David Price

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

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 rise in strong support of firefighter grant programs. I applaud Chairman Aderholt for fully funding the budget request for these programs, that is, providing $670 million for the assistance to the Firefighter Grant Program equally divided between SAFER hiring grants and equipment grants. I also commend the chairman for accepting the amendment our colleagues have just offered. Although, again, the offset is not what one would wish, this is a case, I think, where the consideration, the balance of values clearly leads us to bring this program to the present funding levels, which is what the amendment does. We have approved in committee these firefighter grants and we've also approved the continuation of the waivers. That was my amendment in committee and I am pleased that we were able to adopt those--the economic hardship waivers that are currently in place. The law traditionally permits SAFER grants only to be used to hire new firefighters. That provision makes sense when our economy is booming and local governments are in a position to hire new workers. But when the local budgets are continuing to shrink and some fire stations are closing their doors and others are laying off workers, FEMA needs the flexibility to use these grants to keep firefighters from being laid off in the first place. The administration has requested this, and FEMA Administrator Fugate testified to this need earlier this year during our appropriations hearings. I believe strongly in the need to assist local fire departments and ensuring they have the personnel and equipment necessary to keep our communities safe. When I was chairman of the subcommittee from 2007 2010, we were able to more than double the funding for the SAFER program, reaching a peak of $410 million in fiscal year 2010. It's regrettable that we're still not able to maintain that level because any cuts to firefighter grants do result in thousands of fewer firefighters on the job. They leave fewer departments able to maintain safe staffing levels and much less to add needed personnel. So we need to maintain this support. The real challenge in many communities is not the reluctance of local governments to hire new personnel. It's the potential and actual layoffs of personnel, which would mean reduced levels of safety. So it's very important for us to maintain robust grant funding for these programs. It's going to help preserve public safety and security. In this bill we've provided for this. And this amendment adds to that. So I urge its adoption, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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 move to strike the last word.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise to commend the gentleman from Michigan for his attention to the need for robust grant programs, FEMA grant programs for State and local governments and their various emergency preparedness functions. As we said earlier with respect to Mr. Holt's amendment, these programs have been underfunded in recent years. We're doing better this year in this bill, but we're building on a depleted base. So I commend him for his attention to this. At the same time, I feel bound to say that the offset is problematic. The Under Secretary for Management--I know that sounds like an easy target. But with the Grimm-Connolly amendment that we just adopted, by my calculation, that brings the Under Secretary for Management $30 million below the 2012 level. That's 12 percent. It is a cut that, in my opinion, we can ill afford. That's already what we've done with this bill. Eventually, management and administrative cuts do affect frontline operations. So I feel bound to say that, as we balance the equities here, the need for robust grant programs and for making them more robust wherever we can, but at the same time to preserve essential departmental functions. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment to restore funding for the Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties in order to ensure that both the 287(g) program and the Secure Communities program are not illegally profiling individuals. The bill before us funds the Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties at a level that is $2.2 million below the budget request and $3 million below current year funding. Now, we're in a tight fiscal environment, we all know that, but surely we can meet the needs of our frontline personnel without jeopardizing the proper and robust and careful oversight of the activities provided by the Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Office. In fact, at the same time this bill is reducing funding for oversight, it's actually increasing funding for the controversial and all-too-often mismanaged 287(g) program. Three different audits by the DHS inspector general have found serious concerns about the 287(g) program, and ICE has had to terminate some 287(g) task forces, notably in Maricopa County, Arizona, after the Justice Department documented clear racial profiling and other programmatic abuses. So we need to make sure this authority is being exercised properly, and that's exactly the task of the Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties. So I thank the gentlewoman for offering this amendment. It's a good amendment, and I urge colleagues to support it. 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.

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 move to strike the last word.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, does the majority have any further requests for time?

