[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]]
____________________