Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, let's be clear about what we're debating here. Nobody in this Chamber disputes Israel's right to defend itself against attacks by Hamas and other terrorist organizations, and neither does the report issued by Justice Goldstone. The report instead examines the conduct of the war by both sides, including a detailed chapter on the savage rocket attacks launched from Gaza into southern Israel, which it describes as ``serious war crimes'' and possibly ``crimes against humanity.''

Nobody here is defending one-sided mandates either:

But in the interest of full disclosure, critics should note that Justice Goldstone insisted on a rewritten and balanced mandate before he took on the assignment.

Nobody here is disputing the obligation of the U.S. to insist that any resolution debated by the U.N. be fair and balanced and to vote against or veto it otherwise. But there is a crucial distinction between criticizing the way in which the Goldstone Report was handled at the U.N. and criticizing the very existence of the report in the first place, which is exactly what this resolution does. Conflating the two does a disservice to a respected jurist who has devoted his life to upholding international norms of justice and human rights, and more importantly, it may damage future efforts to hold countries accountable through international investigations.

Finally, bringing this resolution up at this time and in this manner could have implications for the possibility of internal investigations into the conflict by the parties themselves. That is a central recommendation of the Goldstone Report as well as the Obama administration and prominent Israeli officials and Israeli human rights organizations. Israel is a strong and resilient democracy. Successfully investigating this episode could only make it stronger. We shouldn't pass a resolution now which could actually slow or stop the wheels of justice.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 829, I call up the conference report on the bill (H.R. 2892) making appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2010, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include tabular and extraneous material on the conference report to accompany H.R. 2892.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to present the conference report for the Department of Homeland Security appropriations for fiscal year 2010. This agreement provides $42.78 billion for the Department, $2.64 billion, or 7 percent, above the fiscal year 2009 level.

I want to thank the distinguished ranking member, Mr. Rogers, for his advice and counsel and help in making this a better bill, and also his staff for working so closely and constructively with us. I want to highlight the work of all staff on both sides of the aisle who have helped us present such a strong legislative product to the Congress.

This is a critical year for the Department of Homeland Security, as it has weathered its first leadership transition with the new administration, in the midst of a global economic recession. I commend the Department's new leadership on its strong efforts to enhance our Nation's security posture and its willingness to reach out to Congress to make adjustments and to promote change when needed.

This conference report, carrying the seventh annual appropriation for the Department since its inception, addresses the needs and challenges that this still-young Department faces. It also represents a considered approach to funding critical domestic security requirements and other core departmental missions within a bipartisan consensus on fiscal responsibility.

Madam Speaker, one can make an argument for increasing funding for many of the programs contained in this report. When discussing homeland security, worst-case scenarios often abound, as do advocates for fixating on one threat while downplaying others.

Our obligation, by contrast, is to take a balanced, realistic approach, to weigh risks carefully, and to set priorities and make prudent investments in smart, effective security. I believe this conference agreement supports the Department's efforts to focus on the highest priorities for protecting our country and to prevent, prepare for, and respond to legitimate threats, whether natural or man-made.

To conserve time, Madam Speaker, I will highlight just a few items in the proposed agreement, items I believe are of interest to all Members.

First, the conference agreement provides the resources to support the readiness of our State and local partners, our first responders out on the front lines. This includes $810 million for firefighters, $887 million for the Urban Areas Security Initiatives grants and $340 million for emergency managers. It also includes over $900 million to strengthen FEMA's operational response capabilities and to enhance the agency's emergency management mission.

The conference agreement includes $1.5 billion for more effective efforts by U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement to identify and remove illegal aliens who have committed crimes, a priority we share with the President and Secretary Napolitano. Of this total, $200 million furthers development of the Secure Communities Program, which offers a productive approach for Federal immigration agents to work closely with State and local law enforcement, while maintaining the distinction between the traditional Federal role of enforcing immigration law and the local role of prosecuting criminal violations.

The conference agreement includes $800 million for infrastructure and technology to secure the border, with an emphasis on developing technological surveillance and improving tactical communications so our Border Patrol can make smart use of its resources to police an expansive border. It includes $40 million to minimize adverse environmental impacts of border infrastructure and operations, and maintains strong oversight requirements to ensure the Secure Border Initiative delivers as promised.

The conference agreement provides a total of $7.66 billion for the Transportation Security Administration to improve aviation security and efficiency. Two areas of note are over $1 billion available to deploy explosives detection systems at airports throughout the country that have less capable and slower screening systems, and $122 million for air cargo security so TSA can meet the August 2010 deadline for screening 100 percent of cargo in the hold of passenger planes.

This conference agreement continues to take steps to increase the Coast Guard's contribution to national security, including protection of our waterways and those who use them and stemming the flow of illegal drugs into this country. Overall, this bill includes $10.14 billion for the Coast Guard, $170 million more than the administration requested. Most of this increase is to purchase materials for a new national security cutter and to complete the refurbishment of a heavy icebreaker that will help secure America's interests in the Arctic. It also boosts support for the existing fleet, making investments above the administration's request for backlogged vessel maintenance.

The conference agreement includes nearly $400 million for DHS cybersecurity programs, 26 percent above fiscal year 2009, to ramp up our protections for governmental computer networks and to bring on more professionals with cybersecurity expertise. In addition, DHS will be able to initiate new efforts to help those responsible for critical infrastructure and other private networks, reducing their vulnerability to cyberattacks.

