The vote today to finally approve funding for Homeland Security through September 30, 2015:

FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 109

     H R 240      YEA-AND-NAY      3-Mar-2015      3:14 PM

     QUESTION:  On Motion to Recede and Concur in the Senate Amendment

     BILL TITLE: Making appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2015, and for other purposes

—- YEAS    257 —

Clay

Cleaver

—- NAYS    167 —

Graves (MO)

Hartzler

Luetkemeyer

Wagner

—- NOT VOTING    9 —

Long

Smith (MO)

Previously:

Rep. Vicky Hartzler (r): Were you there? (February 28, 2015)

This morning:

Jim White ‏@JW_for_Congress

Time for a change. This congress is not working. Government should govern. 7:25 AM – 28 Feb 2015

You got that right.

Last night the U.S. House of Representatives settled on a voting on a measure to continue funding Homeland Security for one more week. You read that right. One more week.

[….]

One Hundred Fourteenth Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE FIRST SESSION

[….]

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. FURTHER CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS.

   The Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2015 (Public Law 113-164; 128 Stat. 1867) is amended by striking the date specified in section 106(3) and inserting `March 6, 2015′.

[….]

[emphasis in original

One week. They get to play this game next week, too. The vote:

FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 106

[….]

     H R 33      2/3 RECORDED VOTE      27-Feb-2015      9:59 PM

     QUESTION:  On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Concur in the Senate Amendment

—- AYES    357 —

Clay

Cleaver

Graves (MO)

Luetkemeyer

Smith (MO)

Wagner

—- NOES    60 —

—- NOT VOTING    15 —

Hartzler

Long

[emphasis added]

Not Voting? Why?

This afternoon Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano held a conference call to discuss the President’s signing of the Southwest Border Security legislation into law. This is the media question and answer session after Secretary Napolitano’s opening remarks:

Previously: White House Conference Call: Homeland Security Sec. Janet Napolitano on the border security bill

…Question: Uh, good afternoon Secretary Napolitano. Uh, I have a, a two prong question for you, both related to the funding for this legislation. Uh, the first one is that, uh, this relies on the rescission of a hundred million dollars from SBINet and I know the President, uh, that was part of his original request, but will that in anyway, uh, take away from border security or, or any way divert from, from the efforts that are a part of this bill?

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano: No. Uh, we had proposed that. It had included in the original ask by the President. Uh, after doing an analysis of, of, uh, whether that would have any, uh, uh, any uh [inaudible] impact…

…Question: I see. And, and my second question is this, the, the funding, uh, as I understand, about five hundred fifty million that comes from H1Bs and L visas, is that a dependable source of funding? Because my understanding is that some of these companies, uh, that will bear the burden of these fees, uh, could do things that would remove them from this pool of target companies that are the, the funding source of this bill. So, uh, can the Department of Homeland Security depend on this, uh, as a reliable source of funding?

Secretary Napolitano: Uh, uh, we believe so. Uh, the Senate and the House obviously believe so.  And the CBP believes so because they, uh, issued an analysis that, uh, affirmed this source of funding.

[….]

Question: Um, I just had a couple quick questions specifically on the, um, forward operating bases. Can you just tell me a little bit more about what those are and have you decided where they’re gonna go? And then just on the overarching, I know you somewhat addressed this in the, um, in the White House briefing, but, um, having been here for a number of years watching, uh, immigration reform and, uh, both the politics and the admin, administrative stuff being done it, it, it seems that’s all that ever has been done in, in the past decade is enforcement. And once again, President Obama has promised, um, immigration reform, uh, comprehensive immigration reform that includes legalization but, what’s come instead is, um, enforcement. Um, I’m just kind of wondering why anyone who has supported the President, uh, in the past would, should support him any longer if he was unable to deliver on this.

