Floor Statements

Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman.

I am pleased to rise as the initiator of this legislation to speak in favor of a long overdue solution to a problem with serious implications for our military and for our national security.

Put simply, this legislation ensures that the U.S. Government has the legal authority to prosecute crimes committed by U.S. contractor personnel working in war zones.

I want to first thank Chairman Conyers and Chairman Bobby Scott for their leadership in bringing this legislation to the floor today. There are many other Members on both sides of the aisle who worked on this issue, including the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) who held an excellent series of hearings last year, and Mr. Waxman, who has focused his committee on the issue this year.

My bill would do two simple things: it would expand the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act, MEJA, to cover all contractors operating in war zones, and it would beef up the Department of Justice's enforcement of MEJA.

Madam Chairman, the word ``accountability'' is used a lot in this Chamber. Let me tell you what I think accountability should mean in this context. It should mean that we have the tools at our disposal to ensure that the criminal behavior of men and women working in our name and on our dime does not in any way damage our goals and objectives.

It should also mean making sure that rogue actors, the bad apples in the bunch, are not able to act in ways that endanger our troops or our mission without fear of prosecution.

Our military is the best fighting force in the world today in large part because it is structured in a way that demands accountability, discipline and unity of action. Military commanders will universally tell you that accountability is critical to success because lapses in discipline or judgment can lead to defeat on the battlefield or can undermine popular support for the mission. So the military goes to great lengths to ensure accountability. There is a clear chain of command, extensive training on legal and illegal actions in war, and perhaps most importantly, clear consequences for violations.

During the war in Iraq alone, there have been over 60 courts martial and hundreds of nonjudicial punishments of military personnel under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. There is good reason for this accountability. If a military servicemember unlawfully kills an innocent civilian or steals property or defiles a cultural icon, it contributes to popular outrage against American forces. It makes the military's mission more difficult. It undermines our national security. It could motivate insurgents and provide fodder for terrorist organizations.

What is more, if we can't ensure the rule of law for our own personnel, how can we credibly ask other nations, like Iraq, to uphold the rule of law when their own citizens commit crimes?

Unlike the military, there is no clear chain of command for contractors, little in the way of standards for training and vetting personnel, and often no legal accountability for misconduct. As the recent shooting incident involving Blackwater U.S.A. employees demonstrated, contractors can clearly act in ways that have serious implications for our national security. If we don't hold contract personnel accountable for misconduct as we do for our own military, we are not only failing to uphold moral responsibilities, we are endangering the men and women of our Armed Forces and we are undermining our Nation's credibility as a country that upholds the rule of law.

Now, it may be hard for some of us to believe that this gaping hole in the law exists. In fact, as my colleague from Virginia (Mr. Forbes) has stated, certain contractors, those working under the Department of Defense, are already covered by MEJA. But others are not.

I would like to know what the gentleman from Virginia would say to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice at this very moment as she is contemplating what authority she has or can piece together to deal with the Blackwater incident of 2 weeks ago, if it turns out investigations show that prosecution is warranted? Contractors working under the Department of State or USAID, a category that includes most armed security contractors, are not now covered under this law.

Now, the law isn't the only problem. We also have seen a serious deficiency in enforcement. Even though MEJA does cover DOD contractors, I am not aware of a single case of violent contractor misconduct that has, in fact, been prosecuted in court. I have been told that MEJA has been applied in only one case in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that was a defense contractor convicted of child pornography.

There is nearly universal support for accountability for contractors and there is broad support for the approach taken by this bill. Leading human rights organizations like Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and Human Rights First support the bill, as do contractor associations such as the International Peace Operations Association.

My bill will improve the law and will improve enforcement. It will give our country the ability to hold contractors accountable, which will enhance our national security and the safety of our troops, and it will ensure that our country remains a model of law and integrity for the rest of the world.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

I thank the gentleman for yielding, because I would like to respond to what our friend from Connecticut has just said. I first of all appreciate his high-quality work on contracting for a long time and also his support of this bill.

I do want to respond, though, to what he said about contractors. I don't believe the gentleman has ever heard me in a blanket way condemn contractors or contracting. In fact, I honor the service and the sacrifice of contractors and contracting firms that have worked in the war zone.

Now, there are some bad actors and there are cases that need investigation and prosecution. But I would remind the gentleman that, in fact, Blackwater and the contractors' association support this bill. It is actually a protection for them, because it means they will get U.S. justice in the U.S., not justice in some other jurisdiction.

I yield to the gentleman from Connecticut.

Madam Chairman, I rise in support of the manager's amendment. I want to again commend and thank Chairman Conyers and Chairman Scott for their work in refining this legislation.

There's one aspect of this manager's amendment that is particularly important, I believe, and is the product of excellent work by Representative Chris Carney. This provision would make sure that FBI investigations are not corrupted by any conflicts of interest. That's an important addition, and I thank Representative Carney for his attention to this matter.

It is true, as others have said, that there were some late-breaking objections from the Department of Justice, that if they had been accommodated would have gutted the bill. However, various comments from the Department of Justice have dribbled out over some extended period of time, and the chairmen of the full committee and the subcommittee have dealt with those suggestions as they became available. That is reflected in this manager's amendment before us today.

I won't go into the content except to say that these are reasonable accommodations, and if there are additional technical changes or perfecting changes that are required, I am and I'm sure the leaders of the committee are, open to discussing further refinements.

I urge adoption of the amendment.

Thank you, Madam Chairman. I rise in strong support of the amendment offered by my colleague from Indiana, and I thank him for his leadership on this issue.

Mr. Hill's amendment is based on two critical principles, transparency and accountability. Over the last few years, many of us have asked the Department of Justice to give us basic information about the allegations of abuse by contractors, and the Department's efforts to investigate and prosecute these allegations, to carry out its responsibilities under existing law. Answers, I am afraid, have not always been forthcoming.

This amendment would ensure that Congress has the basic information we need to determine whether we are aggressively enforcing the rule of law and ensuring accountability of those who work in our name and on our dime.

As my friend Mr. Hill well knows, our American troops on the battlefield, who must deal with the consequences of incidents like the recent Blackwater shootings, those troops will be the main beneficiaries of the increased accountability that his amendment would require.

I applaud Mr. Hill for his efforts and urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, as we consider H.R. 3161, the FY 2008 Agriculture Appropriations bill, I want to voice my serious concerns about the provision in the bill that would prevent the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, FDA, from protecting U.S. consumers from the import of unsafe pharmaceuticals.

While we have had a de facto policy of allowing the importation of personal use quantities of prescription drugs from Canada, the bill before us would for the first time allow wholesalers and pharmacists to import bulk quantities of prescription drugs from any country, regardless of origin. The resulting increase in unregulated drug imports into this country would be exponential.

Such an increase would almost certainly lead to a rise in the number of counterfeit drugs and drugs shipped without adequate shipping safety precautions, creating serious health risks for patients.

I understand the need, sometimes the desperate need, for less expensive medications.

To a great extent, this need is a function of the failure of our health care system to uniformly provide adequate health care coverage. For some 44 million Americans, the system fails to provide any coverage at all. And the Medicare Part D doughnut hole continues to make medications unaffordable for many seniors.

We clearly must find a way to make health care, including prescription drugs, affordable to more Americans. But reimportation on this scale is simply the wrong prescription for what ails us.

Even if we were to focus more narrowly on imports from Canada--and keep in mind that this bill would allow imports from any country--no one should assume that the safety issues would be resolved.

Many American consumers who order prescription drugs from Canadian pharmacies assume those medicines are coming from Canada. However, this is often not the case.

In December 2005, FDA announced the results of an operation to confiscate parcels containing pharmaceuticals from India, Israel, Costa Rica and Vanuatu, 43 percent of which had been ordered from Canadian Internet pharmacies. Of the drugs being promoted as ``Canadian,'' 85 percent actually came from 27 countries around the globe.

In response to the investigation, then Acting FDA Commissioner Andrew C. von Eschenbach said, ``These results make clear there are Internet sites that claim to be Canadian that in fact are peddling drugs of dubious origin, safety and efficacy.''

This investigation raises serious questions about the form such an importation program would take. Who are the ``wholesalers'' and ``pharmacies'' that would be importing in large quantities and how would they be regulated? How would their operations interface with the existing supply chain? How would FDA protect consumers from fraud or drug contamination?

Congress has previously given HHS the authority to permit bulk drug reimportation, but both the Clinton and Bush administrations declined to use this authority because of the intractable safety issues involved.

I simply cannot support tying the hands of the FDA with regard to the importation of prescription drugs when their safety and effectiveness cannot be guaranteed. I urge a yes vote on the Kingston amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, the wood utilization consortium is made up of 10 universities in 10 different States around the country with varying missions.

I am familiar with the program mainly because of the involvement of North Carolina State University. NC State's contribution to the consortium is focused on wood machining and tooling. The programs help develop innovative production methods and use stronger, longer-lasting tools which are allowing U.S. manufacturers to maintain domestic production and compete in the global economy.

Such work is critical to support the U.S. furniture and lumber industries. North Carolina's furniture industry alone is estimated to contribute $10 billion to the economy.

North Carolina State University's contribution to increased manufacturing efficiency and global competitiveness within this major industry represents only a small component of the wood utilization program. Continued funding is a wise national investment.

I urge defeat of the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my colleague from North Carolina, who represents the main campus of North Carolina State University (Mr. Etheridge).

I yield 1 minute to our colleague from Maine (Mr. Michaud).

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

Mr. Chairman, how much time do we have remaining?

Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to my colleague from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

I thank the gentleman for this most persuasive argument.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to our colleague from Maine (Mr. Allen).

Mr. Chairman, we yield back the balance of our time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am joined by 11 colleagues from North Carolina, as well as colleagues from several other States, in requesting fiscal year 2008 funding for the National Textile Center. I want to say to the gentleman introducing this amendment that if there is, in fact, any lack of transparency or any confusion about our intent, I would be happy to clear that up.

We do indeed intend for this funding to go to the National Textile Center, which has been established, as the gentleman acknowledged, for a number of years. In fact, it has received funding since fiscal year 1992. It is a center that involves a number of universities and has expanded since that time. And it's a center that has a well-established track record.

The National Textile Center is just what the name suggests. It's a national program for a national industry that affects our national competitiveness. There is a consortium of eight leading research universities that participate: Auburn, Clemson, Cornell, Georgia Tech, North Carolina State, Philadelphia University, University of California Davis, and University of Massachusetts Dartmouth.

Now, any of us from North Carolina or other traditional textile- producing States are all too accustomed to news of textile operations closing their doors. Some may be shortsighted enough to suggest that the textile industry is unworthy of investment, given the loss of manufacturing jobs over the past decade.

I and my colleagues come to exactly the opposite conclusion. The textile industry is a major player still, and will continue to be a major player in the U.S. economy. It employs 600,000 workers nationwide, and it contributes almost $60 billion to the national GDP.

It's true that many lower-skilled and lower-paid jobs have left our States, but the domestic textile industry is undergoing a remarkable transformation. The research provided by the National Textile Center is an initial factor in that transformation. It's helping advance the industry in new directions, providing new, higher-paying jobs, increasing U.S. competitiveness in the process.

As the chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security, I know firsthand about the new fabrics and fibers that are protecting our first responders in new and threatening situations. That's just one example. The suits worn in this Chamber, the next generation of suspension bridges--there is a long list of products and technologies that this research consortium is going to help shape.

The new textile products and the processes created by this research are valued at three times the Federal investment to date, so it's certainly not the time to pull the rug out from under these vital projects.

