Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, it is evident that our country is in desperate need of jobs. And I rise today to bring light on an issue that could cost literally hundreds of jobs in America. Currently, there is a flaw in the GSP, and if it is not addressed, it will cause the loss of 150 jobs in the district that I represent alone, and could cause the loss of many other jobs across the industry.

Implemented back in 1974, GSP was designed to exclude import- sensitive items, and therefore excluded all textiles. However, in the early 1990s, sleeping bags, along with a long list of other items, were added to GSP as eligible for duty-free import, causing sleeping bags to be the only manufactured textile that is allowed to be imported without a 9 percent duty.

The sleeping bags made at Exxel Outdoors in Haleyville, Alabama, are simply fabric, filling and zipper, yet they are not treated as other textiles. Sleeping bags that are manufactured in Bangladesh, where 90 percent of their value comes from materials in China, cut into America's sleeping bag sales by 20 percent a year.

Without this modest import duty, there will be at least another 150 people who will lose their jobs unnecessarily in a region where unemployment is already over 15 percent. While the economy added no new jobs in August and U.S. unemployment numbers remain stagnant, this issue gives us another example of government policy that hinders job growth and retention.

I want to thank the Ways and Means Committee for their time, attention, and concern regarding this matter and for working with us as we move forward on this process to find a resolution. I am looking forward to continuing our work with them in pursuit of a fair, commonsense solution.

Mr. Speaker, it is no secret that our debt crisis is a result of Washington spending money it does not have and leaving the American people--both of today and future generations--with the devastating tab.

Spending money Washington does not have is the problem, so controlling Washington's spending must be part of the solution. The Cut, Cap and Balance Act delivers immediate spending cuts, puts in place reasonable spending limits going forward, and requires Washington to live within its means from here on out.

Since 2009, the national debt has increased by $3.7 trillion alone and today the national debt stands at nearly $14.3 trillion. That's $46,000 per American citizen.

Needless to say, we cannot continue down the same path and expect a different result.

The measures put in place through the Cut, Cap and Balance Act are important steps to getting America on a fiscally responsible path. It is the least we can do.

I am proud to support such a common sense solution and help get our country back on the right track. I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask one simple question to the other Chamber across the Capitol: Where is their appropriation bill for the Department of Homeland Security for FY 2012?

On June 3, some 19 days ago, the House passed its version of the FY12 appropriation bill for the Department of Homeland Security, a bill that not only invokes fiscal discipline and needed oversight, but one that ensures that our frontline security and personnel and homeland security programs are adequately funded for the coming fiscal year. In addition, the House-passed bill includes $1 billion in supplemental funding for FEMA's disaster relief efforts that is available immediately upon enactment. Unfortunately, as of today, we have seen absolutely no action from the other body. There is no plan, no leadership, and no commitment to fiscal discipline, security, or disaster relief.

The Democrat leadership in the other body was not elected to wait. That is not what the American people elected them to do. Waiting only puts our security and disaster relief on hold.

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

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

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

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

I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

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

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

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

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

I would ask for a ruling from the Chair.

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

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

I make a point of order against the amendment because

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

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

I request a ruling from the Chair.

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

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

I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment.

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

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

The rules state, in pertinent part: An amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order if it changes an existing law. The amendment requires a new determination.

I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

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

I yield to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Fortenberry) to talk about an important immigration enforcement program.

Reclaiming my time, the gentleman from Nebraska raises some excellent points, and I strongly support robust enforcement of our Nation's immigration laws. That includes partnership with the States and local law enforcement through the 287(g) program.

As the gentleman from Nebraska noted, 287(g) is an important tool among many and gives ICE a force multiplier for immigration enforcement.

I thank the gentleman from Nebraska for his attention to this important program, and I will continue to work with him as we move this bill forward.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

Reclaiming my time, I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

Reclaiming my time, I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, as we had talked earlier about this legislation, this bill is about putting priority on limited dollars and robustly supporting the most essential functions of the Department of Homeland Security and to make sure that our homeland is safe.

The Department of Homeland Security, with all of its critical missions, is not immune from fiscal discipline. That has been the theme that we have been talking about since we started the bill yesterday afternoon. That means that the Department has to find the most cost- effective way to meet its mission requirements.

The American people, quite honestly, are demanding no less in this regard.

Again, we started yesterday afternoon at around 3:30, we went until about 12:30 this morning, we started again about 12:30 today, this afternoon, and we are continuing with this legislation. It will probably take us a couple of more hours this evening before we finish. A lot of people have done a lot of work to make this bill happen and for it to take place.

