Amendment Text: H.Amdt.367 — 112th Congress (2011-2012)

There is one version of the amendment.

Shown Here:
Amendment as Offered (06/01/2011)

This Amendment appears on page H3862 in the following article from the Congressional Record.



[Pages H3855-H3867]
        DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2012

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 287 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the state of the Union for the further consideration of the bill, 
H.R. 2017.

                              {time}  1858


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union for the further consideration of 
the bill (H.R. 2017) making appropriations for the Department of 
Homeland Security for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2012, and 
for other purposes, with Mr. Dold (Acting Chair) in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The Acting CHAIR. When the Committee of the Whole House rose earlier 
today, the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Cuellar) 
had been disposed of, and the bill had been read through page 6, line 
22.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Alabama is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama for the purpose 
of a colloquy.
  Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. I want to thank Chairman Aderholt, my good 
friend from Alabama, for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I commend you for bringing this important legislation 
to the floor and for your hard work during these difficult budget 
times. As chairman of the subcommittee with sole authorizing 
jurisdiction over the Transportation Security Administration in the 
House, I welcome our continued

[[Page H3856]]

collaboration on transportation security issues.
  Specifically today, I want to discuss with you the need to increase 
the number of explosive detection canines within TSA for aviation and 
surface transportation security. Within the area of passenger 
screening, we all know that explosive detection canines are one of the 
most effective screening means, and they do it without many of the 
concerns and costs of other types of detection technology.

                              {time}  1900

  They do not impede the flow of traffic, and they avoid privacy 
concerns because they do not come into direct contact with passengers.
  We know that the military canine units in Iraq and Afghanistan can 
detect improvised explosive devices with an 80 percent rate, much 
higher than the 50 percent expected from those units with other 
technologies.
  And for all the good that canines do, they do it at a better price 
than other technologies. If there is a better, more cost-efficient 
option to increasing canines, I am open to any suggestion.
  In fact, according to published reports, the elite Navy SEAL team 
that killed Osama bin Laden likely carried at least one canine with 
them on that mission into Pakistan. Surely, then, canines can and do 
provide invaluable bomb detection services here at home.
  Especially in these times of heightened terrorist threats, along with 
the information that we gathered from killing bin Laden, we need to 
prudently increase the number of detection canines in TSA.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. Chairman Rogers, I too look forward to continuing to 
work with you on this issue involving the TSA. I completely agree that 
the explosive detection canines are a cost-effective, proven critical 
part of the TSA security. As we continue to work together on both 
appropriations and your efforts on reauthorizing and transforming TSA, 
I look forward to exploring all of the potential options to utilize 
detection canines to patrol our transportation systems.
  Thank you for your work in making our transportation systems more 
secure.
  Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Thank you, Chairman Aderholt. I also want to 
thank my colleague, Representative Jason Chaffetz, for his work on this 
issue and my friend and colleague, Representative Sheila Jackson Lee, 
for her dedication to it as well.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Bass of New Hampshire). The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                                TITLE II

               SECURITY, ENFORCEMENT, AND INVESTIGATIONS

                   U.S. Customs and Border Protection

                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses for enforcement of laws relating to 
     border security, immigration, customs, agricultural 
     inspections and regulatory activities related to plant and 
     animal imports, and transportation of unaccompanied minor 
     aliens; purchase and lease of up to 8,000 (7,000 for 
     replacement only) police-type vehicles; and contracting with 
     individuals for personal services abroad; $8,769,518,000, of 
     which $3,274,000 shall be derived from the Harbor Maintenance 
     Trust Fund for administrative expenses related to the 
     collection of the Harbor Maintenance Fee pursuant to section 
     9505(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (26 U.S.C. 
     9505(c)(3)) and notwithstanding section 1511(e)(1) of the 
     Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 551(e)(1)); of which 
     not to exceed $45,000 shall be for official reception and 
     representation expenses; of which not less than $287,901,000 
     shall be for Air and Marine Operations; of which such sums as 
     become available in the Customs User Fee Account, except sums 
     subject to section 13031(f)(3) of the Consolidated Omnibus 
     Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (19 U.S.C. 58c(f)(3)), 
     shall be derived from that account; of which not to exceed 
     $150,000 shall be available for payment for rental space in 
     connection with preclearance operations; and of which not to 
     exceed $1,000,000 shall be for awards of compensation to 
     informants, to be accounted for solely under the certificate 
     of the Secretary of Homeland Security: Provided, That for 
     fiscal year 2012, the overtime limitation prescribed in 
     section 5(c)(1) of the Act of February 13, 1911 (19 U.S.C. 
     267(c)(1)) shall be $35,000; and notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, none of the funds appropriated by this Act 
     may be available to compensate any employee of U.S. Customs 
     and Border Protection for overtime, from whatever source, in 
     an amount that exceeds such limitation, except in individual 
     cases determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security, or 
     the designee of the Secretary, to be necessary for national 
     security purposes, to prevent excessive costs, or in cases of 
     immigration emergencies: Provided further, That the Secretary 
     of Homeland Security shall submit to the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the Senate and the House of 
     Representatives, at the time that the President's budget is 
     submitted each year under section 1105(a) of title 31, United 
     States Code, a multi-year investment and management plan for 
     Inspection and Detection Technology that identifies for each 
     technology--
       (1) the inventory of Inspection and Detection Technology by 
     location and date of deployment;
       (2) the proposed appropriations included in the budget 
     subdivided by the proposed appropriations for procurement, 
     including quantity, deployment, and operations and 
     maintenance;
       (3) projected funding levels for procurement in quantity, 
     deployment, and operations and maintenance for each of the 
     next three fiscal years; and
       (4) a current acquisition program baseline that--
       (A) aligns the acquisition of each technology to mission 
     requirements by defining existing capabilities of comparable 
     legacy technology assets, identifying known capability gaps 
     between such existing capabilities and stated mission 
     requirements, and explaining how the acquisition of each 
     technology will address such known capability gaps;
       (B) defines life-cycle costs for each technology, including 
     all associated costs of major acquisitions systems 
     infrastructure and transition to operations, delineated by 
     purpose and fiscal year for the projected service life of the 
     technology; and
       (C) includes a phase-out and decommissioning schedule 
     delineated by fiscal year for existing legacy technology 
     assets that each technology is intended to replace or 
     recapitalize.


                 Amendment Offered by Mr. King of Iowa

  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Page 7, line 13, after the first dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $1,000,000) (increased by 
     $1,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Iowa is recognized for 5 minutes 
in support of his amendment.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, my amendment goes in and strikes out 
a million dollars and inserts that million dollars back in again and 
directs that, in our dialogue here in the Congressional Record, for the 
purpose of taking out the lookout points, the spotter locations that 
have been formed by the drug smugglers on the U.S. side of the border 
between primarily Arizona and Mexico.
  A number of times I have been down to the border to review these 
lookout posts, these spotter locations, and on certain occasions I have 
climbed to the top of those small mountains where they overlook the 
transportation links that we have the intersections, and the drug 
smugglers have actually taken paramilitary positions on top of these 
mountains overlooking U.S. transportation for the purposes of being 
able to warn their drug and people smugglers when the Border Patrol and 
other law enforcement are coming along the way. I have gone to the top 
of these mountains with Border Patrol and with the Shadow Wolves down 
there on the border and flown to the top of some of these mountains to 
take the positions that are taken by the spotters.
  This is something that this Congress has spoken to before. This 
amendment has passed in the past, and what it does is it directs the 
Border Patrol and their security personnel to take those locations out, 
not to concede these tactical locations inside the United States that 
go as far up as Tucson and on north towards Phoenix.
  And, in fact, about 4 years ago, I and a couple of others put 
together a map of these locations. I stood with some of our law 
enforcement personnel, and I said, Show me where on the map. They 
started drawing X's on the map. I took it along the Arizona border, and 
when we were done, I had over 75 locations of mountaintops that were 
manned by drug smuggling personnel. They are supplied and resupplied, 
Mr. Chairman.
  This Congress can't tolerate those kinds of locations here in the 
United States, and I urge the adoption of my amendment, which simply 
directs the law enforcement personnel to use that million dollars to 
take out the spotters on the lookouts on the mountains that control the 
transportation and let smuggling happen within the United States.
  I urge adoption.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. Does any Member seek recognition?
  Mr. ADERHOLT. I have no objection and accept the gentleman's 
amendment.

[[Page H3857]]

  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                        automation modernization

       For expenses for U.S. Customs and Border Protection 
     automated systems, $334,275,000, to remain available until 
     September 30, 2014, of which not less than $140,000,000 shall 
     be for the development of the Automated Commercial 
     Environment: Provided, That the Commissioner of U.S. Customs 
     and Border Protection shall submit to the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the Senate and the House of 
     Representatives, not later than 60 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, an expenditure plan for the Automated 
     Commercial Environment program including results to date, 
     plans for the program, and a list of projects with associated 
     funding from prior appropriations and provided by this Act: 
     Provided further, That the Secretary of Homeland Security 
     shall submit to the Committees on Appropriations of the 
     Senate and the House of Representatives, at the time that the 
     President's budget is submitted each year under section 
     1105(a) of title 31, United States Code, a multi-year 
     investment and management plan for the funds made available 
     under this heading that includes--
       (1) the proposed appropriations included for each project 
     and activity tied to mission requirements, program management 
     capabilities, performance levels, and specific capabilities 
     and services to be delivered;
       (2) the total estimated cost and projected timeline of 
     completion for all multi-year enhancements, modernizations, 
     and new capabilities proposed in such budget or underway;
       (3) a detailed accounting of operations and maintenance and 
     contractor services costs; and
       (4) current acquisition program baselines for the Automated 
     Commercial Environment and TECS Modernization respectively, 
     that--
       (A) note and explain any deviations in cost, performance 
     parameters, schedule, or estimated date of completion from 
     the original acquisition program baseline;
       (B) align these acquisition programs to mission 
     requirements by defining existing capabilities, identifying 
     known capability gaps between such existing capabilities and 
     stated mission requirements, and explaining how each 
     increment will address such known capability gaps; and
       (C) define life-cycle costs for these programs.

