district. this facility has greatly enhanced the collaboration and communication amongst local, state and federal law enforcement agencies and first responders. ms. matsui: from there officials are better able to prevent attacks by training, sharing information and coordinating investigations. and in the unthinkable scenario in which an attack does occur, this facility, funded by uasi dollars, will better help the first responders to react and respond to an attack. 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 ne 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 9/11, was that emergency officials need to have streamline 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 a capital of california, the most populist state in the union and the seventh largest economy in the world. it is critical to continue to support the anti- and counter terrific 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 need. a mere 30-minute drive upstream from sacramento along the american river lies the fulsome 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 ponings of 6 has the potential to devastate the region with massive flooding. among the human toll which is unthinkable it would have a crippling effect on california and the state as a whole. sacramento is home to several federal agencies and government facilities are high profile targets and require vigilant protection and further highlight the need for uasi funding in my district. any district is also 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 and i yield back the balance of my

time. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from louisiana. >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i rise in support of the clarbg -- the clarke amendment and have a similar amendment filed at the desk i won't need to bring forward because this amendment accomplishes the same thing. what the amendment says is all those cities, the 54 cities that were arbitrarily removed from eligibility should have that same opportunity to compete for these homeland security grants. mr. scalise: it says why are we limiting our threat assessment cities to 10 cities when many other cities have exposure to risk. 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 these terror 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. all we're saying is like in cities in new orleans and you look at the corridor between new orleans and baton rouge, and 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 the oil and gas infrastructure for our country that's located in that region, all 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. this amendment doesn't guarantee that they will get any of these -- any access to these grants, but what it does say is they have the ability to compete if the terrorist threat is determined to be high enough

they should get funding from those grants because our terror threats change from day to day to year to year. we get more information as we've recently gotten a treasure-trove of new information of 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 terror threats. that's what this amendment does. i support the amendment. and hopefully we'll be able to get this language added back in and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentlelady from ohio. >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> mr. chairman, i rise in support of the amendment by my colleagues regarding uasi and corrects a provision that arbitrarily limits uasi eligibility to the top 10 high risk cities. this limitation would reduce low calls eligible for --

locales eligible for uasi grants to more than 50 cities as compared to last year, excluding cities such as cleveland from receiving these grants. ms. fudge: the uasi grants provide 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 and that's why uasi is very important. uasi funding has been utilized to equip, train and exercise first responders and safety personnel for and improvised explosive devices and w.m.d.

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, e.m.s., 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, w.m.d. training to over 1,700 safety personnel. nims, i.c.s. training, homeland security training, personnel, surveillance equipment for areas of critical infrastructure. computer aided dispatch for fire and e.m.s. and the northeast ohio regional fusion center. homeland security planning personnel are essential to strengthen 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. i yield back. the chair: who seeks time? the gentlelady from wisconsin? >> thank so you much, mr. chair. i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. -- the gentlewoman is recognized for five minutes. >> i rise to support this amendment. in fact, i had identical amendment to strike the restricted 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 securities risk assessment analysis. ms. moore: 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. the city of milwaukee and surrounding counties -- that surround milwaukee, osaka, racine, and waukesha have $4 million in the uasi funding to enhance the safety of over two million residents. even though this assistance has been small, we're very, very proud of what we've been able to accomplish in terms of securing our area. for example, in milwaukee, my constituents are safer because we've 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

at all levels of enforcele. and i have heard concerns from our mayor, police chief, fire chief about whether or not we can continue to manage disaster funding without this funding. and the fund -- the concerns aren't just limited to being prepared to acts of terrorism. the loss of this funding would disable us from being prepared to respond to large-scale emergencies such as flooding or tornados. i can tell you it is pennywise and pound-foolish to simply arbitrarily limit this funding. it doesn't make sense to go backwards. you have heard officials record ed 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 would lose federal support, areas like phoenix, anaheim, santa ana, riverside, denver, miami-dade, fort lauderdale, palm beach, tampa, atlanta, baltimore, detroit, twin cities, las vegas, charlotte, cincinnati, cleveland, portland, tucson, bakersfield, sacramento, bridge forth, honolulu, indianapolis, louisville, baton rouge, new orleans, kansas city, omaha, albany, buffalo, syracuse, rochester, columbus, 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 administration power, administrative power back to the experts who are there

solely to keep our cities and countries safe, and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. who seeks time? the gentleman from connecticut. >> mr. chair, i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> mr. chair, i rise in support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from new york. at its core it is simple but the impact significant. the bill we are debating contain as provision that would 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 stanford metropolitan area which includes the majority of cities and towns in my district. i strongly support this amendment which removes the language from the bill thattily logically restricts uasi funding to 10 cities.

