David Price

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I yield to Mr. Farr from California.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman for a very useful amendment. The amendment would shift some funding around in ways that I think are well justified. It would apply $5 million to study the eradication of invasive cover species such as Cariso cane, Russian olive trees, salt cedar. It is a well-crafted amendment and I am happy to support it.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I would suggest, as the last speaker said, that if many people seem to be suggesting that this bill will be doing one thing or the other, they would actually find it useful to read the bill. In this case, the relevant language is on page 15 of the bill, and the requirement says, quite plainly, that in developing these infrastructure projects, the Secretary is required to ``consult with affected State and local communities to solicit their advice and support of such project or activity.'' It's pretty clear that isn't a veto. It's pretty clear, though, that it is a requirement for serious consultation. I must say to the sponsor of the amendment that the mayors of the border cities of Texas have led the parade in coming to members of the committee, from both sides of the aisle I am sure, to say that this kind of attentiveness to local communities and their needs and their views is essential as this effort moves forward. There is nobody who was more convincing on that than the mayors from El Paso to Brownsville to Laredo. We heard from them, and we heard from them very decisively. The gentleman's amendment would eliminate all requirements for an expenditure plan for this $1 billion appropriation, as well as all requirements to consult with affected Federal agencies, and State and local communities. It would eliminate the requirement to provide a 15- day advance notice before waiving environmental or other laws that might otherwise interfere with construction or infrastructure development. Now, I understand some of the gentleman's concerns. But I feel obligated to point out that the effect of this amendment would be to give this Department carte blanche to spend these funds as it will, with no requirements to explain or justify or consult or coordinate. Now, for 3 days on this floor we've heard railing against the bureaucracy and the insensitivity of the bureaucracy, and harrowing descriptions of malfeasance and ineptitude in the bureaucracy. I hope the irony doesn't escape our colleagues that this amendment would place full discretion in the hands of those very same bureaucrats to proceed as they will. So I object to this amendment because it would simply be an abdication of responsibility to exercise meaningful oversight. The goal that all in this Chamber should embrace is realistic but meaningful progress in getting effective control over our borders. This amendment would guarantee nothing, I'm afraid, but negative Inspector General and GA reports for years to come. Besides, the Department hasn't asked for these requirements to be removed. In fact, they are quick to assure us that they intend to undertake a consultation, and this bill simply spells out in more detail what we expect that consultation to include. I yield such time as he may consume to my colleague from California (Mr. Farr) who traveled with us to the southwest border and has some insight on this.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I would simply say that the gentleman has raised an important and legitimate issue. We gladly accept his amendment.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from New York for her perspective on this issue. While the Appropriations Committee has no direct control over the fees that CIS charges or the revenues that it collects, the committee report encourages the Department to continue regular reviews of its cost estimates and to apply any savings generated by business transformation to reducing fees in the future. The committee also requires CIS to report on the performance measures it will implement to ensure that the increased fees charged to its customers result in commensurate improvements in the service provided by the agency. So I encourage the gentlewoman to work closely with the Judiciary Committee to address these concerns, since the authorities to collect immigration fees are ultimately within that body's jurisdiction. Amendment Offered by Mr. Shays

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I agree with the gentleman that traffickers are using lookouts to spy on law enforcement operations and to assess where our agents are, just as we're looking at them. But I don't see any rationale for dedicating funding for an initiative of the sort that he describes. The bill provides funding for an additional 3,000 Border Patrol agents and $1 billion to continue and expand the border security program. The identification and the elimination of the kind of lookout posts that he's describing on U.S. territory is a matter for CBP to deal with if it involves crossing the border, and for other law enforcement agencies to deal with if it's strictly a domestic violation. Now, the funding in this bill has been increased, increased a great deal, to provide the Border Patrol all these new agents, and to better meet the cargo and port security vulnerabilities addressed, for example, in the SAFE Port Act. So this is not a costless funding shift. It's a shift in funding that would reduce resources for these departmental priorities, priorities in which the committee fully concurs and, in fact, in some cases has increased. So although the gentleman's intention is admirable, I do believe it's unnecessary to designate funds for these purposes. I think shifting the funds around in this way could do some damage as we attempt to develop the Department, and so I reluctantly ask Members to oppose the amendment. Mr. Chairman, 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. Reclaiming my time, the case has been stated, and I repeat my request for a ``no'' vote.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word to address the gentleman's very legitimate question. The gentleman asked about the puffer machines which, indeed, do have some utility but have some very obvious shortcomings, as he observed. That is not what we are talking about funding in this bill. We are talking about the explosive detection machines that we can move in line with the baggage conveyer systems in crowded airports; and that, unfortunately, is the account out of which the gentleman's cuts would come.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. What is the quality?

