Border Security Results Act of 2013

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the consideration of H.R. 2217 and that I may include tabular material on the same.

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

It was 69 years ago this Thursday that more than 9,000 Allied soldiers were killed or wounded during the D-day invasion in Normandy, France. That courageous operation, as well as the sacrifice of so many brave individuals, serves as a sobering reminder that freedom and security are, in fact, not free.

It is with this solemn commitment to both freedom and security that I respectfully present to the people's House the fiscal year 2014 appropriations bill for the Department of Homeland Security. Similar to our subcommittee's work over the past 3 fiscal years, this bill demonstrates how we can fund vital security programs and enforce the law while also reducing discretionary spending overall. So this bill is about our security and fiscal priorities and getting them right.

The President's fiscal year 2014 budget proposal for DHS presents a harmful budget for our frontline homeland security agencies, diminishing their operational workforces and undermining mission capabilities. The end result of the President's budget proposal would, undoubtedly, be a less capable DHS. That's why our subcommittee, on a bipartisan basis, strove to significantly improve the flawed budget request through this bill before the House today.

First, this bill targets the very programs and systems displayed during and after the recent horrific attack at the Boston Marathon. It does this by a nearly 20 percent increase above the request for FEMA's first responder grants; substantial increases above the request and last year's level for CBP's targeting, TSA's Secure Flight, and ICE's visa enforcement programs, including the phase-in of 1,600 additional CBP officers; doubling the Department's Bombing Prevention program, substantially increasing counter-IED training and applying the lessons learned from our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; and a nearly 40 percent increase in the program If You See Something, Say Something.

In addition, the bill restores virtually all of the unjustified proposed cuts to DHS' operational programs, to include restoring the cuts to ICE's mandated 34,000 detention beds and vital investigative programs; restoring cuts to the Coast Guard's operational expenses, including aviation and flight hours, as well as restoring the President's truly harmful cuts to recapitalization and acquisitions of cutter and aviation assets; restoring the proposed cuts to CBP air and marine operating hours and procurement, as well as mission support functions; restoring the proposed long-term cuts to Secret

Service staffing and financial crime investigations; and providing these restorations while also strongly supporting the Department's disaster relief, cybersecurity and research programs, including the full-year construction increment for the National Agro-and Bio-Defense facility in Kansas.

This bill also considers our Nation's fiscal crisis by invoking real fiscal discipline and efficiency, including a more than $613 million-- or more than 1.5 percent--reduction below fiscal year 2013 to the Department's annual budget; a 15 percent cut below the request to DHS headquarters staffing; a nearly 25 percent cut below the request to departmental administrative expenses and bureaucratic overhead; denial of the President's request to increase bureaucracy by creating three new headquarters offices; termination of funding for ineffectual offices and programs and substantial oversight requirements, ranging from withholding funds to statutory mandates to reporting requirements on everything from major acquisitions to ammunition inventories, purchases, and usage.

Mr. Chairman, this bill does not represent a false choice between fiscal responsibility and security. Both are urgent priorities, and both are vigorously addressed by this bill.

I must note that DHS did a shameful job in complying with statutory requirements enacted into law FY13. Those failures are certainly addressed in this bill. We are serious about compelling the Department to both enforce the law and comply with the law, and we will not tolerate further failures in this regard, a point I think we make clear in this bill through 50 percent withholdings to the Department's executive offices and 50 percent reductions to offices that are delaying the review and submittal of needed, factual information requested by Congress.

On a final and regrettably sober note, my staff and I have been regularly talking with our dear friend and my classmate, Tom Cole, and doing all that we can to help the good people of his Oklahoma district get back on their feet from the devastating tornado that hit the town of Moore and surrounding communities.

So, in addition to the nearly $11 billion that is currently in FEMA coffers, this bill fully supports the known requirements of $6.2 billion for the disaster relief fund in FY14. These funds, combined with our continued oversight, will help ensure disaster assistance rapidly gets to those who've lost so much. Mr. Chairman, we send Tom and his constituents our sincere condolences and wish them a speedy recovery.

In closing, let me first thank Ranking Member Price for his statesmanship and partnership. I sincerely thank him and his dedicated professional staff for their input and notable contributions to this bill.

In addition, let me thank the thoughtful Members of this body. We received program submissions from 222 Members, and their input was critical to our oversight work over the past few months, as well as the production of this bill. I know that my staff and I made every effort to accommodate virtually every Member's submission we received, and that has only made this a stronger product.

Finally, I must thank the distinguished chairman and ranking member of the full committee, Chairman Rogers and Mrs. Lowey. Their input and support for the bill is genuinely appreciated.

I sincerely believe this bill reflects our best effort to address our Nation's urgent needs: security, enforcement, and fiscal restraint.

I urge my colleagues to support this measure, and I reserve the balance of my time.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH05JN13.001

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH05JN13.002

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH05JN13.003

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH05JN13.004

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH05JN13.005

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH05JN13.006

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH05JN13.007

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH05JN13.008

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH05JN13.009

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH05JN13.010

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH05JN13.011

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH05JN13.012

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH05JN13.013

Mr. Chairman, at this time I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, who is the former founding chairman of this subcommittee and a former great prosecutor from the State of Kentucky.

Mr. Chairman, at this time I yield 3 minutes to my colleague from the great State of Texas, (Mr. McCaul), the chairman of the full Committee on Homeland Security.

Mr. Chairman, at this time I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Aderholt), a former chairman of this subcommittee and currently chairman of the Appropriations Committee's Subcommittee on Agriculture.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished member of our subcommittee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

At this time I yield 2 minutes to a very distinguished member of our subcommittee from the great of State of Tennessee (Mr. Fleischmann).

Mr. Chairman, at this time I'd like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), who is the chairman of the Coast Guard and Maritime Subcommittee of the full committee.

Mr. Chairman, at this time I would like to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from the State of Pennsylvania (Mr. Barletta). He is the chairman of the committee that authorizes

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, this amendment is unnecessary since the bill already includes ample funding for necessary oversight of ICE's 287(g) program. In fact, on page 11 of the bill's accompanying report, it states:

Included within the amount recommended for the Office of

Civil Rights and Civil Liberties is a total of $2,394,000 for

reviews of 287(g) agreements and ICE's Secure Communities.

These funds are in addition to the ongoing work of ICE's

Office of Professional Responsibility and the DHS Office of

Inspector General, who reviews 287(g) agreements for

compliance.

So, while I certainly support robust oversight and also demand ICE's compliance with all applicable laws and standards therein pertaining to civil liberties and civil rights, I cannot support additional bureaucracy.

Furthermore, the offset to this amendment will cut CBP's Automation Modernization account--a cut that will impede CBP's processing of trade and result in longer wait times at our ports of entry, which are detrimental impacts to our economy which none of us can afford to accept.

Finally, I think I need to remind Members that the President's budget request decimated operational staffing and enforcement programs. This bill reversed that flawed approach and is holding DHS headquarters' resources in check. Therefore, I cannot support an amendment that increases headquarters staffing beyond what is necessary or what can be afforded, and does so at the expense of our economy.

Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge my colleagues to support fiscal discipline, support economic growth, and vote ``no'' on this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, at this time, I want to congratulate Mr. Reichert for his amendment. I think it is necessary, and I approve of it.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Robust enforcement of our immigration laws is critical to our national security. Clearly, the 287(g) program supports that goal.

Under the 287(g) program, ICE enters into a partnership with State and local enforcement agencies and authorizes them to remove criminal aliens who are a threat to local communities. In effect, the program acts as a force multiplier and ensures more resources to enforce immigration laws and policy. In fact, since January of 2006, the 287(g) program is credited with identifying more than 279,311 potentially removable aliens, mostly at local jails.

ICE's cross-designation of more than 1,500 State and local patrol officers, detectives, investigators, and correctional officers allows them to pursue a wide range of investigations, such as human smuggling, gang/organized crime activity, and money laundering. In addition, participating entities are eligible for increased resources and support in more remote geographic locations.

Currently, ICE has 287(g) agreements with 75 law enforcement agencies in 24 States. Utilizing these funds as an offset takes resources from local sheriffs, police officers, and other first responders and puts it in the hands of a bureaucrat at DHS headquarters.

And while I appreciate the gentleman's suggestion that the deficit is too high, I reject his choice of balancing the budget by jeopardizing public safety and law enforcement.

To his point that the deficit must be reduced, let me point my colleagues to other provisions in the bill that instill fiscal discipline by cutting departmental administrative expenses and bureaucratic overhead by nearly 25 percent and by denying the President's request to create three new offices.

For these reasons, I oppose the amendment, urge Members to join me in opposition, and yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am happy to accept this amendment from my colleague and friend, Judge Poe, which provides $10 million for CBP to procure additional equipment for surveillance and detection at both the southern and northern borders.

Some of the technological solutions CBP procures for border security include integrated fixed towers, tactical communication, and tethered aerostat radar systems. All these systems increase situational awareness and assist law enforcement personnel as they identify and resolve illegal activity. In effect, they become a workforce multiplier, freeing agents to focus on other vital tasks like identifying, tracking, interdicting, and resolving events along the border.