mr. himes: since its creation in 2003 the extent of the uasi program has been to enhance regional preparedness in and around major metropolitan areas and assist participating injures dicks in developing integrated regional systems for prevention, protection, response, and recovery. setting an arbitrary limit on locations eligibility to receive funding is contrary to the intent of the program and contrary to our efforts to address the growing and evolving effects 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 enter agency 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 risk to my constituents are very real. my district's proximity to new york city not only increases the 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 helped to capture the times square bomber last year, he who had operated in high mie district, it is unfathomable to think that their work would be deemed nonessential in the fight against terrorism. and just two 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.

well, 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 -- stay vigilant. without the proper resources, our communities cannot maintain the proper level of readiness and cannot ensure that our communities are properly secured. i strongly urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. who seeks time? the gentleman from new jersey. >> mr. chairman, i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> and yield my time to the gentlewoman from new york, mrs. lowey. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. mrs. lowey: i thank the gentleman and i'd like to rise for clarification. with great respect for my colleagues and understanding the importance of homeland security dollars, i am very concerned that this seems to be a misunderstanding.

i would like to read again the quote from the 9/11 commission. quote, 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 vubblenerblet 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 million,-- $153,953,988, connecticut is getting over $12 million, nevada is getting over $10 million, etc., etc. 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 so you articulately discussed today. thank you. i yield back. the chair: who seeks time? the gentleman from georgia. >> mr. chairman, i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> 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. mr. johnson: 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. 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 local law enforcement -- to federal law enforcement officials. in the fourth district of georgia, a rescue corps recently received an urban area security initiative grant from fema which would enable it to operate a mobile can teen 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' corpses and

community efforts toward preparedness and community response efforts. these funds are critical to helping georgia develop a regional exercise plan, develop annexes to include technical 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 of my colleagues to support this commonsense amendment which would not add one penny to the debt or deficit. thank you and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. does anybody else seek time? seeing none, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from michigan. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. mr. clarke: i ask for a recorded

vote. the chair: further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from michigan will be postponed. the gentleman from nevada. >> thank you, mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. heck of nevada, page 47, line 17, strike 10 and insert 25. the chair: the gentleman from nevada. mr. heck: thank you, mr. chairman. i'm 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 antiterrorism field. i've 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 u.s.s. cole in 2000 and i was a first responder to the world trade centers. i felt the heat from the pile as it melted firefighters' boots, i

breathed the dust and chaos into my lungs as we worked around the clock. i've 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 scarce resources. but limiting funding to a cap of 10 cities threatens our overall national preparedness. this amendment does not increase costs but expands the total number of cities under consideration to at least 25. let me tell but my district, my area, los angeles and clark county. according to the department of homeland security, we have 221 elements of critical infrastructure and key resources. we 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 an air force base and the world famous los angeles strip. -- 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 drop qana boulevard, there are more hotel rooms than in the entire city of san francisco. and we have seen that the hospitalality and tourism industry has become the soft target of choice since 9/11, with nine attacks against international hotel resorts over the last nine years. including the coordinated attacks in mumbai in 2008. two weeks ago i toured the 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 and i urge my colleagues to support this amendment and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. who seeks time? the gentleman from alabama. >> mr. chairman, i rise in opposition to this amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five 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 mount designated for one of the many programs 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 a significantly higher levels than other cities because they're the highest threat to urban areas. i don't think anyone here can argue with that. this does not mean lower risk areas will lose all funding, it just means 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 chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time.

