[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 77 (Wednesday, June 1, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H3875-H3908]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

[[Page H3875]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

                        House of Representatives

                              {time}  2000
  DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2012--Continued

  The coordination and collaborative efforts at this facility are 
critical and will help limit further harm. Limiting or cutting UASI 
funding could devastate this counterterrorism and readiness task force 
and negatively impact the work they have undertaken to ensure the 
better coordination and communication amongst law enforcement officials 
and emergency responders.
  One compelling lesson learned from the terrorist attacks on 9/11 was 
that emergency responders and law enforcement officials need to have 
streamlined communication and command and control infrastructures. This 
facility is the embodiment of that lesson.
  The threat to Sacramento should not be taken lightly. Sacramento is 
the capital of California, the most populous State in the Union, and 
the seventh largest economy in the world. It is critical to continue to 
support the anti- and counterterrorism work being done there. It is 
unacceptable to leave this region without appropriate funding to ensure 
its protection, as Sacramento and the region have important security 
needs.
  A mere 30-minute drive upstream from Sacramento along the American 
River lies the Folsom Dam, which holds water back from hundreds of 
thousands of homes, the State capitol building, State and local 
agencies, and thousands of small businesses. A terrorist attack there 
has the potential to devastate Sacramento and much of the surrounding 
region through massive flooding.
  Beyond the human toll, which is unthinkable, this would have a 
crippling effect on California and on the country as a whole. 
Sacramento is home to numerous State and Federal agencies and 
facilities. Government buildings and facilities are high-profile 
targets and require vigilant protection and further highlight the need 
for UASI funding in my district.
  My district is also the home to a number of transportation systems, 
from light rail to passenger rail to commercial freight rail. An attack 
could, again, aside from the human toll, greatly hamper nationwide 
commerce and impair the national economy.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment will bolster our Nation's security by 
better providing more communities across the Nation with the tools and 
training necessary to keep us safe.
  I urge my colleagues to vote in support of this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCALISE. I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Louisiana is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. SCALISE. I rise in support of the Clarke amendment. In fact, I 
have a similar amendment filed at the desk that I won't need to bring 
forward because this amendment accomplishes the same thing.
  What the amendment says is that all of those cities, the 54 cities 
that were arbitrarily removed from eligibility, should have that same 
opportunity to compete for these Homeland Security grants. It doesn't 
increase funding at all but says: Why are we limiting our threat 
assessment cities to 10 cities when, in fact, many other cities have 
exposure to risks?
  And if we just look at what we found so far from the raid of Osama 
bin Laden's compound, they looked through and found some of the things 
that these terrorist cells may be going after. And, in fact, some of 
the very terrorist threats were targeting areas that are included in 
some of these cities that have arbitrarily been removed from 
eligibility for these Homeland Security grants.
  So all we're saying is, in cities like New Orleans, and if you just 
look at the corridor between New Orleans and Baton Rouge--and both 
cities, both New Orleans and Baton Rouge were arbitrarily removed from 
eligibility. Between the Port of New Orleans and all the shipping 
transport that's done there, as well as all of the oil and gas 
infrastructure for our country that's located in that region, all of 
the chemical plants that are located in that region, they are part of 
that terrorist assessment that were determined in the data that we've 
retrieved from Osama bin Laden's compound, including the threat to oil 
tankers and ships, some of the very commerce that moves through the 
Port of New Orleans, and yet the Port of New Orleans is removed from 
eligibility.
  So this amendment doesn't guarantee that they will get any of these--
any access to these grants, but what it does say is they've got the 
ability to compete if the terrorist threat is determined to be high 
enough to where they should be able to get the funding from those 
grants, because our terrorist threats change from day to day, from year 
to year. We get more information, just as we've recently gotten a 
treasure trove of new information on where those threats are. Why 
should we arbitrarily remove some of the very cities that may rise to 
the top of that list?
  So this gives the flexibility back to the Department of Homeland 
Security to allow those other cities to compete where there are real 
terrorist threats. So that's what this amendment does.
  I support the amendment, and hopefully we will be able to get this 
language added back in.
  Ms. FUDGE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Ohio is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. FUDGE. I rise in support of the amendment offered by my colleague 
regarding UASI.

[[Page H3876]]

  This amendment corrects a provision that arbitrarily limits UASI 
eligibility to the top 10 high-risk cities. This limitation would 
reduce locales eligible for UASI grants by more than 50 cities as 
compared to just last year, excluding cities such as Cleveland from 
receiving these grants.
  The UASI grant program provides unique equipment planning and 
training to help local authorities, first responders, law enforcement, 
and agencies. This program specifically addresses the needs in high-
threat urban areas to help these communities prepare, prevent, and 
protect and recover from a terrorist attack and other disasters.
  Large cities are not the only targets for terrorist attacks. We know 
now Osama bin Laden urged his followers to plot attacks in smaller U.S. 
cities. Smaller cities were to be used as staging grounds to plan and 
test attacks in larger cities. That is why UASI is so important.
  UASI funding has been utilized to equip, train, and exercise first 
responders and safety personnel for improvised explosive devices and 
WMD-specific events. If funding is completely cut, the lives of first 
responders and the public will be placed in grave danger due to the 
lack of equipment, training, and exercises.
  The City of Cleveland launched the public safety systems automation 
project utilizing UASI funding to enhance the Cleveland Department of 
Public Safety information systems. This effort aided the city in its 
modernization of public safety systems. The new information systems 
include mobile computing systems that connect public safety officers to 
Federal, State, and county information in their vehicles, and computer-
aided dispatch which facilitates the transmission of fire/EMF and 
police and automated vehicle location. These systems assist in 
mitigating emergencies, protecting safety personnel, and improving the 
protection of life and property.
  Cleveland has applied its allotted portion of Department of Homeland 
Security money to: 1,400 personal protective equipment items; WMD 
training to over 1,700 safety personnel; NIMS/ICS training, Homeland 
Security planning personnel; surveillance equipment for areas of 
critical infrastructure; computer-aided dispatch for police, fire, and 
EMS; and the Northeast Ohio Regional Fusion Center.
  Homeland Security planning personnel are essential to strengthening 
the City of Cleveland's preparedness planning activities. They have 
outlined the downtown Cleveland emergency evacuation plan, inclement 
weather plan, emergency operations plan, and the continuity of 
operations plan, which provide important support to citizens during the 
event of a disaster. Without the planning personnel, the city's 
emergency management response capabilities would be severely limited, 
and the lives of first responders and the public would be in severe 
danger.
  Mr. Chair, these funds are necessary to address the security needs of 
our Nation. I support this amendment and urge my colleagues to vote in 
favor of it.
  Ms. MOORE. I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Wisconsin is recognized 5 
minutes.
  Ms. MOORE. I rise to support this amendment. In fact, I had an 
identical amendment to strike this restrictive language with respect to 
the Urban Area Security Initiative.
  In fiscal year 2010, over 60 urban areas, including my own City of 
Milwaukee, were eligible for formula assistance under this grant 
because they met the Department of Homeland Security's risk assessment 
analysis. But the legislation before us would arbitrarily tie the 
Secretary's hands from distributing these funds to any cities that fall 
outside the top 10 so-called most vulnerable.

                              {time}  2010

  Since 2004, the city of Milwaukee and the surrounding counties that 
surround Milwaukee, Ozaukee, Racine, Washington, and Waukesha have 
obtained nearly $400 million in this UASI funding to enhance the safety 
of over 2 million residents. And even though this assistance has been 
small, we are very, very proud of what we have been able to accomplish 
in terms of securing the area.
  For example, in Milwaukee, my constituents are safer because we have 
used this assistance to train emergency medical teams, train and equip 
hazardous material and bomb squads, create continuity of operations 
plans, and to analyze intelligence. It also helps to fund our 
Intelligence Fusion Center, a place to collect and exchange information 
from government, public safety, private sector, and all levels of 
enforcement. And I have heard concerns from our mayor, police chief, 
fire chief about whether or not we could continue to manage disaster 
funding without this funding.
  And the concerns aren't just limited to being prepared for acts of 
terrorism. The loss of this funding would disable us from being 
prepared to respond to large-scale emergencies such as flooding or 
tornadoes. I can tell you that it is pennywise and pound foolish to 
simply arbitrarily limit this funding. It just doesn't make any sense 
to go backwards.
  You've heard here already on this floor that officials have reported 
that Osama bin Laden's documents even schooled his followers to avoid 
U.S. counterterrorist defenses. He said don't limit attacks to New York 
City. Consider other areas, or smaller cities. Spread out the targets. 
We just might as well fax al Qaeda the list of urban areas that will 
lose Federal support, areas like Phoenix, Anaheim/Santa Ana, Riverside, 
Denver, Miami-Dade/Fort Lauderdale/Palm Beach, Orlando, Tampa, Atlanta, 
Baltimore, Detroit, Twin Cities, St. Louis, Las Vegas, Charlotte, 
Cincinnati, Cleveland, Portland, Pittsburgh, Norfolk, Seattle, Tucson, 
Bakersfield, Oxnard, Sacramento, Bridgeport, Hartford, Jacksonville, 
Honolulu, Indianapolis, Louisville, Baton Rouge, New Orleans, Kansas 
City, Omaha, Albany, Buffalo, Syracuse, Rochester, Columbus, Toledo, 
Oklahoma City, Tulsa, San Juan, Providence, Memphis, Nashville, Austin, 
El Paso, San Antonio, Salt Lake City, Richmond, and Milwaukee.
  This amendment is simple, budget neutral, and gives the 
administrative power back to the experts who are there solely to keep 
our cities and country safe.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HIMES. Mr. Chair, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Connecticut is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. HIMES. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of the amendment offered 
today by the gentleman from New York. At its core, this amendment is 
simple, but its impact is significant. The bill we are currently 
debating contains a provision that would arbitrarily limit UASI 
eligibility for 2012 to areas within the country deemed to be the top 
10 high-risk cities. If passed as it is, this bill would reduce the 
number of communities eligible for UASI grants by more than 50 cities, 
many of them named by my colleague from Wisconsin, among them, the 
Bridgeport/Stamford metropolitan area, which includes the majority of 
the cities and towns in my district.
  I strongly support this amendment, which removes the language from 
the bill that illogically restricts UASI funding to just 10 cities. 
Since its creation in 2003, the intent of the UASI program has been to 
enhance regional preparedness in and around major metropolitan areas, 
and to assist participating jurisdictions in developing integrated 
regional systems for prevention, protection, response, and recovery.
  Setting an arbitrary limit on the number of locations eligible to 
receive funding under this program is contrary to the intent of the 
program and contrary to our efforts to address the growing and evolving 
threats of homegrown terrorism. Moreover, this restriction is 
dangerous. Localities with the highest risk of being attacked are often 
not the locality where those attacks are being planned and can be 
stopped.
  In my district, the loss of UASI funding would completely derail a 
major interagency communications project. In addition, much of the 
counterterrorism work underway in Fairfield County has been implemented 
in phases. A reduction in funds at this point will effectively waste 
the work that has already been done.
  The risks to my constituents are very real. My district's proximity 
to New York City not only increases the

[[Page H3877]]

likelihood of a terrorist attack, but also increases the potential that 
someone in our area will plan an attack with the intention of 
inflicting the attack on New York City. We have seen this time and time 
again.
  After local law enforcement officials from Fairfield County helped to 
capture Faisal Shahzad, the Times Square bomber last year--Faisal 
Shahzad who had operated in my district--it is unfathomable to think 
that their work would be deemed nonessential in the fight against 
terrorism. And just 2 weeks ago, on May 19, a Bridgeport resident 
accused of making and selling pipe bombs was arrested after allegedly 
attempting to sell eight of these explosive cylinders in the Bronx.
  While we can all agree that shared sacrifice is required to bring our 
Federal deficit under control, I cannot support cuts to a national 
security program which has proven to be not just effective, but also 
essential to our safety. This is a time for our communities to stay 
vigilant. Without the proper resources, our communities cannot maintain 
the proper level of readiness and cannot ensure that they are properly 
secured.
  I strongly urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support 
this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.
  Mrs. LOWEY. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I rise for clarification. With great respect for my colleagues, and 
understanding the importance of Homeland Security dollars, I am very 
concerned that there seems to be a misunderstanding. I would like to 
read again the quote from the 9/11 Commission. ``Federal Homeland 
Security assistance should not remain a program for general revenue 
sharing. It should supplement State and local resources based on the 
risks of vulnerability that merit additional support. Congress should 
not use this money as a pork barrel.''
  I would also like to remind my good friends that under the Homeland 
Security grant program, there are many other sources of funding for 
these communities. California, for example, is getting $153,953,988. 
Connecticut is getting over $12 million. Nevada is getting over $10 
million, et cetera, et cetera. So there seems to be some 
misunderstanding that the UASI program should cover all the Homeland 
Security funding for these States.
  We believe strongly that there are reasons for funding, certainly by 
formula--and that's the way this bill is written--almost every city, 
over 50 cities in the United States. But the UASI funding is 
specifically targeted to those areas such as New York that are pointed 
to by the terrorists. I don't want to mention bin Laden, but others, 
they clearly are the most at risk. And if you're number one, there 
clearly should be a rationale for getting the funding. So those 10 
cities will be getting the funding because they're most at risk. But 
the other Homeland Security funding will be divided by formula to all 
the other Representatives of States that are here today. So I respect 
your needs. I think it's very important. And there is money in this 
bill that would cover the needs which you so articulately discussed 
today.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from New York, Congressman Higgins. The Urban 
Area Security Initiative is administered by the Department of Homeland 
Security. It's a critical program focused on enhancing regional 
preparedness in high-risk areas by fostering better communication and 
collaboration among local first responders. These grants provide local 
authorities, first responders, and law enforcement with the resources 
they need to prepare for, prevent, and recover from attacks and other 
disasters impacting communities across America.

                              {time}  2020

  This Homeland Security appropriations bill is dangerous as it 
restricts the initiative to allow only 10 urban areas to be eligible 
for the program and its funding. This would cause more than 50 cities, 
including Atlanta, to lose funds.
  Mr. Chair, as we all know, terrorists do not limit their attack to 
only 10 cities. We should not leave Americans who do not live in these 
10 cities unnecessarily and arbitrarily vulnerable to disaster. My home 
State of Georgia greatly benefits from the Urban Area Security 
Initiative grants.
  In 2010, the Atlanta urban area received $13.5 million in grants. 
Atlanta, one of the most populous and fast-growing cities in the region 
and home to the world's busiest airport, and already the scene of one 
terrorist attack during the 1996 Olympics, would lose critical funding 
under this bill.
  The Fusion Center in Atlanta not only benefits the metropolitan area, 
but the entire State of Georgia. The Fusion Center is an information 
hub for the State. Local law enforcement and officials collect 
suspicious activity reports and send them to Federal law enforcement 
officials.
  In the Fourth District of Georgia, the DeKalb County Fire Rescue 
Corps recently received an Urban Area Security Initiative grant from 
FEMA, which will enable it to operate a mobile canteen rehab unit that 
supplies food and beverages for firefighters and emergency responders 
during lengthy emergency incidents. The funds have also been used to 
support citizens corps and community efforts towards preparedness and 
community response efforts.
  These funds are critical to helping Georgia develop a regional 
exercise plan, develop annexes to include tactical operations for use 
during an evacuation and for emergency public information.
  Mr. Chairman, I stand here in support of this bipartisan amendment 
that would remove this arbitrary restriction on this program from this 
bill.
  I urge all my colleagues to support this commonsense amendment, which 
would not add one penny to the debt or deficit.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Clarke).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. CLARKE of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan 
will be postponed.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Heck

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

       Page 47, line 17, strike ``10'' and insert ``25''.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Nevada is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. HECK. I am offering this amendment to restore funding to the top 
25 cities under the Urban Area Security Initiative.
  This issue is personal to me. I spent a great deal of my career in 
the anti-terrorism field. I have developed threat assessments and plans 
for terrorism countermeasures and prevention on the local, State and 
Federal levels.
  I oversaw medical response operations to the embassy bombings in East 
Africa in 1998 and the bombing of the USS Cole in 2000, and I was a 
first responder to the World Trade Centers. I felt the heat from the 
rubble pile as it melted firefighters' boots. I breathed the dust and 
chaos into my lungs as we worked around the clock.
  I have seen terrorism firsthand; and I will, we must, do everything 
possible to prevent another attack on this U.S. homeland.
  One of the failures identified after the 9/11 attacks was the lack of 
coordination between local first responders and Federal 
counterterrorism specialists. The UASI grant fills this vacuum. If this 
amendment doesn't pass, key areas' terrorism readiness funding will go 
away.
  I understand the need to prioritize dollars and scarce resources, but 
limiting funding to a cap of 10 cities threatens our overall national 
preparedness. This amendment does not

[[Page H3878]]

increase costs, but expands the total number of cities under 
consideration to at least 25.
  Let me tell you about my district, my area, Las Vegas and Clark 
County. According to the Department of Homeland Security, we have 221 
elements of critical infrastructure and key resources. These include 
the Hoover Dam, which supplies power to over 500 million homes and the 
new dam bypass bridge, which is the second highest bridge in the United 
States. We have Nellis Air Force Base and the world famous Las Vegas 
Strip. The Las Vegas area is also home to 17 of the world's 20 largest 
hotels, with almost 149,000 rooms.
  At the corner of Las Vegas Boulevard and Tropicana Boulevard, there 
are more hotel rooms than in the entire City of San Francisco. And we 
have seen that the hospitality and tourism industry has become the soft 
target of choice since 9/11 with nine attacks against international 
hotel resorts over the last 9 years, including the coordinated attacks 
in Mumbai in 2008.
  Two weeks ago, I toured the Southern Nevada Counterterrorism Fusion 
Center, our State's primary fusion center. These centers facilitate 
greater cooperation between local first responders and Federal 
counterterrorism specialists and are supported by UASI funding.
  Now is not the time to recreate the vacuum that existed prior to the 
UASI program. Now is the time to stand behind those who stand on the 
front lines providing the blanket of protection under which we rest at 
night. It is for these reasons that I offer this reasonable and 
measured amendment that increases the number of eligible cities to 25.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Alabama is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. The bill before us today was born out of the need for 
reform. It consolidates various grant programs and provides discretion 
to the Secretary. These reforms include funding reductions, 
requirements for measurement and requirements for spending languishing 
dollars.
  The consolidation of this bill forces the Secretary to examine the 
intelligence and risk and puts scarce dollars where they are needed 
most, whether it is port, rail, surveillance or whether it is high-risk 
urban areas or to States, as opposed to reverse engineering projects to 
fill the amount designated for one of the many programs or granting 
funds to lower-risk areas.
  Additionally, as noted by the gentleman, the bill limits Urban Area 
Security Initiative grants to the top 10 highest cities. Again, this 
puts scarce dollars to where they are most needed.
  That means cities like New York are funded at the significantly 
higher levels than other cities because they are the highest threat to 
urban areas. I don't think anyone here can argue that.
  This does not mean lower-risk areas will lose all funding. It would 
just mean the funds will come from other programs such as State 
homeland grants that are risk and formula based.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to support fiscal discipline by 
aligning funding with areas of highest risk and vote ``no'' on this 
amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Heck).
  The amendment was rejected.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Alabama is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, as we approach the 10th anniversary of 
the 9/11 attacks, we are reminded that a key recommendation of the 9/11 
Commission is still not completely addressed, that is, the security of 
the most commonly used form of identification in the United States, the 
driver's license.
  All but one of the 9/11 hijackers carried some form of government-
issued ID, mostly State driver's licenses, many of which were obtained 
in fraudulent manners. During the planning stages of the attacks, these 
documents were used to rent vehicles, evade law enforcement officials, 
enroll in flight school and board airplanes.
  In 2005, Congress passed, and the President signed, the REAL ID Act 
to address the security gap and require States to meet certain security 
standards for the issuance of driver's licenses and identification 
cards. Despite that action 6 years ago, REAL ID has yet to be fully 
implemented.
  My distinguished colleague, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, 
Mr. Smith, has some views to offer on this important topic.
  I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. I thank the gentleman from Alabama for yielding.
  He is absolutely correct. On September 11, 2001, Americans were 
attacked by foreign nationals who were able to exploit our laws and 
live unnoticed in the United States. The 19 hijackers obtained 17 
driver's licenses from Arizona, California, and Florida and 13 State-
issued IDs from Florida, Virginia, and Maryland.

                              {time}  2030

  With these licenses and identification cards, they boarded the planes 
they used to murder over 3,000 innocent Americans.
  The 9/11 Commission recommended that ``the Federal Government should 
set standards for the issuance of birth certificates and sources of 
identification such as driver's licenses. Fraud in identification 
documents is no longer just a problem of theft. At many entry points to 
vulnerable facilities, including gates for boarding aircraft, sources 
of identification are the last opportunity to ensure that people are 
who they say they are and to check whether they are terrorists.''
  Congress paid attention and passed the REAL ID Act. The law is 
critical to national security. This administration has undermined the 
REAL ID Act at every turn. They extended the compliance deadline two 
times, most recently last March, so now States do not have to be REAL 
ID-complaint until January 1, 2013. That is 11\1/2\ years after the 9/
11 attacks.
  And Secretary Napolitano consistently pushes for repeal of REAL ID 
instead of compliance. Most recently, before a March 9, 2011, Senate 
Judiciary hearing, she urged Congress to take a fresh look at 
legislation that would actually repeal the REAL ID Act.
  States are making progress on REAL ID. In fact, as of March 29, 2011, 
Maryland, Tennessee, Connecticut, South Dakota, and Delaware have 
submitted full compliance certification packages to DHS. Twenty-three 
other States are compliant and/or are issuing compliant documents. Four 
additional States have enhanced driver's license programs comparable to 
REAL ID guidelines.
  For these reasons, congressional support, including funding, is 
critical to REAL ID implementation. I am concerned that H.R. 2017's 
grant reform initiative may give the impression that Congress no longer 
supports REAL ID funding.
  So I ask the gentleman from Alabama: How do you respond to that 
concern?
  Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support the REAL ID 
implementation.
  REAL ID is the law. The Department has an obligation to support the 
States in moving forward toward full compliance with enhanced driver's 
license security. Congress has appropriated a steady stream of funding 
for REAL ID since 2006--$295 million, to be exact.
  Additionally, driver's license security is an allowable expense under 
the State Homeland Security Grant Program. So the actions taken in this 
bill should in no way be taken as a sign of diminishing support for 
REAL ID implementation.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. I thank the gentleman for that statement, and I 
ask him if he would further yield.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the remarks of the 
gentleman from Alabama and his endorsement of the REAL ID Act. The risk 
to not implementing REAL ID is great. Perhaps most recently this was 
evidenced by the facts surrounding the February arrest of Khalid al-
Dawsari in Texas on a Federal charge of attempted use of a weapon of 
mass destruction. According to the arrest affidavit, when the FBI 
searched his residence, they found his journal in which

[[Page H3879]]

he wrote of the need to obtain forged U.S. birth certificates, multiple 
driver's licenses, and a U.S. passport. He planned to use those 
driver's licenses to rent several cars, each with a different license 
specifically to avoid detection.
  So terrorists are still planning to exploit the weaknesses in our 
driver's license issuance processes in order to attack us. If we don't 
do everything in our power to prevent that from happening by fully 
implementing REAL ID, we set ourselves up for another attack.
  Mr. Chairman, I look forward to working with the gentleman from 
Alabama as this bill moves forward and on future appropriation bills to 
support States as they move toward full implementation of REAL ID.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                     firefighter assistance grants

       For necessary expenses for programs authorized by the 
     Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act of 1974 (15 U.S.C. 
     2201 et seq.), $350,000,000, of which $200,000,000 shall be 
     available to carry out section 33 of that Act (15 U.S.C. 
     2229) and $150,000,000 shall be available to carry out 
     section 34 of that Act (15 U.S.C. 2229a), to remain available 
     until September 30, 2013: Provided, That not to exceed 10 
     percent of the amount available under this heading shall be 
     transferred to ``Federal Emergency Management Agency, 
     Management and Administration'' for program administration, 
     and an expenditure plan for program administration shall be 
     provided to the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate 
     and the House of Representatives not later than 60 days after 
     the date of enactment of this Act: Provided further, That an 
     expenditure plan for program administration shall be 
     submitted at the time that the President's budget is 
     submitted each year under section 1105(a) of title 31, United 
     States Code, to the Committees on Appropriations of the 
     Senate and the House of Representatives.


                    Amendment Offered by Mrs. Lowey

  Mrs. LOWEY. I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Page 50, line 9, before the period insert ``: Provided 
     further, That an additional $1,229,500,000 is available for 
     State and Local Programs with this amount designated as an 
     emergency pursuant to section 3(c)(1) of H. Res. 5 (112th 
     Congress).''
       Page 51, line 5, before the period insert ``: Provided 
     further, That an additional $460,000,000 is available for 
     Firefighter Assistance Grants with this amount designated as 
     an emergency pursuant to section 3(c)(1) of H. Res. 5 (112th 
     Congress).''
       Page 91, line 20, after the dollar amount insert 
     ``(increased by $1,500,000,000)''.

