Robert Aderholt

Mr. ADERHOLT

Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that, during further consideration of H.R. 5855 in the Committee of the Whole pursuant to House Resolution 667, no further amendment to the bill may be offered except (1) pro forma amendments offered at any point in the reading by the chair or ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations or their respective designees for the purpose of debate; and (2) further amendments, if offered on this legislative day, as follows: an amendment by Mr. Aderholt regarding funding levels; an amendment en bloc by Mr. Aderholt consisting of amendments specified in this order not earlier disposed of; an amendment by Ms. Baldwin limiting funds regarding Coast Guard Offshore Patrol Cutter class of ships; an amendment by Mr. Barletta regarding section 642(a) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996; an amendment by Mrs. Black limiting funds for the position of Public Advocate within U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; an amendment by Mrs. Blackburn regarding Transportation Security Administration employee training; an amendment by Mrs. Blackburn regarding Transportation Security Administration teams used in any operation; an amendment by Mr. Brooks regarding section 133.21(b)(1) of title 19, Code of Federal Regulations; an amendment by Mr. Broun of Georgia limiting funds for Behavior Detection Officers or the SPOT program; an amendment by Mr. Broun of Georgia regarding the Screening Partnership Program; an amendment by Ms. Brown of Florida regarding funding levels for U.S. Customs and Border Protection; an amendment by Mr. Cravaack limiting funds for security screening personnel; an amendment by Mr. Cravaack limiting funds to pay rent for storage of screening equipment; an amendment by Mr. Cravaack regarding section 236(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act; an amendment by Mr. Crowley regarding India; an amendment by Mr. Culberson regarding the Immigration and Nationality Act; an amendment by Mr. Davis of Illinois regarding cybersecurity; an amendment by Mr. Ellison regarding the Civil Rights Act of 1964; an amendment by Mr. Engel regarding light duty vehicles; an amendment by Mr. Flores regarding section 526 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007; an amendment by Mr. Fortenberry limiting funds to restrict airline passengers from recording; an amendment by Mr. Garrett limiting funds for VIPR teams; an amendment by Mr. Graves of Missouri regarding the rule entitled Provisional Unlawful Presence Waivers of Inadmissibility for Certain Immediate Relatives; an amendment by Ms. Hochul regarding unclaimed clothing; an amendment by Mr. Holt limiting funds for aerial vehicles; an amendment by Mr. Holt regarding scanning systems; an amendment by Mr. King of Iowa regarding Department of Homeland Security policy documents; an amendment by Mr. King of Iowa regarding Executive Order 13166; an amendment by Mr. Landry regarding aerial vehicles; an amendment by Mr. Loebsack limiting funds to deny assistance obligated by FEMA; an amendment by Mr. Meehan regarding Boko Haram; an amendment by Ms. Moore regarding a pending application for status under the Immigration and Nationality Act; an amendment by Mr. Murphy of Pennsylvania regarding a Federal Air Marshal Service office; an amendment by Mr. Pierluisi regarding section 1301(a) of title 31, United States Code; an amendment by Mr. Polis regarding an across-the-board reduction; an amendment by Mr. Price of Georgia regarding immigration laws; an amendment by Mr. Ryan of Ohio regarding visas; an amendment by Mr. Schweikert regarding the Secure Communities program; an amendment by Mr. Sullivan regarding section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act; an amendment by Mr. Thompson of California regarding deportation of certain aliens; an amendment by Mr. Turner of New York regarding surface transportation security inspectors; and an amendment by Mr. Walsh of Illinois regarding software licenses; and that each such further amendment may be offered only by the Member named in this request or a designee, shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole, and shall not be subject to amendment except that the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations (or their respective designees) each may offer one pro forma amendment for the purpose of debate; and that each further amendment shall be debatable for 10 minutes, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent.

Mr. ADERHOLT. I thank the gentleman for his comments. I am also a member of the Speaker's Task Force on Cybersecurity, and I understand the concerns that the gentleman has expressed this afternoon. As the gentleman noted, this bill focuses on Federal network security by addressing the failure of the administration to protect its own networks. Again, I want to thank the gentleman for his comments, and I would be happy to work with him to address his concerns. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time. Amendment Offered by Mr. Ellison

Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Speaker, this bill is already robust on cybersecurity. It provides a substantial increase in every cybersecurity program across the Department. Furthermore, this bill already does more for grants to high-risk areas than any previous DHS appropriations bill, and we increase grants by more than $400 million. Let me repeat that: By more than $400 million we increase grants. In short, this motion is not needed. This bill cuts spending overall, but it also fully sustains all frontline and high-risk operation. It is a balanced bill. It is a disciplined bill. It is a bill worthy of support. Mr. Speaker, it's time to vote. It's time to meet our Nation's needs for security and fiscal restraint. I urge my colleagues to reject this unnecessary motion and to enthusiastically support this bill. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment en bloc at the desk, and I would ask unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read.