does any other member seek time? seeing none, the question is on the amendment buffer -- on the amendment offered by the gentleman from nevada. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. >> i rise to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> mr. chairman, as we approach the 10th anniversary of 9/11 attacks, we are reminded that a key recommendation of the 9/11 commission is still not completely addressed. mr. aderholt: that is the security of the most commonly used form of identification of the united states, driver's license. all but one of the 9/11 hijackers carried some form of government-issued i.d., mostly state driver's license, many of which were obtained on fraudulent manners. during the planning stages of the attacks, these documents were used to rent vehicles, aee vade law enforcement officials and enroll in flight school and board airplanes in 2005 congress passed and the president signed the real i.d. act to address the

security gap and requires states to meet certain security standards for the issuance of driver's licenses and identification cards. despite that action six years ago real i.d. has yet to be fully implemented. my distinguished colleague, the chairman of the judiciary committee, mr. smith, has some views to off on -- offer on this important topic and i yield to the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: mr. chairman, 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 i.d.'s from florida, virginia and maryland. 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, quote, the federal

government should set standards for the issuance of birth certificates and sources of identification such as driver's licenses. fraud and identification documents is no longer just a problem of theft. many entry points to vulnerable facilities including 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, end quote. congress paid attention and passed the real i.d. act, the law is critical to national security. . this administration and undermined the i.d. act. it extended the compliance most recently last month. so states don't have to be i.d. compliant until january 13, 2013. that is 11 1/2 years after the 9/11 attacks. secretary napolitano consistently pushes for repeal of real i.d. instead of compliance.

most recently during a march 9, 2011 senate judiciary hearing she urged congress to take a fresh look at legislation that would actually repeal the real i.d. act. states are making progress on real i.d. in fact, as of march 29, 2011, maryland, tennessee, connecticut, south dakota, and delaware have submitted full compliance certification packages to d.h.s. 23 other states are compliant and/or issuing compliant documents. four additional states have enhanced driver's license programs comparable to real i.d. guidelines. for these reasons, congressional support, including funding, is critical to real i.d. implementation. i am concerned that h.r. 2017's grant reform initiative may give the impression that congress no longer supports real i.d. funding, so i ask the gentleman from alabama, how do you respond to that concern?

>> mr. chairman, i thank the gentleman for yielding back. mr. aderholt: i strongly support the real i.d. implementation. real i.d. is the law. the department has an obligation to support the states and moving forward to full compliance with enhanced driver's license security. congress has appropriated a steady stream of funding for real i.d. 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 side of -- sign of diminishing support for real i.d. implementation. mr. smith: i thank the gentleman for that statement and i ask him if he would yield for another minute. mr. aderholt: yes, i yield to the gentleman from texas for one minute. mr. myth: mr. chairman, i appreciate the remarks from the gentleman from alabama and his endorsement of the real i.d. act. the risk to not implementing

real i.d. is great. mr. smith: perhaps this was more evidenced by the fact of the arrest of the bomber with potential use of a weapon of mass destruction. according to the affidavit when the f.b.i. searched his residence they found his journal of which he wrote the need to obtain a forged u.s. birth certificate, multiple driver's license 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 pow tore prevent that by happening by fully implementing real i.d., 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 i.d. i'll yield back. the chair: the time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? >> mr. chair, i withdraw any action right now. the chair: the gentleman withdraws. the clerk will read. the clerk: page 50, line 10, firefighter assistance grants. $350 million of which $200 million shall be available to carry out section 33 of that act, shall be available to carry out section 34 of that act -- >> i have an amendment at the desk before i ask to waive the reading. the chair: the gentlelady has an amendment at the desk and ask unanimous consent to waive the reading. mrs. lowey: and i rise to strike the last word. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. >> mr. chairman? the clerk: page 50, line 9, before the period insert provided further --

ms. lowey: i waive reading of the amendment. the chair: without objection. >> mr. chairman? mrs. lowey: mr. speaker? the chair: the gentleman will suspend. the gentlelady's amendment falls within the previous paragraph. is the gentlelady seeking unanimous consent to return to the previous paragraph? mrs. lowey: i ask unanimous consent to return to -- the chair: is there objection? >> object. the chair: the gentleman from alabama objects. mrs. lowey: i rise to strike the last word, then. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. mrs. lowey: mr. speaker, 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 anti-terror