  Mrs. LOWEY (during the reading). I ask unanimous consent to waive the 
reading.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the reading of the amendment is 
waived.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman----
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman will suspend.
  The gentlewoman's amendment falls within the previous paragraph.
  Mrs. LOWEY. I ask unanimous consent to return to the previous 
paragraph.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from New York?
  Mr. ADERHOLT. I object.
  The Acting CHAIR. Objection is heard.
  Mrs. LOWEY. I move to strike the last word, then.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from New York is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would address two critical 
shortfalls in the fiscal year 2012 Homeland Security appropriations 
bill: inadequate funding for communities devastated by recent 
disasters, and for first responder and antiterror programs.
  We have a responsibility to help rebuild homes and businesses 
following disasters throughout the South and Midwest where communities 
are reeling and families are mourning and rebuilding.
  Chairman Aderholt, whose Alabama district was devastated by 
tornadoes, took the first step in committee by increasing disaster 
relief funding, and I supported his efforts. My amendment builds upon 
his work to provide an additional $1.5 billion in disaster relief to 
help FEMA respond to needs that far exceed funding levels in this bill.
  Just as we have a responsibility, however, to help communities 
rebuild from natural disasters, we must help them prepare for and 
prevent manmade ones.
  Funding for FEMA's first responder grants as well as the proposed 
block grant structure provide inadequate levels to protect and prepare 
the top terror targets in the Nation or to keep our communities safe 
from fire hazards.
  The State Homeland Security Urban Area Security Initiative, Transit 
Security, Port Security, and additional grant programs will be forced 
to compete against each other for only two-thirds of the $1 billion 
provided for first responder grants, which is a cut of roughly $1.5 
billion to the program.
  Further, by dramatically reducing funding for firefighter grants, the 
Republican majority would shift a tremendous burden to local 
communities to either slash services or increase taxes to ensure 
adequate fire coverage.
  My amendment would increase funding for disaster relief by an 
additional $1.5 billion, while also bringing first responder and fire 
grant programs back to their fiscal year 2011 levels.
  Now, some of my colleagues across the aisle object to funding 
recovery efforts without offsets. Those from areas affected by recent 
disasters, including Republican Senator Roy Blunt, understand that the 
overwhelming recovery need must be prioritized. And all of us know the 
repercussions of allowing our first responders to go unprepared or 
untrained in this dangerous world.
  Earlier this year, even before the death of Osama bin Laden increased 
our state of alert, Secretary Napolitano testified that we were at our 
most heightened state of terrorist threat since September 11.
  If this bill is adopted without my amendment, hundreds of millions of 
dollars in antiterror funds will be taken from our most targeted 
regions. Just weeks after intelligence gathered at Osama bin Laden's 
compound indicates a clear intent to strike the Nation coinciding with 
the 10th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, such reductions would be 
unconscionable.
  I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I want to express my support, Mr. 
Chairman, for the intent of my colleague from New York in calling 
attention to the major deficiency in this bill.
  But, Mr. Chairman, I feel compelled also to express my extreme 
disappointment about what has just occurred on this floor. Our 
colleague was on her feet ready to offer her amendment. She was on her 
feet ready to offer this amendment. Somebody may have thought that she 
was a couple of seconds late in doing that. But even if that were true, 
we expect the basic comity that a colleague who has been waiting here 
for an hour to offer this amendment, has been waiting in turn, that we 
would have the basic comity to allow her to offer that amendment.

                              {time}  2040

  I can't believe what we've just witnessed.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I would be happy to yield to the 
gentleman from Alabama.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. If you would give us just a minute, we are trying to 
see if we can work something out on this.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I certainly hope so.
  That's good, Mr. Chairman. I am very pleased to hear that.
  Let me go ahead and say something about my colleague's intent, 
because there is a major deficiency in this bill, and we need to 
address this, although it's extremely hard to address without the 
presence of viable offsets.
  State and local grants in this legislation are 55 percent below the 
enacted 2011 level. They are 70 percent below the enacted 2010 level. 
Moreover, these State and local grants are block granted. Individual 
programs, such as State grants and urban area grants and port grants 
and transit and rail grants, could be cut even farther because at the 
Secretary's discretion she is going to have to choose within this block 
grant as to what kind of money goes to individual programs.
  At the full committee markup of this bill, Congressman LaTourette and 
I

[[Page H3880]]

offered a very similar amendment to what Mrs. Lowey has put forward to 
restore funding to these programs. Now, we're not talking about lavish 
funding here. By no means would the funding be lavish. In fact, it 
would simply be equal to the already reduced fiscal year 2011 levels; 
but we, unfortunately, were not allowed to move forward with the offset 
that I earlier discussed which had to do with correcting the 
mislabeling, we believe, of emergency funds.
  In any case, we are faced with the threat of terrorism looming larger 
and massive cuts to first responders and to State and local 
preparedness. We are ignoring key investments in this bill that would 
make our communities safer. Local governments are our first response to 
terrorist attacks, to natural disasters and to other emergencies. Local 
law enforcement, fire, emergency medical, as well as county public 
health and other public safety personnel, are responsible for on-the-
ground response and recovery action. Local communities, in addition, 
own, operate and secure essential aspects of our Nation's 
infrastructure, such as our ports, transit systems, water supplies, 
schools, and hospitals.
  Plainly put, Mr. Chairman, these cuts are shortsighted. I am very, 
very pleased that our subcommittee colleague Mrs. Lowey has made such 
persistent efforts to correct this bill's deficiencies and to keep 
faith with the parts of our country that we know are in the greatest 
peril.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Alabama is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, we are trying to work out an agreement 
with the gentlelady from New York.
  If you will give us a minute to work this out, we will try to find 
something that can be accommodating to both parties.
  Mrs. LOWEY. I appreciate it. You have been very, very helpful. Thank 
you.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mrs. LOWEY. I now ask unanimous consent to consider my amendment out 
of order.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the Committee will return to 
that point in the reading first addressed in the amendment of the 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey).
  There was no objection.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the 
gentlelady's amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. A point of order is reserved.
  The gentlewoman from New York is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mrs. LOWEY. I would like to make a few additional points because, 
previously, I did discuss the amendment in greater detail, and I thank 
the chairman for his consideration. There are a couple of important 
things. As to the $1 billion to the block grant funding, I think it is 
important that we look at the breakdown:
  $192.6 million for law enforcement training and exercises; $55 
million for Operation Stonegarden grants, which is overtime costs; and 
$85 million for FEMA to administer the grant programs, which is the 
Department of Homeland Security estimate. This brings the funding total 
down to $667.1 million before the block grant even begins to be 
distributed to the State Homeland Security Grant Program, UASI, the 
Metropolitan Medical Response System, Interoperability, Port Security, 
Transit Security, and Citizen Corps.
  SHSGP is written in such a way that it doesn't have to even be 
funded; but if it is, there are minimum funding requirements for each 
State and territory--.35 percent of total funds for FY12. Given that 
SHSGP provides funding to each State, there is no scenario under which 
the Secretary does not fund this program. That is mandatory. So the 
minimum funding level that can be provided for SHSGP and that can 
comply with the statutory requirement is $125.4 million. This would 
leave just $551.7 million remaining for UASI, MMRS, Interoperability, 
Port Security, Transit Security, Citizen Corps.
  Now, I discussed previously when I introduced my amendment that there 
are tremendous needs for responding to the recent disasters all around 
this country that are really unheard of--the tornadoes, the floods, the 
loss of life. People have to rebuild their homes, rebuild their lives. 
It is essential that we appropriate that additional money, and it is 
also essential that we respond to the threats which are still out 
there. People will say bin Laden is gone, but there is an entire 
network that we have to be concerned about. So, Mr. Chairman, I hope 
that we can respond adequately to both disaster needs and the needs of 
our UASI areas with regard to terrorist response for the grants.
  Let me conclude by thanking you, after sitting here for 6 hours, 
maybe 8 hours today, for allowing me to offer this amendment after 
being late for 10 seconds. I appreciate your consideration. I 
appreciate the support, and I do hope we can pass it and respond to the 
real needs out there for both disasters and the terrorism threats that 
are within our communities.
  Mr. REYES. Mr. Chair, I rise to support the amendment offered by Mrs. 
Lowey to restore funds to the State and Local Grant Programs account in 
the FY2012 Homeland Security Appropriations Bill.
  As you know, various programs under the Department of Homeland 
Security such as the Urban Areas Security Initiative, Operation 
Stonegarden, and FIRE and SAFER grants, provide communities across the 
country with the resources and tools necessary to keep us safe.
  Unfortunately, the FY2012 Homeland Security Appropriations Bill funds 
the State and Local Grant programs almost 65 percent below the 
President's request. And, while I appreciate the Committee's efforts to 
consolidate and streamline the process, I concur with Mr. Price's 
sentiments when he says that these cuts ``break faith with the states 
and localities that depend on us as partners to secure [and protect] 
our communities.''
  These steep reductions have prompted President Obama to release a 
Statement of Administration Policy expressing great concern regarding 
the insufficient amount of funds that are critical to support ongoing 
homeland security prevention and preparedness programs to ensure that 
all levels of government have the capacity to respond to threats. As 
our local governments continue to face financial challenges, these 
federal grants help ensure that our communities have the resources they 
need to stay safe.
  As I have mentioned before, El Paso, Texas, the city which I 
represent, sits on the U.S.-Mexico border across from what is arguably 
one of the most violent cities in Mexico--Ciudad Juarez. Yet, despite 
this, El Paso has continued to rank as one of the safest cities in the 
country. Indeed, in 2010 it was ranked the safest large city. I 
attribute this to the great work of law enforcement in our community 
which is supported by the resources from programs funded through the 
State and Local Grants account.
  With the continued violence in Mexico and other potential security 
threats in our area, funding for the State and Local Grants accounts is 
especially critical. These federal grants help ensure that our local 
law enforcement agencies have the resources they need to ensure that El 
Paso remains the safest city in the U.S.
  As former Chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on 
Intelligence, I know very well the importance of providing our cities 
with adequate resources to prepare, prevent, and protect against 
attacks. This is a time for our communities to remain vigilant, and it 
is unwise to cut off resources in such a drastic way--especially as 
some of my colleagues seek to paint the border as violent and lawless.
  Mrs. Lowey's amendment provides necessary increases for disaster 
relief, police department anti-terror programs, and firefighter grant 
programs--restoring the latter two to their 2011 levels. If this 
amendment does not pass, the Republican Homeland Security 
Appropriations bill would dramatically reduce support for police and 
fire departments. This shifts the costs to local communities, forcing 
them to slash jobs and services, or increase taxes.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Lowey Amendment to ensure that 
our communities remain safe.
  Mrs. LOWEY. I yield back the balance of my time.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. The amendment proposes to amend portions of the bill 
not yet read. Section 17, Chapter 2 of the House Practice book states, 
in

[[Page H3881]]

part: It is not in order to strike or otherwise amend portions of a 
bill not yet read for amendment.
  I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
  The Acting CHAIR. To be considered en bloc pursuant to clause 2(f) of 
rule XXI, an amendment must propose only to transfer appropriations 
among objects in the bill. Because the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from New York proposes only to increase certain accounts in 
the bill, it may not avail itself of clause 2(f) to address portions of 
the bill not yet read.
  The point of order is sustained.

                              {time}  2050

  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                emergency management performance grants

       For necessary expenses for emergency management performance 
     grants, as authorized by the National Flood Insurance Act of 
     1968 (42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.), the Robert T. Stafford 
     Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 
     et seq.), the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977 (42 
     U.S.C. 7701 et seq.), and Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978 
     (5 U.S.C. App.), $350,000,000: Provided, That not to exceed 
     10 percent of the amount available under this heading shall 
     be transferred to ``Federal Emergency Management Agency, 
     Management and Administration'' for program administration, 
     and an expenditure plan for program administration shall be 
     provided to the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate 
     and the House of Representatives not later than 60 days after 
     the date of enactment of this Act: Provided further, That an 
     expenditure plan for program administration shall be 
     submitted at the time that the President's budget is 
     submitted each year under section 1105(a) of title 31, United 
     States Code, to the Committees on Appropriations of the 
     Senate and the House of Representatives.

              radiological emergency preparedness program

       The aggregate charges assessed during fiscal year 2012, as 
     authorized in title III of the Departments of Veterans 
     Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and Independent 
     Agencies Appropriations Act, 1999 (42 U.S.C. 5196e), shall 
     not be less than 100 percent of the amounts anticipated by 
     the Department of Homeland Security necessary for its 
     radiological emergency preparedness program for the next 
     fiscal year: Provided, That the methodology for assessment 
     and collection of fees shall be fair and equitable and shall 
     reflect costs of providing such services, including 
     administrative costs of collecting such fees: Provided 
     further, That fees received under this heading shall be 
     deposited in this account as offsetting collections and will 
     become available for authorized purposes on October 1, 2012, 
     and remain available until expended.

                   united states fire administration

       For necessary expenses of the United States Fire 
     Administration and for other purposes, as authorized by the 
     Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act of 1974 (15 U.S.C. 
     2201 et seq.) and the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 
     101 et seq.), $42,538,000.

                            disaster relief

                     (including transfers of funds)

       For necessary expenses in carrying out the Robert T. 
     Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 
     U.S.C. 5121 et seq.), $2,650,000,000, to remain available 
     until expended: Provided, That the Federal Emergency 
     Management Agency shall submit an expenditure plan to the 
     Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the House of 
     Representatives detailing the use of the funds for disaster 
     readiness and support not later than 60 days after the date 
     of enactment of this Act: Provided further, That the Federal 
     Emergency Management Agency shall submit to such Committees a 
     quarterly report detailing obligations against the 
     expenditure plan and a justification for any changes in 
     spending: Provided further, That of the total amount 
     provided, $16,000,000 shall be transferred to the Department 
     of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General for audits 
     and investigations related to disasters, subject to section 
     503 of this Act: Provided further, That not later than 60 
     days after the date of enactment of this Act, $105,600,000 
     shall be transferred to ``Federal Emergency Management 
     Agency, Management and Administration'' for management and 
     administration functions: Provided further, That the 
     Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency 
     shall submit the monthly ``Disaster Relief'' report, as 
     specified in Public Law 110-161, to the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the Senate and the House of 
     Representatives, and include the amounts provided to each 
     Federal agency for mission assignments: Provided further, 
     That the Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management 
     Agency shall submit quarterly reports to the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the Senate and the House of Representatives 
     providing estimates of funding requirements for ``Disaster 
     Relief'' for the current fiscal year and the succeeding three 
     fiscal years which shall include--
       (1) an estimate, by quarter, for the costs of all 
     previously designated disasters;
       (2) an estimate, by quarter, for the cost of future 
     disasters based on a five-year average, excluding 
     catastrophic disasters;
       (3) an estimate, by quarter, for the costs of catastrophic 
     disasters excluded from the five-year average subdivided by 
     disaster and shall include the amount already obligated and 
     the remaining estimated costs; and
       (4) an estimate of the date on which the ``Disaster 
     Relief'' balance will reach $800,000,000: Provided further, 
     That the Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management 
     Agency shall develop a policy and provide a report on such 
     policy that defines the five-year average used to develop the 
     budget estimates for disaster relief not later than 60 days 
     after the date of enactment of this Act that shall include a 
     clear and reproducible definition of the five-year average 
     used as a basis for the request, the responsible official who 
     develops the average, and the data source(s) used: Provided 
     further, That the Administrator of the Federal Emergency 
     Management Agency shall include in the fiscal year 2013 
     budget submission for disaster relief a clear statement of 
     the five-year average used as a basis for the request, the 
     fiscal years included in the average, a list of the 
     obligations for each of the five fiscal years, and all 
     adjustments made to the gross obligation total for each of 
     the five fiscal years, including a record of which 
     catastrophic disasters are excluded from each year's 
     obligation total and the associated amount excluded; 
     inflation adjustments; and the amount and source of 
     recoveries applied against the obligation total: Provided 
     further, That the President shall submit an offset budget 
     amendment from within discretionary funds not later than 
     three months prior to the date that the Administrator of the 
     Federal Emergency Management Agency estimates that the total 
     amount remaining unallocated in ``Disaster Relief' '' will 
     reach $800,000,000, and that the request shall account for 
     all estimated funding requirements for that fiscal year: 
     Provided further, That for any request for reimbursement from 
     a Federal agency to the Department of Homeland Security to 
     cover expenditures under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster 
     Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.), 
     or any mission assignment orders issued by the Department for 
     such purposes, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall take 
     appropriate steps to ensure that each agency is periodically 
     reminded of the Department policies on--
       (A) the detailed information required in supporting 
     documentation for reimbursements; and
       (B) the necessity for timeliness of agency billings.


                  Amendment Offered by Ms. Richardson

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

       Page 53, line 5, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $100,000,000) (increased by $100,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes in support of her amendment.
  Ms. RICHARDSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me to speak on 
my amendment about disaster relief funding. My amendment is designed to 
support response, rescue, and recovery. In fiscal year 2011, the 
Disaster Relief Fund was funded at $2.65 billion. I was pleased to see 
only, finally after great embarrassment, that we restored the funding 
of what it was previously in full year 2011 after the disaster we had 
in Joplin, Missouri. This amount of funding is not enough, and we 
should just be honest with the American public in terms of the budget 
of what the real costs are.
  Hurricane season has not started yet, but FEMA has already made 37 
major disaster declarations, seven emergency declarations, and 54 fire 
management assistance declarations already this year.
  Just over the last few days, 142 people were killed in Joplin, 
Missouri, during the tornado that struck the city on May 22, 2011. This 
disaster is the highest recorded death toll from a tornado in U.S. 
history. The Joplin tornado destroyed an estimated 2,500 homes and 
damaged 10,000 others. In May, flooding in Memphis, Tennessee, 
devastated 1,300 homes and caused thousands to be displaced. In April, 
a powerful storm system spawned tornadoes across seven southern States, 
resulting in over 300 deaths in Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, 
Arkansas, Virginia, and Kentucky.
  Without disaster relief funding, or not having a sufficient amount of 
it, many of these communities would not be safe. These funds are used 
to be able to rebuild lives and communities. The Disaster Relief Fund 
is managed through FEMA. We need to ensure that people who are in need 
of assistance are not waiting on Congress to debate; but, in fact, 
Congress is responding with the appropriate resources.
  This other approach is wrong. We should never hold relief funds 
hostage and allow citizens to suffer from a disaster while Congress 
debates. I think it

[[Page H3882]]

is unconscionable that we would not immediately allow FEMA the ability 
to provide the assistance that is needed to help rebuild our 
communities.
  Now, let me show you a more recent picture of what happened in 
Joplin. You'll see in this picture that it appears a man is holding a 
child who doesn't even have socks and shoes. So when we talk about 
whether it is ideologically we believe in cutting the budget, we need 
to make sure that we are cutting in the right places and not in places 
like this.
  Since full year 1989, Congress has appropriated roughly $292 billion 
for disaster assistance in 35 appropriations bills, primarily as 
supplementals, two significant catastrophes that have occurred. The 
mean annual range that we have had to do as a supplemental is anywhere 
between $8.3 billion and $13.3 billion. Today we are considering only 
$2.65 billion. Clearly, history tells us it is not enough, and the 
American public should not have to wait each time that we debate when 
we know that what we are looking at today is not enough.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge the committee chair and my colleagues to support 
the Richardson amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Alabama is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. I accept the gentlelady's amendment. However, I must 
clarify that the base bill includes $2.65 billion and includes an 
additional $1 billion in supplemental funds, and that is a total of 
$1.8 billion above the request. So I would like to point that out to 
the gentlelady, but we will accept her amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Richardson).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

            disaster assistance direct loan program account

       For activities under section 319 of the Robert T. Stafford 
     Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 
     5162), $296,000 is for the cost of direct loans: Provided, 
     That gross obligations for the principal amount of direct 
     loans shall not exceed $25,000,000: Provided further, That 
     the cost of modifying such loans shall be as defined in 
     section 502 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 
     661a).

             flood hazard mapping and risk analysis program

       For necessary expenses under section 1360 of the National 
     Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4101), $102,712,000, 
     and such additional sums as may be provided by State and 
     local governments or other political subdivisions for cost-
     shared mapping activities under section 1360(f)(2) of such 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 4101(f)(2)), to remain available until 
     expended: Provided, That total administrative costs shall not 
     exceed three percent of the total amount appropriated under 
     this heading.

                     national flood insurance fund

       For activities under the National Flood Insurance Act of 
     1968 (42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.) and the Flood Disaster 
     Protection Act of 1973 (42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.), 
     $171,000,000, which shall remain available until September 
     30, 2013 and shall be derived from offsetting collections 
     assessed and collected under section 1308(d) of the National 
     Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4015(d)), which is 
     available for salaries and expenses associated with flood 
     mitigation and flood insurance operations; and flood plain 
     management and flood mapping: Provided, That not to exceed 
     $22,000,000 shall be available for salaries and expenses 
     associated with flood mitigation and flood insurance 
     operations: Provided further, That not less than $149,000,000 
     shall be available for flood plain management and flood 
     mapping: Provided further, That any additional fees collected 
     pursuant to section 1308(d) of the National Flood Insurance 
     Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4015(d)) shall be credited as an 
     offsetting collection to this account, to be available for 
     flood plain management and flood mapping: Provided further, 
     That in fiscal year 2012, no funds shall be available from 
     the National Flood Insurance Fund under section 1310 of that 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 4017) in excess of: (1) $132,000,000 for 
     operating expenses; (2) $1,007,571,000 for commissions and 
     taxes of agents; (3) such sums as are necessary for interest 
     on Treasury borrowings; and (4) $50,000,000, which shall 
     remain available until expended for flood mitigation actions, 
     of which $10,000,000 is for repetitive insurance claims 
     properties under section 1323 of the National Flood Insurance 
     Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4030), and of which $40,000,000 is for 
     flood mitigation assistance under section 1366 of the 
     National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4104c), 
     notwithstanding subparagraphs (B) and (C) of subsection 
     (b)(3) and subsection (f) of section 1366 of the National 
     Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4104c), and 
     notwithstanding subsection (a)(7) of section 1310 of the 
     National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4017): 
     Provided further, That amounts collected under section 102 of 
     the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 and section 1366(i) 
     of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 shall be 
     deposited in the National Flood Insurance Fund to supplement 
     other amounts specified as available for section 1366 of the 
     National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, notwithstanding section 
     102(f)(8) of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 
     section 1366(i) of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 
     and paragraphs (2) and (3) of section 1366(5) of the National 
     Flood Insurance Act of 1968: Provided further, That total 
     administrative costs shall not exceed four percent of the 
     total appropriation.

                  national predisaster mitigation fund

       For the predisaster mitigation grant program under section 
     203 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency 
     Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5133), $40,000,000, to remain 
     available until expended: Provided, That the total 
     administrative costs associated with such grants shall not 
     exceed three percent of the total amount made available under 
     this heading.

                       emergency food and shelter

       To carry out the emergency food and shelter program 
     pursuant to title III of the McKinney-Vento Homeless 
     Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11331 et seq.), $120,000,000, to 
     remain available until expended: Provided, That total 
     administrative costs shall not exceed 3.5 percent of the 
     total amount made available under this heading.

                                TITLE IV

            RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, TRAINING, AND SERVICES

           United States Citizenship and Immigration Services

       For necessary expenses for citizenship and immigration 
     services, $132,361,000 for immigration verification programs, 
     including the E-Verify Program, as authorized by section 
     403(a) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant 
     Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1324a note), to assist 
     United States employers with maintaining a legal workforce; 
     and of which none of the funds may be used for grants for 
     immigrant integration: Provided, That notwithstanding any 
     other provision of law, funds available to United States 
     Citizenship and Immigration Services may be used to acquire, 
     operate, equip, and dispose of up to five vehicles, for 
     replacement only, for areas where the Administrator of 
     General Services does not provide vehicles for lease: 
     Provided further, That the Director of United States 
     Citizenship and Immigration Services may authorize employees 
     who are assigned to those areas to use such vehicles to 
     travel between the employees' residences and places of 
     employment.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Honda

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

       Page 60, beginning on line 15, strike ``; and of which none 
     of the funds may be used for grants for immigrant 
     integration''.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes in support of his amendment.
  Mr. HONDA. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is a straightforward amendment 
that would remove language in the bill that targets immigrant 
integration grants.
  What are immigrant integration grants, and why are they important?
  Every year, immigrant integration grants provide funding to local 
churches, schools, and community centers across the Nation, from 
Catholic Charities in Dallas to the Ukrainian Community Center of 
Washington State to West Georgia Technical College to prepare legal 
permanent residents for citizenship.
  Let me repeat, Mr. Chairman: these grants are for legal permanent 
residents, or citizens in waiting, like many of our parents and 
grandparents who came to America not speaking a word of English or 
knowing the great history and civics of our country.
  Citizenship instruction through these grants must include U.S. 
history and government lessons and civics-focused English lessons. We 
often hear from the other side that immigrants coming to this country 
should learn English, and they should. These grants provide a way for 
immigrants to do exactly that. It is perhaps fortuitous--and that is 
spelled F-O-R-T-U-I-T-O-U-S, fortuitous--that we are debating this 
amendment as the 2011 Scripps National Spelling Bee begins its annual 
competition this week.
  As one goes down the list of the 275 young student spellers, it is 
worth noting and pointing out that many of

[[Page H3883]]

them have parents who are immigrants or are immigrants themselves. 
Eight of the past 12 champions of the Scripps National Spelling Bee 
were foreign born or had parents who were foreign born.
  Renowned linguist Ben Zimmer points out the connection between 
immigrant families and the spelling bee in this week's NPR story. On 
the topic Mr. Zimmer tells NPR: ``These kids are spending sometimes a 
few hours a day going through word lists to learn the most difficult 
words in English. Very often, they are youngsters coming from immigrant 
families that really prize learning English as part of becoming 
assimilated into American culture. So, my hat's off to all these young 
spellers.''
  Mr. Chairman, the immigrants who rely on integration grants are often 
the parents of these success stories. They are the mother at the Hebrew 
Immigrant Aid Society in New York, or the father at the Lutheran Social 
Services of South Dakota who, after working two jobs in a day, still 
find the energy to make it to a night class where they can learn 
English and learn about our Nation's history and government.
  The energy that drives these parents is the same energy that drove 
our immigrant parents and grandparents--the idea that their hard work 
would give their children a chance to a better life in America.
  And while the English language learner population is often 
characterized as solely immigrant, the reality is that the native born, 
U.S.-born English language learner population nearly doubled between 
the year 2000 and 2005 and is increasing at a higher rate than the 
immigrant population.