Also, the conference agreement includes $11 million to promote legal paths to U.S. citizenship by expanding the successful immigration integration program of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.

The conference agreement includes $1.1 billion for departmental operations, up $90 million or 17 percent above fiscal year 2009, to improve DHS management and make it more cost-effective, to secure sensitive information, and to ensure that contractors are overseen by trained government professionals, not by other contractors.

The agreement provides $221 million to continue efforts to safeguard international commerce and to prevent the use of cargo containers to carry or deliver weapons. This includes an increase of $12.5 million, or 8 percent, above fiscal 2009 to build on the Secure Freight Initiative and Container Security Initiative, as well as funding to sustain programs targeting high-risk cargo and shippers. DHS is also required to submit a realistic strategy for achieving effective cargo and supply chain security.

To ensure that DHS can adequately protect public safety in its efforts to identify and prepare for biological or agricultural threats, the conference agreement requires DHS to conduct a thorough risk assessment to determine requirements for safe operation of the National Bio and Agro Defense Facility scheduled for Manhattan, Kansas.

It calls for the National Academy of Sciences to provide an independent evaluation of the Department's safety, planning, and mitigation efforts in connection with this project.

In addition, the conference report extends authorizations for the E- Verify program and for visas for physicians serving in rural areas, religious workers, and investors, each of these by 3 years. These are all short-term solutions until comprehensive immigration reform can be considered by the authorizing committees and by the Congress.

Finally, I want to discuss two items that have been raised repeatedly, the release of photographs and videos of individuals detained by U.S. Armed Forces since 9/11, and restrictions on the administration's ability to transfer detainees from Guantanamo Bay Naval Station to the United States or elsewhere in the world.

On the first topic, the conference report codifies the President's decision to allow the Secretary of Defense to bar the release of detainee photos for a period of 3 years.

On the second topic, the conference report establishes strict safeguards on the movement of Guantanamo's detainees, and if the administration chooses to address their cases in U.S. courts, this legislation ensures that that will be done with due consideration, planning, and forethought.

It prohibits current detainees from being released into the United States or any U.S. territory. It allows the transfer of a detainee to custody inside the United States only for the purpose of prosecuting that individual and only after Congress receives a plan detailing

the risks involved and a plan for mitigating such risks, the cost of the transfer, the legal rationale and court demands, and a copy of the notification provided to the governor of the receiving State 14 days before a transfer, with a certification by the Attorney General that the individual poses little or no security risk.

Our bill also prevents current detainees from being transferred or released to another country, including freely associated states, unless the President submits to the Congress 15 days prior to such transfer the name of the individual and the country the individual will be transferred to, an assessment of risks posed and actions taken to mitigate such risks, and the terms of the transfer agreement with the other country, including any financial assistance.

It requires the President to submit a report to Congress describing the disposition of each current detainee before the facility in Guantanamo Bay can be closed. It bars the use of funds to provide any immigration benefits to Guantanamo detainees, other than to allow them to be brought to the U.S. for prosecution, and it mandates the inclusion of all detainees on the TSA No Fly List. These are provisions that have been supported on a bipartisan basis in Appropriations Committee markups and on the floor of this House.

Madam Speaker, the conference report before us today represents hard work in a cooperative and bipartisan spirit. It invests in critical government efforts designed to keep the American people safe. I strongly support the proposed agreement, and urge my colleagues to do the same.

Madam Speaker, I include the following for the Record:

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH15OC09.001

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH15OC09.002

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH15OC09.003

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH15OC09.004

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH15OC09.005

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to our valued colleague from New York (Mrs. Lowey), a member of the subcommittee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to another fine member of our subcommittee, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Rothman).

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to another valued subcommittee colleague, Mr. Ruppersberger of Maryland.

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

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to one of our hardest working subcommittee members, Mr. Farr of California.

Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is available on both sides.

Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes at this point to the distinguished chairman of the authorizing committee with whom we work very closely, Mr. Thompson of Mississippi.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker, I reserve.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the remainder of our time.

Madam Speaker, I rise once again to urge colleagues to support this carefully worked out conference report. And since no debate is permitted on the motion to recommit, I do wish to say a few words about the motion and strongly urge its rejection.

The motion to recommit would derail $42.8 billion in Homeland Security investments, investments in critical efforts to protect the American people from the threat of terrorist attacks and natural disasters, and to secure our borders, ports and skies.

The motion to recommit would reopen the compromises made with the Senate that allowed us to provide $2.5 billion in additional resources for our homeland security efforts.

My colleagues should make no mistake, this motion to recommit will dissolve our conference and kill the bill. Now, that should be reason enough for voting against the motion, but let me talk about the substance of the motion as well, because I do want to make certain that Members understand what we're dealing with.

The motion to recommit would dismantle the agreement that we on the majority side had with the minority in our full committee, which was passed by a large bipartisan vote in the House as a whole. In listening to our colleagues debate today, you would hardly understand that. But as a matter of fact, they readily agreed, eagerly agreed, in the markup in the Appropriations Committee that of course there should be an exception for bringing detainees to this country for prosecution if that was determined to be the best way of dealing with their case. I think it's fair to say that no matter what President was in the White House, he or she would insist on this flexibility, and we should insist on it for them.

This motion to recommit would guarantee, I'm afraid, no progress in resolving the status of detainees for a year. It goes against the basic American principles of due process and access to a fair trial. It goes against America's basic interests as well, the interest in closing down Guantanamo--and that, I remind colleagues, is an objective articulated by President Bush as well as by President Obama--our interest in closing down Guantanamo and in bringing related cases to an orderly conclusion.