        border security fencing, infrastructure, and technology

       For expenses for border security fencing, infrastructure, 
     and technology, $500,000,000, to remain available until 
     September 30, 2014: Provided, That of the total amount made 
     available under this heading, $150,000,000 shall not be 
     obligated until the Committees on Appropriations of the 
     Senate and the House of Representatives receive a detailed 
     expenditure plan prepared by the Secretary of Homeland 
     Security, and submitted not later than 90 days after the date 
     of enactment of this Act, for a program to establish and 
     maintain a security barrier along the borders of the United 
     States, of fencing and vehicle barriers where practicable, 
     and of other forms of fencing, tactical infrastructure, and 
     technology: Provided further, That the Secretary of Homeland 
     Security shall submit to the Committees on Appropriations of 
     the Senate and the House of Representatives, at the time that 
     the President's budget is submitted each year under section 
     1105(a) of title 31, United States Code, a multi-year 
     investment and management plan for the Border Security 
     Fencing, Infrastructure, and Technology account, that 
     includes for each tactical infrastructure and technology 
     deployment--
       (1) the funding level in that budget and projected funding 
     levels for each of the next three fiscal years, including a 
     description of the purpose of such funding levels;
       (2) the deployment plan, by border segment, that aligns 
     each deployment to mission requirements by defining existing 
     capabilities, identifying known capability gaps between such 
     existing capabilities and stated mission requirements related 
     to achieving operational control, and explaining how each 
     tactical infrastructure or technology deployment will address 
     such known capability gaps; and
       (3) a current acquisition program baseline that--
       (A) notes and explains any deviations in cost, performance 
     parameters, schedule, or estimated date of completion from 
     the most recent acquisition program baseline approved by the 
     Department of Homeland Security Acquisition Review Board;
       (B) includes a phase-out and life-cycle recapitalization 
     schedule delineated by fiscal year for existing and new 
     tactical infrastructure and technology deployments that each 
     deployment is intended to replace or recapitalize; and
       (C) includes qualitative performance metrics that assess 
     the effectiveness of new and existing tactical infrastructure 
     and technology deployments and inform the next multi-year 
     investment and management plan related to achieving 
     operational control of the Northern and Southwest borders of 
     the United States.

 air and marine interdiction, operations, maintenance, and procurement

       For necessary expenses for the operations, maintenance, and 
     procurement of marine vessels, aircraft, unmanned aircraft 
     systems, and other related equipment of the air and marine 
     program, including operational training and mission-related 
     travel, the operations of which include the following: the 
     interdiction of narcotics and other goods; the provision of 
     support to Federal, State, and local agencies in the 
     enforcement or administration of laws enforced by the 
     Department of Homeland Security; and at the discretion of the 
     Secretary of Homeland Security, the provision of assistance 
     to Federal, State, and local agencies in other law 
     enforcement and emergency humanitarian efforts, $499,966,000, 
     to remain available until September 30, 2014: Provided, That 
     no aircraft or other related equipment, with the exception of 
     aircraft that are one of a kind and have been identified as 
     excess to U.S. Customs and Border Protection requirements and 
     aircraft that have been damaged beyond repair, shall be 
     transferred to any other Federal agency, department, or 
     office outside of the Department of Homeland Security during 
     fiscal year 2012 without the prior approval of the Committees 
     on Appropriations of the Senate and the House of 
     Representatives: Provided further, That the Secretary of 
     Homeland Security shall report to the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the Senate and the House of 
     Representatives, not later than 90 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, on the update to the five-year 
     strategic plan for the air and marine program directed in 
     conference report 109-241 accompanying Public Law 109-90 that 
     addresses missions, structure, operations, equipment, 
     facilities, and resources including deployment and command 
     and control requirements, and includes a recapitalization 
     plan with milestones and funding, and a detailed staffing 
     plan with associated costs to achieve full staffing to meet 
     all mission requirements.

                 construction and facilities management

       For necessary expenses to plan, acquire, construct, 
     renovate, equip, furnish, operate, manage, oversee, 
     administer, and maintain buildings and facilities and to 
     provide facilities solutions and related infrastructure along 
     with program management support necessary for the 
     administration and enforcement of the laws relating to 
     customs, immigration, and border security, $234,096,000, to 
     remain available until September 30, 2016: Provided, That the 
     Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection shall 
     submit an expenditure plan to the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the Senate and the House of Representatives 
     not later than 60 days after the date of enactment of this 
     Act for the projects funded under this heading: Provided 
     further, That the Secretary of Homeland Security shall submit 
     to the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the 
     House of Representatives, at the time that the President's 
     budget is submitted each year under section 1105(a) of title 
     31, United States Code, an inventory of the real property of 
     the U.S. Customs and Border Protection and a plan for each 
     activity and project proposed for funding under this heading 
     that includes the full cost by fiscal year of each activity 
     and project proposed and underway in fiscal year 2013.

  Mr. CLARKE of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the 
desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. Does the gentleman from Michigan seek unanimous 
consent to have his amendment considered out of order at this point?
  Mr. CLARKE of Michigan. Yes.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection?
  Mr. ADERHOLT. I object.
  The Acting CHAIR. Objection is heard.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement

                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses for enforcement of immigration and 
     customs laws, detention and removals, and investigations; and 
     purchase and lease of up to 3,790 (2,350 for replacement 
     only) police-type vehicles; $5,522,474,000, of which not to 
     exceed $7,500,000 shall be available until expended for 
     conducting special operations under section 3131 of the 
     Customs Enforcement Act of 1986 (19 U.S.C. 2081); of which 
     not to exceed $15,000 shall be for official reception and 
     representation expenses; of which not to exceed $2,000,000 
     shall be for awards of compensation to informants, to be 
     accounted for solely under the certificate of the Secretary 
     of Homeland Security; of which not less than $305,000 shall 
     be for promotion of public awareness of the child pornography 
     tipline and activities to counter child exploitation; of 
     which not less than $5,400,000 shall be used to facilitate 
     agreements consistent with section 287(g) of the Immigration 
     and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1357(g)); and of which not to 
     exceed $11,216,000 shall be available to fund or reimburse 
     other Federal agencies for the costs associated with the 
     care, maintenance, and repatriation of smuggled aliens 
     unlawfully present in the United States: Provided, That none 
     of the funds made available under this heading shall be 
     available to compensate any employee for overtime in an 
     annual amount in excess of $35,000, except that the 
     Secretary, or the designee of the Secretary, may waive that 
     amount as necessary for national security purposes and in 
     cases of immigration emergencies: Provided further,

[[Page H3858]]

     That of the total amount provided, $15,770,000 shall be for 
     activities to enforce laws against forced child labor, of 
     which not to exceed $6,000,000 shall remain available until 
     expended: Provided further, That of the total amount 
     available, not less than $1,600,000,000 shall be available to 
     identify aliens convicted of a crime who may be deportable 
     and aliens who may pose a serious risk to public safety or 
     national security who may be deportable, and to remove them 
     from the United States once they are judged deportable, of 
     which $194,064,000 shall remain available until September 30, 
     2013: Provided further, That the Assistant Secretary of 
     Homeland Security for U.S. Immigration and Customs 
     Enforcement shall report to the Committees on Appropriations 
     of the Senate and the House of Representatives, not later 
     than 45 days after the end of each quarter of the fiscal 
     year, on progress in implementing the preceding proviso and 
     the funds obligated during that quarter to make such 
     progress: Provided further, That the Secretary shall 
     prioritize the identification and removal of aliens convicted 
     of a crime by the severity of that crime: Provided further, 
     That the funding made available under this heading shall 
     maintain a level of not less than 34,000 detention beds 
     through September 30, 2012: Provided further, That of the 
     total amount provided, not less than $2,750,843,000 is for 
     detention and removal operations, including transportation of 
     unaccompanied minor aliens: Provided further, That of the 
     total amount provided, $10,300,000 shall remain available 
     until September 30, 2013, for the Visa Security Program: 
     Provided further, That none of the funds provided under this 
     heading may be used to continue a delegation of law 
     enforcement authority authorized under section 287(g) of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1357(g)) if the 
     Department of Homeland Security Inspector General determines 
     that the terms of the agreement governing the delegation of 
     authority have been violated: Provided further, That none of 
     the funds provided under this heading may be used to continue 
     any contract for the provision of detention services if the 
     two most recent overall performance evaluations received by 
     the contracted facility are less than ``adequate'' or the 
     equivalent median score in any subsequent performance 
     evaluation system: Provided further, That nothing under this 
     heading shall prevent U.S. Immigration and Customs 
     Enforcement from exercising those authorities provided under 
     immigration laws (as defined in section 101(a)(17) of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(17))) 
     during priority operations pertaining to aliens convicted of 
     a crime.

  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I had an amendment on page 12.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Iowa should be advised that the 
reading has progressed beyond that point in the bill.
  Does the gentleman have an amendment to this portion of the bill?
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to take up 
the amendment on page 12.
  Mr. DICKS. I object.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Chair hears objection.
  Does the gentleman have an amendment to this portion of the bill?
  Mr. KING of Iowa. No, sir.


                 Amendment Offered by Mr. King of Iowa

  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Page 16, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $1,000,000) (increased by 
     $1,000,000)''.

  Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the 
gentleman's amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. A point of order is reserved.
  The gentleman from Iowa is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his 
amendment.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is an amendment that 
strikes $1 million and puts a million back in. It's an amendment that 
has been before this Congress before. It's one that supports the Shadow 
Wolves, and the Shadow Wolves are a part of CBP. They are stationed at 
Sells, Arizona. They are within, mostly the Tohono O'odham reservation.
  They are Native Americans that defend our border and interact 
culturally and regionally in that area. They have been very, very 
effective. Their numbers have gone up, approaching 20, but their 
numbers have diminished now down to only five Shadow Wolves left. They 
have been excellent about tracking smugglers through the desert.
  They have been very effective in law enforcement, and they have been 
shifted back and forth out of Border Patrol into Customs and Border 
Protection in the past, but still their numbers are reduced, and this 
is $1 million that directs them to go forward and expand the Shadow 
Wolves again, to sustain them.
  I think it's a compliment to the Native Americans all across this 
country, the effectiveness the Shadow Wolves have provided on the 
border. Again, I have been down to visit them a number of times, 
watched them in action, participated with them in action.