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 tornados 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 national disasters, we must help them prepare for and prevent man-made 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 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 2/3 of the $1 billion provided for first responder grants. which is a cut of roughly $1.5 billion for 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 fy-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 anti-terror funds will be taken from our most targeted regions. just weeks of 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. so i urge my colleagues to support the amendment and i reserve my time. the chair: the time has expired. >> mr. chairman? the chair: the gentleman from north carolina. mr. price: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. price: 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 of what's 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 -- mr. aderholt: will the gentleman yield? mr. price: i will not. can we express the basic comity of a colleague that's been waiting an hour to offer this amendment, that's been waiting in turn would have the basic comity would allow her to offer that amendment. i can't believe what we've just witnessed. mr. aderholt: will the gentleman yield? mr. price: i would be happy to yield. mr. aileder -- mr. aderholt: we are trying to work something out on this. mr. price: that's good. i'm glad to hear that. let me 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% below the enacted 2011 level. they are 70% below the enacted 2010 level. moreover, the 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. the full committee markup of this bill, congressman latourette and i offered a very similar amendment to what mrs. lowey 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 but 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've earlier discussed having to do with the mislabeling, we believe, of emergency funds. so in any case, we're faced with the threat of terrorism looming larger and massive cuts to first responders and state and local preparedness. we're ignoring key investments in this bill that would make communities safer. local governments are our first responders to terror attacks to natural disasters and 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 and schools and hospital. so plainly put, mr. chairman, these cuts are shortsighted. i'm very pleased our

subcommittee colleague mrs. lowey has made such persistent efforts to correct this bill's deficiencies and keep faith with the parts of our country that we know are in the greatest peril. and with that i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. who seeks time? the chair: the gentleman from alabama is recognized for five minutes. mr. aderholt: we're trying to work out an agreement with the gentlelady from new york. so if you would just give us a minute to work this out, we'll try to provide -- ms. lowey: thank you, mr. chairman, i appreciate it. you have been very, very

helpful, thank you. mrs. lowey: i'd ask unanimous consent to -- the chair: does the gentleman from alabama yield back? mr. aderholt: i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady from new york. mrs. lowey: i ask unanimous consent to consider my amendment out of order. the chair: is there objection? mr. aderholt: mr. chairman? the chair: the gentleman from alabama. mr. aderholt: no objection. the chair: no objection heard.

the amendment will be considered at this point. mrs. lowey: thank you. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mrs. lowey -- ms. lowey: i ask unanimous consent to -- the chair: mr. aderholt: i reserve a point of order for the gentlelady's amendment. the chair: the point of order is observed. the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. mrs. lowey: i'd like to make a few additional points because previously i did discuss the amendment in greater detail. . and i thank the chairman for your consideration. $1 billion for the block grant funding, i think it's important that we look at the breakdown. $192.6 million for law enforcement training and exercises, $55 million for operation stone garden grants which is overtime costs, $85 million for fema to administer the grant programs which is the department of homeland security

estimate, and 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, metropolitan medical response system, interoperability, port security, transit security and citizen corps. it is written in such a way that it doesn't have to be even funded. but if it is there are minimum funding requirements for each state and territory. .35% of total funds for f.y. 2012. given that it 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 shishcap is $125.4 million. and this would leave just $551.7 million remaining for uasi, m. -- 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, tornado, the floods, the loss of life, people have to rebuild, rebuild their homes, rebuild their lives. it's essential that we appropriate that additional money. but it's also essential that we respond to the threats which are still out there. now, people will say bin laden is gone, but there's 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 that are uasi areas' need for our terrorist response for the grants. is that it? are you signaling something to me? i'm getting coaching from so many places around here. let me conclude by thanking you for allowing me after sitting here for six hours, maybe eight hours, today, to offer this amendment after being late for 10 seconds. but 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 with our communities. thank you and i yield back.

