David Price

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time. Amendment Offered by Mr. Ferguson

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Rhode Island for raising this important issue, and I agree that our Nation must protect its critical infrastructure from cyberattacks. Research and development efforts at the S&T Directorate will be vital to our homeland security activities. I look forward to working with the gentleman to bring greater attention to the issue of cybersecurity and to provide adequate funding for these efforts, and I very much appreciate his vigilance, outstanding among all the Members of this body, in attending to this issue.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I yield to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word for purposes of engaging in a colloquy with the gentleman from Rhode Island.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

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

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

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose this amendment and in the strongest possible terms. The amendment would prohibit funds made available in the Act from being used to extend temporary protected status for countries covered under that program. Temporary protected status is a special immigration benefit for citizens of countries with severe hardships: civil wars, massive natural disasters, humanitarian crises, some of those troubled places in the world where people are fleeing absolutely horrendous conditions. This program offers the citizens of those countries temporary sanctuary in our country until their countries' troubles are resolved. In total, 4,198 people currently in the U.S. could be deported if their temporary protected status were not extended. These individuals would be sent back to countries with extreme conditions, places like Burundi, Somalia, the Sudan. Of course, we hope that these troubles will end and that these people could eventually return to their home countries. This is temporary status, but the notion that we would defund this program or refuse to extend it where it's called for. This amendment would also be detrimental to the effective administration and enforcement of immigration laws. It would create confusion about the degree to which the U.S. government can be trusted to maintain its commitment to those for whom it offers immigration benefits. So I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Reclaiming my time, New York City has a law on the books, for example, that prohibits the provision of Immigration information to the Federal Government, I understand. Would this amendment prohibit any DHS funding to New York City?

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The amendment would eliminate the requirement that the funding provided in this bill comply with the prevailing wage requirements of the Davis-Bacon Act. Nobody remembers who Davis and Bacon were, but the Act was enacted back in 1931 by a Republican Congress and a Republican administration, that of one Herbert Hoover. It sets minimum labor standards for workers employed in Federal contract construction. It simply says that they've got to pay their employees, if they're using Federal funds, not less than the locally prevailing wage. The Department of Homeland Security interpreted the application of Davis-Bacon far too narrowly. They said it applies only to Stafford Act grant programs, virtually no other DHS programs, despite the fact that a lot of these programs do involve construction projects like State and urban area Homeland Security grants, buffer zone protection grants, port security grants, airport security grants, transit security grants, and so forth. Our belief simply is that there is no good reason for denying prevailing wage protection to jobs involved in these activities. There is a waiver that the President can employ in situations where Davis- Bacon requirements would truly have a detrimental impact, but for most jobs most of the time, carrying out the intent of this bill, fair, locally prevailing wages should prevail. If you are talking about the quality of construction, I think that adds an argument as well. Davis-Bacon encourages a higher quality of workmanship. It encourages enhanced productivity. It reduces the need for remedial work, probably saving dollars in many instances. So there are many, many arguments for this which I won't belabor at this late hour. I believe the inclusion of the Davis-Bacon requirements is prudent and fair, and I urge the rejection of this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. The answer is yes. Reclaiming my time, it is a simple straightforward question. Border Patrol agents are funded in this bill. If DHS were to find that a border city or county were in contravention of section 642(a), would this provision require them to remove all Border Patrol agents from that city or county?