                              {time}  1910

  Actually with Shadow Wolves, we did a one-strut landing of a 
Blackhawk on top of those lookout points that were my previous 
amendment.
  And so I urge this Congress to take action today to preserve what's 
left of the Shadow Wolves, the five that are there, and encourage and 
direct that there be the employees added to those works. If we let that 
funding reduce any further, the Shadow Wolves are gone probably 
forever, and their effectiveness has been something that's been a 
challenge to the rest of law enforcement along the border.
  I urge the adoption of my amendment, and I yield back the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw the point of order and accept 
the gentleman's amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The reservation is withdrawn.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa 
(Mr. King).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Barrow

  Mr. BARROW. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Page 16, line 24, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced 
     by $5,000,000) (increased by $5,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for 5 
minutes in support of his amendment.
  Mr. BARROW. Mr. Chairman, I recently returned from a trip to our 
southern border at the invitation of our colleague, Gabrielle Giffords. 
While I think it's fair to say that advances have been made since my 
most recent trip to the border in 2007, I feel it's also necessary to 
report that significant challenges remain.
  Successful border security requires a multi-pronged strategy. We need 
the physical presence of boots on the ground. We need to enforce the 
laws on the books to deny benefits to those who are here illegally, and 
we need to identify illegal immigrants who may pose a serious risk to 
public safety or national security and deport them.
  One of our main tools in identifying those public safety risks is the 
Law Enforcement Support Center, or the LESC. The LESC serves as a 
clearinghouse for local law enforcement officials, providing real-time 
information and help on immigration status of illegal immigrants 
suspected, arrested, or convicted of criminal activity.
  In fiscal year 2010, the LESC fielded over 1 million requests for 
information from local law enforcement, and recent changes to State law 
will surely increase those requests. My amendment expresses the intent 
of Congress to prioritize LESC funding, and I urge my colleagues to 
support it.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. I have no objection and accept the gentleman's 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barrow).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                        automation modernization

       For expenses of immigration and customs enforcement 
     automated systems, $23,860,000, to remain available until 
     September 30, 2016: Provided, That the Secretary of Homeland 
     Security shall submit to the Committees on Appropriations of 
     the Senate and the House of Representatives, at the time that 
     the President's budget is submitted each year under section 
     1105(a) of title 31, United States Code, a multi-year 
     investment and management plan for funds made available under 
     this heading that includes--
       (1) the proposed appropriations included for each project 
     and activity tied to mission requirements and outcomes, 
     program management capabilities, performance levels, and 
     specific capabilities and services to be delivered;
       (2) the total estimated cost and projected timeline of 
     completion for all multi-year enhancements, modernizations, 
     and new capabilities proposed in such budget or underway;
       (3) a detailed accounting of operations and maintenance and 
     contractor services costs; and

[[Page H3859]]

       (4) current acquisition program baselines for Atlas and 
     TECS Modernization respectively, that--
       (A) note and explain any deviations in cost, performance 
     parameters, schedule, or estimated date of completion from 
     the original acquisition program baseline;
       (B) align these acquisition programs to mission 
     requirements by defining existing capabilities, identifying 
     known capability gaps between such existing capabilities and 
     stated mission requirements, and explaining how each 
     increment will address such known capability gaps; and
       (C) define life-cycle costs for these programs.

                 Transportation Security Administration

                           aviation security

       For necessary expenses of the Transportation Security 
     Administration related to providing civil aviation security 
     services pursuant to the Aviation and Transportation Security 
     Act (Public Law 107-71; 115 Stat. 597; 49 U.S.C. 40101 note), 
     $5,224,556,000, of which $1,692,000,000 shall be available 
     until September 30, 2013, and of which not to exceed $10,000 
     shall be for official reception and representation expenses: 
     Provided, That of the total amount made available under this 
     heading, not to exceed $4,155,813,000 shall be for screening 
     operations, of which $555,003,000 shall be for explosives 
     detection systems; of which $181,285,000 shall be for 
     checkpoint support; and not to exceed $1,068,743,000 shall be 
     for aviation security direction and enforcement: Provided 
     further, That of the amount made available in the preceding 
     proviso for explosives detection systems, $222,738,000 shall 
     be available for the purchase and installation of such 
     systems, of which not less than 10 percent shall be available 
     for the purchase and installation of certified explosives 
     detection systems at medium- and small-sized airports: 
     Provided further, That notwithstanding section 44923 of title 
     49, United States Code, for fiscal year 2012 any funds in the 
     Aviation Security Capital Fund established by section 
     44923(h) of title 49, United States Code, may be used for the 
     procurement and installation of explosives detection systems 
     or for the issuance of other transaction agreements for the 
     purpose of funding projects described in section 44923(a): 
     Provided further, That none of the funds made available in 
     this Act may be used for any recruiting or hiring of 
     personnel into the Transportation Security Administration 
     that would cause the agency to exceed a staffing level of 
     46,000 full-time equivalent screeners: Provided further, That 
     the preceding proviso shall not apply to personnel hired as 
     part-time employees: Provided further, That not later than 90 
     days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary 
     of Homeland Security shall submit to the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the Senate and the House of Representatives 
     a detailed report on--
       (1) the Department of Homeland Security efforts and 
     resources being devoted to develop more advanced integrated 
     passenger screening technologies for the most effective 
     security of passengers and baggage at the lowest possible 
     operating and acquisition costs;
       (2) how the Transportation Security Administration is 
     deploying its existing passenger and baggage screener 
     workforce in the most cost effective manner; and
       (3) labor savings from the deployment of improved 
     technologies for passenger and baggage screening and how 
     those savings are being used to offset security costs or 
     reinvested to address security vulnerabilities:

      Provided further, That any award to deploy explosives 
     detection systems shall be based on risk, the airport's 
     current reliance on other screening solutions, lobby 
     congestion resulting in increased security concerns, high 
     injury rates, airport readiness, and increased cost 
     effectiveness: Provided further, That security service fees 
     authorized under section 44940 of title 49, United States 
     Code, shall be credited to this appropriation as offsetting 
     collections and shall be available only for aviation 
     security: Provided further, That the sum appropriated under 
     this heading from the general fund shall be reduced on a 
     dollar-for-dollar basis as such offsetting collections are 
     received in fiscal year 2012, so as to result in a final 
     fiscal year appropriation under this heading from the general 
     fund of not more than $3,194,556,000: Provided further, That 
     any security service fees collected in excess of the amount 
     made available under this heading shall be available for 
     fiscal year 2013: Provided further, That Members of the House 
     of Representatives and the Senate, including the leadership; 
     the heads of Federal agencies and commissions, including the 
     Secretary, Deputy Secretary, Under Secretaries, and Assistant 
     Secretaries of the Department of Homeland Security; the 
     Attorney General, Deputy Attorney General, Assistant 
     Attorneys General, and United States Attorneys; and senior 
     members of the Executive Office of the President, including 
     the Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall not 
     be exempt from Federal passenger and baggage screening.
       

                    Surface Transportation Security

       For necessary expenses of the Transportation Security 
     Administration related to surface transportation security 
     activities, $129,748,000, to remain available until September 
     30, 2013.

           Transportation Threat Assessment and Credentialing

       For necessary expenses for the development and 
     implementation of screening programs of the Office of 
     Transportation Threat Assessment and Credentialing, 
     $183,954,000, to remain available until September 30, 2013.

                    Transportation Security Support

       For necessary expenses of the Transportation Security 
     Administration related to providing transportation security 
     support and intelligence pursuant to the Aviation and 
     Transportation Security Act (Public Law 107-71; 115 Stat. 
     597; 49 U.S.C. 40101 note), $1,032,790,000, to remain 
     available until September 30, 2013: Provided, That the 
     Secretary of Homeland Security shall submit to the Committees 
     on Appropriations of the Senate and the House of 
     Representatives detailed expenditure plans for air cargo 
     security, checkpoint support, and explosives detection 
     systems procurement, refurbishment, and installation on an 
     airport-by-airport basis for fiscal year 2013: Provided 
     further, That these plans shall be submitted not later than 
     60 days after the date of enactment of this Act.

                          Federal Air Marshals

       For necessary expenses of the Federal Air Marshals, 
     $961,375,000.

                              Coast Guard

                           operating expenses

       For necessary expenses for the operation and maintenance of 
     the Coast Guard, not otherwise provided for, purchase or 
     lease of not to exceed 25 passenger motor vehicles, which 
     shall be for replacement only; purchase or lease of small 
     boats for contingent and emergent requirements (at a unit 
     cost of no more than $700,000) and repairs and service-life 
     replacements, not to exceed a total of $28,000,000; purchase 
     or lease of boats necessary for overseas deployments and 
     activities; minor shore construction projects not exceeding 
     $1,000,000 in total cost at any location; payments pursuant 
     to section 156 of Public Law 97-377 (42 U.S.C. 402 note; 96 
     Stat. 1920); and recreation and welfare; $7,071,061,000, of 
     which $598,278,000 shall be for defense-related activities, 
     of which $258,278,000 is designated as being for the global 
     war on terrorism pursuant to section 301 of H. Con. Res. 34 
     (112th Congress); of which $24,500,000 shall be derived from 
     the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund to carry out the purposes 
     of section 1012(a)(5) of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (33 
     U.S.C. 2712(a)(5)); and of which not to exceed $20,000 shall 
     be for official reception and representation expenses: 
     Provided, That none of the funds made available by this Act 
     shall be for expenses incurred for recreational vessels under 
     section 12114 of title 46, United States Code, except to the 
     extent fees are collected from owners of yachts and credited 
     to this appropriation: Provided further, That the Coast Guard 
     shall comply with the requirements of section 527 of the 
     National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (10 
     U.S.C. 4331 note) with respect to the Coast Guard Academy: 
     Provided further, That of the funds provided under this 
     heading, $75,000,000 shall be withheld from obligation for 
     Coast Guard Headquarters Directorates until (1) a revised 
     future-years capital investment plan for fiscal years 2012 
     through 2016, as specified under the heading ``Coast Guard, 
     Acquisition, Construction, and Improvements'' of this Act, 
     that is reviewed by the Comptroller General of the United 
     States; (2) the fiscal year 2012 second quarter acquisition 
     report; and (3) the polar operations high latitude study are 
     submitted to the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate 
     and the House of Representatives: Provided further, That 
     funds made available under this heading designated as being 
     for the global war on terrorism pursuant to section 301 of H. 
     Con. Res. 34 (112th Congress) may be allocated by program, 
     project, and activity, notwithstanding section 503 of this 
     Act.

                environmental compliance and restoration

       For necessary expenses to carry out the environmental 
     compliance and restoration functions of the Coast Guard under 
     chapter 19 of title 14, United States Code, $10,198,000, to 
     remain available until September 30, 2016: Provided, That an 
     expenditure plan that itemizes the costs associated with each 
     project identified in the Coast Guard's Environmental 
     Compliance and Restoration backlog report dated April 11, 
     2011, shall be included at the time that the President's 
     budget is submitted each year under section 1105(a) of title 
     31, United States Code, to the Committees on Appropriations 
     of the Senate and the House of Representatives.