I just again would want to thank each of them for their hard work.

Again, the ranking member, Mr. Price, has been a true partner in this as we have worked together, and I want to thank him for his contribution that he has made.

Also, I would like to thank the full committee chairman and the ranking member, Mr. Hal Rogers and Mr. Dicks, for their support. They have both been very helpful as we have gone through this process, and they have had to make some very difficult choices as they have to work with all 12 subcommittees. I want to congratulate them, as we have kicked off the start of a new appropriations season, and we have nearly the first appropriation bill to come to the floor.

But I do want to take a moment and thank the committee staff for their hard work, namely, I want to thank Stephanie Gupta and Paul Cox on the minority side; and, of course, the majority staff has worked very, very closely with the minority, and we do appreciate their hard work.

But on the majority staff, Jeff Ashford, Kris Mallard, Kathy Kraninger, Miles Taylor, and Rebecca Ore have all done a tremendous job in their work and, of course, last but not least, Ben Nicholson. Ben Nicholson serves as the clerk of the Homeland Security Subcommittee on Appropriations and Ben has done a tremendous job as he has helped me up here as I have managed the time on this particular piece of legislation.

Also, on the appropriations staff, Jennifer Miller and Mike Robinson have done a great job, and also Jim Kulikowski. They have been very helpful in making sure this process moves forward. As you can imagine, there's a lot of moving parts. And so I do want to thank Mike, Jennifer, and Jim for their hard work.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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 gentleman's motion.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is about priorities, fiscal discipline priorities as our Nation grapples with a genuine budget crisis, and security priorities in the aftermath of Osama bin Laden's death and as we approach the 10th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks.

This bill includes robust spending reductions on bureaucracy and on programs that are not producing, cutting waste, reducing spending, and instilling genuine budget discipline.

In addition, this bill puts money where it matters: frontline operations, intelligence, counterterrorism, and disaster relief.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman's motion is simply a political ploy at the end of an open process on a bill that delivers the Nation's spending restraints and robust security that our Nation needs.

And furthermore, under Speaker Boehner's leadership, as executed by Chairman Dreier and Chairman Rogers, we have just completed 2 days of floor debate under a completely open rule. It is the most open possible debate before the people's House.

We have repeatedly addressed the issues that the gentleman is raising with this motion and thoroughly debated the merits of this shortcoming of his points.

In short, it is time to vote, Mr. Speaker. It's time to deliver fiscal discipline, and it's time to deliver robust security. The American people are demanding no less.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 2017, and that I may include tabular material on the same.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

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

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

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

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

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

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

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

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

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

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I reluctantly rise in opposition to this amendment.

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

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

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

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

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

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I continue to reserve a point of order.

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

I insist on my point of order.

Mr. Chairman, the amendment proposes to amend portions of the bill not yet read. The amendment may not be considered en bloc under clause 2(f) of rule XXI because the amendment proposes to increase the level of outlays in the bill.

I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.

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

Mr. Chairman, the amendment proposes to amend portions of the bill not yet read. The amendment may not be considered en bloc under clause 2(f) of rule XXI because of outlays in the bill.

I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

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

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

The amendment may not be considered en bloc under clause 2(f) of rule XXI because the amendment proposes to increase the level of outlays in the bill.

I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

The amendment proposes to increase the level of outlays in the bill.

I insist on my point of order.

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

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

The amendment may not be considered en bloc under clause 2(f) of rule XXI because the amendment proposes to increase the level of outlays in the bill.

I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment.

I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this will breach our outlays, and I oppose the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

The amendment proposes to amend portions of the bill not yet read. The amendment may not be considered en bloc under clause 2(f) of rule XXI because the amendment proposes to increase the level of outlays in the bill.

I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

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

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

The amendment may not be considered en bloc under clause 2(f) of rule XXI because the amendment proposes to increase the level of outlays in the bill.

I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, we oppose the amendment because we have already added $30 million above the request. Therefore, we believe this is sufficient funding for this portion of the bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

I yield to the gentleman from Alabama for the purpose of a colloquy.

Chairman Rogers, I too look forward to continuing to work with you on this issue involving the TSA. I completely agree that the explosive detection canines are a cost-effective, proven critical part of the TSA security. As we continue to work together on both appropriations and your efforts on reauthorizing and transforming TSA, I look forward to exploring all of the potential options to utilize detection canines to patrol our transportation systems.

