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. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Cole amendment.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Chairman, I was intrigued with this amendment. I didn't quite understand the import of it. So I have done a little research, talked to the Department of Homeland Security about the extent of their activities with this task force and what the affect of this amendment might be. So I would like to offer a little reality check here and suggest that this amendment is not merited. This amendment, for starters, will not save any money. It simply prohibits the Department of Homeland Security and its employees from, in any way, planning for the effects of climate change. Now the debate isn't about whether or not one believes that climate change is being caused by human beings. The fact is that whatever the cause, climate change is occurring in certain parts of the world. Both the U.S. Coast Guard and the Navy have testified before congressional committees that their operations are greatly affected, particularly in the Arctic region. The Department of Homeland Security has identified other specific climate change-related impacts on DHS missions. These include, as you might expect, disaster response activities and the protection of critical infrastructure. Now given the historic flooding that's occurred along the Mississippi as well as the worst tornado season we've experienced since 1950 with over 1,200 tornadoes and 500 deaths, it's understandable that DHS might just want the best available information on climate change. Now I want to clarify any misinformation here. There are no DHS employees nor are any DHS funds dedicated full-time to climate change. One person at the department has spent a limited amount of time representing DHS at these task force meetings and activities--one person. So prohibiting funds going toward this effort is not going to save any money. But there are several DHS components, including FEMA and the Coast Guard, that have been able to leverage cross-government expertise from the task force on both climate issues and on long-range planning generally. I would think that's exactly what they should do. So what this amendment would do, rather than saving any money, it would simply prevent DHS persons from meeting or even talking to each other regarding the task force. Now it's prudent and necessary for DHS to be able to work with its partner agencies to plan for the effects of climate change on their missions, and it's proper and important that our government agencies be able to talk to each other about the changes they are witnessing and the accommodations to their missions that might need to be made. So, Madam Chairman, again, the Carter amendment will not save one dollar. Instead, it will prevent DHS from engaging in contingency planning with partner agencies across government. This is a debate, if it's about anything, it's about ensuring good government and intelligent planning and responsible coordination. I urge my colleagues to vote against the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. The gentleman has raised the issue of accountability, so I would like to call his attention to section D on page 90, and ask him for his assessment of this. We worked this out carefully, as I said earlier, worked it out with the chairman in a cooperative way. And it addresses directly the question of accountability. The Secretary of the Interior, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, shall submit to the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate and the House of Representatives not later than 15 days before any proposed transfer under this section, an expenditure plan that describes in detail the actions proposed to be taken with the amounts transferred. Does that not meet the gentleman's standards of accountability?

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Chairman, the gentlewoman's amendment strikes language permitting the use of previously appropriated and specifically designated DHS funds for land acquisition along the southwest border for environmental mitigation. I feel I need to take a moment just to provide a bit of context. Since 2006, our subcommittee, which I chaired from 2007 to 2010, has increased funding for border security by over $2 billion annually. We invested well over a billion for fencing and other tactical infrastructure alone during this period. Now, responding to concerns about possible environmental problems associated with such a massive construction undertaking, much of which has taken place on environmentally sensitive lands, Congress provided modest amounts to mitigate these potential environmental consequences: $50 million in fiscal 2009 and $40 million in fiscal 2010. Some of this mitigation effort involves acquiring land from willing sellers for buffer zones to protect fragile habitats, principally along the Rio Grande Valley in Texas. Since the Department doesn't have the statutory authority to acquire land for the purpose of environmental mitigation, we came to an agreement among Democrats and Republicans last year in the context of negotiations over an omnibus 2011 bill to grant the limited authority to transfer these specific funds to the Department of Interior for land acquisition. Obviously, Interior has the statutory authority to acquire land for this purpose. So let me, Madam Chairman, read the section of the chairman's report so everyone knows how noncontroversial this provision is that Mrs. Lummis seeks to strike. And I am quoting, ``In order for the Department to execute