing the threat, make wise investment in security, and collaborate with industry stakeholders to secure this transportation mode that is essential to our economy and way of life.

Mr. Chair, I ask my colleagues to support my amendment.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, not only does this rule before the House drastically shortchange Homeland Security priorities,

but this rule puts into force by deeming and passing the Republican budget resolution.

This rule, section 2, states very clearly that the Republican budget resolution shall have force and effect. That is the traditional language of a deem and pass. Yes, this budget deems passed the elimination of Medicare in order to keep in place tax cuts for the highest earners and tax breaks for oil.

And while I do thank the majority for offering up the first open rule during my tenure in the House, I ask at what price. Well, I think there would be broad bipartisan support for an open rule. I, for one, cannot support a rule that deems passed the elimination of Medicare. Americans resoundingly opposed the approach of dismantling Medicare. They want us to put our economy on more secure fiscal footing and do it while strengthening our economy, creating jobs and mending, not ending, Medicare.

I would like to quote former Minority Leader John Boehner in reference to the approach of ``deem and pass'' that was considered by the then-majority Democrats with regard to the health care bill. Then- Minority Leader Boehner said, ``This legislative trick has been around for a long time, but it's never been used for a bill so controversial and so massive in scope.''

I will not yield.

What could be more massive than an elimination of Medicare contained in a rule rather than approach a simple vote on appropriations with regard to Medicare, cutting Medicare, bills with regard to Medicare reform?

This is the most sweeping rule that I've certainly ever faced in my time in the House of Representatives, and I think many of my colleagues agree.

The passage of this rule alone would simply end Medicare as we know it by construing in the deem and pass of the bill itself the operative language. And let me explain how this works for some of our colleagues.

Rules have broad authority. And I know the chairman of the Rules Committee, Mr. Dreier, will on his own time be able to talk of it. The Rules Committee, by the good graces of the House with our rules passing the House, has the ability to accomplish whatever the House allows us to through a rule.

So in this rule, the House will deem under section 2 that the Ryan budget, the budget that ends Medicare, the Republican budget, shall have force and effect until a conference report passes and that will likely not occur unless the Republicans alter their negotiating position vis-a-vis the Senate and vis-a-vis the President.

I strongly urge a ``no'' vote on eliminating Medicare contained in section 2 of this rule.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself 30 seconds.

Of course while the underlying merits of the Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill are critical, and if the rule passes they'll be debated under the underlying rule, eliminating Medicare as we know it is even more important to the American people. Hence the discussion under this rule as well.

I should point out that while this is an open rule, again as a member of the minority I'm deeply appreciative for the chance to amend the provisions of the Department of Homeland Security bill. If this rule passes, it will be too late to save Medicare under the bill. The very passage of this rule itself will deem passed the budget that contains the elimination of Medicare.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan, the ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Levin.

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

Mr. Speaker, again, while the majority is claiming this to be an open rule, the very passage of the rule itself deems passed the Republican budget that ends Medicare. That will not be amendable in any way, shape, or form in the general debate. All that will be amendable are provisions relating to the Department of Homeland Security.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland, the ranking member of the Budget Committee, Mr. Van Hollen.

I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi, the ranking member on Homeland Security, Mr. Thompson.

I yield the gentleman 30 additional seconds, Mr. Speaker.

The Democrats have no problem with the open rule. What the Democrats have a problem with is the elimination of Medicare, which is deemed and passed in the language of the rule itself and cannot be amended after the passage of the rule.

It is my honor to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California, the Democratic leader, Ms. Pelosi.

A point of parliamentary inquiry.

If this rule is passed, would an amendment be germane that would restore Medicare under the budget?

Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Sanchez).

I yield the gentlewoman an additional 15 seconds.

I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko).

Mr. Speaker, if this rule passes, an amendment will not be in order to restore Medicare under the bill. Again, while this claims to be an open rule--and it is for purposes of Department of Homeland Security amendments--it cannot be amended to undo the budget that is deemed passed in the rule, itself.

With that, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

The gentleman mentioned the open rule. The open rule itself is largely noncontroversial with strong support from both sides of the aisle.

What is contained in this rule is the broadest sweeping policy change in recent history, namely, the elimination of Medicare. That is the controversial element of this rule, which is deemed and passed by the rule itself.

With that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

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

Again, I have to disagree with my friend from New York. I have never seen in my 3 years on the Rules Committee such a broad and sweeping deem-and-pass under a rule. Section 2 of the rule clearly states that the House Concurrent Resolution 34 shall have force and effect. Again ``force and effect,'' the traditional language of something that is deemed and passed under a rule. The mere passage of this rule will deem and pass the end of Medicare as we know it as contained in House Concurrent Resolution 34, the Republican budget.

I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutch).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi).

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

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In addition to moving forward the Homeland Security bill under an open rule--which would have strong bipartisan support, and I praise my colleagues on the Rules Committee and hope that this is the first of many open rules. In addition to moving forward the Homeland Security bill under the rule, this rule includes language ``deeming'' the Ryan budget passed. That's right. We're voting once again on the same plan that the American people resoundingly rejected in last week's special election in New York.

If this rule passes, the Ryan budget, which ends Medicare, will become the final, enforceable budget on the House side until a conference report is adopted, which is unlikely to happen in this Congress, especially if the House Republicans continue to insist on the end of Medicare as a condition of passing a final budget. A ``yes'' vote on this rule is a ``yes'' vote on the Ryan plan and a ``yes'' vote to eliminate Medicare.

Now, this is the sixth time in 36 years that the House and Senate will fail to adopt a budget, and the House has used deeming resolutions in the past. However, never has a deeming resolution been used for such a tremendous policy change, namely, the elimination of Medicare.

As then-Minority Leader John Boehner said, ``This legislative trick has been around for a long time, but it's never been used for a bill so controversial and so massive in scope.''

Now that, Mr. Speaker, was in reference to the Democratic efforts last session to pass the Affordable Care Act. The deem and pass was not used at the end of the day to pass that bill; yet here we are in the 112th Congress with the Republicans seeking to use it to end Medicare. And, yes, no bones about it, we are talking about ending Medicare.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, and our bipartisan study group has confirmed, a typical beneficiary would spend more for health care under the proposal than under the Congressional Budget Office's long-term scenarios. Second, the government's contribution would grow more slowly than health care costs, leaving more for beneficiaries to pay.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, we are talking about the elimination of Medicare under this rule. Not even under a bill with debate on both sides. Not even amendable. A rule is not amendable. Although this rule provides for debate of the Homeland Security bill, which will be fair and allow amendments to be put forth by both parties under it, the rule itself, Mr. Speaker, is not amendable. It's immutable, unchangeable, and, if passed by this body of the House of Representatives, will deem a budget passed that eliminates Medicare for the American people.

I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule, and I also will be opposing the underlying bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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