David Price

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

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

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Let me just ask a question for clarification on the amendment that is before us which actually has barely been mentioned this morning. Is it not true that neither the McHenry amendment nor the Foxx amendment would be, in effect, incorporated in your amendment, since our expenditures for the item at issue are already below the President's request?

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Is the gentleman suggesting that those contracts should just be cancelled outright by legislative fiat?

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. As the gentleman well knows, there has been a great deal of concern on both sides of the aisle about the functioning of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States. There is a consensus, I believe, that CFIUS slipped up on this Dubai Ports deal and that CFIUS needs to be strengthened.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. You asked me a question about the 77 legal positions in the general counsel and the directive that the next hiring be to strengthen up this CFIUS capacity.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer a few comments on the proposed amendment, and perhaps a reality check, since the Member offering the amendment has neglected some important facts that would put this in perspective. Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment that, once again, goes after the Office of the Secretary of Homeland Security. Virtually every amendment we have dealt with in this long debate has chosen that target. We just finished 10 hours of debate on an attempt to cut in half the Secretary's legal advice office. Now, this amendment would cut funding from the requested level for the Office of the Executive Secretary. Our friends on the other side of the aisle have spoken all day about the President's requests. Well, what the introducer of this amendment didn't tell us was that the bill, actually cuts $539,000 from the President's request for this item. So we are well under the President's request, and she wants to cut it further. For department operations overall, we have cut $73 million from the President's request, and our recommended amount is also less than was provided for 2007. So, it is not as though we are funding the departmental offices lavishly. Quite the contrary, we have scrutinized the requests carefully. We have cut the requests considerably. But we have tried to give the Department the funds that it needs to maintain its own operations. Now, we have debated an amendment for 10 hours having to do with the general counsel's office. Last night, we were treated to eight motions to rise, eight motions to go home without continuing or completing work on this bill. I think any fair observer would say this is an attempt to obstruct and to delay. These are desultory motions. So, now we have another amendment in that same vein. This comes on top of days of our Republican friends railing against bureaucrats. Not one voice on the minority side said a thing in defense of the Bush Administration's legitimate needs for the Department, needs which we have assessed and have actually cut back the funding for, but needs which, nonetheless, one would expect Republican Members to have some interest in, some sensitivity to. Not one voice was raised in defense. All I can say is that we have scrubbed these administrative items very conscientiously. We have reduced them overall and in particular. So we are confident in our recommendations. But we do have to ask, why? Why should we, on this side of the aisle, stand up for the administration, stand up for the Bush administration's own Department, when Republicans themselves are unwilling to do so? Now, we are well aware that not every Republican feels this way. There are Republicans and Democrats who have worked in a bipartisan way on Homeland Security on this bill and over many years. But the group of Republicans who are dominating this debate seem to have no regard for that, no interest in it. So it falls to us to defend their own administration. And we are not inclined to make a very strong recommendation on this amendment. If the Republican Members of this House want to take money away from this account that we have already reduced considerably, then they can be our guest.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I thank the gentleman for his very helpful comments. And I want to pick up where Mr. Pearce left us a few minutes ago. I never had a chance to respond to his comments about unspent funding. So I want to take just a minute, if I might, to talk about what the committee, in fact, has done about grants and what kind of funding is available for those versus what we're going to appropriate for fiscal 2008. We have made some key investments in this bill in State and local grants. The State grants are a modest increase over last year, something like 6 percent. But we've made much more substantial increases in transit and rail grants, which I think, on a bipartisan basis, Members of this House have said is a vulnerability. Certainly they said that on the port security matter with the Safe Ports Act. We have made some increases there. Fire grants, have broad bipartisan support, as does the SAFER program. So in a number of these areas, we have gone somewhat above last year's funding and above the President's request. But we've done that on the basis of strong evidence and strong bipartisan support that this is needed. Now, what about the allegation that this money is in the pipeline, that we really don't need to turn to the appropriations process for additional funding? The charge was made that there's $5 billion unspent in these grant programs. Well, $4 billion of that is obligated. That leaves $1 billion. Let's talk about the $1 billion. $600 million of the $1 billion of unobligated funds are from funds awarded to States and localities during the last 6 months. The remaining $400 million in so- called unobligated funds are from older grants that are actually most likely obligated. The Department tells us they're only now bringing older data on-line into their grant system, but it's very, very likely that all of that $400 million is obligated. So forget about $5 billion in unspent funds. It isn't there. We must face up to the implications of needing to do more in these various grant areas.