Mr. Chairman, the National Textile Center is needed by a national industry. The National Textile Center is wanted and welcomed by the Department of Commerce. And the National Textile Center was requested by more Members than any other project in this bill. It's a worthy recipient of Federal funding, and I urge defeat of the amendment.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise as a sponsor of this important legislation to prohibit the establishment of permanent U.S. bases in Iraq.

We have passed similar legislation before by a wide margin. The first time was a few weeks after I questioned General Abizaid in an appropriations hearing. He could not unequivocally disavow permanent bases, and so the House stepped in and asserted its prerogative on foreign policy by prohibiting permanent bases in Iraq.

Now, my colleagues might understandably ask, why are we voting on this bill again today? The reason is that the Bush administration continues to stubbornly reject the will of Congress, of the Iraq Study Group, and of the American people.

Defense Secretary Gates recently stated his goal of ``a long and enduring presence'' in Iraq. President Bush has stated his vision for a presence ``as we have in South Korea,'' where U.S. troops remain 50 years after an armistice. That kind of rhetoric suggests that they have not yet gotten the message, and it seriously damages our cause.

The Iraqi people and the American people need assurance that there is light at the end of the tunnel, that occupation is not a permanent state of affairs. So I urge my colleagues to support this legislation today, and to once again unequivocally state that the U.S. will not establish permanent bases in Iraq, because this administration and the world need to understand that America's misadventure in Iraq must and will come to an end.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2956, which would compel a responsible exit of U.S. troops from Iraq.

I voted against giving the President the authority to go to war in Iraq. Two years ago, Brad Miller and I introduced legislation to terminate the authorization and to require of the President a comprehensive exit strategy. The President has responded to calls for change by stubbornly adhering to a failed strategy that has cost our Nation dearly in blood, treasure and moral authority. He has rejected Congress's constitutional role in determining policy, and he has ignored the will of the American people. This obstinate, irresponsible, destructive course must not continue.

Now, the President has put great stock in the recent surge in U.S. forces, but the surge seems mainly to have shifted the locus of the fighting. The intent was to create space for Iraq's political leaders to make the hard choices that will lead their country forward, but those hard choices are not being made. We can no longer leave our foreign policy at the mercy of sectarian and political forces we cannot control.

A mission of simply biding time, at great cost in blood and treasure, is not one that we can or should support. We must begin to bring our troops home.

Yet, as I and many others have repeatedly argued, it not only matters that we leave Iraq, but it also matters greatly how we leave. We cannot afford the same mistakes that the Bush administration made in entering Iraq, without a plan for protecting troops, for managing consequences or for giving the Iraqi people every possible chance to succeed.

Therefore, the bill before us would provide the discipline of a timeline to the Bush administration for beginning and completing the termination of combat operations and the redeployment of our troops. It would also compel the development of a comprehensive strategy for managing the redeployment and addressing the challenges that Iraq will continue to present after our troops are gone.

Mr. Speaker, the continued presence of 160,000 American troops in Iraq is not sustainable and does not serve our national interest. It is time not merely to urge but to require a change of course. This legislation does just that, and I urge its passage.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of Representative Moore's amendment striking the requirement of congressional notification for foreign assistance to Liberia.

I joined Ms. Moore on a recent delegation to Liberia under the auspices of the House Democracy Assistance Commission, which has an ongoing partnership with the Liberian Congress. We are working to support the new democratic government in Liberia, under the leadership of President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, a government that is attempting to lift Liberia from the wreckage of its recent history of civil war and dictatorship.

We met with President Sirleaf, and she told us that the window of opportunity for this democratic government to demonstrate progress is brief. Liberia is facing enormous challenges: intractable poverty, an unemployment rate of 85 percent, crumbling infrastructure, and a public health crisis. The Liberian government simply must find a way to deliver significant advances if it is to convince its citizens that democracy is a viable option.

Our foreign assistance is critical to helping President Sirleaf show rapid progress. It is supporting the development of the economy, the strengthening of the government, the provision of basic services like electricity, and the reintegration of civil war combatants into productive roles in society.

But the biggest hindrance to our assistance efforts in Liberia is an outdated notification requirement that sets up a series of bureaucratic hurdles, delaying the delivery of our aid, often by several months. With time so critical in accomplishing progress, we cannot afford these delays. I urge my colleagues to support Representative Moore's well- designed and well-considered amendment to eliminate this outdated requirement and to give Liberia the chance it deserves to succeed.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I have a simple and straightforward amendment that I am offering as a result of the long debate we've had, the many amendments we've adopted, and where we stand at the end of this.

The amendment would allocate $5 million, a modest adjustment, to FEMA's Firefighter Assistance Grants, specifically, the Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response program, the SAFER program.

As I'm sure most Members know, the SAFER program helps local fire departments to increase the number of frontline firefighters. The goal is for fire departments to increase their staffing and deployment capabilities, and ultimately to obtain 24-hour staffing.

We, in this bill, have done our very best to more adequately fund the fire grants and the SAFER program. But the need is great, and we believe this is a prudent and useful and productive place to invest these additional funds.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment has been cleared on both sides of the aisle. I ask our colleagues to approve this critical funding for our firefighters.

I am happy to yield.

I thank the gentleman.

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

Mr. Chairman, I submit the following for the Record.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH15JN07.001

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH15JN07.002

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH15JN07.003

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH15JN07.004

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH15JN07.005

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH15JN07.006

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH15JN07.007

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH15JN07.008

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH15JN07.009

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH15JN07.010

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH15JN07.011

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH15JN07.012

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH15JN07.013

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH15JN07.014

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH15JN07.015

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise and report the bill back to the House with sundry amendments, with the recommendation that the amendments be agreed to and that the bill, as amended, do pass.

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

Mr. Speaker, this motion to recommit, to put it as bluntly as I can possibly put it, would kill this bill. It would simply kill the bill. The wording, the tell-tale wording, ``to report the same back promptly,'' those are code words for killing this bill.

Now, one has to acknowledge that there are some hot buttons that this motion to recommit touches, words like ``fencing'' and ``border protection.'' But Members should understand that if they are really interested in border protection, if they are interested in immigration enforcement, if they are interested in funding for a concerted effort, which this bill initiates, to identify and deport persons who have committed serious crimes, if they are interested in enhanced port security and transit security and support for local communities, if our Members are interested in those critical priorities, which is what this bill is focused on, then they will defeat this cleverly-worded fraud. It will kill the bill.

We should defeat the motion to recommit. That is all I believe that needs to be said. I ask for my colleagues to vote no.

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Clerk be authorized to make technical corrections in the engrossment of H.R. 2638, to include corrections of spelling, punctuation, section numbering and cross-referencing, and the insertion of appropriate headings.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman from New York's amendment to add a total of $40 million to the funding recommended by the committee for the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office.

I have concerns, first of all, about two of the proposed offsets. First, the amendment proposes to reduce funding for the Office of the Under Secretary for Management by $35 million. The amendments adopted earlier this week already cut the Office of the Under Secretary for Management by 17 percent. This amendment, if adopted, would reduce the office by another 18 percent.

This means that DHS will be unable to consolidate its 60 locations in the D.C. metro area into a new headquarters facility at St. Elizabeth's.

Secondly, the amendment would reduce $5 million from the Coast Guard's research, development, testing, and evaluation program. This decrease would eliminate priority research to resolve how the Coast Guard can best operate unmanned aerial vehicles at sea after recent failures in the deepwater program as well as find ways to better manage invasive species such as zebra muscles and ballast water.

At this time, I don't believe, Mr. Chairman, that funding for the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office needs to be increased by $40 million. The committee has already increased the total funding for the office above last year's level by $35 million, excluding the supplemental funding.

The bill before you did make some reductions within this office: a reduction of $20 million for the Securing the Cities program, and a reduction of $20 million for procuring radiation portal monitors. Let me briefly explain those items.

The Securing the Cities program is a proposed pilot program that assumes a radioactive device is heading to the heart of New York City and, in order to detect this device, an elaborate network of radiation detection devices will be installed in a ring around the city. Congress provided $10 million in 2007 to begin this effort. Yet, to the best of my knowledge, very little of this funding has been spent because the Department of Homeland Security has not reached agreement with New York and New Jersey officials on the architecture for this initiative or developed a mutually acceptable deployment plan. DHS testified that this would not occur until at least the summer of 2007.

The amendment being offered by the gentleman from New York would restore funding that we reduced from the President's budget request for this program for 2008. In total we appropriate $19.7 million instead of the $39.7 million requested because of the delays in beginning the pilot program. It is premature to quadruple this program in 1 year without a clear architecture and deployment plan that has been agreed to by all the parties in place.

The bill before you also reduced funding to procure radiation portal monitors for two reasons. First, the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office provided information after the submission of their budget request that reduced the number of radiation portal monitors it planned to procure from 149 to 127 systems in 2008. We fully fund this revised figure, not a higher level that DNDO no longer plans to procure.

Secondly, the recently enacted supplemental provided $100 million for the procurement of radiation portal monitors. This funding, coupled with the House level for 2008, means we are actually $80 million above the funding level requested in 2008. So more is not needed.

I urge Members to oppose this amendment.

I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, this agreement is not now in place; is that right?

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is saying that the present appropriation, the money in the pipeline, is not sufficient, that their ability to pull their plan together depends on whether your amendment passes.

That is a strange way to plan.

Mr. Chairman, at this time I would like to yield the balance of my time to my colleague Mr. Israel.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to Mr. Israel.

I would be happy to yield 30 seconds for a response.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I must say to the gentleman, the sponsor of the amendment, that we on the committee have heard nothing from DNDO about this pending agreement.

I will say this, though: that if between now and the conference on this bill, if this agreement is forthcoming and if we feel that the basis exists to move ahead, then we will certainly be happy to work with the gentleman in considering the final appropriations level. But as I said earlier, I do not believe the basis for an increase of this magnitude currently exists. We just can't responsibly do it.

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

This amendment would increase funding for the Border Security, Fencing, Infrastructure and Technology account by 9 percent above the administration request.

The bill funds the $1 billion request, bringing funding for the Border Security program, since its inception, to $2.54 billion, but the amendment would increase this further.

Now, the requested fiscal year 2008 funding that we have included will enable CBP to complete construction of 370 miles of primary fencing and 200 miles of vehicle barriers. While the specific mix of technology and infrastructure has yet to be determined, the Department has confirmed that those are the current limits of such infrastructure required to achieve operational control of the southwest border, with the remainder being addressed through technology or existing assets.

In part, because of the requirements for a detailed expenditure plan, the Department has broken out its proposed investments in a way that aligns its requirements with its resources. There is no rationale in its plans for additional funding at this time.

In short, additional funding for this program would be based on no rationale and no known program needs. On the other hand, the proposal to reduce funding for the office that oversees departmental management is arbitrary. I must say, it fits the pattern of the last couple of days of simply going after the departmental secretary of this Republican administration. But it is an arbitrary cut. It would have the effect of degrading the capacity of the Department to oversee itself and thus reduce

the very accountability we want to establish.

I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I now yield to my colleague from California (Mr. Farr).

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, let me just reiterate that anyone who will look at this bill for a minute or two will realize that the border infrastructure, including the fencing, is fully funded in this bill. It is not underfunded; it is fully funded at the administration's request.

We do provide for the very careful consideration of what is the appropriate mix of technology and infrastructure to create this barrier along the border. That is what the Department, of course, has requested and it's what, I think, rationally they should undertake.

So I reiterate that there is no reason for this additional funding, and I ask my colleagues to oppose it.

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

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

I am opposed to this amendment, and I will briefly explain my reasoning.

I do support the development of an effective screening program that would prevent known terrorists from boarding airlines headed to the United States; of course we all favor that. For that reason, I recommended $10 million more for Secure Flight than what Congress appropriated last year, and that is in this bill. Further funding is premature.