                              {time}  2100

  Between 2010 and 2030, these first- and second-generation immigrants 
are projected to account for all growth in the U.S. labor force. Better 
preparing this workforce will unite and strengthen our country.
  The notion that we as a Nation shouldn't fund programs like 
integration grants flies in the face of what our country is all about. 
These new Americans are not looking for an easy ride. They're simply 
looking for the chance to learn English, learn about the history of 
their new home, learn about the history of their adopted home, their 
choice of a new home, and integrate into the fabric of America. There 
should be a direct source of appropriations for immigrant integration 
grants, which this bill takes away. At the very least, there should not 
be restrictions on how USCIS can fund these important grants in this 
bill.
  So I ask my colleagues to support this straightforward amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman from 
California's views, and we accept this amendment.
  However, I would like to state for the record that the $132 million 
of appropriated funds provided in this bill would not fund immigrant 
integration grants. They are provided for verification programs, both 
E-Verify and SAVE, and these are critical programs to the fund.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I rise merely to express my support also 
for Mr. Honda's amendment. I think it is entirely appropriate to permit 
appropriated funds to be used for immigration integration, and that, 
indeed, has been our past practice.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. CHU. Mr. Chair, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. CHU. I stand in strong support of this amendment, which strikes 
language prohibiting direct appropriations funding for immigration 
integration grants.
  Integrating immigrants into our society makes us a stronger Nation 
and a more united Nation. Having Federal policies in place to quickly 
integrate new citizens into our national fabric is and should remain an 
important priority for our government.
  This should not be a solely Republican or Democratic priority. This 
is not a partisan issue. In fact, it has had strong support from 
leaders on both sides of the aisle. President George Bush created the 
Office of Citizenship during his Presidency because he recognized the 
importance of helping new citizens embrace their new home. The Office 
of Citizenship plays a key role in immigration integration by leading 
initiatives to promote citizenship awareness; providing grants to 
national and community-based organizations that prepare immigrants for 
citizenship; preparing educational materials for citizens and trying to 
expand integration and citizenship resources in communities.
  And President Obama has picked up the torch from his predecessor, 
committing direct appropriations to an integration grant program that 
helps green card holders, who are all legal immigrants, get ready to 
become active participants in our democracy. These grants help legal 
residents navigate through the naturalization process, teach them about 
our Nation's history and government, and teach them English.
  These programs benefit real people, immigrants who came to America 
for a better life. Immigrants like Phyllis, a 74-year-old grandmother 
who took a citizenship class in Maryland. Once a week for 8 weeks, she 
and her classmates, 20 of them, in fact, spent 2 hours learning the 
basics of American history and government and interview skills for a 
naturalization test. Phyllis moved to the U.S. from Sri Lanka to take 
care of her three grandsons. Being a citizen, knowing our laws, and 
speaking English will help her ensure those young boys grow up to be 
strong Americans themselves.
  Immigrants who integrate into U.S. society go on to become informed 
voters, active community members, innovators, entrepreneurs, and future 
job creators. Whether they come on family or employment visas, through 
the asylum or refugee program, or through other smaller legal 
immigration programs, legal permanent residents come to this country 
with the dream of becoming U.S. citizens and giving back to their 
adopted home.
  In the last 2 fiscal years, Congress has directly appropriated $11 
million for integration grants. But this bill doesn't provide direct 
appropriations. Instead, it pulls the funds out of the examination fees 
account. And it goes a step further, expressly prohibiting direct 
funding for immigration integration grants.
  But I think we should provide direct appropriations for these grants 
because immigration assimilation should be a national priority. Both 
sides agree that legal immigrants that want to become part of society 
and learn our laws and our language should be able to become citizens, 
and that's exactly what these funds do.
  I urge all my colleagues to support this amendment to help our Nation 
and all its citizens, no matter where they were born, so that we can 
boost human potential and make this a stronger Nation.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Honda).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                Federal Law Enforcement Training Center

                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Federal Law Enforcement 
     Training Center, including materials and support costs of 
     Federal law enforcement basic training; the purchase of not 
     to exceed 117 vehicles for police-type use and hire of 
     passenger motor vehicles; expenses for student athletic and 
     related activities; the conduct of and participation in 
     firearms matches and presentation of awards; public awareness 
     and enhancement of community support of law enforcement 
     training; room and board for student interns; a flat monthly 
     reimbursement to employees authorized to use personal mobile 
     phones for official duties; and services as authorized by 
     section 3109 of title 5, United States Code; $238,957,000, of 
     which up to $48,978,000 shall remain available until 
     September 30, 2013, for materials and support costs of 
     Federal law enforcement basic training; of which $300,000 
     shall remain available until expended to be distributed to 
     Federal law enforcement agencies for expenses incurred 
     participating in training accreditation; and of which not to 
     exceed $12,000 shall be for official reception and 
     representation expenses: Provided, That the Center is 
     authorized to obligate funds in anticipation of 
     reimbursements from agencies receiving training sponsored by 
     the Center, except that total obligations at the end

[[Page H3884]]

     of the fiscal year shall not exceed total budgetary resources 
     available at the end of the fiscal year: Provided further, 
     That section 1202(a) of Public Law 107-206 (42 U.S.C. 3771 
     note), as amended by Public Law 111-83 (123 Stat. 2166), is 
     further amended by striking ``December 31, 2012'' and 
     inserting ``December 31, 2014'': Provided further, That the 
     Director of the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center shall 
     schedule basic or advanced law enforcement training, or both, 
     at all four training facilities under the control of the 
     Federal Law Enforcement Training Center to ensure that such 
     training facilities are operated at the highest capacity 
     throughout the fiscal year: Provided further, That the 
     Federal Law Enforcement Training Accreditation Board, 
     including representatives from the Federal law enforcement 
     community and non-Federal accreditation experts involved in 
     law enforcement training, shall lead the Federal law 
     enforcement training accreditation process to continue the 
     implementation of measuring and assessing the quality and 
     effectiveness of Federal law enforcement training programs, 
     facilities, and instructors.

     acquisitions, construction, improvements, and related expenses

       For acquisition of necessary additional real property and 
     facilities, construction, and ongoing maintenance, facility 
     improvements, and related expenses of the Federal Law 
     Enforcement Training Center, $35,456,000, to remain available 
     until September 30, 2016: Provided, That the Center is 
     authorized to accept reimbursement to this appropriation from 
     government agencies requesting the construction of special 
     use facilities.

                         SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

                     Management and Administration

       For salaries and expenses of the Office of the Under 
     Secretary for Science and Technology and for management and 
     administration of programs and activities, as authorized by 
     title III of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 181 
     et seq.), $140,565,000: Provided, That not to exceed $10,000 
     shall be for official reception and representation expenses.

           Research, Development, Acquisition, and Operations

       For necessary expenses for science and technology research, 
     including advanced research projects, development, test and 
     evaluation, acquisition, and operations as authorized by 
     title III of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 181 
     et seq.), and the purchase or lease of not to exceed five 
     vehicles, $398,213,000, of which $196,713,000, to remain 
     available until September 30, 2014; and of which 
     $201,500,000, to remain available until September 30, 2016, 
     solely for operation and construction of laboratory 
     facilities.

                   DOMESTIC NUCLEAR DETECTION OFFICE

                     Management and Administration

       For salaries and expenses of the Domestic Nuclear Detection 
     Office, as authorized by title XIX of the Homeland Security 
     Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 591 et seq.), for management and 
     administration of programs and activities, $40,000,000: 
     Provided, That not to exceed $3,000 shall be for official 
     reception and representation expenses.

                 Research, Development, and Operations

       For necessary expenses for radiological and nuclear 
     research, development, testing, evaluation, and operations, 
     $245,194,000, to remain available until September 30, 2014.

                          Systems Acquisition

       For expenses for the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office 
     acquisition and deployment of radiological detection systems 
     in accordance with the global nuclear detection architecture, 
     $52,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 2014: 
     Provided, That none of the funds appropriated under this 
     heading in this Act or any other Act shall be obligated for 
     full-scale procurement of advanced spectroscopic portal 
     monitors until the Secretary of Homeland Security submits to 
     the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the House 
     of Representatives a report certifying that a significant 
     increase in operational effectiveness will be achieved by 
     such obligation: Provided further, That the Secretary shall 
     submit separate and distinct certifications prior to the 
     procurement of advanced spectroscopic portal monitors for 
     primary and secondary deployment that address the unique 
     requirements for operational effectiveness of each type of 
     deployment: Provided further, That the Secretary shall 
     continue to consult with the National Academy of Sciences 
     before making such certifications: Provided further, That 
     none of the funds appropriated under this heading shall be 
     used for high-risk concurrent development and production of 
     mutually dependent software and hardware.

                                TITLE V

                           GENERAL PROVISIONS

                    (including rescissions of funds)

       Sec. 501.  No part of any appropriation contained in this 
     Act shall remain available for obligation beyond the current 
     fiscal year unless expressly so provided herein.
       Sec. 502.  Subject to the requirements of section 503 of 
     this Act, the unexpended balances of prior appropriations 
     provided for activities in this Act may be transferred to 
     appropriation accounts for such activities established 
     pursuant to this Act, may be merged with funds in the 
     applicable established accounts, and thereafter may be 
     accounted for as one fund for the same time period as 
     originally enacted.
       Sec. 503. (a) None of the funds provided by this Act, 
     provided by previous appropriations Acts to the agencies in 
     or transferred to the Department of Homeland Security that 
     remain available for obligation or expenditure in fiscal year 
     2012, or provided from any accounts in the Treasury of the 
     United States derived by the collection of fees available to 
     the agencies funded by this Act, shall be available for 
     obligation or expenditure through a reprogramming of funds 
     that: (1) creates a new program, project, office, or 
     activity; (2) eliminates a program, project, office, or 
     activity; (3) increases funds for any program, project, or 
     activity for which funds have been denied or restricted by 
     the Congress; (4) proposes to use funds directed for a 
     specific activity by either of the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the Senate or the House of Representatives 
     for a different purpose; or (5) contracts out any function or 
     activity for which funding levels were requested for Federal 
     full-time equivalents in the object classification tables 
     contained in the fiscal year 2012 Budget Appendix for the 
     Department of Homeland Security, as modified by the joint 
     explanatory statement accompanying this Act, unless the 
     Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the House of 
     Representatives are notified 15 days in advance of such 
     reprogramming of funds.
       (b) None of the funds provided by this Act, provided by 
     previous appropriations Acts to the agencies in or 
     transferred to the Department of Homeland Security that 
     remain available for obligation or expenditure in fiscal year 
     2012, or provided from any accounts in the Treasury of the 
     United States derived by the collection of fees or proceeds 
     available to the agencies funded by this Act, shall be 
     available for obligation or expenditure for programs, 
     projects, or activities through a reprogramming of funds in 
     excess of $5,000,000 or 10 percent, whichever is less, that: 
     (1) augments existing programs, projects, or activities; (2) 
     reduces by 10 percent funding for any existing program, 
     project, or activity, or reduces the numbers of personnel by 
     10 percent as approved by the Congress; or (3) results from 
     any general savings from a reduction in personnel that would 
     result in a change in existing programs, projects, or 
     activities as approved by the Congress, unless the Committees 
     on Appropriations of the Senate and the House of 
     Representatives are notified 15 days in advance of such 
     reprogramming of funds.
       (c) Not to exceed five percent of any appropriation made 
     available for the current fiscal year for the Department of 
     Homeland Security by this Act or provided by previous 
     appropriations Acts may be transferred between such 
     appropriations, but no such appropriation, except as 
     otherwise specifically provided, shall be increased by more 
     than 10 percent by such transfers: Provided, That any 
     transfer under this section shall be treated as a 
     reprogramming of funds under subsection (b) and shall not be 
     available for obligation unless the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the Senate and the House of Representatives 
     are notified 15 days in advance of such transfer.
       (d) Notwithstanding subsections (a), (b), and (c) of this 
     section, no funds shall be reprogrammed within or transferred 
     between appropriations after June 30, except in extraordinary 
     circumstances that imminently threaten the safety of human 
     life or the protection of property.
       (e) The notification thresholds and procedures set forth in 
     this section shall apply to any use of deobligated balances 
     of funds provided in previous Department of Homeland Security 
     Appropriations Acts.
       Sec. 504.  The Department of Homeland Security Working 
     Capital Fund, established pursuant to section 403 of Public 
     Law 103-356 (31 U.S.C. 501 note), shall continue operations 
     as a permanent working capital fund for fiscal year 2012: 
     Provided, That none of the funds appropriated or otherwise 
     made available to the Department of Homeland Security may be 
     used to make payments to the Working Capital Fund, except for 
     the activities and amounts allowed in the President's fiscal 
     year 2012 budget: Provided further, That funds provided to 
     the Working Capital Fund shall be available for obligation 
     until expended to carry out the purposes of the Working 
     Capital Fund: Provided further, That all departmental 
     components shall be charged only for direct usage of each 
     Working Capital Fund service: Provided further, That funds 
     provided to the Working Capital Fund shall be used only for 
     purposes consistent with the contributing component: Provided 
     further, That the Working Capital Fund shall be paid in 
     advance or reimbursed at rates which will return the full 
     cost of each service: Provided further, That the Working 
     Capital Fund shall be subject to the requirements of section 
     503 of this Act.
       Sec. 505.  Except as otherwise specifically provided by 
     law, not to exceed 50 percent of unobligated balances 
     remaining available at the end of fiscal year 2012 from 
     appropriations for salaries and expenses for fiscal year 2012 
     in this Act shall remain available through September 30, 
     2013, in the account and for the purposes for which the 
     appropriations were provided: Provided, That prior to the 
     obligation of such funds, a request shall be submitted to the 
     Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the House of 
     Representatives for approval in accordance with section 503 
     of this Act.
       Sec. 506.  Funds made available by this Act for 
     intelligence activities are deemed to be specifically 
     authorized by the Congress for purposes of section 504 of the 
     National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 414) during fiscal

[[Page H3885]]

     year 2012 until the enactment of an Act authorizing 
     intelligence activities for fiscal year 2012.
       Sec. 507. (a) Except as provided in subsections (b) and 
     (c), none of the funds made available by this Act may be used 
     to--
       (1) make or award a grant allocation, grant, contract, 
     other transaction agreement, task or delivery order on a 
     Department of Homeland Security multiple award contract, or 
     to issue a letter of intent totaling in excess of $1,000,000;
       (2) award a task order requiring an obligation of funds in 
     an amount greater than $25,000,000 from multi-year Department 
     of Homeland Security funds or a task order that would cause 
     cumulative obligations of multi-year funds in a single 
     account to exceed 50 percent of the total amount 
     appropriated; or
       (3) announce publicly the intention to make or award items 
     under paragraphs (1) or (2), including a contract covered by 
     the Federal Acquisition Regulation.
       (b) The Secretary of Homeland Security may waive the 
     prohibition under subsection (a) if the Secretary notifies 
     the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the House 
     of Representatives at least three full business days in 
     advance of making an award or issuing a letter as described 
     in that subsection.
       (c) If the Secretary of Homeland Security determines that 
     compliance with this section would pose a substantial risk to 
     human life, health, or safety, an award may be made without 
     notification, then the Secretary shall notify the Committees 
     on Appropriations of the Senate and the House of 
     Representatives not later than five full business days after 
     such an award is made or letter issued.
       (d) A notification under this section--
       (1) may not involve funds that are not available for 
     obligation; and
       (2) shall include the amount of the award, the fiscal year 
     for which the funds for the award were appropriated, and the 
     account from which the funds are being drawn.
       (e) The Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management 
     Agency shall brief the Committees on Appropriations of the 
     Senate and the House of Representatives five full business 
     days in advance of announcing publicly the intention of 
     making an award under ``State and Local Programs''.
       Sec. 508.  Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no 
     agency shall purchase, construct, or lease any additional 
     facilities, except within or contiguous to existing 
     locations, to be used for the purpose of conducting Federal 
     law enforcement training without the advance approval of the 
     Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the House of 
     Representatives, except that the Federal Law Enforcement 
     Training Center is authorized to obtain the temporary use of 
     additional facilities by lease, contract, or other agreement 
     for training that cannot be accommodated in existing Center 
     facilities.
       Sec. 509.  None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act may be used for expenses for any 
     construction, repair, alteration, or acquisition project for 
     which a prospectus otherwise required under chapter 33 of 
     title 40, United States Code, has not been approved, except 
     that necessary funds may be expended for each project for 
     required expenses for the development of a proposed 
     prospectus.
       Sec. 510.  Sections 520, 522, and 530 of the Department of 
     Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2008 (division E of 
     Public Law 110-161; 121 Stat. 2042 et seq.) shall apply with 
     respect to funds made available in this Act in the same 
     manner as such sections applied to funds made available in 
     that Act.
       Sec. 511.  None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used in contravention of the applicable provisions of the 
     Buy American Act (41 U.S.C. 10a et seq.).
       Sec. 512.  None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used by any person other than the Privacy Officer 
     appointed under subsection (a) of section 222 of the Homeland 
     Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 142(a)) to alter, direct that 
     changes be made to, delay, or prohibit the transmission to 
     Congress of any report prepared under paragraph (6) of such 
     subsection.
       Sec. 513.  None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to amend the oath of allegiance required by section 
     337 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1448).
       Sec. 514.  None of the funds appropriated by this Act may 
     be used to process or approve a competition under Office of 
     Management and Budget Circular A-76 for services provided as 
     of June 1, 2004, by employees (including employees serving on 
     a temporary or term basis) of United States Citizenship and 
     Immigration Services of the Department of Homeland Security 
     who are known as of that date as Immigration Information 
     Officers, Contact Representatives, or Investigative 
     Assistants.

                              {time}  2110


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Sessions

  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR (Ms. Foxx). The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Strike section 514.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Chairman, according to recent media reports, the 
Department of Homeland Security is the top civilian agency conducting 
insourcing, which is converting private contractor services to 
government employees.
  My amendment would strike section 514 of this legislation which, as 
drafted, would prevent any funds in this bill from being used to 
conduct public-private competitions or to direct A-76 conversions for 
any program, project, or activity within the Department of Homeland 
Security.
  The A-76 process has been in existence since 1966. The original 
intent was to require the government to use private-sector services 
when obtaining goods or services and assist with services from within 
the government. I believe that the A-76 produces quality competition 
that leads to great service and a more cost-efficient result for the 
taxpayer. The bottom line, Madam Chairman, is that the government does 
not need to perform all the goods and services that might be in the 
Yellow Pages; that is for the private sector to do.
  A-76 cost competitions between the public and private sector brings 
the best value to the taxpayer. According to Americans for Tax Reform, 
the average cost of each new Federal employee for salary, benefits, and 
pensions totals $4.27 million. Without competition, government-run 
monopolies of commercial activities duplicate and price out the private 
sector, resulting in inefficient expenditures of taxpayer money.
  The Heritage Foundation has reported that subjecting Federal employee 
positions which are commercial in nature to a public-private cost 
comparison generates on average a 30 percent cost savings regardless of 
which sector wins the competition. Even a recent Office of Management 
and Budget study states that the act of public-private competition 
generates cost savings from 10 to 40 percent on average.
  During this time of stretched budgets and bloated Federal spending, 
Congress should do all that it can do to find taxpayer savings that 
reduce the cost of services provided by the Federal Government. I urge 
all of my colleagues to support this commonsense, taxpayer-first 
amendment and to ensure cost-saving competition is available through 
the Department of Homeland Security.
  Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Chairman, Mr. Sessions' amendment 
frankly has been known to us only a short period of time, and we are 
not certain that all Members who might have an interest in this have 
been alerted. I wonder if the gentleman would yield for a question or 
two on this.
  Mr. Sessions, would you be willing to yield?
  Mr. SESSIONS. I will yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. My recollection is that this amendment 
was placed in the bill some years ago when there was an active dispute 
about contracting out some services at CIS.
  Could you tell us, what precipitates your trying to remove this 
language now? As I understand it, your amendment would not require the 
contracting out, but it would simply remove the prohibition. Is that 
right?
  Mr. SESSIONS. That is correct. The gentleman is correct. Today it is 
prohibited that this may be allowed in favor of the government hiring 
services through a Federal Government employee. What drives me to once 
again come on the floor as I have done for 15 years is that I believe 
that there are inherently governmental functions that a government 
employee must perform. However, when there is something like changing 
oil for a fleet of trucks, mowing grass, coming in and cleaning a 
building, performing functions that can be done more efficiently--
perhaps it's with computers, perhaps it's with data systems, perhaps 
it's professional services that can be done better, rather than flying 
employees in from the Federal Government, but when they can be more 
cost effective, then a process is gone through. This process is called 
the A-76 process, and it's where the local management would look at the 
functions up to and including loaded costs for what it takes