The bill before us today was born out of a need for reform. It consolidates disparate grant programs, provides discretion to the Secretary while balancing fiscal discipline.

In total, this bill provides for $2.5 billion for Homeland Security First Responder Grants. This is $400 million above the President's request for fiscal year 2014 and $35 million above fiscal year 2013.

This bill prioritizes our funding. The consolidation in this bill forces the Secretary to examine the intelligence and risk and put scarce dollars where they are needed most, whether it is 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.

This does not mean lower-risk cities will lose all funding. It means the funds will come from other programs,

such as State homeland grants that are risk-and formula-based.

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

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I accept the gentleman's amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I accept this good amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to accept the amendment. I, too, have concerns about surface rail.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Not only do I oppose the increase of $10 million for additional CBP officers; I oppose the offset suggested to pay for the increase.

As drafted, the bill provides for $105 million for hiring 1,600 officers over a 2-year period. In fact, we provide funds sufficient to cover the costs of no less than 21,186 CBP officers, which sets a historical precedent.

The reason we took this incremental approach into hiring 1,600 new officers is because CBP's staffing and deployment plan was not linked to its goals for border security. To address these concerns, the report includes language directing CBP to provide a more complete 5-year staffing and deployment plan.

Furthermore, an internal audit revealed systemic failures within CBP's budget formulation for salaries and benefits of its operational workforce. And though I believe taking a go-slow approach to hiring just makes sense, I oppose the offset, which decreases funds for the 287(g) program.

Under the 287(g) program, ICE enters into partnerships with State and local law enforcement agencies and authorizes them to remove criminal aliens who are a threat to local communities. In effect, the program acts as a force multiplier to ensure more resources to enforce immigration laws and policies. In fact, since 2006, the 287 program has been credited with identifying more than 279,311 potentially removable aliens, mostly from local jails.

So I oppose this amendment and yield back the balance of my time.

I would like to accept this amendment and yield back the balance of my time.

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

I rise in opposition to this amendment, which strikes the legal requirement for 34,000 detention beds.

The simple fact is that sovereign countries control their borders and have an immigration system with integrity that adheres to the rule of law.

This last Friday, I visited the ICE facility in Houston, Texas. I find it interesting the numbers that they explained to me that were going on today in the Houston-Corpus Christi region, which takes in the entire gulf coast of Texas along with what we call the lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas. They informed me that we are having a massive encroachment into our country from across the border right now of approximately 100 OTMs a day in addition to the Mexicans who are coming across the border. It's interesting that we talk as to the alternatives to incarceration. In the Houston office alone, 64,000-plus are on alternatives to incarceration, which is almost double the number of detention beds for the entire United States in one office. So I think, with this, we get a better picture of what this invasion is all about.

The attacks of 9/11 taught us that immigration enforcement matters. It matters to our security. The Boston Marathon attacks underscored this sobering lesson. Each year, more than 1 million aliens attempt to illegally enter the United States without proper documentation, or they enter legally but overstay and violate their visas.

Though reasonable people can disagree, I believe detention beds are a

critical component in enforcing U.S. immigration laws with the detention and eventual removal of those aliens who enter this country illegally. Therefore, the bill recommends $2.8 billion to fully fund ICE's obligation to maintain no fewer than 34,000 beds.

In contrast, the President's request provided funds sufficient to support 31,800 beds, justifying the request by saying there's no need to support 34,000 detention beds, even though, as I speak today, those in detention are at 38,000 beds. So it looks like we've got overage, not shortage.

The facts, however, refute this completely.

First, as of last Friday, more than 38,000 illegal immigrants are being held in ICE custody, many of whom meet the mandatory detention requirements.

Second, by the administration's own estimate, there's at least 1.9 million removable criminal aliens in the United States.

There is general acknowledgement of an illegal alien population of approximately 11 million. That estimate goes up to as high as 20 million in some quarters.

Clearly, detention beds are necessary. This bed mandate is needed.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

I have listened to the arguments from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, and I find it interesting. First, those who cross into our country without and contrary to the laws of this great Nation have committed an illegal act. Calling them not illegal doesn't make them not illegal.

I really would like to point out that we have a curious way to discuss this as a policy; that is, no one here stands responsible for the decision. You know, the alternatives to incarceration were created by judges, and the judicial system stands in a little different situation than the Members of Congress. When one of these people who's let out under alternatives to incarceration in fact commits another criminal act--and believe me, it happens--nothing more than just DWI, when you run over a little kid--the judge, who puts him on that particular forum, is held responsible. And he is now going to read his name in the newspaper that he put that person out that should have been in jail, out on an alternative to incarceration. Or if the person commits another criminal act even more severe--murder, rape, robbery-- if it happens when the judge puts him out on alternatives, the judge has to take the heat.

But as we have this great policy debate in Congress, no one who is arguing to release all these people on alternatives is taking any heat at all on what the accomplishments in the criminal realm will be of those we release.

I approve of alternatives to incarceration. I just told you that 64,000 people alone in the city of Houston's jurisdiction, which is the valley all of the way up to Beaumont, were out on alternatives. But detention beds are also full and overflowing. When I visited the ICE unit there, the red uniforms were the majority, and the red uniforms are criminal aliens. They have committed crimes in this country.

And so I think we are being a little bit safe to make these arguments as we stand here in these hallowed Halls. Never is our name going to appear in any newspaper when one of these people commits an act that causes damage to our fellow citizens. And yet we make this argument very passionately. I just want to remind everybody that we are responsible for those criminal aliens that we release, and criminal aliens are right now being released. And, in fact, Ms. Napolitano, after I asked her specifically, Are you releasing anyone from detention, she looked me right in the eye and said, No. And 2 days later, she released 2,300. And of those 2,300, the top two categories were both represented in that release--the most serious and the second- most serious categories of crimes we hold people for.

So this is a policy. This administration continues to have a policy of not enforcing the law, and, quite frankly, we need this availability of beds so we can enforce the law.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the simple fact is this amendment is unnecessary and harmful to national security, in my opinion.

Now, am I happy with TSA? No. I have criticism of TSA also. Most people who travel have some criticism of TSA. But zeroing out TSA and leaving our airports unsecured is not the solution to the problem.

If the gentleman's argument is that we're being fiscally responsible to do away with the TSA part of this budget, I would argue the contrary. This bill, quite frankly, has made cuts, and, in fact, for 4 years now we have reduced spending in this bill. That's not a good argument.

It's easy to get mad at somebody that interferes with your life every time you travel, especially when you travel every week, but the reality is, this would be a mistake to national security. This would be a mistake to our country.

And even though we have criticism of TSA, our job is to fix TSA, not abolish TSA. And I know there's plenty of folks that think that abolishing it is a good idea, but, quite honestly, it would be a real tragedy to leave our airports undefended. We need to make them better. And I think one of the things we're doing is the oversight that we've provided in this bill so that we can take a hard look at DHS across the board and come up with solutions where things need to be fixed; and, of course, if TSA's on the radar screen, they ought to be fixed.

But I think this is a mistake. I think it's bad policy. I think it's good grandstanding but bad policy, and I oppose the gentleman's amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I share some of these concerns with the gentleman from Colorado, and I believe that outstanding questions still remain over the timeline for replacing the AIT scanners. I expect TSA to sufficiently answer the question posed here today.

I urge TSA to move forward with the replacement of AIT scanners at the affected airports as soon as possible. I commit to the gentleman from Colorado that the committee will look into this issue further and do everything within its power to fix the problem to the extent that it does not cost the American taxpayers more money. It's my understanding that this amendment will not result in the need for additional TSA screeners.

Therefore, I accept the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

I accept the amendment and yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I share the gentleman from North Carolina's concern on that. The House Appropriations Committee included report language asking for final action on this rule. It is well past time to finalize this rule, whose delay has impeded manufacturers in growing critical markets for aviation exports.

Mr. Chairman, I accept this amendment and yield back the balance of my time.

I share the gentlelady's concern of this implication that these are law enforcement officers. It is something that anyone who has ever dealt with law enforcement officers should be worried about, so I thank her for working with us and for explaining to us her concerns. I don't want anyone to be out there fooling the public, having people think they're trained law enforcement officers when they're not. I think that's an important thing at every level of law enforcement.

Representative Blackburn brought this to my attention and to the attention of the committee last year. We appreciate her staying on top of these issues. In fact, I asked the staff to look into this matter earlier this year. As a result, as she has described, this bill cuts the screeners' uniforms by $18 million, which is about a 20 percent decrease. In fact, this bill calls for a net decrease of $387.5 million to TSA, or 8 percent below the FY13 enacted levels.

Finally, the committee has directed TSA to provide a report describing in detail how TSA is complying with the Buy American Act and to provide Congress with the total number of uniforms and screener consumables purchased in fiscal years '12 and '13.

Moving forward, we will continue to work with the gentlewoman from Tennessee to ensure TSA screeners are not abusing the perception that they are officers of the law. We credit her for shedding light on this issue, and I thank her for bringing it to the attention of the committee. I am willing to work with the gentlewoman in any way she chooses.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, while I have concerns with carving out funding amounts for specific grants, I will accept the amendment.