                            reserve training

       For necessary expenses of the Coast Guard Reserve, as 
     authorized by law; operations and maintenance of the Coast 
     Guard reserve program; personnel and training costs; and 
     equipment and services; $131,778,000.

              acquisition, construction, and improvements

       For necessary expenses of acquisition, construction, 
     renovation, and improvement of aids to navigation, shore 
     facilities, vessels, and aircraft, including equipment 
     related thereto, and maintenance, rehabilitation, lease and 
     operation of facilities and equipment, as authorized by law, 
     $1,151,673,000, of which $20,000,000 shall be derived from 
     the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund to carry out the purposes 
     of section 1012(a)(5) of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (33 
     U.S.C. 2712(a)(5)); of which $427,691,000 shall be available 
     until September 30, 2016, to acquire, effect major repairs 
     to, renovate, or improve vessels, small boats, and related 
     equipment; of which

[[Page H3860]]

     $328,900,000 shall be available until September 30, 2014, to 
     acquire, effect major repairs to, renovate, or improve 
     aircraft or increase aviation capability; of which 
     $171,140,000 shall be available until September 30, 2014, for 
     other equipment; of which $116,000,000 shall be available 
     until September 30, 2016, for shore, infrastructure, military 
     housing, and aids to navigation facilities, including 
     waterfront facilities at Navy installations used by the Coast 
     Guard, of which $14,000,000 may be derived from the Coast 
     Guard Housing Fund, established under section 687 of title 
     14, United States Code; and of which $107,942,000 shall be 
     available for personnel compensation and benefits and related 
     costs: Provided, That the Secretary of Homeland Security 
     shall submit to the Committees on Appropriations of the 
     Senate and the House of Representatives, at the time that the 
     President's budget is submitted each year under section 
     1105(a) of title 31, United States Code, a future-years 
     capital investment plan for the Coast Guard that identifies 
     for each requested capital asset--
       (1) the proposed appropriations included in that budget;
       (2) the total estimated cost of completion, including and 
     clearly delineating the costs of associated major acquisition 
     systems infrastructure and transition to operations;
       (3) projected funding levels for each fiscal year for the 
     next five fiscal years or until acquisition program baseline 
     or project completion, whichever is earlier;
       (4) an estimated completion date at the projected funding 
     levels; and
       (5) a current acquisition program baseline for each capital 
     asset, as applicable, that--
       (A) includes the total acquisition cost of each asset, 
     subdivided by fiscal year and including a detailed 
     description of the purpose of the proposed funding levels for 
     each fiscal year, including for each fiscal year funds 
     requested for design, pre-acquisition activities, production, 
     structural modifications, missionization, post-delivery, and 
     transition to operations costs;
       (B) includes a detailed project schedule through 
     completion, subdivided by fiscal year, that details--
       (i) quantities planned for each fiscal year; and
       (ii) major acquisition and project events, including 
     development of operational requirements, contracting actions, 
     design reviews, production, delivery, test and evaluation, 
     and transition to operations, including necessary training, 
     shore infrastructure, and logistics;
       (C) notes and explains any deviations in cost, performance 
     parameters, schedule, or estimated date of completion from 
     the original acquisition program baseline and the most recent 
     baseline approved by the Department of Homeland Security's 
     Acquisition Review Board, if applicable;
       (D) aligns the acquisition of each asset to mission 
     requirements by defining existing capabilities of comparable 
     legacy assets, identifying known capability gaps between such 
     existing capabilities and stated mission requirements, and 
     explaining how the acquisition of each asset will address 
     such known capability gaps;
       (E) defines life-cycle costs for each asset and the date of 
     the estimate on which such costs are based, including all 
     associated costs of major acquisitions systems infrastructure 
     and transition to operations, delineated by purpose and 
     fiscal year for the projected service life of the asset;
       (F) includes the earned value management system summary 
     schedule performance index and cost performance index for 
     each asset, if applicable; and
       (G) includes a phase-out and decommissioning schedule 
     delineated by fiscal year for each existing legacy asset that 
     each asset is intended to replace or recapitalize:

      Provided further, That the Secretary shall ensure that 
     amounts specified in the future-years capital investment plan 
     are consistent, to the maximum extent practicable, with 
     proposed appropriations necessary to support the programs, 
     projects, and activities of the Coast Guard in the 
     President's budget as submitted under section 1105(a) of 
     title 31, United States Code, for that fiscal year: Provided 
     further, That any inconsistencies between the capital 
     investment plan and proposed appropriations shall be 
     identified and justified: Provided further, That subsections 
     (a) and (b) of section 6402 of Public Law 110-28 shall apply 
     with respect to the amounts made available under this 
     heading.

              research, development, test, and evaluation

       For necessary expenses for applied scientific research, 
     development, test, and evaluation; and for maintenance, 
     rehabilitation, lease, and operation of facilities and 
     equipment; as authorized by law; $12,779,000, to remain 
     available until September 30, 2016, of which $500,000 shall 
     be derived from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund to carry 
     out the purposes of section 1012(a)(5) of the Oil Pollution 
     Act of 1990 (33 U.S.C. 2712(a)(5)): Provided, That there may 
     be credited to and used for the purposes of this 
     appropriation funds received from State and local 
     governments, other public authorities, private sources, and 
     foreign countries for expenses incurred for research, 
     development, testing, and evaluation: Provided further, That 
     a detailed expenditure plan for the amount requested under 
     this heading shall be included with the President's annual 
     budget submission.

                              retired pay

       For retired pay, including the payment of obligations 
     otherwise chargeable to lapsed appropriations for this 
     purpose, payments under the Retired Serviceman's Family 
     Protection and Survivor Benefits Plans, payment for career 
     status bonuses, concurrent receipts and combat-related 
     special compensation under the National Defense Authorization 
     Act, and payments for medical care of retired personnel and 
     their dependents under chapter 55 of title 10, United States 
     Code, $1,440,157,000, to remain available until expended.

                      United States Secret Service

                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the United States Secret Service, 
     including purchase of not to exceed 652 vehicles for police-
     type use for replacement only; hire of passenger motor 
     vehicles; purchase of motorcycles made in the United States; 
     hire of aircraft; services of expert witnesses at such rates 
     as may be determined by the Director of the Secret Service; 
     rental of buildings in the District of Columbia, and fencing, 
     lighting, guard booths, and other facilities on private or 
     other property not in Government ownership or control, as may 
     be necessary to perform protective functions; payment of per 
     diem or subsistence allowances to employees in cases in which 
     a protective assignment on the actual day or days of the 
     visit of a protectee requires an employee to work 16 hours 
     per day or to remain overnight at a post of duty; conduct of 
     and participation in firearms matches; presentation of 
     awards; travel of United States Secret Service employees on 
     protective missions without regard to the limitations on such 
     expenditures in this or any other Act if approval is obtained 
     in advance from the Committees on Appropriations of the 
     Senate and the House of Representatives; research and 
     development; grants to conduct behavioral research in support 
     of protective research and operations; and payment in advance 
     for commercial accommodations as may be necessary to perform 
     protective functions; $1,666,451,000, of which not to exceed 
     $25,000 shall be for official reception and representation 
     expenses; of which not to exceed $100,000 shall be to provide 
     technical assistance and equipment to foreign law enforcement 
     organizations in counterfeit investigations; of which 
     $2,366,000 shall be for forensic and related support of 
     investigations of missing and exploited children; and of 
     which $6,000,000 shall be for a grant for activities related 
     to investigations of missing and exploited children and shall 
     remain available until September 30, 2013: Provided, That up 
     to $18,000,000 for protective travel shall remain available 
     until September 30, 2013: Provided further, That up to 
     $12,307,000 for National Special Security Events shall remain 
     available until September 30, 2013: Provided further, That 
     the United States Secret Service is authorized to obligate 
     funds in anticipation of reimbursements from Federal agencies 
     and entities, as defined in section 105 of title 5, United 
     States Code, for personnel receiving training sponsored by 
     the James J. Rowley Training Center, except that total 
     obligations at the end of the fiscal year shall not exceed 
     total budgetary resources available under this heading at the 
     end of the fiscal year: Provided further, That none of the 
     funds made available under this heading shall be available to 
     compensate any employee for overtime in an annual amount in 
     excess of $35,000, except that the Secretary of Homeland 
     Security, or the designee of the Secretary, may waive that 
     amount as necessary for national security purposes: Provided 
     further, That none of the funds made available to the United 
     States Secret Service by this Act or by previous 
     appropriations Acts may be made available for the protection 
     of the head of a Federal agency other than the Secretary of 
     Homeland Security: Provided further, That the Director of the 
     United States Secret Service may enter into an agreement to 
     provide such protection on a fully reimbursable basis: 
     Provided further, That of the total amount made available 
     under this heading, $43,843,000, to remain available until 
     September 30, 2014, is for information integration and 
     transformation: Provided further, That none of the funds made 
     available in the preceding proviso shall be obligated to 
     purchase or install information technology equipment until 
     the Chief Information Officer of the Department of Homeland 
     Security submits a report to the Committees on Appropriation 
     of the Senate and the House of Representatives certifying 
     that all plans for such integration and transformation are 
     consistent with Department of Homeland Security enterprise 
     architecture requirements: Provided further, That none of the 
     funds made available to the United States Secret Service by 
     this Act or by previous appropriations Acts may be obligated 
     for the purpose of opening a new permanent domestic or 
     overseas office or location unless the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the Senate and the House of Representatives 
     are notified 15 days in advance of such obligation.

     acquisition, construction, improvements, and related expenses

       For necessary expenses for acquisition, construction, 
     repair, alteration, and improvement of facilities, 
     $6,780,000, to remain available until September 30, 2016.