[[Page H3886]]

to perform the duties that might be done. And generally speaking, there 
is a 30 percent cheaper value or cost to the government when it's done 
by an outside contractor as opposed to a Federal Government employee.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Reclaiming my time, I understand the 
operation of the A-76 process. And I also understand that there are 
times when contracting out makes sense and other times when it does 
not. But given the fact that the gentleman is not mandating any 
particular approach to any particular jobs but is simply removing the 
prohibition, leaving this essentially to the judgment of the 
Department, I will not object to this. I do wish that there had been a 
better opportunity for Members who had an interest in this, possibly 
had a stake in this, to be here and respond, but with the gentleman's 
explanation, I will not object.
  Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. DICKS. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas will 
be postponed.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Sec. 515.  Within 45 days after the end of each month, the 
     Chief Financial Officer of the Department of Homeland 
     Security shall submit to the Committees on Appropriations of 
     the Senate and the House of Representatives a monthly budget 
     and staffing report for that month that includes total 
     obligations, on-board versus funded full-time equivalent 
     staffing levels, and the number of contract employees for 
     each office of the Department.
       Sec. 516.  Except as provided in section 44945 of title 49, 
     United States Code, funds appropriated for or transferred to 
     ``Transportation Security Administration, Aviation 
     Security'', ``Transportation Security Administration, 
     Administration'', and ``Transportation Security 
     Administration, Transportation Security Support'' for fiscal 
     years 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010 that are 
     recovered or deobligated shall be available only for the 
     procurement or installation of explosives detection systems, 
     air cargo, baggage, and checkpoint screening systems, subject 
     to notification: Provided, That quarterly reports shall be 
     submitted to the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate 
     and the House of Representatives on any funds that are so 
     recovered or deobligated.
       Sec. 517.  Any funds appropriated to ``Coast Guard, 
     Acquisition, Construction, and Improvements'' for fiscal 
     years 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006 for the 110-123 foot 
     patrol boat conversion that are recovered, collected, or 
     otherwise received as the result of negotiation, mediation, 
     or litigation, shall be available until expended for the Fast 
     Response Cutter program.
       Sec. 518.  Section 532(a) of Public Law 109-295 (120 Stat. 
     1384) is amended by striking ``2010'' and inserting ``2012''.
       Sec. 519.  The functions of the Federal Law Enforcement 
     Training Center instructor staff shall be classified as 
     inherently governmental for the purpose of the Federal 
     Activities Inventory Reform Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 501 note).
       Sec. 520. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b), none of 
     the funds appropriated in this or any other Act to the Office 
     of the Secretary and Executive Management, the Office of the 
     Under Secretary for Management, or the Office of the Chief 
     Financial Officer, may be obligated for a grant or contract 
     funded under such headings by any means other than full and 
     open competition.
       (b) Subsection (a) does not apply to obligation of funds 
     for a contract awarded--
       (1) by a means that is required by a Federal statute, 
     including obligation for a purchase made under a mandated 
     preferential program, including the AbilityOne Program, that 
     is authorized under the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46 
     et seq.);
       (2) pursuant to the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 631 et 
     seq.);
       (3) in an amount less than the simplified acquisition 
     threshold described under section 302A(a) of the Federal 
     Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (41 U.S.C. 
     252a(a)); or
       (4) by another Federal agency using funds provided through 
     an interagency agreement.
       (c)(1) Subject to paragraph (2), the Secretary of Homeland 
     Security may waive the application of this section for the 
     award of a contract in the interest of national security or 
     if failure to do so would pose a substantial risk to human 
     health or welfare.
       (2) Not later than five days after the date on which the 
     Secretary of Homeland Security issues a waiver under this 
     subsection, the Secretary shall submit notification of that 
     waiver to the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and 
     the House of Representatives, including a description of the 
     applicable contract to which the waiver applies and an 
     explanation of why the waiver authority was used: Provided, 
     That the Secretary may not delegate the authority to grant 
     such a waiver.
       (d) In addition to the requirements established by 
     subsections (a), (b), and (c) of this section, the Inspector 
     General of the Department of Homeland Security shall review 
     departmental contracts awarded through means other than a 
     full and open competition to assess departmental compliance 
     with applicable laws and regulations: Provided, That the 
     Inspector General shall review selected contracts awarded in 
     the previous fiscal year through means other than a full and 
     open competition: Provided further, That in selecting which 
     contracts to review, the Inspector General shall consider the 
     cost and complexity of the goods and services to be provided 
     under the contract, the criticality of the contract to 
     fulfilling Department missions, past performance problems on 
     similar contracts or by the selected vendor, complaints 
     received about the award process or contractor performance, 
     and such other factors as the Inspector General deems 
     relevant: Provided further, That the Inspector General shall 
     report the results of the reviews to the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the Senate and the House of Representatives 
     no later than February 6, 2012.
       Sec. 521.  None of the funds provided in this Act or any 
     previous appropriations Acts shall be used to fund any 
     position designated as a Principal Federal Official, or 
     successor position, for any event that is declared a major 
     disaster or emergency under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster 
     Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. et seq.).
       Sec. 522.  None of the funds made available in this or any 
     other Act may be used to enforce section 4025(1) of the 
     Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act (Public Law 
     108-458; 118 Stat. 3724) unless the Assistant Secretary of 
     Homeland Security (Transportation Security Administration) 
     reverses the determination of July 19, 2007, that butane 
     lighters are not a significant threat to civil aviation 
     security.
       Sec. 523.  None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to carry out section 872 of the Homeland Security Act 
     of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 452).
       Sec. 524.  None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used by United States Citizenship and Immigration Services 
     to grant an immigration benefit unless the results of 
     background checks required by law to be completed prior to 
     the granting of the benefit have been received by United 
     States Citizenship and Immigration Services, and the results 
     do not preclude the granting of the benefit.
       Sec. 525.  None of the funds made available in this or any 
     other Act for fiscal year 2012 and hereafter may be used to 
     destroy or put out to pasture any horse or other equine 
     belonging to any component or agency of the Department of 
     Homeland Security that has become unfit for service, unless 
     the trainer or handler is first given the option to take 
     possession of the equine through an adoption program that has 
     safeguards against slaughter and inhumane treatment.
       Sec. 526.  Section 831 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 
     (6 U.S.C. 391) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by striking ``Until September 30, 
     2011,'' and inserting ``Until September 30, 2012,''; and
       (2) in subsection (d)(1), by striking ``September 30, 
     2011,'' and inserting ``September 30, 2012,''.
       Sec. 527.  The Secretary of Homeland Security shall require 
     that all contracts of the Department of Homeland Security 
     that provide award fees link such fees to successful 
     acquisition outcomes (which outcomes shall be specified in 
     terms of cost, schedule, and performance).
       Sec. 528.  None of the funds made available to the Office 
     of the Secretary and Executive Management under this Act may 
     be expended for any new hires by the Department of Homeland 
     Security that are not verified through the E-Verify Program 
     established under section 403(a) of the Illegal Immigration 
     Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 
     1324a note).
       Sec. 529.  None of the funds made available in this Act for 
     U.S. Customs and Border Protection may be used to prevent an 
     individual not in the business of importing a prescription 
     drug (within the meaning of section 801(g) of the Federal 
     Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act) from importing a prescription 
     drug from Canada that complies with the Federal Food, Drug, 
     and Cosmetic Act: Provided, That this section shall apply 
     only to individuals transporting on their person a personal-
     use quantity of the prescription drug, not to exceed a 90-day 
     supply: Provided further, That the prescription drug may not 
     be--
       (1) a controlled substance, as defined in section 102 of 
     the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802); or
       (2) a biological product, as defined in section 351 of the 
     Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 262).
       Sec. 530.  The Secretary of Homeland Security, in 
     consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury, shall notify 
     the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the House 
     of Representatives of any proposed transfers of funds 
     available under subsection (g)(4)(B) of title 31, United 
     States Code (as added by Public Law 102-393) from the 
     Department of the Treasury Forfeiture Fund to any agency 
     within the Department of Homeland Security: Provided, That 
     none of the

[[Page H3887]]

     funds identified for such a transfer may be obligated until 
     the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the House 
     of Representatives approve the proposed transfers.
       Sec. 531.  None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used for planning, testing, piloting, or developing a 
     national identification card.
       Sec. 532.  If the Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security 
     (Transportation Security Administration) determines that an 
     airport does not need to participate in the E-Verify Program 
     established under section 403(a) of the Illegal Immigration 
     Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 
     1324a note), the Assistant Secretary shall certify to the 
     Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the House of 
     Representatives that no security risks will result from such 
     non-participation.
       Sec. 533. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
     Act, except as provided in subsection (b), and 30 days after 
     the date on which the President determines whether to declare 
     a major disaster because of an event and any appeal is 
     completed, the Administrator shall submit to the Committee on 
     Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate, the 
     Committee on Homeland Security of the House of 
     Representatives, the Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure of the House of Representatives, and the 
     Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the House of 
     Representatives, and publish on the website of the Federal 
     Emergency Management Agency, a report regarding that 
     decision, which shall summarize damage assessment information 
     used to determine whether to declare a major disaster.
       (b) The Administrator may redact from a report under 
     subsection (a) any data that the Administrator determines 
     would compromise national security.
       (c) In this section--
       (1) the term ``Administrator'' means the Administrator of 
     the Federal Emergency Management Agency; and
       (2) the term ``major disaster'' has the meaning given that 
     term in section 102 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief 
     and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5122).
       Sec. 534. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law 
     during fiscal year 2012 or any subsequent fiscal year, if the 
     Secretary of Homeland Security determines that the National 
     Bio- and Agro-defense Facility be located at a site other 
     than Plum Island, New York, the Secretary shall ensure that 
     the Administrator of General Services sells through public 
     sale all real and related personal property and 
     transportation assets that support Plum Island operations, 
     subject to such terms and conditions as may be necessary to 
     protect Government interests and meet program requirements.
       (b) The proceeds of any sale described in subsection (a) 
     shall be deposited as offsetting collections into the 
     Department of Homeland Security ``Science and Technology, 
     Research, Development, Acquisition, and Operations'' account 
     and, subject to appropriation, shall be available until 
     expended, for site acquisition, construction, and costs 
     related to the construction of the National Bio- and Agro-
     defense Facility, including the costs associated with the 
     sale, including due diligence requirements, necessary 
     environmental remediation at Plum Island, and reimbursement 
     of expenses incurred by the General Services Administration.
       Sec. 535.  Any official that is required by this Act to 
     report or certify to the Committees on Appropriations of the 
     Senate and the House of Representatives may not delegate such 
     authority to perform that act unless specifically authorized 
     herein.
       Sec. 536.  Section 550(b) of the Department of Homeland 
     Security Appropriations Act, 2007 (Public Law 109-295; 6 
     U.S.C. 121 note) is further amended by striking ``2011'' and 
     inserting ``2012''.
       Sec. 537.  None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available in this or any other Act may be used to transfer, 
     release, or assist in the transfer or release to or within 
     the United States, its territories, or possessions, including 
     detaining, accepting custody of, or extending immigration 
     benefits to, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed or any other detainee 
     who--
       (1) is not a United States citizen or a member of the Armed 
     Forces of the United States; and
       (2) is or was held on or after June 24, 2009, at the United 
     States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, by the Department 
     of Defense.
       Sec. 538.  None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used for first-class travel by the employees of agencies 
     funded by this Act in contravention of sections 301-10.122 
     through 301.10-124 of title 41, Code of Federal Regulations.
       Sec. 539.  None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to propose or effect a disciplinary or adverse 
     action, with respect to any Department of Homeland Security 
     employee who engages regularly with the public in the 
     performance of his or her official duties solely because that 
     employee elects to utilize protective equipment or measures, 
     including but not limited to surgical masks, N95 respirators, 
     gloves, or hand-sanitizers, where use of such equipment or 
     measures is in accord with Department of Homeland Security 
     policy, and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and 
     Office of Personnel Management guidance.
       Sec. 540.  None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to employ workers described in section 274A(h)(3) of 
     the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1324a(h)(3)).
       Sec. 541. (a) Any company that collects or retains personal 
     information directly from any individual who participates in 
     the Registered Traveler program of the Transportation 
     Security Administration shall safeguard and dispose of such 
     information in accordance with the requirements in--
       (1) the National Institute for Standards and Technology 
     Special Publication 800-30, entitled ``Risk Management Guide 
     for Information Technology Systems'';
       (2) the National Institute for Standards and Technology 
     Special Publication 800-53, Revision 3, entitled 
     ``Recommended Security Controls for Federal Information 
     Systems and Organizations''; and
       (3) any supplemental standards established by the Assistant 
     Secretary of Homeland Security (Transportation Security 
     Administration) (referred to in this section as the 
     ``Assistant Secretary'').
       (b) The airport authority or air carrier operator that 
     sponsors the company under the Registered Traveler program 
     shall be known as the Sponsoring Entity.
       (c) The Assistant Secretary shall require any company 
     covered by subsection (a) to provide, not later than 30 days 
     after the date of enactment of this Act, to the Sponsoring 
     Entity written certification that the procedures used by the 
     company to safeguard and dispose of information are in 
     compliance with the requirements under subsection (a). Such 
     certification shall include a description of the procedures 
     used by the company to comply with such requirements.
       (d) Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of 
     this Act, the Assistant Secretary shall submit to the 
     Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the House of 
     Representatives a report that includes a description of--
       (1) the procedures that have been used to safeguard and 
     dispose of personal information collected through the 
     Registered Traveler program; and
       (2) the status of any certifications required to be 
     submitted by subsection (c).
       Sec. 542.  Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, 
     none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by 
     this Act may be used to pay award or incentive fees for 
     contractor performance that has been judged to be below 
     satisfactory performance or performance that does not meet 
     the basic requirements of a contract.
       Sec. 543. (a) Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Assistant Secretary of Homeland 
     Security (Transportation Security Administration) shall 
     submit to the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and 
     the House of Representatives, a report that either--
       (1) certifies that the requirement for screening all air 
     cargo on passenger aircraft by the deadline under section 
     44901(g) of title 49, United States Code, has been met; or
       (2) includes a strategy to comply with the requirements 
     under title 44901(g) of title 49, United States Code, 
     including--
       (A) a plan to meet the requirement under section 44901(g) 
     of title 49, United States Code, to screen 100 percent of air 
     cargo transported on passenger aircraft arriving in the 
     United States in foreign air transportation (as that term is 
     defined in section 40102 of that title); and
       (B) specification of--
       (i) the percentage of such air cargo that is being 
     screened; and
       (ii) the schedule for achieving screening of 100 percent of 
     such air cargo.
       (b) The Assistant Secretary shall continue to submit 
     reports described in subsection (a)(2) every 180 days 
     thereafter until the Assistant Secretary certifies that the 
     Transportation Security Administration has achieved screening 
     of 100 percent of such air cargo.
       Sec. 544.  In developing any process to screen aviation 
     passengers and crews for transportation or national security 
     purposes, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall ensure 
     that all such processes take into consideration such 
     passengers' and crews' privacy and civil liberties consistent 
     with applicable laws, regulations, and guidance.
       Sec. 545.  Sections 1309(a) and 1319 of the National Flood 
     Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4016(a) and 4026) shall each 
     be amended by striking ``September 30, 2011'' and inserting 
     ``September 30, 2012''.
       Sec. 546. (a) Notwithstanding section 1356(n) of title 8, 
     United States Code, of the funds deposited into the 
     Immigration Examinations Fee Account, $8,500,000 is available 
     to United States Citizenship and Immigration Services in 
     fiscal year 2012 for the purpose of providing an immigrant 
     integration grants program.
       (b) None of the funds made available to United States 
     Citizenship and Immigration Service for grants for immigrant 
     integration may be used to provide services to aliens who 
     have not been lawfully admitted for permanent residence.
       Sec. 547. (a) The Secretary of Homeland Security may 
     transfer to the Secretary of the Interior amounts available 
     for environmental mitigation requirements for ``U.S. Customs 
     and Border Protection, Border Security Fencing, 
     Infrastructure, and Technology'' for fiscal years 2009, 2010, 
     2011, and 2012, for use by the Secretary of the Interior 
     under laws administered by such Secretary to mitigate adverse 
     environmental impacts, resulting directly from construction, 
     operation, and maintenance activities by the Department of 
     Homeland Security related to border security.

[[Page H3888]]

       (b) Uses of funds authorized by this section include 
     minimal, necessary acquisition of land or interests in land 
     that will, in the judgment of the Secretary of the Interior, 
     mitigate or offset such adverse impacts.
       (c) Any funds transferred under this section shall be used 
     in accordance with a written agreement between the 
     Secretaries.
       (d) The Secretary of the Interior, in consultation with the 
     Secretary of Homeland Security, shall submit to the 
     Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the House of 
     Representatives, by not later than 15 days before any 
     proposed transfer under this section, an expenditure plan 
     that describes in detail the actions proposed to be taken 
     with amounts transferred under this section.
       (e) Concurrent with submittal of the expenditure plan, the 
     Secretary of Homeland Security shall submit a certification 
     that the actions outlined in the expenditure plan cannot be 
     legally executed under the authorities of U.S. Customs and 
     Border Protection or any other component of the Department of 
     Homeland Security and are determined to be necessary for 
     mitigation of construction, operation, and maintenance 
     activities related to border security.

                              {time}  2120


                    Amendment Offered by Mrs. Lummis

  Mrs. LUMMIS. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Page 89, beginning at line 14, strike section 547.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Wyoming is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mrs. LUMMIS. Thank you.
  My amendment would strike section 547, which would devote border 
security dollars to environmental mitigation along this country's 
southern border.
  The Border Patrol has unlimited access to private property, but the 
Border Patrol cannot always patrol Federal land, even if it is a known 
corridor for illegal traffic, including trafficking of humans and 
trafficking of drugs.
  Some permits, which are required to be issued by the Department of 
the Interior to the Department of Homeland Security for Border Patrol, 
take months to approve. Others are not granted at all. But when the 
Department of Homeland Security, our Border Patrol, is given access, 
Federal land managers force the Border Patrol to fork over money for 
environmental projects that may or may not have anything to do with the 
constitutional obligations of our Border Patrol.
  Madam Chairman, these are American taxpayer dollars. And more than 
that, they're dollars for border security, which I again repeat is a 
constitutionally delineated function of the Federal Government. But 
under section 547, these tax dollars are paying for the unreasonable 
demands placed on the Border Patrol by Federal land managers--one 
Department of the government, the Department of the Interior, taking 
dollars from another, the Department of Homeland Security, for a 
function that is required in the Constitution by the Border Patrol.
  I appreciate the chairman's staff taking time to try to work this out 
with my office and with the Natural Resources Committee, the standing 
committee that is responsible for supervisory control of the Department 
of the Interior. I regret that we were not able to come to resolution 
of this issue before floor consideration.
  So I'm moving to strike this provision with the hope that we can 
continue to work with Chairman Simpson, who is the subcommittee 
chairman of the Appropriations Committee on Interior and the 
Environment, and Chairman Hastings, who is the chairman of the Natural 
Resources Committee in the House, to come up with a better approach to 
solving this problem of Border Patrol access to Federal lands.
  Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to 
this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Chairman, the gentlewoman's 
amendment strikes language permitting the use of previously 
appropriated and specifically designated DHS funds for land acquisition 
along the southwest border for environmental mitigation.

                              {time}  2130

  I feel I need to take a moment just to provide a bit of context. 
Since 2006, our subcommittee, which I chaired from 2007 to 2010, has 
increased funding for border security by over $2 billion annually. We 
invested well over a billion for fencing and other tactical 
infrastructure alone during this period.
  Now, responding to concerns about possible environmental problems 
associated with such a massive construction undertaking, much of which 
has taken place on environmentally sensitive lands, Congress provided 
modest amounts to mitigate these potential environmental consequences: 
$50 million in fiscal 2009 and $40 million in fiscal 2010. Some of this 
mitigation effort involves acquiring land from willing sellers for 
buffer zones to protect fragile habitats, principally along the Rio 
Grande Valley in Texas.
  Since the Department doesn't have the statutory authority to acquire 
land for the purpose of environmental mitigation, we came to an 
agreement among Democrats and Republicans last year in the context of 
negotiations over an omnibus 2011 bill to grant the limited authority 
to transfer these specific funds to the Department of Interior for land 
acquisition. Obviously, Interior has the statutory authority to acquire 
land for this purpose.
  So let me, Madam Chairman, read the section of the chairman's report 
so everyone knows how noncontroversial this provision is that Mrs. 
Lummis seeks to strike. And I am quoting, ``In order for the Department 
to execute interdepartmental agreements with the U.S. Department of the 
Interior to complete environmental mitigation activities, the committee 
includes a general provision, section 547 in the bill, permitting the 
transfer of previously appropriated environmental mitigation funds 
under BSFIT to the U.S. Department of Interior to carry out this 
purpose. The authority is narrowly tailored and controlled to ensure 
that funds will only be transferred: in accordance with a written 
agreement between the Secretaries of Homeland Security and the 
Interior; where the Secretary of the Interior has submitted an 
expenditure plan 15 days in advance of the proposed transfer, detailing 
the actions proposed to be taken with amounts transferred; where the 
Secretary of Homeland Security has certified that the actions outlined 
in the expenditure plan cannot be legally executed under the 
authorities of CBP or any other component of the Department of Homeland 
Security and the actions are determined to be necessary for mitigation 
of construction, operation, and maintenance activities related to 
border security.''
  Madam Chairman, as a government we have many responsibilities and 
priorities. These include, of course, securing our borders, something I 
have worked on a lot in these past 4 years. It also includes protecting 
our natural and cultural resources. The sort of interagency agreement 
that Homeland Security and Interior have entered into for environmental 
mitigation is exactly what we should be encouraging, especially because 
this arrangement is explicit that Interior cannot take any action that 
CBP does not first agree to. Let me repeat: Interior cannot take any 
action that CBP does not approve.
  I urge my colleagues to honor this agreement, a reasonable 
arrangement, and defeat this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DICKS. I rise in opposition to the amendment, and I move to 
strike the requisite number of words.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Washington is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. DICKS. I want to commend the gentleman from North Carolina for 
his work during the years when he was chairman of this committee, and 
also this year on this bill and this provision. I have been down to the 
border and have seen these very large fences that we have created there 
which do have an adverse effect on some of the species in that area 
which in the past would go back and forth from Texas or Arizona into 
Mexico.
  The Department of the Interior could have raised objections to this 
project and required detailed environmental assessments, and possibly 
could have brought actions under the Endangered Species Act. But 
because this was worked out between the Department of Homeland Security 
and the Department of the Interior, that was avoided so that we could 
go ahead and build the fences in a very timely way.
  So I think that taking this amendment out is a mistake. It is not 
considerate of the environment, which we

[[Page H3889]]

should be trying to protect. And there are many problems down on the 
border because of these fences.
  I urge that we defeat the Lummis amendment and go along with what the 
committee has artfully worked out. It's a good compromise, and should 
remain in the bill.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Chair, most people are clearly not aware 
that national security on our borders is compromised on public lands by 
Federal land managers who have the authority to deny the Border Patrol 
access to those Federal lands. Most people are not aware that we put 
money into this budget thinking it is going for Homeland Security, only 
to see it mysteriously transferred over to another agency without 
Congress ever understanding or authorizing where that transfer is or 
what that transfer may be.
  It is estimated that we have had direct transfers of at least $9 
million, although the numbers are not clear. If you add up what the 
Department of Homeland Security spends on their own part that is not a 
direct transfer, we may be in the neighborhood of $50 million that is 
spent on this particular program. This money can be used for land 
acquisition.
  If we really want land acquisition, we put this money in the Interior 
budget, where it belongs, so we know what it is, we know why it is 
there, and we can track for what it is used. This becomes simply a 
secret slush fund from Homeland Security to Interior, and Congress has 
no idea or clue on how this money we are putting into Homeland 
Security's budget is being used.
  Let me give you a specific example. Border Patrol wanted to put 
surveillance towers on a strategic location on the Arizona border. 
Unfortunately, the land manager would not allow them in a particular 
area, so they had to be moved at least 4 miles away, creating specific 
blackout areas on that particular land situation. Security gaps. It was 
4 miles of heavily trafficked area. Then, because there happened to be 
a bat in that area, of their own sources Homeland Security still had to 
monitor the amount of bats who may accidentally fly into those towers 
for 5 years after those towers were put in there, at the cost of 
hundreds of thousands of dollars to monitor and count bats. And if they 
came across a pronghorn antelope while they were doing it, Homeland 
Security had to back away, without turning its back on the pronghorn, 
at a speed no greater than 15 miles an hour until it was a certain 
distance away from that situation.
  We have already been told of situations where mitigation funds have 
been spent on a species that has not existed in that area for the last 
decade. What we are trying to do is spend our money wisely. We need to 
curtail this practice until at least Congress has the ability of 
completely understanding where this mitigation money is going and can 
approve it ahead of time.
  Madam Chairman, most of the environmental degradation that is taking 
place on our southern border, especially in the State of Arizona, is 
not being done by the Border Patrol; it's being done by illegal 
immigrants the drug cartels, the human traffickers, potential 
terrorists who are coming in here with no design and no care about the 
ecology of the area, or endangered species, or anything else.
  If we truly want to improve the ecology and improve our environmental 
quality on that border, you put every dime you can into Border Patrol, 
you let the Border Patrol have the access that they need to do their 
jobs, because stopping the illegal bad guys coming across is the only 
way, the only way we will ever have a true environmental solution on 
that particular border. So far we do not know how this money is spent. 
It is wrong. This is indeed the right approach to take on this 
particular problem.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. The gentleman has raised the issue of 
accountability, so I would like to call his attention to section D on 
page 90, and ask him for his assessment of this. We worked this out 
carefully, as I said earlier, worked it out with the chairman in a 
cooperative way. And it addresses directly the question of 
accountability. The Secretary of the Interior, in consultation with the 
Secretary of Homeland Security, shall submit to the Committee on 
Appropriations of the Senate and the House of Representatives not later 
than 15 days before any proposed transfer under this section, an 
expenditure plan that describes in detail the actions proposed to be 
taken with the amounts transferred.

                              {time}  2140

  Does that not meet the gentleman's standards of accountability?
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. It sounds nice on paper, but it doesn't work in 
reality. You do not know where that money is being spent. The 
mitigation money is not going to the area where the mitigation needs to 
be done.
  Once again, I will tell you, if you care about that environment and 
you want to solve the mitigation effort, put the money into the Border 
Patrol, not into this slush fund to move money from Homeland Security 
into Interior for the acquisition of land and property.
  It is unrealistic.
  Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield?
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman from Utah has expired.
  (On request of Mr. Dicks, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Bishop of 
Utah was allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
  Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. No.
  Mr. DICKS. I got you an additional minute.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Okay. You got 30 seconds. Go for it.
  Mr. DICKS. Here is what I think we should do. Why not do both: Stop 
all the illegal immigrants coming across, which would make a big 
improvement in the environment of the area, but also do the mitigation 
to protect the species in that part of the country.
  We can do them both. We don't have to be limited to one or the other. 
The gentleman raises a false choice.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Reclaiming my time, I will try to do this as 
quickly as I can.
  That should be the role of the Interior appropriations, because there 
is no oversight that takes place here. We have already been berated on 
how little we are spending on Homeland Security.
  Spend Homeland Security money on Homeland Security. Do not create a 
slush fund that we have created in the past so money goes to Interior. 
If you want to do it, go to Interior, where the money should be spent 
in the first place, and do it the right way.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Alabama is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. I want to thank the gentlewoman from Wyoming for 
working with us on this issue, and I appreciate the concerns that she 
has raised and also that the gentleman from Utah has raised.
  The committee has attempted to address both the requests of the 
Department of Homeland Security and the interests of Members on both 
sides of the aisle in drafting section 547. It was narrowly tailored to 
address only the most necessary environmental mitigation activities 
directly related to border security construction, operations, and 
maintenance.
  It included strict controls on the transfer of funds from the 
Department of Homeland Security to the Department of the Interior, only 
where the Secretary of Homeland Security certifies that the transfer is 
absolutely necessary for border security and that the Department of 
Homeland Security does not have the authority to carry out the 
necessary activities.
  Further, the Secretary of the Interior must provide a detailed spend 
plan with advance notification, allowing the committee to reject the 
plan.
  The committee's interest was border security. Unfortunately, we were 
not able to balance the various viewpoints and the concerns to find the 
compromise in this process. For that reason, I support the Lummis 
amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. POE of Texas. I move to strike the last word.