I was born and raised in Houston, Texas. I had something happen to me many years ago as a young lawyer in a hearing at the Port of Houston. Back in 1968, I was told by the Coast Guard that every day two ships pass each other in the Port of Houston, and should those ships collide, just the mixing of those two cargos would explode and kill every man, woman, and child on the Texas gulf coast all the way to Corpus Christi. That's without a nuclear weapon.

We are the largest petrochemical port in the United States. I too am concerned about our ports. I'm very concerned that they could be a target of attack that could cause great damage both in structures and in human life.

So I join my colleagues from California to accept this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

I'm willing to accept this amendment. Once again, I have the same concerns as my colleague, Mr. Price, about the carving out of funding amounts for specific grants, but I will accept this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also want to thank particularly the committee leadership, Mr. Carter, Mr. Price, and the staff. They've done an excellent job in trying to put into appropriations language, and amount of money expended, reforms that are long overdue in TSA.

I'm pleased to join the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hudson) and my colleague, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), in this bipartisan amendment to restore the $25 million for the Flight Deck Officer program.

I can't, for the life of me, understand why the Obama administration would propose to Congress that we zero out one of the most cost- effective mechanisms we have to ensure the safety and security of the flying public.

Now, this program costs $25 million, and that's out of a $5 billion expenditure for TSA--$25 million. It is probably the most cost- effective layer of security that we have. Just a few dollars underwriting, again, the expense of training these pilots who have asked for the ability to protect their aircraft themselves and their passengers.

We put this in place--everyone was against it. You heard Mr. DeFazio tell the story of this. The Senate was against it. The administration was against it. The airlines were against it. We brought it out here in a demo project, and the House overwhelmingly voted to support this program; and it's done it time and time again because it is cost effective and it's a good layer of security.

Now, let me tell you what these pilots do. These pilots go at their own expense. They're not paid per diem. They're not paid for the flight. I went out to visit the program, and I have to admit, whether it was a Republican administration or a Democratic administration, everybody tried to do the program. And so they put the training facility almost on the border of Mexico. I had to take three flights-- one to Denver, one to Albuquerque, and another jumper flight--and then drive almost 2 hours to the border to get to this flight facility. That's what these pilots are doing on their own dollar for a weeklong training program that, again, this is the cost of that training program but the expense is borne by the pilot. I saw men, I saw women, I saw pilots for cargo, passenger all going to get this training.

Why would you want to end a program that is so cost effective and gives us this protection?

So, I don't want to belabor this. Mr. Hudson and Mr. DeFazio have stated the case well. Thousands and thousands of flights are protected, and thousands of pilots participate on their own dime.

I urge the passage of this amendment and yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk. It's Mica amendment 8, designated and preprinted.

Mr. Chairman and my colleagues, first I want to again thank Chairman Carter and Ranking Member Price for their excellent work, and again his staff. They have gone through some of the expenditures for TSA not only in the dollar amounts, but also in the language that's contained supporting their appropriations measures, some excellent provisions.

Now, I do offer this amendment, which is no greater increase in spending, but does move some money around from TSA administration to support our private screening partnership program. As you heard earlier from one of the speakers, this program is very successful, it's cost effective, and many airports want to avail themselves of it.

TSA has thwarted all the efforts to increase the private screening under Federal supervision, and they came up with a whole host of excuses. Also, they have cooked the books as far as the cost of operating these private screening operations.

Now, you've got to remember that if you look at this bill, it puts a limit of 46,000 screeners, I believe, in the past. We've increased that from 40,000. Mr. Rogers and I did that some time ago. Actually, if you go online, you'll find 51,000 screeners. We're not sure exactly what the figure is right now. It may be less than that.

There are a total of 66,000 TSA employees. So that leaves approximately 15,000--even at our most conservative estimate--of the number of people in administration.

Right now, there is close to $1.2 billion spent on nonscreener salaries. That's $1.19 billion, to be exact, in this bill. So this moves a small amount of money--$20-some million--over to, again, the private screening account. I think it's justified. I think we're going to need it.

I have several amendments that I'm going to offer in a minute that I would like to expand, again, on the size of the bureaucracy and what TSA is doing to thwart the privatization effort that could bring cost- effective screening to play and do a better job and save taxpayers money.

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

Mr. Chairman and Members of the House, I have this amendment and I have several others. I'm going to combine my remarks on this amendment and one of the other amendments to expedite this process.

I am very pleased that the previous amendment to take money out of administration--TSA administration--which I believe is extremely bloated, and putting it into, again, the private Screening Partnership Program, that successfully passed. With that passing, I had a second amendment to take a similar amount to put those funds into the transportation security support and intelligence account.

Ladies and gentlemen, we have created this multi-billion dollar bureaucracy that has been unable to connect the dots. Here is almost every terrorist incident. We'll put this in the Record. TSA failed every single time. They have never connected the dots. We need to be putting the money not into this huge screening bureaucracy that hassles veterans and little old ladies and children--and you've seen it all.

We have created this unbelievable detriment to the American right to fly and to be a free citizen, and it's so difficult to get this darned thing under control, but I'm telling you that the money needs to be going into security.

When Mr. DeFazio and I helped create TSA, the purpose was to connect the dots, so I would move money out of administration. They have 4,000 to 5,000 people just within a mile or two of here who are doing nothing, with most of them making, on average, $104,000. Someone told me who just left there that there were four secretaries in his office making over $100,000 apiece. Do the math. We only have 457 airports in the country. That means you've got about 17 people in administration out there and about nine in Washington in administration overseeing this program. It's totally out of control.

So the Mica amendment that I'm going to ask to withdraw in just a second would take money out of administration and put it into connecting the dots in security. I know that's a dumb idea.

Then the other thing is that the staff has done a great job here. There is some good report language, but TSA is thwarting the intent of Congress to allow the honest competition of the private Screening Partnership Program. We never intended to keep this all bureaucratic. Only Bulgaria, Romania, and Poland have a similar screening model as the United States today.

What they've done is they've packed each of the private screening operations with huge bureaucracies left in place. In San Francisco, there are somewhere between 60 and 85 TSA administrators who, most of them, are making in the $100,000 range and don't have a job. How would you like that position? In Kansas City, there are 51 that they left there of private screening. They don't need these positions. They leave them there to jack up the cost to try to make private screening look more costly.

So, while you have language again in this bill--and it's good language--we need to hold TSA accountable to stop cooking the books and to give us honest accounting, and then allow for the natural process of evolution to private screening under Federal supervision--you don't do away with TSA--then finally getting TSA and Homeland Security to concentrate on security and intelligence and on connecting the dots to stop the terrorists before they ever get to the airport or get to screening.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date Target Description Arrest location Suspect(s) Nationality Status -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 22-Dec-01.................... American A man was put into custody Paris to Miami.. Richard Colvin British Citizen. Serving a life

Airlines 63. after attempting to detonate a Reid. sentence

shoe bomb. Conspirators without parole

include a British man, Saajid

Badat from Gloucester, England

and a Tunisian man Nizar

Trabelsi, who is in jail in

Belgium in a plot to blow up

two airliners bound for the

United States, using their

shoe bombs. 8-May-02..................... ?............... A man was arrested after Chicago, Jose Padilla.... U.S. National... Sentenced to 17

returning from Pakistan for Illinois. years in prison

allegedly attempting to build [4]

a dirty bomb. Arrested by U.S.

Customs agents at Chicago's

O'Hare International Airport

on May 8, 2002, and held as a

material witness on a warrant

issued in the state of New

York stemming from the

September 11, 2001 attacks. Sep-02....................... ?............... Reportedly are six naturalized Buffalo, New Lackawanna Six: Yemen........... Each sentenced

American citizens who were York. Mukhtar Al- to 10 years of

friends from childhood in Bakri, Sahim prison or

Yemen; were arrested for Alwan, Faysal less[6]

allegedly providing material Galab, Shafal

support for al-Qaeda and Mosed, Yaseinn

running a terrorist cell in Taher, and

Buffalo, NY. Yahya Goba. 13-Mar-03.................... Brooklyn Bridge. A man was arrested and accused Columbus, Ohio.. Iyman Faris..... Kashmir, entered Sentenced to 20

of giving aid to al-Qaeda and US in 1994, years in Prison

attempting to destroy the became US [8]

Brooklyn Bridge. citizen in 1999. Jun-03....................... ?............... Eleven members of the Virginia Northern Ali al-Timimi, US Nationals.... --

Jihad Network were arrested Virginia. Ali Asad

and accused of training for Chandia,

holy war around the globe. A Muhammed

federal grand jury indicted 11 Aatique, Hammad

people on conspiracy, firearms Abdur-Raheem,

and other charges, six members Ibrahim Ahmed

have pleaded guilty and Al-Hamdi,

received prison sentences. Two Seifullah

others were acquitted of all Chapman, Khwaja

charges. Ali Al-Tamimi Hasan, Masoud

sentenced to life Khan, Yong

imprisonment, others less than Kwon, Randall

20 years or less. Todd Royer and

Donald Surratt. Aug-04....................... New York Stock Security in the United States United Kingdom.. Dhiren Barot.... Indian.......... Sentenced to

Exchange, World was put on high alert after a life in prison,

Bank,Internatio plot surfaces to destroy the reduced to 30

nal Monetary New York Stock Exchange and years in 2007.