[[Page H3861]]

                               TITLE III

            PROTECTION, PREPAREDNESS, RESPONSE, AND RECOVERY

              National Protection and Programs Directorate

                     management and administration

       For salaries and expenses of the Office of the Under 
     Secretary for the National Protection and Programs 
     Directorate, support for operations, information technology, 
     and the Office of Risk Management and Analysis, $42,511,000: 
     Provided, That not to exceed $5,000 shall be for official 
     reception and representation expenses.

           infrastructure protection and information security

       For necessary expenses for infrastructure protection and 
     information security programs and activities, as authorized 
     by title II of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 
     121 et seq.), $891,243,000: Provided, That of the amount made 
     available under this heading, $219,420,500 may not be 
     obligated for the National Cyber Security Division program 
     and $148,639,500 may not be obligated for the Office of 
     Infrastructure Protection until the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the Senate and the House of Representatives 
     receive and approve a plan for expenditure for each of these 
     programs that describes the strategic context of the 
     programs, the specific goals and milestones set for the 
     programs, and the funds allocated to achieving each of those 
     goals and milestones: Provided further, That the Secretary of 
     Homeland Security shall submit to the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the Senate and the House of 
     Representatives, at the time that the President's budget is 
     submitted each year under section 1105(a) of title 31, United 
     States Code, (1) an expenditure plan for the Office of 
     Infrastructure Protection and the National Cyber Security 
     Division that describes the strategic context of the 
     programs, the specific goals and milestones set for the 
     programs, and the funds allocated to achieving each of those 
     goals and milestones for the fiscal year being appropriated; 
     and (2) a multi-year investment and management plan for the 
     National Cybersecurity Protection System that identifies--
       (1) the inventory of nests and sensors by location and date 
     of deployment;
       (2) the proposed appropriations included in that budget for 
     each increment sub-divided by procurement, including 
     quantity, deployment, and operations and maintenance;
       (3) projected funding levels for procurements including 
     quantity, deployment, and operations and maintenance for each 
     increment for each of the next five fiscal years; and
       (4) a current acquisition program baseline that--
       (A) aligns the acquisition to mission requirements by 
     defining existing capabilities, identifying known capability 
     gaps between such existing capabilities and stated mission 
     requirements, and explaining how the acquisition of each 
     technology will address such known capability gaps; and
       (B) defines life-cycle costs for each technology, including 
     all associated costs of major acquisitions systems 
     infrastructure and transition to operations, delineated by 
     purpose and fiscal year for the projected service life of the 
     technology.

                       federal protective service

       The revenues and collections of security fees credited to 
     this account shall be available until expended for necessary 
     expenses related to the protection of Federally-owned and 
     leased buildings and for the operations of the Federal 
     Protective Service: Provided, That the Director of the 
     Federal Protective Service shall include with the submission 
     of the fiscal year 2013 budget a strategic human capital plan 
     that aligns fee collection to personnel requirements based on 
     the current threat assessment; Provided further, That an 
     expenditure plan for program, project, and activity and by 
     objective for fiscal year 2012 shall be provided to the 
     Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the House of 
     Representatives not later than 60 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act: Provided further, That an expenditure 
     plan for program, project, and activity and by objective for 
     fiscal year 2013 shall be submitted at the time that the 
     President's budget is submitted each year under section 
     1105(a) of title 31, United States Code, to the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the Senate and the House of 
     Representatives.

    united states visitor and immigrant status indicator technology

       For necessary expenses for the United States Visitor and 
     Immigrant Status Indicator Technology program, as authorized 
     by section 110 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and 
     Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1365a), 
     $297,402,000: Provided, That of the total amount made 
     available under this heading, $194,295,000 is to remain 
     available until September 30, 2014: Provided further, That of 
     the total amount provided, $50,000,000 may not be obligated 
     for the United States Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator 
     Technology program until the Committees on Appropriations of 
     the Senate and the House of Representatives receive a plan 
     for expenditure, prepared by the Secretary of Homeland 
     Security, not later than 90 days after the date of enactment 
     of this Act, that meets the statutory conditions specified 
     under this heading in Public Law 110-329: Provided further, 
     That the Secretary of Homeland Security shall submit to the 
     Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the House of 
     Representatives, at the time that the President's budget is 
     submitted each year under section 1105(a) of title 31, United 
     States Code, a multi-year investment and management plan for 
     the United States Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator 
     Technology program that includes--
       (1) the proposed appropriations for each activity tied to 
     mission requirements and outcomes, program management 
     capabilities, performance levels, and specific capabilities 
     and services to be delivered, noting any deviations in cost 
     or performance from the prior fiscal year expenditure or 
     investment and management plan;
       (2) the total estimated cost, projected funding by fiscal 
     year, and projected timeline of completion for all 
     enhancements, modernizations, and new capabilities proposed 
     in such budget and underway, including and clearly 
     delineating associated efforts and funds requested by other 
     agencies within the Department of Homeland Security and in 
     the Federal Government, and detailing any deviations in cost, 
     performance, schedule, or estimated date of completion 
     provided in the prior fiscal year expenditure or investment 
     and management plan; and
       (3) a detailed accounting of operations and maintenance, 
     contractor services, and program costs associated with the 
     management of identity services.

                        Office of Health Affairs

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Health Affairs, 
     $165,949,000; of which $30,171,000 is for salaries and 
     expenses and $115,164,000 is for BioWatch operations: 
     Provided, That $45,615,000 shall remain available until 
     September 30, 2013, for biosurveillance, BioWatch Generation 
     3, chemical defense, medical and health planning and 
     coordination, and workforce health protection: Provided 
     further, That not to exceed $3,000 shall be for official 
     reception and representation expenses: Provided further, That 
     an expenditure plan for program, project, and activity and by 
     objective for fiscal year 2012 shall be provided to the 
     Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the House of 
     Representatives not later than 60 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act: Provided further, That an expenditure 
     plan for program, project, and activity and by objective for 
     each fiscal year shall be submitted at the time that the 
     President's budget is submitted each year under section 
     1105(a) of title 31, United States Code, to the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the Senate and the House of 
     Representatives.

                  Federal Emergency Management Agency

                     management and administration

       For necessary expenses for management and administration of 
     the Federal Emergency Management Agency, $707,298,000, 
     including activities authorized by the National Flood 
     Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.), the Robert T. 
     Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 
     U.S.C. 5121 et seq.), the Cerro Grande Fire Assistance Act of 
     2000 (division C, title I, 114 Stat. 583), the Earthquake 
     Hazards Reduction Act of 1977 (42 U.S.C. 7701 et seq.), the 
     Defense Production Act of 1950 (50 U.S.C. App. 2061 et seq.), 
     sections 107 and 303 of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 
     U.S.C. 404, 405), Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978 (5 U.S.C. 
     App.), the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 101 et 
     seq.), and the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act 
     of 2006 (Public Law 109-295): Provided, That not to exceed 
     $3,000 shall be for official reception and representation 
     expenses: Provided further, That the Secretary of Homeland 
     Security shall submit an expenditure plan detailed by office 
     for the Federal Emergency Management Agency to the Committees 
     on Appropriations of the Senate and the House of 
     Representatives at the time that the President's budget is 
     submitted each year under section 1105(a) of title 31, United 
     States Code: Provided further, That of the total amount made 
     available under this heading, not to exceed $5,863,000 shall 
     remain available until September 30, 2013, for capital 
     improvements at the Mount Weather Emergency Operations 
     Center: Provided further, That of the total amount made 
     available under this heading, $35,250,000 shall be for the 
     Urban Search and Rescue Response System, of which not to 
     exceed $1,600,000 may be made available for administrative 
     costs; and $5,493,000 shall be for the Office of National 
     Capital Region Coordination: Provided further, That for 
     purposes of planning, coordination, execution, and decision-
     making related to mass evacuation during a disaster, the 
     Governors of the State of West Virginia and the Commonwealth 
     of Pennsylvania, or their designees, shall be incorporated 
     into efforts to integrate the activities of Federal, State, 
     and local governments in the National Capital Region, as 
     defined in section 882 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 
     (Public Law 107-296).

                        state and local programs

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For grants, contracts, cooperative agreements, and other 
     activities, $1,000,000,000, which shall be distributed at the 
     discretion of the Secretary of Homeland Security based on the 
     following authorities:
       (1) The State Homeland Security Grant Program under section 
     2004 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 605).
       (2) The Urban Area Security Initiative under section 2003 
     of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 604), 
     notwithstanding subsection (c)(1) of such section, funds 
     provided under this paragraph may be used for grants to 
     organizations (as described under

[[Page H3862]]

     section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and 
     exempt from tax section 501(a) of such code) determined by 
     the Secretary to be at high risk of a terrorist attack.
       (3) The Metropolitan Medical Response System under section 
     635 of the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 
     2006 (6 U.S.C. 723).
       (4) The Citizen Corps Program, notwithstanding the 
     requirements of subtitle A of title XX of the Homeland 
     Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 603 et seq.).
       (5) The Public Transportation Security Assistance and 
     Railroad Security Assistance, under sections 1406 and 1513 of 
     the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act 
     of 2007 (6 U.S.C. 1135 and 1163): Provided, That such public 
     transportation security assistance shall be provided directly 
     to public transportation agencies.
       (6) Over-the-Road Bus Security Assistance under section 
     1532 of the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 
     Commission Act of 2007 (6 U.S.C. 1182).
       (7) Port Security Grants in accordance with 46 U.S.C. 
     70107.
       (8) The Driver's License Security Grants Program in 
     accordance with section 204 of the REAL ID Act of 2005 (49 
     U.S.C. 30301 note).
       (9) The Interoperable Emergency Communications Grant 
     Program under section 1809 of the Homeland Security Act of 
     2002 (6 U.S.C. 579).
        Provided, That of the amount provided under this heading, 
     $55,000,000 shall be for Operation Stonegarden and 
     $192,663,000 shall be for training, exercises, technical 
     assistance, and other programs, of which $107,000,000 shall 
     be for training of State, local, and tribal emergency 
     response providers: Provided further, That funds provided 
     under section 2003 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 
     U.S.C. 604) shall only be provided to the top 10 highest risk 
     urban areas: Provided further, That notwithstanding 
     subsection (c)(4) of section 2004 of the Homeland Security 
     Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 605), for fiscal year 2012, the 
     Commonwealth of Puerto Rico shall make available to local and 
     tribal governments amounts provided to the Commonwealth of 
     Puerto Rico under the State Homeland Security Grant Program 
     in accordance with subsection (c)(1) of such section 2004: 
     Provided further, That 10 percent of the amounts provided 
     under this heading shall be transferred to ``Federal 
     Emergency Management Agency, Management and Administration'' 
     for program administration, and the Secretary of Homeland 
     Security shall provide an expenditure plan for program 
     administration to the Committees on Appropriations of the 
     Senate and the House of Representatives within 60 days after 
     the date of enactment of this Act: Provided further, That the 
     Secretary shall provide a detailed expenditure plan for 
     program administration for each fiscal year to the Committees 
     on Appropriations of the Senate and the House of 
     Representatives at the time that the President's budget is 
     submitted each year under section 1105(a) of title 31, United 
     States Code: Provided further, That notwithstanding section 
     2008(a)(11) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 
     609(a)(11)), or any other provision of law, a grantee may use 
     not more than five percent of the amount of a grant made 
     available under this heading for expenses directly related to 
     administration of the grant: Provided further, That for 
     grants under paragraphs (1) through (4), the applications for 
     grants shall be made available to eligible applicants not 
     later than 25 days after the date of enactment of this Act, 
     that eligible applicants shall submit applications not later 
     than 90 days after the grant announcement, and that the 
     Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency 
     shall act within 90 days after receipt of an application: 
     Provided further, That for grants awarded under paragraphs 
     (5) through (9), the applications for grants shall be made 
     available to eligible applicants not later than 30 days after 
     the date of enactment of this Act, that eligible applicants 
     shall submit applications within 45 days after the grant 
     announcement, and that the Federal Emergency Management 
     Agency shall act not later than 60 days after receipt of an 
     application: Provided further, That for grants under 
     paragraphs (1) and (2), the installation of communications 
     towers is not considered construction of a building or other 
     physical facility: Provided further, That grantees shall 
     provide reports on their use of funds, as determined 
     necessary by the Secretary: Provided further, That (a) the 
     Center for Domestic Preparedness may provide training to 
     emergency response providers from the Federal Government, 
     foreign governments, or private entities, if the Center is 
     reimbursed for the cost of such training, and any 
     reimbursement under this subsection shall be credited to the 
     account from which the expenditure being reimbursed was made 
     and shall be available, without fiscal year limitation, for 
     the purposes for which amounts in the account may be 
     expended, and (b) the head of the Center for Domestic 
     Preparedness shall ensure that any training provided under 
     (a) does not interfere with the primary mission of the Center 
     to train State and local emergency response providers: 
     Provided further, That not later than 60 days after the date 
     of enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the Federal 
     Emergency Management Agency shall submit to the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the Senate and the House of Representatives 
     a plan to expend by the end of fiscal year 2012 all 
     unexpended balances of funds appropriated for fiscal years 
     before fiscal year 2008 under this heading.