[[Page H3890]]

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. POE of Texas. Madam Chair, Federal public lands have become the 
chosen path for drug smugglers and illegals entering our United States 
of America. The Government Accountability Office has confirmed that 
certain environmental laws, such as the Wilderness Act and Endangered 
Species Act, limit the Border Patrol's access and expose great areas of 
the border to significant environmental damage due to the illegal 
traffic coming into the United States.
  In certain areas, Border Patrol agents are limited to patrolling on 
foot or on horseback even if the drug runners have ATVs, 4x4 trucks, or 
even Humvees.
  A recent GAO report revealed that the Department of the Interior is 
taking months to approve simple permits that are necessary for the 
Border Patrol to do its job to protect the border. The GAO report also 
revealed that some permits are never granted at all.
  When permits are given to the Border Patrol for such things as 
placing monitor equipment, the Department of the Interior negotiates 
mitigation packages with the Border Patrol. But these mitigation 
packages are forcing the Border Patrol to fork over money for 
environmental activities. The obvious is being missed by the Department 
of the Interior that the illegal activity itself destroys the 
environment they are trying to preserve.
  I recommend adoption of the Lummis amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Wyoming (Mrs. Lummis).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Wyoming 
will be postponed.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Sec. 548.  Of the funds transferred to the Department of 
     Homeland Security when it was created in 2003, the following 
     funds are hereby rescinded from the following accounts and 
     programs in the specified amounts:
       (1) $20,997,225 from ``U.S. Immigration and Customs 
     Enforcement, Salaries and Expenses''; and
       (2) $594,945 from ``Violent Crime Reduction Programs''.
       Sec. 549.  Of the following unobligated balances available 
     for ``Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration and 
     Customs Enforcement, Construction'', $11,300,000 is 
     rescinded.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Richmond

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

       Page 91, after line 10, insert the following:
       Sec. __. (a) In this section, the term ``covered 
     assistance'' means assistance provided--
       (1) under section 408 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster 
     Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5174); and
       (2) in relation to a major disaster declared by the 
     President under section 401 of the Robert T. Stafford 
     Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5170) 
     during the period beginning on August 28, 2005 and ending on 
     December 31, 2010.
       (b) The Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management 
     Agency--
       (1) subject to paragraph (2), shall waive a debt owed to 
     the United States relating to covered assistance provided to 
     an individual or household if--
       (A) the covered assistance was distributed based on an 
     error by the Federal Emergency Management Agency; and
       (B) there was no fault on behalf of the debtor; or
       (C) the collection of the debt will create a demonstrable 
     financial burden on the debtor; and
       (2) shall not waive a debt under paragraph (1) if the debt 
     involves fraud, the presentation of a false claim, or 
     misrepresentation by the debtor or any party having an 
     interest in the claim.

  Mr. RICHMOND (during the reading). I ask unanimous consent that we 
suspend the reading.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from Louisiana?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. Madam Chair, I respectfully reserve a point of order on 
this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Alabama reserves a point of 
order.
  The gentleman from Louisiana is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. RICHMOND. Madam Chair, what this amendment would do is, under the 
provisions of the Stafford Act, the Disaster Relief and Emergency 
Assistance Act, there are approximately 160,000 American citizens 
across this country who, in the aftermath of Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, 
Ike, and Gustav, received disaster benefits through an error by our 
Federal Emergency Management Agency.
  What the government is attempting to do now, almost 5\1/2\, 6 years 
later, is to go back and recoup those funds which were not gained by 
any American citizen through fraud or theft or deceit. It was a valid 
application on their part on which our FEMA agency made a mistake.
  Madam Chair, just in these economic times we ought not, as 
government, go back and penalize citizens 6 years after government made 
an error that gave them disaster relief funds in the aftermath of the 
worst natural disaster that we faced in this country's history.

                              {time}  2150

  So what this amendment does is it simply says that the government 
should not do it and that we will not go back and try to recoup from 
the 160,000 American citizens that are spread out through Texas, 
through Louisiana, through Alabama and through Mississippi those funds. 
That is simply all it does, and I would ask that we support it.
  I yield back the balance of my time.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. ADERHOLT. Madam Chairman, I insist upon my point of order.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. I make a point of order against the amendment because 
it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an 
appropriation bill and therefore violates clause 2 of rule XXI. The 
rule states, in pertinent part, an amendment to a general appropriation 
bill shall not be in order if changing existing law gives affirmative 
action in effect.
  I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
  The Acting CHAIR. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point 
of order? If not, the Chair will rule.
  The Chair finds that this amendment includes language imparting 
direction. The amendment therefore constitutes legislation in violation 
of clause 2 of rule XXI. The point of order is sustained, and the 
amendment is not in order.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                                TITLE VI

           EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL FUNDING FOR DISASTER RELIEF

              (including rescission and transfer of funds)

       Sec. 601.  Effective on the date of the enactment of this 
     Act, of the unobligated balances remaining available to the 
     Department of Energy pursuant to section 129 of the 
     Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2009 (division A of 
     Public Law 110-329), $500,000,000 is rescinded and 
     $1,000,000,000 is hereby transferred to and merged with 
     ``Department of Homeland Security--Federal Emergency 
     Management Agency--Disaster Relief'': Provided, That the 
     amount transferred by this section is designated as an 
     emergency pursuant to section 3(c)(1) of H. Res. 5 (112th 
     Congress).

                               TITLE VII

                       SPENDING REDUCTION ACCOUNT

       Sec. 701.  The amount by which the applicable allocation of 
     new budget authority made by the Committee on Appropriations 
     of the House of Representatives under section 302(b) of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974 exceeds the amount of 
     proposed new budget authority is $0.


                 Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Carter

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

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used for the Climate Change Adaptation Task Force of the 
     Department of Homeland Security.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. CARTER. Madam Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment

[[Page H3891]]

which would strip funds allowed to the Department of Homeland Security 
Climate Change Adaptation Task Force. The U.S. Government has no 
shortage of agencies dedicated to studying global climate change and 
its impact.
  For fiscal year 2011, the Environmental Protection Agency, or EPA, 
has a budget of $6.6 billion and identifies taking action on climate 
change as their number one goal in its fiscal year 2011 through 2015 
strategic plan. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 
NOAA, which among other things is charged with climate monitoring, has 
a budget of $5.6 billion for fiscal year 2011.
  So why is Secretary Napolitano--why, at a time when our Nation is 
running a public debt of over $14 trillion, should the Department of 
Homeland Security be spending money on a Climate Change Adaptation Task 
Force?
  Millions of pounds of illegal drugs are trafficked across our border 
each year. On May 9, 12 suspected members of the infamous Zeta drug 
cartel and one Mexican marine were killed in a shootout on Falcon Lake 
along the Texas-Mexico border, the same lake where a U.S. citizen was 
shot and killed by pirates while boating last September.
  An untold number of men, women, and children are trafficked across 
our border for both sexual and labor exploitation, which is equivalent 
to modern-day slavery. Additional intelligence recovered from Osama bin 
Laden's compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan, revealed that al Qaeda was 
considering launching attacks on U.S. trains and subway stations.
  Last October, two packages containing explosives were shipped from 
Yemen addressed to Chicago-area synagogues, and they were discovered on 
an air cargo plane. A vast network of computers and operating systems 
which our government and economy relies on to operate every day is 
under threat from cyberattacks originating from countries such as 
Russia and China.
  These are the priorities that the Secretary should be focusing on, 
not wasting time duplicating the work of the Environmental Protection 
Agency and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
  The Secretary's Climate Change Adaptation Task Force is a waste of 
time and resources. And those resources should be devoted to securing 
our borders and ensuring the safety of our homeland.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Chairman, I was intrigued with 
this amendment. I didn't quite understand the import of it. So I have 
done a little research, talked to the Department of Homeland Security 
about the extent of their activities with this task force and what the 
affect of this amendment might be. So I would like to offer a little 
reality check here and suggest that this amendment is not merited.
  This amendment, for starters, will not save any money. It simply 
prohibits the Department of Homeland Security and its employees from, 
in any way, planning for the effects of climate change.
  Now the debate isn't about whether or not one believes that climate 
change is being caused by human beings. The fact is that whatever the 
cause, climate change is occurring in certain parts of the world. Both 
the U.S. Coast Guard and the Navy have testified before congressional 
committees that their operations are greatly affected, particularly in 
the Arctic region.
  The Department of Homeland Security has identified other specific 
climate change-related impacts on DHS missions. These include, as you 
might expect, disaster response activities and the protection of 
critical infrastructure.
  Now given the historic flooding that's occurred along the Mississippi 
as well as the worst tornado season we've experienced since 1950 with 
over 1,200 tornadoes and 500 deaths, it's understandable that DHS might 
just want the best available information on climate change.
  Now I want to clarify any misinformation here. There are no DHS 
employees nor are any DHS funds dedicated full-time to climate change. 
One person at the department has spent a limited amount of time 
representing DHS at these task force meetings and activities--one 
person. So prohibiting funds going toward this effort is not going to 
save any money.
  But there are several DHS components, including FEMA and the Coast 
Guard, that have been able to leverage cross-government expertise from 
the task force on both climate issues and on long-range planning 
generally. I would think that's exactly what they should do.
  So what this amendment would do, rather than saving any money, it 
would simply prevent DHS persons from meeting or even talking to each 
other regarding the task force.
  Now it's prudent and necessary for DHS to be able to work with its 
partner agencies to plan for the effects of climate change on their 
missions, and it's proper and important that our government agencies be 
able to talk to each other about the changes they are witnessing and 
the accommodations to their missions that might need to be made.
  So, Madam Chairman, again, the Carter amendment will not save one 
dollar. Instead, it will prevent DHS from engaging in contingency 
planning with partner agencies across government. This is a debate, if 
it's about anything, it's about ensuring good government and 
intelligent planning and responsible coordination.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against the amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  2200

  Mr. DICKS. I rise in opposition to the amendment, and move to strike 
the requisite number of words.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Washington is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. DICKS. I again want to compliment the ranking member for his 
lucid description of the Department of Homeland Security's work on 
climate change.
  We have had a weather season that has been extraordinary. Whether 
this climate change that we're experiencing is caused by humans or if 
it's just happening, either way, the Department of Homeland Security 
should be engaged in the interagency efforts to find out what we can do 
to minimize and adapt to the climate change. This affects weather. 
We've seen the storms that have been mentioned. It also affects the 
northern latitudes where we are seeing the polar ice melting, so the 
Coast Guard is going to have more responsibility to go into those areas 
because other countries are trying to exploit this.
  I would just say to the gentleman, if there is only one person 
working part time on this, I don't see a reason to prohibit it, and I 
would urge the gentleman to withdraw his amendment.
  Mr. CARTER. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DICKS. Certainly, I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. CARTER. I may have misunderstood Mr. Price; but I believe he said 
there was one person who had gone to the meeting of the task force, 
which included FEMA and the Coast Guard.
  Is that what you said?
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Yes, FEMA and the Coast Guard.
  Mr. CARTER. Aren't FEMA and the Coast Guard part of the Department of 
Homeland Security?
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Yes.
  Mr. CARTER. So there is more than one person for sure, and if it is 
so negligible and of no consequence----
  Mr. DICKS. Then why bar it?
  Mr. CARTER. I don't understand why you won't accept the amendment.
  Mr. DICKS. Because it would bar the department from even discussing 
it with anybody. I think it is so shortsighted. This is a national 
security issue.
  The Navy is now looking at the coastal areas. As the seas rise, it's 
going to affect Navy installations all over this country. I brought in 
the Park Service when I was chairman of the Interior. I brought in the 
Forest Service, the Fish and Wildlife Service. They all see the 
effects. We have a longer fire season.
  This is something you can't ignore. This is a national issue that is 
significant, so to have a Department of Homeland Security that isn't 
going to

[[Page H3892]]

look at the consequences of climate change after what we've seen this 
year is just ridiculous on the face of it.
  Mr. CARTER. Let me point out that I did not ask that the department 
not look into climate change. I asked that we take any funds that are 
allocated to the Department of Homeland Security's Climate Change 
Adaptation Task Force. If there is no such task force, there is none. I 
believe there is, but if there is none, then there is none. I'm not 
saying they can't talk about climate change.
  In addition, I named two agencies that are spending close to $15 
billion in studying climate change. You, in addition, named the Navy, 
and you named other agencies that are looking into it. All of these 
agencies are spending tons of money. So why can't we get information 
from those people? Why do we have to go off and spend money, which we 
desperately need on our borders in order to protect ourselves from the 
real terrible violence that is slaughtering people on the Mexican 
border, on something for which you named five different groups that are 
studying it and for which I named two additional? Explain that to me.
  Mr. DICKS. Why can't Homeland Security, with the Coast Guard and FEMA 
and all of these organizations, be part of the interagency effort? 
They're not wasting money on this. This is important research.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DICKS. Yes, I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Is it actually less efficient to shut 
off this kind of interagency discussion and to say that the 
representative from FEMA or the Coast Guard simply can't participate 
and that they have to reinvent the wheel? I simply don't understand the 
rationale, when interagency work is going on and when it has the 
potential to inform Homeland Security's work, why they shouldn't take 
advantage of that.
  Mr. DICKS. Again, FEMA responds to weather disasters, so they have 
got to be involved in the task force that is looking at climate change. 
I just can't believe that the gentleman really wants to do this.
  Mr. CARTER. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. CARTER. NOAA is the Weather Bureau. They're the weather folks who 
are studying this thing. They've got $5.6 billion to study it. I'm not 
asking for the world. If you'll recall, the last time you all were in 
charge, you took a spy satellite or two, moved them out of Afghanistan, 
and put them over the roles in order to study the roles.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Carter).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas will 
be postponed.


              Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. Poe of Texas

  Mr. POE of Texas. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to provide assistance to a State or local government 
     entity or official that is in violation of section 642(a) of 
     the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility 
     Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1373(a)).

  Mr. ADERHOLT. Madam Chair, I reserve a point of order.
  The Acting CHAIR. A point of order is reserved.
  The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. POE of Texas. Madam Chair, it has recently come to light that, 
according to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, the 
Department of Homeland Security granted deferred action to over 12,000 
illegal aliens in FY 2010. ``Deferred action'' is a technical term 
which means that a person is subject to deportation but that our 
Federal Government, the administration, decides not to deport them at 
all, calling it ``deferred action.''
  This number is a dramatic increase from previous years. It's much 
higher than the less than 900 number that was recently quoted by 
Secretary Napolitano in testimony during a Senate Judiciary hearing. 
These numbers also seem to drastically contradict statements made by 
the administration that deferred action would not be used to provide a 
backdoor amnesty to illegal immigrants.
  In short, deferred action is an exercise of prosecutorial discretion, 
and that discretion is not to pursue removal from the United States of 
a particular individual for a specific period of time. It is only 
intended to be used on very special occasions; but now over 12,000 
people a year are given this deferred action.
  Our broken immigration system in this country continues to allow 
hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants in each year. Increasingly, 
deferred action is being used as an easy way for the Federal Government 
to avoid enforcing the law for people who are arrested and caught in 
the United States illegally. Quite simply, it is illegal to be in this 
country without permission, and it is the responsibility of the Federal 
Government to enforce the immigration laws of this country at all 
times, not to pick and choose when to enforce certain laws, especially 
immigration laws.
  This amendment states that no money from this bill can be used to 
grant deferred action or parole to an illegal in the United States for 
any other reason than a case-by-case basis for one of two reasons: one, 
urgent humanitarian reasons or, two, significant public benefit.
  Bottom line, this amendment prevents the administration from going 
around Congress and the will of the American people by granting 
administrative amnesty called ``deferred action.''
  I yield back the balance of my time.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. ADERHOLT. Parliamentary inquiry, Madam Chair.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman will state his inquiry.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. We would like to clarify which amendment is currently 
being considered.
  The Acting CHAIR. Amendment No. 9.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. I ask unanimous consent that the Clerk read the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the Clerk will report the 
amendment.
  There was no objection.

                              {time}  2210


                             Point of Order

  Mr. ADERHOLT. Madam Chair, I insist on my point of order.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. I make a point of order against the amendment because 
it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an 
appropriation bill and, therefore, violates clause 2 of rule XXI. The 
rule states in pertinent part: an amendment to a general appropriation 
bill shall not be in order if changing existing law imposes additional 
duties.
  I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
  The Acting CHAIR. Does any Member wish to be heard on the gentleman's 
point of order?
  Mr. POE of Texas. Madam Chair, I wish to be heard.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized on the point 
of order.
  Mr. POE of Texas. Madam Chair, this is the amendment that I mentioned 
to the majority that I was going to introduce at this time, and it is 
in order because it is No. 9, which was stated to me by the Clerk as 
No. 9. So it is in order.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk has read amendment No. 9, and the Chair 
will rule on amendment No. 9.
  The Chair finds that this amendment includes language imparting 
direction. The amendment therefore constitutes legislation in violation 
of clause 2 of rule XXI.
  The point of order is sustained, and the amendment is not in order.


              Amendment No. 10 Offered by Mr. Poe of Texas

  Mr. POE of Texas. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk. The

[[Page H3893]]

title of the amendment is Sanctuary Cities amendment. I have it as No. 
10.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by 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. POE of Texas. I would like the amendment read.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the Clerk will report the 
amendment.
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. POE of Texas. Madam Chair, over the past years, the number of 
aliens who unlawfully reside in the United States has grown 
significantly, from an estimated 3 million in 1986, to about 11 million 
in 2005; and some put those estimates today in 2010 at 20 million.
  It is estimated that 400,000 illegal immigrants entered our country 
last year. Even modest estimates put the cost of illegal immigration to 
just the Federal Government at over $29 billion each year. That is 
roughly the annual budget for the entire Department of Justice, and we 
cannot afford to have this continue.
  Some jurisdictions have assisted Federal authorities in apprehending 
and detaining unauthorized aliens pursuant to agreements called the 
287(g) agreements, with Federal immigration authorities enabling 
respective State or local law enforcement agencies to carry out various 
immigration enforcement functions, and I commend these jurisdictions.
  However, there are some jurisdictions that continue to mandate that 
their employees not communicate with ICE when they come across someone 
that is in the country illegally. These jurisdictions are known as 
sanctuary cities and are located throughout the United States. This 
practice is against the law, and it is in violation of current law 
which is 8 U.S.C. 1373.
  However, despite the law, many cities and localities still place 
these restrictions on law enforcement officers and other employees. 8 
U.S.C. 1373 states: notwithstanding any other provision of Federal, 
State, or local law, a Federal, State, or local government entity or 
official may not prohibit or in any way restrict any government entity 
or official from sending to or receiving from the Immigration and 
Naturalization Service, now called ICE, information regarding the 
citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any 
individual.
  Once again, Madam Chair, this is current U.S. Federal law. This 
amendment is simple. It says that no funds from this act can be used to 
contradict current U.S. law, which I just read.
  This amendment should pass unanimously because it already is against 
the law for cities and other jurisdictions to prevent law enforcement 
officers and other employees from sharing information with ICE. All 
this amendment is doing is saying that no money from this act can go to 
support an already illegal activity. It is a commonsense amendment. I 
urge support of the amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. Madam Chair, I appreciate the concerns of the gentleman 
from Texas. This amendment supports existing law, and we accept this 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Richmond

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

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __. Any appropriation for fiscal year 2011 for 
     disaster assistance that includes an emergency designation 
     pursuant to section 3(c) (1) of H. Res. 5 (112th Congress) 
     shall not be required by any rule or policy to be accompanied 
     by a budgetary offset.

  Mr. RICHMOND (during the reading). Madam Chair, I ask unanimous 
consent to dispense with the reading.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from Louisiana?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. Madam Chair, I reserve a point of order on the 
gentleman's amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. A point of order is reserved.
  The gentleman from Louisiana is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. RICHMOND. Madam Chair, to my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle and on the same side of the aisle, I rise today to do two things. 
One is to thank the American people, thank Congress, and thank two 
Presidents for the assistance that they gave to the gulf coast after 
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, and even after the BP oil spill.
  But at the same time, I rise because just in the last 2 months, 
President Obama has issued 27 disaster and emergency declarations 
across 18 States. And the fact that this Congress and the last Congress 
was able to help the citizens of the gulf coast gave great comfort to 
Americans to know that this government would not let them fend for 
themselves when a natural disaster hits.
  However, under the policies of this Congress, we have decided that 
any disaster assistance would require a pay-for. That would leave a 
large number of our American taxpaying citizens out to fend for 
themselves when they simply cannot do it.
  So when we look at the tornadoes and we look at the flooding that has 
occurred in the last 2 months--and we are talking about States like 
Minnesota, Tennessee, Arkansas, Georgia, Missouri, Mississippi, 
Louisiana--I think it should be the policy of this body that we are 
going to be wherever our citizens need us.
  If you look at the fund which FEMA uses to pay for disaster response 
recovery and mitigation projects, it is facing a $1 billion shortfall 
this fiscal year. If you look at the entire hole, the hole is much 
bigger. You are talking at least a $3 billion hole for the fiscal year 
2012. That does not even include estimates of the incidents and the 
disasters that I talked about earlier, the mini-tornadoes and the 
massive flooding that we have incurred in the last 2 months. That is 
worrisome, but let's take it a step forward.
  Let's assume, or even not assume, but there is a possibility that we 
would see another event similar to the flooding, similar to a 
hurricane. Hurricane season started June 1, and I think that it is 
absolutely irresponsible for us to tell the American people, it is 
disingenuous, it is wrong, it is sinful to say we are not going to help 
you if we don't cut the budget somewhere else. We have not done that in 
the past, and I don't think we should do it now.
  The great thing for me today, I get to stand up here as a person 
whose district benefited tremendously from the fact that we have water 
diversions on the Mississippi. And in order to save Baton Rouge, 
Louisiana, and New Orleans, Louisiana, we opened those diversions which 
flooded small towns and small farmers, and that happened up and down 
the Mississippi River.
  So I stand here today as a beneficiary of other people's flooding and 
other people's destruction that they suffered. And I stand here today 
as someone who has not suffered a lot saying that the government was 
there for me when Katrina and Rita hit, and the government should be 
there for the people of Mississippi, Minnesota, Georgia, Missouri, 
Texas, Louisiana, and everywhere that the tornadoes hit.

                              {time}  2220

  So this amendment simply does what I think is the fair thing to do, a 
consistent thing to do, and something that's deeply rooted in our 
American history, and that is to help people that can't help 
themselves.
  And I would just simply ask both sides of the aisle to join together 
in unity and let the people of this country know that if a tornado 
knocks down your house through no fault of your own, we're going to be 
there to help you. No matter if other administrations have squandered 
and spent money that has left us in a deficit, we will still be there 
to help you.
  I yield back the balance of my time.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. ADERHOLT. Madam Chair, I insist on my point of order.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. I make a point of order against the amendment because

[[Page H3894]]

it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an 
appropriation bill and therefore violates clause 2 of rule XXI.
  The rule states in pertinent part: An amendment to a general 
appropriation bill shall not be in order if it changes the application 
of existing law. The amendment changes the application of existing law.
  I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
  The Acting CHAIR. Does any Member wish to be heard on the point of 
order?
  If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
  The Chair finds that this amendment changes the application of 
existing law. The amendment therefore constitutes legislation in 
violation of clause 2 of rule XXI.
  The point of order is sustained, and the amendment is not in order.


                 Amendment Offered by Mr. Poe of Texas

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

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to to parole an alien into the United States, or 
     grant deferred action of a final order of removal, for any 
     reason other than on a case-by-case basis for urgent 
     humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. POE of Texas. Madam Chairman, what is taking place is under the 
guise of granting deferred action. Deferred action is a procedure, an 
administrative procedure by the administration that is used when a 
person is detained who is illegally in the United States and the action 
to deport that individual is deferred to some unknown date. The person 
is released, and what occurs is that person is never deported and never 
has a hearing.
  This procedure started years ago with a few hundred people a year. 
But last year, in 2010, over 12,000 people had their immigration 
deportation hearings deferred to an unknown date, and what occurred was 
they were released and their action against them will never be taken. 
Some call this a form of amnesty, administrative amnesty. You can call 
it whatever you want, but those people stay in the United States.
  What this amendment does is prohibit the administration from using, 
under the guise of deferred action, this procedure to not have hearings 
on individuals, which allows them to end up staying in the United 
States. And no funds can be used to implement the verdict action except 
in two cases: One is under humanitarian reasons, and the second would 
be some significant public benefit to the United States. Otherwise, no 
deferred action, no get-out-of-jail-free card for people on a 
discriminatory basis done by the administration or any of its agencies.
  I urge adoption of this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. Madam Chairman, we accept the gentleman from Texas's 
amendment.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the 
last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Chairman, I support this amendment 
because it restates the Department's broad discretionary authority to 
grant relief or deferred action to deserving individuals.
  The authority of law enforcement agencies to exercise discretion in 
deciding what cases to investigate and prosecute under existing civil 
and criminal law, including immigration law, is fundamental to the 
American legal system. And since this amendment recognizes this 
essential executive authority, especially when it comes to relief for 
humanitarian purposes or when it serves the public's interest, I 
recommend that my colleagues support it.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe).
  The amendment was agreed to.


            Amendment Offered by Mr. Price of North Carolina

  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at 
the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to enforce the requirements in--
       (1) section 34(a)(1)(A) of the Federal Fire Prevention and 
     Control Act of 1974 (15 U.S.C. 2229(a)(1)(A));
       (2) section 34(a)(1)(B) of such Act;
       (3) section 34(c)(1) of such Act;
       (4) section 34(c)(2) of such Act;
       (5) section 34(c)(4)(A) of such Act; and
       (6) section 34(a)(1)(E) of such Act.