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The gentleman's amendment would reduce the funding in this bill by just over $2 billion, or 5.7 percent. As this debate began, we did discuss the comparison of the bill that we have reported to last year's level of funding, and I am going to just repeat those figures here, because I think it is important to put the increase in perspective. The fiscal 2007 bill, with the emergency funding included that was adopted at the time that bill was passed, when that is considered as the baseline for 2007, our bill represents a 7.5 percent increase over last year's funding. If the supplemental funding is included in the 2007 base, then, actually, our bill represents a 7.5 percent decrease in funding. But the point is not just to throw abstract numbers around. The point of the considerable deliberation our subcommittee has undertaken is to match up the available resources with this country's needs. I believe we have done that in a conscientious way. I think it's extremely hard to find anything in this bill that is funded to excess, funded lavishly. That's the reason that the gentleman has chosen not to focus on specific items, but, rather, to propose an across the board cut, indiscriminately applied, across the country, of 5.7 percent. It would have consequences, even spread across all the accounts. It would mean a reduced level of funding for a number of things that we have put in this bill for very good reason. The SAFE Port Act, the authorization, has required that we apply more funding to port security. This cut would reduce that substantially. It would, in all likelihood, mean that we could provide very limited additional programs for fire grants or transit emergency security grants, or emergency grants, State and urban grants, other important programs to our hometowns. It would mean that border and immigration enforcement improvements would be hard to come by. It would make it very, very difficult to increase the amount of cargo that is carried on passenger aircraft that is screened and so forth. These cuts would be consequential. Although our friends on the other side of the aisle have been rather selective in their treatment of the President's budget request, the chairman has repaired that request in this measure. But I do need to point out that we have not, under his leadership in past years, or in our deliberations this year, taken the President's requests as serious requests, but we have not hesitated to alter them when we felt that was required. It's not unusual for the Homeland Security bill in the House of Representatives to increase President Bush's request. In fact, we have done it every time we have brought a bill to this floor. In 2004, the House bill contained $1 billion more than the Bush request; in 2005, $900 million more than the Bush request; in 2006, $1.3 billion more than the Bush request; in 2007, $1.1 billion more than the Bush request. So we are in that mode once again. There is no reason to be surprised that in some respects we found the Bush requests inadequate, and we have increased them. In other respects, we have reduced them. We have done both. But there is a net increase, and I think a net increase that is amply justified. The hour is late, I believe that the funding levels in this bill are quite carefully considered. This amendment would do some real damage to some things that we need to improve. So I ask my colleagues to vote against this amendment.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I simply want to echo his kind words. It's a pleasure to work with him, it has been for these last 4 years, as he has chaired this committee, and it has been a pleasure to work with him this year, a real professional who takes oversight seriously and who takes writing this budget seriously. Mr. Rogers and his staff, the staff here on this side, I won't ask how many hours of sleep they have had in the last several days. But it has been a real pleasure. I hope we will have a chance in the presence of the whole body tomorrow morning to pay tribute a bit more formally. But we are grateful. We are also grateful to see this evening come to a close. We will, of course, with our colleagues tomorrow, be having, I think, probably a record number of roll call votes in rapid sequence. With that, we are ready to conclude, and I yield back my time.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I am intrigued by the suggestion that Border Patrol officials have come requesting this kind of approach for protecting the border. I have never heard any Border Patrol official make such a request. On the contrary, during our travels on the southwest borders and in talking to officials here in Washington, Mr. Farr is absolutely correct. The first thing they say is this isn't an enforcement problem alone, it requires a comprehensive immigration reform effort. The second thing they say is that one size does not fit all in terms of border protection. The gentleman cites the San Diego example. Yes, that may well be a situation where a fence is called for. But the people who know the most about this and who are charged with protecting us every day invariably say that different technologies, different kinds of barriers, vehicle barriers, pedestrian barriers, barriers that might be suited to one kind of terrain rather than another, electronic surveillance, there are a range of technologies that are required here. This is an incredible amendment. This amendment forgoes any kind of analytical effort and examination of differences and simply says two-layer fences will be erected everywhere. And by the way, this is far more expensive than other kinds of barriers. So whatever it is, we would build less of it. The number of miles we are talking about here, to build that with the kind of fencing that the gentleman wants to see would cost $2 billion. That is twice what we have in this bill; so, of course, it would protect far less of the border. The Department needs some discretion here, some discretion for the best minds in law enforcement and technology to decide what sort of protection makes sense in what portions of the border. Our bill does that. Our bill has generous funding, but it also has some requirements about documenting the cost-effectiveness, the effectiveness in protecting the border, as well as the kind of effects we've talked about earlier this evening on the communities in the path of this. So it's a sensible approach. It's one that draws on the best expertise we've been able to engage, and I strongly urge that it be retained in the bill, and therefore, this amendment be rejected. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Yes, I can assure you of that.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Well, it calls for a submission of a plan. It does not say how the money shall be spent otherwise.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. The item that the gentleman is discussing, let me just clarify. We're talking about $21.5 million. It requires that the Coast Guard shall submit a plan for the use of this money to the committee by November 1.