Many times tonight, I am sure we are going to be dealing with questions of priorities and objectives with which we all agree. But as many people on both sides of the aisle are fond of saying, it doesn't solve anything just to throw money at something. You have to look at what can be intelligently and wisely spent, and we have done that throughout this bill.

This Secure Flight program is troubled in ways that make us reluctant to throw the kind of money at it that the gentleman is suggesting. While earlier this year TSA completed the year-long assessment of the program, the assessment didn't include total cost estimates for development of the program and did not assure the committee that privacy rights will be protected.

The Government Accountability Office has reported multiple times this year on concerns it has with the Secure Flight program. It has recommended a variety of management actions that TSA should undertake to get this program back on track. The agency must have to have incentives to undertake those improvements. We don't do them any favors simply by loading more money onto existing appropriations. TSA continues to provide our subcommittee with conflicting information on how the budget requests for Secure Flight will be spent in 2008. And, finally, recent documents show that the operational testing of this program has now slipped into 2009.

For all of these reasons, we very carefully calibrated what the traffic will bear and what the appropriation should be. It's an increase, but there is no rationale for the kind of increase the gentleman is suggesting.

Now, like many other people, the gentleman has targeted Secretary Chertoff's office for the offset, a cut of $15 million. Well, if everybody does that, and many plan to, then we are going to reduce these accounts to the point that DHS simply cannot consolidate its 60 locations into this new headquarters facility and they can't carry on their basic operations.

So, Mr. Chairman, until TSA can get a firm handle on what Secure Flight will do, the milestones to develop this program, its costs, and how it will protect the privacy of U.S. citizens, it is premature to provide additional funding for this troubled program.

I urge Members to oppose this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word for purposes of engaging in a colloquy with the gentleman from Rhode Island.

I yield to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Rhode Island for raising this important issue, and I agree that our Nation must protect its critical infrastructure from cyberattacks. Research and development efforts at the S&T Directorate will be vital to our homeland security activities. I look forward to working with the gentleman to bring greater attention to the issue of cybersecurity and to provide adequate funding for these efforts, and I very much appreciate his vigilance, outstanding among all the Members of this body, in attending to this issue.

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

Amendment Offered by Mr. Ferguson

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

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would halve the budget for the Department's new headquarters campus. That may seem like an easy target, but as a matter of fact, this Department's functions are scattered all over Washington, D.C.

We all agree in wanting an effective, strong Department of Homeland Security. We also know the obstacles that have stood in the way of integrating this Department and making it function smoothly, because it involves integrating 22 separate agencies into a functioning department. So for years now, we have known that this central facility needs to be constructed. The Bush administration has put a very high priority on it. Secretary Chertoff has talked about it repeatedly.

It is just baffling that members of the minority would get up and show so little regard for that kind of priority. They seem to think that this departmental budget is some kind of cash cow that can be dipped into at will.

Without this funding, the Coast Guard won't be able to move into its new headquarters. How about that? The Department wouldn't be able to consolidate its management functions at this modern facility. So it is not a costless amendment, Mr. Chairman, not by any means.

The amendment would increase the buffer zone protection program by $50 million. There might be a case to be made for this if we had underfunded the buffer zone protection program. But the bill already funds the President's budget for this program, equal to the amount provided in fiscal year 2007, which the President deemed sufficient.

The gentleman wants to double that funding, throw money at it, and at the same time remove money from this critically needed facility to pull all these 22 agencies together in a functioning department. It is unwise, it is unneeded, and it simply disregards the kind of careful consideration of this account, the kind of careful balancing of these needs that has gone into the production of this bill.

So, although I appreciate the gentleman's intentions and his support of this program, I have to ask my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would put funding not requested by the administration into the business transformation program.

Once again, it would take funds from the efforts to consolidate DHS operations on the St. Elizabeth's campus, which Secretary Chertoff has cited as one of his top priorities for improving the efficiency and the performance of the Department of Homeland Security.

This amendment puzzles me, though, Mr. Chairman, because CIS is updating its programs by utilizing user fees. My understanding is that this is a program funded by user fees and that it really is not in need of appropriated funding.

Knowing the gentleman's support for economies in government--we have heard a lot about that the last couple of days, for many, many hours, in fact--why would we not want to have this program pay for itself, so to speak? And why would we want to dip into appropriated funds to make this kind of increase? I just raise that as a question.

Maybe I should let the gentleman answer it before reaching my final conclusion.

Reclaiming my time, the gentleman is arguing that this $30 million would make a significant impact on what I think is about a $250 million program. If the Department is so encouraging of this, why do you suppose we didn't get a request from them when the budget was sent up?

Yes, I will.

Reclaiming my time, I understand the pilots for this project are already under way. The answer about the bureaucracy, though, is somewhat troubling. If there are problems that the gentleman has identified, it doesn't seem like a very discriminating response to just simply throw appropriated funds at the agency, I must say.

Now, if the point is to make sure that this program comes online, to make sure that it does what it is supposed to do, that it's monitored carefully, that we exercise our oversight responsibilities and that we encourage the Department to ask for whatever kind of support it needs, then that's another matter. But simply reaching into appropriated funds and throwing them at this program in this way, I must say to the gentleman, it's not something that I can accept.

He might want to withdraw this amendment and let us work with him on trying to give this program appropriate emphasis, but that, of course, is his option.

I yield if he wishes to respond.

Reclaiming my time, we'll work on this in any case; but I must say if there are the kinds of problems that the gentleman has identified, simply throwing appropriated funds at them in what seems to me to be a fairly undiscriminating way doesn't seem to be a very promising remedy.

For that reason, Mr. Chairman, I do urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

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

I want to say I appreciate the gentlewoman's efforts in this important area. We expect FEMA to develop these materials to ensure that children are adequately prepared when disasters strike.

I will be happy to accept the amendment.

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

I simply want to say on this side we accept this amendment and commend the Congresswoman for her good work.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and rise in opposition to the amendment.

The gentleman's amendment is well-intentioned and understandable, particularly given the part of the country that he represents. But I would like to explain to colleagues briefly why I believe this amendment is ill-advised.

It would cut $125 million from the Transportation Security Administration in order to fund activities by Customs and Border Protection. I do appreciate the gentleman's wish to further strengthen the frontline agency for our borders and our ports of entry. The fact is, though, I believe we have addressed his concerns very adequately in this bill.

The bill fully funds the 3,000 additional Border Patrol agents requested by the administration. Any more, I believe, would exceed CBP capacity to recruit and to absorb.

The bill also provides for 250 additional CBP officers above the request to strengthen port and cargo inspection security. So it seems that putting more money into the agency at this time would be, at best, symbolic and, at worst, wasteful.

On the other hand, let's look at the offset.

A reduction of this magnitude from TSA's aviation security program could, for instance, slow to a crawl plans to move explosive detection machines out of crowded airport lobbies and in line with the airport's baggage conveyer systems. We are aware of at least 60 airports that need these necessary improvements. Without them, airport lobbies will remain congested for the foreseeable future and the use of technology underdeveloped.

After years of stalling, this cut could delay improvements that are finally underway at TSA with airport check points, such as installing next-generation systems to better detect explosives and weapons that passengers might carry on their bodies or in their checked baggage.

A reduction of this size in TSA could thwart efforts to double the amount of air cargo screened for explosives and other dangerous items before it is placed on passenger aircraft.

Explosive detection equipment is the key technology we use to screen for these dangerous objects.

Finally, this reduction could require TSA to lay off something like 3,000 screeners. For the past 2 years, we have seen record air travel, resulting in longer lines at many airports and screening check points. A reduction in aviation screeners could exacerbate this problem. So we reluctantly, Mr. Chairman, oppose this amendment for these reasons.

I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.

I would be glad to yield.

What is the quality?

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word to address the gentleman's very legitimate question.

The gentleman asked about the puffer machines which, indeed, do have some utility but have some very obvious shortcomings, as he observed. That is not what we are talking about funding in this bill. We are talking about the explosive detection machines that we can move in line with the baggage conveyer systems in crowded airports; and that, unfortunately, is the account

out of which the gentleman's cuts would come.

I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico.

Reclaiming my time, the case has been stated, and I repeat my request for a ``no'' vote.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I agree with the gentleman that traffickers are using lookouts to spy on law enforcement operations and to assess where our agents are, just as we're looking at them. But I don't see any rationale for dedicating funding for an initiative of the sort that he describes.

The bill provides funding for an additional 3,000 Border Patrol agents and $1 billion to continue and expand the border security program. The identification and the elimination of the kind of lookout posts that he's describing on U.S. territory is a matter for CBP to deal with if it involves crossing the border, and for other law enforcement agencies to deal with if it's strictly a domestic violation.

Now, the funding in this bill has been increased, increased a great deal, to provide the Border Patrol all these new agents, and to better meet the cargo and port security vulnerabilities addressed, for example, in the SAFE Port Act. So this is not a costless funding shift. It's a shift in funding that would reduce resources for these departmental priorities, priorities in which the committee fully concurs and, in fact, in some cases has increased.

So although the gentleman's intention is admirable, I do believe it's unnecessary to designate funds for these purposes. I think shifting the funds around in this way could do some damage as we attempt to develop the Department, and so I reluctantly ask Members to oppose the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word for the purposes of a colloquy with the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Clarke), and I'm happy to yield to her at this time.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from New York for her perspective on this issue.

While the Appropriations Committee has no direct control over the fees that CIS charges or the revenues that it collects, the committee report encourages the Department to continue regular reviews of its cost estimates and to apply any savings generated by business transformation to reducing fees in the future.

The committee also requires CIS to report on the performance measures it will implement to ensure that the increased fees charged to its customers result in commensurate improvements in the service provided by the agency.

So I encourage the gentlewoman to work closely with the Judiciary Committee to address these concerns, since the authorities to collect immigration fees are ultimately within that body's jurisdiction.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Shays

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

Mr. Chairman, I would simply say that the gentleman has raised an important and legitimate issue.

We gladly accept his amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I would suggest, as the last speaker said, that if many people seem to be suggesting that this bill will be doing one thing or the other, they would actually find it useful to read the bill. In this case, the relevant language is on page 15 of the bill, and the requirement says, quite plainly, that in developing these infrastructure projects, the Secretary is required to ``consult with affected State and local communities to solicit their advice and support of such project or activity.'' It's pretty clear that isn't a veto. It's pretty clear, though, that it is a requirement for serious consultation.

I must say to the sponsor of the amendment that the mayors of the border cities of Texas have led the parade in coming to members of the committee, from both sides of the aisle I am sure, to say that this kind of attentiveness to local communities and their needs and their views is essential as this effort moves forward. There is nobody who was more convincing on that than the mayors from El Paso to Brownsville to Laredo. We heard from them, and we heard from them very decisively.

The gentleman's amendment would eliminate all requirements for an expenditure plan for this $1 billion appropriation, as well as all requirements to consult with affected Federal agencies, and State and local communities. It would eliminate the requirement to provide a 15- day advance notice before waiving environmental or other laws that might otherwise interfere with construction or infrastructure development.

Now, I understand some of the gentleman's concerns. But I feel obligated to point out that the effect of this amendment would be to give this Department carte blanche to spend these funds as it will, with no requirements to explain or justify or consult or coordinate.

Now, for 3 days on this floor we've heard railing against the bureaucracy and the insensitivity of the bureaucracy, and harrowing descriptions of malfeasance and ineptitude in the bureaucracy. I hope the irony doesn't escape our colleagues that this amendment would place full discretion in the hands of those very same bureaucrats to proceed as they will.

So I object to this amendment because it would simply be an abdication of responsibility to exercise meaningful oversight. The goal that all in this Chamber should embrace is realistic but meaningful progress in getting effective control over our borders.