  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina (during the reading). I ask unanimous 
consent that the reading be dispensed with, Madam Chairman.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from North Carolina?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Chairman, my amendment would waive 
certain requirements attached to the Fire Grants and the SAFER grants, 
and this amendment is necessitated by the amendment passed earlier this 
evening.
  Members are aware that H.R. 2107 reduced funding for firefighter 
hiring grants, also known as SAFER grants, by $255 million, or 63 
percent below 2011. Fortunately, the House resoundingly overturned that 
ill-advised move earlier today and adopted an amendment by Mr. 
LaTourette and Mr. Pascrell to restore the funding to the President's 
requested level.
  But my colleagues should also be aware that funding is only part of 
the problem with this bill when it comes to the SAFER program. The 
underlying bill also neglects to maintain provisions enacted in fiscal 
years 2009 through 2011 that allowed fire departments to use these 
grants to hire laid-off firefighters and to prevent others from being 
laid off in the first place.
  The law traditionally permits SAFER grants only to be used to hire 
new staff. Now, that provision makes sense when our economy is booming 
and local governments are in a position to hire new workers. But when 
the recovery is still fragile and local budgets are actually 
contracting and workers are being laid off, FEMA needs the flexibility 
to use these grants to keep firefighters from being cut in the first 
place. Secretary Napolitano and Administrator Fugate both testified to 
this need earlier this year during our appropriations hearings. So I am 
proposing a waiver amendment which would save thousands of firefighter 
jobs.
  Right now the real challenge to community safety is not the 
reluctance of local governments to hire new fire personnel. It's the 
potential and actual layoffs of public safety personnel, which means 
fewer first responders, longer response times, and more lives being put 
at risk.
  This amendment also contains a provision that waives certain 
budgetary requirements local fire departments have to fill in order to 
receive a grant. These include not allowing a fire department's overall 
budget to drop below a certain level, not reducing staff over a number 
of years even if budgets continue to suffer, and providing local 
matching funds. Again, these provisions are fine when local coffers are 
healthy, but we all know how strapped our cities and counties are right 
now. So in the current economic environment, very few municipalities 
would be able to meet these requirements, jobs would go unfilled, and 
firefighter and public safety would be placed at greater risk.
  Finally, to address concerns that these waivers have gone on well 
beyond what was originally anticipated, the fire organizations tell me 
that 2012 will be likely the last year that they will need these 
waivers.
  When colleagues are weighing this amendment, Madam Chairman, I 
encourage them to consider the intent of the SAFER program, ensuring we 
have a safe level of staffing of our Nation's preeminent first 
responders, the firefighters.

                              {time}  2230

  We have already overwhelmingly supported funding for the firefighter 
jobs by adding funding back to the SAFER program. So if Members really 
support these jobs, they need to take this additional step. We should 
vote to allow these funds to be used in the most flexible way possible, 
the best

[[Page H3895]]

way possible to keep firefighters on staff.
  So I urge support of this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. Madam Chair, I rise to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Alabama is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. Madam Chair, I rise in strong opposition to this 
amendment.
  SAFER was originally authorized for the purpose of increasing the 
number of new firefighters in local communities--a hand up, not a 
handout. SAFER was not intended to rehire or retain firefighters, and 
certainly was not intended to serve as an operating subsidy for what is 
unquestionably a municipal responsibility.
  The Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act contains very specific 
requirements that local communities have to meet in order to obtain 
funds; however, those requirements have been waived for the last 3 
years. When initially proposed by the Democrats in 2009, Mr. Price, who 
was chairman of this subcommittee, acknowledged that these waivers were 
just a short-term, temporary effort that would expire at the end of 
FY10. Yet, here we are today debating the continuation in FY12 of a 
subsidy that our country cannot afford.
  Under these costly waivers, there are no controls, there are no 
salary limits, and there are no local commitments. These proposed 
waivers totally undermine the original purpose and intent of the SAFER 
program by forcing the taxpayers to subsidize the everyday operating 
expenses of the local first responders.
  Given our Nation's dire fiscal situation today, we must take a stand 
that it is not the Federal Government's job to bail out every municipal 
budget or serve as a fire marshal for every city and town across this 
country. Therefore, Madam Chair, I would strongly urge my colleagues to 
support fiscal discipline and to vote ``no'' on this amendment.
  Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from North 
Carolina will be postponed.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Scalise

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

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available under this Act 
     may be used to require an approved Transportation Worker 
     Identification Credential (TWIC) applicant to personally 
     appear at a designated enrollment center for the purpose of 
     TWIC issuance, renewal, or activation.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Louisiana is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. SCALISE. Madam Chair, the amendment I bring forward right now in 
this bill is really directed at addressing a bureaucratic red tape 
inefficiency that is causing over 1 million American workers to make 
multiple trips to get a document that they are required to have, the 
Federal Government requires them to have. It's a transportation worker 
identification credential, and it's an important document to have. But 
it was created back in 2007, and it has a 5-year limitation and it has 
to be renewed. And a worker has to go into a registered TWIC office, 
and they have to go and get their fingerprint taken. They've got to get 
their picture taken and present credentials to get the card.
  The problem with the implementation is that the Department has been 
requiring these workers to go back multiple times to get the card when, 
in fact, if you look at how a passport, for example, is issued, you can 
go in and you can fill out the paperwork and then they send you the 
passport. It works that way for most forms of identification, but for 
whatever reason, in this TWIC program, the Department has been 
requiring multiple trips.
  The reason that this is a big issue for all of these workers is there 
are 1.8 million Americans who are required to have a TWIC card in order 
to do their jobs. And so under these current rules, they have to go and 
make multiple trips. And in some cases, this isn't an office right down 
the street; this is an office over 100 miles away.
  I have a letter from the Passenger Vessel Association in support of 
this amendment, and they point out frequently that the TWIC enrollment 
center is hundreds of miles away from a mariner's home, necessitating 
two round trips of many hours in duration. It is not uncommon for the 
mariner to be forced to stay overnight during each round trip. And, of 
course, the employee has to pay for these round trips, has to pay for 
the overnight, has to be away from their job, and for no valid reason. 
In fact, the Department hasn't even implemented rules to properly 
utilize these TWIC cards; yet they're still making the employees go and 
have these multiple trips.
  If you imagine a State like Alaska where you might have to spend days 
to go get the card, and you have to first go spend days to go file for 
the card, then you have to go spend days to go get the card, this is 
unnecessary. It's an incredible burden on our workforce, and it's 
something that we can address by preventing the funds from being used 
for implementing this policy. It still gives them broad discretion to 
implement a successful TWIC program, but again, just like passports or 
other forms of identification, our over 1.8 million American workers 
shouldn't be forced to jump through all of these bureaucratic red tape 
hoops that are actually costing them money that they should be able to 
spend on their families.
  I ask for support of the amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Alabama is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. I will yield to the gentleman and ask if he can confirm 
that this amendment still requires applicants to biometrically enroll 
in person.
  Mr. SCALISE. Yes. They would still have to go to the center and have 
to apply. In fact, in the language of the amendment, it refers to an 
approved transportation worker identification credential. So they would 
have to actually go and be approved. Because even if they went and 
let's say they were rejected, then they wouldn't be able to get the 
card. But if they went to the center and got approved, then they 
shouldn't have to go back again to get the card.
  So it does require that they would have to still go in person, take 
the photo ID, and implement the biometric data, but it just makes sure 
that they don't have to go through these continuous bureaucratic 
hurdles to go and get the card.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman. And based on the 
requirement that the applicants biometrically enroll, we will accept 
the amendment.
  Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Sherman

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

       At the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used in contravention of the War Powers Resolution (50 
     U.S.C. 1541 et. seq.).

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. SHERMAN. I had the Clerk read the whole amendment because it's 
just one sentence, and it's very simple. It says none of the money in 
this act can be used deliberately by the President to violate the law--
in particular, the war powers resolution often referred to as the War 
Powers Act, which is found in title 50 of the United States Code.
  Why is this amendment necessary? Because so many administrations have 
embraced the idea of an imperial Presidency, have embraced the idea 
that a

[[Page H3896]]

United States President can send our forces into battle for an 
unlimited duration, unlimited in scope, and for whatever purposes the 
executive branch finds worthy.
  The War Powers Act is the law of this land, and it says that a 
President may indeed commit our forces but must seek congressional 
authorization and must withdraw in 60 days if that authorization is not 
provided by the vote of both Houses of Congress.

                              {time}  2240

  But this President, like some others, believes that he doesn't have 
to follow the law. And in fact in this case in Libya, we and our allies 
were not attacked but rather a very important purpose--or thought to be 
important by the President--presented itself and so he committed our 
forces.
  Now, the respect that the executive branch has for Congress has 
called upon them to hide their contempt for the law. And so they've 
implied without really stating it that there are substitutes for a 
congressional authorization. They've implied that resolutions by the 
United Nations, the Arab League, or NATO is a substitute for 
congressional action. And they've implied that consulting with 
congressional leaders, a lunch with leadership, is a substitute for an 
affirmative vote on the floors of both Houses.
  It is time for us to stand up and say, No, Mr. President, you 
actually have to follow the law.
  Now, why am I amending this bill? Obviously, this amendment is even 
more apropos to the Defense appropriations bill, but we'll be dealing 
with that many weeks from now. And the President has been in violation 
of the War Powers Act for several weeks now. And so we should try to 
act now.
  But in addition, this amendment ought to be put on every 
appropriations bill that we pass this year. Otherwise, we invite a 
President who sees this amendment only on the Defense appropriations 
bill to try to find creative ways to transfer money from the Coast 
Guard account to the Navy or transfer a ship from the Navy to the Coast 
Guard to the Navy, one way or the other. We should not invite an 
unproductive loophole hunt. We should have the same restriction on 
every appropriations bill.
  Now, if we can pass this amendment by a significant vote, the 
President will, I hope, request an authorization for the action he 
wants to take in Libya. And he will have to accept an authorization 
that I hope will be limited in time and scope. Perhaps it will be 
limited to air forces and not ground forces. Perhaps it will require 
renewal every 6 months rather than being permanent. There may be 
conditions such as why are we funding this out of taxpayer money and 
not the $33 billion of Qadhafi money that he was stupid enough to 
invest in the United States in ways that we could find out about and 
freeze.
  And why has the transitional government in Benghazi refused to 
disassociate itself from the al Qaeda fighters and the Libyan Islamic 
fighting group fighters in their midst? Why will they not remove from 
their government those who support those who have American blood on 
their hands from Iraq and Afghanistan?
  This is not just an issue of an aggrandizing President. It is also an 
issue of dereliction in Congress because, yes, we would like to avoid 
tough votes, particularly those that divide our constituents and even 
the constituents that we have from within our own party. But this is 
our constitutional duty. The War Powers Resolution is the law of the 
land. Whatever your views are on our activities in Libya, you ought to 
support this resolution.
  I for one could support an authorization to use force that was 
carefully tailored and severely limited.
  This amendment vote is not about democracy and the rule of law in 
Libya. We all long to see democracy and the rule of law in Libya. This 
vote is about democracy and the rule of law in the United States.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Alabama is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment. 
This amendment is not germane to the Department of Homeland Security 
appropriations bill. This amendment is better addressed within the 
National Defense Authorization Act or the Defense appropriations bill.
  I yield back the balance of time.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the 
last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I want to join Chairman Aderholt in 
urging rejection of this nongermane amendment. Members of course would 
not want to vote against contravening the law in anything that we do, 
but we have to acknowledge that this amendment is not germane to this 
bill.
  And the rhetoric that has attended the introduction of this amendment 
contains, just to put it mildly, insinuations and charges that this 
Member finds unacceptable.
  This is not the place, however, Madam Chairman, to engage in a full 
debate of our Libyan operations or our foreign policy in general. So I 
will restrict myself to simply saying that I do think this amendment is 
inappropriate for this bill.
  Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I'll be happy to yield.
  Mr. DICKS. I rise in opposition to the Sherman amendment.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. SHERMAN. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California 
will be postponed.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Gosar

  Mr. GOSAR. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the table.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to comply with subchapter IV of chapter 31 of title 
     40, United States Code, popularly known as the Davis-Bacon 
     Act.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Arizona is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. GOSAR. I rise in support of my amendment that would exempt all 
construction projects authorized under this act from the inflationary 
and unwise Davis-Bacon Act.
  As Members of Congress, we are stewards of the public treasury. We 
have an obligation to spend taxpayer money wisely. The government does 
not earn money. The government does not generate wealth. The government 
takes money from those who work hard for a living. In order to justify 
that act, we have an obligation at a minimum to spend this money 
wisely.
  The Davis-Bacon Act adds unnecessary costs. Research shows that the 
Davis-Bacon Act imposes costs that average 22 percent above market 
wages. This is unacceptable. Every dollar wasted is a dollar we can't 
use on other projects.
  In most cities, the Davis-Bacon Act imposes wages that bear no 
resemblance to prevailing market wages. In some cities, the rates are 
more than double the market wages.
  I ask for everyone's support in stopping this wasteful use in 
taxpayer money.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I rise in opposition to the amendment 
and move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to 
this amendment which will preclude the Department of Homeland Security 
or any entity that receives funding from the Department of Homeland 
Security, such as State and local governments, from insisting on fair 
labor standards for construction contracts, also known has the Davis-
Bacon Act standards.
  Davis-Bacon is a pretty simple concept and a fair one. It requires 
that

[[Page H3897]]

workers on federally funded construction projects be paid no less than 
the wages paid in the community for similar work. According to the 
Economic Policy Institute, the differences in labor costs that this 
makes are insignificant. Average labor costs, including benefits and 
payroll taxes, are roughly one-quarter of construction costs. Thus, if 
there's an increase in overall contract costs due to higher wages, it 
likely would be modest to the point in many cases of being virtually 
undetectable.
  And in fact, Davis-Bacon, in ensuring that fair wages attract skilled 
workers, this might actually mean that the work is completed at a 
higher quality and in less time.
  This amendment flouts the basic concept of wage fairness. At the 
exact time we're trying to get people back to work across the country, 
is this House going to vote to drive down the wages of workers who do 
business with the government on the theory that it might cost a little 
less money on construction projects?

                              {time}  2250

  Are we going to strong-arm the States and say they can't uphold the 
labor standards they've adopted in their own right?
  I strongly recommend a ``no'' vote. The House has spoken repeatedly 
on this issue this year. We've taken two votes on this, during H.R. 1 
and during the FAA reauthorization, and both times amendments to strike 
Davis-Bacon standards failed. We don't need to revisit this again here 
tonight.
  I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. I rise in strong support of the gentleman's position and 
against this amendment. By the way, Davis and Bacon were two 
Republicans. So they knew what they were doing.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I thank the ranking member. I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Madam Chair, I rise in support of the Gosar 
amendment, the amendment that eliminates a requirement for Davis-Bacon 
within the funds of this appropriations bill. I don't know another 
Member of Congress that has lived under Davis-Bacon. I have. I have 
lived underneath it for more than 30 years. I have received Davis-Bacon 
wages when I was working for other contractors, and I paid a lot of 
Davis-Bacon wages as an owner-operator of a construction company that I 
operated for over 28 years.
  I can tell you that the Federal Government interfering with a 
contractual relationship between an employer and an employee is the 
wrong thing to do. It does drive up the costs. The gentleman's opening 
remarks were spot on. My own construction records show that the costs 
go up between 8 and 35 percent; hardly insignificant. And it scrambles 
the relationship between employers and employees, who are always 
jockeying for the highest paid Federally designated scale.
  I have seen wages change, double, from just going across the road 
because the Federal Government has designated a different wage scale 
for one division rather than another. We know this is union scale. 
Nobody said that. This is government-imposed union scale. And I am not 
going to stand here to protect and defend those Republicans. They did 
it to protect the unions in New York. And we know that, because the 
labor from Alabama was going to New York in 1931 to construct a Federal 
building, and they wanted to lock the black construction workers that 
were coming from Alabama out of the trade unions in New York. That was 
the motive. And now today the motive is to protect union scale.
  If we want to build 4 miles of road or 5, we go without Davis-Bacon 
and we build 5. If we stay with Davis-Bacon, we will build 4. If we 
want to build five schools, we can do so with merit shop. If we only 
want to build four, we stick with Davis-Bacon.
  If you want to do, as many Democrats have said on this floor, and 
that is that any relationship between two consenting adults the Federal 
Government shouldn't be involved in, well, this is a relationship the 
Federal Government should not be involved in. For the Federal 
Government to tell me that I can't say to my own son I would like to 
climb in the seat of your excavator and sit there for $10 an hour--
Federal Government says I can't. He has got to pay me some $28 rate or 
whatever that is. The government has no business interfering and no 
business driving up these costs.
  We must go through this period of austerity. That requires that we 
not impose Federal union scale on Federal construction projects. This 
amendment that blocks the requirement for that funding, it saves the 
taxpayers money. And by the way, we've done a lot of quality work over 
the decades that I have been in the business. And I would match the 
work of our merit shop employees up against any union workers out 
there, who do good work too. And I have worked with them, and I have 
worked alongside them on projects. But the quality of merit shop work 
cannot be challenged.
  We do it according to the specifications and according to the plans, 
according to the architect, and according to the engineer. If we didn't 
meet those specifications, they would reject the work, and we would pay 
the penalty. My company doesn't pay penalties. We do quality work, and 
so do the people I associate and bid with. So I get a little worn down 
on that quality of workmanship. I am real proud of the merit shop work 
in the United States. And I think the free market should set the wages.
  Labor is a commodity, just like corn, or beans, or oil, or gold, and 
the value of it needs to be determined by the competition, supply and 
demand in the workplace. I urge the adoption of the Gosar amendment. I 
will certainly support it. And I will be happy to carry this on all 
throughout this whole appropriation process.
  Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield? Can I get the address of merit-
based construction?
  Mr. KING of Iowa. I will be happy to yield to the gentleman, if the 
time allows.
  Mr. DICKS. I just want to know if I could get the address, you didn't 
mention that, where it's located, your company.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. It's in Kiron, Iowa. It's been there since 1975. 
And we are a second-generation company.
  Mr. DICKS. Thank you.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona will 
be postponed.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Altmire

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

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following new section:


          use of american iron, steel, and manufactured goods

       Sec. __.  None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act may be used for the construction, 
     modification, maintenance, or repair of vehicle or pedestrian 
     fencing along the southern border unless all of the iron, 
     steel, and manufactured goods used in the construction, 
     modification, maintenance, or repair are produced in the 
     United States.

  Mr. ADERHOLT. Madam Chair, I reserve a point of order on the 
gentleman's amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. A point of order is reserved.
  The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. ALTMIRE. Madam Chair, I rise in support of American steel and 
maintaining security along our southern border. This amendment is 
actually very simple. I am offering it because it requires that any 
repairs, modifications, maintenance, or construction of new portions of 
the fence along our southern border be made with American steel, 
American iron, and American-manufactured steel goods.
  Now, as I am sure my colleagues are aware, the Buy American Act, 
which was enacted in 1933, already requires

[[Page H3898]]

the government to purchase domestic goods for a direct Federal 
procurement. And for some particularly important areas critical to our 
national security, such as nearly all defense projects and spending, 
the requirements for our government to buy American goods are even 
stronger.
  I believe that the steel used in the fence along our southern border 
should be included in that category. And that is simply what this 
amendment does. I can't imagine that there would be opposition in this 
Chamber to the use of American-made steel in the construction of our 
border fence along our southern border.
  Many of my colleagues, I am sure, remember in 2007 when it came to 
our attention that we were in some cases using Chinese-made steel in 
construction of the Mexican border fence. We were all equally outraged 
by that. We were able to encourage, and finally, through hard work and 
bipartisanship, encourage successfully the Department of Homeland 
Security to use American-made steel. This amendment gives that the 
force of law, as I said, under the Buy American Act, which already 
applies to many American-made goods in the defense industry. So that's 
the purpose of this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chair, I insist on my point of order.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Bishop of Utah). The gentleman will state his 
point of order.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. 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. The 
rule states in pertinent part, ``An amendment to a general 
appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law 
requires a new determination.''
  I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
  The Acting CHAIR. Does any Member wish to be heard on the point of 
order? The Chair will rule.
  The Chair finds that this amendment includes language requiring a new 
determination of where certain items are produced. The amendment 
therefore constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI.
  The point of order is sustained, and the amendment is not in order.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Scalise

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

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to implement or enforce Executive Order 13502, the 
     FAR Council supporting regulations FAR Rule 2009-005, or any 
     agency memorandum, bulletin, or contracting policy that 
     derives its authority from Executive Order 13502 or FAR Rule 
     2009-005.

  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on this 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. A point of order is reserved.

                              {time}  2300

  The gentleman from Louisiana is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Chairman, I bring the amendment because what we are 
trying to do is prevent the Department from implementing or using 
taxpayer money to implement Executive Order No. 13502. And the effect 
of that executive order has been to mandate project labor agreements on 
projects that are worth $25 million or more.
  What we are talking about here is a requirement that is increasing 
the cost dramatically of projects similar to the debate we had a little 
earlier. If you look at--there have been a number of studies done. 
There was a 2009 Beacon Hill study that looked at the impact that if 
this type of policy was in effect in 2008, which fortunately it wasn't, 
but if this executive order was being implemented in 2008, all of the 
projects that were done that had a value of $25 million or more, it 
would have increased the cost to the Federal taxpayer by between $1.6 
billion and $2.6 billion. That's billions more that would be spent to 
carry out a project rather than having a just pure and open 
competition. We should be allowing free and open competition on 
projects and not artificially increasing the cost to taxpayers to carry 
out public projects.
  If you look at The Wall Street Journal, they specifically address the 
executive order that we are trying to prevent funds from being spent to 
carry out. The Wall Street Journal actually criticized the executive 
order and called these handouts ``a raw display of political favoritism 
at the expense of an industry experiencing 27 percent unemployment,'' 
and they also called this a rotten deal for taxpayers.
  We should be trying to save every dollar we can. We should be trying 
to promote fair and open competition. That's why the Associated 
Builders and Contractors support this amendment. To go further on, 
there was an investigation done by the Washington Examiner regarding a 
project labor agreement on a Federal building here in Washington, DC. 
that one project, one project, because of the PLA requirement, the 
taxpayers ended up having to foot an additional $3.3 million for that 
one project, the building here in Washington, DC. And I just want to go 
on a little bit further regarding the number of studies that have been 
done regarding PLAs. But they showed that it increases construction 
costs by 12 to 18 percent.
  So ultimately what we are saying is, look, if a PLA wins the day, 
wins the bid, that's their prerogative; but you shouldn't be mandating 
these increased costs. You shouldn't be shutting out those open shop 
companies. And, by the way, the open shop companies represent about 87 
percent of the U.S. construction workforce.
  So why would we be shutting out 87 percent of the people out there 
who want to compete for these jobs, for these construction projects, 
and why should we be adding over a billion dollars to $2 billion in 
increased costs to the American taxpayer? We can stop it, we can save 
that taxpayer money and do a much better job of stewarding for the 
American people and allow more people to go back to work in a fair and 
open way.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DICKS. I move to strike the requisite number of words.
  The Acting CHAIR. Does the gentleman reserve his point of order or 
withdraw his point of order?
  Mr. DICKS. I withdraw my point of order.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Washington is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. DICKS. I rise in strong opposition to the gentleman's amendment.
  Executive Order 13502 gives Federal officials the option to determine 
if it is right for a particular construction project. There is no 
mandate. And if the gentleman has read the legislation, he will 
recognize there is no mandate.
  Mr. SCALISE. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. SCALISE. The reason I used the term ``mandate'' is because the 
practical implementation of this, when you look at how the Department 
has implemented----
  Mr. DICKS. Reclaiming my time, I think it's fairly clear that the 
gentleman knows that the executive order is only to promote efficiency 
in Federal procurement. A project labor agreement is a pre-hire 
agreement that establishes the terms and conditions of employment for a 
specific construction project.
  There is, and the gentleman is part of this, a PLA mandate myth that 
has been floating around since the executive order was issued that the 
Federal Government mandates project labor agreements. Actual language 
from the executive order says, and I quote: ``This order does not 
require an executive agency to use a project labor agreement on any 
construction project.'' I am sure the gentleman will be pleased to hear 
that.
  Let me explain what the executive order does do. It asks the Federal 
agencies to submit a quarterly report identifying all contracts awarded 
for large-scale construction projects and whether or not a PLA was used 
on the project; allows all contractors and subcontractors to compete 
for contracts and subcontracts; contains guarantees against strikes, 
lockouts in similar job disruptions and provides binding procedures for 
solving labor disputes that may arise during the terms of the project 
labor agreement; provides mechanism for labor and management 
cooperation on matters of mutual interest and concern such as 
productivity, quality of work, safety and

[[Page H3899]]

health; and includes any additional requirements that an agency deems 
necessary.
  Including this language would be a mistake since this executive order 
ensures construction projects are built correctly first time, on time 
and, as a result, on a budget for the end user.
  In addition, this executive order prevents costly delays that usually 
result from an unskilled workforce's lack of knowledge regarding the 
use of building materials or tools, as well as job site safety 
measures.
  I urge all Members to vote ``no'' on this amendment.
  I will yield to the gentleman if he wants to make a comment as I 
mentioned him directly.
  Mr. SCALISE. I appreciate the gentleman yielding because, as I said 
earlier, the language and, as you know, you are correct in reading the 
language of the executive order, the problem we have had is that the 
White House political appointees are requiring PLAs.
  Mr. DICKS. Well, let me just say something to the gentleman. I had an 
example in my own State, a very significant project. I urged the 
project labor agreement, and they turned me down. This is not the kind 
of project that we do project labor agreements on it.
  I was impressed that they made a decision, you know, and I didn't 
like the answer; but they said we have discretion to either do this or 
not do this, which is what I think we would want them to do because 
there are some situations where these agreements do add for stability 
between management and labor if you have things like, I think, the 
cleanup site down at Hanford in Doc Hastings' district has a project 
labor agreement. There was no strike so we could move forward and do 
this waste cleanup work that's so important.
  So I just say to the gentleman, I will hope that in the future he 
will recognize that there is no legal requirement, and they are not 
requiring people to do it and agencies are saying ``no'' when they 
think it's inappropriate.
  I don't think the gentleman's amendment is necessary and I hope that 
it will be defeated.
  Mr. FLAKE. I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Arizona is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FLAKE. Both gentlemen speaking here are right. This requirement, 
the executive order, does not mandate the use of PLAs. However, some 
agencies have taken it and interpreted it as such that it should 
mandate it.
  Let me give you one example here. On October 15, 2010, just a few 
months ago, the Army Corps of Engineers issued PIL 211-1 to all Army 
Corps contracting offices providing implementing guidance for the use 
of PLAs on Army Corps construction contracts. The following are major 
PIL elements.
  Here it is, requires the project delivery team, PDT, to consider the 
use of the PLA on a project-by-project basis by conducting a PLA labor 
market survey during acquisition planning.
  Mr. DICKS. Did I hear ``consider''?
  Mr. FLAKE. Yes. But then it goes further so there was a complaint 
because some people didn't want that in. The complaint came back and 
the Army Corps came back and said that they should receive additional 
consideration if they do use a PLA and that should be strictly 
forbidden.
  And so there is--there is a problem here. We do have a problem here 
with the agencies interpreting this in a way that would require the use 
of the PLA or give added weight to the use of a PLA.
  Now, when the gentleman says this amendment is not required because 
it's not prescriptive, the current law without the executive order is 
the same thing.