Fund. other financial institutions

in New Jersey and Washington.

Dhiren Barot converted to

Islam at age 20. Came to the

U.S. on a student visa in

August 2000. Returned to UK in

2001, arrested by UK

authorities in 2004. 28-Aug-04.................... Herald Square Two men were arrested after New York, New Shahawar Matin Pakistani and US Sentenced to 30

subway system. attempting to bomb the New York. Siraj and James National. years in prison

York subway system on the day Elshafay. [14]

before the 2004 Republican

National Convention. Over a

period of several months in

2004 he was recorded by an FBI

informer Osama Eldawoody

plotting to plant a bomb in

the 34th Street Herald Square

station of the New York City

Subway. Aug-04....................... Pakistani Two leaders of an Albany Albany, New York Yassin Aref and Banglideshi and Both sentenced

diplomat. Mosque, Mohammed M. Hossain Mohammed Kurdish. to 15 years in

and Yassin M. Aref, conspired Hossain. prison

with a man who claimed to have

ties to Islamic terrorists in

laundering $50,000 in payments

for a Chinese missile that he

showed them. In fact, the

contact turned out to be an

undercover informer for the

Federal Bureau of

Investigation, and the RPG-7

missile was a disabled weapon

owned by the federal

government. Jun-05....................... ?............... In June 2005 Hamid Hayat was Lodi, California Hamid and Umer Pakistani....... Hamid was

arrested and charged with Hayat. sentenced to 24

providing material support to years in prison

terrorists, and of lying about

it to FBI agents. The

prosecution alleged that Hamid

Hayat had spent the better

part of two years at an al-

Qaeda training camp in

Pakistan, returning in 2005

with an intent to attack

civilian targets in the United

States. Umer Hayat was also

arrested and charged with two

counts of making false

statements to the FBI

regarding the investigation of

his son and of certain members

of the Muslim community of

Lodi. Aug-05....................... Los Angeles-area Indicted on terrorism charges Los Angeles, Kevin James, US Nationals and James sentenced

military bases, related to conspiracy to California. Levar Pakistani. to 16 years in

synagogues and attack military facilities in Washington, prison

other places. the Los Angeles area and of Gregory

attempting to fund their Patterson,

campaign by robbing gas Hammad Samana.

stations in Southern

California. Dec-05....................... Williams Natural A man was arrested on suspicion Pennsylvania.... Michael Curtis US National..... Sentenced to 30

Gas (Wyoming), that he had plans to destroy Reynolds. years in prison

Transcontinenta several sites. Reynolds was

l Pipeline, formally charged with a

Standard Oil firearms offence for

refinery. possessing a hand grenade,

though a sealed statement from

the FBI also stated that he

intended to blow up multiple

pipelines in the United States

in a bid to help further

terrorist causes. Feb-06....................... Troops in Iraq, Three men were arrested for Toledo, Ohio.... Mohammad Zaki U.S. National, Amawi was

Toledo, Ohio allegedly planning to build Amawi, Marwan Jordanian. sentenced to 20

citizens. bombs for use by terrorists in Othman El- years in

Iraq and were arrested and Hindi, and prison, the

charged with conspiracy to Wassim Mazloum. others 13 and 8

provide material support to years,

terrorists in Iraq and engage respectively.

in violent jihad in their home

town, as well as making verbal

threats against the President

of the United States. The

investigation was conducted by

the FBI and the Toledo Joint

Terrorism Task Force, with the

cooperation of an informant

called 'The Trainer' who has a

U.S. military background in

security. Apr-06....................... Washington D.C.- Two men from the U.S. state of Toronto, Ontario Syed Haris Ahmed Pakistani....... Ahmed sentenced

area buildings. Georgia, were arrested after and Ehsanul to 13 years in

videotaping Washington-area Islam Sadequee. prison,

buildings and sending the Sadequee

tapes to a London based sentenced to

jihadist website. Ahmed and 17.[26]

Sadequee were reindicted by a

federal grand jury in

December, 2008. Both men were

again charged with conspiring

to provide material support to

terrorists, including trying

to join Lashkar-e-Taiba in

2005. According to the new

indictment, the videos were

passed to another convicted

British terrorist, Aabid

Hussain Khan, on whose

computer they were found

subsequent to his own arrest. Jun-06....................... Sears Tower and The charges centered around the Miami, Florida, Narseal Batiste, US National..... Five of the men

FBI offices. group's belief that they were Atlanta, Patrick were convicted.

being offered money by someone Georgia. Abraham, Batiste was

in Yemen to help their mission Stanley Grant sentenced to 13

in Liberty City, provided they Phanor, years in

supported the al-Qaeda jihad. Rotschild prison.

The FBI agents represented Augustine,

themselves as representatives Burson

of al-Qaeda (but who were Augustin,

actually undercover FBI Naudimar

agents), and persuaded Batiste Herrera,

to provide plans for a stated Lyglenson

intention to destroy the Sears Lemorin.

Tower in Chicago, the FBI

field office in Miami, and

other targets. Jul-06....................... Port Authority Living in Lebanon who was New York, New Assem Hammoud... Lebanon.........

Trans-Hudson charged with plotting a York.

train tunnels. mission to blow up the PATH

train tunnels beneath the

Hudson River between New

Jersey and lower Manhattan,

New York City, United States

with a team of suicide bombers

with backpack explosives. He

was arrested by the Lebanese

Armed Forces, a division of

the Internal Security Forces

(ISF), in the Mouseitbeh area

of west Beirut on April 27,

2006.

7-May-07..................... Fort Dix........ Six men were arrested after Fort Dix, New Dritan Duka, Duka family Four of the men

attempting an attack on the Jersey. Shain Duka, ethnic received life

Fort Dix military base. The Eljvir Duka, Albanians from sentences, one

men were arrested by the Mohamad Ibrahim Debar, then in man received

Federal Bureau of Shnewer, Serdar Yugoslavia, five years in

Investigation (FBI) on May 8, Tatar and Agron currently the prison and the

2007, and were prosecuted in Abdullahu. Republic of other received

federal court in October 2008. Macedonia. The 33

On December 22, 2008, five Duka family

were found guilty of entered the

conspiracy to commit murder in United States

their intentions to kill U.S. illegally

military personnel; four through Mexico

received life sentences, while in October

one received 33 years in 1984.

prison. The remaining member Palestinian,

was thought to have had a Turkish, and

minor role in the plot and was Albanian.

sentenced to five years in

prison for weapons offenses. 3-Jun-07..................... John F. Kennedy Four men were arrested in New New York, New Abdul Kadir, Guyana, Trinidad

International York after a plot is revealed York. Russell

Airport. to bomb the fuel line of JFK Defreitas,

airport. Defreitas was Kareem Ibrahim,

arrested in Brooklyn, New Abdel Nur.

York. Kadir and Ibrahim were

arrested in Trinidad on June

3, 2007. Nur surrendered to

police two days later in

Trinidad. 20-May-09.................... New York City Four men were arrested In April New York, New James Cromitie, US Nationals.... All serving 25

Synagogues/U.S. 2009, Cromitie and his three York. Onta Williams, year sentences

Military alleged accomplices chose David Williams,

Aircraft. their targets. They allegedly Laguerre Payen.

attempted to both bomb the

Riverdale Temple and nearby

Riverdale Jewish Center in the

Bronx, and, using Stinger

surface-to-air guided

missiles, shoot down military

planes flying out of a nearby

air base. The men placed fake

bombs wired to cell phones in

three separate cars outside

the Riverdale Temple and

nearby Riverdale Jewish

Center, both in the Riverdale

community of Bronx. New York

City Police Department

Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly

said one of the suspects

placed explosives, while the

other three suspects served as

lookouts As the men were

returning to the vehicle, the

signal was given for the

arrest. An 18-wheel New York

City Police Department vehicle

blocked the end of the street.

The FBI informer also served

as the driver of the suspects'

vehicle. Another armored

vehicle arrived, and officers

from the department's

Emergency Service Unit smashed

the blackened windows of the

S.U.V., removed the men from

the vehicle, and handcuffed

them on the ground. None

offered resistance. 19-Sep-09.................... New York Subway Zazi, a native of Afghanistan New York City, Najibullah Zazi, Afghanistan.....

