Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2012

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

The CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.

The Clerk read as follows:

Page 3, line 9, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced by $50,000,000)''.

Page 7, line 13, after the first dollar amount, insert ``(increased by $50,000,000)''.

Page 7, line 21, after the dollar amount, insert ``(increased by $50,000,000)''.

Mr. McCAUL (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask to dispense with the reading.

The CHAIR. Without objection, the amendment will be considered as having been read.

Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.

The CHAIR. The gentleman from Alabama reserves a point of order.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, we have not seen the amendment.

The CHAIR. Is the gentleman objecting to the unanimous consent request propounded by the gentleman from Texas that the amendment be considered as having been read?

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Yes, I am. We have not seen the amendment.

The CHAIR. Objection is heard.

The Clerk will continue to read the amendment.

The Clerk continued to read.

The CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his amendment.

Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Chairman, my amendment will increase spending by $50 million for Customs and Border Protection's Air and Marine operations. It will include funding for at least 2 UAV systems, as well as much needed helicopters and marine vessels to assist CBP operations along the border.

This amendment will provide the resources to increase the number of flight crews, training, and ground operations needed to support the mounting requests for aerial surveillance missions and boat crews to patrol the rivers and lakes along our border.

CBP air marine support supplements our agents on the ground, allowing CBP to deploy fewer agents in a specific area. CBP air marine currently operates 7 UAVs and intends to grow the fleet to a total of 18 to 24 by 2016.

I have seen the benefits of these missions personally, along with my good friend and colleague from the Homeland Security Committee, Mr. Cuellar, to whom I yield at this time.

Mr. CUELLAR. I want to thank my good friend from Texas. I also want to thank the chairman and the ranking member for everything they have done for border security. We really appreciate it.

We just feel that we ought to put a little bit of money to have the OM and, of course, the UAVs. We have gone down to Corpus. We have been there with General Kostelnik, who I think is doing a great job.

What they do is provide ICE, in the sky, flying at 19,000 feet, they can see what is happening, and it provides the intelligence to the State, Federal and local. It is certainly something I support.

I want to thank again my friend, Mr. McCaul, for the work that you have done on this particular amendment.

Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

POINT OF ORDER

Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, I insist upon my point of order.

The CHAIR. The gentleman will state his point of order.

Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, the amendment proposes to amend portions of the bill not yet read. The amendment may not be considered en bloc under clause 2(f) of rule XXI because of outlays in the bill.

I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

The CHAIR. Does any Member wish to be recognized on the point of order?

If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.

Similar to the last ruling, to be considered en bloc pursuant to clause 2(f) of rule XXI an amendment must not propose to increase the levels of budget authority or outlays in the bill.

Because the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas proposes a net increase in the level of outlays in the bill as argued by the chairman of the subcommittee, it may not avail itself of clause 2(f) to address portions of the bill not yet read. The point of order is sustained.

AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. MCCAUL

Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

The CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.

The Clerk read as follows:

Page 3, line 9, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced by $10,000,000)''.

Page 45, line 18, after the dollar amount, insert ``(increased by $10,000,000)''.

Page 47, line 10, after the dollar amount, insert ``(increased by $10,000,000)''.

Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment.

The CHAIR. The gentleman reserves a point of order.

The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his amendment.

Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Chairman, this amendment will increase funding for Operation Stonegarden by $10 million. And while the underlying bill increases funding from $50 million to $55 million, it is not enough.

Operation Stonegarden is a grant program that provides funding to county-level governments along the border to prevent, protect against, and respond to border security issues as well as enhance cooperation and coordination between Federal, State, and local agencies.

At the last House Homeland Security Emergency Communications, Preparedness, and Response Subcommittee hearing, Sheriff Gonzalez of Zapata County and Sheriff Larry Dever of Arizona explained the need for drastic increases in this funding. While $55 million is woefully inadequate when spread around, I believe an additional $10 million would advance the cause.

With that, I yield again to my good friend from Texas.

Mr. CUELLAR. Again, I want to thank the gentleman from Texas. I want to thank the chairman and the ranking member for the work that they have done for border security.

Again, both Mr. McCaul and I feel that we ought to add a little bit more help to the local sheriffs and the police that get this assistance.

One of the things that we've seen is, of course, making sure that we don't have that spillover coming in from the Republic of Mexico. And by giving this assistance, whether it's the sheriff down there in Brownsville or going all the way up to El Paso, it's something that's needed, and I certainly support my friend to make sure we increase the funding for Stonegarden by the amount he has asked for.

Again, thank you for your leadership, and again, thank you to the chairman and ranking member for the work they have done on border security.

Mr. McCAUL. I yield back the balance of my time.

POINT OF ORDER

Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, I insist on my point of order.

The CHAIR. The gentleman will state his point of order.

Mr. ADERHOLT. The amendment may not be considered en bloc under clause 2(f) of rule XXI because the amendment proposes to increase the level of outlays in the bill.

I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

The CHAIR. Does any Member seek to speak on the point of order?

Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Chairman, this is just a question for my good friend from Alabama.

It's my understanding that these moneys are actually offset by the Under Secretary of Management's office. There is not an increased outlay.

The CHAIR. Does the gentleman from Alabama wish to be heard further?

The gentleman is recognized.

Mr. ADERHOLT. The amendment proposes to increase the level of outlays in the bill.

I insist on my point of order.

The CHAIR. Does any other Member seek to be heard on the point of order? If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.

For the reasons stated by the Chair in the previous ruling, the amendment may not avail itself of clause 2(f) of rule XXI to address portions of the bill not yet read.

The point of order is sustained.

AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. MCCAUL

Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.