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. There has been, Mr. Chairman, a steady flow of town and city officials from Texas in particular who have come to Washington to voice their concerns. We are going to visit them in very short order now to have a first-hand look before this bill goes to conference. But the work that we have done on this issue, I believe, does strike the desirable balance. We appreciate the Members' input on that because these communities are concerned that the construction of this barrier not go on without some regard for their history and their needs.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairwoman of the Rules Committee for yielding, and for her good work along with the ranking member and members on both sides of the aisle in granting this open rule, an open rule for debating of this fiscal 2008 Homeland Security appropriations bill. We requested an open rule, with some necessary waivers. The Rules Committee has granted that, and for that we are grateful, and in just a few moments we will be on our way, debating this bill. This is a critical bill. It is the first of the 12 appropriations bills that we will be debating this session. So we will lead the pack. We will be telling our colleagues about what we have done, a hardworking subcommittee that has produced, I think, 20 days of hearings and has written a comprehensive bill. It is going to provide funding to address our country's most pressing security vulnerabilities, with a new emphasis on ports and transit systems. It is going to provide critically needed funding, as the gentleman from Vermont has stressed, to our States and communities to confront terrorist activity threats, but also natural disaster threats. Thirdly, it is going to help ensure that taxpayer dollars are well spent by requiring management reforms and by withholding funds until some expenditure reports and other accountability measures are in place. And fourth, we're taking a long-term approach by requiring outside reviews of several major programs and activities to ensure that our long-term investments are being wisely spent. I appreciate the chairwoman of the Rules Committee's interest in this bill. In particular, she has stressed, as she did again in her statement today, the challenges of protecting the northern border and also the concerns that she and many others have about the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative. We are directing the Department in this bill to increase by over 40 percent the number of border patrol agents at the northern border. That will comply with the levels called for in the Intelligence Reform Act. She also expressed particular concerns about the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative. The bill makes $100 million for implementation of that program unavailable for obligation until Customs and Border Protection reports on its experience with pilot programs, provides detailed information on infrastructure and staffing required, confirms the use of radiofrequency identification technology that has been adequately tested under operational conditions, and describes how it will ensure privacy protection. We worked with the chairwoman in putting those protections in place, and we appreciate the consistent interest she has shown in them and in this bill in general. So with that, Mr. Speaker, I once again thank our Rules Committee colleagues for an open rule and for paving the way for what we hope and believe will be a productive debate as we consider our homeland security needs for the coming fiscal year.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the amendment.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. No, I did not.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my point of order.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, it's the easiest thing in the world to come to this floor and to rail against bureaucracy, this abstract notion of cutting bureaucracy; but I think it's prudent to ask what exactly do these officials do and what is actually in the bill and why is it there. So let me try to get beyond just the symbolism of cutting bureaucracy and try to answer those very basic questions. First of all, let me say, I don't know where the figure 17 percent that the gentleman's using comes from. The increase in this bill over fiscal 2007 spending, counting the bill that we passed last year and the emergency spending incorporated in that bill, is 7\1/2\ percent. And if you include the emergency funding that we just added to the 2007 bill, then the increase is 4 percent without the Katrina funding, and it is actually a cut of 7\1/2\ percent with the Katrina funding. So if you're using the 2007 bill as the baseline, those are the accurate numbers. Now, let's look at the front office of the Department of Homeland Security. The bill includes, sure enough, $923 million for Department operations, but that's less than the 2007 appropriation. It's less than the President requested by $73 million. The gentleman has focused on one aspect of front office operations, which is the Office of Secretary and Executive Management, and he wants to cut that by almost $10 million. But there are good reasons for that being increased while the overall front office expenses are being decreased. This appropriation, the one the gentleman has targeted, the one he has said is purely bureaucracy, included in that appropriation are the Secure Border Initiative office, which many Members on both sides of the aisle have a strong interest in; the policy office; the privacy office, which surely needs strengthening; the civil rights office, which surely needs strengthening; and the office of counter-narcotics enforcement, a critical function as well. And the bill isn't lavish even in this respect. It provides only enough funding to support current on-board staff except for the privacy and civil rights offices, where staffing levels are increased, and the policy office, where additional funding is provided for REAL ID, a new program that requires some staffing up, and for the Committee on Foreign Investment of the United States, which, as every Member knows, we are trying to also strengthen. If funding is reduced, these program enhancements, which will help to better ensure privacy, to better ensure civil rights protections, would not be funded. So let's get past the rhetoric about bureaucracy. Let's look at what the appropriation actually does. I think if Members do, they will reject this amendment.