                  Amendment Offered by Ms. Richardson

  Ms. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Page 47, line 10, after ``heading'' insert the following: 
     ``at least $10,000,000 shall be for Buffer Zone Protection 
     Plan Grants, $50,000,000 shall be for Port Security Grants, 
     $100,000,000 shall be for public Transportation Security 
     Assistance and Railroad Security Assistance, $50,000,000 
     shall be for interoperable emergency communications, 
     $42,337,000 shall be for the Metropolitan Medical Response 
     System.''.

  Mr. CARTER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the 
gentlewoman's amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. A point of order is reserved.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California for 5 minutes in 
support of her amendment.
  Ms. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chairman, as former chair and current ranking 
member on the Homeland Security Emergency Preparedness Subcommittee and 
member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, I offer this 
amendment in good faith to save lives and to protect American citizens.
  Like my Republican colleague, Chairman King, I have a strong concern 
with the current appropriations bill in its current form which in and 
of itself could potentially cause dangerous threats to our national 
security by drastically cutting vital response and prevention programs, 
leaving Americans and their visitors vulnerable when we are most in 
time of need.
  My amendment will make great strides to remedy this danger by 
ensuring that the Department of Homeland Security allocates $50 million 
for the Port Security program, $100 million for the Public 
Transportation Security Assistance and Railroad Security Assistance 
program, $50 million for Interoperable Emergency Communications Grant 
program, $10 million for the Buffer Zone Protection program, and $42.3 
million for the Metropolitan Medical Response System.
  The Richardson amendment dedicates $252 million of the $1 billion 
authorized, all while still preserving the chairman's original intent 
by allowing 50 percent of those dollars to remain flexible under the 
direction of what the committee had originally provided and also still 
maintaining the $247 million that the committee designated for 
Stonegarden and for training.

                              {time}  1920

  Mr. Chairman, each and every day, America faces threats to our 
national security. Certainly, the most well-known are the threats to 
our ports and our transit systems, which I have particularly been 
focused on given the fact that my district covers two of the largest 
ports in the entire United States.
  However, these programs that I've mentioned so far go beyond the LA 
area. When you consider the recent tornadoes in Alabama and Missouri, 
the floods in Tennessee, other natural disasters, and other large-scale 
emergency situations facing our Nation, strong and effective security 
and response programs are vital to the lives of all Americans coast to 
coast. It therefore seems counterintuitive and shortsighted to 
undermine port and rail security, medical response and communication 
efforts by cutting the grant programs, or should I say, by not ensuring 
that these particular categories have sufficient funds in them. My 
amendment ensures that the funds will be available for port and rail 
security assistance grant programs.
  Now, despite the recent strides that we have made in the war on 
terror, when we found bin Laden's diary, we learned that he was already 
in the process of having discussions about attacking our transportation 
infrastructure system.
  At the heart of American infrastructure and fundamental to the 
success of our economy is clearly protecting our ports and our rail 
system. These systems have been known to be targeted in the past. All 
we have to think of is Madrid, London and Tokyo. Across the country, 
port and transit security forces are already stretched to the limit, 
and thanks to the substantial cuts that were already made via the end-
of-the-year appropriations bill for fiscal year 2011, their jobs were 
made even more difficult as they were expected to do more with less. 
The same

[[Page H3863]]

is true for other important State and local grant programs, like the 
Metropolitan Medical Response System, which aids emergency medical 
first responders and interoperable communications grants that are so 
important to our first responders.
  Finally, I also want to talk about the buffer zone grants that are 
available, which are important for people to understand. When you think 
``buffer,'' you think maybe a sea area. Actually, they are regional 
assessments that are done to determine if critical infrastructure is 
properly protected. If it is not, those grants go out of that 
particular area to fix it.
  Thus, while prioritizing and dedicating 25 percent of the funds to 
fund port and rail transit grants, medical response programs and 
emergency communication efforts, my amendment preserves the Secretary's 
flexibility to allocate funding as the committee had initially 
directed.
  Therefore, I urge my colleagues to please withdraw their points of 
order, and I ask the Chair to find my amendments in order where they 
are not cutting other programs or adding to the deficit. I ask my 
colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this amendment and provide these key 
elements of national security the funding that they need.
  I yield back the balance of my time.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. CARTER. Mr. Chairman, I understand the gentlelady's argument, and 
I am sympathetic; but I must insist upon my point of order.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. CARTER. I make a point of order against the amendment because it 
provides an appropriation for an unauthorized program and therefore 
violates clause 2 of rule XXI. Clause 2 of rule XXI states in pertinent 
part:
  ``An appropriation . . . may not be in order as an amendment . . . , 
for an expenditure not previously authorized by law.''
  Mr. Chairman, the amendment proposes to appropriate funds for an 
earmark that is not authorized. The amendment therefore violates clause 
2 of rule XXI.
  I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
  The Acting CHAIR. The amendment proposes to earmark certain funds in 
the bill. Under clause 2(a) of rule XXI, such an earmarking must be 
specifically authorized by law. The burden of establishing 
authorization in law rests with the proponent of the amendment. Finding 
that this burden has not been carried, the point of order is sustained, 
and the amendment is not in order.


                  Amendment Offered by Ms. Richardson

  Ms. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Page 47, line 10, after ``Stonegarden'' insert ``, 
     $50,000,000 shall be for Interoperable Emergency Operations 
     Grants,''.

  Mr. CARTER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the 
gentlewoman's amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. A point of order is reserved.
  The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5 minutes in 
support of her amendment.
  Ms. RICHARDSON. I thank the Chair for allowing me to explain my 
amendment to H.R. 2017. The Richardson amendment directs $50 million in 
funding for the Interoperable Emergency Communications Grant Program.
  While the amendment is simple, it is important to keep in mind that 
being able to connect is a matter of life and death. In this 
information age, it seems inconceivable that this bill is suggesting 
that we would not invest in the technology to allow our first 
responders to communicate with one another.
  How many lives would have been saved on 9/11 had New York 
firefighters and police officers been able to communicate? In Joplin, 
Missouri, and in Alabama, every day that passes without interoperable 
communications we put American lives at risk--those who are serving and 
those who are being served. Now is the time for this investment. We 
simply can't afford to delay.
  My amendment will help ensure that public safety officials across the 
United States would have the resources needed to communicate with one 
another across jurisdictions and across disciplines, hence, being able 
to prevent the unnecessary loss of life and property in the event of a 
disaster whether it's natural or manmade. My amendment recognizes the 
immense importance of the Interoperable Emergency Communications Grant 
Program and the work that is still required to establish a nationwide 
infrastructure for reliable emergency communications.
  Mr. Chairman, when I talk about interoperable equipment, I am looking 
to preserve that when we have a first responder who picks up a radio 
that he or she will be able to get in touch with the appropriate people 
to gain critical information when it matters the most. Throughout the 
United States, public safety agencies--law enforcement, firefighters, 
emergency technicians, public health officials, and others--often 
cannot communicate effectively with one another even within the same 
jurisdiction or with other public safety agencies at the Federal, State 
and local levels when responding to emergencies.
  As the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Emergency Preparedness, 
Response, and Communications, I have worked tirelessly to ensure that 
our communities' first responders are equipped with the best possible 
equipment. Interoperable communications allow our Nation's first 
responders to communicate in realtime during an emergency. It has been 
well-documented, including in the 9/11 Commission Report, that the lack 
of sufficient handheld communications devices may have contributed to 
the deaths of 343 firefighters in New York City on September 11, 2001, 
when police could not communicate effectively with firefighters prior 
to the collapse of the Twin Towers. Similarly, the lack of adequate 
equipment exacerbated the difficulties in evacuating people during 
Hurricane Katrina, where many could have been saved if effective 
communications equipment were available not only to public safety 
workers but to transit authorities and others who were involved in that 
evacuation. More recent national catastrophes, including the floods, 
tornadoes, tsunamis, and beyond, clearly continue to make that 
argument.
  I ask of the chairman to find our amendment in order, and I urge my 
colleagues to join me in putting public safety first over politics and 
to support this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. CARTER. Mr. Chairman, I must insist upon my point of order.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. CARTER. I make a point of order against the amendment because it 
provides an appropriation for an unauthorized program and therefore 
violates clause 2 of rule XXI. Clause 2 of rule XXI states in pertinent 
part:
  ``An appropriation . . . may not be in order as an amendment . . . , 
for an expenditure not previously authorized by law . . . ''
  Mr. Chairman, the amendment proposes to appropriate funds for a 
program that is not authorized by law. The amendment therefore violates 
clause 2 of rule XXI.
  I ask for a ruling of the Chair.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Chair finds that the proponent of the amendment 
has not carried the burden of establishing that the appropriation in 
the amendment is specifically authorized by law.
  The point of order is sustained.