The motion to recommit unreasonably and unwisely exalts these detained individuals above the most savage prisoners in the U.S., saying we just can't handle them, we just can't handle these dangerous people in our court system. This, I would say, emboldens the terrorists, perhaps even helps their recruiting efforts. We have tried, convicted, and punished people who are the worst of the worst in this country repeatedly, and we can do so again.

Similar provisions, Madam Speaker, were rejected by this body just last week in a motion to recommit the Defense authorization bill, and they should be rejected today.

Now, we heard a lot of arguments today about ``Mirandizing'' prisoners and reading them their rights on the battlefield. That is a red herring, unrelated to this bill. Legal protections are a matter for the courts; they are a matter for other committees in this body. Our conference report does not reach these matters.

We have assurances, as a matter of fact, from General Petraeus that U.S. military forces are not and will not Mirandize detainees. The Department of Justice has said there has been no policy change nor blanket instruction issued for FBI agents to Mirandize detainees overseas. There have been specific cases in which FBI agents have done this at Bagram and in other situations in order to preserve the quality of some evidence, but there has been no overall policy change.

In fact, the whole issue of Mirandizing terrorists on the field of battle shows a lack of understanding of what ``Miranda rights'' are. Miranda warnings are given prior to interrogation for collecting evidence from a suspect in a crime. They are a protection against a suspect's making self-incriminating statements. They are not a part of arrest or detention procedures. The courts have held that they do not prevent questioning about identity and that they do not apply in cases where public safety is threatened, such as on the field of battle or at the site of a terrorist attack. We don't interrogate on the field of battle. It's a red herring.

By the way, we're also not reaching the question of the future of military tribunals, but the ranking member's motion to recommit would very definitely shut off access to U.S. courts. We need to ask ourselves whether that is something we want to do in cases where that may be the most appropriate venue for prosecution.

My colleague seems to think that three convictions by military tribunals in the entire period of their existence is an impressive record. One of those was by a guilty plea. It's not an impressive record. By contrast, a recent analysis of the 119 terrorism cases involving 289 defendants tried over the last 20 years in U.S. courts shows a 91 percent conviction rate for the cases that had been resolved as of June 2.

Is that an option that we simply summarily want to close off?

I've already indicated, Madam Speaker--and I won't repeat--the layered protections that our bill contains with respect to the movement of detainees, the transparency it requires and the accountability it enforces. This bill contains multiple protections, and I stress again that they're based on an earlier bipartisan consensus. They reflect not just the wording in our bill but the language in several of the appropriations bills.

This move today to recommit this bill makes me wonder just how much our colleagues have really meant it when they have urged us to consider this bill quickly and to act with dispatch. We heard this through much of September.

The Guantanamo provisions that they asked for were included in the bill. We brought the bill with those provisions intact from the conference. They've been clamoring for weeks to get this bill to the floor, to pass it as a free-standing bill. But all of a sudden as the conference proceeded, again they cried, ``Stop.''

Now they're objecting to provisions that they, themselves, endorsed in the Appropriations Committee and on the House floor. They're objecting to our good faith safeguards on the movement of detainees to other countries and to the transparency requirements. They're simply saying, ``Stop.'' Once again, ``Stop.''

Well, we can't afford to stop, Madam Speaker. We're already into the fiscal year. We have no reason to stop, and we cannot afford to stop. We will not hold up the $1.5 billion in this conference report to identify and to remove illegal aliens who have been convicted of crimes. We will not delay $800 million to secure our borders. We will not delay $4.2 billion for Homeland Security grants to ensure our first-responder community is well-prepared to meet all hazards. We will not delay funding for our Coast Guard, for our Secret Service, for disaster assistance, or for cybersecurity.

We will, in fact, pass this bill today. We've worked with our colleagues. We've debated the priorities. We've operated in good faith. We've accommodated interests by Members throughout this body. Now it is time to get on with it, to get past the political games, to get past the ``gotcha'' amendments and motions, and to fund Homeland Security. This body has a responsibility to legislate. Let's get the job done.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this motion to recommit and to vote enthusiastically for this conference report.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to clause 1 of rule XXII and by direction of the Committee on Appropriations, I move to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 2892) making appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2010, and for other purposes, with a Senate amendment thereto, disagree to the Senate amendment, and agree to the conference asked by the Senate.

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to instruct offered by the gentleman from Kentucky and yield myself as much time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I want to begin by echoing the words of the ranking member. We have, indeed, enjoyed fruitful cooperation in formulating this bill and bringing it to this point. Mr. Rogers is a distinguished ranking member. He was the founding chairman of this subcommittee, and I think on both sides, we take pride in the process that we've developed that involves full consultation and, of course, not always perfect agreement, but a respect for each other's views and a product that can rightfully be called the fruit of our common labor.

Having said that, I do want to oppose this motion to instruct. I don't oppose it in its entirety. It has some positive features, but I want to concentrate in my brief remarks this morning on what leads me to ask for a ``no'' vote. This mainly has to do with some parts of items two and three of this motion.

The motion to instruct would basically prevent us from bringing anyone held in Guantanamo Bay to the United States for the purpose of prosecution. This provision is more restrictive than the House-passed bill, which allowed persons detained at the naval station at Guantanamo Bay to be brought to the U.S. for prosecution.