System. who lived in Colorado, was NY. Adis

arrested and convicted of Medunjanin,

plotting to bomb the NYC Zarein

Subway system. He was trained Ahmedzay,

by al-Qaeda in Pakistan. 5 Mohammed Wali

others were also indicted on Zazi, Imam

related charges. On September Ahmad Wais

19, 2009, authorities arrested Afzali and

Zazi, and on September 21 they Naqib Jaji.

charged him in the United

States District Court for the

District of Colorado with

making false statements in a

matter involving international

and domestic terrorism. 24-Sep-09.................... Dallas A 19 year old was arrested on Dallas, Texas... Hosam Maher Jordanian....... On October 20,

skyscraper. charges that he intended to Husein Smadi. 2010, sentenced

bomb a downtown Dallas to 24 years

skyscraper. The device was a imprisonment

dud provided by FBI agents and will be

posing as al-Qaeda members. deported after

Smadi activated a timer serving his

connected to the decoy with a sentence.

cell phone, then rode with an

undercover agent and waited to

watch the explosion. Instead,

the phone rang an FBI number,

and Smadi was arrested. 16-Oct-09.................... Various overseas Colleen LaRose, also known as Philadelphia, PA Colleen LaRose, Americans,

targets. JihadJane and Fatima LaRose, Jamie Paulin- Algerian and

is an American citizen charged Ramirez, Ali Libyan.

with terrorism-related crimes, Charaf Damache,

including conspiracy to commit Abdul Salam al-

murder and providing material Jahani.

support to terrorists. Lars

Vilks was a named target in

response to drawings of the

Prophet Muhammad. LaRose was

arrested on Oct. 16, 2009, at

Philadelphia International

Airport as she returned from

London. She allegedly

confessed her role in the plot

to kill Vilks to FBI agents

shortly after her arrest,

according to two people close

to the investigation. 25-Dec-09.................... Northwest `Underwear Bomber': On Detroit, Abdul Farouk Nigerian........

Airlines Flight Christmas Day 2009, Michigan. Abdulmutallab.

253. Abdulmutallab traveled from

Ghana to Amsterdam, where he

boarded Northwest Airlines

Flight 253 en route to

Detroit. He had a Nigerian

passport and valid U.S.

tourist visa, and purchased

his ticket with cash in Ghana

on December 16. 1-May-10..................... Times Square.... A Pakistani American who New York City, Faisal Shahzad.. Pakistani....... Convicted and

attempted the May 1, 2010, NY. sentenced by a

Times Square car bombing. He federal judge

was arrested approximately 53 in New York

hours after the attempt,[9] at City to life

11:45 p.m. EDT on May 3, 2010, imprisonment

by U.S. Customs and Border without parole

Protection officers after he

had boarded Emirates Flight

202 to Dubai. On June 21,

2010, in Federal District

Court in Manhattan he

confessed to 10 counts arising

from the bombing attempt. 27-Oct-10.................... Arlington A Pakistani-born Virginia man Arlington, VA... Farooque Ahmed.. Pakistani....... Sentenced to 23

Cemetery (WMATA was arrested and accused of years in prison

station). casing Washington-area subway after pleading

stations in what he thought guilty

was an al-Qaeda plot to bomb

and kill commuters. 28-Sep-11.................... The Pentagon, Rezwan Ferdaus is a U.S. Washington, D.C. Rezwan Ferdaus.. Banglideshi.....

United States citizen, born and raised in

Capitol Massachusetts, of Bangladeshi

Building. descent, who was arrested by

the FBI on September 28, 2011,

for allegedly plotting to

attack The Pentagon and United

States Capitol with remote-

controlled model aircraft

packed with explosives. He was

also charged with supporting

al-Qaeda and plotting attacks

on U.S. soldiers abroad, by

making IED detonators. 7-Jan-12..................... Tampa, FL, Sami Osmakac is a man who Tampa, FL....... Sami Osmakac.... Albania.........

various targets. allegedly plotted an attack,

to avenge what he felt were

wrongs done to Muslims, in the

area around Tampa, Florida.

Osmakac, an Albanian from

Kosovo and a naturalized US

citizen, was arrested January

7, 2012, for the alleged

attack plan, which involved

bombing nightclubs, detonating

a car bomb, using an assault

rifle, wearing an explosive

belt in a crowded area, and

taking hostages. 17-Feb-12.................... United States A Moroccan man who was arrested Washington, D.C. Amine El Khalifi Morrocan........

Capitol. by the Federal Bureau of

Investigation (FBI) for

allegedly plotting to carry

out a suicide bombing on the

United States Capitol. El

Khalifi thought he was working

with al-Qaeda operatives, but

was actually in contact with

undercover FBI agents. He was

sentenced to prison for 30

years in September 2012.

10-Aug-12.................... Wainwright On the morning of August 10, St. Louis, Mark Anthony ..............

Building. 2012, several St. Louis Missouri. Grady.

television and radio outlets

received an e-mail from a

person who said they were

going to bomb the Wainwright

State Office Building in

downtown St. Louis. The e-

mailer was taken into custody

by ATF and FBI and is

currently charged with attempt

to commit mass-murder and

attempt to commit a terrorist

act. 17-Oct-12.................... New York Federal A Bangladeshi man was charged New York City, Quazi Mohammad Bangladeshi.....

Reserve. with trying to blow up the NY. Rezwanul Ahsan

Federal Reserve building in Nafis.

New York. While Nafis believed

he had the blessing of al-

Qaeda and was acting on behalf

of the terrorist group, he has

no known ties, according to

federal officials. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

With that, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment. I will work with the committee, and we will finalize better language to get this done.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the fiscal year 2014 Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill and am pleased that we're bringing this bill to the House floor under an open rule. I want to commend Chairman Carter for the open, collaborative, and bipartisan process he has led this spring. There's a long history of bipartisan cooperation on this subcommittee that's critical for allowing us to focus on the Nation's domestic security needs.

The funding allocation provided to the subcommittee hews closely to the overall spending figure requested by the President for the Department of Homeland Security, but I don't believe either number is fully adequate to provide DHS with the resources it needs to help keep the Nation safe. We have been able to fill a number of significant holes in the President's budget request, but that has necessitated creating some shortfalls in other areas.

I want to make clear, however, that my support of Chairman Carter's efforts are in no way an endorsement of the overall discretionary spending caps adopted by the majority in the House budget resolution. Sequestration was intended to be a mechanism to force the parties to come together to address our long-term fiscal challenges. It was never meant, in itself, to be a tool for deficit reduction, and it certainly was never meant to be the basis for a discretionary spending cap on a budget resolution.

While not quite sufficient, our allocation is still better than most of the other domestic appropriations bills, which will struggle to appropriately fund critical priorities, such as medical and energy research, law enforcement and the justice system, and investments in education and infrastructure. Our Homeland Security bill is not the only bill that deals with our country's strength and security, and the allocations provided to these other subcommittees by the Ryan budget will put that strength and security at grave risk.

That being said, and given the low 302(b) allocation this subcommittee had to work with, I applaud the chairman and the staff for addressing a number of Democratic priorities, including first responder and antiterrorism grants, as well as providing increases above the request for frontline DHS employees so that they can continue to conduct critical operations along our borders, protect our Nation's airports, seaports, and land ports of entry, and respond to natural disasters across the country.

Right before last year's markup, we were reminded of the threats facing our Nation when the intelligence community thwarted an attempt to place a nonmetallic improvised explosive device on an aircraft bound for the United States.

This year, following the terrorist attacks in Boston, we're forced to confront the tragic reality that these threats remain constant, that terrorists remain determined to attack the homeland and they will devise more and more perverse ways to kill and harm innocent people. This requires DHS and the intelligence community and local first responders to remain vigilant and to strive continually to optimize their scarce resources. That's why I'm pleased this bill increases funding for critical grant programs, while once again rejecting the administration's insufficiently articulated proposal to reengineer the grant structure, a proposal that has not been authorized.

Specifically, the bill includes $1.5 billion for FEMA State and local grants, an increase of $35 million over the FY13 appropriated level, and it keeps both fire grants and emergency performance grants level with FY13. The bill also doubles the requested funding for the Office of Bombing Prevention to accelerate planning, training, and awareness programs to help detect and respond to IEDs and other explosive devices.

Equally important, the bill provides a $16.9 million increase in funding for research and development efforts at the Science and Technology Directorate. When you combine this funding with what was included in the final FY13 bill, we've made significant progress since FY12, providing funding for high-priority research efforts and some new projects, as well.

The bill also provides substantial funding--$404 million--for construction of the National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility, a laboratory that's essential to our ability to help prevent and respond to animal disease threats.

The bill also increases funding for critical Coast Guard and CBP air and marine acquisitions to recapitalize aging assets while also bringing the latest aviation and vessel technologies online to ensure our frontline personnel can operate more effectively, improving on the administration's request on each of those fronts.

I am also pleased that the bill provides funding for an additional 1,600 Customs and Border Protection officers requested by the administration and for substantially strengthened cybersecurity protective efforts. These efforts are absolutely necessary to monitor and detect intrusions to our Federal networks and protect them from foreign espionage and cyber attacks.

Finally, I commend Chairman Carter for providing the requested amount, $6.22 billion, for the Disaster Relief Fund, which will ensure that there are sufficient disaster relief resources moving into the coming fiscal year. And I echo the chairman's pledge of support for Representative Tom Cole, for his constituents and the other people of Oklahoma to fully address their needs.

I also want to remind my colleagues, however, that should emergency disaster relief funding become necessary beyond what we have budgeted, Congress must respond immediately and effectively, without distracting fights over budget policy.

I do have some concerns with the bill, notably, some of the immigration provisions. The bill once again sets an arbitrary minimum of 34,000 ICE detention beds, denying ICE the flexibility it needs to manage its enforcement and removal resources in response to changing circumstances and to use cheaper, alternative forms of supervision when appropriate.

The bill also unnecessarily and wastefully continues the 287(g) program, which was designed to secure local law enforcement participation in immigration enforcement. In addition to being seriously flawed, this program has become obsolete with the full implementation of the Secure Communities program.