The Clerk read as follows:

Page 3, line 9, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced by $10,000,000)''.

Page 16, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert ``(increased by $10,000,000)''.

Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment.

The CHAIR. The gentleman from Alabama reserves a point of order.

The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his amendment.

Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Chairman, this amendment will increase funding for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the salaries and expenses in order to increase the number of Border Enforcement Security Task Force teams.

I, along with Mr. Cuellar, have been down to the border and seen the direct benefits of the BEST teams in terms of interdicting the southbound flow of cash and weapons. It's my sincere hope that with additional resources we could stop the flow of weapons going south into Mexico, but also seize the cash and asset forfeiture money that could then, in turn, help pay for our border security operations.

With that, I yield to my good friend from Texas.

Mr. CUELLAR. Again, I want to thank my colleague from Texas. And again, I want to thank the chairman and the ranking member for all the work that they have done for border security.

The BEST program is the program that works. Basically what it does is it coordinates State, Federal, local and also our international partners, both Canadians and Mexicans, to work together to make sure that they are able to focus on the same thing, and that is fight transnational crime. It's an idea that worked very well--in fact, it got started in Laredo, Texas. It expanded now to both the northern and southern part of the United States.

And I certainly support my friend to make sure that we work and make sure that the BEST program gets stronger.

Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

POINT OF ORDER

Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, I insist on my point of order.

The CHAIR. The gentleman will state his point of order.

Mr. ADERHOLT. The amendment may not be considered en bloc under clause 2(f) of rule XXI because the amendment proposes to increase the level of outlays in the bill.

I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

The CHAIR. Does any Member wish to speak to the point of order? If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.

For the reasons stated by the Chair in the previous rulings, the amendment may not avail itself of clause 2(f) of rule XXI to address portions of the bill not yet read.

The point of order is sustained.

AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. MCCAUL

Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

The CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.

The Clerk read as follows:

Page 3, line 9, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced by $10,000,000)''.

Page 7, line 13, after the first dollar amount, insert ``(increased by $10,000,000)''.

Page 12, line 6, after the dollar amount, insert ``(increased by $10,000,000)''.

The CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his amendment.

Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Chairman, this amendment will increase funding by $10 million for border security fencing, infrastructure and technology. Secretary Napolitano's cancellation of the Secure Border Initiative delays the deployment of technology to secure the border.

Mr. ADERHOLT. I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment.

The CHAIR. The gentleman's reservation is not timely.

The gentleman from Texas has been recognized for 5 minutes in support of his amendment.

Mr. McCAUL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The backbone of the new proposed system, integrated fixed towers, will not be in place until January 2013. In place of SBInet, a new border surveillance technology plan has been developed that abandons the fixed sensor tower nature of the original SBInet plan and replaces it with multiple technologies. As a result, the new plan consists of a reduced number of sensor towers envisioned in the SBInet plan, and in their place, lower cost technologies such as mounted radar and camera systems, portable and imaging systems, and thermal imaging devices.

The Secretary said that technology will not be deployed to cover the entire southern border until the year 2025. I believe that is unacceptable. This amendment provides funding for readily available technology that we can deploy quickly to secure the border before that timeframe.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. ADERHOLT. I rise in opposition to the amendment.

The CHAIR. The gentleman from Alabama is recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, this will breach our outlays, and I oppose the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I simply want to back my chairman in this instance and also urge a rejection of the amendment.

The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. McCaul).

The amendment was rejected.

AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. MCCAUL

Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

The CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.

The Clerk read as follows:

Page 3, line 9, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced by $10,000,000)''.

Page 16, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert ``(increased by $10,000,000)''.

Page 18, line 23, after the dollar amount, insert ``(increased by $10,000,000)''

Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment.

The CHAIR. The gentleman from Alabama reserves a point of order.

The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his amendment.

Mr. McCAUL. This amendment will increase funding for the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Office of Detention and Removal. While the underlying bill does increase funding by $26 million, we need more.

DRO is the primary enforcement arm within ICE for the identification, apprehension and removal of illegal aliens from the United States. DRO is severely underresourced. It is overwhelmed and does not have the resources to do its job. ICE has stated repeatedly that they simply don't have the manpower and resources to deport illegal aliens, even criminal aliens identified through the 287(g) program. The Federal Government has its responsibility, and it needs to step up to the plate.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

POINT OF ORDER

Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, I insist upon my point of order.

The CHAIR. The gentleman will state his point of order.

Mr. ADERHOLT. The amendment proposes to amend portions of the bill not yet read. The amendment may not be considered en bloc under clause 2(f) of rule XXI because the amendment proposes to increase the level of outlays in the bill.

I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

The CHAIR. For the reasons stated by the Chair in the previous rulings, the amendment may not avail itself of clause 2(f) of rule XXI to address portions of the bill not yet read.

The point of order is sustained.

AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. MCCAUL

Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

The CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.

The Clerk read as follows:

Page 3, line 9, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced by $10,000,000)''.

Page 16, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert ``(increased by $10,000,000)''.

Page 17, line 10, after the dollar amount, insert ``(increased by $10,000,000)''

Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment.

The CHAIR. The gentleman from Alabama reserves a point of order.

The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his amendment.

Mr. McCAUL. This amendment will nearly triple the amount of funding for the popular 287(g) program, which authorizes the Secretary of Homeland Security to permit specially trained State and local law enforcement officers to apprehend, investigate or detain aliens during a predetermined time frame and under Federal supervision by ICE.

It is an important force multiplier for ICE in allowing for enhanced capabilities to detain and remove illegal aliens identified by local law enforcement during the course of their duties.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source