Honoring the life of Dr. D. James Kennedy.

I have an amendment at the desk.

I thank the chairman of the committee and the ranking member.

Mr. Chairman, this is a very challenging process that we are going through. It is challenging because we are addressing homeland security in the backdrop of the crisis in Libya, of the Arab Spring, of the demise and end of Osama bin Laden by the brilliance of the Navy SEALs, of the intelligence community, of President Obama, and of course in the backdrop of domestic disasters: from Texas fires to tornadoes from New England to Alabama to Missouri.

But there is something that we can do.

We can recognize that there was no appointment made for 9/11. No notice was given to us on 9/11. There were indicators of individuals learning to fly or to take off but not landing. So post-9/11 we came up with the enhanced concept of ensuring that we had Federal Air Marshals. I'm glad for that. Yet I think it is important now, in the neighborhood that we're living in, in the climate that we're living in and in the interests of terrorists--lone wolves, franchise terrorists--to attack our mobility or transit systems, which include aviation, for us to focus on ensuring that there is no undermining of the utilization strategically of air marshals to protect the American public. I can just cite, Mr. Chairman, the incidences that have occurred in the backdrop of Libya: individuals domestically charging the pilot door, passengers having to bring down disturbed individuals. The air skyways, if you will, are both exciting and potentially troubling and dangerous.

My amendment ensures that the Federal Air Marshals are effectively using their funds to deploy personnel on inbound flights that are considered high risk by the Department of Homeland Security and that there is no limitation on that ability. They are one of our first lines of defense in defending the cockpit and aircraft cabin against terrorist attacks. As the ranking member on a Transportation subcommittee, I have worked over the years and have sponsored legislation to see that we have enough air marshals and that they will receive all the requisite training to effectively secure aircraft.

Make no mistake, the threat to our aviation system from aircraft inbound to the United States from foreign airports is serious and dangerous just as it is on our rail system. On Christmas Day 2009, we saw the underwear bomber try to ignite PETN and destroy a plane over Detroit. We need air marshals. As I indicated, the demise of Osama bin Laden has caused many to rise up and to begin to think: What is their next effort in attack, if you will, on the issue of aviation security?

While my amendment deals with the threat on inbound aircraft to the U.S., its ultimate impact will be to ensure that air marshals are assigned to the highest risks. I also intend to move forward on my FAMs legislation, which will provide training and increased productivity but also personnel. Yet this clearly goes to the heart of the problem: Protect the American public. Protect them as they travel domestically. Protect them as they travel internationally.

If you ever for a moment doubt the potential of havoc, then you just need to look to that Christmas Day--to that unexpected act of the so- called ``underwear bomber,'' or, if you will, of the shoe bomber, of some years past. Then, if you want to bring it closer to home, you go back 3 or 4 weeks ago and see the series of incidences that required passengers and flight attendants to be engaged.

I ask my colleagues to support this amendment. It is in the form of a limitation that no funds should be used to limit the enhanced utilization, which will require creative thinking and the ability to use resources effectively. The bill actually says that we should have two FAMs inbound: two undesignated, unnoted individuals who can provide a cover and a buffer from what has to be a very bad climate.

Let me thank the Federal Air Marshals as well for their service. Let me thank those under Homeland Security for their service, including my friends at the Transportation Security Administration. They are in a tough, tough neighborhood.

I close by simply saying there will be an amendment on the floor dealing with collective bargaining for TSOs. In my capacity on that committee, let me say that collective bargaining has no impact on the great work of the TSOs. So I ask my colleagues to support my 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.'' Mr. Chair, I am offering a limitation amendment that prohibits any funds in the Homeland Appropriations Act from being used to interfere with the deployment of federal air marshals.

My amendment would ensure that the federal air marshals are effectively using their funds to deploy personnel on inbound flights that are considered high-risk by the Department of Homeland Security's risk models.

Mr. Chair, I believe that federal air marshals are the last line of defense in defending the cockpit and aircraft cabin against terrorist attack.

As a Member of the Transportation Security Subcommittee of the Committee on Homeland Security, I have worked over the years and sponsored legislation to ensure that we have enough air marshals and that they receive all the requisite training to effectively secure aircraft.

On January 5, 2011, I introduced House Resolution 71, the Federal Air Marshals Augmentation Act of 2011. A measure that directs the Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security (DHS) for the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) to increase the number of federal air marshals by at least an additional 1,750 above the number of such marshals as of January 31, 2010, to ensure increased transportation security for inbound international flights.

This bill doubles the number of inbound international flights with air marshals onboard, without reducing domestic coverage. Makes criminal investigator training mandatory for all air marshals. Codifies the FAMS Office of the Ombudsman, and directs the Ombudsman to implement personnel policies as previously recommended by the DHS OIG and the GAO. This bill also requires semiannual reports to Congress on this augmentation implementation and on personnel incidents and issues.