Secretary Napolitano: Well, to, on the forward operating base [inaudible] it is exactly, uh, what the name implies. It is a, a, uh, a facility, uh, that will enable Border Patrol agents and, uh, some of their support to be located physically at the border as opposed to, uh, [inaudible] from the border where they have to drive to the border, um, and we have, we’ve got several options for those. We have not yet determined where those are going to be. With respect to your second point I just think it’s inaccurate all the way around. Uh, first of all, uh, the President has done everything, uh, uh, presidentially possible, uh, to affirm his desire for a comprehensive immigration reform bill, uh, that would address enforcement but also address, uh, worker [inaudible]  and also address, uh, those illegally in the country and how they, uh, get right with the law and earn, earn the right to, uh, seek the privilege of citizenship. And so, uh, he has, uh, met with, uh, Republican and Democratic leadership. Uh, he’s called them personally. He has, uh, issued, uh, a public, uh, affirmation of the framework that was endorsed by, uh, Senator Schumer and Graham. He’s given a major address at American University. Uh, so he continues to, uh, have this at the top of, uh, the agenda and moving forward. But as you know, and as I said in the White House briefing, he, he can’t introduce, I mean, he can’t pass a bill, I mean. And the Democrats alone cannot pass a bill, they need sixty. And they’re gonna need Republicans, uh, who are willing to, uh, get to the table and really deal with this, uh, major national issue.

[….]

Question: Secretary, first off, I was wondering if you could just tell us how the one thousand Border Patrol agents will be dispersed, as far as you know, state by state. And also, a second question, that Texas Governor Rick Perry on Monday gave the President a letter with some, uh, some of his own ideas on how to secure the border. Have you read that letter? And if so, will it have any kind of impact on, on how you’ll be moving forward with the border security issues?

Secretary Napolitano: I have not personally read that letter. I, I, I have read some of the governor’s comments in, in the, in the open press. Uh, but I will tell you, look, we’re not just gonna throw money at the border. Uh, this is all designed to be mission specific. We know exactly, for example, uh, what the National Guard that we’re sending down there are going to do, where they’re going to be. Uh, with respect to the new agents, uh, that are funded in this bill, uh, it takes on average eight months from the time of hire to get a new agent trained, located, and on the ground. And we will put those agents where we think the needs are greatest. Uh, where the needs, uh, and, and that will [inaudible] time as you know. Uh, and so, uh, we will want to be flexible and we want, we will want to put our resources where, uh, the needs, uh, the needs are manifest.

[….]

Question: Good, good morning, Secretary. Good afternoon, I guess, there. I did want to follow up on something you talked about, uh, your seventeen years in public service including here as governor. And you, you perennially made an issue of State Criminal Alien Assistance Program funding. And [inaudible] wondering, since you were speaking for the administration, why hasn’t the administration asked for full funding for this the same as you did when you were Arizona governor?

Secretary Napolitano: Well, as you know, SCAAP is, uh, is, uh, funded through the Department of Justice, not the Department of Homeland Security. Uh, uh, but, uh, I think the administration has chosen to support states in a, in a number of other ways. For example, uh, by providing more, uh, what’s called Stone Guard monies for state and local law enforcement. That’s, that’s money that they can use for overtime, to hire new folks, uh, to help pay for, uh, vehicles and equipment that they need for law enforcement, Um, so, uh, those monies have been made available. Uh, more, uh, or COPS funding that, uh, localities can draw down, uh, particularly locales, uh, on the border. Uh, our grant guidance, uh, this year, uh, uh, part of it will be, uh, to support Fusion Centers and Fusion Centers, uh, are very important in places like the bor, like the border. So, from a DHS perspective, since we don’t have SCAAP in our, uh, in our bailiwick, uh, I can’t respond to that, uh, uh, question, but I can say we have looked for many other ways to support state and local law enforcement.

[….]

Question: Uh, Secretary, the question that I had was specific to New Mexico. Um, I know there’s been a lot of, uh, focus on Arizona and now some focus on Texas. Um, in terms of the assets and how they’re allocated, uh, throughout the states I know that you can’t specifically say exactly how much is, uh, going where, but what does this mean for New Mexico on the grand scope of things?