Accepting a more narrow provision goes against basic American principles, as well as basic American interests. People are to be given due process and access to a fair trial in this country, and it is certainly in this country's interest to bring these people to trial, to dispose of their cases. I must say, this motion also goes against a perfecting amendment that the distinguished ranking member himself voluntarily accepted--in fact, eagerly accepted--in our full committee markup.

So I have to ask, what would have made the other side change its mind all of a sudden? It appears that even when they get ``yes'' for an answer, it's hard to accept ``yes'' for an answer. Without allowing these detainees to come to the United States for prosecution, we're basically saying that our judicial and law enforcement officials are unable to handle these criminals here in the United States, and that our country's core values and interests do not apply in these cases. That's just wrong.

The U.S. has successfully tried dangerous terrorists before--in fact, many times, executing some, putting others behind bars to fade into obscurity. The perpetrators of the 1993 World Trade Center and Murrah Federal Building bombings are perfect examples.

Treating these individuals as though they are so dangerous that we cannot possibly put them on trial or punish them or lock them up and throw away the key, the way we deal with our most savage criminals here in the United States, gives these detainees an exalted status. Why do we want to do that? An exalted status is far from what they deserve.

We can handle this, Madam Speaker. We're up to this challenge, and the last thing we ought to be doing is elevating these Guantanamo prisoners in the eyes of the world. The amendment that was accepted in committee, to permit us to bring these people into the United States for the purpose of prosecution, most certainly should remain.

Finally, Madam Speaker, let me just say a word about the process by which this bill is being brought to the floor. We, of course, want to make certain that Members have ample time to study and understand bills before we vote on them. At the same time, I have to say, this bill has been a long time in the making. There has been a long period of discussion and debate and deliberation, and Members of this body should be assured that a full range of interested parties have been involved in crafting this bill in a bipartisan fashion since we received the budget in May.

Even before receiving the budget, we held 15 days of hearings on a wide variety of topics, including responses to natural disasters, technology and efficiency improvements, immigration enforcement, and border security. We had testimony from DHS as well as GAO and other non-Department sources. So it's a thoroughly vetted bill, and the issues in this bill have been thoroughly examined. They've been given their proper due diligence. There are no surprises, and we are, indeed, ready to go to conference.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished chairman of our full committee, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

Madam Speaker, I am still trying to process the notion that we have in our high-security prisons a population that is just waiting to be corrupted.

We are all aware of the kind of people who are in these high-security prisons. They are already corrupted and they are dangerous, and we have proven our capacity to deal with them. I don't think that it behooves this body to cast such doubt on our capacities, the capacities of the judicial and penal systems of this country. We are up to this, Madam Speaker, and yet the motion before us would say that we cannot bring these people into this country for prosecution when it is clearly in our interest to do so. It is in our interest to close Guantanamo within a reasonable period of time and to bring these people before the bar of justice.

I would like to yield 30 seconds to our full committee chairman.

Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano).

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

Madam Speaker, I have no further speakers.

Madam Speaker, I reiterate my request to our Members to vote against this motion to recommit. The motion is long and complex and by no means totally objectionable. But we have highlighted here today a feature of the Guantanamo provisions which not only is objectionable, but fundamentally runs counter to our country's interest--our country's interest in closing Guantanamo in a timely fashion and bringing the detainees there to trial.

It also, in a strange way, seems to question our country's capacity, the capacity of our judicial system and our penal system, to handle hardened criminals, whereas I think that our capacity to handle even the most dangerous criminals is beyond question. And I believe this motion also risks elevating these criminals in the eyes of the world, suggesting that we can not handle them through our normal processes of justice. For all these reasons, I believe this motion to instruct is unwise, and I urge a ``no'' vote.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I thank my colleague, and I want to thank the chairman of the committee and the entire committee for their work on this bill, making historic investments in America's education and economic prosperity.

In particular, I want to thank the committee for including provisions in the bill that would allow guaranty agencies, such as the North Carolina State Education Assistance Authority, to provide value-added outreach services via contracts with the Department of Education. These services play a vital role at both ends of the student loan process by informing borrowers about their education financing options before college and helping them successfully repay their loans after graduation.

Our proposed amendment simply clarifies that several of the key borrower services guaranty agencies currently provide, such as delinquency prevention, default aversion, and delinquency collections, also would be eligible for contract arrangements with the Department.

The work of these agencies pays real dividends for students and taxpayers alike. In North Carolina, default rates have been consistently among the Nation's lowest and about half the national average for the last few years. In 2007, these services helped prevent an estimated $52 billion in loans from going into default, according to the National Council of Higher Education Loan Programs.

So I thank my colleague from North Carolina and our other cosponsors for their collaborative work in putting forth this amendment, and urge Members to give it their support.

Madam Speaker, on September 2 North Carolina lost one of its most consequential and compassionate political leaders, former Senator Russell G. Walker, Sr., of Asheboro. Recent days have been filled with tributes from those of us who treasured the opportunity to know and work with Russell--former Governor Jim Hunt described him as ``one of the most caring people I have ever met in politics.'' But untold thousands who never met Russell are also in his debt, by virtue of his work on mental health, maternal and child health, water quality, and other policy challenges during his ten terms in the North Carolina Senate.

Russell was born in 1918 in the community of Conetoe, in Edgecombe County, North Carolina, and his family soon moved to High Point. During the Depression years Russell worked after school to help keep bread on the table and got into the grocery business, moving to Asheboro to manage a store at age 19. He married Ruth Brunt in 1941--the beginning of a 68-year marriage that warmed the hearts of all who knew them and of a family that includes three children, Russell, Jr., Steve, and Susan, seven grandchildren, and three great-grandchildren.

