Congressional Record, Volume 152 Issue 70 (Tuesday, June 6, 2006)

[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 70 (Tuesday, June 6, 2006)]
[House]
[Pages H3367-H3376]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2007

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 836 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. 5441.

{time} 1415

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. 5441) making appropriations for the Department of
Homeland Security for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2007, and
for other purposes, with Mr. McHugh (Acting Chairman) in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose on
Thursday, May 25, 2006, the amendment by the gentleman from Colorado
(Mr. Tancredo) had been disposed of and the bill had been read through
page 62, line 17.
Pursuant to the order of the House of that day, no further amendments
to the bill may be offered except those specified in the previous order
of the House of that day, which is at the desk.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Culberson

Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Culberson:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to process applications or petitions for immigration
benefits submitted to the United States Citizenship and
Immigration Services until October 1, 2007. This section
shall not apply with respect to--
(1) processing applications or petitions submitted before
October 1, 2006, for such benefits; and
(2) processing applications or petitions relating to visas
under section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b)) (commonly
referred to as H-1B nonimmigrant visas).

The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of May 25,
2006, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Culberson) and a Member opposed
each will control 5 minutes.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman reserves a point of order.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I bring this amendment to the House
today to focus the attention of the House, of the White House, of the
country on an urgent and very serious problem with the Citizen
Immigration Service.
CIS is responsible for reviewing and approving any application for
citizenship, for green cards, for visas, for I-90s for people entering
the United States temporarily or permanently.
Yet this agency is so incompetent and so poorly run, all of us know,
those of us representing border States, that the level of illegal
immigration in the country is overwhelming. We have got people entering
the country literally at will over our borders.
Based on my own investigation, what I have learned from visiting the
border firsthand, it is possible for terrorists to enter the United
States just walking over the border, or frankly they can come right
through the front door at the Citizenship and Immigration Service
offices, the CIS offices, because the agency is not running criminal
background checks on people applying for visas or green cards or I-90s
or citizenship.
The agency, when they do run background checks, the Inspector General
reports, that among people who are applying to enter the United States
temporarily, there is a 90 percent error rate in security checks being
run on these folks. If you are entering as a refugee, there is a 64
percent error rate.
Now, this is on running criminal background checks on foreign
nationals seeking to enter the United States, at a time when we are at
war with terrorists who we know are seeking to enter the United States
to hurt us. The terrorists who attacked us on September 11 were using
dozens and dozens and dozens of fraudulent driver's licenses, phony
IDs; they were, many of them, visa overstays.
This agency is so incompetent, so poorly run that in fact they even
hired an Iraqi spy and swore him in as an officer of the United States
to interview foreign nationals applying to enter the United States.
This was reported first in the Washington Times on April 6.
After this was confirmed that this guy was an Iraqi spy, he flew to
Baghdad and walked out of the Green Zone and disappeared. This is a
huge national security problem, Mr. Chairman. And the problem is really
systemic throughout CIS, because their focus is not on national
security, but customer service.
This agency's sole primary motivation is on the convenience of the
foreign national, to make sure that Osama bin Laden's cousin out in the
lobby is not hindered or slowed down in any way, that his application
is stamped and approved as rapidly as possible.
Chairman Rogers has done a superb job in doing everything that he can
to bring the CIS, and ICE and Homeland Security, to heel. I know he is
aware of the severity of this problem.
My amendment would stop the use of any funds for CIS to process
immigration applications other than H1Bs for 1 year, so they can catch
up and catch their breath. We know the backlog is so bad right now that
they are simply overwhelmed, they are years behind. We know they are
not running criminal background checks, and the criminal background
checks they do run on these foreign nationals are just riddled with
errors.
My amendment is intended to shut that process down for a year to
allow them to catch up. The Homeland Security reauthorization is coming
up this summer. I intend to pursue this very aggressively with Chairman
King. I bring this amendment to the attention of the House today and do
intend to withdraw it.
I understand we need to work through the Homeland Security
authorization bill on this, Mr. Chairman. But it is an extraordinarily
serious and dangerous problem that the country needs to be aware of.
There has even been information brought to my attention and to the
chairman's attention that the foreign intelligence agencies have
probably penetrated CIS at very high levels and are able to remotely
print out visas, I-90s, passports, citizenships to fraudulent
individuals remotely on command using laptop computers from anywhere in
the world.
This agency I think poses a very serious threat to the national
security of the United States. I intend to pursue it very aggressively
with the reauthorization of the homeland security bill.
Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment to the House today to focus the
House's attention on it, bring it to the attention of the Nation. And I
thank the chairman, Chairman Rogers, on trying to clear up this agency
and homeland security.
Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.

Amendment Offered by Ms. Matsui

Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment offered by Ms. Matsui:
At the end of the bill (before the short title) insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to carry out the policy of the Department of Homeland
Security

[[Page H3368]]