the chair: does the gentleman still insist on his point of order? mr. aderholt: yes, mr. chairman, i make a point of order against the amendment proposed, it proposes to amend portions of the bill not yesterday read, section 17, chapter 2 of the house practice book states in 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 chair: the chair is prepared to rule. to be considered en bloc pursuant to clause 2-f of rule 21 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 read. the point of order is sustained.

for what purpose does the gentlelady from california seek recognition? ms. richardson: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk, it's the richardson amendment number 4. the chair: the reading has not yet progressed to that point. the clerk will read. the clerk: page 51, line 6, emergency management performance grants, $350 million. radiological emergency preparedness program, aggregate charges will not be less than 100% of the amounts anticipated by the department for its radiological emergency prepared -- preparedness program for the next fiscal year. the united states fire administration, $42,538,000. disaster relief including transfer of funds, $2,650,000,000. the chair: the gentlelady from california. ms. richardson: -- the chair: is the gentlelady california offering an

amendment? ms. richardson: yes, mr. chairman. thank you for allowing me to speak -- the chair: the gentlelady will suspend. the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by ms. richardson of california. page 53, line 5, after the dollar amount, insert reduce by $100 million, increase by $100 million. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes in support of her amendment. ms. richardson: thank you, mr. chairman, for allowing me to speak on this disaster relief funding. my amendment is designed to support response, rescue and recovery. in fiscal year 2011, the disaster relief fund was funded as $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 that we had in joplin, missouri. this eament of fund something 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 yet started but fema has already made 37 mange 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 estimate of 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 tornados across southern -- 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's 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, and you'll see in this picture that it appears a man is holding a child, he doesn't even have socks and shoes. so when we talk about whether it's ideologically we believe in

cutting the budget, we need to make sure we're cutting in the right places and not in places like this. since 1989, congress has appropriated roughly $292 billion for disaster assistance in 35 appropriation bills. primarily as supplementals. two significant catastrophes have occurred. the mean annual range that we've 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's not enough and the american public should not have to wait each tame that we debate when we know that what we are looking at today is not enough. mr. chairman, i urge the committee chair, my colleagues, to support the richardson amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from alabama.

mr. aderholt: mr. chairman, i accept the gentlelady's amendment, however i must clarify that the base bill -- the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. aderholt: i must clarify that the base billing includes $2.65 billion and includes an additional $1 billion in supplemental funds and that's a total of $1.18 billion above the request and so i would like to point that out to the gentlelady. but we will accept her amendment. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. is there anybody else wishing to be heard on this amendment? seeing none the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment's adopted. the clerk will read. the clerk: page 56, line 19, disaster assistance direct loan program account, $296,000 for the cost of direct loans. flood hazard mapping and risk

analysis program, $102,712,000. national flood insurance fund, $171 million shall remain available until september 30, 2013, and shall be derived from offsetting collections for salaries and expenses. national predisaster mitigation fund, $40 million. emergency food and shelter, $120 million. title 4, research and development training and services, united states citizenship immigration services, $132,361,000. the chair: the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> yes, mr. chairman. i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. honda of california, page 60, beginning on line 15, strike and of which none of the funds may be used for grants for

immigrant integration. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized for five minutes in support of his amendment. honhon thank you, mr. chairman. and i -- hondhond thank you, mr. chairman, and i thank -- mr. honda: thank you, mr. chairman. this is a straightforward amendment that would remove language in the bill that targets immigration 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 ukrainian community center of washington state, to west georgia technical college, to prepare legal permanent residents for citizenship. let me repeat, mr. speaker, 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 in 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 come to this country should learn english and they should. these grants provide a way for immigrants to do exactly that. it is perhaps fortuitous that it is spelled fortuitous, that we are debating this amendment as the 2011 scripts the national spelling bee starts its annual competition this week. as one goes on the list of the 275 young student spellers, it is worth noting that and pointing out that many of them have parents who are immigrants or are immigrants themselves. eight of the past 12 champions of the 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 and on the topic he says, npr, he 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 there 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. speaker, the immigrants who rely on integration grants are often the parents of these success stories. they're the mother at the hebrew immigrant aid society in new york or the father at the lutheran social services south dakota who after working two jobs in a day still find the ability to make it to a night class where they can learn english and 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 english language learner populations is often characterized as solely immigrant, the reality is that the native-born, u.s.-born english language learning population nearly doubled between the year 2000 and 2005. and is increasing at a higher rate than immigrant populations between 2010 and 2030, these first and second generation imgrants are expected to account for all growth in the u.s. labor force. better preparing this work force 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 this country is all about. these immigrants are not looking for an easy ride, they're looking for the chance

