David Price

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I hope we've established in the course of this discussion tonight that I and our side of the aisle are strongly in favor of the FEMA grants, and that most certainly includes the port grants. And so I commend our colleague for calling our attention to the importance of these port security grants and the need for more funding. Although in this bill we have begun the way back in terms of restoring funding for the State and local grants and the port grants and the rail and transit grants and the UASI high risk area grants, we're not there yet. And so our colleague has made a constructive suggestion as to how we might augment this funding. I do feel obligated, though, to make a comment about the proposed offset. Our colleague has made some very cogent points about the NBAF project. I believe that with the funding that's already in the pipeline and the National Academy of Sciences reviews that are underway, that we do not need to include money in this year's bill for NBAF construction. But this is part of the science and technology account, and we're going to have later this evening an amendment from our colleague from New York that will suggest taking the NBAF- designated funding and restoring it to the science and technology account. And I have to say that that science and technology account is very much in need of that funding. Science and technology research activities have been drastically and unwisely cut in recent years. They were cut by 60 percent over the past 2 years. There's a $158 million increase in this bill that restores some of these cuts, but that's taking place against a baseline that was simply too low to meet the needs of the different homeland security components and the needs of our Nation. So in weighing the equities here, as we said earlier, we have one compelling need and we also have an offset that raises some serious issues. We will have an occasion later this evening to talk about the science and technology account and the place of NBAF within that account. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, we are talking here about State and local grant programs whereby the Federal Government shares in emergency preparedness and response. It is virtually without dissent in our communities that this funding is needed. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Washington.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I would be happy to yield to the gentleman.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