that the risk-based formula used for purposes of the Urban
Area Security Initiative does not take into account strategic
defense considerations, local government assets that serve
the military, proximity to international borders, presence of
visitors to the urban area, the presence of drug trafficking
and other organized crime activities that relate to
terrorism, or the catastrophic and cascading effects of an
attack on critical infrastructure including dams and levees.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman reserves a point of order.
Pursuant to the order of the House of May 25, 2006, the gentlewoman
from California (Ms. Matsui) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Chairman, in January, the Department of Homeland
Security made significant changes to our homeland security effort. They
announced the areas eligible for fiscal year 2006 UASI grants.
For the first time, Sacramento and San Diego were not identified as
high-risk areas. While Sacramento and San Diego did receive fiscal year
2006 funding, the new eligibility guidelines have put our funding for
next year and beyond in jeopardy.
Sacramento is the capital of the sixth largest economy in the world
and home to dozens of critical Federal and State governmental
buildings. Much of the State's water, electricity, and
telecommunications systems are managed from Sacramento. Of considerable
concern is an attack on Sacramento's dams and levees, not only because
of potential loss of life and impact to Sacramento's families, but an
economic impact as well. According to a Sacramento Bee analysis, the
economic impact of a major flood in Sacramento would cost the region
$35 billion. This is damage to homes, loss of jobs, and government
revenues.
The San Diego area contains the Nation's seventh largest city
adjacent to a heavily trafficked international border, a busy port, and
tourist attractions. Nor should it be overlooked that a number of naval
and Marine bases are located in San Diego, including the largest naval
base in the country.
With fewer installations after four rounds of BRAC, an attack on even
one could result in even greater impact. An attack of either of these
cities would have repercussions well beyond our region.
Therefore, Congressman Filner and I have very real concerns about
DHS's new eligibility guidelines accurately addressing our homeland
security needs. We all agree that a risk-based grant program is an
effective use of our limited resources. However, policy is only as good
as the information that goes into it.
DHS has already acknowledged that it failed to take into account the
catastrophic downstream impact to my district if there were an attack
on Folsom Dam. This only raises the question of what other targets have
they overlooked.
That is why we need to ensure that DHS properly considers the
catastrophic and cascading effects of an attack on critical
infrastructure such as dams and levees, as well as determine a way to
factor in the presence of drug trafficking and other organized crime
activities that relate to terrorism and strategic defense
considerations.
This amendment would withhold funding until DHS has properly
addressed these issues. It would ensure accountability. It is important
that DHS address these concerns. We need increased transparency and
understanding of the process before the next UASI review is conducted.
Unfortunately, it is unlikely that a DHS reauthorization bill will
come to the floor before the next risk assessment begins.
As a result, we must take this opportunity to require DHS to perform
a thorough threat assessment of each urban area. We have an obligation
to ensure we are meeting our national security needs. But the questions
surrounding the UASI grant eligibility draw into question whether we
are meeting that need.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Point of Order

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against
the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and
constitutes legislation in an appropriations bill and therefore
violates clause 2 of rule XXI, which states, in pertinent part, an
amendment to a general appropriations bill shall not be in order if
changing existing law.
This amendment prescribes a policy. I ask for a ruling from the
Chair.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there Members desiring to be heard on the point of
order?
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Chairman, I wish the gentleman would withdraw his
point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is prepared to rule.
The amendment embodies a statement of policy, not by way of citation
but instead by prescription. As such, it constitutes legislation in
violation of clause 2(c) of rule XXI.
The point of order is sustained, and the amendment is not in order.

Amendment Offered by Mr. King of Iowa

Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. King of Iowa:
Page 62, after line 17, insert the following:
Sec. 537. None of the the funds appropriated or otherwise
made available in this Act may be used in contravention of
section 642(a) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and
Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1373(a)).

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman reserves a point of order.
Pursuant to the order of the House of May 25, 2006, the gentleman
from Iowa (Mr. King) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Iowa.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, today I am offering an amendment on
behalf of Representative Campbell. This amendment prevents State and
local governments who refuse to share information with Federal
immigration authorities by adopting sanctuary policies from getting
Federal funds in this appropriation.
Mr. Chairman, there are some cities and States around the country
that have such laws, and they blatantly encourage illegal immigration.
Such laws prohibit law enforcement officials from reporting to the
Department of Homeland Security illegal aliens when they are discovered
through the normal course of law enforcement practice.
Section 642(a) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant
Responsibility Act of 1996 makes it illegal for local and State
governments to adopt such laws.
These laws, known as sanctuary policies, prevent open communication
between local and Federal law enforcement and pose a great risk to all
American citizens. We cannot risk letting a dangerous criminal walk out
of the sanctuaried city and possibly into our community instead by
being deported as the law dictates.
Across the Nation there are repeated examples of illegal aliens, who,
on multiple occasions, have been apprehended by local governments only
to be released to commit other crimes.

{time} 1430

The Washington Times has reported that in a December rape of a woman
in New York, four of the five men charged in the case were illegal
immigrants, and three had prior convictions that, in keeping with
Federal law, would have allowed their deportation. Unfortunately,
because the New York City sanctuary policy which prevented city police
from sharing information with Federal immigration authorities, these
criminals were released by local law enforcement authorities rather
than deported. Had New York not enacted a sanctuary policy, this rape
may never have happened. Why take a chance on letting another rapist or
potential terrorist walk out of a sanctuary city police station and
possibly into your community instead of being deported.
Sanctuary policies allow local governments to effectively set up
their own patchwork of individual immigration sanctuaries. This
directly usurps the authority granted to the Federal Government under
the Constitution to establish our Nation's immigration policies. Some
may argue that this amendment would coerce State and local police
officers to step into the role of Federal immigration agents.

[[Page H3369]]

This is a false argument, Mr. Chairman. The Campbell amendment would
not require States and local officials to assume any new duties. It
would merely ensure that local and State law enforcement agencies obey
existing Federal law and cooperate with Federal officials.
It is clear that we need a mechanism to ensure compliance. This
amendment provides one by withholding Federal funding from those
localities that prohibit law enforcement from sharing information with
our Federal enforcement authorities.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Minnesota insist upon his point
of order?
Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, under my reservation, I would like to direct
some questions to the gentleman from Iowa. I have trouble understanding
the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman may continue to reserve the point of
order and be recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. SABO. Under my reservation, I would like to ask the gentleman
from Iowa some questions.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman tell me, does the
Department have the authority, not the authority but is the Department
doing what the gentleman suggests today?
Mr. KING of Iowa. Which department do you refer to?
Mr. SABO. The Department of Homeland Security.
Mr. KING of Iowa. I don't believe that the Department of Homeland
Security is enforcing this law currently, and I do believe they should.
But this is the most expeditious method by which we can get enforcement
of a law that has been on the books for 10 years and it is a clear law.
Mr. SABO. So the gentleman is suggesting that he wants the Department
to be doing something that they are not doing today?
Mr. KING of Iowa. I am suggesting that local government is directly
violating the law, and this is the most expeditious way to get
compliance of the Federal law.
Mr. SABO. My question was not about local government. It was about
whether DHS would be doing something under his amendment that they are
not doing today.
Mr. KING of Iowa. I don't direct DHS to do anything under this
amendment except to evaluate if the local governments are receiving
funds under this appropriations and if they have a sanctuary policy
that is on the books.
Mr. SABO. What DHS funding is used today in contravention of section
642(a) of the 1996 Immigration Act?
Mr. KING of Iowa. I think if the gentleman would, that we understand
that funds are fungible, and when they go into an appropriations
process to a local government, that there can be interdepartmental
transfers within those local governments that would be very difficult
to track and give a precise answer to. But if funds are going into a
local government and local government has a sanctuary policy, one can
presume that some of those dollars are being used to support the
sanctuary policy. And that is what this amendment seeks to prevent.
Mr. SABO. So DHS would have to clearly be tracking significantly more
money than they track today?
Mr. KING of Iowa. Did you say keep track of?
Mr. SABO. Tracking of how the money is spent that they do not do
today?
Mr. KING of Iowa. I think it is very clear that these sanctuary
policies are printed, they are a matter of public record. There are a
limited number of jurisdictions. Although it is a significant list, it
is still limited. And it is not a difficult task to identify
communities. They self-identify. And if it gets to be a bit too much
work for DHS, I would be happy to provide the list to them, sir.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that from the answers this
gentleman has given, that this clearly is putting additional
responsibilities on the Department of Homeland Security.