This amendment would guarantee nothing, I'm afraid, but negative Inspector General and GA reports for years to come. Besides, the Department hasn't asked for these requirements to be removed. In fact, they are quick to assure us that they intend to undertake a consultation, and this bill simply spells out in more detail what we expect that consultation to include.

I yield such time as he may consume to my colleague from California (Mr. Farr) who traveled with us to the southwest border and has some insight on this.

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

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman for a very useful amendment. The amendment would shift some funding around in ways that I think are well justified. It would apply $5 million to study the eradication of invasive cover species such as Cariso cane, Russian olive trees, salt cedar. It is a well-crafted amendment and I am happy to support it.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for raising this issue. And I am, of course, willing to work with him on this.

I do not believe the withholding of the $100 million is necessary or desirable in this case. But I believe we need to get the confirmation that you are talking about from CBP, and I am not eager to delay the release of needed funds, but I certainly am willing to work with the gentleman to make certain that we get the information we need and the confirmation that we need that the agency is on track.

Will the gentleman yield?

It is my expectation that CBP Air and Marine with enormous aviation and maritime operations, they should have as one of their priority missions supporting the investigative or other DHS agencies, in particular ICE. That was done by the legacy Air and Marine arm of the old Customs Service, and it should not decline.

So I appreciate the gentleman's raising the matter. I am happy to work with him to further the issue he has raised.

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

I am happy to yield such time as he needs to Mr. Farr to complete his argument.

I would be happy to yield.

I'm happy to yield to Mr. Farr.

I am happy to yield.

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, let me say to the gentleman from California that this language, I think, could be widely applied. If he has items he wishes to apply to it, he should propose that. We are asking simply for a determination that these items are of higher priority and more cost effective than other items included in the Air and Marine Strategic Recapitalization and Modernization plan.

We focused on this system because there are particular challenges here. But as Mr. Farr says, it is just a basic principle of good responsible government.

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

I mainly am confused about exactly what the gentleman is proposing and would like to try to clarify it if I might.

The effort here is to attempt to carve out $5 million for the ICE Mutual Agreement Between Government Employers Program, which he is, I believe, confusing with the Basic Pilot Program. ICE does not administer the Basic Pilot Program. The bill already includes $30 million for CIS to carry out Basic Pilot.

And it is indeed a well-regarded program to do exactly the same thing as the gentleman is describing here. But I don't understand the rationale for carving $5 million out of the ICE budget for a program that, as I understand it, would be totally duplicative. So maybe you can clarify.

I'm sorry. I believe the gentleman is mistaken about the bureaucratic location of the Basic Pilot Program.

The concern he expresses is certainly a legitimate one. Given the fact that we may be talking about duplicative efforts here, though, could I suggest that the amendment be withdrawn and we work with him as we go to conference to see how we might accommodate his concerns.

I will yield.

Mr. Chairman, is the gentleman saying he is willing to withdraw the amendment?

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I can understand the need for flexibility and for these programs not to be in totally separate spheres, but I just have to say that CIS administers the Basic Pilot Program. It can't be in two agencies. The bill has $30 million for this purpose. I simply do not, cannot, grasp the rationale for carving $5 million out of the ICE budget for the same purpose. There does seem to be confusion here. That is why I am offering to take the concern forward and suggesting the amendment be withdrawn.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, Basic Pilot is a program which lets employers check the employment status of people they are hiring. It is not an enforcement program, and it can't be located in two agencies. So I have no choice but to oppose the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would cut the Coast Guard operating expenses account, the budget that pays for military officers and personnel, by $8 million. Given our country's need for port security, marine environmental protection and search and rescue operations, it doesn't seem like a very good time to be cutting back on Coast Guard personnel.

The amendment would also cut the alteration of bridges program by $8 million. That is half of the budget for that program included in the bill. The amendment would instead move this money to the Coast Guard aircraft acquisitions budget in the Deepwater Program.

The question is not whether these aircraft are needed. We know that they are. But there is a serious question about whether the Coast Guard is or would be prepared to utilize the funding that the gentleman is suggesting. The Coast Guard's aircraft acquisitions are behind schedule. The newest planes that the service is buying have not even been shown to meet the Coast Guard's needs through flight testing.

So, again, as with many items in this budget, the question is not whether this is a worthy expenditure or a worthy object of expenditure. The question is what the traffic will bear in terms of next year's budget and the money that can be wisely and usefully spent. Our judgment, after carefully looking at this, is that the bill provides adequate funding for aircraft acquisition.

Moreover, these items that would be cut to make room for this funding would have a negative impact on the day-to-day operations of the Coast Guard. In particular, they would delay the replacement of bridges in a major way, bridges that are a hazard to maritime safety.

For all these reasons, though we certainly want to work with the gentleman in trying to push this aircraft acquisition forward. We want to do that in a prudent way, and we think this amendment is basically not helpful.

So we reluctantly urge a no vote.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

The item that the gentleman is discussing, let me just clarify. We're talking about $21.5 million. It requires that the Coast Guard shall submit a plan for the use of this money to the committee by November 1.

Well, it calls for a submission of a plan. It does not say how the money shall be spent otherwise.

Yes, I can assure you of that.

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

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman seeks to add $150 million to fund REAL ID grants while cutting the Coast Guard's Deepwater program. I'm certainly sympathetic to the gentleman's basic idea of providing some funding for REAL ID. In fact, we added in this bill $50 million that was not requested by the administration in order to put some seed funds out there, to get the department in gear to adequately assess what the Federal Government must do to assist States in complying with this Federal mandate, which many of us have heard concerns about from our home States.

I am certainly sympathetic with the idea of getting some seed funding out there for REAL ID. But I have to take issue with the offset, with the source of these funds. The gentleman is proposing to take $150 million from the Coast Guard's Deepwater program.

Now, he rightly notes that the Deepwater program has had financial management problems. The committee is well aware of that. We have explored

them thoroughly both under the former chairman, Mr. Rogers, and this year. Deepwater is one of the items in this bill that, while we place great importance on it, great emphasis on it, we are trying to make a very careful decision about the amount provided and the conditions under which it is provided.

The bottom line is that this bill is already $197 million below the President's request for the Coast Guard's Deepwater acquisition program. There are reductions to projects with high carryover funding. There are reductions in projects where the lead asset, the first of a series to be purchased, has not yet been tested. In fact, we've been discussing some of those situations tonight. So we're reducing the program. We're also restoring accountability. $400 million of Deepwater funding is withheld pending the submission of a detailed management and expenditure plan.

So we are well aware of the Deepwater challenges. But I think in light of the way we have dealt with them and the level of funding we have provided, another $150 million cut would be most unwise. So my opposition is more out of a concern for that than it is out of any inclination to downplay the REAL ID challenge. It's more in terms of this offset that I have to oppose this amendment.

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

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

I yield to Mr. Farr from California.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment, but I rise mainly to raise questions with him and see if we can't work something out on this because I very much identify with what he is trying to achieve here. After all, North Carolina is very hurricane-prone.

We certainly support your goals, support the gentleman's goals in building up preparedness. But I believe moving money around within FEMA, as the gentleman has proposed, is unlikely to achieve the goal. Let me explain why I think that is so.

The gentleman is proposing to move funds from the management and administration account at FEMA to the disaster relief account. However, FEMA tells us and I believe this is accurate, the very account that FEMA uses to support the activity that the gentleman is interested in is the management and administration account. Now we are providing a good bit of money here. We are providing adequate funding, I believe, for identifying hurricane-related preparedness gaps within the FEMA management and administration accounts. We are funding it at $685 million. That is $150 million above the current fiscal year. But we don't want to take money from that account, particularly when it is being applied to the very purpose the gentleman identifies.

So here is what I would like to suggest, Mr. Chairman. If the gentleman would be willing to withdraw the amendment, I would certainly be happy to work with him to ensure that FEMA is fulfilling its responsibilities on identifying preparedness gaps related to hurricanes.

The season is approaching, and we need to assure ourselves about that. I fully appreciate that goal. And as the conference approaches, if there are further ways that we can address this, we should. But I do suggest that the amendment be withdrawn because I think there needs to be some further investigation of exactly which accounts we are talking about to perform the functions that the gentleman is concerned about.

I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.

I can assure the gentleman, Mr. Chairman, that I will work with him in communicating that priority.

We have also had our staff in consultations, and we are told that management and administration is the correct account for what the gentleman is talking about.

We'll need to do a little more work on that. We'll confer with you. So we will appreciate the chance to collaborate going forward.

I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.

I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.

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

I rise to thank the gentleman for his amendment and indicate that I'm hopeful we can work with him on this CEDAP program. I certainly support it. Many on our side of the aisle support it. We understand the value that it provides for rural communities in need of emergency response equipment.

We were frankly surprised that the President zeroed out this program. We think that was unwise. As the gentleman has stated, we restored the CEDAP program to $20 million, but we were faced with the challenge of needing to work on a number of the grant programs to bring them up to the levels needed.

The gentleman presumably not knowing quite where else to turn has proposed reducing some of those programs to make up the difference here with CEDAP. Some of those offsets we're not particularly happy with, the State grants, the fire grants, the port security grants and so forth.

So it's a difficult problem. The gentleman knows quite well that this program has strong support in this House. I'm well aware of that. It has strong support in the other body. We will be going to conference and trying to come

to an understanding of what level we can afford here and what level is wise.

So while I can't support the amendment in its present form, I certainly don't want to downplay the challenge here, and I want to assure the gentleman that going forward we're aware of this need. We're aware of his concern in particular, and we will work very hard to address it.

I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.

Reclaiming my time, I most certainly do make that pledge to you both in terms of looking at the CEDAP dollars and also in terms of finding other ways that we can address this need.

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

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would remove a restriction that the committee included in order to prevent the Department of Homeland Security from wasting more money developing a human capital system that would, we believe, be judged illegal. DHS has not been willing to negotiate with its employees unions to develop a human capital system that lines up with the negotiated labor contracts.

That becomes our committee's problem, when money that gets appropriated is wasted on projects that are judged illegal and in violation of contractual agreements. DHS shouldn't be spending millions of dollars on systems that will need to be thrown away simply to frustrate unions and to intimidate their employees. It's a waste of taxpayers' money and from what I have heard, Mr. Chairman, has led to many morale problems at the Department.

I will remind Members that unfortunately the Department of Homeland Security ranked dead last in employee morale across government agencies in a survey taken recently. We need to reject this amendment, and I ask my colleagues to do so.

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

I commend my friend, the chairman of the Homeland Security authorizing committee, for a fine amendment, and I am pleased to suggest that it be adopted.

Mr. Chairman, the amendment, as the gentleman has stated, would impose a statutory cap of 45,000 on the number of aviation screeners. I'm reluctantly opposed to this, because under the Committee mark, we fund considerably fewer than that amount, that number. We fund only 43,688 screeners. So we're nowhere close to the statutory cap that the gentleman would impose.

The budget is what really controls how many screeners TSA can fund, as 53 percent of TSA's aviation security budget goes to screener salaries and benefits.

Now, I agree with the gentleman that our goal should be to provide more efficient explosive detection systems, ones that rely less on humans and more on machines that identify possible threats.

Instead of the cap, I think a better way to provide the funding for additional explosive detection systems for passengers and carry on baggage and checked baggage and air cargo is to fund those systems adequately. And the bill before us does that. It has $251 million more than the President's request for these systems.

To make sure that DHS spends funding for better detection systems, we've withheld funding from a key asset, namely, their new headquarters building, until the Department submits an expenditure plan for checkpoint and explosive detection systems. We do believe that this will provide a rather powerful incentive for TSA to become less people dependent and more technology driven in the near term. But I just want to stress that I agree with the gentleman on that point, that priority.