Secretary Napolitano: Uh, well, uh, thank you, uh, well, what it means is, is that, uh, we will continue to, to put resources in New Mexico, uh, uh, to deal with th
e situation there. It is a somewhat different situation, just plain old numbers wise, uh, than you have in Arizona and Texas and so the resources we deploy, uh, there will reflect that. But they will all be designed to make sure we have a safe and secure border, uh, throughout, uh, the southwest, uh, for all, all of the four border states, California, Arizona, New Mexico, and, and Texas. Uh, I say that, um, as someone who actually grew up in New Mexico, so, uh, just as I keep a special eye on Arizona as the former governor, I have a lot of personal experience with New Mexico as well.

[….]

Question: Uh, Madam Secretary, back to Governor Perry, uh, you said that the, uh, uh, the border’s no place for, for politics. Uh, uh, when you said that did, were you personally referring to Governor Perry? Do you believe he’s politicizing the border and his constant criticism of, uh, of, uh, your administration’s efforts?

Secretary Napolitano: Yeah, uh, no I was not specifically referring to Governor Perry. I know Governor Perry and, and I’ve worked with him for a number of years. Uh, we, we were fellow border governors, uh, together. Uh, uh, I do believe that the border, whether you’re dealing with it, uh, back here in Washington, D.C. or out, uh, in the southwest, uh, needs to be addressed for what it is. It’s a, an important, uh, area for the country, lots of trade and commerce [inaudible] those ports. Uh, you’ve got those huge ports, uh, in Texas, for example the, uh, through which a tremendous amount of trade needs to pass and they’re responsible for a number of jobs, uh, in the United States. Uh, and then you’ve got to protect the area between the ports and you’ve got to have interior enforcement, so it’s a whole system of manpower, technology, infrastructure to have in place. And this administration, quite frankly, has put more resources in the southwest border in all of those categories than has ever been put there before in, in United States history.

[….]

Question: Good afternoon, Secretary. Have you personally spoken with Senators McCain or Kyl  here in your home state about the prospect of immigration reform and what do they say to you?

Secretary Napolitano: Uh, I, I met with both of them, but I would say it has been, uh, uh, probably some time ago, so I think you, it would not be, uh, correct to say that the, the three of us are in a constant dialog about that.

[….]

Question: Uh, yes, Madam Secretary, uh, the governor of Virginia has offered to, uh, have Virginia State Police be deputized to enforce federal immigration law in the commonwealth. Uh, I have done some, uh, interviews with some people in, for example, Hanover County, where they say they can’t, uh, harvest the tomato crops without immigrant labor, both legal and illegal. Is the administration open to the governor’s offer to, uh, deputize our state police to enforce immigration law?

Secretary Napolitano: Well, I, I think, uh, uh, ICE is currently, uh, reviewing nine separate juris, there are nine jurisdictions that have, uh, current applications in. They’re called 287G agreements. Uh, uh, deputization would not I think be the right word. It’s where, uh, certain mem, uh, a certain number of state police or local police are trained in immigration enforcement and work, uh, either in jails, uh, or in task force settings with federal agents. Uh, and we have, uh, uh, really, uh, uh, reformed that program to be, to, uh, uh, to be what it needs to be and to have the kind of accountability it needs to have. So, Virginia’s application is pending and ICE will review it. Uh, I’m not sure how that relates to the second part of your question, which is the lack of agricultural workers, uh, except to say that that is something we hear all over the United States. Uh, uh, indeed, uh, uh, uh, you, you hear it in border states and in states, uh, uh, like Washington, uh, in terms of, uh, picking the apple crop, in Washington State, and that all goes to demonstrating the need for overall immigration reform.

[….]

Question: Good afternoon, Secretary. Well, um, my question is twofold and I’m curious whether the new money will give the, uh, department a new opportunity to work clo, more closely with the individual police departments along the border. There continue to be these anecdotes of the Zetas moving into Texas and to some Texas ranches and I’m curious how that’s been responded to. And then also, whether the, um, the department is going to deal any differently with the issue of whether Mexico, now talking seriously about legalizing drugs, showing some fatigue on the drug war and how will the, the response be different to them?