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I will conclude by again commending the chairman and our whole subcommittee. We have a good active group of members, and virtually all had positive input into this legislation. I appreciate the spirit in which the chairman has made an honest effort to accommodate constructive input from all sources. There's much to commend about this bill, starting with the support of frontline operations, but also some improvements from the funding situation we're dealing with this year with respect to State and local FEMA grants, for example, and with respect to science and technology investments. There are funding shortfalls in this bill with respect to the headquarters' needs at St. Elizabeth's, with respect to certain administrative needs of the Department, and others that we could name. But under the constraints of the budget allocation there is a good balance in this bill, I think, and one that has required a great deal of accommodation and a great deal of hard work. I have already said that I think there are some extraneous elements of this bill that are not so constructive: the immigration provisions, the abortion provisions, and some excessive withholding provisions. I sincerely hope that in the debate to come we will not compound that problem. We know we're going to be dealing with dozens of amendments. We're going to be dealing with additional proposed riders, ill-advised for the most part. We're going to be dealing with some tempting spending provisions that will cannibalize those front office expenses or the science and technology expenses or other accounts in this bill for the sake of amendments that may sound good but really could upset some of the delicate balances that this bill has struck. So we're going to have, I hope and believe, a probably lengthy and also constructive process of discussion and amendment under the open rule, and I very much hope that the end result of that process will be a bill that can claim broad support. We're going to have a few hours until that process begins, but I look forward to getting on with this and at the end of the week producing a Homeland Security appropriations bill. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

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

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the bill and yield myself such time as I may utilize. Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased we're considering the fiscal year 2013 Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill in a timely fashion and under an open rule. Chairman Aderholt has been collaborative and collegial in the drafting of this bill, and I appreciate his willingness to include input from our side all along the way. I'm generally supportive of the funding levels provided in the bill. The fact remains, however, that our subcommittee was forced to accept a reduced allocation for the Department of Homeland Security when Republicans unilaterally cast aside the spending agreement we reached last August, forcing the Appropriations Committee to absorb $19 billion in reductions below the Budget Control Act levels. Largely because the majority broke that agreement, DHS is funded at 1 percent below the requested level, continuing a downward funding trend for this agency over the past few years. The bill does retain the disaster cap adjustment included in the Budget Control Act agreement. Mr. Chairman, fortunately, despite these circumstances, the bill before us provides adequate funding for DHS front-line employees so that they can continue to conduct critical operations along our borders, to protect our Nation's airports and seaports, to disrupt the latest plots against the United States and our citizens, and to respond to the spate of natural disasters our country has experienced. I'm also pleased that the bill significantly increases funding for critical grant programs, in marked contrast to the current year's inadequate levels. The bill also rejects the administration's poorly articulated changes to the grant structure, changes that have not been authorized. Specifically, funding for FEMA's State and local grants is $413 million above the fiscal year 2012 level, and both fire grants and emergency management performance grants are funded at the levels requested by the administration. Equally important, the bill provides improved funding for research and developments efforts. The bill contains sufficient resources for the Science and Technology Directorate to fund all high-priority research efforts and some new projects as well. Unfortunately, while the bill appears to fully fund the administration's request for science and technology, in reality it includes $75 million for construction of the National Bio and Agro- defense Facility, NBAF, which the administration did not request, in effect reducing funds for research and development efforts. Now, I support the eventual construction of this facility, but I must question the inclusion of $75 million in limited resources for a project that the President did not request, that remains under review by two National Academy of Science panels, and that already has unobligated prior-year appropriations that it can draw upon. The bill also increases funding for critical Coast Guard, as well as Air and Marine, acquisitions, to recapitalize aging assets while also bringing the latest aviation and vessel technologies online to ensure our personnel can operate more effectively. And, finally, the bill includes a substantial increase for cybersecurity protective efforts to continuously monitor and detect intrusions to our Federal networks from foreign espionage and cyberattacks. Mr. Chairman, the bill does contain some ill-advised immigration provisions. Unnecessary and wasteful statutory floors are set for a variety of programs, such as an arbitrary minimum of 34,000 detention beds, a required level of spending for the seriously flawed 287(g) program, and an inflexible amount for work-site enforcement. Including these types of spending floors and mandates in bill language limits the Department's flexibility to respond decisively to immigration challenges and is likely to waste taxpayer dollars for no good reason. I also object to the three abortion general provisions that were added in full committee. Now, we all know, Mr. Chairman, abortion is a politically charged subject. Numerous restrictions in law have already conditioned and qualified reproductive freedom in practice. Among those are prohibitions on the use of Federal funds for abortion procedures, which are specifically applied to Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Department of Homeland Security by the President's Executive Order 13535, issued on March 24, 2010. Until now, our bill has never touched on the topic of abortion because it's not relevant to the Department of Homeland Security, and it falls far outside the lines of jurisdiction of this subcommittee. So these provisions are redundant. They will accomplish nothing. They make no change whatsoever in current law or procedures. They seem designed mainly for political effect; but I tell you, political effect cuts both ways. These abortion riders, while unnecessary, are inflammatory. They're divisive. They should not be included in the final bill. Finally, I also strongly disagree with provisions that withhold the following: 60 percent of all funding provided to the Secretary, Under Secretary, Chief Financial Officer; 10 percent of all funding for salaries and expenses at Customs and Border Protection personnel; about 37 percent for Coast Guard Headquarters Directorate until they submit numerous reports required by statute. Even more egregiously, these withholdings are coupled with a provision that prevents the Secretary, the Deputy Secretary, the commandant of our Coast Guard, and the vice commandant from using their aircraft until certain key reports are received by the committee. These constraints are excessive. They will prevent Department and Coast Guard leadership from effectively doing their jobs. I support efforts to hold the Department accountable; and, in fact, we included carefully calibrated and targeted withholdings in this bill when I was chairman. But excessive and unrealistic limitations, frankly, detract from this subcommittee's credibility, and they're likely to be counterproductive. Mr. Chairman, I will close by thanking the hardworking professional staff which has helped craft this bill and has assisted the subcommittee in a bipartisan manner over the course of the year. I want to thank, as the chairman did, Ben Nicholson, Kathy Kraninger, Jeff Ashford, Kris Mallard, Joe Croce, Miles Taylor, and Cornell Teague on the majority side and, of course, Stephanie Gupta on our side of the aisle and Justin Wein from my office. Again, I want to reiterate my appreciation to the chairman for his efforts to work with us on so many issues and to sustain our front-line Federal homeland security operations. With that, Mr. Chairman I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 3 minutes to an outstanding member of our subcommittee, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey).