Point of Order

The CHAIRMAN. Does the Chair understand the gentleman to insist upon
a point of order under clause 2 of rule XXI?
Mr. SABO. Yes, I do.
The CHAIRMAN. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point of
order?
Mr. KING of Iowa. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I point out that the language of
the amendment merely requires the Federal official administering these
funds to comply with Federal law. A new duty is not required in the
face of the amendment, and because we are simply asking them to comply
with current Federal law, I don't adjust that at all in this amendment.
There is no policy change other than the requirement to comply with
existing law that passed in 1996.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there other Members desiring to be heard on the
point? If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
The Chair will judge the amendment on its face. It proposes to limit
funds for a specified set of activities. The amendment does not impose
new duties and, therefore, constitutes a valid limitation. The Chair
would note that the same amendment was ruled in order on May 17, 2005.
The point of order is overruled.
The gentleman from Iowa has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, having had that discussion, I think
it does clarify this amendment significantly and that it is important
for us to look across this Nation. Once the sanctuary cat got out of
the bag some years ago and local governments began passing for their
own local interests sanctuary policies that directly contravene the
1996 Federal law, city after city picked up this policy, and we have
three States that also have sanctuary policies.
The result of these sanctuary policies has been that we have had
people who have been into these cities who have been picked up for a
number of reasons, whether they be for traffic violations, minor crime,
assault, issues of that nature where they come in the course of contact
with law enforcement, and because of the sanctuary policies, the
officers have been prohibited from passing these individuals along to,
at that time, the INS, and now the Department of Homeland Security for
deportation.
The result of that has been the death of at least one police officer
in every major city in America. Not as a statement on the magnitude of
this problem, but as samples of a magnitude that is far greater than
that, we have got to have enforcement of our immigration laws. American
people are not going to accept an immigration policy that would come at
them without enforcement of our laws and this is one way to demonstrate
the will of this Congress.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. McHugh). The gentleman is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez).
Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking
member.
This amendment attempts to penalize States and localities that have
confidentiality policies in place. These policies are supported by our
State and our local law enforcement because they encourage immigrant
communities to come forward and to report crimes without fearing that
immigration status will come under scrutiny. And believe me, back in
Orange County, in Anaheim, in Santa Ana and some of the other cities I
represent, my police chiefs are very adamant about this issue.
If crimes are occurring and if the witnesses we have are immigrants,
immigrants without documents, if they believe that they will be taken
or deported, they are not going to want to come forward and tell us
what is happening. This is very important. It is important in hit and
drive car accidents, in execution style things that happen in some of
the Asian communities. This is a very important issue for our local law
enforcement.
The message of this amendment would say, it would intimidate
immigrants and it would make them less likely to report the crimes to
law enforcement or to assist law enforcement. It would hamper the State
and local law enforcement's work by intimidating the potential
witnesses and

[[Page H3370]]

community members that would help to solve these crimes. In fact, this
is opposed by the National League of Cities, the National Conference of
State Legislatures, and the National Association of Counties. They all
oppose this amendment.
So please protect local government's independence and choice. Keep
local public safety decisions and resources local and oppose this
amendment.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I would oppose this amendment. I read the
amendment. I am not sure it does what the gentleman from Iowa says it
does. I am not sure it does anything, but if it does something, then it
is very comprehensive. It either does nothing or else potentially has
the ability to limit how DHS responds to emergency and disaster relief.
It either does nothing or it may limit what border patrol can do in
certain cities in this country. I am not sure which. It either does
nothing or it does something significantly more than what the gentleman
has suggested.
Mr. Chairman, I would urge the House, as it has the last 3 years, to
reject this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Iowa has 1 minute remaining.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, in response to the gentleman and the
gentlewoman's remarks, either this amendment does something or it does
nothing. We thought when the 1996 Act was passed, it did something, and
we found out it has done nothing because local government has defied
Federal law. So I am not swayed by the argument that NSCSL or the
League of Cities or the counties oppose this amendment. They are the
people that are contravening Federal law today. It is the Congress that
sets the Federal law, not local government. We need to support this
amendment for those reasons.
With regard to the gentlewoman from California's remarks on her
confidentiality policy which I had described as a sanctuary policy,
undocumented immigrants would be intimidated not to take their cases to
law enforcement. I understand that argument. And in fact, one is swayed
by that to some degree. But the other side of this is that we have
millions of American citizens that we need to attend to. And if we are
going to enforce our laws, that argument will always be an argument
that can come to this floor to make the case that we should not enforce
them because it might intimidate people who are living beyond the law.
Mr. Chairman, I ask support for this amendment. It is prudent. It is
reasonable. It supports existing Federal law.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the
ayes appeared to have it.
Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded
vote.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa will be
postponed.

Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. Deal of Georgia

Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 9 offered by Mr. Deal of Georgia:
Page 62, after line 17, insert the following:
Sec. 537. None of the funds appropriated in this Act may be
used to grant birthright citizenship to the children of those
individuals who are not subject to the jurisdiction of the
United States, including the children of illegal aliens.

The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of May 25,
2006, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Deal) and a Member opposed each
will control 5 minutes.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Minnesota reserves a point of
order.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, this amendment relates to the
issue of birthright citizenship and is a prohibitive amendment for
using funds under this appropriations's bill for the purpose of
implementing and granting birthright citizenship.
The issue is one that I think has now caught the attention of the
American public and rightfully so. The Center for Immigration Studies
estimates that some 383,000, or 42 percent of births to immigrants are
to illegal alien mothers. Births to illegal immigrants now account for
nearly one out of every ten births in the United States.
We are in a distinct minority in the world community in recognizing
birthright citizenship. There are only 36 countries that do so, 122 do
not. Of the 36 that do, the United States, Cuba, El Salvador, Guinea,
and Venezuela are in that list. On the other hand, the vast majority of
all westernized countries, including every single European country
along with Israel and Japan, do not offer birthright citizenship.

{time} 1445

In fact, Ireland in 2004 changed their law to no longer recognize
birthright citizenship.
The magnitude of the problem is, in fact, astounding. The Center for
Immigration Studies found that illegal immigrants cost the United
States taxpayer about $10.4 billion a year. A large part of that
expense stems from the babies born each year to illegal immigrants.
In my State of Georgia, a normal, noncesarean section child delivery,
with no complications, costs an average of $2,720. Born United States
citizens, these children are eligible for all benefits of citizenship,
including, but not limited to, education, Medicaid, and welfare.
In one of their own publications, the Department of Homeland Security
states: ``An industry has developed around this practice of crossing
the border illegally specifically to give birth, with travel agents
specializing in birth tours and clinics providing post-natal care,
which includes transportation services. For those seeking entry into
this country, it is a small price for legal entry and social service
benefits that accrue with citizenship.''
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Kingston), my colleague.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I
thank him for the leadership on this amendment.
While I know there is a question about a point of order, I think it
is important to point out that this legislation is also in the form of
a bill which has over 80 cosponsors; and as I look at this, one thing
to keep in mind is that if you are flying in an airplane right now,
regardless of the origination, regardless of the destination, if you
pass the south tip of Florida or the extreme islands of Alaska, if you
are born while over those U.S. properties, you become an American
citizen, which is an extremely liberal, broad policy in terms of
granting one of the most precious things that we as Americans have and
that is citizenship.
Now, recently, the U.S. Senate passed a bill which probably is not
going to get a lot of support in the House on either side of the aisle,
but one of the big criticisms of it is that it grants citizenship too
easily to people and the reason why that criticism is there is not
because, okay, you have got 11 million people who may be here illegally
and those would become citizens overnight. It is that once those 11
million become citizens, they petition to have their mom, dad, cousin,
brother, aunt brought in. So you actually have 11 million times three
or 11 million times four. It depends on who is doing the calculation.
That is exactly what happens here when a mother comes in illegally
and has a baby. The baby automatically can start petitioning to bring
the illegal mom, the illegal dad, the illegal brother and sister in and
break in line in front of people who have been going through the
process for many years.
Recently on the Capitol steps, I had an opportunity to go to a
reenlistment ceremony for a woman from Poland. She had already been in
Iraq. She had already been deployed and served the United States of
America for 1 year in Iraq and was a member of the U.S. Army Reserves,
but she was not yet a citizen. I do not think it is right to

[[Page H3371]]

have somebody break in line in front of her, a war veteran, who got in
here illegally.
I support ending the birthright citizenship. As I understand, 122
nations no longer have that, and I think America should become one of
them.
Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to Deal
Amendment to H.R. 5441 The Homeland Security Appropriations Act,
changing the requirement for granting birthright citizenship.
At a time when Congress is trying to find a solution to immigration,
a problem that tears at the very fabric of our Nation, the Deal
Amendment is a hateful amendment that does nothing to improve our
security or fix this country's immigration problem.
We cannot under the guise of security, specifically target
undocumented individuals, who are here working and contributing to our
economy. This amendment will turn children who are born in the United
States into stateless babies, who will be forced to grow up and live in
the shadows of our society.
This is another far-right Republican approach that does nothing to
secure our borders or our country nor contributes in any positive way
to this immigration debate. The people of the United States deserve
hard work and legislation that helps solve problems and not create
them.
All this amendment accomplishes is to create a permanent underclass
that will be forced to live on the fringes of our society. Attempting
to eliminate birthright citizenship will create a whole new immigration
problem. And these poor children are going to stay here because they
will not have a country to go to.
When will we learn that unjust and discriminatory legislation does
not work? To deny citizenship to children born within our borders is
not only unconstitutional but immoral. We are turning our backs on the
very principle that this country was founded on. The notion of the
American Dream is being trampled on by the Deal Amendment and by those
who would support such legislation in this House.
Immigration is a serious problem that requires real solutions. And
Homeland Security is too important to be used as a tool of
discrimination. I oppose this Amendment.

Point of Order

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I insist on my point of order against the
amendment. It clearly constitutes legislation on an appropriation bill,
which is in violation of clause 2, rule XXI.
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. McHugh). Does any other Member wish to be
heard on the point of order? If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
The Chair finds that this amendment includes language imposing new
duties, and the amendment, therefore, constitutes legislation in
violation of clause 2 of rule XXI. The point of order is sustained, and
the amendment is not order.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Obey

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Obey:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:

TITLE VI--PREPARING FOR AND PREVENTING KNOWN THREATS AND IMPROVING
BORDER SECURITY

Customs and Border Protection

salaries and expenses

For an additional amount for ``Salaries and Expenses'',
$880,000,000, to remain available until expended, for 1,800
additional border patrol agents, 300 additional customs
agents and inspectors, improvements to the automated
targeting system as recommended by the Government
Accountability Office, and expansion of the Container
Security Initiative.

air and marine interdiction, operations, maintenance, and procurement

For an additional amount for ``Air and Marine Interdiction,
Operations, Maintenance, and Procurement'', $170,000,000, to
remain available until expended, for additional operating
hours, the purchase of additional air assets, aircraft
recapitalization, and establishment of the final northern
border airwing.

construction

For an additional amount for ``Construction'',
$300,000,000, to remain available until expended.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement

salaries and expenses

For and additional amount for ``Salaries and Expenses'',
$730,000,000, to remain available until expended, for not
less than 9,000 additional detention beds and 800 additional
immigration enforcement agents.