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I wish, Mr. Chairman, to offer some comments on this amendment. The amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Virginia would reduce the Department of Homeland Security Under Secretary for Management Account by $10.4 million and reallocate $9.1 million of the funds to the ICE 287(g) program. Because of the differences in outlays, the remaining $1.3 million cannot be used. Now, as we have said on this floor many times in the last 18 hours of debate, our Republican friends seem determined to trash the front offices at the Department of Homeland Security. They rail against bureaucrats. They have no regard for the President's requests for those front offices. The fact is that the Under Secretary for Management funding is critical for the Department of Homeland Security to ensure that it develops its new headquarters in a consolidated way and that it does its job. But if our friends on the Republican side of the aisle are not going to defend their own administration's needs in this regard, let alone their budget requests, I and my colleagues here are not inclined to do so. So our colleagues will need to look at this amendment and maybe they will want to support it, the source of funding notwithstanding. Let me say something about the recipient of these funds, the 287(g) program. Now, the ICE 287(g) program does require additional funding next year, and it requires additional funding because of the emphasis that we are placing in our bill on the necessity of ICE's getting serious about preventing the release of prisoners, people who have committed serious crimes, who are deportable, permitting the release of those people back out on the streets. It is just outrageous that criminals who have been convicted, who have committed serious crimes in this country are being put out on the street without their status even being checked. So we do have in this bill a requirement for ICE to contact every prison, jail, and correctional facility in this country on a monthly basis to identify removable criminal aliens. And we have provided a good deal of additional 287(g) funding to enroll correctional facilities in this program and to provide training and technical support to participants so they can provide accurate and actionable data to ICE agents. So we have tripled ICE's funding. We have tripled ICE's funding. We have more than tripled the amounts provided in fiscal year 2007, that was $5.4 million, to $17.3 million in fiscal year 2008. Now, we think that is sufficient to enable ICE to undertake these duties as well as to carry on its existing functions because, first of all, it is a tripling in funding. Secondly, the Department has yet to obligate more than half of a $50 million appropriation made in 2006 for this program. It has not yet been obligated. I have to say to my colleagues that as far as the 287(g) program is concerned, the availability of funding is not the issue. Trying to increase participation rates is the issue. But it is not just a matter of throwing money at the problem, as our friends like to say. So ICE is going to take on, we hope and believe, significant new responsibilities. We have provided funding to accomplish that, and we are also, of course, assuming that the Department is going to obligate that $50 million that is sitting there already. Now, our colleague has offered an amendment to provide yet more funding for ICE, funding that it is not clear to me that she has really analyzed how and when the funding can be used. But if she wishes to take yet another bite out of her own administration's front office accounts at Homeland Security, then, again, she can be our guest. I do want my colleagues to know, though, that we are serious about this prison program. We think of all the priorities in terms of deportation, this is at the top of the list. It is a major feature of our bill. ICE is going to be directed to undertake this as a top priority. We know it will require funding. We have provided the funding, and perhaps in the best of all worlds this additional funding contained in this amendment would help this function be performed even more effectively. That would be a positive way to look at it, and for that reason we will not be opposing the amendment.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. And I commend him in turn for his work on getting help to the people dealing with the burdens of law enforcement in these border communities. That is what Stonegarden is all about. And he, together with colleagues on the Republican side, advocated very strongly for the Stonegarden funding in this bill. We also have struck a balance at the gentleman's request. Some very careful work was done on what kind of consultation is desirable and necessary with affected communities before these border barriers are put into place. So we make no apologies for holding the Department accountable for the technology that is utilized and the plan that is adopted so as to be as effective as possible, to be economical, and also to be responsive to these very particular border communities.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I thank the gentlelady from Texas for raising this important issue. I will be happy to work with you on it. I want to thank you for your leadership on the issue. I agree with you, as the chairman of a Homeland Security subcommittee, that much more must be done to engage our communities about the need to be prepared for all types of disasters and that special efforts are required to engage the most vulnerable members of our communities. It is a very valuable focus that you brought to this. So that's why we fund FEMA's management and administration account at $685 million, $150 million above the current fiscal year. FEMA has told us of its plans to engage in this type of preparedness effort. We intend to monitor that. We strongly support it.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I thank the gentlewoman. I will be happy to work with her on report language.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Now, if the allegation is that the Department of Homeland Security has not been nimble enough, has not been responsive enough in getting the grant funds out there, then you certainly won't get an argument from us. Our approach has been to work cooperatively with the Department to improve performance. There are two provisions in particular in this bill to ensure that Federal bureaucratic hurdles are lessened so that the funds can be used for their intended purpose more efficiently. As in prior years, the bill mandates that within 60 days of enactment, 80 percent of the State Homeland Security grant funds must be passed through from States to localities. And, as in prior years, the bill mandates a schedule for DHS to issue grant guidance and make grant awards, ensuring that funding reaches grantees in the shortest time possible. Now, we need to continue pressing. We need to continue working on this. But I think, in pressing the Department for responsive grant programs, we have bipartisan support on that. And in putting the money where we need to put it to make these additional areas safer, we have support on that as well. All I can say is it would be nice if we would get on to discussing the substance of the bill, as opposed to dealing with desultory tactics.

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

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I will consume about 15 seconds just to respond to the question that was raised about the Republican track record in passing appropriations bills. The gentleman might want to talk about when the Labor-HHS bill was passed last year. I think what he will find is that not only was it not passed by July 1, it was not passed at all.