Make no mistake--the threat to our aviation system from aircraft inbound to the United States from foreign airports is serious and dangerous.

On Christmas Day 2009, we saw the underwear bomber try to ignite P-E- T-N and destroy a plane over Detroit.

And following the demise of Osama bin Laden, there were numerous suspicious activities even on domestic aircraft where passengers were attempting to open cabin doors in flight or otherwise disrupt flights.

Are we sufficiently prepared for addressing the terrorist threat to aviation?

While my amendment deals with the threat on inbound aircraft to the U.S., its ultimate impact will be to ensure that air marshals are assigned to the highest-risk flights.

It simply directs the Secretary of Homeland Security to enhance air marshal coverage on inbound high-risk flights in accordance with the Department's risk model.

This is an allocation of people issue, not a funding issue, and this amendment is budget neutral.

Mr. Chair, I ask my colleagues to support amendment 130 to the Homeland Security Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2012.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, my amendment is simple. It would prohibit funds from being used to design, develop or procure Coast Guard Offshore Patrol Cutters unless the main diesel engines are manufactured in the United States and made by American workers. To address any concerns that this could be a single-source contract, this provision may be waived to ensure competition and best value to the American taxpayer.

The Coast Guard plans to build and procure 25 or more Offshore Patrol Cutters in the coming years. And I fully support this acquisition program. However, I believe that the Coast Guard should be required to purchase engines manufactured in the United States made by American workers.

For some reason, though, the Coast Guard has a history of buying ship engines from foreign manufacturers. We also know that the Coast Guard has a history of designing ship platforms which give preference to overseas manufacturers, resulting in major contracts going to foreign manufacturers.

This practice is driving American manufacturers out of business.

Although Congress required that vessels for the Coast Guard be manufactured in the United States starting back in 1993, in recent years, the Coast Guard has continued to procure vessel engines from foreign manufacturers.

Mr. Chairman, this is just plain wrong. The Offshore Patrol Cutter is a 25-ship class, one of the Coast Guard's largest cutter classes. Making these ships here in America would generate a lot of U.S. manufacturing jobs for many years to come. But absent some direction from this Congress, I believe that the Coast Guard will continue to send American manufacturing jobs overseas. With unemployment at 9 percent, Mr. Chairman, we can no longer tolerate this situation. Let's bring these jobs back home. Let U.S. manufacturers compete for taxpayer dollars.

I want to offer at least one specific example of the Coast Guard's current shortsighted procurement policy--the contract that they gave to MTU, a German manufacturer, for the May propulsion diesel engine of the first National Security Cutter.

This vessel, the US CGC Bertholf, suffered a catastrophic failure, including an explosion and destruction of the piston and connecting rod that had to be replaced. Now, in its solicitation for this replacement, the Coast Guard noted that ``a number of the critical parts are only currently available from the MTU factory in Germany, where these engines are manufactured. These critical parts must be specifically manufactured and have a lead time of 6 to 8 weeks from receipt of order. In addition, these parts must pass through U.S. Customs, which may entail additional delays.''

The Coast Guard purchased these repairs on a sole-source basis from Germany at an estimated cost to the taxpayer of $265,000. U.S. manufacturers never had a chance to compete for these engines and any repair work necessary down the road.

Again, Mr. Chairman, this is just plain wrong.

Getting Americans back to work is my number one priority, and I believe my colleagues would agree with me on this. I know full well these are challenging economic times in my home State of Wisconsin and across the Nation.

Recently, I visited a manufacturing plant located in my district. Workers there are confused. They don't understand why any branch of the Federal Government, much less a branch of homeland defense, would choose to give a major contract to a foreign competitor. The workers I spoke with share the worries of working families across the country: Will they be able to support their families? Will their children have the same opportunities they had, or will they see their jobs shipped overseas?

At the end of the day, this is about doing what is right by our fellow Americans.

Mr. Chairman, isn't keeping capable, hardworking Americans working the essence of homeland security?

In matters of national security in particular, I believe we should ensure that American workers build what we need to keep America safe.

My amendment is a small, but very needed change to the current Coast Guard procurement process. It will

strengthen the U.S. diesel manufacturing base and create many well- paying American jobs.

Mr. Chairman and my fellow colleagues, we have a choice. We can continue funneling good-paying jobs overseas, or we can allow my amendment to move forward, putting the best interests of America's working families and our national security first.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Point of Order

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

Mr. Chairman, we have all witnessed an absolute employment disaster in this country. Last month, we found that the manufacturing sector slowed again. In fact, the number of Americans involved in producing goods is near its lowest point since World War

Mr. Chairman, in 1949 over disputes on land grants, the Congress decided to create what are called Alaska Native Corporations. There are some 200 of them that exist today. When they started out, they received moneys that were small in nature, but nonetheless helpful.

Over the course of decades, what has happened here is an abuse by our Federal employees by using this particular technique, contracting with the Alaska Native Corporation, in order not to competitively bid contracts. They are sole-source contracts. So as a result, by not competitively bidding these contracts, the taxpayers are the big losers. Let me give you just one example.