to learn english, learn about the history of their new home, learn object 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 immigrant integration grants which this bill takes away. at the very least, there should not be restrictions on how they can fund the grants in this bill. i ask my colleagues to support this straightforward amendment and i yield back the remainder of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. does anybody seek time? the gentleman from alabama. >> i appreciate the gentleman from california's views. mr. aderholt: we accept this amendment. however, i would like to say for the record that the $132 million that's appropriated funds provided in this bill would not fund immigrant i want grathes grants. they are provided for verification programs, both

everify and save and these are critical programs to the fund. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from north carolina. >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. price: i move rise to support mr. honda's amendment. i believe it is a good use for funds. i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady from california. >> mr. chairman, i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. >> i stand in strong support of this amendment. integrating immigrant into our nation makes us a stronger nation. having programs in place to quickly integrate new citizen into our national fabric is and should remain an important

point for our government this should not be a solely republican or democrat issue. it has had strong support from leaders on both sides of the aisle. president george bush created the office of citizenship in his presidency because he recognized the importance of helping new citizens embrace their new home. ms. chu: the office of citizenship plays a key role in integration immigration by lading initiatives to promote citizenship awareness, providing grants to national community based organizations that prepare immigrants for citizenship, preparing materials for citizens and trying to expand integration and citizenship in communs and president obama has picked up the torch from his predecessor with a program that helps green cardholders who are all legal immigrant get ready to become active participants in our

democracy. they help legal residents navigate through the naturalization process, teach them about our nation's histories and government and teaches them english. these programs benefit real people, immigrants who came to america for a better life. like phyllis, a 74-year-old grandmother who took a citizenship class in maryland. once a week for eight weeks, she and her 20 classmates spent two hours learning the basics of american history and government and interview skills for naturalization test. phyllis moves to the frust sri lanka to take care of her three grandsons. being a good citizen, knowing our laws and speaking the language will help those young boys grow up to be strong citizens themselves. immigrant whors integrated into society go on to become entrepreneurs and job creators.

whether they come on family or employment visas, through the asylum or refugee programs or other smaller 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 two fiscal years, congress has directly appropriated $11 million for integration grant bus this bill doesn't provide direct appropriations. instead, it pulls the funds out of the examination fees account. and it foes a step further, prohibiting direct funding for grants. but i think we should provide direct appropriations for these grants because it should be a national priority. beth sides agree that legal immigrants who want to become part of society and learn our laws and language should be able to become citizens. 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. thank you and i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. does anyone else seek recognition? if not, the question son the amendment offered by the gentleman from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the ayes have it, and the amendment is adopted. the clerk will read. the clerk: page 61, line 3, federal training salaries, $337,960,000, of which some shall remain available until september 30, 2014, for support costs of federal law enforcement basic training. acquisitions construction improvements and related

expenses. $456,000 to remain available until 2016. science and technology, management and administration, $140,565,000. research development acquisition and operations. $398,213,000, of which $196,713,000 to remain available until september 30, 2014. and of which $201,305,000 to remain available for construction of laboratory facilities. the chair: does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> mr. chairman, will we remain -- receive information about section 514. the chair: the reading has not progressed to that point yet. the clerk will continue to read.