Thank you for your work in making our transportation systems more secure.

I have no objection and accept the gentleman's amendment.

I object.

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

Mr. Chairman, I withdraw the point of order and accept the gentleman's amendment.

I have no objection and accept the gentleman's amendment.

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

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

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

Additionally, as noted by the gentleman, the bill limits Urban Area Security Initiative grants to the top 10 highest cities. Again, this puts scarce dollars to where they are most needed.

That means cities like New York are funded at the significantly higher levels than other cities because they are the highest threat to urban areas. I don't think anyone here can argue that.

This does not mean lower-risk areas will lose all funding. It would just mean the funds will come from other programs such as State homeland grants that are risk and formula based.

I strongly urge my colleagues to support fiscal discipline by aligning funding with areas of highest risk and vote ``no'' on this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, as we approach the 10th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, we are reminded that a key recommendation of the 9/11 Commission is still not completely addressed, that is, the security of the most commonly used form of identification in the United States, the driver's license.

All but one of the 9/11 hijackers carried some form of government- issued ID, mostly State driver's licenses, many of which were obtained in fraudulent manners. During the planning stages of the attacks, these documents were used to rent vehicles, evade law enforcement officials, enroll in flight school and board airplanes.

In 2005, Congress passed, and the President signed, the REAL ID Act to address the security gap and require States to meet certain security standards for the issuance of driver's licenses and identification cards. Despite that action 6 years ago, REAL ID has yet to be fully implemented.

My distinguished colleague, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Smith, has some views to offer on this important topic.

I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. Chairman, I strongly support the REAL ID implementation.

REAL ID is the law. The Department has an obligation to support the States in moving forward toward full compliance with enhanced driver's license security. Congress has appropriated a steady stream of funding for REAL ID since 2006--$295 million, to be exact.

Additionally, driver's license security is an allowable expense under the State Homeland Security Grant Program. So the actions taken in this bill should in no way be taken as a sign of diminishing support for REAL ID implementation.

I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. Chairman----

I object.

Will the gentleman yield?

If you would give us just a minute, we are trying to see if we can work something out on this.

I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, we are trying to work out an agreement with the gentlelady from New York.

If you will give us a minute to work this out, we will try to find something that can be accommodating to both parties.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

The amendment proposes to amend portions of the bill not yet read. Section 17, Chapter 2 of the House Practice book states, in

part: It is not in order to strike or otherwise amend portions of a bill not yet read for amendment.

I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

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

I accept the gentlelady's amendment. However, I must clarify that the base bill includes $2.65 billion and includes an additional $1 billion in supplemental funds, and that is a total of $1.8 billion above the request. So I would like to point that out to the gentlelady, but we will accept her amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman from California's views, and we accept this amendment.

However, I would like to state for the record that the $132 million of appropriated funds provided in this bill would not fund immigrant integration grants. They are provided for verification programs, both E-Verify and SAVE, and these are critical programs to the fund.

I move to strike the last word.

I want to thank the gentlewoman from Wyoming for working with us on this issue, and I appreciate the concerns that she has raised and also that the gentleman from Utah has raised.

The committee has attempted to address both the requests of the Department of Homeland Security and the interests of Members on both sides of the aisle in drafting section 547. It was narrowly tailored to address only the most necessary environmental mitigation activities directly related to border security construction, operations, and maintenance.

It included strict controls on the transfer of funds from the Department of Homeland Security to the Department of the Interior, only where the Secretary of Homeland Security certifies that the transfer is absolutely necessary for border security and that the Department of Homeland Security does not have the authority to carry out the necessary activities.

Further, the Secretary of the Interior must provide a detailed spend plan with advance notification, allowing the committee to reject the plan.

The committee's interest was border security. Unfortunately, we were not able to balance the various viewpoints and the concerns to find the compromise in this process. For that reason, I support the Lummis amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I respectfully reserve a point of order on this amendment.

Madam Chairman, I insist upon my point of order.

I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriation bill and therefore violates clause 2 of rule XXI. The rule states, in pertinent part, an amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law gives affirmative action in effect.

I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

Madam Chair, I reserve a point of order.

Parliamentary inquiry, Madam Chair.

We would like to clarify which amendment is currently being considered.

I ask unanimous consent that the Clerk read the amendment.

Madam Chair, I insist on my point of order.

I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriation bill and, therefore, violates clause 2 of rule XXI. The rule states in pertinent part: an amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law imposes additional duties.