There was a contract let to the Alaska Native subsidiary that shared the lead on a $1.1 billion contract to manage missile and weapons research in Huntsville, Alabama. Two other inexperienced subsidiaries received contracts without competition worth nearly a billion dollars to provide guards to Army bases. Now, this is pretty simple, colleagues. A billion dollar contract, you run it through the ANC. The result is you don't have to competitively bid it. And what happened here is the work was passed on to Wackenhut, and they overpaid by 25 percent on the contract compared with deals for the same work awarded through competitive bids, auditors later found.

So here is a billion dollar contract; you run it through the ANC; you spend 25 percent more of taxpayer dollars. This is real money. We are talking $250 million overspent because the ANC was used.

Now, you may say, but at least it is going to Alaska Natives. Well, my friends, it is not going to Alaska Natives. What happens, for the most part, is the Alaska Native shareholders receive about $305 per year as a result.

Now, let's look at just one contract for the Sitnasuak. There was a contract for $220 million. There was $14 million worth of profits. Each of the shareholders received $305. But guess what? The people that received most of the money were the nonnatives that were hired. In fact, the consulting firm based in the Bethesda home of James Nunes, a nonnative hired to help run the corporation, he received the tidy sum of $6.4 million last year; his CFO, $1 million; his executive vice president, $470,000; and his COO, $430,000. So that's where the money went.

My amendment would level the playing field and essentially treat all section 8(a) businesses the same. My amendment would prohibit the use of funds in this act to be used to award noncompetitively bid contracts to ANCs, Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations in an amount in excess of the competitive bidding threshold that other section 8 participants are subject to. That is for a $6.5 million manufacturing contract. If it's under 6.5, you don't have to competitively bid. If it's over 6.5, you would have to.

Again, Members, this is an affront to the American taxpayers. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Point of Order

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

Mr. Chair, I rise in support of striking language that would limit UASI funds to the top 10 cities at risk.

Since 2003, Missouri-05, my district, has received over $70 million in UASI funding. Recently, I was informed by DHS that due to the fiscal year 2011 budget cuts, which I did not support, half of the cities that received UASI funding, including Kansas City, Missouri, would lose their funding. This means that Kansas City will not be receiving the funding that we have relied on for the last 7 years.

Limiting FY12 UASI funding to the top 10 cities would, again, detrimentally harm my district. UASI funding in Kansas City has been used for equipment and vehicles to support six rescue teams in four area fire departments. Vehicles and equipment have also been used to support special tactical law enforcement teams, allowing for the response to events where chemicals or special hazards are present as well as a regional multi-band emergency radio that allows for interoperability.

Funding has been used for a regional patient tracking system that enables hospitals and EMS agencies to manage multiple victims from an emergency event. The funding also allows for special mobile units that allow local public health agencies to transport equipment and set up medicine dispensing sites.

Yesterday, The Kansas City Star ran an op-ed I wrote decrying the devastating impact the loss of UASI funds will have not only on Kansas City but the entire State of Missouri. Kansas City has relied on these funds to prevent, protect, and respond to both manmade and natural disasters. Eliminating these funds would greatly hinder the region's ability to continue to enhance these preparedness capabilities. Just 2 weeks ago, three UASI-funded search and rescue vehicles were sent from my community, Kansas City, Missouri, to Joplin, Missouri, to search for survivors after the devastating tornado. Sadly, to date, as of this morning, 134 Missourians have lost their lives to this devastating disaster. However, due to the hard work of Missouri first responders, 144 missing individuals were located. We put the safety and security of our constituents in the hands of first responders, and it would be unconscionable for us to take away the tools they need to continue to save lives.

As the Representative of the Missouri Fifth District, it is my job to work to protect the citizens of my district, and it is my goal to ensure that first responders in Kansas City are given the resources they need to keep our homes secure. As I have said many times, the U.S. budget is a moral document, a bold testimony to our national priorities. It is my priority to fight to provide UASI funding to the Kansas City area. This is why I stand in support of UASI funds and the amendment to restore this funding to more than the top 10 cities that has been offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Higgins).

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

Announcement by the Acting Chair

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

Mr. Chairman, I insist on my point of order.

I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriation bill and, therefore, violates clause 2 of rule XXI.

The rule states in pertinent part: An amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law modifies existing powers and duties.

I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation on an appropriation bill and, therefore, violates clause 2 of rule XXI.

The rule states in pertinent part: An amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order if a change in existing law requires a new determination.

I would ask for a ruling from the Chair.

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

I make a point of order against the amendment because

it proposes to change existing law, and constitutes legislation on an appropriation bill. It therefore violates clause 2 of rule XXI.

The rule states in pertinent part: An amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law requires a new determination.

I request a ruling from the Chair.

Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to accept the gentlelady's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.