government that has become unfit for service unless the trainer is given the option to take possession of the equine. section 526, none of the funds shall be available to carry out section 872 of the homeland security act of 2002. section 527, none of the funds may be used to conduct the result of a competition under office of management and budget secular a-76 with activities with regard with respect to national cost guard center. section 528, the secretary shall require all contracts of the department that provide award, fees -- link that provide award fees link. section 529, none of the funds may be expended for any new hires by the department that are not verified through the basic pilot program. section 5 to 30, none of the funds may be used to prevent an individual not in the business of importing a prescription drug from importing a prescription drug from canada.

section 531, none of the funds may be used by the secretary to issue any rule which implements the notice of proposed rule making related to petitions for aliens to perform temporary nonagriculture services or labor. section 532, section 831 of the homeland security act of 2002 is amended. section 533, none of the funds may be used for planning or developing a national identification card. section 534, the president determines whether to declare a major disaster because of an event of any appeal is competed. the administrator shall submit to the committee on homeland security a report regarding that decision which shall summarize damage assessment information. section 535, if the secretary determines that the national bio and agro defense facilities should be located at a site other than plum island, new

york, they should liquidate the assets through public sale. section 536, any official who is required to report or certify to the committees may not delegate such authority to perform that act. section 537, the secretary of homeland security in consultation with the secretary of the treasury shall notify the committees of any proposed transfers of funds available under subsection g-4-b. section 538, if the assistant secretary decides that an airport does not need to participate in the illegal immigration reform and immigrant responsibility act of 1996, the assistant secretary shall certify to the committees that no security risks will result. section 539, for analysis and operations, $2,203,000 is rescinded. section 540, the statement in

section 4 public law 101-161 is deemed to be amended. section 541, section 203-m of the robert t. stafford disaster relief and emergency assistance act is amended. section 542, for the infrastructure protection and information security account, $5,963,000 is rescinded. section 433, the secretary shall use such sums as may be necessary to make improvements to public access to the buffalo light house. section 544, the secretary may provide to personnel appointed to serve abroad allowances similar to those provided under the foreign service act of 1990. section 545, extension of programs. section 143 of division a of the consolidated security disaster assistance and continuing appropriations act 2009 is

amended. section 546, in general, strike subparagraphs a through c that appear within section 426-b, division j of the consolidations appropriations act 2005. section 547, clarification of fee authority. in general, fees described in the immigration and nationality act for fingerprinting services and other necessary services may be collected whened a minutestering the program described in section 244 of such act. section 548, section 550-b, public law 109-295 is amended. section 549, the secretary may collect fees from any nonfederal participant in a conference conducted by the department of homeland security. section 550, federal emergency management agency, tracking industry security grants account, $5,572,000 is

rescinded. section 551, none of the funds may be obligated for full squail procurement of advanced -- full scale procurements of advanced monitors. section 552, as part of a plan regarding the proposed description of any individual who is detained at naval station guantanamo bay, cuba, the secretary shall conduct a threat assessment for each such individual who is proposed to be transferred. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from iowa rise? mr. king: madam chair, i have an amendment at the desk made in order by the rule. the clerk: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: part b, amendment number 4 printed in house report 111-183 offered by mr. king of iowa. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 573, the gentleman from iowa, mr. king, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from iowa. mr. king: thank you, madam chair.

i yield myself two minutes. chape the gentleman is recognized. mr. king: thank you. my amendment prohibits the department of homeland security funds in this bill from being used to hire illegal immigrants. the immigration and nationality act is very clear. section 274-a makes it a crime to knowinglyire or employ an illegal immigrant. there are no exceptions. despite the law, over eight million illegal immigrants have jobs in the united states and some of those are not -- no doubt employed by and with d.h.s. funs under federal contracts. unemployment today is at over 15% for lower skilled american workers and congress should do anything possible to end the hiring of illegal immigrants and save those jobs for american workers, madam chair. a 2006 audit report by the office of inspector general indicates that the u.s. government was the nation's most egregious employer of illegal aliens. 17 of the top 100 offending employers were federal, state or

local government entities. this report also found that of the sample, 44% of the government workers were unauthorized workers and 3% of government workers had no immigration status whatsoever. these numbers are alarming. the i.g. report raise as national security issue. the report states, and i quote, noncitizens who work without d.h.s. authorization could affect homeland security because they may obtain employment in sensitive areas, closed quote. the report goes on to say that the people's republic of china ranked fourth and iran ranked sixth among the top 10 countries of birth for employees that were audited in this report. with the unemployment rate at 9.4%, we've got to stop the hiring of illegals and the federal government has to lead the charge. i'd reserve the balance of my time. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina rise?

