John Carter

Mr. CARTER

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

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

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

Mr. CARTER. Mr. Chairman, I share some of these concerns with the gentleman from Colorado, and I believe that outstanding questions still remain over the timeline for replacing the AIT scanners. I expect TSA to sufficiently answer the question posed here today. I urge TSA to move forward with the replacement of AIT scanners at the affected airports as soon as possible. I commit to the gentleman from Colorado that the committee will look into this issue further and do everything within its power to fix the problem to the extent that it does not cost the American taxpayers more money. It's my understanding that this amendment will not result in the need for additional TSA screeners. Therefore, I accept the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. CARTER. Mr. Chairman, the simple fact is this amendment is unnecessary and harmful to national security, in my opinion. Now, am I happy with TSA? No. I have criticism of TSA also. Most people who travel have some criticism of TSA. But zeroing out TSA and leaving our airports unsecured is not the solution to the problem. If the gentleman's argument is that we're being fiscally responsible to do away with the TSA part of this budget, I would argue the contrary. This bill, quite frankly, has made cuts, and, in fact, for 4 years now we have reduced spending in this bill. That's not a good argument. It's easy to get mad at somebody that interferes with your life every time you travel, especially when you travel every week, but the reality is, this would be a mistake to national security. This would be a mistake to our country. And even though we have criticism of TSA, our job is to fix TSA, not abolish TSA. And I know there's plenty of folks that think that abolishing it is a good idea, but, quite honestly, it would be a real tragedy to leave our airports undefended. We need to make them better. And I think one of the things we're doing is the oversight that we've provided in this bill so that we can take a hard look at DHS across the board and come up with solutions where things need to be fixed; and, of course, if TSA's on the radar screen, they ought to be fixed. But I think this is a mistake. I think it's bad policy. I think it's good grandstanding but bad policy, and I oppose the gentleman's amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. CARTER. I have listened to the arguments from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, and I find it interesting. First, those who cross into our country without and contrary to the laws of this great Nation have committed an illegal act. Calling them not illegal doesn't make them not illegal. I really would like to point out that we have a curious way to discuss this as a policy; that is, no one here stands responsible for the decision. You know, the alternatives to incarceration were created by judges, and the judicial system stands in a little different situation than the Members of Congress. When one of these people who's let out under alternatives to incarceration in fact commits another criminal act--and believe me, it happens--nothing more than just DWI, when you run over a little kid--the judge, who puts him on that particular forum, is held responsible. And he is now going to read his name in the newspaper that he put that person out that should have been in jail, out on an alternative to incarceration. Or if the person commits another criminal act even more severe--murder, rape, robbery-- if it happens when the judge puts him out on alternatives, the judge has to take the heat. But as we have this great policy debate in Congress, no one who is arguing to release all these people on alternatives is taking any heat at all on what the accomplishments in the criminal realm will be of those we release. I approve of alternatives to incarceration. I just told you that 64,000 people alone in the city of Houston's jurisdiction, which is the valley all of the way up to Beaumont, were out on alternatives. But detention beds are also full and overflowing. When I visited the ICE unit there, the red uniforms were the majority, and the red uniforms are criminal aliens. They have committed crimes in this country. And so I think we are being a little bit safe to make these arguments as we stand here in these hallowed Halls. Never is our name going to appear in any newspaper when one of these people commits an act that causes damage to our fellow citizens. And yet we make this argument very passionately. I just want to remind everybody that we are responsible for those criminal aliens that we release, and criminal aliens are right now being released. And, in fact, Ms. Napolitano, after I asked her specifically, Are you releasing anyone from detention, she looked me right in the eye and said, No. And 2 days later, she released 2,300. And of those 2,300, the top two categories were both represented in that release--the most serious and the second- most serious categories of crimes we hold people for. So this is a policy. This administration continues to have a policy of not enforcing the law, and, quite frankly, we need this availability of beds so we can enforce the law. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. CARTER. I rise in opposition to this amendment, which strikes the legal requirement for 34,000 detention beds. The simple fact is that sovereign countries control their borders and have an immigration system with integrity that adheres to the rule of law. This last Friday, I visited the ICE facility in Houston, Texas. I find it interesting the numbers that they explained to me that were going on today in the Houston-Corpus Christi region, which takes in the entire gulf coast of Texas along with what we call the lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas. They informed me that we are having a massive encroachment into our country from across the border right now of approximately 100 OTMs a day in addition to the Mexicans who are coming across the border. It's interesting that we talk as to the alternatives to incarceration. In the Houston office alone, 64,000-plus are on alternatives to incarceration, which is almost double the number of detention beds for the entire United States in one office. So I think, with this, we get a better picture of what this invasion is all about. The attacks of 9/11 taught us that immigration enforcement matters. It matters to our security. The Boston Marathon attacks underscored this sobering lesson. Each year, more than 1 million aliens attempt to illegally enter the United States without proper documentation, or they enter legally but overstay and violate their visas. Though reasonable people can disagree, I believe detention beds are a critical component in enforcing U.S. immigration laws with the detention and eventual removal of those aliens who enter this country illegally. Therefore, the bill recommends $2.8 billion to fully fund ICE's obligation to maintain no fewer than 34,000 beds. In contrast, the President's request provided funds sufficient to support 31,800 beds, justifying the request by saying there's no need to support 34,000 detention beds, even though, as I speak today, those in detention are at 38,000 beds. So it looks like we've got overage, not shortage. The facts, however, refute this completely. First, as of last Friday, more than 38,000 illegal immigrants are being held in ICE custody, many of whom meet the mandatory detention requirements. Second, by the administration's own estimate, there's at least 1.9 million removable criminal aliens in the United States. There is general acknowledgement of an illegal alien population of approximately 11 million. That estimate goes up to as high as 20 million in some quarters. Clearly, detention beds are necessary. This bed mandate is needed. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