Secretary Napolitano: Well, uh, uh, because we continue to augment and put resources at the border, uh, because some of them are going to be used for intelligence gathering and analysis, uh, they will be working, uh, on some of those issues like the Zetas, uh, uh, and working with institutions like EPIC for example, uh, to make sure that resources are focused where they need to. We don’t want those, uh, large organizations, uh, infiltrating, uh, even more into the United States. Again, a safe and secure border zone all the way from San Diego to Brownsville. Uh, and different cartels, uh, claim turf or jurisdiction over different parts of the border, so we’re very conscious of that, uh, and we’re going to keep working to, to prevent that from occurring.

[….]

This afternoon Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano held a conference call to discuss the President’s signing of the Southwest Border Security legislation into law:

….Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano: Thank you and, and thank you all for participating on the call. Uh, I was pleased to be with the President earlier today as he signed the bill providing six hundred million dollars and additional resources to further strengthen security along the southwest border. Uh, I’d like to particularly applaud the Congress for acting in a bipartisan manner, uh, and taking quick action on this bill, uh, particular Senators Schumer and McCaskill, and of course Senator Reid and Speaker Pelosi.

Uh, this legislation adds permanent resources to bolster, uh, security along the southwest border, supporting efforts to, uh, cut down on, uh, transnational criminal organizations and to reduce the trafficking of people, drugs, currency, and weapons. [inaudible] is important in two respects. First, it adds new resources to the border, but second it makes permanent many of the assets that we have been surging along the southwest border, uh, since basically march of two thousand and nine.

Uh, now, uh, let me just pause there for a moment. I have, uh, been working on the border on border related issues for seventeen years as a public servant, as the U.S. Attorney for Arizona, as the Attorney General of Arizona and as the two-term Governor of Arizona. Uh, I believe firmly that the border is not a political or partisan issue. And it shouldn’t be. It’s a matter of national security in which everyone has a stake. So, uh, on that score, even before this bill was signed, or indeed, even before the President made his formal request for these monies, uh, the administration had already devoted more resources to the southwest border than ever before in United States history.

Uh, these efforts have made a difference. Seizures are up and rose across the board last year. Uh, apprehensions or illegal crossings are down. Uh, for the first time ever we’re screening one hundred percent of southbound rail. Uh, criminal alien removals are at an all time high. We’ve added more technology, manpower, and resources than ever before. This is a systematic long term effort to defeat the cartels, uh, who continue to try to exploit the border. And the administration is dedicated to a long term systematic approach. Uh, that’s one of the reasons why the President ordered the National Guard to the border and why he asked Congress for the supplemental funding that he was pleased to sign today.

Now, what’s in the bill? Uh, bill provides funding for another one thousand, uh, border patrol agents. It contains sixty-eight million dollars for customs and border protection officers at ports of entry, uh, who facilitate legal trafficking, uh, or legal traffic, excuse me, and the interdiction of contraband. It allows, uh, ICE, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, to hire more than two hundred special agents. Uh, they’ll be doing investigations and many will be doing, uh, intelligence analysis. Uh, it provides two more unmanned aircraft systems and has money for tactical communications technology. What does that mean? It means that agents along the border who can’t use cell phones because of the remoteness of the border, uh, will have updated and improved technology to communicate with each other.  Uh, there’s also a hundred and ninety-six million dollars in the bill for the Department of Justice, uh, to surge federal law enforcement agents like DEA and ATF, uh, to add prosecutors, to add immigration judges, and to support detention and incarceration, uh, of, uh, illegal immigrants who are, uh, seized and incarcerated in coordination with the Department of Homeland Security’s enforcement efforts. Uh, there’s also money in the bill to, uh, construct twp forward operating bases, uh, for improved border enforcement.

So, uh, clearly this bill is a, uh, really a, a terrific, uh, tool in our multi, uh, faceted toolbox of enforcement efforts and resources along the southwest border. Uh, and as I have said many times before it’s enforcement that is layered. It includes manpower, technology, and infrastructure. Uh, and it’s enforcement that needs to be constant, uh, along the border, the entire expanse of it, all the way from San Diego to Brownsville, Texas. Uh, this bill will enable us to sustain that and to maintain that, uh, and that is, uh, so very, very important.