mr. price: if i could reserve for further speakers here. the chair: does the gentleman claim time in opposition to the amendment? mr. price: i ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition. the chair: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. price: i would ask to reserve my time for a few minutes if you have other speakers. the chair: the gentleman from iowa. mr. king: madam chair, i yield so much time as he might consume to the ranking member from kentucky. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. rogers: i thank the gentleman and i support it fully. the administration's new policy on work site enforcement, from my point of view, amounts to de facto amnesty. the raid that was made in seattle after this administration took office where the 24 or so illegal aliens who got their job by false papers were seized and arrested and

then turned loose and on top of that given a work permit, that's the new policy of this administration. so that an illegal ilyen knows that if he or she -- an illegal alien knows that if he or she works in a place that is raided, they'll get a permit to go back to work which makes them legal. so as far as i'm concerned, the new policy of the administration is de facto amnesty. and the gentleman's amendment reaches a part of that answer and i absolute him for it -- salute him for it. but i hope and trust that the administration will come to their senses and give us a rational immigration policy that requires work site enforcement at a time when americans -- american citizens of the country are out of work, that will enforce the illegal alien laws

on the books. and i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. king: reclaiming my time and thanking the ranking member from kentucky, i'd just add thats with 'employers on this hill -- add that we as employers on our hill are forced to use e-verify with our employees. this isn't too high a standard. and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from north carolina. mr. price: i'd like to yield whatever time she may consume to the chairwoman -- chairwoman of the immigration subcommittee, of the judiciary committee, ms. lofgren of california. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. lofgren: thank you, mr. price, and madam chair. i am looking at this amendment. i think it's important for members to know that they can either vote for it or against it, it doesn't really matter because it's a restatement of existing law. i would direct the attention of members to section 274-a.h. --

274-ah-3 which says and i read it in part, unauthorized alien with respect to an alien at a particular time that that alien is not either lawfully admitted for permanent residence or authorized to be so employed by this act or by the attorney general. as i say, this provision is not necessary. current law also requires all employers to verify the employment authorization of employees here in the federal government. and there already are criminal and civil penalties for hiring unauthorized immigrants and, again, that is current law. current law also permits employers to electronically verify the employment eligibility of employees pursuant to section 401 and 402

of public law 104-208, the illegal immigration reform and immigrant responsibility act of 1996. that is the e-verify program that members are aware of. current law requires the legislative and executive branches of the federal government to use e-verify to verify the employment eligibility of their employees pursuant to section 402-e-1. again, the illegal ilgreat lakes reform and immigration responsibility act of 1996. so i provide this information to members not as an advocate for or against the amendment, simply to note that this is a restatement of existing law and i would yield back to the chairman. mr. price: i thank our colleague for those clarifying remarks and

yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from iowa. mr. king: i inquire as to how much time remaining -- remains. the chair: the gentleman from has 90 second rezz maining. mr. king: thank you. i yield myself the balance of my time. and i would just reiterate that the federal government is among the most egregious violators of hiring illegal workers and that's been brought now the this i.g. report think a spoke to in my opening remarks and that's 17 of the top 100 violating entities or government entities with 44% of the government workers that were part of this study were unauthorized. it didn't mean they were all illegal, it meant they weren't verified. and so, i recall back in 1986 when the amnesty bill was passed, the last big amnesty bill that was passed, i remember the fear that the i.n.s. would come into my office and i made sure that i dot trving ed all the i's, -- dotted all the i's

and crossed all the t's. i think that's the kind of due diligence that the federal government, all government, ought to support and this is an amendment that one might argue that it doesn't directly change policy. i would agree with the gentlelady, the chair of the subcommittee on that, but it reinforces and reiterates a policy and i've said there are no exceptions to a violation that have section of the code. this is an amendment also that passed on this particular appropriations bill in 2007, it's something that's had broad support across this congress and it really should not be controversial, it should be something that we should all join together with. hopefully we'll be able to move along and get to the point where the hand knows what the others are doing. i urge adoption and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the question is on

the amendment offered by the gentleman from iowa. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. the gentleman from iowa. mr. king: i would ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from iowa will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> i have an amendment at the desk made in order by the rule. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment printed in house report 111-183, offered by mr. neugebauer. the chair: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from texas, mr. neugebauer, and a member opposed will each control 10 minutes. -- five minutes. mr. neugebauer: we have people out of work, we have people