the clerk: page 64, line 7, nuclear detection office and administration, $40 million. research development and operations, $245,194,000 to remain available until september 30, 2014. systems acquisition, $552 million to remain available until september 30, 2014. title 5, general provisions including rescissions of funds. section 501, no appropriation of this act shall remain available beyond the current fiscal year unless expressly so provided herein. section 502, subject to the requirements of this act, unexpended balances may be transferred. section 503, none of the funds shall be available through reprogramming that creates a new program, project, office or activity. section 504, the working capital fund, established

pursuant to section 403 of public law 103 -- 356 shall continue operations as a permanent working capital fund for fiscal year 2012. section 505, not to exceed 50% of unobligated balances remaining at the end of fiscal year 2012 for salaries and expenses shall remain available through september 30, 2013. section 506. funds for intelligence activities are deemed to be specifically authorized. section 507. none of the funds made available by this act may be used or make or aed were a grant allocation or issue a letter of intent totaling in excess of $100 million. section 508, no agency shall purchase any additional facilities for law enforcement training without the advance approval of the committees. section 509, none of the funds

made available may be used for any construction or project for which a prospectus otherwise required has not been approved. section 510, sections 520, 522 and 530 of the department of homeland security appropriations act, public law 110-161 shall apply to funds made available in this act. section 511, none of the funds may be used in contravention of the provisions of the buy american act. section 512, none of the funds may be used to alter the transmission to congress of any report. section 513, up in of the funds may be used to amend the oath of allegiance required in the naturalization act. section 513 -- the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> i have an amendment at the desk.

the chair: the chair is waiting for the amendment to arrive. the chair: in the meantime, the clerk will read the remainder of section 514. the clerk: section 514, no funds may be used to fund the competition. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: mr. sessions of texas, strike section 514.

the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized for five minutes. mr. sessions: according to recent media reports, the department of homeland security is the top agency conducting insourcing, converting 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 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

more cost efficiency results for the taxpayer. the bottom line is, madam chairman, is that the government does not need to perform all the goods and services that might be in the yellow pages. that's for the private sector to do. a-76 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 tensions totals $2.47 million. without competition, government-run monopolies duplicate and price out the private sector, resulting in inefficient expenditures of taxpayer money. the heritage foundation has reported that subjecting federal employees -- federal employee positions which are commercial in nature to a public-private cost comparison generate on average a 30% cost

savings regardless of which sector wins the competition. even a recent office of management and budget study states that the act of public of private corp. decision squen rates costs savings from 10% to 40% on average. during this time of stretched budgets and bloated federal spending, congress should do all they can do to find taxpayer savings and reduce the cost of services provided by the federal government. i urge all of my colleagues to support this common sense taxpayer first amendment and to ensure cost saving competition is available through the department of homeland security. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. mr. sessions: i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: under the five-minute rule, the gentleman cannot reserve his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina rise?

mr. price: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. price: madam chairwoman, this amendment, mr. sessions' amendment, frankly has been known to us only a short period of time and we're not certain that all members who might have an interest in this have been alerted. i wonder if the gentleman would yield to a question or two on this. mr. sessions, would you be willing to yield? mr. sessions: i did not hear the gentleman. mr. price: i'm asking if you'd yield for a question on your amendment. mr. sessions: i would. mr. price: my recollection is this amendment was placed in the bill some years ago when there was an active dispute about contracting out some services at c.i.s. what is the -- could you tell us what is thsh what precipitates your trying to remove this language you? -- now?

as i understand it, your amendment would not require the contracting out but remove the prohibition, is that right? mr. sessions: that is correct. today it's prohibited that this may be allowed in favor of the government hiring services through a federal government employee. . it drives me to come to the floor as i've been 15 years, i believe there are inherently governmental functions a government employee must perform. however, when there's 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 to perform the duties that might be done. and generally speaking, there's a 30% cheaper value or cost to the government when it's done by an outside contractor as opposed to a federal government employee. mr. price: 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 a prohibition leaving this essentially to the judgment of the department, i will not object to this. i do wish there had been a better opportunity for members who had an interest in this, probably had a stake in this to

be here and respond. but with the gentleman's explanation, i will not object. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from texas. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. >> madam chair, 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 texas, will be postponed. the clerk will read. the clerk: page 74, line 5, section 515, within 45 days at the end of each month the chief financial officer shall submit to the committees a monthly budget which includes total obligations for each office. section 516, funds appropriated