I also must note my concern with some of the withholdings in the bill. I understand the need to give incentives to the Department to respect reporting deadlines established by the committee, but I hope we can temper some of these withholdings as we move through the process, as they have the potential to seriously undermine the Department's management functions.

The bill also provides no funding for the new DHS headquarters, despite $105 million in the request. We have been told repeatedly by the administration that deferring these investments will greatly increase the project's costs and eventually it's bound to affect frontline operations, and I believe they're correct on both counts.

I also want to note my strong objection to three general provisions related to abortion services for detainees that were added to the bill in full committee. While they have no impact on ICE policies, they unnecessarily interject a divisive issue into the bill, distracting us from what should be our focus and straying far outside the lines of the jurisdiction of the Appropriations Committee.

So while I support the bill as reported to the House by the Appropriations Committee and believe it represents an improvement over the budget request, it still falls short of the bill I believe we would want to craft were we operating under a more adequate allocation.

Let me also express the hope, going into this debate, that this year we can avoid loading the bill up here on the floor with controversial and unnecessary policy riders. There will be a time and place to debate immigration reform, and the Homeland Security appropriations bill should not be caught up in that process.

In closing, I, too, want to express my appreciation for the hardworking and dedicated staff on both sides of the aisle. In the course of just 2 months, they have diligently wrapped up the fiscal 2013 bill, digested and analyzed the President's fiscal 2014 request, and

crafted the bipartisan measure before us. Thanks to Ben Nicholson, Kris Mallard, Corenell Teague, Valerie Baldwin, Pam Williams, and Hilary May on the majority side, and of course, Darek Newby and Justin Wein on our side of the aisle.

With that, I urge approval of the bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), the distinguished ranking member of the full committee.

Mr. Chairman, I'm now pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Roybal-Allard), an outstanding member of our subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to another outstanding subcommittee member, Mr. Cuellar of Texas.

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to the remaining time?

At this time I have no further requests for time, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, at this time I'd like to yield 3 minutes to our distinguished colleague from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz).

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I want to express my support of this amendment by our colleague from Wisconsin to restore funding for the Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties.

The bill before us provides $18.3 million for the Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, which is $3.4 million below the budget request and $3.3 million below current year funding. The amendment would simply restore funding for the Office to the fiscal 2013 enacted level.

Now, I want to commend Chairman Carter for fully funding the much- needed oversight activities related to the troubled 287(g) program and to the Secure Communities program. Oversight of these programs is probably the highest priority for this office. But with just a little more funding, as provided in this amendment, we can go further to ensure the protection of civil rights and civil liberties across the Department's many functions, programs, and activities.

The Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties is the key mechanism at the Department of Homeland Security for ensuring that the proper balance is maintained between measures to protect the country and the personal freedoms that we cherish. So I thank the

gentlewoman for offering the amendment. It's a good amendment, a reasonable amendment, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I want to applaud Chairman Carter for funding the Fire Administration at a level higher than the administration's request, but the bill before us still provides a slight decrease in funding when compared to the current year. I believe this increase is warranted. The Fire Administration, as we all know, plays a critical role in training our first responders, in enhancing the security of our infrastructure, and in better preparing the response capabilities of our communities.

I do want to register a concern, Mr. Chairman, about the offset for this amendment in that the money is taken from the Office of the Under Secretary for Management, and this is at a time when departmental management funding is already in this bill--$302 million below the request and $147 million below the fiscal 2013 pre-sequestration level.

In dealing with this on the way to conference, we are going to have to pay attention to that offset. However, this is an important amendment, as the Fire Administration is important to all of us, and I urge the adoption of the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the gentleman from Colorado's amendment.

The gentleman's amendment eliminates increased funding in the bill for the critically flawed 287(g) program, and it increases funding for the Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties. I want to support the gentleman on both of these fronts.

As our colleague has noted, the 287(g) program designed to facilitate cooperation between Federal and local authorities and immigration enforcement, is, in fact, prone to serious abuse. It's fundamentally flawed in the way it blurs the line between Federal and local roles in immigration enforcement.

Moreover, it simply wastes money. It is very costly. The cost to the taxpayer per removal in the task force model of 287(g) is especially outrageous: $32,789 per removal. Compare that to only $1,500 per removal under the more workable and more appropriate Secure Communities program. So not only is 287(g) flawed and prone to abuse, it's also simply a waste of taxpayer dollars, and it's increasingly redundant as the Secure Communities program takes effect.

The gentleman is redirecting money, I think, in a useful way to the Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties. The most important activity of that office is to oversee this problematic 287(g) program, as well as secure communities. And the funding level in the bill is short of the request; it's short of the current year's funding. So with a little more funding, we can enable the Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties to do its job in a much better way.

Ideally, Mr. Chairman, this amendment would address other seriously shortchanged areas of the bill. For example, cybersecurity, Coast Guard acquisitions, human trafficking, Secret Service. We can think of a lot. I would like to see some of those things addressed, as well as the deficit reduction item. But I believe this amendment greatly improves this bill both in the money it saves and in the money it redirects.

With that, I urge its adoption and yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I want to join the chairman in opposing this well-intentioned amendment.

The amendment would cannibalize various administrative accounts throughout the bill, the Office of the Secretary for Executive Management, the Chief Financial Officer, the CBP Salaries and Expenses, FEMA Salaries and Expenses, somewhat obscure accounts, you might say; but, nonetheless, accounts that are vital to the Department's functioning. It would cannibalize these accounts and put $22 million more in grants, presumably for urban grants, UASI.

Now, the grant programs can always use more money. I've championed those programs for years, especially the risk-based UASI program. But we need to think carefully what this amendment is really about.

This is a risky path for this body to go down. It really seems to be about adding cities to UASI, adding cities.

Now, UASI-eligible cities, and there are 25 of them, are picked on a risk basis. There's a formula involving threat and vulnerability and consequence. The estimates are updated every year. This is probably the most strictly risk-based assessment that DHS undertakes.

Do we really want to substitute that for picking these cities on the House floor?

I'm afraid that's what this amendment is all about, or at least it's the path that it could put us on. And so, therefore, I urge its rejection.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise simply to express support of the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I, too, rise in qualified support of this amendment. When disasters strike, these Urban Search and Rescue Teams stand ready for FEMA deployment, complete with unique tools and equipment and training.

I do want to register another concern about the cannibalizing of management accounts that this amendment, along with other amendments, is undertaking to do. We're already $302 million below the request and $147 million below our fiscal 2013, pre-sequestration, in this departmental management funding, so we've got to pay attention to this as we take this amendment to conference. We've got to have a better offset.

Having said that, I do think this is a meritorious amendment, well justified. I urge its adoption, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentleman on his attention to the very real vulnerabilities of surface rail, his attention to this, and I urge acceptance of the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. I think it's a positive contribution to the bill. It improves the balance in the bill, both in what it proposes-- positively--and also what it cuts. I think we can use the additional funds in CBP for additional officers. And as has been said many times on this floor today, the 287(g) is flawed and wasteful and can well afford this kind of cut.

So I commend the gentleman on both fronts--adding to the right things, cutting the right things--and I urge adoption of his amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I, too, urge adoption of this amendment.

I want to commend the chairman, though, while I have a moment, for putting in $22.5 million for pre-disaster mitigation into this bill. He did that at my request. We had a proposal for the President, which was quite inadequate in this respect, and so the chairman has put this money in. This is an amendment that would add more to that, and it is money we can quite well use.

I don't believe the offset is ideal. The offset would slow down the IT initiatives at Customs and Border Protection, which are designed to modernize customs processes and risk-based targeting efforts. I don't necessarily think it's the best process for us on the House floor to be establishing carveouts in the Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program. We need an all-hazards approach. We don't necessarily want to rank the threat of fire higher than the threat of hurricanes and so forth.

Having said that, though, I think this bipartisan pair of cosponsors has made a very compelling case today for the threat that their areas face, and I urge my colleagues to support them.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Deutch-Foster amendment, and I commend my colleagues for addressing one of the major problems in this bill.

Once again, this bill sets an arbitrary minimum of 34,000 ICE detention beds, whether or not ICE needs them, whether or not the population it is managing on a given day warrants detention.

This detention bed mandate denies ICE the flexibility it needs to manage its enforcement and removal resources in response to changing circumstances. It prevents ICE from making full use of cheaper alternative forms of supervision when it's appropriate.

The specific number of beds is not the main issue here. The problem is attempting to micromanage detention operations from the floor of this House and doing it, by the way, in a way that wastes money and reduces flexibility. I've never understood why we would want to do that, and yet this keeps appearing in the bill produced by our majority colleagues.

Once again, we need to remove this provision, and I commend Mr. Deutch and Mr. Foster for focusing attention on this so effectively.

I urge adoption of their amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I join the subcommittee chairman in strong opposition to this amendment. The gentleman's amendment would eliminate entirely the TSA aviation security account from this bill, more than $4.8 million.

Now, I oppose this dangerous amendment on numerous grounds, but I'm most appalled by the fact that it includes no language on who, if not TSA, would be securing our Nation's airports and under what authority, what guidelines.

If this amendment were to pass, not only would the public not worry about bringing knives on planes, but terrorists would be able to bring guns and explosives on planes. So surely the sponsor can't be suggesting that as an acceptable outcome of this amendment.

