David Price

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Chairman, if this amendment were to be adopted, the locality that is targeted, namely, the city of Emeryville, would not receive funding, nor would the locality even be able to compete for a Pre-Disaster Mitigation grant through FEMA because the amendment would strike any Pre-Disaster Mitigation funding for that locality for the fiscal year 2010. Now, Madam Chairwoman, FEMA has reviewed every mitigation project in this bill. Each project was deemed eligible based on the requirements in the Stafford Act and will be used to protect lives and reduce property damages in some of the most hazard-prone areas of the country. There should be no question that this request underwent rigorous scrutiny and meets the test of being aligned with and supporting the missions of DHS. So I urge colleagues to defeat this amendment.

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

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

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Chairman, it's clear what the gentleman's amendment does. It reduces funding levels in various accounts in this bill by the amounts appropriated in the Recovery Act. Just as a few examples, he cuts $200 million from the Under Secretary for Management because there was $200 million in the Recovery Act for the new DHS headquarters at St. Elizabeth's. But there's no money in this bill for the new DHS headquarters. He's just cutting management and oversight for the Department by more than 75 percent. He cuts $5 million from the Inspector General because there was $5 million specifically included to help monitor Recovery Act expenditures. But there's no money in this bill specifically for Recovery Act oversight. It simply comes out of the Inspector General's Office and the critical work that he does. He cuts $420 million from the CBP budget for facilities management because there was $420 million included in the Recovery Act to replace and renovate land ports of entry into the U.S.. But there's no money in this bill for such construction. So it's really just an indiscriminate and enormous cut to the general upkeep of Border Patrol and Customs facilities. The gentleman cuts $210 million from the Firefighter Assistance Grants program because there was $210 million included in the Recovery Act for fire station construction. But there's not a penny in this bill for fire station construction. This amendment would reduce grant funding for firefighter equipment by over 50 percent, at a time when local firefighter budgets are already on the chopping block. The effect of this amendment is very different from the effect of simply rescinding Recovery Act funds. Rather than erasing the effect of stimulus moneys provided through this title in the current year, it guts the ability of the agency to function in the coming year. It would nearly eliminate the budgets for hiring personnel, managing equipment purchases, departmental security, and DHS facilities. If this amendment passes, the Kansas City Royals--not exactly the biggest spending team in baseball--would spend more on player payroll than the third-largest department in the Federal Government would have to manage its affairs. CBP couldn't pay rent for their existing facilities. Modernization of airport screening for explosives and advancements permitting passengers to safely carry larger containers of liquids onto planes would grind to a halt. I think that's probably enough to illustrate just how destructive this amendment would be and how indiscriminate it would be. I urge my colleagues to oppose this devastating amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I thank our colleague for those clarifying remarks and yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the chairwoman of the Immigration Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Zoe Lofgren).

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

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition.

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

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Chairman, the gentleman seeks to add $32 million for predisaster mitigation grants by cutting the same amount from FEMA's management and operations programs. Again, I appreciate the gentleman's support for predisaster mitigation. I come from a State where both predisaster and postdisaster mitigation have been very important and often successful programs. And I believe the funding levels recommended by our committee in recent years have reflected this favorable evaluation. But the offset the gentleman proposes is just untenable. I have to say that, and I want to spend some time in explaining it because I do respect the motivation that he brings to this effort. We have, today, correspondence from State and local emergency managers who also think this offset is unacceptable. They oppose this amendment because it cuts critical FEMA programs, and, in particular, I have a letter dated today from the International Association of Emergency Managers along these lines. The Congress has spent the last 4 years since Hurricane Katrina rebuilding FEMA's management and operations capabilities. At the time of Katrina, the agency was understaffed and unable to effectively manage a catastrophic disaster. It's my belief that the increases over the last 2 fiscal years were a major factor in FEMA's return to strength as demonstrated during the response to Hurricane Ike and the Midwest floods. I am afraid the gentleman's amendment could send us backwards. The gentleman would cut the account that supports the National Hurricane Program, the National Dam Safety Program, national continuity programs, disaster operations and disaster mitigation. The committee supports predisaster mitigation. That's why we included a $10 million increase for predisaster mitigation grants above fiscal year 2009. But the gentleman proposes a further increase, and I believe that should not come at the detriment of FEMA's operational readiness. Besides, the grant program that the gentleman seeks to increase had $143 million that was unobligated or not spent at the time this bill was reported. In other words, there is a good deal of money in the pipeline. So as a supporter of increased mitigation, and as the chairman of a committee that has championed increased mitigation, I believe we have enough funds for now to support ongoing mitigation work, and I think the offset would be detrimental to FEMA's readiness to respond to disasters. So I respectfully urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