I should also say, Mr. Chairman, that our authorizers oppose this cap. They've specifically asked us not to include this bill language in fiscal 2008.

I'm more than willing to work with the gentleman to ensure that the committee is kept well informed of screener staffing levels at airports. And if it appears that TSA is out of control regarding staffing, we will be the first to get on the case. But I cannot support this amendment.

Speaking of authorizers, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentleman from Indiana for this very well-conceived amendment, Mr. Ellsworth's proposing that the Department of Homeland Security be prohibited from awarding contracts to those that owe the Federal Government money. It seems pretty straightforward and sensible, and a rule that we need to adopt.

This would apply to contractors that violate tax laws, that fail to pay Federal taxes, that have an unsatisfied Federal liability.

The Federal Acquisition Regulation, fortunately, does have a rule- making under way that we believe will eventually provide similar coverage to all Federal agencies, including DHS. But the gentleman has anticipated that ruling. He's got language here that would offer protection earlier and would confirm what we hope will be more general policy.

So it's a very well-conceived amendment, and I commend him for it and hope that we can adopt it. I urge its adoption.

Point of Order

Mr. Chairman, this amendment prohibits funds in the act from implementing a plan to permit entry into the U.S. using any identification document other than a passport. I understand the security concerns that underlie this amendment, but I believe it overreaches considerably, and I will take just a minute to explain why I think so.

This amendment would effectively prohibit DHS efforts to develop infrastructure or systems to process State Department passport cards for U.S. citizens living near and commuting across the land borders of the U.S., thus requiring all U.S. citizens who leave the U.S. to possess a passport, which currently costs $97 for adults, $82 for children. A passport card would cost less than half of that.

In addition, the language would effectively prohibit anyone who did not have a valid passport, such as permanent residents who lack other citizenship documents, from reentering the U.S. If I read it correctly, that is exactly what it would do. And it would effectively invalidate millions of Mexican border crossing cards issued by the State Department.

So it is an overreach, I would say, Mr. Chairman. It represents a draconian approach to border security. It would adversely affect the ability of U.S. citizens and workers and residents to move easily across the border.

So I urge the House to reject the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield to our colleague from New York (Mr. Serrano).

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I want to commend our colleagues for this amendment. I certainly will not be objecting to it and will be happy if it is adopted. It is not exactly the same approach that was taken in our bill. I must say that. But I do think it is consistent with the bill.

The amendment would prohibit funds in the act from being used to implement a plan before June 1, 2009, to comply with the Intelligence Reform Act of 2004 requirement to require all who enter the U.S. to have passports or equally valid identification. The Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative is intended to reduce the likelihood of entry by people who mean us ill.

We believe this could be done effectively in a way that doesn't sacrifice good relations with our neighbors, that doesn't cause undue hardship for U.S. citizens or doesn't affect legitimate travel and commerce.

But we are certainly not there yet.

Our bill fences $100 million of the $225 million in funding until the Department reports on the results of pilot projects in Washington State, until it provides an update on project milestones, until it demonstrates that statutory requirements are met and the system has been operationally tested, and until it reports on privacy safeguards. So we do have those kinds of protections in this bill. We have not included a date certain, but as I said, I believe the inclusion of a date is compatible with what we've suggested, and so we will not object to this amendment. We commend the gentleman for offering it.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield to our colleague, subcommittee member, Mr. Farr.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of our time to Mr. Farr.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I want to commend our colleague for her effective focus on this issue of pipeline safety and her good work on the authorizing committee and her coming here at this very late hour to offer this very fine amendment. I am pleased on behalf of the majority to accept the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, section 642(a) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 prohibits governments from withholding immigration-related data when it is requested by other government entities with a legitimate need for the information. This amendment, which our friend from Colorado has offered many times before, would prevent DHS from awarding funds to any government entity that fails to comply with the law.

Now, as far as I know, Mr. Chairman, the Department of Homeland Security has never reported a failure to comply with the law, with this underlying law. The Justice Department has never filed suit against any entity for violating this statute. So I don't know how our friend would explain that. I would say it renders unclear why this amendment is necessary or what effect it is likely to have.

I would yield to the gentleman, and I would appreciate his responding to a few questions that would help us understand the thrust of this amendment.

Does the gentlemen know of any DHS funding today that is used in contravention of section 642(a) of the 1996 Immigration Act?

The question is, do you know of any violations that have occurred?

You are aware of DHS funding that has been used in contravention?

I am asking about DHS funding, Homeland Security funding, which, after all, is the department we are appropriating for.

Let me maybe phrase this another way. Is disaster relief funding being used in contravention of this section?

Let me ask about DHS grant dollars generally. Have they been used in contravention of this section?

I am asking though what evidence exists that this is actually a problem.

Reclaiming my time, New York City has a law on the books, for example, that prohibits the provision of Immigration information to the Federal Government, I understand. Would this amendment prohibit any DHS funding to New York City?

The answer is yes. Reclaiming my time, it is a simple straightforward question. Border Patrol agents are funded in this bill. If DHS were to find that a border city or county were in contravention of section 642(a), would this provision require them to remove all Border Patrol agents from that city or county?

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

I am intrigued by the suggestion that Border Patrol officials have come requesting this kind of approach for protecting the border. I have never heard any Border Patrol official make such a request.

On the contrary, during our travels on the southwest borders and in talking to officials here in Washington, Mr. Farr is absolutely correct. The first thing they say is this isn't an enforcement problem alone, it requires a comprehensive immigration reform effort.

The second thing they say is that one size does not fit all in terms of border protection. The gentleman cites the San Diego example. Yes, that may well be a situation where a fence is called for. But the people who know the most about this and who are charged with protecting us every day invariably say that different technologies, different kinds of barriers, vehicle barriers, pedestrian barriers, barriers that might be suited to one kind of terrain rather than another, electronic surveillance, there are a range of technologies that

are required here. This is an incredible amendment. This amendment forgoes any kind of analytical effort and examination of differences and simply says two-layer fences will be erected everywhere.

And by the way, this is far more expensive than other kinds of barriers. So whatever it is, we would build less of it. The number of miles we are talking about here, to build that with the kind of fencing that the gentleman wants to see would cost $2 billion. That is twice what we have in this bill; so, of course, it would protect far less of the border.

The Department needs some discretion here, some discretion for the best minds in law enforcement and technology to decide what sort of protection makes sense in what portions of the border.

Our bill does that. Our bill has generous funding, but it also has some requirements about documenting the cost-effectiveness, the effectiveness in protecting the border, as well as the kind of effects we've talked about earlier this evening on the communities in the path of this.

So it's a sensible approach. It's one that draws on the best expertise we've been able to engage, and I strongly urge that it be retained in the bill, and therefore, this amendment be rejected.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose this amendment and in the strongest possible terms. The amendment would prohibit funds made available in the Act from being used to extend temporary protected status for countries covered under that program.

Temporary protected status is a special immigration benefit for citizens of countries with severe hardships: civil wars, massive natural disasters, humanitarian crises, some of those troubled places in the world where people are fleeing absolutely horrendous conditions. This program offers the citizens of those countries temporary sanctuary in our country until their countries' troubles are resolved.

In total, 4,198 people currently in the U.S. could be deported if their temporary protected status were not extended. These individuals would be sent back to countries with extreme conditions, places like Burundi, Somalia, the Sudan. Of course, we hope that these troubles will end and that these people could eventually return to their home countries. This is temporary status, but the notion that we would defund this program or refuse to extend it where it's called for.

This amendment would also be detrimental to the effective administration and enforcement of immigration laws. It would create confusion about the degree to which the U.S. government can be trusted to maintain its commitment to those for whom it offers immigration benefits.

So I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

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

The amendment would eliminate the requirement that the funding provided in this bill comply with the prevailing wage requirements of the Davis-Bacon Act. Nobody remembers who Davis and Bacon were, but the Act was enacted back in 1931 by a Republican Congress and a Republican administration, that of one Herbert Hoover.

It sets minimum labor standards for workers employed in Federal contract construction. It simply says that they've got to pay their employees, if they're using Federal funds, not less than the locally prevailing wage.

The Department of Homeland Security interpreted the application of Davis-Bacon far too narrowly. They said it applies only to Stafford Act grant programs, virtually no other DHS programs, despite the fact that a lot of these programs do involve construction projects like State and urban area Homeland Security grants, buffer zone protection grants, port security grants, airport security grants, transit security grants, and so forth.

Our belief simply is that there is no good reason for denying prevailing wage protection to jobs involved in these activities. There is a waiver that the President can employ in situations where Davis- Bacon requirements would truly have a detrimental impact, but for most jobs most of the time, carrying out the intent of this bill, fair, locally prevailing wages should prevail.

If you are talking about the quality of construction, I think that adds an argument as well. Davis-Bacon encourages a higher quality of workmanship. It encourages enhanced productivity. It reduces the need for remedial work, probably saving dollars in many instances. So there are many, many arguments for this which I won't belabor at this late hour. I believe the inclusion of the Davis-Bacon requirements

is prudent and fair, and I urge the rejection of this amendment.

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

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

The gentleman's amendment would reduce the funding in this bill by just over $2 billion, or 5.7 percent. As this debate began, we did discuss the comparison of the bill that we have reported to last year's level of funding, and I am going to just repeat those figures here, because I think it is important to put the increase in perspective.

The fiscal 2007 bill, with the emergency funding included that was adopted at the time that bill was passed, when that is considered as the baseline for 2007, our bill represents a 7.5 percent increase over last year's funding. If the supplemental funding is included in the 2007 base, then, actually, our bill represents a 7.5 percent decrease in funding.

But the point is not just to throw abstract numbers around. The point of the considerable deliberation our subcommittee has undertaken is to match up the available resources with this country's needs.

I believe we have done that in a conscientious way. I think it's extremely hard to find anything in this bill that is funded to excess, funded lavishly.

That's the reason that the gentleman has chosen not to focus on specific items, but, rather, to propose an across the board cut, indiscriminately applied, across the country, of 5.7 percent. It would have consequences, even spread across all the accounts. It would mean a reduced level of funding for a number of things that we have put in this bill for very good reason. The SAFE Port Act, the authorization, has required that we apply more funding to port security. This cut would reduce that substantially. It would, in all likelihood, mean that we could provide very limited additional programs for fire grants or transit emergency security grants, or emergency grants, State and urban grants, other important programs to our hometowns.

It would mean that border and immigration enforcement improvements would be hard to come by. It would make it very, very difficult to increase the amount of cargo that is carried on passenger aircraft that is screened and so forth. These cuts would be consequential.

Although our friends on the other side of the aisle have been rather selective in their treatment of the President's budget request, the chairman has repaired that request in this measure. But I do need to point out that we have not, under his leadership in past years, or in our deliberations this year, taken the President's requests as serious requests, but we have not hesitated to alter them when we felt that was required. It's not unusual for the Homeland Security bill in the House of Representatives to increase President Bush's request. In fact, we have done it every time we have brought a bill to this floor.

In 2004, the House bill contained $1 billion more than the Bush request; in 2005, $900 million more than the Bush request; in 2006, $1.3 billion more than the Bush request; in 2007, $1.1 billion more than the Bush request.

So we are in that mode once again. There is no reason to be surprised that in some respects we found the Bush requests inadequate, and we have increased them. In other respects, we have reduced them. We have done both. But there is a net increase, and I think a net increase that is amply justified.

The hour is late, I believe that the funding levels in this bill are quite carefully considered. This amendment would do some real damage to some things that we need to improve.

So I ask my colleagues to vote against this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I simply want to echo his kind words. It's a pleasure to work with him, it has been for these last 4 years, as he has chaired this committee, and it has been a pleasure to work with him this year, a real professional who takes oversight seriously and who takes writing this budget seriously.