I just have to say, the job of this subcommittee and of this bill is to provide for the defense of our homeland. That's our bottom-line obligation, and this amendment is in direct contradiction to that obligation. So I urge the resounding defeat of this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I, too, would suggest that for now we accept this amendment and continue to work on the problems that the amendment highlights. My understanding from TSA is that they have prior-year funding available to replace detection machines that were removed due to the FAA Modernization Act. The machines that were removed didn't meet certain privacy standards and were removed at the cost of the contractor. TSA is currently testing new machines that could be used to replace the roughly 250 that were removed from airports across the country. Clearly, of course, this needs to be done.

So I'll be happy to work with the gentleman to press TSA to move at an expeditious pace to replace these with more advanced machines, and I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank my colleague for yielding, and I very much appreciate my fellow North Carolinian raising this issue.

I agree with his assessment that OMB needs to finalize this rule as soon as possible. It's critical to establish this risk-based security regime for these repair stations. So we do hope for a rapid conclusion of this protracted episode, and I appreciate his raising the matter.

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

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's amendment would provide an additional $32 million for the Screening Partnership Program. I have no objection to the concept of the Screening Partnership Program. If a local airport authority applies to participate in the program and a private company can provide screening in accordance with TSA standards and costs, then so be it.

In fact, this bill increases funding for the SPP by $15.6 million over current-year levels and $10 million above the request in anticipation of the program's vast expansion. But I am unaware of a surge in demand for participation in the SPP that would warrant a 30- percent increase in funding for this program. The offset for the amendment is aviation security direction and enforcement, which the bill already cuts by $20 million below the request.

Now, Mr. Chairman, should additional demand warrant funding for the SPP above what is already provided in this bill, we could work with the TSA to transfer funding to meet that demand. But it simply makes no sense to provide such a significant increase for the SPP when it is almost certain that those additional funds are going to go unused.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

I too rise in support of the amendment, which would simply require a funding floor for the Port Security Grant program at the current level.

I very much appreciate the gentlewoman's intent with this amendment. Our seaports are critically important to our Nation's economy, and, therefore, have been a primary focus of our security and preparedness efforts.

Because our bill does not currently allocate State and local program funding among the major Homeland Security Grant programs, I do have concerns with carving out funding for one specific program. But the funding level which our colleague has proposed is equal to the amount allocated to ports in 2013 and that we anticipate would be available in 2014.

Therefore, I support the gentlewoman's amendment, urge its adoption, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment, which would simply require a funding floor for public transportation security assistance and railroad security assistance at the current level. I appreciate the gentleman's intent with this amendment. Public transportation infrastructure is absolutely critical to the functioning of our economy, and, therefore, is and must be a primary focus of our security and preparedness efforts.

The same reservation applies to this amendment as to the previous amendment. We do not currently allocate State and local program funding among the major homeland security programs. So we have some concerns with carving out funding for specific programs, but the funding level proposed here is equal to the amount allocated to transit in 2013 and that we anticipate would be available in 2014. Therefore, I support the gentleman's amendment and urge its adoption.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, the 287(g) program has become increasingly controversial and increasingly recognized as a costly failure.

By allowing local police officers to effectively act as Federal agents and immigration officials, it not only increases crime by taking local cops off the beat and not only costs taxpayers money at a time when we have an over $600 billion deficit, but it also creates fear in Latino communities and in other immigrant communities. 287(g) exacerbates tensions and interferes with community policing and the efforts of law enforcement to gain the trust of people in the communities that they need in order to be able to do their jobs well. In effect, it has trained local law enforcement officials to use racial profiling, asking community members where they are born or if they are in this country legally.

Now, the 287(g) program has become infamous because of the implementation in Maricopa County under Sheriff Joe Arpaio and his racial profiling. The practices sanctioned under 287(g) have led to an unprecedented civil rights investigation by the Department of Justice and an independent civil suit. Even Sheriff Arpaio has acknowledged that the Department of Homeland Security directed him and his officers to use racial profiling as part of their policing practices in identifying individuals for deportation.

You know that, if Sheriff Arpaio is citing a Federal expenditure as the justification for his actions, there must be a problem with that Federal expenditure--and in fact there is.

In the fiscal year 2014 bill, the House Appropriations Committee has funded 287(g) at $44 million above the White House request. The White House has even threatened to veto the Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill, listing as one of its concerns that, in fact, the 287(g) program has been largely replaced by other enforcement mechanisms, like Secure Communities. Now, we don't all agree on Secure Communities, but there is increasing consensus on all sides of the aisle that 287(g) has no place in our communities or in our budget. It doesn't help combat illegal immigration. In fact, it makes it worse, and it increases crime in our communities.

This amendment will allocate 10 percent of that funding to the Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties and 90 percent toward deficit reduction. By seeking to cut the funding for a program that relies on racial profiling and increases crime, we're sending a clear message that we won't tolerate any more Arpaios, we care about the budget deficit, and we want to cut wasteful government spending.

Programs like 287(g) have created mistrust between Latinos and other immigrant communities throughout this country and local law enforcement and interfered with community policing. Eliminating 287(g) once and for all will begin to repair the trust that's been lost over the last decade. It will help local law enforcement fight crime, instead of trying to implement failed Federal laws, and will be a step forward in the ultimate goal of this Congress of fixing our broken immigration system and restoring the rule of law so that we can grow our economy and decrease crime.

This amendment is very simple. It would save $44 million from a wasteful government spending program, allocate just over $4 million of that to address some of the cuts that have been made to the Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties and use the bulk of that for the deficit reduction account.

Let's come together, Democrats and Republicans, to go after wasteful government spending and counterproductive government spending, as it is in this case.

With that, I strongly encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Chairman, I would like to join my colleague, Mr. Tipton, in bringing forward this important amendment.

Here, in the first year of June, there are already two wildfires that have erupted in my district. Mr. Tipton and I share northern and western Colorado. Just this last Monday, a wildfire ignited near Evergreen, Colorado. We had an evacuation of several thousand people. These are just the early season fires, and this year's wildfire season could very well be longer and more extreme than ever before. Already, the National Interagency Fire Center has predicted that this summer will bring an increased fire threat to communities in multiple States across the United States.

Unfortunately, last year was a devastating year for fires in my home State. We had two of our most destructive fires in history. In 2012, wildfires destroyed 650 structures, six Coloradans lost their life in wildfires, 384,000 acres of land were burnt and caused over half a billion dollars in property damage.

In addition to wildfires, our country and our State have experienced natural disasters, like droughts and tornadoes. The impacts of these are reminders of how costly and destructive extreme weather can be and how important it is to be prepared and to reduce risks where we can. In total, 11 extreme weather events last year across the country, including hurricanes, tornadoes, and fires, cost taxpayers $96 billion. Extreme weather events have a real impact, a human impact, and a cost.

We have an opportunity in this amendment to reduce and minimize the damage and costs of extreme weather events, like wildfires, by mitigating the threat prior to an event. That is why I join Representative Tipton in directing $7.6 million to the National Pre- Disaster Mitigation Fund. We can spend a penny now to save a dollar later. The National Pre-Disaster Mitigation Fund is one of the only FEMA programs that reduces fire danger before a fire starts. By increasing funding to mitigate extreme weather events, we can allocate more resources to preventing the impact of these devastating fires, saving lives and saving money.

Unfortunately, the Pre-Disaster Mitigation Fund, absent this amendment, is only funded at $22.5 million, which is actually a reduction of $2.475 million, even though events were occurring at higher rates last year and we have no reason to believe that this year will be different.

The Pre-Disaster Mitigation Fund, very simply, is a good investment, Mr. Chairman. The Pre-Disaster Mitigation Fund investments have already led to significant savings to taxpayers by reducing risks and damages caused by extreme weather.

The amendment is completely offset by reducing the same amount of funding in the Automation Modernization account. In fact, our amendment actually decreases costs in the first year by $4 million. The Automation Modernization account has already been noted by the committee of lacking transparency regarding how the funds are managed. And of course, while I support the DHS modernizing its technology systems, I cannot support increasing that account in this time of fiscal constraint, especially when the result of these disasters could very well cost more than an ounce of prevention now.

So this bill increases the account by $7.655 million that we're directing to the National Pre-Disaster Mitigation Fund to proactively reduce the threat of wildfires and save taxpayer money. Now, we can't stop wildfires, but we can take measures to reduce their impacts on our communities and to save taxpayer money.

That is why I am proud to join Representative Tipton, and I've offered this commonsense amendment that would allocate $7.655 million in additional resources to the Pre-Disaster Mitigation Fund.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I agree strongly with the impassioned plea by my colleague from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky), and I'm very grateful for this amendment to be brought forward by Mr. Deutch and Mr. Foster.

This really is an outrage. It's an outrage to our values as Americans, and frankly it's an outrage to taxpayers. The cost of holding an immigrant overnight is $120. We have viable and proven alternatives to detention that we should be using for noncriminal aliens.