interdepartmental agreements with the U.S. Department of the Interior to complete environmental mitigation activities, the committee includes a general provision, section 547 in the bill, permitting the transfer of previously appropriated environmental mitigation funds under BSFIT to the U.S. Department of Interior to carry out this purpose. The authority is narrowly tailored and controlled to ensure that funds will only be transferred: in accordance with a written agreement between the Secretaries of Homeland Security and the Interior; where the Secretary of the Interior has submitted an expenditure plan 15 days in advance of the proposed transfer, detailing the actions proposed to be taken with amounts transferred; where the Secretary of Homeland Security has certified that the actions outlined in the expenditure plan cannot be legally executed under the authorities of CBP or any other component of the Department of Homeland Security and the actions are determined to be necessary for mitigation of construction, operation, and maintenance activities related to border security.'' Madam Chairman, as a government we have many responsibilities and priorities. These include, of course, securing our borders, something I have worked on a lot in these past 4 years. It also includes protecting our natural and cultural resources. The sort of interagency agreement that Homeland Security and Interior have entered into for environmental mitigation is exactly what we should be encouraging, especially because this arrangement is explicit that Interior cannot take any action that CBP does not first agree to. Let me repeat: Interior cannot take any action that CBP does not approve. I urge my colleagues to honor this agreement, a reasonable arrangement, and defeat this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I wish to join the chairman of our subcommittee in opposing this amendment--not because there are any funds in this bill for these advanced imaging machines, this particular technology. There is no funding in this bill for this purpose, but on principle, this amendment is objectionable. It could be very damaging. I won't dwell on the privacy safeguards. I think they've been debated in this body before, and we're well aware that privacy safeguards surrounding the use of this equipment are extensive--the face is blurred, there is no storage of the images, the operator of the machine is off the premises. And as the chairman just said, the technology is constantly being improved to protect privacy further. But the point also needs to be made that an amendment like this, if it were implemented--not just with respect to the current year funding, but with ongoing acquisition of these machines--this amendment would reduce our ability to find non-metallic explosives and weapons or bombs carried on a person's body. That's the fact of the matter. These advanced imaging machines are better able to detect a wide variety of threats that metal detectors simply cannot pick up. So adopting this amendment would put our citizens at risk. It's a step backwards in our security provisions and it should be rejected. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. It is premature; there has not yet been a completed election for union representation at TSA. Moreover, it is unwise. The TSA administrator has made a modest and limited proposal to allow limited collective bargaining for transportation security officers. I think that is in the best interests of TSA, and it has been restricted to nonsecurity issues. So it is a wise proposal and a modest one, and we should allow it to go forward. I yield to our colleague, the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson) who is the ranking member of the authorizing committee on Homeland Security.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose this amendment. I want to deal just for a moment, though, with some of the accusations that have surrounded this proposal and others like it. In fact, the House Oversight Committee conducted an investigation concerning allegations that Homeland Security improperly politicized the Freedom of Information Act process by allowing political appointees to review documents before they were released to the public. The committee's lengthy investigation and a corresponding review by the inspector general found no evidence that the documents were edited, prior to release, for political reasons. According to the IG, ``During our review, we learned that the Office of the Secretary was involved in examining several hundred FOIA requests prior to disclosure. This process was created so the Department would be aware of certain FOIA requests that it deemed to be significant. After reviewing information and interviewing FOIA experts, we determined that the significant request review process of DHS did not prohibit the eventual release of information.'' Now, to be clear, both the IG and the committee found the process to be inefficient and cumbersome. But I understand from the committee that it has since been modified to address these concerns. Now, on the amendment, I think it's a bad idea and perhaps counterproductive. It could lead to the exact opposite of the gentleman's intended result. Let me explain what I mean. In some cases, political review and decision-making will allow the Department to be more proactive in disclosing information to the public. Under this amendment, the head of the agency or another political appointee could not override an arbitrary decision by a bureaucrat to withhold documents that should be released. That bureaucrat could be protecting himself and his