Mr. Rogers and his staff, the staff here on this side, I won't ask how many hours of sleep they have had in the last several days.

But it has been a real pleasure. I hope we will have a chance in the presence of the whole body tomorrow morning to pay tribute a bit more formally. But we are grateful.

We are also grateful to see this evening come to a close. We will, of course, with our colleagues tomorrow, be having, I think, probably a record number of roll call votes in rapid sequence.

With that, we are ready to conclude, and I yield back my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 2 o'clock and 30 minutes a.m.), the House adjourned until today, Friday, June 15, 2007, at 9 a.m.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Is the gentleman suggesting that those contracts should just be cancelled outright by legislative fiat?

As the gentleman well knows, there has been a great deal of concern on both sides of the aisle about the functioning of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States. There is a consensus, I believe, that CFIUS slipped up on this Dubai Ports deal and that CFIUS needs to be strengthened.

You asked me a question about the 77 legal positions in the general counsel and the directive that the next hiring be to strengthen up this CFIUS capacity.

I thank the gentleman for his very helpful comments. And I want to pick up where Mr. Pearce left us a few minutes ago. I never had a chance to respond to his comments about unspent funding. So I want to take just a minute, if I might, to talk about what the committee, in fact, has done about grants and what kind of funding is available for those versus what we're going to appropriate for fiscal 2008.

We have made some key investments in this bill in State and local grants. The State grants are a modest increase over last year, something like 6 percent. But we've made much more substantial increases in transit and rail grants, which I think, on a bipartisan basis, Members of this House have said is a vulnerability. Certainly they said that on the port security matter with the Safe Ports Act. We have made some increases there.

Fire grants, have broad bipartisan support, as does the SAFER program. So in a number of these areas, we have gone somewhat above last year's funding and above the President's request. But we've done that on the basis of strong evidence and strong bipartisan support that this is needed.

Now, what about the allegation that this money is in the pipeline, that we really don't need to turn to the appropriations process for additional funding?

The charge was made that there's $5 billion unspent in these grant programs. Well, $4 billion of that is obligated. That leaves $1 billion. Let's talk about the $1 billion. $600 million of the $1 billion of unobligated funds are from funds awarded to States and localities during the last 6 months. The remaining $400 million in so- called unobligated funds are from older grants that are actually most likely obligated.

The Department tells us they're only now bringing older data on-line into their grant system, but it's very, very likely that all of that $400 million is obligated.

So forget about $5 billion in unspent funds. It isn't there. We must face up to the implications of needing to do more in these various grant areas.

Now, if the allegation is that the Department of Homeland Security has not been nimble enough, has not been responsive enough in getting the grant funds out there, then you certainly won't get an argument from us. Our approach has been to work cooperatively with the Department to improve performance.

There are two provisions in particular in this bill to ensure that Federal bureaucratic hurdles are lessened so that the funds can be used for their intended purpose more efficiently.

As in prior years, the bill mandates that within 60 days of enactment, 80 percent of the State Homeland Security grant funds must be passed through from States to localities. And, as in prior years, the bill mandates a schedule for DHS to issue grant guidance and make grant awards, ensuring that funding reaches grantees in the shortest time possible.

Now, we need to continue pressing. We need to continue working on this. But I think, in pressing the Department for responsive grant programs, we have bipartisan support on that. And in putting the money where we need to put it to make these additional areas safer, we have support on that as well.

All I can say is it would be nice if we would get on to discussing the substance of the bill, as opposed to dealing with desultory tactics.

Would the gentleman yield?

Let me just ask a question for clarification on the amendment that is before us which actually has barely been mentioned this morning. Is it not true that neither the McHenry amendment nor the Foxx amendment would be, in effect, incorporated in your amendment, since our expenditures for the item at issue

are already below the President's request?

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

And I commend him in turn for his work on getting help to the people dealing with the burdens of law enforcement in these border communities. That is what Stonegarden is all about. And he, together with colleagues on the Republican side, advocated very strongly for the Stonegarden funding in this bill.

We also have struck a balance at the gentleman's request. Some very careful work was done on what kind of consultation is desirable and necessary with affected communities before these border barriers are put into place.

So we make no apologies for holding the Department accountable for the technology that is utilized and the plan that is adopted so as to be as effective as possible, to be economical, and also to be responsive to these very particular border communities.

There has been, Mr. Chairman, a steady flow of town and city officials from Texas in particular who have come to Washington to voice their concerns. We are going to visit them in very short order now to have a first-hand look before this bill goes to conference.

But the work that we have done on this issue, I believe, does strike the desirable balance. We appreciate the Members' input on that because these communities are concerned that the construction of this barrier not go on without some regard for their history and their needs.

I thank the gentleman for yielding. I will consume about 15 seconds just to respond to the question that was raised about the Republican track record in passing appropriations bills.

The gentleman might want to talk about when the Labor-HHS bill was passed last year. I think what he will find is that not only was it not passed by July 1, it was not passed at all.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer a few comments on the proposed amendment, and perhaps a reality check, since the Member offering the amendment has neglected some important facts that would put this in perspective.

Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment that, once again, goes after the Office of the Secretary of Homeland Security. Virtually every amendment we have dealt with in this long debate has chosen that target.

We just finished 10 hours of debate on an attempt to cut in half the Secretary's legal advice office. Now, this amendment would cut funding from the

requested level for the Office of the Executive Secretary.

Our friends on the other side of the aisle have spoken all day about the President's requests. Well, what the introducer of this amendment didn't tell us was that the bill, actually cuts $539,000 from the President's request for this item. So we are well under the President's request, and she wants to cut it further.

For department operations overall, we have cut $73 million from the President's request, and our recommended amount is also less than was provided for 2007. So, it is not as though we are funding the departmental offices lavishly. Quite the contrary, we have scrutinized the requests carefully. We have cut the requests considerably. But we have tried to give the Department the funds that it needs to maintain its own operations.

Now, we have debated an amendment for 10 hours having to do with the general counsel's office. Last night, we were treated to eight motions to rise, eight motions to go home without continuing or completing work on this bill. I think any fair observer would say this is an attempt to obstruct and to delay. These are desultory motions.

So, now we have another amendment in that same vein. This comes on top of days of our Republican friends railing against bureaucrats. Not one voice on the minority side said a thing in defense of the Bush Administration's legitimate needs for the Department, needs which we have assessed and have actually cut back the funding for, but needs which, nonetheless, one would expect Republican Members to have some interest in, some sensitivity to. Not one voice was raised in defense.

All I can say is that we have scrubbed these administrative items very conscientiously. We have reduced them overall and in particular. So we are confident in our recommendations. But we do have to ask, why? Why should we, on this side of the aisle, stand up for the administration, stand up for the Bush administration's own Department, when Republicans themselves are unwilling to do so?

Now, we are well aware that not every Republican feels this way. There are Republicans and Democrats who have worked in a bipartisan way on Homeland Security on this bill and over many years. But the group of Republicans who are dominating this debate seem to have no regard for that, no interest in it. So it falls to us to defend their own administration. And we are not inclined to make a very strong recommendation on this amendment.

If the Republican Members of this House want to take money away from this account that we have already reduced considerably, then they can be our guest.

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

I wish, Mr. Chairman, to offer some comments on this amendment.

The amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Virginia would reduce the Department of Homeland Security Under Secretary for Management Account by $10.4 million and reallocate $9.1 million of the funds to the ICE 287(g) program. Because of the differences in outlays, the remaining $1.3 million cannot be used.

Now, as we have said on this floor many times in the last 18 hours of debate, our Republican friends seem determined to trash the front offices at the Department of Homeland Security. They rail against bureaucrats. They have no regard for the President's requests for those front offices. The fact is that the Under Secretary for Management funding is critical for the Department of Homeland Security to ensure that it develops its new headquarters in a consolidated way and that it does its job.

But if our friends on the Republican side of the aisle are not going to defend their own administration's needs in this regard, let alone their budget requests, I and my colleagues here are not inclined to do so. So our colleagues will need to look at this amendment and maybe they will want to support it, the source of funding notwithstanding.

Let me say something about the recipient of these funds, the 287(g) program. Now, the ICE 287(g) program does require additional funding next year, and it requires additional funding because of the emphasis that we are placing in our bill on the necessity of ICE's getting serious about preventing the release of prisoners, people who have committed serious crimes, who are deportable, permitting the release of those people back out on the streets. It is just outrageous that criminals who have been convicted, who have committed serious crimes in this country are being put out on the street without their status even being checked.

So we do have in this bill a requirement for ICE to contact every prison, jail, and correctional facility in this country on a monthly basis to identify removable criminal aliens. And we have provided a good deal of additional 287(g) funding to enroll correctional facilities in this program and to provide training and technical support to participants so they can provide accurate and actionable data to ICE agents.

So we have tripled ICE's funding. We have tripled ICE's funding. We have more than tripled the amounts provided in fiscal year 2007, that was $5.4 million, to $17.3 million in fiscal year 2008. Now, we think that is sufficient to enable ICE to undertake these duties as well as to carry on its existing functions because, first of all, it is a tripling in funding. Secondly, the Department has yet to obligate more than half of a $50 million appropriation made in 2006 for this program. It has not yet been obligated.

I have to say to my colleagues that as far as the 287(g) program is concerned, the availability of funding is not the issue. Trying to increase participation rates is the issue. But it is not just a matter of throwing money at the problem, as our friends like to say.

So ICE is going to take on, we hope and believe, significant new responsibilities. We have provided funding to accomplish that, and we are also, of course, assuming that the Department is going to obligate that $50 million that is sitting there already.

Now, our colleague has offered an amendment to provide yet more funding for ICE, funding that it is not clear to me that she has really analyzed how and when the funding can be used. But if she wishes to take yet another bite out of her own administration's front office accounts at Homeland Security, then, again, she can be our guest.

I do want my colleagues to know, though, that we are serious about this prison program. We think of all the priorities in terms of deportation, this is at the top of the list. It is a major feature of our bill. ICE is going to be directed to undertake this as a top priority. We know it will require funding. We have provided the funding, and perhaps in the best of all worlds this additional funding contained in this amendment would help this function be performed even more effectively. That would be a positive way to look at it, and for that reason we will not be opposing the amendment.

I thank the gentlelady from Texas for raising this important issue. I will be happy to work with you on it. I want to thank you for your leadership on the issue. I agree with you, as the chairman of a Homeland Security subcommittee, that much more must be done to engage our communities about the need to be prepared for all types of disasters and that special efforts are required to engage the most vulnerable members of our communities. It is a very valuable focus that you brought to this.

So that's why we fund FEMA's management and administration account at $685 million, $150 million above the current fiscal year. FEMA has told us of its plans to engage in this type of preparedness effort. We intend to monitor that. We strongly support it.

I thank the gentlewoman. I will be happy to work with her on report language.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairwoman of the Rules Committee for yielding, and for her good work along with the ranking member and members on both sides of the aisle in granting this open rule, an open rule for debating of this fiscal 2008 Homeland Security appropriations bill. We requested an open rule, with some necessary waivers. The Rules Committee has granted that, and for that we are grateful, and in just a few moments we will be on our way, debating this bill.

This is a critical bill. It is the first of the 12 appropriations bills that we will

be debating this session. So we will lead the pack. We will be telling our colleagues about what we have done, a hardworking subcommittee that has produced, I think, 20 days of hearings and has written a comprehensive bill.

It is going to provide funding to address our country's most pressing security vulnerabilities, with a new emphasis on ports and transit systems. It is going to provide critically needed funding, as the gentleman from Vermont has stressed, to our States and communities to confront terrorist activity threats, but also natural disaster threats.