Uh, so with that let me, uh, stop and, uh, and open it up for questions….

The President’s June 22, 20010 request [pdf].

Claire McCaskill will get to chair a new subcommittee under the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee (chaired by everybody’s favorite, Joe Lieberman). This subcommittee, the Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Contract Oversight, will be responsible for overseeing all federal contracting. Quite the plum for McCaskill, who will be able to draw on her previous experience as auditor.

Press release below the fold in full.

January 29, 2009  

LIEBERMAN ANNOUNCES NEW HSGAC SUBCOMMITTEE

MCCASKILL TO GET CONTRACTING GAVEL

WASHINGTON – Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee Chairman Joe Lieberman, ID-Conn., Thursday announced he is creating a new, ad hoc subcommittee to oversee federal contracting. Committee Member Senator Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., will chair the new Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Contracting Oversight.

“Management of federal contracts is one of the greatest operational challenges facing the federal government,” Lieberman said. “Spending on federal contracts rose to an astounding $532 billion last year. And for years the Government Accountability Office has listed government contracting on its list of programs at high risk of waste, fraud, abuse, mismanagement, or in need of comprehensive reform. This is a problem area that needs as much oversight as we can possibly muster.

“So, to more fully address the array of problems with federal contracting, I am establishing this new subcommittee with pride and great expectations. With her background as a prosecutor and state auditor, Senator McCaskill has unique investigative experience that will be crucial for this new subcommittee. I am certain that she will approach her new responsibilities with unmatched vigor to improve the value of all the taxpayer dollars devoted to federal contracting.”

McCaskill said: “Last year we made major strides in contracting accountability by establishing the Wartime Contracting Commission, and while I look forward to those investigations, we all know that outrageous contracting abuses occur in every facet of government. I can’t wait to get to work saving huge money for taxpayers. They deserve it.”

HSGAC has had a longstanding interest in reducing waste, fraud, and abuse in the area of federal contracting. The Committee has held numerous hearings on contracting problems within the Department of Homeland Security, waste in Iraq and Afghanistan reconstruction programs, problems created by private contractors in war zones, and the rapid increase, government-wide, in contracting for goods and services.

In the 110th Congress, the Committee marked up major contracting legislation introduced by Ranking Member Susan Collins, R-Me., and Lieberman, and co-sponsored by McCaskill. Many of the measure’s provisions were enacted in 2008 and 2009 as provisions of Defense authorization legislation.  

###  

I called Senator Claire McCaskill’s office in Washington today to ask if she had voted to retain Joe Lieberman as chair of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. I was able to leave a message with Maria Speiser, Senator McCaskill’s press secretary. After a short round of telephone tag I was able to speak with Ms. Speiser.

I asked her how Senator McCaskill voted. Ms. Speiser replied that she had voted for Senator Lieberman. She added that her reason for doing so was to follow the lead of President-elect Obama – moving past the election and working together because there are a lot of challenges.

I asked – given Senator Lieberman’s previous lack of oversight hearings – if Senator McCaskill thought he would change his ways and if she was confident that he had done a good job as chair. Ms. Speiser replied that Senator McCaskill always encouraged oversight. Claire McCaskill is a member of the Homeland Security committee.

Finally, I asked how Senator McCaskill would explain retaining Senator Lieberman as chair to those in the grassroots who worked to elect Obama, all while Senator Lieberman did the opposite. Ms. Speiser replied that Senator McCaskill had worked hard [to elect Obama], too. Senator McCaskill’s view was that the election was over and we needed to move forward. Ms. Speiser added that President-elect Obama had also encouraged this view among senators.

…Senator McCaskill, were you one of the thirteen?

Lieberman Retains Chairmanship By 42-13 Margin

It’s Official: Lieberman Won

Lieberman Survives on 42 to 13 Vote

I hope so. Especially since oversight is so important to you.