losing their homes, businesses are closing, and a lot of people wonder how did that happen? when some people look for the cause of that, they say unbridled spending and borrowing brought us to this point in our country where our economy is in a deep slump. unfortunately, many of those families are having to make a lot of changes in their life, making sacrifices. unfortunately, the federal government is not doing the same thing. at a time across this country when american fall -- families are tightening their belt, stopping the unlimited spending and borrow, the federal government continues to do that. in fact, madam chairman, this year we are on track to have a $2 trillion deficit. let me repeat that. $2 trillion. just for those folks that don't know what a trillion dollars is, if you had to count to a trillion, it takes you 17,000 years.

to count to two trillion takes you 34,000 years. what does my amendment do? it says that this stimulus money we put into this -- into homeland security, some $2.7 billion on top of the $43 billion that we had already approved for f.y. 2009 and now we're talking about approving $43 billion for 20 10, it says we're going to have to tighten our belt and takes that stimulus money out. why would you do that? what we've heard from number of people, including a number of officials is, we may not be spending this correctly, we may not have gotten this right. when people back home are having to tighten their belt and are looking at the largest deficits in history, they want kang to get this right. what it does is it serve miss programs, but it doesn't let them continue to spend this $2.7 billion that quite honestly we didn't have to

begin. with it's one thing to spend additional money when you have it, but when you don't have it, it's another issue. people back home are faced with that same issue. i got a letter from one of my constituents in abilene, texas, the other day. congressman, you know what we got caught up in the credit card and borrowing, we stopped that we quit charging a lot of things we used to charge. not taking the vacations we used to take, now we're saving. the question she said, congressman, why isn't the federal government doing the same thing? what do they not understand that we cannot continue to run these deficits at these levels? continue to spend money that we do not have? madam chairman, we have to stop this. we cannot love a legacy for future generations where they have no future. it is projected in a few years we will be paying interest to the tune of $1 billion a day. a billion dollars a day in interest.

that interest doesn't do anything for our country. it pays back countries like china and japan for the money they they've supported our borrowing and spending habit. it's time we stop thasmed this is a common sense approach, it keeps the funding at a level, constant level, but takes away the $2.7 billion that we didn't have in the first place. i reserve my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina rise? mr. price: i rise in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. price: it's clear what the gentleman's amendment does. it reduces funding levels in various accounts in this bill by the amounts appropriated in the recovery act. for example, just a few example he cuts $200 million from the undersecretary for management because there was $200 million in the stimulus act for the d.h.s. headquarters. there's no money in this bill

for d.h.s. headquarters, he's just cutting it by 75%. he cuts $5 million from the inspector general because there was $5 million included to help monitor recovery act expenditures. but there's no money in this bill specifically for recovery act oversight. simply comes out of the inspector general's office and and the critical work he does. he cuts $420 million from the c.b.p. budget for facilities management because there was $420 million included in the recovery act to replace and renovate ports of entry into the u.s. there's no money in this bill for such construction. it's just an indiscriminate and enormous cut to the general upkeep of border patrol and customs facilities. the gentleman cults $210 million from the firefighter assistance grants program because there was $210 million included in the recovery act

for fire station construction. but there's not a penny in this bill for fire station construction. this amendment would reduce grant funding for firefighter equipment by over 50%. when local firefighter budgets are already on the chopping block. so the effect of this amendment is very different from the effect of simply rescinding recovery act funds. rather than erasing the effect of the stimulus moneys provided through this title in the current year, it guts the ability of the agency to function in the coming year. it would nearly eliminate the budgets for hiring personnel, departmental security and facilities. this if this passes, the kansas city royals, not exactly the biggest spending team in baseball, would spend more on player payroll than the third largest department in the federal government would have to manage its affairs. c.b.p. couldn't pay their rent for their existing facilities.