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

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment with great respect for the gentleman from Tennessee who, after all, has labored in this body for many years in the areas of transportation and transportation security. I take what he believes very, very seriously. And I know that he offers this amendment in all earnestness. I want to say more in a minute about what our committee has done to make certain some of the elements that he is looking for are indeed addressed; namely, by requiring a long-term assessment of the air marshal staffing needs. This is not something we should go on funding indefinitely without assessment or analysis; and we intend for that to occur. But I do not believe this amendment to simply flat-fund the Federal air marshals is the best approach. The exact number of Federal air marshals is security-sensitive, but a reduction of $40.6 million, which the gentleman proposes, would result in a significant number of air marshals being let go, and TSA would have to put in place a hiring freeze for all of fiscal 2010. As a result, we would have fewer high-risk international and domestic flights covered. In fact, flight coverage would be below what it was in 2009. With this funding reduction, it is possible that air marshals may not be on all flights during some high-consequence events, such as the 2010 Olympics or national special security events. Now, I'm sure that TSA would make every effort not to reduce coverage for such events, but we would need to worry about resources being spread thinly under the gentleman's amendment. The funding reduction would limit the air marshals' ability to rapidly respond to unanticipated events as they did in the past, such as the U.K. liquid explosives threat, evacuation of U.S. citizens from Lebanon, or in response to hurricanes like Ike and Katrina. In addition, funding restrictions would affect air marshals' ability to support TSA's VIPR teams. These are teams that conduct unannounced, high-visibility exercises in mass transit and passenger rail facilities and are designed to disrupt possible threats determined by reports from our intelligence community. So these air marshals do perform vital functions, and we need to know what we're doing if we cut back personnel levels. Having said that, I do want to call the attention of colleagues to our report, page 74 to be explicit, where we discuss the long-term prospects for this air marshals program. We go into some detail about these additional security measures that the gentleman outlined which, indeed, may change the picture in the longer term. We don't know. We want DHS to reassess what is the appropriate long-term staffing level for the Federal air marshals in light of its new risk assessment model that better targets staff deployments. So we have ordered up this study. Until we receive it, we believe it is premature to reduce funding for air marshals without the kind of sound analysis that would demonstrate what threats might be addressed or what might not be addressed if there is a diminished effort by the air marshal program. So, again, with appreciation for the gentleman's history on this issue, I do respectfully urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment. But I do pledge to Members that we are going to undertake an assessment of this program for the long-term. And this time next year we will expect to have a much better analysis of what the long-term prospects should be. With that, Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. The amendment simply increases and decreases funding for CBP salaries and expenses by $1 million with no statutory direction. Now, my colleague would have us understand this amendment would somehow provide funding for a targeted border enforcement effort. I must respectfully disagree. In fact, it will do nothing of the kind. The procedure used in this amendment is meaningless, having no effect, and establishing no legislative mandate. With no statutory significance, it also will have no impact whatsoever on the conference outcome with the Senate. It neither identifies the activity being defunded nor the one being augmented. On that basis alone, and to discourage the use of this kind of parliamentary tactic to stretch out the time for general debate, I urge colleagues to defeat this amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Chairman, I rise also to thank the gentleman for this amendment, which would increase the budget for the ICE Visa Security Program by $1.7 million. This addition would be offset by corresponding reductions to the Office of Secretary and Executive Management, but not a devastating cut. The committee has fully funded the $30.2 million request for the Visa Security Program, which is $3.4 million over the 2009 appropriations level already. This program places ICE agents and investigators overseas in embassies and consulates to assist State Department officials by investigating the criminal and terrorist backgrounds of those who apply for visas to come to the United States. The committee also expanded the program by more than 45 percent in the 2009 Appropriations Act, and I recognize its ongoing importance for the security of our country. The additional funds proposed in this amendment will allow ICE to continue to accelerate its Visa Security Program deployments in 2010. In other words, it would build in a very positive way on the progress we were making. And with this in mind, I am happy to accept the gentleman's amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Chairwoman, I will close and have no further speakers. But I do want, once again, to commend the gentleman for the spirit in which he offers this amendment and the zeal with which Members whom we all know and respect, like Mr. Israel, Mr. Serrano and Mrs. Lowey, protect their cities and have defended this program. We take a backseat to no one with respect to those efforts. We understand New York's unique needs and how successful this pilot program has been. As a matter of fact, though, the money for carrying out the remaining aspects of this program is already in the pipeline. And these very arguments for the importance of this program are exactly why we need to take a more long-term approach and get away from a pilot program, get away from yearly amendments, yearly earmarks, and make this part of our permanent, long-term protective efforts. Of course, we will work with the New York delegation to find the resources that will let them do just that. So I pledge my cooperation in that endeavor. I hope the spirit of this opposition is well understood. We do want to work on this matter. We just believe that this amendment is not the right approach. And therefore we do ask for its defeat.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. How much time is remaining, Madam Chairman?