Russell enlisted in the Army Air Corps after Pearl Harbor and spent much of World War II ``flying the hump,'' hauling troops, bombs, and fuel from India to China over the treacherous Himalayas. He founded his own supermarket chain, Food Line, after the war, and became a mainstay of civic, religious, and political life in Randolph County. Serving first on the Asheboro City Council, he gained election to the North Carolina Senate in 1974. While he is rightly known statewide for his pioneering and persistent work in health and human services, citizens of Asheboro are well aware of many more local and tangible results of his service: the North Carolina Zoo (the strategic location of which, in Asheboro, was no accident!), highway U.S. 64, and the Asheboro airport.

I came to know Russell well in 1979-80, when I took a leave of absence from Duke University to serve as executive director of the North Carolina Democratic Party during his time as party chairman. We had a wonderful time riding North Carolina's roads together, visiting far-flung towns and counties and along the way talking for hours about every imaginable topic. I learned a great deal, especially, about Russell's wartime experience and the 1972 Nick Galifianakis Senate campaign, which Russell had managed and which was still fresh on his mind.

Above all, however, Russell and I became good friends, and I came to understand what a remarkable man he was--compassionate, fair and decent, firm in his own convictions but open to what he might learn from others, quick to spot another person's promise and to offer encouragement. These are qualities I treasured in my own father and which I have seen in few people to the extent they were exemplified by Russell Walker.

I could say more, Madam Speaker, about my indebtedness to Russell Walker as a mentor and for the encouragement and help he offered in 1986 and beyond as I began my own congressional career. But the most important and enduring point is the one about character, and I can underscore it with a story told by Lloyd Hamlet, a long-time friend of Russell's and mine, to the Asheboro Courier-Tribune last week.

A youngster was caught stealing food at one of Russell's stores. The police were called, but Russell intervened and had a talk with the boy. He said that there was no food at his house; his dad was not in the home and his mother was often away. Russell went with the boy to his home, learned more about his circumstances, and eventually left the house filled with food from his store.

Anyone who knew Russell Walker well would recognize him from that story. The story would be neither remembered nor recounted if Russell had reacted in the expected way. But we recall it fondly because of what it says about the man we knew and about the enduring power of love and kindness--a reversal, we may hope, of Shakespeare's famous dictum: it is the good that we do that endures. Certainly there is much good that Russell Walker did that lives after him--individual acts of kindness and encouragement, and social policies made more effective and humane by his years of legislative leadership. We are grateful for his life and the way he lived it and continue to be inspired by his example.

Mr. Speaker, on September 2, we received the sad news of the passing of W.G. ``Bill'' Hefner, the Representative for 12 terms from the Eighth District of North Carolina. He served from 1975 to 1998.

Bill Hefner was a beloved and respected Member of this body, a man who never lost his sympathy for the underdog and never lost his capacity to advocate for the working people of our State and our Nation.

Bill was probably best known for his impact on the quality of life of our military men and women, our service men and women, through his chairmanship of the Military Construction Appropriations subcommittee.

I would, at this point, like to yield to Larry Kissell who currently represents the Eighth District of North Carolina and who on Tuesday night convened a Special Order to pay tribute to this wonderful man.

Mr. Speaker, I would now like to yield to the dean of our delegation, Howard Coble.

I thank the gentleman.

I ask unanimous consent, Mr. Speaker, that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the subject of my 1-minute.

I ask that all Members rise and that we observe a moment of silence in memory of our dear departed colleague.

I thank my colleagues for scheduling this time tonight for us to remember our friend and colleague, Bill Hefner, to honor his memory.

I first got to know Bill when I came to this body in 1987. He was already a fairly senior Member. He became an important mentor to me and a valued friend and colleague. As many have said already, Bill came from a humble background. He never lost touch with working people. He had a natural empathy and understanding of people who were struggling in life, great sympathy for the underdog. He was a man of great compassion, and that compassion was not feigned. It was something that came naturally to Bill, an innate sense, I think, in Bill, of fairness and decency. There is not going to be a speaker here tonight, I promise you, that doesn't refer to Bill's sense of humor. He was the funniest man probably that ever served in this Chamber. He could cut through tense moments in these overheated debates in a way that was a marvel to behold.

Sometimes, as Mr. Edwards said, he showed great courage in the way he dealt with those debates. I have a memory very similar to Chet Edwards. This one comes earlier when I had been here only a year or so. It was a debate of the so-called ``Grove City'' bill which was a proposal that unfortunately would have put an adverse interpretation on civil rights laws. And it was a bill the effect of which was being greatly exaggerated by a prominent figure of the religious right of that time. He said that if this bill was passed, churches would have to, and I'm quoting him here, to hire a practicing active homosexual drug addict with AIDS to be a teacher or youth pastor.

Well, Bill Hefner was watching this go on, and like all of us, he was getting his switchboard flooded with calls coming in alarmed about this from well-meaning people who didn't know what to make of this. I wrote a book a couple of years later and remembered, looked back at this episode because it impressed me so much at the time. In my chapter on religion and politics, I quoted Bill Hefner, what he said coming to this floor and cutting through that debate, and the words I'm going to read don't do justice to the effect he had just in his commonsense way. Bill said, I find reprehensible not those thousands of people who have made the phone calls, but the people that have instigated this misinformation. If it means I lose my position in the U.S. House of Representatives if I do not cave in and base my vote on what people believe to be true but what I know not to be true, I say to my colleagues, this job is not worth that to me. I remembered that and looked it up. And it still stands for me as a memory of effective debate in this House, effective not just rhetorically but because of its being said from the heart and its being said with true conviction.