Transportation Security Administration

aviation security

For an additional amount for ``Aviation Security'',
$200,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 2008,
for checkpoint support technology and passenger, baggage, and
cargo screening.

United States Coast Guard

operating expenses

For an additional amount for ``Operating Expenses'',
$50,000,000.

acquisition, construction, and improvements

For an additional amount for ``Acquisition, Construction,
and Improvements'', $200,000,000, to remain available until
September 30, 2008, for the automatic identification system.

Preparedness

Office of Grants and Training

state and local programs

For an additional amount for ``State and Local Programs'',
$1,090,000,000, of which $536,000,000 shall be for formula-
based grants; $214,000,000 shall be for discretionary grants
in high-threat, high-density urban areas; $100,000,000 shall
be for intercity rail passenger transportation (as defined in
section 24102 of title 49, United States Code), freight rail,
and transit security grants; $200,000,000 shall be for port
security grants; and $40,000,000 shall be for grants to
States pursuant to section 204(a) of the REAL ID Act of 2005
(division B of Public Law 109-13).

firefighter assistance grants

For an additional amount for ``Firefighter Assistance
Grants'', $150,000,000, of which $75,000,000 shall be
available to carry out section 33 of the Federal Fire
Prevention and Control Act (15 U.S.C. 2229) and $75,000,000
shall be available to carry out section 34 of such Act (15
U.S.C. 2229a).

emergency management performance grants

For an additional amount for ``Emergency Management
Performance Grants'', $150,000,000.

Federal Emergency Management Agency

readiness, mitigation, response, and recovery

For an additional amount for ``Readiness, Mitigation,
Response, and Recovery'', $50,000,000.

flood map modernization fund

For an additional amount for ``Flood Map Modernization
Fund'', $150,000,000.

Federal Law Enforcement Training Center

salaries and expenses

For an additional amount for ``Salaries and Expenses'',
$30,000,000, to remain available until expended.

Domestic Nuclear Detection Office

For an additional amount for ``Domestic Nuclear Detection
Office'', $100,000,000, to remain available until expended,
for the purchase and deployment of radiation detection
equipment.

General Provisions--This Title

Sec. 601. In the case of taxpayers with income in excess of
$1,000,000, for calendar year 2007 the amount of tax
reduction resulting from the enactment of Public Laws 107-16,
108-27, and 108-311 shall be reduced by 10.3 percent.
Sec. 602. The amounts appropriated by this title shall be
available for obligation, and the authorities provided in
this title shall apply, upon the enactment of this Act.

[[Page H3372]]

the committee bill and meet the Intelligence Reform Act requirements.
It would also fund an additional 9,000 detention beds above the
committee bill and meet the Intelligence Reform Act requirements on
that front. The detention bed space level funded by my amendment would
meet the 34,653 detention bed level recommended by the DHS Inspector
General as necessary to detain all criminal aliens and aliens from
special interest countries.
My amendment would further increase our border detection capacities
by providing funding for additional air patrols and operating hours, by
cutting in half the number of unfunded radiation portal monitors, and
by replacing old Border Patrol vehicles and expanding border
facilities.
It would also provide for the port security grant program at the $400
million level passed by the House in the Safe Port Act 2 weeks ago. The
committee bill provides only $200 million for those grants, and it
contains a number of other increases.
Despite the lessons from Hurricane Katrina, the committee bill cuts
funding for programs geared to improve the preparedness of local
police, fire departments, and emergency responders by $186 million, or
almost 6 percent, from 2006. My amendment would provide additional
funding for State emergency managers, for firefighters and for updating
flood maps in critical, high-risk areas more quickly.
It would also provide an additional $750 million for urban areas and
State homeland security grants so that all States and urban areas would
receive at least as much as they received in 2005 or 2006, whichever is
the highest. That would mean, for instance, that New York would receive
almost $115 million more than it received in the recent DHS grant
announcement. It would mean that Washington, D.C., would receive $40
million more than it received in the recent grant announcement.
This amendment would also provide more funding for aviation explosive
detection for air cargo and for passenger and carry-on bags.
The amendment is fiscally responsible. It would offset the $4.5
billion in additional funding by capping the tax cut that people making
over $1 million this year would receive at $102,400 instead of
$114,200.
I would urge the chairman to withdraw his point of order against the
amendment so that the House could have an opportunity to meet these
essential national obligations.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Point of Order

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against
the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and
constitutes legislation in an appropriations bill and, therefore,
violates clause 2 of rule XXI. I ask for a ruling.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Does any Member wish to be heard on the point of
order?
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this amendment is to meet
critical national responsibilities that the President of the United
States has already indicated we should be meeting and that this
Congress has indicated on previous occasions that we should be meeting.
Unfortunately, because of the rules under which the House is
operating, the gentleman is technically correct. The House could vote
on this amendment if the House Republican leadership saw fit to allow
us to do so, but I must say that under the rules that the House is
operating under I must reluctantly concede the point of order.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The point of order is conceded and sustained.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
I rise at this moment only because I intended to do this at the
beginning of the presentation of the bill and I was unable to be on the
floor, but it is very important for the Members to know that the
combination of work between the chairman of this subcommittee and our
ranking member, Mr. Rogers and Mr. Sabo, reflects the very best work of
the House and the Appropriations Committee.
This is the fifth bill that will be coming off the floor in an effort
to have all our bills completed with their work on the floor by the 4th
of July break. Without their fabulous partnership, this would not have
been possible today.
In the bill overall, they provide approximately $32 billion for
homeland defense, but I want to for those Members who are most
concerned about that pattern whereby we are reducing patterns of growth
in government to have them realize that this year's homeland security
bill terminates six programs, resulting in $154 million in taxpayer
savings. More importantly, in the five appropriations bills considered
on the House floor thus far this year, the Appropriations Committee has
recommended the termination of 22 programs for a total savings of
$1.082 billion.
This is a very important piece of work. It shows the kind of
imagination we need if we are going to be able to effectively carry
forward this war on terrorism that is first international, but most
important, important relative to our homeland defense and homeland
security.
I want to congratulate the gentlemen and members of the committee on
both sides of the aisle.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Kingston