                              {time}  1930


              Amendment Offered by Mr. Clarke of Michigan

  Mr. CLARKE of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the 
desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Page 45, line 18, after ``$1,000,000,000,'' insert ``and in 
     addition $2,000,000,000 which is hereby transferred from 
     unobligated amounts provided under the heading `Afghanistan 
     Security Forces Fund' under title IX of Public Law 112-10,''.

  Mr. CLARKE of Michigan (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask 
unanimous consent to dispense with the reading.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from Michigan?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CARTER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the 
gentleman's amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. A point of order is reserved.

[[Page H3864]]

  The gentleman from Michigan is recognized for 5 minutes in support of 
his amendment.
  Mr. CLARKE of Michigan. Mr. Chair, this amendment provides $3 billion 
to the State and local Homeland Security grant program. The effect of 
this amendment would be to fully restore the funding of this program to 
fiscal year 2010 levels. We have got to do this. American families are 
at risk right now. They are at risk of having their homes and their 
businesses demolished, of being injured or even killed, either by a 
natural disaster as occurred in the past few weeks as a tornado swept 
across this country, or by a terrorist attack, which is more likely to 
come from within our borders.
  So we need this funding to hire new firefighters, police officers, 
emergency medical providers and to properly equip them, and to provide 
the radio and communication systems that allow our first responders to 
communicate with their counterparts in other jurisdictions.
  The problem is this: our local governments and our State governments 
don't have the money to fund homeland security investments. It is in 
part because this Congress chose not to effectively address the 
foreclosure crisis. The property values upon which our locals are 
depending to fund first responders have fallen so dramatically, they 
really don't have the resources to do this. It's up to us. This 
Congress, it is our duty to secure the safety of the American people.
  My amendment will do so by taking a portion of the money, the 
billions of dollars we spend overseas in Afghanistan to provide that 
country's security. I say let's take a portion of that and redirect it 
back home to protect Americans right here in our country because it is 
American tax dollars in the first place.
  Mr. Chair, I appreciate your support, and I urge this Committee to 
support this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CARTER. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve my point of order.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman continues to reserve his point of 
order.
  The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. CARTER. Mr. Chairman, in total, this bill provides $1.7 billion 
for Homeland Security first responder grants. Of that, the bill 
provides $1 billion for the Secretary to provide a program that 
addresses the highest need and risk. However, as we are all aware, not 
all programs are funded at the previous year's level.
  Several issues drove these reductions. First, as of today, almost a 
decade after the establishment of DHS, there is no method of measuring 
what our Nation is receiving for the $38 billion investment in DHS 
grants. There are no metrics that indicate how much safer we are today 
or how much safer we will be if we provide additional funds. This lack 
of quantitative measurement is intolerable, particularly in today's 
tight economic times.
  Second, grant recipients are not spending the funds that have been 
provided. Of the $38 billion provided for the first responder grants, 
$13 billion remained unspent. In these trying times, we cannot afford 
to leave funds sitting on the table when other programs need additional 
resources and the debt skyrockets.
  These cuts will not be easy, but they are long overdue and necessary 
to address the out-of-control Federal spending. I urge my colleagues to 
oppose this amendment.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. CARTER. I must insist upon my point of order.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. CARTER. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes 
legislation in an appropriation bill and therefore violates clause 2 of 
rule XXI. The rule states in pertinent part: an amendment to a general 
appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.
  This amendment constitutes a transfer not permitted under rule XXI.
  I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
  The Acting CHAIR. Does any Member wish to be heard on the point of 
order?
  Mr. CLARKE of Michigan. I would like to address the point of order.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Michigan is recognized on the 
point of order.
  Mr. CLARKE of Michigan. Mr. Chair, what I heard is my amendment may 
not be in accordance with the rule; but I know one thing, it's in 
accordance with what we need in this country.
  We need to take a share of that money that we are spending in 
Afghanistan to secure those people to secure our people here back home. 
That money that you say is not being spent, give it to me. The city of 
Detroit, we'll spend that money. We need the police officers, the 
firefighters, the emergency medical providers and radios to talk to 
each other.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman must confine his remarks to the point 
of order.
  Mr. CLARKE of Michigan. I will do so, Mr. Chair, and to that end, I 
ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment and will offer separate 
legislation to protect the American people. We need to redirect that 
money from Afghanistan and bring it back home. Our people need it. It 
is our money in the first place.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
  There was no objection.


              Amendment Offered by Mr. Clarke of Michigan

  Mr. CLARKE of Michigan. Mr. Chair, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Page 47, beginning at line 14, strike ``Provided further, 
     That funds provided under section 2003 of the Homeland 
     Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 604) shall only be provided to 
     the top 10 highest risk urban areas:''.

  Mr. CLARKE of Michigan (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask 
unanimous consent to dispense with the reading.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CARTER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the 
gentleman's amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. A point of order is reserved.
  The gentleman from Michigan is recognized for 5 minutes in support of 
his amendment.
  Mr. CLARKE of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, what this amendment does is 
remove the restriction that the Urban Areas Security Initiative funding 
should be restricted to the top 10 urban areas by risk. You see, there 
are other metropolitan areas in this country that I believe are at 
similar or even higher risk of terrorist attack or damage through any 
other type of catastrophe.
  The metro Detroit area is one of those. That area, the area that I 
represent, has the busiest border crossing in all of North America and 
has an international airport. It has a huge metropolitan population 
center. It has the world headquarters of General Motors. We are at high 
risk of an attack; but yet right now, according to the Homeland 
Security risk metrics, we are not rated in the top 10. We should be 
eligible for this funding, as well as other metropolitan areas.
  Here's the point: even though bin Laden is now gone, we are still at 
risk of a terrorist attack in this country. But it is more than likely 
that terrorists will likely come from within the borders. So the first 
defense we have against terrorism or any other natural disaster is our 
first responders. We need more firefighters, more police officers, more 
emergency medical providers. They need to be properly trained and have 
the equipment, the radios and communication devices to communicate with 
each other.
  The best way to protect our citizens, it is not spending it only 
overseas, all of our tax dollars, but investing it right here at home. 
This amendment will make sure that urban areas that are at high risk of 
an attack, such as metro Detroit, get the funds that they need.
  The bottom line point is this: the reason we should step in and 
support our local units of government is because this Congress in the 
past did not effectively address the foreclosure crisis which has 
really robbed local units of government of their power to fund their 
first responders. The property values have dropped so low the money 
isn't even there.
  I am asking Congress now: don't turn your back on this obligation to 
the

[[Page H3865]]

American people. Let's redirect money to the Homeland Security budget, 
to our first responders, our people there at the first line of defense 
against an attack from a terrorist or any type of natural disaster that 
could impact our people.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge this committee's support for this amendment, and 
I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1940

  Mr. CARTER. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation on the point of 
order, and I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. CARTER. The bill before us today is born out of the need for 
reform. It consolidates disparate grant programs and provides 
discretion to the Secretary. These reforms include funding reductions, 
requirements for measurement, and requirements for spending languishing 
dollars.
  The consolidation of this bill forces the Secretary to examine the 
intelligence and risk and put scarce dollars where they're needed most, 
whether it's a port, rail, surveillance, or access and hardening of 
projects, or whether it is to high-risk urban areas or to States, as 
opposed to reverse engineering projects to fill the amount designated 
for many programs or granting funds to lower risk.
  Additionally, as noted by the gentleman, the bill limits Urban Area 
Security Initiative grants to the top 10 highest cities. Again, this 
puts scarce dollars to where they are needed most. That means that 
cities like New York are funded at significantly higher levels than 
other cities because they are the highest-rent urban areas. I don't 
think anyone here can argue with that. This does not mean lower-risk 
areas will lose all funding. It just means that funds will come from 
other programs such as State homeland grants that are risk and formula 
based.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to support fiscal discipline by 
aligning funding with the areas of highest risk and vote ``no'' on this 
amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HIGGINS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. HIGGINS. Mr. Chairman, our amendment would enhance public safety 
in communities across the country by striking the provision in the bill 
that would limit participation in the Urban Area Security Initiative 
program to just 10 cities.
  Homeland Security Secretary Napolitano has said that the architecture 
of homeland security begins in the homeland. The Urban Area Security 
Initiative program protects the hometown by allowing first responders 
and emergency officials to practice coordinating response scenarios 
across jurisdictional lines. Until recently, the program supported 
these crucial activities in 64 communities, including my own, judged by 
the Department of Homeland Security to be vulnerable to terrorist 
attack. That was until we decimated the program by cutting 20 percent 
of its funding in the continuing resolution.
  Rather than allow all communities to suffer cuts proportionately, the 
Department made matters worse by deciding to eliminate half of the 64 
communities from the program, including all four communities in upstate 
New York. Let us not make a third mistake this year by limiting 
participation in this important program to even fewer urban areas.
  Mr. Chairman, my community of western New York includes four 
international bridge crossings and the busiest passenger crossing at 
the northern border; the largest electricity producer in New York 
State; and the homegrown al Qaeda terrorist cell, the Lackawanna Six. 
It sits along two Great Lakes which contain the largest freshwater 
supply in the world, and it is within a 500-mile radius of 55 percent 
of the American population and 62 percent of the Canadian population.
  For 8 years the Department evaluated western New York to be a highly 
vulnerable area and thus eligible for the Urban Area Security 
Initiative. Now, this year the Department wants to eliminate us from 
the program, and this bill would codify that decision. Why? What has 
changed? We are still vulnerable, according to the Department's own 
assessment, and we will still need the resources to prevent and respond 
to attacks.
  Mr. Chairman, this body should not prevent my community, or the other 
54 communities the Department has judged to be vulnerable, from this 
essential Homeland Security program. I oppose this provision of the 
bill, and I urge adoption of our amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, finally, I would like to thank the cosponsors of this 
amendment: Representatives Berkley, Tonko, Ellison, Moore, Wasserman 
Schultz, Capps, Slaughter, Cuellar, Fudge, and Wilson.
  Now I would like to yield to the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. 
Berkley).
  Ms. BERKLEY. Thank you, Mr. Higgins.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Higgins amendment to eliminate 
a provision in this bill that would harm Las Vegas, Phoenix, Denver, 
Miami, Atlanta, Baltimore, Detroit, and dozens more cities around the 
country.
  This bill before us would eliminate any funding for the Urban Area 
Security Initiative for all but the top 10 highest-risk urban areas, 
leaving over 50 U.S. cities off the list, including my own city of Las 
Vegas, one of the greatest tourist destinations in the world with over 
37 million visitors a year.
  For almost a decade, the UASI program has worked to help cities 
prevent and protect themselves from threats and acts of terrorism. Not 
too long ago, over 60 U.S. cities received funding to help them 
purchase equipment, develop recovery plans, and implement 
counterterrorism strategies.
  In my home city of Las Vegas, for example, we've created the Southern 
Nevada Counter Terrorism Center, where 18 State, local, and Federal 
agencies all work together to detect and prevent terrorists and other 
homeland security-related events. This kind of fusion center is based 
on the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission to help law enforcement 
agencies communicate more effectively so they can put the pieces 
together that could prevent attacks. UASI funding has been an essential 
part of that center, and cutting off funding to that center now would 
put their excellent and possibly lifesaving work at risk.
  Southern Nevada is home to Nellis Air Force Base and Hoover Dam and 
some of the largest hotels on the planet. We know that some of the 9/11 
terrorists visited Las Vegas before the horrific attack on our Nation.
  Mr. Chairman, after the capture and killing of Osama bin Laden, we 
also know that terrorists are increasingly focusing their interests on 
mid-sized cities rather than large cities. Many of those would now not 
be receiving Federal funding were this provision to become law. This is 
being done when the risk of retaliation by both homegrown terrorists 
and al Qaeda and al Qaeda affiliates is very high. I implore my 
colleagues not to leave some of America's greatest cities vulnerable 
and without the necessary funding to protect themselves.
  At a time when States and local governments are struggling to balance 
their budgets, we need help more than ever to prevent and prepare 
against terrorist attacks. This provision would be salt to the wounds.
  I urge support for this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman from New York has 
expired.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from New York is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  While I have serious misgivings about the funding levels for FEMA 
first responder grants, restoration of the Urban Area Security 
Initiative to its intended purpose is good policy. By limiting UASI 
recipients to the 10 highest-risk cities, Chairman Aderholt would 
ensure that UASI is focused on addressing the unique planning, 
equipment, and training needs of high-threat, high-density urban areas 
in order to prevent, respond to, and recover from acts of terrorism 
against the highest-risk American targets.
  Originally distributed to seven metropolitan areas, UASI ballooned to 
64 regions in FY10, many of which were neither high threat nor high 
density. By increasing the number of UASI recipients without additional 
funding,