Bill was a member of the Appropriations Committee, chairman of the Subcommittee on Military Construction, a champion of our servicemen and -women, of their housing and of their quality of life. An elementary school at Fort Bragg bears his name, as does the Salisbury Veterans Administration Hospital.

Bill was a mentor to many of us. He gave me pep talks on more than one difficult vote. He could put everything in perspective. I valued that mentorship, that support, and that encouragement.

He helped me get on the Appropriations Committee, and then he helped me figure out how to get things done once I got on the Appropriations Committee.

He was a mainstay of our delegation, one of our most influential Members, yes, but also a Member who helped us all stick together, whom we all liked and respected. We enjoyed his company. And I think it's fair to say that Bill's role in our delegation has never quite been filled since he left.

I remember very well the dinner that was given for Bill shortly before his retirement. The Harvesters Quartet, pretty elderly gentlemen by that time, they were gathered from all over the country, they came in and sang one more time. And Bill's friends and associates and colleagues got up one after the other and told many stories like those we heard tonight. It was one of the most enjoyable and heart-warming evenings I have ever experienced in this city or anywhere else.

So I'm pleased to join tonight in honoring Bill, in recalling our friendship, our common labors with him. He served North Carolina and this Nation faithfully and well in ways that continue to inspire.

Thank you to the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee for his work on H. Res. 675, which I'm proud to rise in support of. It's a message of solidarity to the people of Indonesia.

I want to first thank the leadership of the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Asia-Pacific Subcommittee, in particular, for their leadership on this issue in putting this resolution forward on behalf of the House Democracy Assistance Commission. Mr. Dreier and I have worked closely with the committee leadership and staff, as well as the leadership of the Indonesia Caucus, Mr. Wexler and Mr. Burton of Indiana.

A week ago last Friday, July 17, two terrorists detonated suicide bombs inside the Ritz-Carlton and Marriott Hotels in the central business district of Jakarta, killing themselves and seven others and wounding over 50. It was the first successful attack in Indonesia since 2005, and it comes at a time when the country has made substantial progress in the fight against terrorism.

The attackers appeared to have been targeting a conference of Western businessmen meeting at the Marriott and citizens of over a dozen countries, including eight Americans, who were injured in these horrific attacks. The majority of the victims were Indonesian citizens going peacefully about their daily affairs.

For my HDAC colleagues and me, these attacks hit pretty close to home because our commission had visited Jakarta just 2 weeks before to continue the partnership we have been forging with the Indonesia Parliament since 2006. We met with parliamentary leaders as well as with a number of newly elected members discussing their progress towards democratic reforms during this time of political transition in Indonesia.

In light of this productive and mutually enriching partnership, it's fitting that a delegation from the Indonesian equivalent of our House Administration Committee is visiting the House today and tomorrow for 2 days of meetings arranged by the House Democracy Assistance Commission. Led by Chairwoman Indria Octavia Muaja, the delegation is here to meet with our Foreign Affairs Committee, as well as our House Administration Committee and chief administrative officer, to discuss how to implement and manage an effective human resources system in their parliament.

Now, this may not grab any headlines, but it's this type of partnership that will help build the foundations of a stable and prosperous democracy in the years ahead.

And so, Madam Speaker, we offer this resolution today to extend our condolences to our guests and all of the people of Indonesia and all of the other countries suffering casualties in these attacks, to condemn these senseless acts of terrorism in the strongest possible terms and to reaffirm our commitment to the strengthening of democratic institutions and the promotion of peace, prosperity, and tolerance in Indonesia.

I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 2892, and that I may include tabular material on the same bill.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Part of this funding furthers development of the Secure Communities program, which offers a productive approach for Federal immigration agents to work closely with State and local law enforcement while distinguishing the traditional Federal role of enforcing immigration law from the local role of prosecuting criminal violations. We have heard from many law enforcement and community groups about the importance of keeping a bright line between immigration enforcement and local community policing, and the Secure Communities program does just that.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I reserve the balance of my time.

I welcome a colloquy with my distinguished colleague.

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

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

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

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I would like to reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

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

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

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

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Madam Chairwoman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I reserve the balance of my time.

I will continue to reserve.

How much time is remaining, Madam Chairman?

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

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

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

So I pledge my cooperation in that endeavor.

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

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

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

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

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

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

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

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

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

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition.

I would reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

Madam Chairman, it's clear what the gentleman's amendment does. It reduces funding levels in various accounts in this bill by the amounts appropriated in the Recovery Act. Just as a few examples, he cuts $200 million from the Under Secretary for Management because there was $200 million in the Recovery Act for the new DHS headquarters at St. Elizabeth's. But there's no money in this bill for the new DHS headquarters. He's just cutting management and oversight for the Department by more than 75 percent.

He cuts $5 million from the Inspector General because there was $5 million specifically included to help monitor Recovery Act expenditures. But there's no money in this bill specifically for Recovery Act oversight. It simply comes out of the Inspector General's Office and the critical work that he does.

He cuts $420 million from the CBP budget for facilities management because there was $420 million included in the Recovery Act to replace and renovate land ports of entry into the U.S.. But there's no money in this bill for such construction. So it's really just an indiscriminate and enormous cut to the general upkeep of Border Patrol and Customs facilities.