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

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I think it will be in the interest of the debate the rest of the day to have this straight, so I do appreciate the gentleman's yielding. It's true, the bill is at $36.3 billion. Last year's appropriation was $34.2 billion. That is counting the emergency spending that was enacted at the same time as the regular bill. That means this year's increase is 7\1/2\ percent. And then if you add the 2007 supplemental appropriations, which were just voted by the House, depending on whether you count the Katrina money or not, you either get a 4.2 percent increase or a 7.5 percent decrease from the 2007 funding level. I appreciate the chance to clarify those numbers.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I am happy to clarify the situation. The 2007 appropriation, as enacted, was $34.2 billion. That includes the $31.9 billion that the gentleman cited, plus the emergency spending in that same bill, because as you well remember, we needed to address the border and immigration situation. So that was added to the bill. The spending in the 2007 bill was $34.2 billion, and we are increasing that by 7.5 percent, and then we have recently supplemented the appropriation. The 2007 spending now stands at $39.2 billion, and the 2008 bill is 7.5 percent less than that in nominal terms. If I may just say further, the gentleman referred to the way we do accounting around here. This is just straight nominal numbers. The departmental operations are cut--are cut--in our bill from 2007 levels by $1.2 million. They are cut from the President's request by $72 million. It's not a matter of adjustments one way or the other for inflation; those are straightforward cuts.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentleman for his eloquence, both about the potential threat of global warming and what that may mean for emergencies that we have to deal with in the future, and also for the need to repair and rebuild FEMA so that we have a nimble, responsive agency that can respond to all kinds of disasters all over this country. I understand that the gentleman will perhaps be willing to withdraw this amendment. I hope that he will do that, but I want to assure him that we understand what he's focusing on, and that we will work with him as we go to conference to make sure that FEMA has the resources that it needs. We have beefed up FEMA's resources a good deal in this bill. Now, on the question of who should be studying global warming and assessing its future impact, there are legitimate questions, I believe, as to whether FEMA is the agency that's best equipped to do this. Other agencies, such as the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, do have expertise in this area, but if that expertise is not being translated into practical preparation, and if there's not adequate coordination between NOAA and the research operations and the operational agencies, then that obviously is a concern that needs to be addressed. I appreciate the Member from Ohio's raising that concern, and promise that we will work with you.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I will.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Washington, although I want to heartily endorse the emphasis he's given to the importance of the intelligence and analytical functions. Perhaps I can best begin by making an observation about this bill as a whole. We have closely examined the status of the programs that we're funding, their history of drawing down funds, their unspent balances, their ability to spend the money that has been requested. And so when the gentleman sees a reduction in funding of the sort that he sees in this account, it would be a big mistake to read that as a de-emphasis of this function or some kind of judgment that this function is not important. We think it's highly important. But we do have some observations that are included in the committee report. I refer the gentleman to page 23 of the report about the rationale behind the, we hope, temporary reductions that we've written into this bill. It's a short section. Let me just read it. ``The Committee has reduced the funding level for intelligence and analysis below the amounts requested. The Committee notes that the Office of Intelligence and Analysis carried over significant unobligated balances at the end of fiscal year 2006, and has shown no signs of an increased pace of obligations during the current fiscal year.'' That is not something we're pleased about, but the best way to create some pressure and some incentives to correct this situation, to get this function moving, is what the committee has done. The gentleman's amendment would reduce by $10 million the amounts provided to the managerial function and the Border Patrol at DHS and reallocate those funds for the intelligence functions. But as I said, at the end of 2006 the intelligence program had $50 million remaining unspent, largely because it was unable to hire the staff at the rate at which it was planned. There's been no indication from the intelligence managers of the Department that the pace of hiring has increased, so we fully expect the programs will end this year with significant balances unspent. It's simply imprudent to keep appropriating more money when those sizable balances remain unspent. Now, as for the offset, briefly, the amendment proposes to reduce funding for the Office of the Secretary and Executive Management by $1 million, or 1 percent. That, as we've said earlier, would nip in the bud our efforts to better ensure privacy and to enforce civil rights. That's the reason there's a slight increase in that function. And the gentleman's amendment would remove that, as well as reduce funding for the office of the Under Secretary for Management, which is tied to the need to consolidate DHS operations in a new headquarters. So, in the other aspect of the amendment, perhaps even more dangerously, the amendment proposes to reduce CBP salaries, Border Patrol salaries and expenses, by $6 million. That could generate significant vulnerabilities in the Border Patrol's ability to ensure the security of the northern and southern borders. So the offsets are not good, and the overall increase would, in all likelihood, remain unspent. So for those reasons, and certainly not for any lack of concern about intelligence and analytical operations, I do