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Kingston:
Page 62, after line 17, insert the following:
Sec. 537. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to provide a foreign government information relating
to the activities of an organized volunteer civilian action
group, as defined by DHS OIG-06- 4, operating in the State of
California, Texas, New Mexico, or Arizona, unless required by
international treaty.

The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of May 25,
2006, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston) and a Member opposed
each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, what this amendment does is it clarifies Congress'
position on a Border Patrol practice or a practice of the U.S.
Government that tips off illegal immigrants as to where citizen patrols
may be located. As we know, we had lots of testimony and lots of visits
from people along the border, and we have seen lots of cameras and lots
of videos about just the total lawlessness of people coming illegally
over the border at night.
As a response in that area, a group has sprung up called the
Minutemen Project, and the Minutemen Project is definitely not
politically correct in Washington, D.C. However, they filled a void
which the government was unable to fill.
There are over 7,000 volunteers in the Minutemen organization, and I
am sure, like any other group of 7,000 people, you could find a bad
apple or two. Yet, at the same time overall, their help has been
productive and good. In fact, the Border Patrol itself in a CRS study
indicates how helpful they have been, and their involvement has reduced
the number of apprehensions of people coming over. That is because
their folks are watching the border.
What my amendment does is simply says that the U.S. Government cannot
tip off the Mexican officials as to where these folks are located.
Plain and simple, nothing fancy about it. I am sure the Border Patrol
will say, oh, no, we are not doing that, and yet one of the Web pages
of the Secretary of Mexico had the information very explicit, and we
just do not believe that is a good practice.
So what we wanted to do is confirm Congress' position in an
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

{time} 1500

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition; but, Mr.
Chairman, I don't rise in opposition.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Minnesota is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, we are told by Customs and Border Patrol that
this amendment has no effect on its operation because it only shares
information when it is required by international treaty, the same as
what this amendment says. So to the best of my

[[Page H3373]]

knowledge this amendment simply restates what is policy.
If people want to put it in the bill, I guess that is okay because it
apparently does nothing.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have?
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Georgia has 3 minutes
remaining.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Deal).
Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding.
You know, the real shame of it is that we are even having to talk
about this today. We ought to have a better neighbor on the border than
Mexico has proven to be. I know they have economic incentives and
reasons why they want their citizens to come illegally into our
country, but they should not be put in a position of being tipped off
to where citizens of this country are who are performing a service
that, here again unfortunately is one that the Federal Government
itself ought to be performing in a better fashion, and that is
patrolling our borders.
It is regrettable that the Mexican government sometimes knows more
about what is going on on our side of the border than we appear
sometimes to know ourselves. The Minute Men have provided a service. It
is a service that perhaps should be unnecessary if the Federal
Government were doing its job adequately and appropriately.
I commend the gentleman from Georgia for offering this amendment, and
I urge this body to support it.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my friend from New
Jersey (Mr. Garrett).
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I thank the gentleman for offering this
amendment, and also I am thankful to hear from the other side of the
aisle that they believe we should go forward and that this doesn't add
anything to it other than what existing law is the case.
I hope that is the case, because it was last month I sent a letter to
the U.S. Customs and Border Protection, and I did that in response to
an article in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin and reports on various
media outlets that stated the U.S. Border Patrol had in fact been
informing the Mexican government of the location of the Minute Men and
other similar U.S. patrols throughout the border. I sent that letter
specifically to say what is our policy, or how are they conducting
themselves.
It was also reported that the U.S. Customs and Border Protection
spokesman told the media outlets that the policy is meant to ensure the
Mexican government that the migrant rights are being observed.
I applaud the gentleman for doing the amendment because we know at
the end of the day we here in this House are most concerned about the
rights of the American citizens and the safety and protection of the
American citizens, and I think his amendment goes a long way to making
sure that our rights, our citizens' rights and their safety will be
protected so that this information is protected and kept here.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his support and
comments, and I thank my friend from Minnesota on it.
Out of an abundance of caution, I do plan to ask for a recorded vote
on this. And the caution is not with anybody in this Chamber, but with
our friends in the bureaucracy outside of here; that sometimes we need
to have a little statement for them.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the
ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia will
be postponed.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Bishop of New York

Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Bishop of New York:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available in the Act may be
used to reimburse L.B.& B. Associates, Inc. or Olgoonik
Logistics, LLC (or both) for attorneys fees related to
pending litigation against Local 30 of the International
Union of Operating Engineers.

The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of May 25,
2006, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop) and a Member opposed
each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would prohibit
funding in this bill from being used by the Department of Homeland
Security to reimburse a private corporation for attorneys' fees and any
other legal expenses incurred during their appeal from a recent and
impartial National Labor Relations Board decision to reinstate
employees who were unfairly fired from their jobs at the Plum Island
Animal Disease Center, which is a DHS facility located off the North
Fork of my district on Long Island.
The Plum Island employees were hard-working members of the
International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 30. They were loyal
to DHS and to the research facility on Plum Island. In 2002, they were
fired on grounds that the NLRB recently found were unjustified. Adding
insult to injury, the employees were also denied back pay and benefits
for over 3 years of missed work. And now their employer wants to appeal
the administrative decision of an impartial arbiter to put them back to
work and award them the back pay and benefits they are due.
I hope that my colleagues would agree that spending money in this
bill to reimburse a privately-owned joint venture for attorneys' fees
and to further extend this already long and protracted litigation is an
entirely inappropriate use of DHS funds. More important, it would
negate the intended use as appropriated by this Congress and detract
from what should be the primary focus of the Department, defending our
homeland and keeping Americans safe from foreign sources of terrorism.
For instance, the funds my amendment blocks would be a lot better
spent protecting the two cities attacked on September 11th that are now
shortchanged $114 million due to the Department's decision to slash
anti-terrorism funds from major urban areas.
Mr. Chairman, it is long past time for this case to be resolved, to
stop harassing the Plum Island employees, allow them to return to their
jobs and restore their benefits. I urge my colleagues to support this
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Does any Member seek recognition in opposition
to the amendment?
Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my
time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New York.
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Price of Georgia