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

Mr. CARTER. Not only do I oppose the increase of $10 million for additional CBP officers; I oppose the offset suggested to pay for the increase. As drafted, the bill provides for $105 million for hiring 1,600 officers over a 2-year period. In fact, we provide funds sufficient to cover the costs of no less than 21,186 CBP officers, which sets a historical precedent. The reason we took this incremental approach into hiring 1,600 new officers is because CBP's staffing and deployment plan was not linked to its goals for border security. To address these concerns, the report includes language directing CBP to provide a more complete 5-year staffing and deployment plan. Furthermore, an internal audit revealed systemic failures within CBP's budget formulation for salaries and benefits of its operational workforce. And though I believe taking a go-slow approach to hiring just makes sense, I oppose the offset, which decreases funds for the 287(g) program. Under the 287(g) program, ICE enters into partnerships with State and local law enforcement agencies and authorizes them to remove criminal aliens who are a threat to local communities. In effect, the program acts as a force multiplier to ensure more resources to enforce immigration laws and policies. In fact, since 2006, the 287 program has been credited with identifying more than 279,311 potentially removable aliens, mostly from local jails. So I oppose this amendment and yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. CARTER. Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to accept the amendment. I, too, have concerns about surface rail. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

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

Mr. CARTER. Mr. Chairman, I accept the gentleman's amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CARTER

Mr. CARTER. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. CARTER. Reclaiming my time, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CARTER. Madam Chair, I appreciate the gentleman's question. The committee has long expressed concerns with the operation of the National Capital Region Coordination Office, and numerous GAO audits have confirmed our concerns that the office has been underperforming its potential to improve regional preparedness coordination. I share the gentleman's desire to improve collaboration across the National Capital Region with the Federal Government, and I know Administrator Fugate is committed to doing just that. I am confident that the coordination responsibility outlined in section 882 can be fulfilled within this reorganization under the Office of the Administrator. Ranking Member Price and I are committed to making sure FEMA acts on the recommendations of the GAO to better meet with the requirements, and we will work to include you and other members of the National Capital Region delegation in that effort.

Mr. CARTER. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

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