reluctantly oppose the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise to indicate that we will accept this amendment, but I want to explain my reasoning, if I might, and explain it very carefully. For 2 hours now we have sat in this Chamber and have heard Republican Members railing against the Bush administration. Member after Member after Member has risen in this Chamber to condemn Bush administration bureaucrats in unsparing terms, and not one voice on that side of the aisle has been raised in opposition, not one. So, we are asking ourselves, how long are we going to defend a very carefully crafted bill that deals with the administration's legitimate needs to administer its Department? Now, I don't care how many times people get on this floor and claim that we have made lavish increases. The fact is, and I will say it one more time, this bill cuts departmental operations. It cuts them below the President's request, and it cuts them below 2007 levels. And that is not a matter of inflation adjustment. It is a real cut in nominal terms. Now, within that overall cut there are some adjustments. Some accounts are cut more, some are increased. They are not increased for frivolous reasons. If we have made an increase, it has been because there is a good rationale for that increase. A couple of the earlier cuts targeted the account that includes the Privacy Office, the Civil Rights Office, offices that need work and need to be strengthened. So we have scrubbed this bill very carefully. We have basically provided only for current staff on board, and, in a few instances, for staff that we knew needed to be augmented to perform very specific functions. So, we have been conscientious within the context of overall reduction. Of course, the easiest thing in the world is to rail against the front office or the Department, to rail against the bureaucrats, to say these are abstract, invisible cuts. Let's just cut away, and then beat our chest about how tough we are fiscally. I tell you, we've been tough fiscally, but we have not been irresponsible. We have tied, in each case, our funding recommendation to specific needs of the Department, specific functions that need to be continued or need to be augmented. So we are asking, why should we be the ones to stand up for this administration? Now, I know not every Republican is in line with the sentiments that have been expressed here. I know there are Members on both sides of the aisle who understand that you need some reasonable level of funding to run a department. And in past years, we have provided that reasonable level, and we have done it again this year. But we are not going to sit here and simply hear all this and then be alone in our defense. So we accept the amendment.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley). I do understand these large urban areas are at high risk from a terrorism event. We have addressed that conscientiously in this bill. This committee is providing $30 million over last year's level of $770 million for the urban area grants. The gentleman's amendment would increase the Urban Area Security Initiative grants by $50 million. At the same time it would reduce the Office of the Secretary and Executive Management and the office of the Under Secretary for Management. The Office of the Secretary and Executive Management would be reduced by $15 million, or 14 percent. Funding for a number of offices is included in this appropriation, including the Secure Border Initiative Office, the Policy Office, the Privacy Office, the Civil Rights Office and the Office of Counternarcotics Enforcement. The bill provides only enough funding to support current on-board staff except for the Privacy and Civil Rights Offices, where staffing levels are increased slightly, and the Policy Office, where additional funding is provided for REAL ID and the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States. If funding is reduced, these program enhancements, which are carefully designed and will help ensure privacy and civil rights, could be compromised or largely defunded. The gentleman's amendment also proposes to reduce funding for the office of the Under Secretary for Management by $35 million, or 14 percent. The total increase in this office is due to $101 million provided for DHS headquarters facilities at St. Elizabeth's. We have already substantially reduced the request coming from the administration. We need to get the Department consolidated in this new headquarters; and of course, this amendment would make even less funding available for this new facility. So I reluctantly ask for a ``no'' vote.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I thank the gentlewoman for her inquiry and for her leadership on the Homeland Security authorizing committee. As you stated, the SAFE Port Act established many new requirements related to port security. I agree that the implementation of a long- range vessel tracking system should be a priority, and that part of the $40 million in additional funding could be used to meet the long-range vessel tracking system mandated in the SAFE Port Act.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, for the reasons I explained earlier, we accept the amendment.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise to accept the amendment, but I want to make clear that we are doing it in the spirit that we accepted earlier amendments. That is, if no one on the other side of the aisle is willing and able to defend the Bush administration and their budget request and their departmental operations, then it's not clear to us why we should take that on. We have had a steady stream of invective tonight, a lot of ideology, a lot of bureaucratic bashing, and not very much attention to the specifics of this very carefully drawn budget. Now, you wouldn't have known it from the last presentation, but let me tell you what this amendment does. The amendment cuts the funding for the general counsel in the Department $1.2 million below President Bush's request. Now, it's not about earmarks. It's not about the history of the parties and their ideologies. It's about cutting $1.2 billion below President Bush's request for the general counsel in the Department of Homeland Security. Now, Members can make their own decision about whether that's wise. But as for us, we don't intend to oppose the amendment.

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 matter on H.R. 2638.