I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

Madam Chair, I appreciate the concerns of the gentleman from Texas. This amendment supports existing law, and we accept this amendment.

Madam Chair, I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment.

Madam Chair, I insist on my point of order.

I make a point of order against the amendment because

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

The rule states in pertinent part: An amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order if it changes the application of existing law. The amendment changes the application of existing law.

I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

Madam Chairman, we accept the gentleman from Texas's amendment.

Madam Chair, I rise to strike the last word.

Madam Chair, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment.

SAFER was originally authorized for the purpose of increasing the number of new firefighters in local communities--a hand up, not a handout. SAFER was not intended to rehire or retain firefighters, and certainly was not intended to serve as an operating subsidy for what is unquestionably a municipal responsibility.

The Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act contains very specific requirements that local communities have to meet in order to obtain funds; however, those requirements have been waived for the last 3 years. When initially proposed by the Democrats in 2009, Mr. Price, who was chairman of this subcommittee, acknowledged that these waivers were just a short-term, temporary effort that would expire at the end of FY10. Yet, here we are today debating the continuation in FY12 of a subsidy that our country cannot afford.

Under these costly waivers, there are no controls, there are no salary limits, and there are no local commitments. These proposed waivers totally undermine the original purpose and intent of the SAFER program by forcing the taxpayers to subsidize the everyday operating expenses of the local first responders.

Given our Nation's dire fiscal situation today, we must take a stand that it is not the Federal Government's job to bail out every municipal budget or serve as a fire marshal for every city and town across this country. Therefore, Madam Chair, I would strongly urge my colleagues to support fiscal discipline and to vote ``no'' on this amendment.

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

Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

I will yield to the gentleman and ask if he can confirm that this amendment still requires applicants to biometrically enroll in person.

Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman. And based on the requirement that the applicants biometrically enroll, we will accept the amendment.

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

I move to strike the last word.

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment. This amendment is not germane to the Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill. This amendment is better addressed within the National Defense Authorization Act or the Defense appropriations bill.

I yield back the balance of time.

Madam Chair, I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment.

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

I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriations bill, and therefore violates clause 2 of rule XXI. The rule states in pertinent part, ``An amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law requires a new determination.''

I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.

Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my point of order.

We accept the amendment.

Mr. Chair, I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment.

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

I make a point of order against the amendment because it provides an appropriation for an unauthorized program and violates clause 2 of rule XXI. Clause 2 of rule XXI states in pertinent part:

``An appropriation . . . may not be in order as an amendment . . ., for an expenditure not previously authorized by law.''

Mr. Chairman, the amendment proposes to appropriate funds for a program that is not authorized. The amendment therefore violates clause 2 of rule XXI.

I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. The amendment is unnecessary. The bill includes no funding for new advanced imagery technology systems. This is because we could not afford 275 new AITs, as requested. We had to fill a $590 million hole left by the budget request gimmick--unauthorized aviation fees. It is not because we oppose technology. In fact, AIT systems offer an alternative to pat downs at airport checkpoints where non-metallic threats are a great concern.

In addition, the deployment of new advanced target recognition capability will make the AIT systems less objectionable as they display avatar figures, not actual images of screened individuals. Because this amendment is unnecessary and needlessly limits discretion for security screening, I would urge the Members to reject this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. As we stated earlier, the amendment is unnecessary. The bill includes no funding for new advanced imagery technology systems. This is because we could not afford 275 new AITs requested. We had to fill a $590 million hole left by the budget request gimmick, which was the unauthorized aviation fees. It is not because we oppose technology. In fact, AIT systems

offer an alternative to pat-downs at airport checkpoints where non- metallic threats are a great concern.

In addition, the deployment of new advanced target recognition capability will make the AIT systems less objectionable as they display avatar figures and not actual images of screened individuals. Because this amendment is unnecessary and needlessly limits the discretion for security screening, I would urge my fellow Members to reject this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I move to strike the last word.

I think the gentleman from Michigan makes some very good points, and, therefore, we are prepared to accept this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the intent of the gentleman from Indiana's amendment. I think it is very well intended. I think he makes some valid points in his argument. However, I am going to have to reluctantly oppose the amendment.

The bill that we have before us tonight strikes the right balance between funding priority programs that are essential to our Nation's security and keeping discretionary spending in check. The bill cuts nearly $3 billion, or 7 percent, from the request. That does not take into account the internal cuts taken to address the $650 million shortfall for aviation security and customs due to the phony fee offset used by the administration. It also does not reflect the significant increase provided to ensure robust funding for disaster relief.