[[Page H3866]]

this amendment would deplete resources for cities most at risk for 
terrorist attacks.

                              {time}  1950

  With intelligence about intent to attack the United States around the 
10th anniversary of September 11--which is fast approaching--now is the 
time to focus our resources where they are most needed, not spread the 
wealth.
  Every region, however--I want to make it clear to my colleague--every 
region is entitled to Federal security resources, and that's why the 
State Homeland Security Grant program provides funding to each State 
and territory. However, in addition, Congress has the responsibility to 
allocate funding to address unique needs, and UASI was intentionally 
designed to protect those densely populated areas most at risk.
  The 9/11 Commission said it best, ``Federal Homeland Security 
assistance should not remain a program for general revenue sharing; it 
should supplement State and local resources based on the risks or 
vulnerabilities that merit additional support. Congress should not use 
this money as a pork barrel.''
  I want to make a couple of other points, and I urge my colleagues to 
oppose this amendment for the following reasons. For example, based on 
projections recently released by FEMA for FY 2011, New York State will 
receive more than $141 million in DHS funds separate from UASI. Buffalo 
will be one of five cities in New York to receive funding from the 
Metropolitan Medical Response System; that's $1.4 million for these 
cities. Further, Buffalo is scheduled to receive more than $1.4 million 
from the Port Security Grant program. In FY 2010, Erie County also 
received $940,000 from the Interoperable Emergency Communications Grant 
program, a program which I had a little bit to do to create. Lastly, 
the Robert Moses Power Plant was previously awarded a buffer zone 
protection grant in FY 2007, only 58 percent of which has been spent.
  So I want to make it very clear--I can go on. Michigan got 
$21,468,166, and we have a whole list of what other cities have gotten 
and States because they deserve that money. Every State, region, and 
community is entitled to Federal resources for homeland security. 
However, UASI was a program that was not intended to spread the wealth 
among every region. And other DHS initiatives better address the needs 
of most areas of the country.
  So I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered 
by my colleague regarding the Urban Area Security Initiative.
  As New Yorkers, we know firsthand the absolutely critical role that 
our State and local police and firefighters play in preventing and 
responding to attacks on the American homeland. The Urban Area Security 
Initiative, or UASI, administered by the Department of Homeland 
Security, is a program focused on enhancing regional preparedness in 
high-risk areas by fostering better communication and collaboration 
amongst local fire responders. Given the struggles we have faced since 
the crisis on Wall Street, these are communities that increasingly 
cannot afford to provide their citizens--our citizens--with the same 
level of protection that UASI enables.
  This bill, as written, arbitrarily restricts UASI to allow only 10 
urban areas to be eligible for the program, and its funding, down from 
more than 60 in previous years. No one here today would argue that 
Manhattan and Los Angeles are undeserving of priority assistance. 
However, with this arbitrary cap, we will endanger the progress that 
many other high-risk urban areas have made to protect our citizens from 
attacks and crises. We will threaten the ability of these communities--
including my community in upstate New York--to safeguard our citizens.
  We are making these cuts at home while we pay hundreds of billions of 
dollars each year for our military-industrial complex to fight an 
incredibly expensive war in Afghanistan with the aim of preventing 
terror attacks in America. We are going to spend more than $12 billion 
this year to build up Afghan security forces while our own security 
forces in Albany and the Capital Region and 50 other cities across 
America are stripped of their funding under UASI. Is our strategic 
thinking that backwards, or is it just more lucrative to build a 
multibillion-dollar army halfway around the world than to help our 
police and firefighters here at home protect and defend our 
constituents?
  I would propose to take $1 billion of that $12 billion and put it 
back into a deserving and necessary program like UASI, but according to 
the rules set by the Republican leadership, that is not allowed. So I 
stand here today in support of this amendment and in support of New 
York.
  In my home district in upstate New York, the Albany Urban Area 
Working Group has used UASI grants to make great strides forward in 
boosting local cooperation and collaborative planning. This group 
unites participants from Albany, Rensselaer, Saratoga, Schenectady, and 
Schoharie Counties around a common goal of protecting a region critical 
to the security of New York State and the stability of America.
  From building a truly interoperable regional communications network 
to securing the Capital Region's critical infrastructure, the work of 
this group is absolutely vital to protecting the Empire State. Whether 
threatened by natural or manmade disasters, it is clear that New York 
is and should be at the top of our priority list to protect.
  I represent New York's Capital Region, an area that bears tremendous 
economic and symbolic importance. Thirty-five million people live 
within a 200-mile radius of our State capital in Albany. Albany also 
houses New York's most vital State government facilities and more than 
11,000 State government employees that keep the Empire State up and 
running. These functions are vital not only to our area, but also to 
our fellow New Yorkers downstate and across our State, and to Americans 
across this country who do business in, with, and through New York.
  The Capital Region is also home to the third-fastest-growing hub for 
science and technology jobs in our Nation. That projected clustering, 
alongside high-profile research and development centers in our Tech 
Valley corridor, add to the vital importance of this region to an 
American economy that needs more leaders in innovation.
  In Albany, we host the world-renowned Nanotechnology Research Center 
where 250 industry leaders partner with the United States Army to push 
us past the current bounds of science. In Schenectady, we host GE's 
renewable energy global headquarters. In Schoharie, our reservoir 
provides a significant portion of New York City's water supply. In 
Watervliet, we have a one-of-a-kind Army arsenal. And just a few miles 
away we host an atomic power laboratory doing world class R for the 
United States Naval Nuclear Propulsion program. Nearby in Malta is a 
facility that will soon be the most advanced chip fabrication plant in 
the world. The hometown heroes who protect all of these facilities and 
more will lose their funding through UASI entirely if this bill passes 
in its current form.
  And so in support of New York's Capital Region and similar areas 
across this country, I stand in support of this amendment, this 
amendment that will remove an arbitrary 10-city restriction on the UASI 
program from this bill, this amendment, that will not add $1 to the 
debt or deficit, this amendment that will not cost us one single dollar 
but rather will provide us a commonsense approach.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. STIVERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Ohio is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. STIVERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Clarke).
  I represent Columbus, Ohio, which in the past has been one of the 
Tier II cities that has received Urban Security Initiative funds. The 
current version of this bill would restrict Urban Security Initiative 
funds to only Tier I cities, which would be the top 10 riskiest cities. 
The problem is the risks don't stop

[[Page H3867]]

at number 10, and it's not clear that there is any significant 
reduction in risk between the tenth-riskiest city and the 11th-riskiest 
city. This is an arbitrary decision, and the Clarke amendment ends the 
arbitrary 10-city restriction and allows the Department of Homeland 
Security to have discretion in funding risks. It does not increase 
funding one cent.
  I urge adoption of the Clarke amendment. And I would just like to 
make it clear that the whole point of this amendment is to remove an 
arbitrary restriction and give the Department of Homeland Security the 
ability to fund where the risks are. This amendment does not add a dime 
to the cost. It increases flexibility. And it won't necessarily cost 
cities like New York or any other city any funds. All it does is allow 
cities to be eligible so that if there is real risk there and the 
Department of Homeland Security chooses to fund that city, then they 
can fund it. So it's a commonsense approach.
  I ask my colleagues to support the Clarke approach.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the amendment 
offered by my colleague regarding UASI.
  This amendment will better ensure that all cities and localities will 
be eligible for critical UASI funding, not just those under the 
arbitrary caps that are in the underlying bill.
  UASI funding is critical to my district of Sacramento, California, 
and a number of other major American cities. It has helped create and 
develop one of the Nation's foremost counterterrorism and readiness 
task forces located at the former McClellan Air Force Base in my 
district. This facility has greatly enhanced the collaboration and 
communication amongst local, State, and Federal law enforcement 
agencies and first responders. From there, officials are better able to 
prevent attacks by training, sharing information, and coordinating 
investigations. And in the unthinkable scenario in which an attack does 
occur, this facility, funded by UASI dollars, will better able the 
region's law enforcement and first responders to react and respond to 
an attack.



                          ____________________