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

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I object. We do not have a copy of the amendment.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I move to strike the last word.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. This amendment would decimate the funding for our FEMA Homeland Security grants. By that I mean the State and local grants on which our communities depend. I mean the transit and rail grants that we've heard so much about in this evening's debate; I mean the port security grants; I mean the UASI grants--the urban area grants that are risk based and targeted to the areas in this country that are under the greatest risk; and other programs of smaller size. These programs have helped keep our communities safe. After all, our first responders are not at the Federal level. Our first responders are at home. And our States and our communities are on the frontlines of responding and preparing to respond, mitigating, and then dealing with disasters-- disasters of terrorist attacks, natural disasters, and other major emergencies. This amendment would return to the 2012 funding levels, which were greatly reduced from previous-year funding levels. In fact, the levels in 2012 were at an all-time low and were widely decried by our States and localities. So this year we've begun in this bill to build those funding levels where they need to be, and this amendment would wipe all that out in a single stroke. The author of this amendment has made a great deal of the pace of the spending on these grant programs. I have to say that the figures cited tonight are misleading in the sense that these are multiyear programs. They're often dealing with large construction projects. All of this money except the money for the current year is obligated. It's not just sitting there. The money is obligated. Of course, after the projects are completed, the full amount will be registered as spent. And so we need to oversee these programs carefully. We need to make sure that they're being administered in a responsible way. We need to exercise careful oversight. But the notion that we would come in and wipe it out with a single amendment the progress we've made in getting these funds back to a level that will give our communities and States the support they need, I think, is unthinkable. I hope this body will reject this amendment.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, here we have another amendment dealing with FEMA grants. And once again, we've come to appreciate the need for more robust support for urban area grants, for State and local grants, for transit and port grants, rail grants, the kind of protective efforts that our communities require. We are reminded again that those grants have been cut very drastically in recent years, and in this bill we are only beginning to bring them back to the levels required. So I want to commend our colleague for this amendment, which proposes $58 million, I believe, in increased funding for these grants. This is money that could be well spent, wisely spent, prudently spent by our States and local communities. Again, I simply call attention to the problems posed by the offset. Members will have to make their own judgments about this. The money is taken out of the Science and Technology Directorate at the Department of Homeland Security, taken out of the labs accounts, as I understand it, which does include the NBAF item discussed earlier, but isn't limited to NBAF. I just remind colleagues that science and technology research activities have been cut 60 percent over the last 2 years. And so there's an increase in this bill. We fought our way back in this area, too, in this bill, restoring some of these cuts against the baseline that was way too low. And so these science and technology--this is not free money. This is related just as surely as anything in the bill to this country's security, and its underinvested in at the moment. So we do have to weigh competing values here, and certainly in the balance the science and technology priorities deserve serious consideration. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the gentleman's amendment. It adds $10 million to FEMA, State and local grants. As we have said many times this evening, these are grant programs that have been cut severely in recent years. While this year's bill improves on that, we certainly can use more funding in this area, and the gentleman has figured out a way to do it. He has come up with an offset that actually improves the bill. The proposed offset is to the troubled 287(g) program, reduces it by $10 million, moving it closer to the administration's request. Mr. Chairman, three Inspector General audits have found serious flaws with this program and ICE has had to terminate some 287(g) agreements because of racial profiling and other abuses. We have no business funding this program at levels above the request, much less having a mandatory funding level, which is included in this bill. So the gentleman has come up with an amendment that adds needed grant funding and improves the bill and it's offset. I urge its adoption, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I, too, rise to oppose this amendment. Aviation continues to be the main focus for terrorists seeking to do us harm. I would think we all realize that. This amendment would prohibit all of the screening, all of the scanning, all of the protective measures that we have undertaken for our protection. It's indiscriminate, it's excessive, and it should be rejected. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise also to oppose this amendment. I do so reluctantly, because I know that the need that Representative Poe and Representative Altmire are addressing is a real one. There are vast expanses of territory, including a lot of territory near the borders, that suffer from a lack of mobile communications. We do need to work in concert with State and local governments and the private sector to address this need. This is not something, though, that this bill or the Department of Homeland Security can take on. It simply is not feasible. It is not a DHS function. We need to work on it, but I think this remedy is flawed, and I, once again, say that I know it's an easy target to go after the administrative expenses of the Department, but in this case the Under Secretary for Management is already something like 12 percent below the 2012 level, that is, assuming the passage of the Grimm-Connolly amendment, and I do not think that further cuts can or should be sustained. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. It cuts ICE salaries and expenses by over $500 million and puts all of that spending in the Spending Reduction Account. There's some ironies in this amendment. It would actually hinder our efforts to move away from the flawed 287(g) program. It would hinder nationwide deployment of the much more conceptually sound Secure Communities effort. It would greatly reduce funding for alternatives to detention, where we very much need to go. It would lay off thousands of ICE personnel. And what do these personnel do? We've hired them to fight the drug trade, to fight human trafficking, to fight violence along the Southwest border. I urge defeat of this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my colleague's amendment, that of the Congresswoman from California, Ms. Sanchez. I think it is a well-designed amendment both in its positive purpose and in the offsets that she has chosen. She proposes that we increase ICE funding for child exploitation, and that is a worthy cause that we do need to fund more generously than is present in the bill as brought to the floor. Each year, millions of children fall victim to sexual predators. These young victims are left with permanent psychological and physical and emotional scars. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, ICE, targets and investigates child pornographers, child sex tourists and facilitators, the human smugglers and traffickers of minors, criminal aliens convicted of offenses against minors, and those deported for child exploitation offenses who have returned illegally. ICE is at the forefront of these activities and can make good use of the funding that our colleague proposes, so I commend her for bringing this issue to our attention and for putting this amendment before us. The offsets are particularly well chosen. As I said as we began the debate on this bill, this bill contains some ill-advised funding floors, some mandatory spending that is rigid and is wasteful: an increased minimum of detention beds, for example, and the required floor funding for the 287(g) program, a program that is very problematic and that really needs to be transitioned, in my view, to the Secure Communities Program, which maintains the Federal and local roles much more distinctly. These are offsets that we can afford and offsets that, in fact, would improve the bill, and only rarely can one say that about offsets in these debates. So I commend the gentlelady for her amendment, and I urge its adoption. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I want to commend our colleague from New Jersey for offering an amendment that takes explicit account of the need for robust funding for State and local grant programs, including those aimed at rail and transit security. As I noted as this debate began, we are indebted to Chairman Aderholt and to the majority for increasing the funding for these grants in this fiscal year 2013 bill over the 2012 levels; but as the gentleman from New Jersey has noted, this funding is against a baseline that has been significantly reduced in the previous 2 fiscal years. I was privileged to serve as the chairman of this subcommittee in the years 2007 2010. We worked very hard in those years to provide robust funding for important grant programs, and we increased the funding for FEMA first responder grants by $1 billion between fiscal '07 and fiscal '10. Unfortunately, these programs are now under threat. Since 2010, funding for FEMA grants has been cut by nearly 50 percent to a total level of $1.3 billion for fiscal 2012. Those cuts are shortsighted and they're dangerous, and I have said so repeatedly. After all, local governments are the first responders to terrorist attacks, natural disasters, and other major emergencies. Local law enforcement, fire, emergency, medical, as well as county public health and other publicity safety personnel, are responsible for the on-the- ground response and recovery action. Local communities or public entities own, operate, and secure essential aspects of our Nation's infrastructure, of our ports and transit systems, of our water supplies, and of our schools and hospitals. So, plainly put, these grants protect our communities and are vitally important in our ability to detect, deter, and respond to a variety of threats and disasters. As the gentleman from New Jersey has stressed, our rail and transit systems are an important part of this network, and they are in many cases very much in need of the kind of funding that this bill has provided and should provide. I reluctantly add, though, Mr. Chairman, that there are problems with these offsets, and I will repeat what the chairman has said about some of the cuts that are included in these bills, these important accounts: The Secretary's office, that may seem an easy thing to cut, but this bill already reduces the Secretary's office by 9 percent. Analysis and Intelligence, this bill already cuts this by 8 percent. Then TSA aviation security has one of the largest cuts in this bill. It's $212 million below the 2012 levels. There are very few good places to turn, I realize. We're so often in a position of trading off worthwhile objectives, but I do feel bound both to commend the gentleman for calling our attention to these grant programs and the need for robust funding, but also to highlight some of the problems with the offsets in this particular amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I want to second the remarks of our chairman. I think this is an amendment that, while well- intentioned in certain respects, is not one that we can or should accept. I know it's easy to target management and administrative costs. They sometimes lack concreteness. They lack a consistency. But, as a matter of fact, we depend on these management and administrative functions to run the Department. And at the end of the day, cutting those functions will, indeed, affect frontline operations. We should make no mistake about that. In my opinion, this bill already cuts administrative functions by imprudent amounts. It already slashes funding for offices at the departmental level, for example, by 21 percent below the administration's request. So while this amendment may be appealing to some, I believe it's unwise, and I urge colleagues to oppose it. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.