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman offer the amendment as the
designee of Mr. Kuhl?
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I do.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Price of Georgia:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. ___. The amounts otherwise provided by this Act are
revised by reducing the amount made available for
``DEPARTMENTAL MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONS--Office of the
Secretary and Executive Management'', and increasing the
amount made available for ``Office of Grants and Training--
firefighter assistance grants'' (for increasing the amount
under such heading to carry out section 33 of the Federal
Fire Prevention Control Act of 1974 by $2,100,000, and
increasing the amount under such heading to carry out section
34 of such Act by $2,100,000), by $4,200,000.

[[Page H3374]]

The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of May 25,
2006, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price) and a Member opposed each
will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
The Department of Homeland Security awarded a contract to a private
company for limousine and shuttle services for its employees for $22
million. All of our budget discussions are indeed discussions about
priorities, and Mr. Kuhl and I would suggest that this simply is an
issue of priorities. This amendment shifts $22 million in funds
previously used to pay for limousine services to increase the much-
needed FIRE grants program.
Created by Congress in 2003, the SAFER Grants are meant to help
communities with career, volunteer, and combination fire departments to
meet industry minimum standards and attain 24-hour staffing to provide
adequate protection from fire and fire-related hazards, and to fulfill
traditional missions of fire departments that antedate the creation of
the Department of Homeland Security. These SAFER Grants will help fire
departments meet these minimum industry standards prescribed by
National Fire Protection Association Standards 1710 and 1720.
It seems to both Mr. Kuhl and to me that our priorities as a Nation
should be for FIRE and SAFER Grants and not limousines, and I urge my
colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, first, let me say that, as written, this amendment does
not accomplish what the gentleman, I think, has described, but I do
understand the intent of the amendment, and I agree with the
gentleman's concerns about the various allegations that have been made
about this service.
However, I would like to point out that the Inspector General's
office is investigating this 5-year contract to see if there is any
impropriety. If there is, the contract will be terminated.
The intent of this amendment is to bar DHS employees from using
``limousine services.'' But it does not define what that means. It
could have some wide-ranging impacts if it is not defined.
For example, with no definition, it could be perhaps used to stop
FEMA crews from contracting buses to get to disaster areas. It could
shut down bus shuttle service between the various DHS campuses in the
D.C. area. And it could prevent employees from taking taxis from
airports while they are on official travel. These are very impractical
limitations for a department we expect to act quickly in time of
emergency.
So I would hope at some point in time, if this amendment passes, that
there could be some way to define what is prohibited. But even with
these concerns and these reservations, I am willing to accept the
gentleman's amendment.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from
Kentucky for his comments and appreciate his concerns regarding the
wording and the accuracy thereof, and we look forward to working with
him as this process moves forward, and I appreciate his support of the
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Garrett of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Garrett of New Jersey:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act (1)
under the heading ``Office of Grants and Training--state and
local programs'' may be used for puppet or clown shows, gym
or fitness expenses (including equipment, training,
memberships, and fees), or nutritional counseling, and (2)
under the heading ``Federal Emergency Management Agency--
administrative and regional operations'' may be used to
purchase or pay for adult entertainment, bail bond services,
jewelry, weapons, or fines for prior traffic violations.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Kentucky reserves a point of
order.
Pursuant to the order of the House of May 25, 2006, the gentleman
from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I do recognize the point of order, and I will address
that at the very end.
Mr. Chairman, I drafted an amendment here to highlight in essence the
mismanagement of money in two specific agencies or programs funded by
this bill, FEMA and the Homeland Security Grants program.
There is no one in this body that knows our threat to this Nation
better than I. The district that I have the honor and privilege of
representing borders the Hudson River and downtown New York City is
basically within eyesight of our district. There were tragically far
too many people from the Fifth District of New Jersey who lost their
lives on September 11. So my top priority since coming to this body has
been and will remain homeland security.
The threat to our Nation and the residents of northern New Jersey is
still very real. Law enforcement agencies are stretching every penny to
purchase equipment, vehicles, medical supplies, and radios, but they do
not have enough resources. On too many occasions in this body, I have
fought for more resources to be brought to New Jersey and other high-
risk areas.
With that being said, it pains me that as my neighbors and friends,
living in my region of such high risk, the Department of Homeland
Security is still using a portion of our limited resources for things
that will keep no one safer and make no taxpayer happier.
It has come to my attention that the DHS has provided grants for
example to fire departments to pay for things such as fitness
equipment, nutritional counseling, clown and puppet shows, no less.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I think clowns are as funny as the next guy, but I
don't think the ability to be funny is what it is about when we are
trying to help people during the next terrorist attack.
Looking next to FEMA, similar examples illustrate the need for
additional oversight of FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
Since Hurricane Katrina tragically hit the gulf coast, we have heard of
numerous examples of mismanagement, neglect, wasteful spending, and
even fraud that has prevented hundreds of millions of dollars from
helping any of the victims of the storm.
Now, my time is limited here, so I will highlight just some of the
most egregious examples. There have been five, five separate government
reports by the GAO and other bodies that detail these problems. They
have provoked the universal outrage in mismanagement, and here in this
amendment we try to address it.
Specifically, my amendment calls attention to the utter mismanagement
of the debit card program. As you may recall, FEMA gave out $2,000
debit cards with no verification process for eligibility. People took
advantage of it.