                              {time}  2310

  They can consider the use of a PLA. Nothing prohibits that now. So 
all the Executive order is doing is giving some agencies reason to 
maybe mandate the use of a PLA. And that's why we're trying to strike 
the Executive order. The scenario that the gentleman from Washington 
describes where nobody is requiring or mandating anything, that exists 
without the Executive order. So that's what we're trying to do here is 
remove that Executive order that gives added weight to PLAs.
  Now, in Arizona, for example, 90-some percent of workers there are 
not union workers. They don't want a PLA. And if you have a project 
that gives added weight to PLAs, that disenfranchises a lot of people 
in Arizona, more than 90 percent of the population. So we just can't do 
that. We shouldn't do that. And so the gentleman's amendment should be 
accepted.
  We did a similar one. It was accepted in the Appropriations Committee 
with regard to the MilCon budget, the MilCon appropriation bill. And so 
that will come to the floor with this amendment already in it.
  I would suggest to the gentleman from Washington and others who 
oppose this that we're simply trying to get back to a time where PLAs 
can be considered but they aren't construed as being necessary or 
mandated by the agencies.
  Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FLAKE. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. The Executive order requires all contractors and 
subcontractors to compete for contracts and subcontracts. And also, the 
quid pro quo here for the government is they get a guarantee against 
strikes, lockouts and similar job disruptions, and provides binding 
procedures for resolving labor disputes that may arise during the term 
of the PLA. So as long as there's no mandatory requirement, sometimes a 
project labor agreement is a positive thing.
  Mr. FLAKE. It might be. And without the Executive order, they can 
consider that. Nothing prohibits that. But the problem is that the 
Executive order has led to a situation where some agencies interpret 
that as requiring a PLA, and that's what we're trying to get away from.
  And so the amendment is a good one. I would urge its adoption, and I 
thank the gentleman for bringing it forward.
  This will be consistent with another appropriation bill that is 
coming to the floor with this already in, already having been accepted 
by the Appropriations Committee.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Louisiana 
will be postponed.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Engel

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

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used by the Department of Homeland Security to lease or 
     purchase new light duty vehicles, for any executive fleet, or 
     for an agency's fleet inventory, except in accordance with 
     Presidential Memorandum-Federal Fleet Performance, dated May 
     24, 2011.

  Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Alabama reserves a point of 
order.
  The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, last week, President Obama issued a 
Presidential Memorandum on Federal Fleet Performance, which would 
require all new light-duty vehicles in the Federal fleet to be 
alternate fuel vehicles, such as hybrid, electric, natural gas, or 
biofuel, by December 31 of 2015.
  My amendment echos the Presidential Memorandum on Federal Fleet 
Performance by prohibiting funds in the DHS appropriation bill from 
being used to lease or purchase new light-duty vehicles except in 
accordance with the President's May 24 memorandum.
  Our transportation sector is by far the biggest reason we send $600 
billion per year to hostile nations, such as Venezuela and others, to 
pay for oil at ever-increasing costs. But America does not need to be 
dependent on foreign sources of oil for transportation fuel. 
Alternative technologies exist today that, when implemented broadly,

[[Page H3900]]

will allow any alternative fuel to be used in America's automotive 
fleet.
  The Federal Government operates the largest fleet of light-duty 
vehicles in America. According to the GSA, there are 662,154 vehicles 
in the Federal fleet with 54,972 belonging to the Department of 
Homeland Security.
  By supporting the diverse array of vehicle technologies in our 
Federal fleet, we'll encourage development of domestic energy 
resources, including biomass, natural gas, coal, agricultural waste, 
hydrogen, and renewable electricity.
  Expanding the role these energy sources play in our transportation 
economy will help break the leverage over Americans held by foreign 
government-controlled oil companies, increasing our Nation's domestic 
security and protecting consumers from price spikes and shortages in 
the world oil markets. I have been pushing to use and have in America 
alternative fuels. Tomorrow I'm holding a press conference with Mr. 
Shimkus and Mr. Bartlett. Three of us are supporting a bill, and this 
goes in line with that.
  So I would urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support 
and accept my amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my point of order.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman withdraws his point of order.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. We accept the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there further discussion?
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. We, too, would like to accept the 
amendment and commend the gentleman from New York for offering the 
amendment. He's bringing Federal practice into line with the 
Presidential memorandum of a few days ago, and this will promote the 
use of alternative fuel vehicles--hybrids, electrics, natural gas, and 
biofuels--by 2015. It will be a positive step to reduce our dependence 
on foreign oil, to develop alternative energy sources, and to make of 
the Federal Government and its fleet an example that the rest of the 
country can look to.
  So we urge adoption.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment Offered by Mr. King of Iowa

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

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  Of the funds made available by this Act under the 
     heading ``Border Security Fencing, Infrastructure, and 
     Technology'', $50,000,000 shall be for carrying out section 
     102 of the Illegal Immigration and Immigrant Responsibility 
     Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1103 note).

  Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chair, I reserve a point of order on the 
gentleman's amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Alabama reserves a point of 
order.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, we have not seen this 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. A copy will be distributed.
  Mr. DICKS. I want to reserve a point of order, too.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Washigton reserves a point of 
order.
  The gentleman from Iowa is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, the amendment that I offer is an 
amendment that directs that, of the funds made available in the bill, 
there's a $150 million category, roughly, well, one-third of it, or, 
specifically, $50 million, shall be used to carry out section 102 of 
the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, which 
is the governing statute that directs that a fence be built on our 
southern border.
  We've watched as the Congress has directed that the Secure Fence Act 
be passed, that the fence be built, and we've watched the last two 
administrations be less than enthusiastic about its construction.
  We heard President Obama standing within about, let's say, 220 yards 
of the Rio Grande River in El Paso a month or more ago saying that he 
believed that the fence was basically complete, to quote the President.

                              {time}  2320

  ``Basically complete,'' by his definition, would mean this: Of the 
700 miles directed by this Congress, that's 14.3 miles only of tertiary 
fencing. That's three fences, which, as far as I know, is the most 
effective way. We only have 36.3 miles of secondary, or double fencing, 
Mr. Chairman. Then if you want to really stretch this out and give them 
a lot of credit for building something, they have about 350 miles of 
primary fencing. That's less than half the minimum amount of secure 
fence, which takes, I believe, double fencing. The vehicle fence is 299 
miles.
  They haven't done what was directed by Congress. This amendment sets 
aside $50 million, which is only going to build about 25 more miles of 
good fencing, but it sends the right message, and it keeps them from 
going off and spending all of it on the other categories that are made 
available within this bill. The bill is fine with the money that's 
there, but the definition is too broad, and it allows the 
administration to slide away. My amendment, Mr. Chairman, directs that 
the $50 million be spent on the fence.
  I think it's ironic that the President, himself, when standing down 
in El Paso that five or so weeks ago when he gave the speech, said that 
the fence is basically complete. He said some people are going to want 
a moat; some people are going to want a moat with alligators. He 
ridiculed the effectiveness of the fence. The irony, Mr. Chairman, is 
that 220 yards away was the Rio Grande River and the canal; and if you 
count the fences in El Paso where they've given us the effectiveness of 
the secure fence that is built there, there is a fence, the Rio Grande 
River, another fence, a patrol road full of Border Patrol, another 
fence, a fast-moving canal with a concrete bottom and sides, and 
another fence. So, if you're going to get into the United States in El 
Paso, you've got to get over four fences and swim two moats to get 
there; and the President was making fun of it 220 yards away. I think 
his staff served him poorly that day. They should have flown Air Force 
One over that.
  We know that fences work, but they must be maintained--and yes, we 
need the technology on them. This directs that the resources be used, 
at least for the $50 million of the money made available, to build an 
actual fence; and it references section 102, which is the governing 
section.
  By the way, before we argue the parliamentary inquiry, I do have 
other language I will be happy to offer if we are unsuccessful in the 
parliamentary argument that is bound to ensue.
  I urge the adoption of my amendment, and I yield back the balance of 
my time.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, I insist on my point of order.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. I make a point of order against the amendment because 
it provides an appropriation for an unauthorized program and violates 
clause 2 of rule XXI. Clause 2 of rule XXI states in pertinent part:
  ``An appropriation . . . may not be in order as an amendment . . ., 
for an expenditure not previously authorized by law.''
  Mr. Chairman, the amendment proposes to appropriate funds for a 
program that is not authorized. The amendment therefore violates clause 
2 of rule XXI.
  I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
  The Acting CHAIR. Does any Member wish to be heard on the point of 
order?
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Iowa.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I would point out that I reference 
specifically the ``authorized by law'' program, and that's section 102 
of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 
1996. According to the leg counsel, section 102 governs everything 
related to the border fence. So I took care to draft this

[[Page H3901]]

amendment to directly address the objection that was raised by the 
gentleman from Alabama, whom I greatly respect. This reinforced fencing 
act, again, goes directly to section 102. It's an authorized section. 
It's governing. It's governing in the code, and that's from leg 
counsel.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I would conclude my argument by saying this is 
drafted specifically to address the objection I've just heard, and I am 
hopeful that I will receive a positive result from the Chair.
  The Acting CHAIR. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point 
of order? If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
  The amendment proposes to earmark certain funds in the bill.
  Under clause 2(a) of rule XXI, such an earmarking must be 
specifically authorized by law.
  The burden of establishing the authorization in law rests with the 
proponent of the amendment.
  Finding that this burden has not been carried, the point of order is 
sustained. The amendment is not in order.


                 Amendment Offered by Mr. King of Iowa

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

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. ___.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to carry out the provisions of Public Law 111-148, 
     Public Law 111-152, or any amendment made by either of such 
     laws.

  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Washington reserves a point of 
order.
  The gentleman from Iowa is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. This amendment is an amendment that, I think, 
everybody is going to understand. It just clarifies that none of the 
funds made available in this bill shall be used to carry out the 
provisions of what is commonly referred to as ``ObamaCare.'' That's the 
two sections of Public Law that are referenced in the amendment that we 
heard the Clerk just read.
  The argument will be made that this is unnecessary because the bill 
doesn't specifically go to appropriations to the Health Care Act that 
carries the President's name. I would argue that we don't know. There 
are 2,600-plus pages. No one understands it, and we're finding new 
regulations on a regular basis.
  A couple of things that might be under the appropriations that we are 
discussing here: It's possible that DHS could be participating in 
exchanges for immigrant health care or perhaps they could be auditing 
companies and helping to enforce the compliance with ObamaCare. Those 
are a couple of things that come to mind for me.
  I think this is very important. This Congress has a number of times 
voted to repeal and to defund ObamaCare. So, for us to inadvertently 
allow the appropriations that could be utilized to carry out the 
provisions of it, I think, would be an unforgivable omission on the 
part of this Congress. So I urge the adoption of this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I insist on my point of order.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
amendment because it violates clause 5(a)(2) of rule XXI. The amendment 
prohibits the use of funds for implementing the Patient Protection and 
Affordable Care Act. It is, thus, proposing a limitation on funds in a 
general appropriation bill for the administration of a tax or tariff in 
violation of the rule.
  The Acting CHAIR. Does any Member wish to be heard on this point of 
order?
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Iowa.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, with regard to the rule referenced by 
the gentleman from Washington, we have many limitations on funds in our 
appropriations bills. If the decision comes down to whether there is a 
parliamentary objection or not, I think I could go back through many of 
these appropriations bills and find limitation after limitation after 
limitation. The practice of this Congress has been to do so, and there 
will be other amendments that have not been objected to that limit the 
utilization of funds within this bill and every other. I would simply 
make that argument to the Chair.
  The Acting CHAIR. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point 
of order? If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
  The gentleman from Washington makes a point of order against the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa on the ground that it 
carries a tax measure on a bill reported by a committee, in this case, 
the Committee on Appropriations, not having jurisdiction to report tax 
measures, in violation of clause 5(a) of rule XXI.
  In clause 5(a) of rule XXI, the phrase ``tax or tariff measure'' 
expressly includes an amendment proposing a limitation on funds in a 
general appropriation bill for the administration of a tax or tariff.
  The amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa is in the form of a 
limitation on the funds in the pending general appropriation bill. That 
is, it proposes a negative restriction on those funds for a specified 
purpose. The purpose specified in the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Iowa is the execution of the laws comprising the 
Affordable Care Act.
  The Chair takes notice that the Affordable Care Act involves sundry 
provisions of Federal tax law. The amendment therefore proposes to 
limit funds for the administration of a tax. As such, it constitutes a 
violation of clause 5(a) of rule XXI.
  The point of order is sustained. The amendment is not in order.


                 Amendment Offered by Mr. King of Iowa

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

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act 
     shall be made available to the Association of Community 
     Organizations for Reform Now, Acorn Beneficial Assoc., Inc., 
     Arkansas Broadcast Foundation, Inc., Acorn Children's 
     Beneficial Assoc., Arkansas Community Housing Corp., Acorn 
     Community Land Assoc., Inc., Acorn Community Land Assoc. of 
     Illinois, Acorn Community Land Association of Louisiana, 
     Acorn Community Land Assoc. of Pennsylvania, ACORN COMMUNITY 
     LABOR ORGANIZING CENTER, ACORN Beverly LLC, ACORN Canada, 
     ACORN Center for Housing, ACORN Housing Affordable Loans LLC, 
     Acorn Housing 1 Associates, LP, Acorn Housing 2 Associates, 
     LP, ACORN Housing 3 Associates LP, ACORN Housing 4 
     Associates, L.P., ACORN International, ACORN VOTES, Acorn 
     2004 Housing Development Fund Corporation, ACRMW, ACSI, Acorn 
     Cultural Trust, Inc., American Environmental Justice Project, 
     Inc., ACORN Fund, Inc., Acorn Fair Housing Organization, 
     Inc., Acorn Foster Parents, Inc., Agape Broadcast Foundation 
     Inc., Acorn Housing Corporation, Arkansas Acorn Housing 
     Corporation, Acorn Housing Corp. of Arizona, Acorn Housing 
     Corp. of Illinois, Acorn Housing Corp. of Missouri, New 
     Jersey ACORN Housing Corporation, Inc., AHCNY, Acorn Housing 
     Corp. of Pennsylvania, Texas ACORN Housing Corporation, Inc., 
     American Institute for Social Justice, Acorn law for 
     Education, Rep. & Training, Acorn Law Reform Pac, Affiliated 
     Media Foundation Movement, Albuquerque Minimum Wage 
     Committee, Acorn National Broadcasting Network, Arkansas New 
     Party, Arkansas Acorn Political Action Committee, Association 
     for Rights of Citizens, Acorn Services, Inc., Acorn 
     Television in Action for Communities, Acorn Tenants' Union, 
     Inc., Acorn Tenant Union Training & Org. Project, AWA, 
     Baltimore Organizing Support Center, Inc., Bronx Parent 
     Leadership, Baton Rouge ACORN Education Project, Inc., Baton 
     Rouge Assoc. of School Employees, Broad Street Corporation, 
     California Acorn Political Action Committee, Citizens Action 
     Research Project, Council Beneficial Association, Citizens 
     Campaign for Fair Work, Living Wage Etc., Citizens 
     Consulting, Inc., California Community Network, Citizens for 
     April Troope, Clean Government Pac, Chicago Organizing and 
     Support Center, Inc., Council Health Plan, Citizens Services 
     Society, Campaign For Justice at Avondale, CLOC, Community 
     and Labor for Baltimore, Chief Organizer Fund, Colorado 
     Organizing and Support Center, Community Real Estate 
     Processing, Inc., Campaign to Reward Work, Citizens Services 
     Incorporated, Elysian Fields Corporation, Environmental 
     Justice Training Project, Inc., Franklin Acorn Housing 
     Corporation, Flagstaff Broadcast Foundation, Floridians for 
     All PAC, Fifteenth Street Corporation, Friends of Wendy Foy, 
     Greenwell Springs Corporations, Genevieve Stewart Campaign 
     Fund, Hammurabi Fund, Houston Organizing Support Center, 
     Hospitality Hotel and Restaurant Org. Council, Iowa ACORN 
     Broadcasting Corp., Illinois Home Day Care Workers 
     Association, Inc., Illinois Acorn Political Action Committee, 
     Illinois New Party, Illinois New Party Political Committee, 
     Institute for Worker Education, Inc., Jefferson Association 
     of Parish

[[Page H3902]]

     Employees, Jefferson Association of School Employees, Johnnie 
     Pugh Campaign Fund, Louisiana ACORN, New York Communities for 
     Change, Affordable Housing Centers of America, Action Now, 
     Pennsylvania Communities Organizing for Change, Arkansas 
     Community Organizations (ACO), The Alliance of Californians 
     for Community Empowerment, New England United for Justice, 
     Texas Organizing Project, Minnesota, Neighborhoods Organizing 
     for Change, Organization United for Reform, Missourians 
     Organizing for Reform and Empowerment, A Community Voice, 
     Community Organizations International, Applied Research 
     Center, or the Working Families Party.

                              {time}  2330

  Mr. KING of Iowa (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from Iowa?
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I object. We don't have a copy of the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Objection is heard.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. DICKS. Point of order, Mr. Chairman.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Washington may state his point 
of order.
  Mr. DICKS. We cannot function if the majority is not going to give 
the minority a copy of these amendments. I would think the process here 
should stop until we have a copy of the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk is reading the amendment, after which it 
will be distributed.
  The Clerk will continue to read.
  The Clerk continued to read.
  Mr. KING of Iowa (during the reading). I ask unanimous consent that 
the amendment be considered as having been read.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I object, Mr. Chairman.
  The Acting CHAIR. Objection is heard.
  The Clerk will continue to read.
  The Clerk continued to read.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Iowa is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, this is the amendment that prohibits 
any of the funds made available in this act to go to these associations 
that are in the list of this amendment.
  We would like to have been able to just simply define ACORN and their 
affiliates, but because the definition of ``affiliates'' created some 
problems, we had to go with the actual list of the affiliates that has 
been compiled in large part by the Government Oversight Committee and 
in another part by the contributions of the astute media that has done 
some research on this.
  This is similar to the effect of the language that we passed in 
previous Congresses under the Democrat majority. We have seen what 
ACORN has done and attempted to do to undermine the legitimate election 
process in the United States. The things that we saw with the video and 
the film that were going on inside the offices of ACORN, I believe, and 
there is under-oath testimony before this Congress of at least one 
ACORN, former ACORN employee, who testified that she believed that what 
we saw in the film that came forward on YouTube and was posted in other 
media outlets actually reflected the culture inside the ACORN offices 
and was reflective of their offices around the country. And we saw that 
in five or six offices around the country.
  Therefore, this Congress, we must not forget that our Constitution's 
foundation is set upon legitimate elections; and to subsidize the 
people that are in the business of undermining it would be the wrong 
thing to do.
  This amendment shuts off the funding to the organizations that have a 
record of doing so, ACORN and their affiliates. It's a list of over 
300. And I would just say over 300 sprouts from one large oak tree 
grew. These are the associates, the successors, and the affiliates of 
the larger and now some-disbanded organization known as ACORN. So I 
urge the adoption of my amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to 
this amendment, and I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, this is an extraordinary 
amendment, a listing of over 3 pages of organizations by name, singled 
out on the floor of the House of Representatives for this kind of 
negative treatment, this kind of legislation that would simply render 
them ineligible for any kind of activity under this legislation, under 
this appropriations bill.
  Now, I seriously doubt that there is money in the Homeland Security 
bill that would go to any of these organizations; but still, the 
principle is very troubling.
  So I want to ask the gentleman, the offerer of the amendment, just 
about a few of these organizations and ask him to document whatever 
information he has about this specific organization that would justify 
their being included on this kind of list, being singled out in this 
way. What does the gentleman have, what kind of information does the 
gentleman have on the Arkansas Community Housing Corporation?
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Does the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Yes, I would be glad to yield.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. I would tell you, as I said in my opening remarks, 
this list has been in large part compiled by the Government Oversight 
Committee.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Does the gentleman have documentation as 
to what kind of problems he is alleging with the Arkansas Community 
Housing Corporation that would warrant their inclusion on a list of 
this sort?
  Mr. KING of Iowa. I am confident that I can produce that information 
for you. I do not have it here.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Don't you think you should produce it 
before you ask Members to vote on the amendment?
  Mr. KING of Iowa. I referenced the Government Oversight Committee as 
the source for most of this list.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Can you produce that information tonight 
before you ask us to vote on this amendment?
  Mr. KING of Iowa. I'm sure that is going to come up a little sooner 
and I would be able to leave this floor and do that. So the answer to 
that is logistically no. But I can produce that information for you.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. What about the American Environmental 
Justice Project? Does the gentleman have information on that 
organization?
  Mr. KING of Iowa. It would fit in the same category.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Well, you're asking your colleagues here 
tonight, before the entire Nation, to stigmatize these organizations, 
to slay these organizations.