Thirdly, it is going to help ensure that taxpayer dollars are well spent by requiring management reforms and by withholding funds until some expenditure reports and other accountability measures are in place.

And fourth, we're taking a long-term approach by requiring outside reviews of several major programs and activities to ensure that our long-term investments are being wisely spent.

I appreciate the chairwoman of the Rules Committee's interest in this bill. In particular, she has stressed, as she did again in her statement today, the challenges of protecting the northern border and also the concerns that she and many others have about the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative. We are directing the Department in this bill to increase by over 40 percent the number of border patrol agents at the northern border. That will comply with the levels called for in the Intelligence Reform Act.

She also expressed particular concerns about the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative. The bill makes $100 million for implementation of that program unavailable for obligation until Customs and Border Protection reports on its experience with pilot programs, provides detailed information on infrastructure and staffing required, confirms the use of radiofrequency identification technology that has been adequately tested under operational conditions, and describes how it will ensure privacy protection. We worked with the chairwoman in putting those protections in place, and we appreciate the consistent interest she has shown in them and in this bill in general.

So with that, Mr. Speaker, I once again thank our Rules Committee colleagues for an open rule and for paving the way for what we hope and believe will be a productive debate as we consider our homeland security needs for the coming fiscal year.

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

Mr. Chairman, I want to start by saying how proud I am of the work of our subcommittee and its fine staff that has been done over the last number of months.

Through the 20 hearings we have held so far this year, featuring testimony from Department officials, watch dog agencies and outside experts, numerous security vulnerabilities and management problems have been identified and solutions offered. I believe that the bill reported by the committee is well informed by what we learned in these hearings.

I want to express my gratitude to the distinguished gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), both for his leadership as the inaugural chairman of this subcommittee and more recently for his significant contributions as ranking member. Mr. Rogers established a strong, bipartisan approach to providing vigilant oversight of the Department, and I have endeavored to continue on that path.

I also want to pay tribute to Martin Sabo, the former ranking member of this subcommittee, who is an example to all of us not only for his expertise and leadership on homeland security issues, but also his commitment to public service and to this institution.

And I don't want to go any further without expressing my respect for and gratitude to the professional staff of the subcommittee, both majority and minority. Beverly Pheto has been an exemplary clerk. Her mastery of the issues facing the Department and each of its components has been invaluable. And I cannot underestimate the contributions of Stephanie Gupta, Jeff Ashford, Jim Holm, and Shalanda Young on the majority side; and Tom McLemore, Ben Nicholson, and Christine Kojac on the minority side, as well as Darek Newby of my personal staff. Our subcommittee relies on the professionalism and expertise of these individuals. They are performing an invaluable service to the country.

Mr. Chairman, in total, the bill before us contains $36.3 billion in discretionary funding, which is $2.5 billion, or more than 7 percent, above the funding appropriated in 2007, including funding given an emergency designation in the 2007 bill. That so-called ``emergency'' funding was primarily for border security needs that have necessarily been absorbed into the baseline for fiscal year 2008. The bill contains $2 billion, or 5 percent, more than the amounts requested by President Bush. I hope my colleagues will agree that the country's outstanding homeland security vulnerabilities, including border security, more than justify this level of funding.

This bill does four important things: First, it provides funding to address our country's most pressing security vulnerabilities with a new emphasis on our ports and on rail and transit systems.

Secondly, the bill provides critically needed funding to our States and communities to confront not only the threat of terrorist activity but also natural disasters and the emergency situations that must be dealt with in our community every day. Homeland security requires a faithful partnership among the Federal Government, States, and local communities. And this bill honors that partnership.

Thirdly, the bill helps to ensure that taxpayer dollars are well spent by requiring specific management reforms related to contracting, procurement, and competition. It cuts $1.2 billion below the fiscal 2007 levels and $244 million below the requested amounts for programs and activities that are not performing well or for which increased or level funding has not been adequately justified; and it withholds a total of $1.9 billion for various programs until the Department submits detailed expenditure plans.

And, fourth, the bill takes a long-term approach by requiring outside reviews of several major programs and activities to ensure that long- term investments of taxpayer money are made wisely and productively. For example, we are commissioning studies by the National Academies of Science on the current direction of the BioWatch program and on the Department's risk analysis capabilities and the improvements needed to ensure that investments are well targeted.

The funding increases provided in this bill address the security vulnerabilities identified by numerous expert groups, including the 9/ 11 Commission and the Hart-Rudman Commission. They also fund security actions mandated in the SAFE Ports Act and the Katrina Reform Act.

Aviation explosive detection systems are funded in total at $849 million, $324 million more than the regular 2007 bill. Air cargo security is funded at $73 million, $18 million more than the 2007 bill. And the bill directs TSA to double the amount of cargo it screens prior to loading onto passenger aircraft.

Transit security grants are funded at $400 million, $225 million more than the 2007 bill. Port security grants are funded at $400 million, $190 million more than the 2007 bill. An additional $40 million is provided for the Coast Guard to implement the requirements of the SAFE Ports Act.

Emergency Management Performance Grants are funded at $300 million, $100 million more than the 2007 bill. Metropolitan Medical Response System Grants are funded at $50 million, $17 million more than 2007. State Homeland Security and Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention grants are funded at $950 million; that is $50 million more than 2007. Urban area security grants are funded at $800 million, $30 million more than the 2007 bill. REAL ID and interoperable communication grants are funded in total at $100 million, in contrast to no funding provided in 2007. Fire grants are funded at $800 million, $138 million more than 2007. And FEMA management and administration is funded at $685 million, $150 million more than 2007.

Mr. Chairman, I want to highlight a number of other provisions in the bill that are particularly important. We have all heard about contracts and awards from the Department that were not competed. FEMA recently submitted a list of nearly 4,000 contracts that were never competitively bid. This bill mandates that all grant and contract funds be awarded through full and open competitive processes except

when other funding distribution mechanisms are required by statute. This approach creates a level playing field and also ensures that there are no congressional or administration earmarks in this bill.

In addition, the bill addresses a major immigration vulnerability that exists today. It requires that ICE contact correctional facilities throughout the U.S. on a monthly basis to identify incarcerated immigrants who are subject to deportation. Although ICE deports some number of these individuals now, it is not systematically identifying and deporting them. There is simply no excuse for failing to identify every deportable alien and deporting them immediately upon their release from prison.

These are undocumented individuals who have served time in jail for committing crimes, and we are now, unfortunately, releasing them all too often back into the population. So asking prisons for information about these individuals so they can be deported should be among the first priorities in our illegal immigration enforcement strategy. This bill provides the direction and the funding to ICE to make this happen.

The bill funds the Secure Border Initiative at the requested level of $1 billion, while requiring the Department to clearly justify how it plans to use these funds to achieve operational control of our borders. For each border segment, the Department will have to produce an analysis comparing its selected approach to alternatives based on total cost, on level of control achieved, impact on affected communities, and other factors.

We are also requiring the Department to seek the advice and support of each local community affected by a border infrastructure project. I want to be clear that this does not give border communities a veto on border projects and it will not result in any project delays if the Department efficiently carries out its responsibilities. The provision simply requires the Department to actively and faithfully consult affected communities to ensure that our border security efforts minimize adverse community impacts. That is reasonable to ask of the Department, and the Department agrees that such consultation is appropriate.

We are also directing the Department to increase by over 40 percent the number of Border Patrol agents on the northern border to comply with the levels called for in the Intelligence Reform Act. In addition, the bill addresses a Customs and Border Protection staffing problem that we heard about on a February congressional delegation to the southwest border.

Because CBP officers are not considered law enforcement officers, despite the increasing role of law enforcement in their duties, they don't receive the same benefits as DHS personnel who are considered law enforcement officers. This has made it extremely difficult to hold on to CBP officers. In a nutshell, the bill would allow eligible CBP officers to transition to law enforcement status beginning in fiscal 2008.

The Transportation Security Administration's loss of the personal data of thousands of its employees is only the most recent example of the privacy problems plaguing the Department. The bill withholds funding for certain DHS programs until the proper privacy protections are in place because security and privacy can and should go hand in hand.

In conclusion, let me mention a few other provisions, Mr. Chairman. First, the bill includes language mandating that stricter State and local chemical security laws and regulations cannot be preempted by the Federal Government. Secondly, the bill mandates that all grant and contract funds comply with Davis-Bacon prevailing wage requirements. Thirdly, the $101 million in the bill for the new DHS campus facility at St. Elizabeth's will not be available until the Department submits an explosive detection equipment spending plan and promulgates long overdue regulations on U-Visas for victims of domestic violence, rape, and involuntary servitude.

This withholding of funds should not be interpreted as a signal of lukewarm support for the development of the St. Elizabeth's campus. On the contrary, the Department and the country would be better served by colocating most of its headquarters components onto this single campus. This is simply our way of signaling that any further delay on an explosive detection plan or on the overdue U-Visa rule is completely unacceptable.

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

Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks).

The gentleman is correct. Language in the report directs the science and technology directorate to fulfill the funding obligation to which it committed itself in the MOU signed last November.

I would be happy to work with you and Mr. Hastings to ensure that the Department adheres to the direction provided in the report.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to our colleague on the subcommittee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano).

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr), another member of our committee.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Tennessee for his kind words on our bill, and I appreciate his interest in the Protective Security Analysis Center, or PSAC.

As the gentleman noted, the bill includes $78.9 million for the Assistant Secretary for Infrastructure Protection to carry out identification and analysis programs. This funding supports the analytical work done by DHS to identify risks to infrastructure and to model the effects of terrorist attacks and natural disasters.

The PSAC is an important part of these activities. I look forward to working with the gentleman to ensure that these important activities are adequately funded in our bill.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), a member of the full Appropriations Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I gladly yield 2 minutes to a very fine Member, the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), the chairman of our authorizing committee on homeland security.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island who's worked with us on this bill, Mr. Langevin.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Cuellar).

Mr. Chairman, how much time do we have remaining?

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley).

I do understand these large urban areas are at high risk from a terrorism event. We have addressed that conscientiously in this bill. This committee is providing $30 million over last year's level of $770 million for the urban area grants.

The gentleman's amendment would increase the Urban Area Security Initiative grants by $50 million. At the same time it would reduce the Office of the Secretary and Executive Management and the office of the Under Secretary for Management. The Office of the Secretary and Executive Management would be reduced by $15 million, or 14 percent.

Funding for a number of offices is included in this appropriation, including the Secure Border Initiative Office, the Policy Office, the Privacy Office, the Civil Rights Office and the Office of Counternarcotics Enforcement. The bill provides only enough funding to support current on-board staff except for the Privacy and Civil Rights Offices, where staffing levels are increased slightly, and the Policy Office, where additional funding is provided for REAL ID and the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States.

If funding is reduced, these program enhancements, which are carefully designed and will help ensure privacy and civil rights, could be compromised or largely defunded.

The gentleman's amendment also proposes to reduce funding for the office of the Under Secretary for Management by $35 million, or 14 percent. The total increase in this office is due to $101 million provided for DHS headquarters facilities at St. Elizabeth's. We have already substantially reduced the request coming from the administration. We need to get the Department consolidated in this new headquarters; and of course, this amendment would make even less funding available for this new facility.

So I reluctantly ask for a ``no'' vote.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the amendment.

No, I did not.

Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my point of order.

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

Mr. Chairman, it's the easiest thing in the world to come to this floor and to rail against bureaucracy, this abstract notion of cutting bureaucracy; but I think it's prudent to ask what exactly do these officials do and what is actually in the bill and why is it there. So let me try to get beyond just the symbolism of cutting bureaucracy and try to answer those very basic questions.