{time} 1515

Among the many ``necessary'' items that people did for survival were
adult entertainment, bail bond services, jewelry, and of course what
every victim of a hurricane has to worry about, traffic tickets.
Another example of waste, FEMA spent almost $900 million to store
nearly 25,000 manufactured homes around the country mainly because they
prohibited themselves from putting them in flood plains, such as New
Orleans. In addition, FEMA let almost 11,000 unused manufactured homes
sit in open fields in Arkansas, while at the same time paying people's
hotel bills of $438 per night to stay in a hotel in New York City.

[[Page H3375]]

Further, a GAO report said 2.5 million Hurricane Katrina evacuee
registrations were done, and 60 percent were done over the telephone,
meaning there was no verification process at all as to who these people
were who were getting these dollars.
A study found that as many as 900,000 applicants used bogus Social
Security numbers, duplicate Social Security numbers or false addresses
and still received funding. There are other examples more numerous.
As we pass this bill today and provide billions of taxpayer dollars
to an agency that has practiced questionable responsibility for the
funds that we appropriate, I strongly urge this body to work on methods
to hold FEMA even more accountable, to a higher standard of level of
accountability. There has been too much waste, fraud and abuse in these
very important areas of homeland security and dealing with natural
disasters.
We can and must do a better job with our security dollars. I look
forward to working with the chairman as we move forward to work for
better oversight in these areas in this Congress and in the future.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to have my amendment withdrawn
because I acknowledge that it is not in order.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New Jersey?
There was no objection.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Rogers of Kentucky

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Rogers of Kentucky:
Sec.__. The amounts otherwise provided by this Act are
revised by increasing the amount made available for ``United
States Secret Service--Protection, Administration, and
Training'' and the amount made available for ``Federal
Emergency Management Agency--Readiness, Mitigation, Response,
and Recovery'' by $2,000,000 respectively.

The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of May 25,
2006, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) and a Member opposed
each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Now that pretty much everything is said and
done on this appropriations bill, according to CBO scoring, the bill is
now under its section 302(b) allocation by $4 million. My amendment
simply takes that $4 million and makes modest funding adjustments to
two accounts: FEMA's Readiness Mitigation Response and Recovery program
and the U.S. Secret Services Protection Administration and Training
program.
Mr. Chairman, the FEMA dollars will be used to continue work to
upgrade the National Response Plan. For the Secret Service, funds will
be used to support critical protective operations.
This amendment has been cleared by both sides of the aisle, and I ask
that it be agreed to.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. SABO. I thank the gentleman for his amendment. It is a good
amendment, and I hope it is passed.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my
time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers).
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word
and yield to the gentleman from New York for a colloquy.
Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage in a colloquy regarding
the fiscal year 2006 high-density high-threat urban area security
initiatives, and I do so recognizing that we are in the process of
debating and discussing the 2007 bill, and so the relevance is of some
importance.
Last week, DHS released the funding allocations for the 2006 homeland
security grants program. I was extremely disappointed to see New York's
overall allocation for the UASI program decreased by almost $83
million.
It is tough to understand why, considering New York City remains the
highest target to terrorism. New York has been attacked and targeted
not once, but multiple times; and its security is a national concern.
In fact, a Pakistani immigrant was just convicted last week for
attempting to blow up a subway station at Herald Square.
I have been fighting for a threat-based funding formula for several
years because homeland security funding should be based on population,
threat, vulnerability, and consequence. The program should never be
used for pork spending. The formula I have been fighting for will
benefit the areas that need it the most: those that face threats like
New York City, Boston, Philadelphia, San Diego, Washington, D.C., Los
Angeles and many others where we know real threats exist.
This debate is not a fight between rural and urban areas, and I would
point out that I represent the 32nd most rural district in the country,
and I know rural areas have essential infrastructure to protect as
well. I learned from 9/11 that urban and rural areas are linked in
terms of economics; and, frankly, as Americans, we all have the same
concerns, so we must look for productive investments from DHS.
Mr. Chairman, I respectfully request your consideration to join with
me in working toward a solution in addressing the process in an
oversight hearing.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, first, I want to thank the chairman and
ranking member again for their hard work on this bill. The challenges
of this bill and this subcommittee include not only setting these
essential priorities for our country's security, but also keeping a
close watch on the Department to make sure that those priorities are
carried out and that the resources provided are well spent.
Chairman Rogers and Mr. Sabo have done a great job on both accounts,
and it is in recognition of their past vigilance that we now raise our
concern.
As my friend from New York mentioned, last week the Office of Grants
and Training, and I should note that this office has changed management
and changed names twice in 3 years, announced the State allocations
under the Urban Areas Security Initiative. The allocation for the State
of New York through this program is 42 percent less than its allocation
from last year.
Mr. Chairman, we all know that the process for distributing these
funds is a complicated one, but here is also what I know. I know that
New York City remains the highest density urban area in the country and
by far dedicates more of its own funds to fighting terrorism than any
other municipality. I also know that New York City continues to be the
financial center of the country. It is the site of Yankee Stadium and
Shea Stadium, the site of the Empire State Building and the Statue of
Liberty, and the former site of the World Trade Center.
I know that as the Department is still working out its processes for
determining risk and threat, there is much room for error.
I would ask the chairman of the subcommittee if he shares my concerns
and if he would be willing to hold additional hearings into this matter
to make sure that every homeland security dollar is protecting as many
Americans as possible.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I thank the gentleman for his comments. I
understand the concerns of both gentlemen from New York, both very
valued, hardworking members of the subcommittee, I might add.
I agree that the subcommittee should hold further hearings into this
matter. We will be working to set up a closed briefing because we are
dealing with classified material here. We will work with the gentlemen
to set up a closed hearing to further look into the matter.
Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Sweeney) having assumed the chair, Mr. McHugh, Acting Chairman of the
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that
that

[[Page H3376]]

Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 5441) making
appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security for the fiscal
year ending September 30, 2007, and for other purposes, had come to no
resolution thereon.

____________________