                              {time}  2340

  You have information, you're claiming, about these organizations that 
would warrant this kind of treatment, this kind of blackballing of 
these organizations with respect to any ability to compete legitimately 
for governmental funds. Don't you think you should have brought with 
you to the floor documentation of the problems with these organizations 
that would warrant this kind of treatment?
  Let me ask you about the Agape Broadcast Foundation. What kind of 
information do you have about the Agape Foundation?
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Will the gentleman will yield?
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. I won't be speaking directly to that foundation, 
but I will again reiterate the source of this information----
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. But you are singling out that 
foundation. You are singling out that foundation.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. If the gentleman yielded, I will say that I don't 
recall this objection when a large majority of this House under the 
Democrat majority voted to cut off the funds to ACORN and their 
affiliates. So that principle applies yet today, in my view.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. How about the Affiliated Media 
Foundation Movement? Does the gentleman have documentation of why that 
organization should be included here tonight?
  Mr. KING of Iowa. If the gentleman will yield, I would submit that we 
could reiterate this same question over 300 times over this amendment, 
and I will tell you the source of this information is primarily the 
Government Oversight Committee. The minutes of that

[[Page H3903]]

committee and their record is there and it's available, and there will 
be resources that go below into the depth of the committee report. Some 
of this also comes from media reports. I want to make sure that----
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Reclaiming my time, I guess this would 
appear to be some kind of guilt by association, but I'm not sure it 
even rises to that level. Do we know about the associations of these 
organizations that would warrant their being tarred by this treatment 
here tonight?
  Wouldn't the gentleman have the respect for his colleagues to bring 
to the floor the documentation that leads him to smear these 
organizations and include them on this extraordinary amendment? You're 
expecting us to vote on this.
  What about the Affiliated Media Foundation Movement? Does the 
gentleman have information about that organization?
  Mr. KING of Iowa. As I said to the gentleman, we could go through 
this over 300 times, and you could ask the same question over 300 
times, and it's substantially the same answer. This primary component 
of this list came from the Government Oversight Committee. We can go 
get the records from the committee, and we could produce those, but I 
don't think this Congress is interested in holding up this process 
while I go contact the chairman and the staff to pull that information.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Well, the gentleman has been planning to 
offer this amendment. Why didn't you have the basic respect for this 
body to gather this documentation, knowing that these questions would 
be raised by anyone who wants conscientiously to vote on this 
amendment?
  Mr. KING of Iowa. If the gentleman will yield, doesn't the converse 
of that also apply, that there's an implication of disrespect for the 
Government Oversight Committee and the legitimacy of their findings?
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. DICKS. I rise in opposition to the amendment, and I move to 
strike the requisite number of words.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Washington is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. DICKS. I hope that the chairman will object to this amendment and 
ask the gentleman to withdraw it.
  I think this is an extraordinary attack on all of these groups. We 
have no evidence. We have no information whatsoever to base a decision 
on here. I mean, you can say that--the Government Oversight didn't 
write you a letter and ask you to offer this amendment, did they? You 
have no official relationship with the Government Oversight Committee, 
do you?
  Mr. KING of Iowa. I'm not on the committee, if that's the gentleman's 
question.
  Mr. DICKS. Well, so who went and put this list together?
  Mr. KING of Iowa. The Government Oversight Committee put the majority 
of this list together. I want to emphasize some also come from media 
reports. So I don't challenge the legitimacy of the Government 
Oversight conclusion, and I don't have reason to believe that the 
analysis of this is illegitimate.
  Mr. DICKS. Reclaiming my time, did you check the media reports to see 
if they were accurate? We've all heard of media reports that are 
inaccurate.
  I mean, you're casting aspersions on groups here from all over the 
country, and none of us here have any indication of the basis. And 
you're saying some of these came from media attacks. Did you check and 
verify that these media attacks were accurate?
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Let me just take your argument, then, down to the 
conclusion, which will be, if I respond to your question, you'll ask me 
another and another and another, and it will get down to have they been 
convicted in a court of law and are you sure that it was a legitimate 
case and is it under appeal and has it gone to the Supreme Court? We 
can never reach a conclusion on this. The gentleman knows that. So we 
have to make a judgment call and that's----
  Mr. DICKS. Reclaiming my time, I remember a Senator from Wisconsin in 
the 1950s who did just about the same kind of thing and was rebuked by 
the other body for casting aspersions on innocent people. I'm just 
telling you, you are asking this House to vote on something and you 
haven't verified it. You don't know what these groups are all about. 
And it's a disgrace to even offer this amendment.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. I just ask, since the gentleman has raised the 
issue of the Senator from Wisconsin, if he could name any individual 
who was unjustly charged by the Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. DICKS. I'm not going to get into that tonight. I will be glad to 
send you a list when you verify the media reports and can come up with 
a list and talk about these organizations in a meaningful way instead 
of just putting a list here together and expecting us to vote on this 
thing. It's ridiculous.


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR. The Chair reminds Members to address their remarks 
to the Chair.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I'm not going to prolong 
this, but I do want to plead with my colleagues.
  This is something that this body simply, simply should not be a party 
to. Bringing in three pages-plus of organizations that many of us, most 
of us, have never heard of, have no knowledge of. They may be on 
somebody's list somewhere. We have no knowledge of the basis for 
inclusion on that list. There may have been media reports about them. 
Whatever there is that would back up this kind of list, at a minimum it 
should be provided to us tonight. Anyone offering an amendment of this 
sort ought to provide the basic documentation for the kind of 
stigmatizing, the kind of exclusion that is being proposed here of 
these organizations from any ability to compete for funding in this 
bill.
  I hope it's obvious--I hope it's obvious to everybody here, no matter 
what their political persuasion, that this is simply unacceptable and 
must be rejected.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa will be 
postponed.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Cravaack

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

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. ____.  None of the funds made available by this Act 
     may be used in contravention of section 236(c) of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1226(c)).

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Minnesota is recognized for 5 
minutes.

                              {time}  2350

  Mr. CRAVAACK. Mr. Chairman, this amendment stipulates that none of 
the funds of this bill may be used in violation of section 236(c) of 
the Immigration and Nationality Act.
  Practically speaking, my amendment would prohibit the United States 
Immigration and Custom Enforcement, ICE, from using taxpayer dollars to 
process the release, or to administer alternative forms of detention to 
illegal immigrants who committed a crime which mandates their 
incarceration under section 236(c) of the Immigration and Nationality 
Act.
  Importantly, section 236(c) requires the U.S. Government to detain 
illegal aliens who have committed any one of the serious crimes 
detailed in section 236(c) until that illegal alien is deported to 
their home country. For example, section 236(c) would require ICE to 
detain an alien that committed

[[Page H3904]]

arson until that alien is deported. I think this is a very commonsense 
provision. In fact, in my opinion, criminal illegal aliens shouldn't be 
in the United States in the first place, but that is a debate for 
another day.
  Make no mistake, I want to state that I think the vast majority of 
ICE employees are great Americans, and I personally appreciate the work 
that they do to ensure our Nation remains a nation founded under the 
rule of law. Nevertheless, ICE does not always operate in accordance 
with section 236(c). For example, ICE has allowed criminal illegal 
aliens who are waiting for a deportation hearing to leave Federal 
detention facilities and reenter the general public if the criminal 
illegal alien is fitted with a GPS tracking device or regularly checks 
in with their ICE supervisor. This is very troubling to me, Mr. 
Chairman.
  In August, 2010, ICE's policy of releasing dangerous criminal aliens 
proved deadly. According to the Freedom of Information Act, which I 
have, illegal alien Carlos Montano was sentenced to over 1 year in jail 
for his second DWI and was released from ICE custody wearing only a GPS 
tracking device. This is in direct violation to section 236(c). 
Tragically, on August 1, Montano got drunk, got behind a wheel, and 
collided head on with a vehicle carrying three nuns. This head-on 
collision killed 66-year-old Sister Jeanette Mosier of Virginia.
  To protect innocent citizens from criminal illegal aliens, I firmly 
believe we need to enforce immigration laws, especially section 236(c) 
that mandates the detention of dangerous criminal illegal aliens. 
Therefore, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment to prohibit 
taxpayer funds from being used in violation of section 236(c).
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, we accept the gentleman's amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Cravaack).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. CRAVAACK. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Minnesota 
will be postponed.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Amash

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

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. _____.  None of the funds made available under this 
     Act may be used to purchase new advanced imaging technology 
     machines.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Michigan is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. AMASH. Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment on behalf of the 
distinguished gentleman from Utah (Mr. Chaffetz). My constituents and I 
share the concerns of the distinguished gentleman from Utah and his 
constituents and millions of Americans regarding the use of advanced 
imaging technology machines, also known as full body scanners, at 
airports.
  We are concerned not only about the efficacy and safety of such 
machines, but also about the serious violations of privacy and our 
rights as protected by the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution 
resulting from the government's use of such machines. It is in that 
spirit that I offer this amendment.
  I ask my colleagues for your support.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Alabama is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. 
The amendment is unnecessary. The bill includes no funding for new 
advanced imagery technology systems. This is because we could not 
afford 275 new AITs, as requested. We had to fill a $590 million hole 
left by the budget request gimmick--unauthorized aviation fees. It is 
not because we oppose technology. In fact, AIT systems offer an 
alternative to pat downs at airport checkpoints where non-metallic 
threats are a great concern.
  In addition, the deployment of new advanced target recognition 
capability will make the AIT systems less objectionable as they display 
avatar figures, not actual images of screened individuals. Because this 
amendment is unnecessary and needlessly limits discretion for security 
screening, I would urge the Members to reject this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I wish to join the 
chairman of our subcommittee in opposing this amendment--not because 
there are any funds in this bill for these advanced imaging machines, 
this particular technology. There is no funding in this bill for this 
purpose, but on principle, this amendment is objectionable. It could be 
very damaging.
  I won't dwell on the privacy safeguards. I think they've been debated 
in this body before, and we're well aware that privacy safeguards 
surrounding the use of this equipment are extensive--the face is 
blurred, there is no storage of the images, the operator of the machine 
is off the premises. And as the chairman just said, the technology is 
constantly being improved to protect privacy further.
  But the point also needs to be made that an amendment like this, if 
it were implemented--not just with respect to the current year funding, 
but with ongoing acquisition of these machines--this amendment would 
reduce our ability to find non-metallic explosives and weapons or bombs 
carried on a person's body. That's the fact of the matter.
  These advanced imaging machines are better able to detect a wide 
variety of threats that metal detectors simply cannot pick up. So 
adopting this amendment would put our citizens at risk. It's a step 
backwards in our security provisions and it should be rejected.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Amash).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. AMASH. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan 
will be postponed.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Amash

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

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. _____.  None of the funds made available under this 
     Act may be used to operate or maintain existing advanced 
     imaging technology machines as mandatory or primary screening 
     devices.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Michigan is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. AMASH. Mr. Chairman, I again offer this amendment on behalf of 
the distinguished gentleman from Utah (Mr. Chaffetz).
  As I mentioned previously, millions of Americans have serious 
concerns regarding the use of advanced imaging technology machines, 
also known as full body scanners, at airports. In light of our serious 
concerns about efficacy, safety, and privacy, and the violation to our 
liberty, we ask that these machines not be funded for use as mandatory 
or primary screening devices. I ask my colleagues for your support.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Alabama is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. 
As we stated earlier, the amendment is unnecessary. The bill includes 
no funding for new advanced imagery technology systems. This is because 
we could not afford 275 new AITs requested. We had to fill a $590 
million hole left by the budget request gimmick, which was the 
unauthorized aviation fees. It is not because we oppose technology. In 
fact, AIT systems

[[Page H3905]]

offer an alternative to pat-downs at airport checkpoints where non-
metallic threats are a great concern.
  In addition, the deployment of new advanced target recognition 
capability will make the AIT systems less objectionable as they display 
avatar figures and not actual images of screened individuals. Because 
this amendment is unnecessary and needlessly limits the discretion for 
security screening, I would urge my fellow Members to reject this 
amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  0000

  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Once again, I want to join the chairman 
in urging rejection of this amendment. The reasoning that I applied to 
the previous amendment applies with equal force to this amendment.
  We're talking here about the need in our airports to employ the best 
and latest possible technology to save lives, and we're not doing this 
without knowledge of emerging threats. And the ability of different 
technologies to pick up more sophisticated threats, more difficult 
threats to detect, that's what these machines are all about.
  It's most unwise, I think, most irresponsible on the floor of this 
House to make judgements about this that actually could compromise our 
security in very, very serious ways. I urge rejection of this 
amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Amash).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan 
will be postponed.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Amash

  Mr. AMASH. I have one final amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used for any action by a political appointee (as that term 
     is defined in section 106 of title 49, United States Code) to 
     delay, vacate, or reverse any decision by an employee in the 
     Privacy Office of the Department of Homeland Security to make 
     records available pursuant to section 552 of title 5, United 
     States Code, popularly known as the Freedom of Information 
     Act.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Michigan is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. AMASH. My amendment prohibits political meddling in the 
Department's compliance with the Freedom of Information Act, commonly 
known as FOIA.
  FOIA gives citizens the right to know what their government is doing. 
As President Obama stated shortly after taking office, ``In our 
democracy, the Freedom of Information Act, which encourages 
accountability through transparency, is the most prominent expression 
of a profound national commitment to ensuring an open government.''
  Countless instances of waste, fraud, and abuse have been exposed by 
using FOIA. In September 2009, political appointees in DHS implemented 
an unprecedented policy to review FOIA requests and documents proposed 
to be released.
  The current DHS political review process of FOIA is extraordinary. 
Chairman Issa and Senator Grassley wrote to 29 offices of inspectors 
general to request that they determine whether and to what extent 
political appointees have a role in responding to FOIA requests. 
According to the IGs surveyed, the level of involvement of DHS's 
political staff in the FOIA response process is uniquely high.
  While it is the case that political staff at a very small number of 
agencies have prior notice of newsworthy releases, at no other agency 
do front office staff have the opportunity to withhold or otherwise 
delay such releases to avoid embarrassment or for political reasons.
  FOIA is vital to our democracy. It is the most powerful single tool 
citizens and the press have to discover what our government is doing. 
And the law has a long track record of exposing corruption and 
inefficiency to improve government for all Americans.
  My amendment protects FOIA from politicization at DHS. It prohibits 
DHS political appointees from improperly blocking the release of FOIA 
documents. My amendment allows DHS political appointees to continually 
be aware of FOIA requests in documents proposed to be released, but it 
prevents the political appointees from interfering with the public's 
right to know.
  I ask for your support.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Alabama is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. I think the gentleman from Michigan makes some very 
good points, and, therefore, we are prepared to accept this amendment.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose this 
amendment.
  I want to deal just for a moment, though, with some of the 
accusations that have surrounded this proposal and others like it. In 
fact, the House Oversight Committee conducted an investigation 
concerning allegations that Homeland Security improperly politicized 
the Freedom of Information Act process by allowing political appointees 
to review documents before they were released to the public.
  The committee's lengthy investigation and a corresponding review by 
the inspector general found no evidence that the documents were edited, 
prior to release, for political reasons. According to the IG, ``During 
our review, we learned that the Office of the Secretary was involved in 
examining several hundred FOIA requests prior to disclosure. This 
process was created so the Department would be aware of certain FOIA 
requests that it deemed to be significant. After reviewing information 
and interviewing FOIA experts, we determined that the significant 
request review process of DHS did not prohibit the eventual release of 
information.''
  Now, to be clear, both the IG and the committee found the process to 
be inefficient and cumbersome. But I understand from the committee that 
it has since been modified to address these concerns.
  Now, on the amendment, I think it's a bad idea and perhaps 
counterproductive. It could lead to the exact opposite of the 
gentleman's intended result. Let me explain what I mean. In some cases, 
political review and decision-making will allow the Department to be 
more proactive in disclosing information to the public.
  Under this amendment, the head of the agency or another political 
appointee could not override an arbitrary decision by a bureaucrat to 
withhold documents that should be released. That bureaucrat could be 
protecting himself and his colleagues or those documents should be 
released. There could be a perverse result, I think, if this amendment 
were adopted.
  And at least under the reading of our oversight committee colleagues, 
the amendment might prevent the agency from faithfully carrying out its 
responsibility to comply with FOIA requests. That's because, 
technically, the agency head is in charge of ensuring the process is 
completed. If they're taken out of the mix, it really calls into 
question who's accountable and whether the FOIA process would operate 
as intended.
  So we better be careful in treading on this ground. We could have 
exactly the opposite results from what is intended. And for that 
reason, I oppose this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Amash).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by

[[Page H3906]]

the gentleman from Michigan will be postponed.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Rokita

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

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  Each amount made available by this Act (other 
     than an amount required to be made available by a provision 
     of law, amounts made available for U.S. Customs and Border 
     Protection, and amounts made available for U.S. Immigration 
     and Customs Enforcement) is hereby reduced by 10 percent.

                              {time}  0010

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. ROKITA. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Alabama 
and I want to thank the minority party. It is 12:10 by the clock of the 
House, and I know this is a long process. We have more to do tomorrow. 
I appreciate all parties allowing the House to work its will.
  I rise to offer an amendment tonight on behalf of the Republican 
Study Committee and myself to reduce the overall funding levels 
contained in the Homeland Security bill by 10 percent, with the 
exception of funds for ensuring the security of our Nation's borders. 
This would save, Mr. Chairman, $2.5 billion.
  Our country is on the brink of a fiscal crisis. As the chairman of 
the Joint Chiefs of Staff has stated repeatedly, our debt is the 
greatest threat to our national security. Not citizens going through 
our airports, not what appears to be three wars now we have involved 
ourselves in; our debt is the greatest threat to our national security.
  We need to ensure that our tax dollars are spent wisely and 
efficiently, especially when it comes to protecting our Nation. 
Unfortunately, the Department of Homeland Security is not an exception 
when it comes to examples of government waste. The Department of 
Homeland Security must focus its resources more effectively. In their 
short history they have become inherently wasteful, creating programs 
that do not make our Nation any more secure. And they're not unlike any 
bureaucracy that's come before it.
  A recent audit by the Defense Contract Audit Agency found 32 
contracts collectively worth $34.3 billion that have been plagued by 
waste, abuse, or mismanagement from 2001 through 2006. If we pass this 
amendment and force an across the board cut, DHS will be forced to 
analyze its programs more effectively and become a more efficient 
agency as a result.
  Mr. Chairman, I don't speak tonight out of mere opinion. I speak 
tonight out of experience. You see, I used to run a bureaucracy. I used 
to run a bureaucracy that ran on 1987 dollars, unadjusted for 
inflation. And we had good results. In my former securities division 
alone, because of great people, we got 300 years of jail time awarded 
and over $52 million of restitution.
  The government can do more with less on all levels, and that includes 
the Department of Homeland Security. DHS funding needs to be 
reconfigured, focusing on protecting targets that are legitimate 
terrorist threats, rather than disbursing funds on a per capita basis. 
That's a wasteful, inefficient, and ineffective way to do things. 
Secondly, DHS must redefine its mission and focus on what its original 
purpose was: protecting the homeland from terrorist attacks.
  As we approach its 10th anniversary, no longer does DHS focus solely 
on homeland security. They focus on mass casualty events, totally 
unrelated to terrorism, like natural disasters. Firefighter and cops 
funding, once funded locally on the State and local level, is funded 
through grants by the Federal Government. And while no Member of this 
body will contend they are not vital to our communities, these programs 
that Federal tax dollars are paying for are not Federal responsibility 
under our Constitution, and for a very good reason.
  We need to start making tough decisions, Mr. Chairman. This amendment 
builds upon the work of the Appropriations Committee in reducing 
spending, but I believe it can go further.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Alabama is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the intent of the gentleman 
from Indiana's amendment. I think it is very well intended. I think he 
makes some valid points in his argument. However, I am going to have to 
reluctantly oppose the amendment.
  The bill that we have before us tonight strikes the right balance 
between funding priority programs that are essential to our Nation's 
security and keeping discretionary spending in check. The bill cuts 
nearly $3 billion, or 7 percent, from the request. That does not take 
into account the internal cuts taken to address the $650 million 
shortfall for aviation security and customs due to the phony fee offset 
used by the administration. It also does not reflect the significant 
increase provided to ensure robust funding for disaster relief.
  The committee has cut underperforming and ill-managed programs. We've 
made difficult choices on priorities for the bill. Significant cuts in 
this bill include $215 million from headquarters consolidation, then an 
additional $69 million from the Department of Management Operations, an 
additional $81 million from the Transportation Security Support, an 
additional $629 million from Science and Technology Research 
Development, and more than $2 billion from FEMA's First Responder 
Grants. Deeper cuts will serve no other purpose than endangering 
critical security operations from our frontline agencies, such as the 
Coast Guard, the Secret Service, FEMA, and TSA, that conduct daily 
operations to make our land secure.
  This past year we have seen intensified terrorist activity, including 
new threats to aviation, and several homegrown plots. As I have 
mentioned before, we have endured a near constant occurrence of natural 
disasters across this Nation, which require robust response 
capabilities and recovery investments. In light of all these 
challenges, the importance of the Department's work cannot be 
overemphasized. This is especially true as we approach the 10th 
anniversary of September 11. Because of these reasons, I urge my 
colleagues to oppose this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, our chairman has expressed 
very well the reasons for opposing this amendment. It simply would 
weaken our security dangerously. And we are talking here not just about 
first responders and firefighters, we are also talking about frontline 
DHS personnel in a number of our agencies. I join him in urging 
rejection of this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Ohio is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. JORDAN. Let me thank the committee, particularly the subcommittee 
chair, for their hard work on this legislation and the number of bills 
that will come from the Appropriations Committee. We do appreciate 
that.
  Look, the gentleman from Indiana is right. Let's just remember some 
of the numbers: $14 trillion national debt; $1.6 trillion deficit this 
year. That's following 2 previous years of running record annual 
deficits. A $220 million deficit for the month of February we had 
earlier this year, a record monthly deficit. And over $200 billion we 
pay in interest each year just to service that record debt built up by 
these record deficits. And most importantly, just remember 6 weeks ago 
Standard & Poor's said the future credit rating, the outlook for 
America's credit, is now negative for the first time in 70 years.
  So something's got to give here, guys. We can't keep doing the same 
old, same old, and expect some different result. We are spending way 
more than we're taking in. Every family, every small business owner, 
everyone in America knows you can't do that. We've got to stop.
  The Federal Government is doing the equivalent of a family making 
$50,000 spending $85,000 a year. Making $50,000 a year, spending 
$85,000. And we're not

[[Page H3907]]

just doing it one time because we're investing in something that's 
going to have a return. We are not just doing it one time for starting 
a business or putting a kid through school. We're doing it year after 
year after year, and somehow we think that's all going to work out. 
It's not going to work out. And the American people understand it. And 
they expect tough decisions. They expect the kind of thing that Mr. 
Rokita is bringing forward in his amendment today. And that's why I 
rise to support this amendment.
  What this would do is actually consistent with what the Republican 
Study Committee budget brought in front of this body earlier this year. 
We think it makes sense. And if you remember, that budget that we 
brought forward actually gets to balance within the budget window. The 
only budget brought forward that actually balances within the 10-year 
timeframe, something the American people expect of their Members of 
Congress. Something the American people expect Congress to do.
  So I applaud the gentleman from Indiana for his amendment, and would 
urge a ``yes'' vote.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Rokita).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. ROKITA. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana will 
be postponed.

                              {time}  0020


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Rokita

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

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to implement the determination of the Administrator 
     of the Transportation Security Administration regarding 
     transportation security officers and collective bargaining as 
     described in the decision memorandum dated February 4, 2011.

  The Acting Chair. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. ROKITA. Mr. Chairman, I rise tonight to offer an amendment that 
would safeguard America's air travel by restricting funding in this 
bill for any collective bargaining by the Transportation Security 
Administration.
  Recently, President Obama's administration announced a decision to 
allow the Transportation Security Administration, TSA, the unions, to 
enter into collective bargaining agreements. This would restrict our 
ability to meet ever-changing dangers and will add to Federal spending, 
which in our time of Federal deficits would be irresponsible.
  Since the creation of TSA 10 years ago, its unions have been 
prohibited from collective bargaining and for good reason. This ban 
comes from former TSA Administrator Loy determining that collective 
bargaining agreements would hamper the critical nature of TSA agents' 
national security responsibilities.
  TSA agents are no different than FBI, CIA and Secret Service agents. 
We do not negotiate collective bargaining agreements with security 
personnel, and TSA clearly falls, Mr. Chairman, within that category. 
We witnessed the necessary flexibility of the TSA.
  In 2006 after a British airliner bombing plot was discovered, TSA was 
able to overhaul its policies within 12 hours. If unionization occurs, 
TSA will be less flexible and less efficient in doing their business to 
protect America.
  Contracts and demands of collective bargaining are complex and they 
are cumbersome. They are less flexible than is needed in national 
security situations. The union demands will unquestionably make our 
transportation security more costly and less efficient, and certainly 
let's not ignore the fact that the recourse that citizens have when 
they are mistreated, illegally groped or otherwise not served will be 
reduced if it has not been made nonexistent with a union.
  I will work to ensure that collective bargaining does not impact the 
safety of any American travelers or needlessly subjects our rights or 
personal space to a union or its leaders.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to 
this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from North Carolina is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. It is premature; there has not yet been 
a completed election for union representation at TSA. Moreover, it is 
unwise. The TSA administrator has made a modest and limited proposal to 
allow limited collective bargaining for transportation security 
officers. I think that is in the best interests of TSA, and it has been 
restricted to nonsecurity issues.
  So it is a wise proposal and a modest one, and we should allow it to 
go forward.
  I yield to our colleague, the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. 
Thompson) who is the ranking member of the authorizing committee on 
Homeland Security.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to 
the amendment.
  I have been on the Committee on Homeland Security since its 
inception.
  We have gone through hearing after hearing looking at this issue of 
collective bargaining for TSA employees. I might add that the rationale 
for offering this amendment has been completely refuted by every 
hearing we have ever had in the committee.
  I am convinced that our men and women who work for TSA do a good job. 
However, the documentation is clear, they need additional training; 
they need a number of other items that collective bargaining can get 
them.
  For instance, they have a different personnel system than other 
fellow employees. They have a different salary schedule than other 
employees. All those things lead to reduced morale for the employee.
  More importantly, we have collective bargaining rights for Customs 
and Border Protection employees, the Federal Protective Service, and 
nowhere have we ever found where our good men and women in uniform 
cannot perform admirably in any situation.
  The record is clear: where our union employees are federalized, they 
do a good job. So this notion that somehow collective bargaining is 
incorrect or improper should not go unopposed.
  Apart from that, this is a heightened awareness situation. The men 
and women at TSA deserve the right to collective bargaining. For the 
record, Mr. Chairman, let me say that they are halfway there. They are 
40,000 employees. They have already had an election; three unions 
sought representation. We are now down to the runoff for two.
  Let the men and women do their job. Collective bargaining is not a 
bad thing for our men and women at TSA.
  Lastly, let me say that Administrator Pistole has it right. His 
record with the FBI is impeccable. He looked at the situation, made a 
decision that had been kicked around for too many years at the 
Department.
  Let's give the men and women at TSA the right to choose a collective 
bargaining unit if they so choose to decide on a collective bargaining 
unit.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Rokita).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. ROKITA. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana will 
be postponed.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. 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. 
Jordan of Ohio) having assumed the chair, Mr. Bishop of Utah, Acting 
Chair of the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, 
reported that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill 
(H.R. 2017) making appropriations for the Department of Homeland 
Security for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2012, and for other 
purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.

[[Page H3908]]



                          ____________________