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

Mr. ADERHOLT. I would like to add that we strongly support 287(g). As a matter of fact, we have increased 287(g) by 25 percent in this bill. We reject the administration's cuts to 287(g), and we agree with the amendment from the gentleman from Oklahoma. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ADERHOLT. That is correct.

Mr. ADERHOLT

Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, I understand the concerns of my colleagues from the State of Washington and from the State of Alaska. It is important to keep the vessel intact. My subcommittee agrees with this important goal. I urge the Coast Guard to work with the authorizing committee to accomplish this assessment.

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

Mr. ADERHOLT. I move to strike the last word.

Mr. ADERHOLT. 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. ADERHOLT. We rise to oppose the amendment as well. We have concerns about the cuts in funding as well. I want to go on record that we do have concerns about this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ADERHOLT. While the Federal Air Marshals Service, known as FAMS, does and certainly will continue to provide an additional layer in aviation security, the committee saw an opportunity in this bill to strike a balance and achieve some savings in a program that, before this year, had been growing rapidly. FAMS deployment surged following the 9/11 attacks and again following the 2009 Christmas Day bombing attempts. Exactly how they are deployed, and how many there are cannot be discussed in open session. However, it is possible to note that many other security measures have been put into place since both of those events took place. Intensified screening, new and more capable intelligence, information sharing, a more secure cockpit, and the expansion of the Federal Flight Deck Officer program are examples of steps taken to secure aviation that reduce the need to rely on FAMS on routes that do not represent the highest threat potential. The bill takes these security improvements into account and focuses on funding to cover the top priority routes based on threat, whether domestic or whether international. The bill also fully funds the FFDO program, which complements FAMs, and in some cases it is the only security element on board. In addition, the report directs the TSA and the FAMs to look again at how to include other Federal law enforcement agents working with them. This amendment, while I believe it is well-intentioned, would sustain funding to lower priority flights at the expense of other security measures that offer more immediate security impacts. The committee report calls for FAMs to brief the committee within 60 days on its optimal mix of staffing, scheduling, and recommendations for any regulatory or legislative actions needed to improve the FAMs operation. I believe the bill will support a robust and targeted FAMs mission, and I look forward to moving forward with a more focused and effective posture in aviation security. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. ADERHOLT. Will the gentlelady yield?

Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, we would gladly accept the gentlelady's amendment.

Mr. ADERHOLT. I yield to the gentleman from Texas to talk about an important immigration enforcement program.

Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I share the concerns that have been raised by the gentleman from Texas this evening. The Department of Homeland Security needs the support of States and counties in border security, and SCAAP is an important tool to facilitate that support. I look forward to working with the gentleman to ensure that the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice find the right solution. I know that my other distinguished colleague on the Appropriations Committee from the State of Virginia has views on this program within his jurisdiction. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ADERHOLT. We accept the gentleman from New Jersey's amendment, considering this is only a $5 million cut. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ADERHOLT. The concern is that the amendment seeks to gut detention operations just as the administration has tried to do; whereas, this bill holds the administration's feet to the fire and provides the resources to force them to actually enforce the law. The committee recommends $2.75 billion for ICE Detention and Removal Operations, $71 million above the request to sustain a minimum of 34,000 detention beds. Detention beds are a necessary resource to support robust immigration enforcement. Make no mistake. There is a need for these resources. First, by the administration's own estimate, there are at least 1.9 million removable criminal aliens in the United States. There is the general acknowledgment of an illegal alien population of approximately 11 million. With the expansion of Secure Communities and ICE's prior utilization, there is no doubt they need at least 34,000 beds. Despite the fact that Congress has funded every request that ICE has provided for bed spaces, we have gotten excuses that they do not have the resources needed. Now the resources are being provided, and the committee insists that ICE intensify its enforcement efforts and fully utilize these resources. Let me say that countering child exploitation is a critical effort in this bill for which we already have provided increases for ICE and Secret Service activities. The Wasserman Schultz amendment, which will be brought up shortly, provides an additional 25 percent to the child exploitation center. We have been working with Congresswoman Wasserman Schultz on this amendment. We are accepting that 25 percent increase for the child exploitation center, so I would urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ADERHOLT. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. ADERHOLT

Mr. ADERHOLT. 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. 5855, and that I may include tabular material on the same.

Mr. ADERHOLT. We have no further requests for time.