colleagues or those documents should be released. There could be a perverse result, I think, if this amendment were adopted. And at least under the reading of our oversight committee colleagues, the amendment might prevent the agency from faithfully carrying out its responsibility to comply with FOIA requests. That's because, technically, the agency head is in charge of ensuring the process is completed. If they're taken out of the mix, it really calls into question who's accountable and whether the FOIA process would operate as intended. So we better be careful in treading on this ground. We could have exactly the opposite results from what is intended. And for that reason, I oppose this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, our chairman has expressed very well the reasons for opposing this amendment. It simply would weaken our security dangerously. And we are talking here not just about first responders and firefighters, we are also talking about frontline DHS personnel in a number of our agencies. I join him in urging rejection of this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Once again, I want to join the chairman in urging rejection of this amendment. The reasoning that I applied to the previous amendment applies with equal force to this amendment. We're talking here about the need in our airports to employ the best and latest possible technology to save lives, and we're not doing this without knowledge of emerging threats. And the ability of different technologies to pick up more sophisticated threats, more difficult threats to detect, that's what these machines are all about. It's most unwise, I think, most irresponsible on the floor of this House to make judgements about this that actually could compromise our security in very, very serious ways. I urge rejection of this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I object. We don't have a copy of the amendment.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I'm not going to prolong this, but I do want to plead with my colleagues. This is something that this body simply, simply should not be a party to. Bringing in three pages-plus of organizations that many of us, most of us, have never heard of, have no knowledge of. They may be on somebody's list somewhere. We have no knowledge of the basis for inclusion on that list. There may have been media reports about them. Whatever there is that would back up this kind of list, at a minimum it should be provided to us tonight. Anyone offering an amendment of this sort ought to provide the basic documentation for the kind of stigmatizing, the kind of exclusion that is being proposed here of these organizations from any ability to compete for funding in this bill. I hope it's obvious--I hope it's obvious to everybody here, no matter what their political persuasion, that this is simply unacceptable and must be rejected. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Yes, I am. We have not seen the amendment.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, we have not seen the amendment.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend our colleague from the District of Columbia for her persistent advocacy for this headquarters consolidation and construction, and also for the history she has recounted for us today. I think it's time well spent to understand how both the Bush and Obama administrations and the Subcommittee on Homeland Security Appropriations, through both parties' leadership, have until now supported this project. The bill before us, however, provides no funding for the new DHS headquarters or for the consolidation of leased property in 2012. That's a penny-wise and pound-foolish decision. Already based on the delay in finalizing the 2011 bill and the reduced resources provided in that bill for DHS headquarters construction activities, the cost of the headquarters project has grown. It's grown by $200 million, from a total cost of $3.4 billion to $3.6 billion. The decision to deny an additional $159.6 million in 2012 to finalize construction of the first phase of the headquarters project and to begin construction of the second phase will result in yet higher costs in the out-years, and will delay by at least 2 years when the Coast Guard can move into its new headquarters facility, which is already under construction. Similarly, the bill doesn't provide $55.6 million requested for lease consolidation activities. Last year, this subcommittee held a very informative hearing with DHS and the General Services Administration on this activity. We heard testimony about the significant financial benefits of reducing the number of leases DHS has from 70 buildings across 46 locations in the greater D.C. area to six to eight buildings. Witnesses testified that this massive footprint disrupts the effectiveness and the cohesiveness of departmental operations and adds needless layers of costs and complexities to facilities management. Additionally, the leases will consume an increasingly larger share of the Department's budget through overhead costs in the coming years. In a time of fiscal constraint, the Department will not have extra dollars to pay for all of these lease increases without shortchanging frontline and mission-essential programs. So, Mr. Chairman, at a time when real estate prices continue to be low in the greater Washington area and construction and material costs are relatively low as well, this is the time to make this kind of investment. Funding this activity would save taxpayers money for years to come. With that, I again commend the gentlewoman for her passionate and effective argument on this point. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I would like to briefly address the amendment.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may utilize. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that we're considering the fiscal year 2012 Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill in a timely fashion and under an open rule. Chairman Aderholt has been a true professional in the drafting of this bill, and I appreciate his willingness to include input from our side all along the way. And I certainly want to share in his commendation of all of our staff on both sides of the aisle. For the second year in a row, overall funding for the Department of Homeland Security will drop. The bill decreases funding for Homeland Security by 6.8 percent below the President's request and essentially returns funding to the 2009 level, which is concerning to many people, including myself. This allocation has required Chairman Aderholt to make some tough decisions. He has been able to retain adequate funding for the frontline employees of the Department of Homeland Security to continue conducting critical operations along our borders, to protect our Nation's airports and seaports, and to respond to the wave of natural disasters that our country has experienced this spring. The same, however, is not true, unfortunately, of Homeland Security grant programs, which are cut radically. Providing a total of $1 billion for all State and local grants, or 65 percent below the President's request, and providing $350 million for firefighter assistance grants--that's almost 50 percent below an already reduced request--breaks faith with the States and localities that depend on us as partners to secure our communities. These cuts will be especially harmful as many of our States and municipalities are being forced to slash their own budgets. For example, according to the International Association of Fire Fighters, 1,600 fewer local firefighters will be on the job if the cuts in this bill are enacted. I can't conceive of any defensible argument for cuts of this magnitude, cuts that come on top of cuts to grants already made in the fiscal 2011 appropriations. They will do great damage to local preparedness, to emergency response in our communities, and to the recovering economy. These grant programs equip our State and local partners to be ready for a disaster so they can mitigate its impact and respond effectively. While this bill rightly seeks to help States and localities rebuild after a disaster strikes, it decimates the work required to prepare for a disaster before it happens. That exposes our communities to greater risk, and it potentially raises the cost of attacks and disasters when they do occur. And we shouldn't ignore the impact of first responder layoffs on our economic recovery. This bill recommends other drastic reductions, for example, by cutting research funding in half. At this level, the Science and Technology Directorate informed us that it would concentrate its remaining resources on aviation security and explosive detection devices and on two cutting- edge, near-term research projects. But other critical research underway, including research on cyber security, disaster resiliency, and detection of chemical and biological threats, this research simply wouldn't be funded in 2012, if ever. The bill also greatly reduces funds for information technology needs and construction activities. It includes no funding for the new DHS headquarters that are already under construction and the related lease consolidation efforts. We've been told repeatedly by the administration that deferring these investments will ultimately affect frontline operations and cost us more money in the future, and I believe that they are absolutely correct. Now, I recognize that the administrations budget left Chairman Aderholt some holes to fill, but the real problem here is the bill's allocation in the budget resolution. That's thanks to a completely unrealistic spending cap set by the House Republican budget. We are now seeing the real implications of that deeply flawed plan. It simply leaves no room to keep departmental operations strong, and at the same time to fund our dual responsibility to prepare for and respond to all hazards. The majority further exacerbated the allocation's inadequacy by adding $850 million in disaster relief beyond the President's request to respond to recent flooding and tornado emergencies. Now, that's fine; that's important to do. But contrary to bipartisan tradition, the additional spending was not designated as an emergency for budget purposes, and as a result these disaster funds come out of the hide of first responder funding. We gave the majority two chances to correct this flaw by designating the funding increase, that is, the increase beyond the President's request, as an emergency, once in last week's appropriation committee markup and yesterday in the Rules Committee. Unfortunately, the majority refused and passed up the opportunity to get us to a point where both parties might be able to support this bill. I want to close by reiterating my appreciation for the chairman's efforts, for the staff's efforts to work with us on many, many issues in this bill, and for their valiant efforts to sustain our frontline Federal homeland security operations; but the bill does fall short of our obligations in critical aspects. The inadequate allocation makes it difficult to repair this bill, but I and other Members will be offering amendments to move it in a positive direction. I reserve the balance of my time.