First of all, let me say, I don't know where the figure 17 percent that the gentleman's using comes from. The increase in this bill over fiscal 2007 spending, counting the bill that we passed last year and the emergency spending incorporated in that bill, is 7\1/2\ percent. And if you include the emergency funding that we just added to the 2007 bill, then the increase is 4 percent without the Katrina funding, and it is actually a cut of 7\1/2\ percent with the Katrina funding. So if you're using the 2007 bill as the baseline, those are the accurate numbers.

Now, let's look at the front office of the Department of Homeland Security. The bill includes, sure enough, $923 million for Department operations, but that's less than the 2007 appropriation. It's less than the President requested by $73 million.

The gentleman has focused on one aspect of front office operations, which is the Office of Secretary and Executive Management, and he wants to cut that by almost $10 million. But there are good reasons for that being increased while the overall front office expenses are being decreased.

This appropriation, the one the gentleman has targeted, the one he has said is purely bureaucracy, included in that appropriation are the Secure Border Initiative office, which many Members on both sides of the aisle have a strong interest in; the policy office; the privacy office, which surely needs strengthening; the civil rights office, which surely needs strengthening; and the office of counter-narcotics enforcement, a critical function as well.

And the bill isn't lavish even in this respect. It provides only enough funding to support current on-board staff except for the privacy and civil rights offices, where staffing levels are increased, and the policy office, where additional funding is provided for REAL ID, a new program that requires some staffing up, and for the Committee on Foreign Investment of the United States, which, as every Member knows, we are trying to also strengthen.

If funding is reduced, these program enhancements, which will help to better ensure privacy, to better ensure civil rights protections, would not be funded. So let's get past the rhetoric about bureaucracy. Let's look at what the appropriation actually does. I think if Members do, they will reject this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I think it will be in the interest of the debate the rest of the day to have this straight, so I do appreciate the gentleman's yielding.

It's true, the bill is at $36.3 billion. Last year's appropriation was $34.2 billion. That is counting the emergency spending that was enacted at the same time as the regular bill. That means this year's increase is 7\1/2\ percent. And then if you add the 2007 supplemental appropriations, which were just voted by the House, depending on whether you count the Katrina money or not, you either get a 4.2 percent increase or a 7.5 percent decrease from the 2007 funding level.

I appreciate the chance to clarify those numbers.

I am happy to clarify the situation.

The 2007 appropriation, as enacted, was $34.2 billion. That includes the $31.9 billion that the gentleman cited, plus the emergency spending in that same bill, because as you well remember, we needed to address the border and immigration situation. So that was added to the bill.

The spending in the 2007 bill was $34.2 billion, and we are increasing that by 7.5 percent, and then we have recently supplemented the appropriation. The 2007 spending now stands at $39.2 billion, and the 2008 bill is 7.5 percent less than that in nominal terms.

If I may just say further, the gentleman referred to the way we do accounting around here. This is just straight nominal numbers. The departmental operations are cut--are cut--in our bill from 2007 levels by $1.2 million. They are cut from the President's request by $72 million. It's not a matter of adjustments one way or the other for inflation; those are straightforward cuts.

Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentleman for his eloquence, both about the potential threat of global warming and what that may mean for emergencies that we have to deal with in the future, and also for the need to repair and rebuild FEMA so that we have a nimble, responsive agency that can respond to all kinds of disasters all over this country.

I understand that the gentleman will perhaps be willing to withdraw this amendment. I hope that he will do that, but I want to assure him that we understand what he's focusing on, and that we will work with him as we go to conference to make sure that FEMA has the resources that it needs. We have beefed up FEMA's resources a good deal in this bill.

Now, on the question of who should be studying global warming and assessing its future impact, there are legitimate questions, I believe, as to whether FEMA is the agency that's best equipped to do this. Other agencies, such as the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, do have expertise in this area, but if that expertise is not being translated into practical preparation, and if there's not adequate coordination between NOAA and the research operations and the operational agencies, then that obviously is a concern that needs to be addressed. I appreciate the Member from Ohio's raising that concern, and promise that we will work with you.

I will.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Washington, although I want to heartily endorse the emphasis he's given to the importance of the intelligence and analytical functions.

Perhaps I can best begin by making an observation about this bill as a whole. We have closely examined the status of the programs that we're funding, their history of drawing down funds, their unspent balances, their ability to spend the money that has been requested. And so when the gentleman sees a reduction in funding of the sort that he sees in this account, it would be a big mistake to read that as a de-emphasis of this function or some kind of judgment that this function is not important. We think it's highly important. But we do have some observations that are included in the committee report.

I refer the gentleman to page 23 of the report about the rationale behind the, we hope, temporary reductions that we've written into this bill. It's a short section. Let me just read it. ``The Committee has reduced the funding level for intelligence and analysis below the amounts requested. The Committee notes that the Office of Intelligence and Analysis carried over

significant unobligated balances at the end of fiscal year 2006, and has shown no signs of an increased pace of obligations during the current fiscal year.''

That is not something we're pleased about, but the best way to create some pressure and some incentives to correct this situation, to get this function moving, is what the committee has done.

The gentleman's amendment would reduce by $10 million the amounts provided to the managerial function and the Border Patrol at DHS and reallocate those funds for the intelligence functions.

But as I said, at the end of 2006 the intelligence program had $50 million remaining unspent, largely because it was unable to hire the staff at the rate at which it was planned. There's been no indication from the intelligence managers of the Department that the pace of hiring has increased, so we fully expect the programs will end this year with significant balances unspent. It's simply imprudent to keep appropriating more money when those sizable balances remain unspent.

Now, as for the offset, briefly, the amendment proposes to reduce funding for the Office of the Secretary and Executive Management by $1 million, or 1 percent. That, as we've said earlier, would nip in the bud our efforts to better ensure privacy and to enforce civil rights. That's the reason there's a slight increase in that function. And the gentleman's amendment would remove that, as well as reduce funding for the office of the Under Secretary for Management, which is tied to the need to consolidate DHS operations in a new headquarters.

So, in the other aspect of the amendment, perhaps even more dangerously, the amendment proposes to reduce CBP salaries, Border Patrol salaries and expenses, by $6 million. That could generate significant vulnerabilities in the Border Patrol's ability to ensure the security of the northern and southern borders.

So the offsets are not good, and the overall increase would, in all likelihood, remain unspent.

So for those reasons, and certainly not for any lack of concern about intelligence and analytical operations, I do reluctantly oppose the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to indicate that we will accept this amendment, but I want to explain my reasoning, if I might, and explain it very carefully.

For 2 hours now we have sat in this Chamber and have heard Republican Members railing against the Bush administration. Member after Member after Member has risen in this Chamber to condemn Bush administration bureaucrats in unsparing terms, and not one voice on that side of the aisle has been raised in opposition, not one.

So, we are asking ourselves, how long are we going to defend a very carefully crafted bill that deals with the administration's legitimate needs to administer its Department?

Now, I don't care how many times people get on this floor and claim that we have made lavish increases. The fact is, and I will say it one more time, this bill cuts departmental operations. It cuts them below the President's request, and it cuts them below 2007 levels. And that is not a matter of inflation adjustment. It is a real cut in nominal terms.

Now, within that overall cut there are some adjustments. Some accounts are cut more, some are increased. They are not increased for frivolous reasons. If we have made an increase, it has been because there is a good rationale for that increase. A couple of the earlier cuts targeted the account that includes the Privacy Office, the Civil Rights Office, offices that need work and need to be strengthened.

So we have scrubbed this bill very carefully. We have basically provided only for current staff on board, and, in a few instances, for staff that we knew needed to be augmented to perform very specific functions. So, we have been conscientious within the context of overall reduction.

Of course, the easiest thing in the world is to rail against the front office or the Department, to rail against the bureaucrats, to say these are abstract, invisible cuts. Let's just cut away, and then beat our chest about how tough we are fiscally. I tell you, we've been tough fiscally, but we have not been irresponsible. We have tied, in each case, our funding recommendation to specific needs of the Department, specific functions that need to be continued or need to be augmented. So we are asking, why should we be the ones to stand up for this administration?

Now, I know not every Republican is in line with the sentiments that have been expressed here. I know there are Members on both sides of the aisle who understand that you need some reasonable level of funding to run a department. And in past years, we have provided that reasonable level, and we have done it again this year. But we are not going to sit here and simply hear all this and then be alone in our defense. So we accept the amendment.

I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his strong advocacy for these nonprofit security grants. I, too, have constituencies concerned about these grants, about their continued availability, and have convincing testimony as to the importance of this resource.

We did not have a specified account in our bill, but I am aware that the Senate does, and we will be going to conference. I am glad to assure the gentleman that we will have an open mind about dealing with this in conference. I appreciate that he is not offering the amendment tonight, but we will be very, very happy to work with him going forward.

Mr. Chairman, for the reasons I explained earlier, we accept the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to accept the amendment, but I want to make clear that we are doing it in the spirit that we accepted earlier amendments. That is, if no one on the other side of the aisle is willing and able to defend the Bush administration and their budget request and their departmental operations, then it's not clear to us why we should take that on. We have had a steady stream of invective tonight, a lot of ideology, a lot of bureaucratic bashing, and not very much attention to the specifics of this very carefully drawn budget.

Now, you wouldn't have known it from the last presentation, but let me tell you what this amendment does. The amendment cuts the funding for the general counsel in the Department $1.2 million below President Bush's request. Now, it's not about earmarks. It's not about the history of the parties and their ideologies. It's about cutting $1.2 billion below President Bush's request for the general counsel in the Department of Homeland Security.

Now, Members can make their own decision about whether that's wise. But as for us, we don't intend to oppose the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer a modest reality check. I hope that's helpful.

The gentleman from North Carolina gives an impression of great precision in wanting to cut $8,961,000, and he suggests that we might want to debate tonight whether that's exactly the right figure. He suggests that without indicating, as far as I can tell, any fact or any premise on which this very precise number is based. So we will await that with interest, exactly why this much and no more and no less.

Let me offer a little reality check in the form of the language from the committee report. Our committee recommended $14 million for the general counsel.

By the way, that's the start of understanding this. This isn't about bureaucracy, in general. It's not about government fat, in general. It certainly has nothing to do with entitlements. It's not even about the Secretary's office, in general. This is about the general counsel's office at the Department of Homeland Security. This figure was arrived at after close consultation with that office. We recommended $14 million for the Office of General Counsel.

Now, we didn't give them everything they wanted. President Bush requested $1.2 million above this. We cut that. We did not grant that full amount.

Now, 77 staff, 77 is what that appropriation pays for or would pay for. That's equal to the current on-board strength. We do say in the report, and maybe the gentleman disagrees with this, that as vacancies arise in the office, the committee directs the Department to fill the vacancies with positions dedicated to CFIUS reviews and fiscal law.

Now, CFIUS, you might remember, is the Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States, better known by reference, perhaps, to the Dubai ports deal. You will remember a great deal of discussion in this body on both sides of the aisle on how CFIUS needs to be beefed up and do a better job. We don't want to have another Dubai ports deal.

That's what we are responding to in consultation with the Department. They need some positions dedicated to those CFIUS reviews so that we do them right. Is there something wrong with that? Is there something wrong with the number 77?

That's the rationale. Since nobody else has provided it, I will. That's the rationale for what the committee has done here, as we said, not granting everything that the administration wanted, but trying to make certain that the staff has the strength they need to fulfill their present obligations and to move in this new direction which CFIUS has provided. I hope that's helpful.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

I thank the gentlewoman for her inquiry and for her leadership on the Homeland Security authorizing committee.

As you stated, the SAFE Port Act established many new requirements related to port security. I agree that the implementation of a long- range vessel tracking system should be a priority, and that part of the $40 million in additional funding could be used to meet the long-range vessel tracking system mandated in the SAFE Port Act.

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 matter on H.R. 2638.