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I would be glad to yield.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and rise in opposition to the amendment. The gentleman's amendment is well-intentioned and understandable, particularly given the part of the country that he represents. But I would like to explain to colleagues briefly why I believe this amendment is ill-advised. It would cut $125 million from the Transportation Security Administration in order to fund activities by Customs and Border Protection. I do appreciate the gentleman's wish to further strengthen the frontline agency for our borders and our ports of entry. The fact is, though, I believe we have addressed his concerns very adequately in this bill. The bill fully funds the 3,000 additional Border Patrol agents requested by the administration. Any more, I believe, would exceed CBP capacity to recruit and to absorb. The bill also provides for 250 additional CBP officers above the request to strengthen port and cargo inspection security. So it seems that putting more money into the agency at this time would be, at best, symbolic and, at worst, wasteful. On the other hand, let's look at the offset. A reduction of this magnitude from TSA's aviation security program could, for instance, slow to a crawl plans to move explosive detection machines out of crowded airport lobbies and in line with the airport's baggage conveyer systems. We are aware of at least 60 airports that need these necessary improvements. Without them, airport lobbies will remain congested for the foreseeable future and the use of technology underdeveloped. After years of stalling, this cut could delay improvements that are finally underway at TSA with airport check points, such as installing next-generation systems to better detect explosives and weapons that passengers might carry on their bodies or in their checked baggage. A reduction of this size in TSA could thwart efforts to double the amount of air cargo screened for explosives and other dangerous items before it is placed on passenger aircraft. Explosive detection equipment is the key technology we use to screen for these dangerous objects. Finally, this reduction could require TSA to lay off something like 3,000 screeners. For the past 2 years, we have seen record air travel, resulting in longer lines at many airports and screening check points. A reduction in aviation screeners could exacerbate this problem. So we reluctantly, Mr. Chairman, oppose this amendment for these reasons.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I simply want to say on this side we accept this amendment and commend the Congresswoman for her good work.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I want to say I appreciate the gentlewoman's efforts in this important area. We expect FEMA to develop these materials to ensure that children are adequately prepared when disasters strike. I will be happy to accept the amendment.

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

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Reclaiming my time, we'll work on this in any case; but I must say if there are the kinds of problems that the gentleman has identified, simply throwing appropriated funds at them in what seems to me to be a fairly undiscriminating way doesn't seem to be a very promising remedy. For that reason, Mr. Chairman, I do urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Reclaiming my time, I understand the pilots for this project are already under way. The answer about the bureaucracy, though, is somewhat troubling. If there are problems that the gentleman has identified, it doesn't seem like a very discriminating response to just simply throw appropriated funds at the agency, I must say. Now, if the point is to make sure that this program comes online, to make sure that it does what it is supposed to do, that it's monitored carefully, that we exercise our oversight responsibilities and that we encourage the Department to ask for whatever kind of support it needs, then that's another matter. But simply reaching into appropriated funds and throwing them at this program in this way, I must say to the gentleman, it's not something that I can accept. He might want to withdraw this amendment and let us work with him on trying to give this program appropriate emphasis, but that, of course, is his option. I yield if he wishes to respond.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Yes, I will.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Reclaiming my time, the gentleman is arguing that this $30 million would make a significant impact on what I think is about a $250 million program. If the Department is so encouraging of this, why do you suppose we didn't get a request from them when the budget was sent up?

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would put funding not requested by the administration into the business transformation program. Once again, it would take funds from the efforts to consolidate DHS operations on the St. Elizabeth's campus, which Secretary Chertoff has cited as one of his top priorities for improving the efficiency and the performance of the Department of Homeland Security. This amendment puzzles me, though, Mr. Chairman, because CIS is updating its programs by utilizing user fees. My understanding is that this is a program funded by user fees and that it really is not in need of appropriated funding. Knowing the gentleman's support for economies in government--we have heard a lot about that the last couple of days, for many, many hours, in fact--why would we not want to have this program pay for itself, so to speak? And why would we want to dip into appropriated funds to make this kind of increase? I just raise that as a question. Maybe I should let the gentleman answer it before reaching my final conclusion.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would halve the budget for the Department's new headquarters campus. That may seem like an easy target, but as a matter of fact, this Department's functions are scattered all over Washington, D.C. We all agree in wanting an effective, strong Department of Homeland Security. We also know the obstacles that have stood in the way of integrating this Department and making it function smoothly, because it involves integrating 22 separate agencies into a functioning department. So for years now, we have known that this central facility needs to be constructed. The Bush administration has put a very high priority on it. Secretary Chertoff has talked about it repeatedly. It is just baffling that members of the minority would get up and show so little regard for that kind of priority. They seem to think that this departmental budget is some kind of cash cow that can be dipped into at will. Without this funding, the Coast Guard won't be able to move into its new headquarters. How about that? The Department wouldn't be able to consolidate its management functions at this modern facility. So it is not a costless amendment, Mr. Chairman, not by any means. The amendment would increase the buffer zone protection program by $50 million. There might be a case to be made for this if we had underfunded the buffer zone protection program. But the bill already funds the President's budget for this program, equal to the amount provided in fiscal year 2007, which the President deemed sufficient. The gentleman wants to double that funding, throw money at it, and at the same time remove money from this critically needed facility to pull all these 22 agencies together in a functioning department. It is unwise, it is unneeded, and it simply disregards the kind of careful consideration of this account, the kind of careful balancing of these needs that has gone into the production of this bill. So, although I appreciate the gentleman's intentions and his support of this program, I have to ask my colleagues to oppose this amendment.