The committee has cut underperforming and ill-managed programs. We've made difficult choices on priorities for the bill. Significant cuts in this bill include $215 million from headquarters consolidation, then an additional $69 million from the Department of Management Operations, an additional $81 million from the Transportation Security Support, an additional $629 million from Science and Technology Research Development, and more than $2 billion from FEMA's First Responder Grants. Deeper cuts will serve no other purpose than endangering critical security operations from our frontline agencies, such as the Coast Guard, the Secret Service, FEMA, and TSA, that conduct daily operations to make our land secure.

This past year we have seen intensified terrorist activity, including new threats to aviation, and several homegrown plots. As I have mentioned before, we have endured a near constant occurrence of natural disasters across this Nation, which require robust response capabilities and recovery investments. In light of all these challenges, the importance of the Department's work cannot be overemphasized. This is especially true as we approach the 10th anniversary of September 11. Because of these reasons, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

I yield back the balance of 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 12 o'clock and 30 minutes a.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until today, Thursday, June 2, 2011, at 10 a.m. for morning-hour debate.

Mr. Speaker, today I would like to recognize a fallen hero, Senior Airman Mark Andrew Forester, from my hometown of Haleyville, Alabama.

Mark was killed in action on September 29, 2010, while so valiantly trying to rescue a wounded comrade, SGT 1st Class Calvin Harris; Mark ran into direct enemy fire, without regard of his own life, in an attempt to pull his comrade back to safety. Both died on that day, and only earlier on that morning they had taken a beautiful photo together.

Mark was a highly decorated Airman who gave that last full measure of devotion and received many honors, such as Purple Hearts and a Bronze Star with Valor. He was so very loved by all of the men in his unit, and his beautiful family.

This coming Saturday, May 14, marks what would have been his 30th birthday. In recognition of that occasion I ask that a tribute to Mark be inserted in the Record, written by Bert Caswell, at the behest of Mark's fellow airman George Earhart who was in battle with him on that day. Airman Earhart was inspired by Mark, that Mark was the greatest person he has ever met, and was greatly impacted by his love of all the children in theater.

Our thoughts and prayers are with Mark and his family, as they continue to mourn his loss.

Devout

All In . . .

All in this our Country of Tis of Thee . . .

There are such brave hearts, such magnificent souls such men

as these!

Such Strong Bold Men, who all in Strength In Honor do so

believe!

Freedom Fighters who so live and die . . . All with their

most sacred battle cries!

Who are all so Devout!

All in and out, as all in their most magnificent hues!

As they all so stand so very strong, all for that old Red,

White, and Blue!

And all, with families who but live so close!

As on each new morning, their love but means the most!

Who now must so live all in such pain, and in such heartache

to remain . . .

As their most swollen tears upon theirface fall like the

rains . . .

As were you Mark, so Devout! A man for all seasons, all

throughout!

As God, Country, and Family . . . were, but what you were so

really all about!

And, ah yes you were but our Father's Son . . .

As why now, from up in Heaven his tears for your selflessness

so run . . .

All because of your most sacred gift, your most precious life

as was all of this . . .

As why Mark, you were so Devout!

As a hero who so marched off to war . . . All for God and

Country, as was your burden bore!

And oh what a magnificent shadow, you'd so cast . . .

So striking there, all in uniform as now etched upon our

hearts to last!

With that Bama hat upon your head, as your most brilliant

smile to all so said . . .

So said, that was a smile that could have launched a thousand

ships . . .

As why when we so see your picture, oh how the pain it gives!

For you were a lover of life, all in your most sacred path so

bright!

And all of those children that you've so touched, and made

laugh on those nights . . .

All in the midst of dark evil war, as to them your warmth and

love meant so much more!

Bringing, such smiles to all of their faces . . . now carried

within their hearts in all places!

As, such a magnificent warrior who so lived and died . . . by

these words of pride!

Strength in Honor, as why on this morning we now so cry . . .

As we found out all about your actions the day you died!

Devout!

Shining, so brightly . . . Airman Forester, within and out!

So Brilliant . . . So Brilliant . . . as was your life no

doubt!

A beacon of hope, for all of mankind as was your true amount!

Showing us all to what new heights a soul can climb!

All in your glory, and such selflessness we now so find!