Again, what we're talking about here are different folks. When we're talking about criminal aliens, I don't think there's any dispute to the extent that we have criminal aliens. At any given time, this can be approximately 40 percent of the people in detention. When I visited the ICE facility in Aurora, they keep them separate, they wear different colored jumpsuits. They're criminal aliens, and they are--however many we have that have been apprehended for a crime--subject to deportation orders. It's perfectly fair to keep them in some form of detention.

But the majority, 60 percent, are noncriminal aliens. They were in the wrong place at the wrong time. It could have been a tail light out. They could have been going 10 miles over the speed limit. Yet, we as taxpayers are removing noncriminal aliens from their homes, from being the breadwinner for their family, from supporting their kids and being an asset to our country

and instead turning them into a liability for taxpayers to the tune of $120 a day. Again, I don't see how this makes fiscal sense at all. We're paying for free rooms, free board, food, medical services. All of these are being provided at taxpayer cost for folks.

How is this a good deal for Americans? It just doesn't make any sense to me when we have at one-tenth the cost alternatives to detention that include call-ins and ankle bracelets. There's a comprehensive program for noncriminal aliens that can do it at a much less expensive cost. And in detention, many of them remain for a period of months. I've even talked to folks, noncriminal aliens, who'd been in limbo for over a year, some approaching 2 years.

So yes, anybody who opposes this amendment is saying U.S. taxpayers should foot the bill for food and board and health care for someone who is here illegally for 2 years. Why do people want to subsidize our illegal population? It's absolutely absurd.

This is a commonsense measure. However many beds we need for criminal aliens, let's have. However many we need for noncriminal aliens in terms of alternatives to detention, let's do. Obviously, what we really need is comprehensive immigration reform to address this issue. There's no way I don't think people on either side of the aisle think that we should pay for 12 million people to be detained at the cost $120 a day. I can't even add that up in my own mind, but I can tell you, it'd be a deficit buster right there.

So let's start here. Let's address our deficit. Let's make sure that we keep families together. Don't take parents away from kids. Don't force taxpayers to buy medical care and lodging and food for people who aren't even here in this country illegally. We can do that right here, right now by passing the Deutch amendment. I call upon my colleagues to join me in doing so.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would strike the provision in H.R. 2217, which states:

Funding made available under this heading shall maintain a

level of not less than 34,000 detention beds through

September 30, 2014.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement has interpreted this provision, which has been in past appropriations bills, to require the maintenance of a daily detention population of 34,000 people. This detention bed mandate ties the hands of ICE and restricts its discretion to make detention decisions even when release could be appropriate. Indeed, this is an unprecedented mandate for law enforcement as no other law enforcement agencies have a quota for the number of people that they must keep in jail.

This detention bed mandate is a drain on ICE's limited resources. On March 19 of this year, I participated in a Judiciary Committee oversight hearing with ICE Director John Morton that addressed this issue. Director Morton explained that ICE had interpreted language in the previous continuing resolution as requiring the agency to keep ``a yearly average daily population of approximately 34,000 individuals.'' Accordingly, ICE has been maintaining an average daily detention population well over 34,000 people with the numbers fluctuating between 35,000 and 37,000 people. Due to this fiscally unsustainable mandate, ICE released more than 2,000 individuals earlier this year to avoid burning through its detention funds.

Detention is extremely costly, and it strains ICE's limited budget in an era of fiscal restraint. Mandating ICE to keep 34,000 detainees in custody each day forces ICE to forgo alternatives to detention that would save taxpayer money. In fact, a single detention bed is approximately $122 per day; and with additional administrative costs, it can rise to $164 a day. Meanwhile, alternatives such as ankle bracelets, parole, telephonic, and in-person reporting, curfews, and home visits can run from 30 cents to $14 per day.

By untying ICE's hands by striking this minimum detention population requirement, we can allow ICE to pursue effective alternatives and make budgetary savings. ICE agents could use these savings when focusing on their many additional responsibilities, such as cracking down on drug smuggling, human trafficking and child pornography--all priorities which are shared by Republicans and Democrats alike.

I would like to thank my friend, Congressman Bill Foster, for his dedication to this issue.

Detention takes an enormous toll on our communities, and mandating ICE detain 34,000 individuals a day does not secure our borders or make us safer. The Deutch-Foster amendment would strike this arbitrary provision from the bill, and I urge its adoption.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to my friend, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Foster).

Mr. Chairman, I have a letter of support for this amendment that is signed by 66 local, national and State groups, which I submit for the Record.

June 5, 2013.

Re H.R. 2217--Support Rep. Deutch's Amendment to Eliminate

the Immigration Detention Bed Mandate

Hon. John Boehner,

Speaker, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Nancy Pelosi,

Minority Leader, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Speaker Boehner and Minority Leader Pelosi: As

organizations that work to protect and advance the rights of

individuals in immigration detention, we write to encourage

bipartisan support of Rep. Deutch's amendment (co-sponsored

by Rep. Foster) to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)

Appropriations Act, H.R. 2217, that would eliminate the

immigration detention bed mandate.

Congress has mandated through appropriations that DHS

maintain a daily immigration detention level of 34,000

individuals, a micro-managing approach that does not exist in

any other law enforcement context. DHS already uses a Risk

Assessment Tool to help determine whether an individual

presents a risk of flight or a risk to public safety and

whether that person should be detained. Yet the bed

``mandate'' precludes the agency from making decisions about

detention based on its enforcement priorities, policies, and

need. It also makes increased efficiencies, effective

alternatives to detention, and other cost-savings efforts for

taxpayers impossible--an irresponsible approach for the

federal government to take when Washington seeks to reduce

federal spending. Alternatives to detention have received

bipartisan support for its cost-savings from groups such as

the Council on Foreign Relations' Independent Task Force on

U.S. Immigration Policy, the Heritage Foundation, the

Pretrial Justice Institute, the Texas Public Policy

Foundation (home to Right on Crime), the International

Association of Chiefs of Police, and the National Conference

of Chief Justices.

Today, taxpayers pay upward of $2 billion a year to fund

immigration detention, approximately $5.5 million each day.

Decades ago, criminal justice and correctional experts

observed that holding all individuals subject to

incarceration in jails or prisons was unsustainable,

unnecessary, and a wasteful use of resources. It is common in

the criminal justice system to use an array of less costly

custody options, such as electronic monitoring and house

arrest, to meet pre-trial and post-sentencing needs. The

federal sentencing guidelines expressly allow substitution of

a prison sentence with alternatives to incarceration. The

immigration detention system should follow suit and conform

to established best practices.

We urge you to support this important amendment, which will

eliminate this arbitrary immigration detention quota and save

critical taxpayer dollars. Please feel free to contact Royce

Murray with any questions.

Sincerely,

National Organizations

Adrian Dominican Sisters.

All of Us or None.

American Civil Liberties Union.

American Friends Service Committee.

American Immigration Lawyers Association.

Americans for Immigrant Justice, formerly Florida Immigrant

Advocacy Center.

America's Voice.

Arab American Institute.

Congregation of St. Joseph.

Detention Watch Network.

Human Rights First.

Immigration Equality Action Fund.

Japanese American Citizens League.

Justice for Immigrants.

Justice Strategies.

League of United Latin American Citizens.

Lutheran Immigration Refugee Service.

NAFSA: Association of International Educators.

National Center for Transgender Equality.

National Council of La Raza (NCLR).

National Immigrant Justice Center.

National Immigration Forum.

National Immigration Law Center.

Physicians for Human Rights.

Service Employees International Union (SEIU).

Sisters of St. Francis, Sylvania, OH.

Sisters of St. Joseph, TOSF.

Sisters of the Most Precious Blood, O'Fallon, MO.

Sisters, Home Visitors of Mary.

South Asian Americans Leading Together (SAALT).

Southeast Asia Resource Action Center (SEARAC).

Southern Poverty Law Center.

The Advocates for Human Rights.

The Center for APA Women.

UC Davis Immigration Law Clinic.

Women's Refugee Commission.

State Organizations

Advocates for Survivors of Torture and Trauma.

California Immigrant Policy Center.

Florence Immigrant & Refugee Rights Project.

Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights.

Legal Services for Prisoners with Children.

Maria Baldini-Potermin & Associates, PC.

Massachusetts Immigrant and Refugee Advocacy Coalition.

New York Immigration Coalition.

Northwest Immigrant Rights Project.

OneAmerica.

Pax Christi Florida.

Political Asylum Immigration Representation Project.

Scott D. Pollock & Associates, P.C.

Sisters of Mercy West Midwest Justice Team.

Vermont Immigration and Asylum Advocates.

Voces de la Frontera.

Local Organizations

Capital Area Immigrants' Rights Coalition.

Dominican Sisters of Houston.

Gesu Immigration Study Group.

Good Shepherd Immigration Study Group.

Gospel Justice Committee Sisters of the Most Precious Blood

of O'Fallon, MO.

Immigration Taskforce, SWPA Synod, Evangelical Lutheran

Church in America.

Justice and Peace Committee/Sisters of St Joseph/West

Hartford, CT.

Justice for Immigrants, District 4 & 5.

Milwaukee New Sanctuary Movement.

PCUN, Oregon's Farmworker Union.

Reformed Church of Highland Park, NJ.

Sisters of St. Joseph of Rochester.

University of Miami School of Law Immigration Clinic.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.