modernization of airport screening for explosives and advancements permitting passengers to safely carry large containers -- or larger containers of liquid on a plane would grind to a halt. i think that's probably enough to say that -- to illustrate just how destructive this amendment would be and really how indiscriminate it wube. so i urge my colleagues to oppose this devastating amendment. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from texas. mr. neugebauer: the chairman brings up points that we are gutting this bill. in fact, we're not gutting this bill. we're just trying to give the american taxpayers some of their money back, $2.7 billion. unfortunately, it was $2.7 billion we didn't have. if he has other areas that would be better served by cutting those program, i would love to have that discussion with him. but the bottom line is, i was on the airplane coming back to washington, i had two people come up and say, congressman, y'all have got to stop this

spending. we can't afford it. you know who even gets that more than anybody, i have a 10-year-old grandson nathan, i gave him a gift card not long ago he and i went to the store he went to the store and gathered up a lot of thing he is thought would be something he'd like to have. when he got to the counter he realized he had more items in his basket than he had money on his gift card he didn't turn to his granddaddy and say, can you spot me a little extra, he took the item he is couldn't afford back to the shelf and put them back on there. that's what the american people want us to do to understand we have a finite amount of money we cannot break this country and if we keep spending like this, we are going to break this country. when we pass this $782 billion stimulus package, we came back and started bailing out automobile companies. we had an omnibus bill, $400 billion. we passed a $3.7 trillion

budget. people in america, madam chairman are saying what in the world are y'all doing. the little -- the young family back in abilene, texas, they get it. nathan neugebauer, a 10-year-old grandson he gets it. i'm wondering when the united states congress is going to get it. with that, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from north carolina. mr. price: madam chairman, i yield back the balance of our time. the chair: the question son the amendment offered by the gentleman from texas. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed. to the gentleman from texas. mr. neugebauer: i request a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from texas will be postpone. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona rise?

mr. flake: i have an amendment at the desk. this is number -- the chair: the clerk will designate amendment nurmed one. the clerk: house report part c 111-181, amendment number one offered by mr. flake of arizona. the chair: the gentleman from arizona, mr. flake and a member opposed will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from arizona. mr. flake: i thank the chair. madam chairman this would remove $600,000 for the city of rimville, california, and return the money to fema's predisaster mitigation account. the predisaster mitigation account used to be award solely on the basis of merit. when we developed a department of homeland security, we were told we're not going to earmark any funding in this legislation.

this bill will not be earmarked. we were told that for a couple of years. now guess what, it was earmarked a couple of years ago, now more, now more, now even more. there are well over 100 earmarks in the bill. of course, the state of california california is no stranger to floods. in fact, according to fema, since the year 2000, parts of california have been declared major disaster due to flooding five times. but there are many other areas of the country that also suffered from flooding. louisiana, we all know. this is a state that often gets pounded with hurricanes, has also had five major disaster declarations due to flooding in the past 10 years alone. yet louisiana doesn't receive a single earmark in this year's predisaster mitigation fund. how can this be? the answer is easy. when you abide by a process that rewards some members over others, you wind up with a spoil system. i would submit that's what we have with the predisaster

mitigation fund, a classic spoil system. unless we can determine that mother nature somehow finds those districts represented by appropriaters and sends more floods, more earthquakes, more natural disasters somehow to those districts or to the districts of powerful people on powerful committee, then we have a spoil system. that is an example here. when we look at this year's predisaster mitigation earmark, we see of the $150 million appropriated for the grant program altogether in this year's bill, more than $24 million is earmarked. there are a total of 58 predisaster earmarks near -- nearly 30% of them go to members of the appropriations committee. when you consider the dollar value of these 58 earmarks, the picture becomes bleaker. nearly 40% of the funds earmarked are going to districts represented by members on the propings committee. again, unless mother nature

knows which districts are represented by appropriators, we've got a problem here. appropriators make up 13% of the legislative body, 13% of the house will take home 40% of predisaster mitigation spoils. homeland security earmarks as a whole favor members who serve in a position of power eerlt as an appropriater as leadership or chairman or ranking minority member of a committee. if that's not a spl system, i don't know what to is we ought to let the predisaster mitigation program work as it should. a while ago, the department of homeland security asked if this account could be distributed with a risk-based formula. but the committee said no. they wanted to keep the same competitive grant formula. the competitive grant formula that really isn't competitive at all because a quarter of it is already earmarked. in a few years, it'll probably

all be earmarked and guess what? it'll largely go to the districts represented by appropriaters or those in powerful committee positions. i urge adoption of the amendment and reserve the balance of my time. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina rise. ? mr. price: i rise in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. price: if this amendment were to be adopted, the locality targeted, the city of emeryville, would not receive funding, nor would the locality even be able to compete for a predisaster mitigation grant through fema because the amendment would strike my precaster mitigation funding for that locality for the fiscal year 2010. madam chairwoman, fema, the agency, has reviewed every mitigation project in this bill. each was deemed eligible based on the requirements in the stafford act and will be used stafford act and will be used to protect lives in some of the