The gentleman cuts $210 million from the Firefighter Assistance Grants program because there was $210 million included in the Recovery Act for fire station construction. But there's not a penny in this bill for fire station construction. This amendment would reduce grant funding for firefighter equipment by over 50 percent, at a time when local firefighter budgets are already on the chopping block.

The effect of this amendment is very different from the effect of simply rescinding Recovery Act funds. Rather than erasing the effect of stimulus moneys provided through this title in the current year, it guts the ability of the agency to function in the coming year. It would nearly eliminate the budgets for hiring personnel, managing equipment purchases, departmental security, and DHS facilities. If this amendment passes, the Kansas City Royals--not exactly the biggest spending team in baseball--would spend more on player payroll than the third-largest department in the Federal Government would have to manage its affairs. CBP couldn't pay rent for their existing facilities. Modernization of airport screening for explosives and advancements permitting passengers to safely carry larger containers of liquids onto planes would grind to a halt. I think that's probably enough to illustrate just how destructive this amendment would be and how indiscriminate it would be.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this devastating amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Madam Chairman, if this amendment were to be adopted, the locality that is targeted, namely, the city of Emeryville, would not receive funding, nor would the locality even be able to compete for a Pre-Disaster Mitigation grant through FEMA because the amendment would strike any Pre-Disaster Mitigation funding for that locality for the fiscal year 2010.

Now, Madam Chairwoman, FEMA has reviewed every mitigation project in this bill. Each project was deemed eligible based on the requirements in the Stafford Act and will be used to protect lives and reduce property damages in some of the most hazard-prone areas of the country. There should be no question that this request underwent rigorous scrutiny and meets the test of being aligned with and supporting the missions of DHS.

So I urge colleagues to defeat this amendment.

I would yield, yes.

I thank the gentleman.

Madam Chairman, I am happy now to yield to our colleague from California (Ms. Lee).

I commend the gentleman for looking out for his people, looking out for his home area and crafting an amendment that is responsive to some very real perils. And I will just say, once again, these proposals have been vetted by FEMA. There is no question they underwent rigorous scrutiny. This is consistent with the Stafford Act and will protect lives and reduce property damages in this locality. So I commend him for his advocacy.

If the gentleman will yield, I want to commend him for his advocacy of these outstanding programs and join him in opposition to this ill-conceived amendment.

Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

I want to very quickly turn to Mr. Pastor, the author of this provision, but I want to assure Members that this provision, like other directed spending, has been vetted down at the Department of Homeland Security. It has been certified to be consistent with the agency's mission; otherwise, it simply isn't eligible.

Now, on this item in particular, I would invite the attention of Members to the actual language of the bill, page 6. This earmark is for $800,000 for procurement of portable solar-charging, rechargeable battery systems to be awarded under full and open competition.

That language is pretty plain; isn't it?

This item is required by law to be subject to a competitive procurement process. And, indeed, any item now in appropriations bills involving for-profit entities are subject to the same requirement. We all need to understand that and read the plain language of the bill.

I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers).

I thank the gentleman, and I yield now to my colleague, Mr. Pastor, to expand on this provision and the reasons that the proposed amendment should be rejected.

Would the gentleman yield?

The gentleman is aware the company is not listed in the bill. The only place the company is listed is in the report, which is a matter of disclosure, and it is not amendable. It can't be modified here on the floor. The bill, as I read earlier, the plain language of the bill says this will be competed.

Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

As with earlier items that we have discussed this evening, there is simply no question that this request underwent rigorous scrutiny, meets the test of being aligned with supporting the missions of the Department of Homeland Security, and I urge my colleagues to defeat the amendment.

I am happy to yield at this point to my colleague, Mr. Rothman, to expand on the reasons that this amendment is ill advised.

I am happy to yield to the ranking member.

I thank the gentleman.

Now I yield to Mr. Rothman.

I am happy to yield to my friend from New Jersey (Mr. Rothman).

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

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Madam Speaker, let me say at the outset that I understand Members will make their own decision about this amendment, and I'm not going to presume to recommend a ``yes'' or ``no'' vote. But I am going to say a few things which need to be said and give a few facts about the impact of this motion and about this program, which I hope will help Members make this decision.

It is ironic, given the amount of discussion we've heard tonight about how harmful the deficit is, to suddenly be told that a program that's already

growing at 12 percent a year, well above inflation, needs to be increased.

Let me just remind Members of what the figures look like. This E- Verify program was funded in the '08 fiscal year at $60 million. It's funded this year at $100 million. It will be funded next year, according to our bill, at $112 million. Yet as of the end of April, the program had not obligated 70 percent of its 2009 budget, even though the fiscal year was more than half over. A third of the funds from the last year of the Bush administration also remain unobligated. So this doesn't look like a situation where throwing money at the program will solve its problems since the program obviously cannot spend the funds it currently has bankrolled.

Now it is true that the E-Verify system has problems, particularly with falsely telling an unacceptable number of U.S. citizens that they cannot work. We provide ample money in this bill to work on those problems. However, the 2010 budget funds the entire $112 million request for the E-Verify system. It also, by the way, extends the program's authorization by 2 years. The additional funding already provided in the bill will allow the DHS managers of E-Verify to improve oversight and auditing of the program to address technical difficulties that hamper its success. There is absolutely no indication that taking this $112 million budget figure to $162 million would accomplish anything except decimating the top ranks of DHS by way of this costly offset.