Honor, Duty, Country, God, and Family . . .

As it was you Mark, who so ran into that face of hell!

But, to save your Brother In Arms Calvin . . . as we will all

remember well!

Because all in that moment of truth, as your most noble heart

gave us all the proof . . .

That, you were so Devout!

As you had done so many times before!

All for what was real! And what is true! As why on this day,

our hearts so break for you . . .

As why all our tears so flow, whenever we so think of you so!

And how you were, so Devout . . .

And thinking of all of your love ones, pain so now . . .

And all of your Brothers In Arms, who now with you must now

so live without!

For in your lifetime Mark, you so soared!

High above, as an Eagle . . . as an Airman, In The United

States Air Force!

As all across Alabama this night . . .

As you lay your head down to rest, and all of those tears you

must fight . . .

And to their families, who now so live without . . .

Take comfort, all in those souls that Mark has so blessed!

As comes a gentle rain, as our Lord's tears wash down upon

you to ease your pain . . .

And upon you will remain, until up in Heaven you all meet

once again . . .

And you won't have to cry anymore . . .

For Mark is but an Angel in flight, to watch over us all this

night!

All in the Army of our Lord, to turn the darkness into the

light!

Who, are Devout!

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the legislation.

As of today, Congress prohibits the expenditure of Federal funds on abortions through a patchwork of riders on our annual appropriations bills. These riders include the Hyde amendment in Labor-HHS and other prohibitions in the State and Foreign Operations bill, the Financial Services bill, the Commerce-Justice-Science bill, in addition to the Defense bill. Simply put, this legislation will eliminate the need for these annual riders to ensure that these policies become permanent statute.

This bill also codifies the Hyde-Weldon conscience clause that would expand the policy to include all recipients of Federal funds. The conscience clause protects health care entities that choose not to provide abortions from discrimination by State, local, or Federal agencies that receive Federal funds. Therefore, no one who has deep religious or moral opposition to abortions should be forced to provide for them.

Madam Speaker, I support this legislation, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for yielding.

Madam Speaker, as many have said here today, our government has a spending problem, and the American people are demanding we find a solution. The bill before us today is a step toward finding that solution.

The bill that we are voting on this afternoon is truly historic. It contains discretionary spending cuts that are nearly five times larger than any other cuts in history. The Homeland Security title of this CR strikes the right balance between funding priority programs that are essential to our Nation's security and keeping our discretionary spending in check. In fact, this bill marks the first time the annual discretionary budget for the Department of Homeland Security has been reduced from the previous fiscal year. This CR provides a total of $41.75 billion in discretionary funding for the Department of Homeland Security. This funding level is $784 million below the FY 2010 and $1.89 billion below the President's FY 2011 request.

In contrast to previous annual spending bills, this CR provides funding for the actual costs of disasters from within the existing budget. So, rather than our relying upon an emergency supplemental to fund the disaster relief fund the White House was maneuvering for, the CR responsibly addresses the shortfall in disaster relief costs that the President failed to address in the FY 2011 budget request. Supporting the cost of security demands truth in budgeting, and this Congress is delivering where the President and OMB have failed.

Having said that, the Department of Homeland Security is not immune from fiscal discipline, and underperforming programs have been significantly cut in this CR. By implementing these cuts, we are not choosing between homeland security and fiscal responsibility. Both are serious national security issues that must be dealt with immediately.

This is precisely why this CR also includes sufficient funding to sustain the critical operations at front line agencies, such as CBP, the Coast Guard, ICE, the Secret Service, TSA, and the department's intelligence office.

Madam Speaker, homeland security is far too important to be subjected to budget gimmicks and to inadequate justifications. The Homeland Security title of this CR responsibly funds programs that are vital to our Nation's security, programs that will help get our Federal budget on track.

I rise today in strong support of the resolution.

While I respect my colleagues who are against this resolution, let me say that I believe that Federal funds should be cut off from Planned Parenthood.

As previously stated on the floor by my colleagues, the resolution does not reduce funding for women's health services. It simply ensures that funds are directed to other organizations. Not a dime of women's health or family planning funding is reduced by this resolution. We simply want to ensure that Federal funds are being used in a way that protects the will of our constituents, not to help subsidize Planned Parenthood.

Planned Parenthood is the largest abortion provider in the Nation, providing over 300,000 abortions in 2009.

Over the years, Planned Parenthood has increased their abortion numbers every year, while adoption and prenatal care remains way too low.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this resolution.