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I am privileged to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi, the outstanding ranking member of the authorizing committee, Mr. Thompson.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), a leading member of our full Appropriations Committee.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield an additional minute to the gentleman from Mississippi.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I will be voting today for H.R. 4133 because I agree with its two basic premises. The alliance between the United States and Israel, including military support, is of critical importance. And we must prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons capability. I cast this vote, however, with serious reservations about both the bill's timing and its content. There is no question that a nuclear- capable Iran poses a grave threat not only to Israel, but to the United States and other nations. We must ensure that we have every tool available at our disposal to dissuade if possible and prevent if necessary the Iranian regime from developing nuclear weapons or the capability to produce such weapons from stockpiled materials and components. Among these vital tools are a combination of diplomatic and economic mechanisms of the sort that I have frequently supported in the past-- including the Iran Threat Reduction Act, which also passed with overwhelming bipartisan support earlier in this Congress--that have often exerted effective pressures on Iran, hindering and deterring the development of nuclear capabilities. Military attacks on Iranian facilities by American or Israeli forces must be regarded as absolutely a last resort, fraught with potentially disastrous consequences, some quite predictable, some not yet imagined. Yet this bill gives little weight or emphasis to critical diplomatic and economic measures and at points comes perilously close to signaling intent or support for the military option. In fact, the timing of this legislation risks being interpreted as a vote of ``no-confidence'' in our ongoing efforts to engage diplomatically with Iran. Developments such as the so-called ``P5+1'' meetings between the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council, Germany, and Iran--the next meeting of which is scheduled to be held in Baghdad two weeks from today--are critically important steps toward renewed engagement, with a lengthened roster of partners and a tighter sanctions regime. One can hope that the resolve expressed in H.R. 4133 might strengthen these efforts, but I fear that the bill's timing and some of its provisions may also threaten their devaluation.