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I will continue to reserve.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam 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. 2892, and that I may include tabular material on the same bill.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I want to first commend my New York colleagues, particularly Nita Lowey, Jose Serrano and Steve Israel, all on the Appropriations Committee, for promoting Securing the Cities and the work that it has made possible in their State. Indeed, their tireless advocacy for New York's regional security has resulted in notable increases in grant allocations to regional governments and first responders. New York State homeland security grants rose from $27 million in 2006 to $112 million in 2009. That is a four-fold increase. And New York's Urban Area Security Initiative grants grew from $124 million in 2006 to $145 million in 2009. It remains the largest recipient of urban area funds. I couldn't agree more that Securing the Cities is a valuable pilot program demonstrating how State and local Governments could develop, with Federal agencies, an architecture to prevent a nuclear or radiological attack on New York. But I must emphasize that Securing the Cities is a 3-year pilot project, and this period is over. DHS requested no 2010 program because it is already positioned to accomplish its goals as a pilot program. So what we have here today is, in effect, an earmark for New York. The next steps are to conclude the program, assess the results, and identify candidates of future pilots, if any, outside of New York. Funding remains available for New York to continue this program well into 2010. About 84 percent of the 2009 funding and 10 percent of the 2008 funding are presently unobligated. Award decisions for these funds are pending with one quarter left in the fiscal year. DHS knows of no unfunded requirements for this program. Remaining balances will enable New York to transition from a pilot to an ongoing regional operation. And that is what needs to happen. Adding money to continue a completed pilot is not the answer. New York surely does not want to be dependent on year-to-year appropriations amendments to continue this vital protective function. This needs to move to a sustainment mode, run by New York and its partner communities. It needs to identify funding sources that can be used for this purpose, including these urban area security grants, of course, the Transit Security grants, and others. The New York area has received about $1.4 billion through these grants since 2003 and can expect about $298 million in new funding this year. The amendment also earmarks $10 million for new radiation portal monitors. But here again, there is no identified requirement for additional funding. The ability to put this to use in 2010 is highly questionable. The amendment's offsets, $5 million from the Office of the Secretary and Executive Management and $45 million from the Under Secretary For Management, are particularly troubling. We are already well below the request in these areas. We have trimmed salary increases. We rejected new investments in departmental facilities. Cutting more funds will result in a longer road to getting the Department of Homeland Security the American taxpayers deserve. So I appreciate the intention of this amendment. I certainly appreciate the achievements of the Securing the Cities program. We know that this is a vital program and that these protective functions are important. But for that very reason, we need to get away from an earmark, and get away from a pilot program, and put this on the sustainment mode. It is in that spirit and for that reason that I ask my colleagues to oppose this amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.