With the amendments that have been adopted here today, including this one, we would have cut $120 million below the administration's request for the Office of the Undersecretary for Management. A cut like this would fall hardest on important initiatives, which this House has backed in a bipartisan fashion: to improve departmental security, to train workers to meet the department's acquisition needs, to tighten oversight of DHS's major procurements, and to ensure classified programs aren't wasting taxpayer dollars or accidentally leaking classified information through the procurement process. It is a massive and devastating cut, not a free ride, not in the least. Members can make their own decision.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to the instructions of the House in the motion to recommit, I report the bill, H.R. 2892, back to the House with an amendment.

Madam Speaker, I thank Chairman Waxman for his leadership on this important legislation--and on the whole range of public health issues before the Congress--and have talked extensively with him about the intention of the use of the term ``small business tobacco manufacturing industry'' as it concerns the Scientific Advisory Committee established in Section 917(b)(1).

H.R. 1256 provides for the establishment of a 12-member Tobacco Products Scientific Advisory Committee and stipulates that one of the members of the Committee shall be a ``representative of the interests of the small business tobacco manufacturing industry'' that may be filled on rotating, sequential basis by representatives of different ``small business tobacco manufacturers.''

For the purpose of phrasing in compliance with certain requirements of this act Section 900(16) of the bill defines ``small tobacco product manufacturers'' as those having fewer than 350 employees. However, the bill does not define what constitutes a ``small business tobacco manufacturer'' as it relates to the SAC.

Chairman Waxman has assured me that I am correct in concluding that the term in section 917(bX1) regarding membership on the Advisory Committee is different from--and need not be interpreted as the same as--the one used in proposed new section 900(16).

Additionally, Chairman Waxman has assured me that when section 917(b)(1) says that one member of the Scientific Advisory Committee must be a representative of the ``small business tobacco manufacturing industry'' that does NOT mean that the person must be a representative of a ``small tobacco products manufacturer'' as defined in section 900(16).

I appreciate the chair's effort to ensure that small manufacturers have a seat at the table on the Scientific Advisory Committee. The passage of this important legislation is a victory for public health and our nation's children. I have supported this bill in both this and the last Congress because I believe we must place a far greater emphasis on youth smoking prevention and the elimination of tobacco advertising aimed at children. The Food and Drug Administration is the logical agency to take on the new regulatory responsibilities, and Congress and the Obama Administration need to make sure they have adequate support to carry out this important job.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join colleagues here today in offering condolences to the families and friends and coworkers of Barbara McLean Spears, Louis Junior Watson and Rachel Mae Poston Pulley, the three workers who tragically lost their lives in an explosion at the ConAgra plant in Garner, North Carolina on June 9.

This area, Garner, North Carolina, is an area that I formerly represented as their Congressman. It's now represented by our colleague, Bob Etheridge; and I want to thank Bob for sponsoring this resolution here today and enabling us to come together in this time of tribute.

Our sympathy goes out to the families of the victims, but also to the 40 other ConAgra employees who were injured in this plant's explosion and collapse. Some of them have severe burns. They have other serious injuries. We wish them a successful recovery, and we thank the medical providers, including the Burn Center at UNC Chapel Hill, who are doing so much to treat these victims.

Often it does take a tragedy like the ConAgra explosion to publicly highlight the courageous work of our first responders. We commend those who responded to this explosion. There are many stories of bravery that prevented further injury or loss of life. The firefighters, the police, the emergency medical services of Garner and Wake County and many surrounding communities that heeded the call to rescue the ConAgra plant employees in a quick and safe manner. So we're very indebted to them and grateful to them. These first responders put us first, put our communities first every day.

There are also many private citizens who risked their lives helping plant employees evacuate, who gave selfless assistance to their suffering neighbors. That's a testament to the character and the strength of Garner's community.

The ConAgra plant, as my colleague, Mr. Etheridge, has said, is a cornerstone of the Garner and Wake County community. It was built as a sausage plant nearly 50 years ago. As we move forward, remembering the victims of this tragedy, and the way that this plant provided the livelihood for so many people, we do hope the plant is rebuilt, and that employees can return to work. And we're heartened that such plans seem to be under way.

We do need to remain vigilant, of course, in our efforts to improve workplace safety. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms has concluded their investigation, finding, fortunately, no evidence of criminal intent. The Chemical Safety Board investigation is ongoing. We need to get to the bottom of this. We need to understand what happened; and we need, of course, to adopt practices and policies that lead to safer facilities in the future and avoid this kind of tragedy.

So, Mr. Speaker, in closing, we honor the memories of those that we have lost, give thanks for those who have been spared, and join in sympathy for the victims and their families.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to enter into a colloquy with the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee and the Labor-HHS Education Subcommittee, Mr. Obey.

As we prepare to enhance our pandemic planning efforts through the supplemental funding bill before us today, I appreciate the committee providing additional funding to State and local governments that have been hit hard by the economic downturn. I am also pleased that we are taking a comprehensive approach to pandemic preparedness.

In an article in this week's National Journal, Donald Thompson, the senior program director for the medical and public health program at the Center for Infrastructure Protection at George Mason University's School of Law, noted that the U.S. has done a poor job of making sure it has enough equipment to tackle a full-blown pandemic. Currently, our national stockpile contains 104 million respirators, 51.6 million surgical masks, but only 20 million syringes.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the work of your subcommittee to verify that this funding bill allows HHS to purchase, replenish, and expand the Nation's delivery devices stockpile.

I thank the gentleman.