for or transferred to transportation security administration that are recovered shall be available only for the procurement of explosive detection systems. section 517, any funds appropriated to coast guard acquisition construction and improvements for fiscal years 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006 for the 110 to 123-foot patrol boat conversion that are recovered shall be available until expended for the fast response cutter program. section 518, section 532-a of public law 109-295 as amended by striking 2010 and inserting 2012. section 519, the functions of the federal law enforcement training center instructor staff shall be classified as inherently governmental. section 520, none of the fund appropriated in this or any other act to the office of the

secretary and executive management may be obligated for a grant or contract funded. section 521, none of the funds provided shall be used to fund any position designated as a principal federal official or any event that is declared a major disaster or emergency. section 522, none of the fund made available may be used to enforce section 40251 of the intelligence reform and terrorism prevention act, public law 108-458 unless the assistant secretary reverses the determination that butane lighters are not a significant threat to civil aviation security. section 523, none of the funds made available may be used to carry out section 872 of the homeland security act of 2002. section 524, none of the funds made available may be used by the united states citizenship and immigration services to grant an immigration benefit

unless background checks have been received by united states citizenship and immigration services and results do not preclude the granting of the benefit. section 525, none of the funds made available may be used to destroy any horse or other equine that has become unfit for service unless the trainer is first given the option to take possession of the equine. section 526, action 831 as amended. section 527, the secretary shall require all contracts that provide word fees, link such fees to successful acquisition outcomes. section 528, none of the fund made available may be expended for any new hires that are not verified through the everify program. section 529, none of the fund made available may be used to prevent an individual not in the business of importing a prescription drug from importing a prescription drug from canada that complies with the federal food, drug and cosmetic act. section 530, the secretary

shall notify the committees of any proposed transfers of funds available to any agency within the department. section 531, none of the fund made available may be used for planning, testing, piloting or developing a national identification card. section 532, if the assistant secretary determined that an airport does not need to participate in the e-verify program the assistant secretary shall certify to the committee no security risks will result from such nonparticipation. section 533, 30 days after the date on which the president determines to declare a major disaster, the administrator shall submit to the committees a report which shall summarize damage assessment information. section 534, if the secretary of homeland security determines that the national bioand agri defense facility be located at a site other than plum island, norks, -- new york, the secretary shall ensure the administrator sell all real or

related personal property. section 535, any official required to report to the committees may not ell -- delegate such authority unless specifically authorized herein. section 536, section 550-b of the department is further amended by striking 2011 and inserting 2012. section 537, none of the funds appropriated may be used to transfer, release, or assist in the transfer or extending immigration benefits to khalid sheik mohammed or any other detainee. section 538, none of the funds made available may be used for first-class travel by the employees of agencies funded by this action. section 539, none of the funds made available may be used to propose a disciplinary or adverse action to any employee who engages regularly with the public in the performance of official duties because that employee elects to utilize protected equipment or measures. section 540, none of the funds

made available may be used to employ workers described in section 274-a-h-3 of the immigration and nationality act . section 541, any company that collects personal information from any individual in their regular traveler program shall safeguard and dispose of such information. section 542, none of the funds appropriated may be used to pay, award or incentive fees for contractor performance that is journaled to be below satisfactory performance. section 543, not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this act, the city secretary shall submit to the committee's report that either one, certifies the requirement for screening all air cargo on passenger aircraft by the deadline has within met -- been met or two, includes a strategy to comply with the requirements. section 544, in developing any

process to screen aviation passengers and crews, the secretary shall ensure all such processes take into consideration such passengers and crews' privacy and civil liberties. section 544, in developing any process to screen aviation passengers and crews, the secretary shall ensure all processes take into such consideration such crews' privacy and civil liberties. section 545, sections 13 a and 1319 of the national flood insurance act of 1968 may be

amended by striking september 30, 2011 and inserting september 30, 2012. section 546, funds deposited in the immigration examination fees account, $8,500,000 is available to united states citizenship and immigration services providing an immigration integration to grants program. section 547, the secretary -- >> madam chairman. the chair: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from wyoming rise? >> i have an amendment at the desk before the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by ms. loomis of wyoming, page 89, line 14, strike section 547. the chair: the gentlewoman from wyoming is recognized for five minutes. ms. loomis: thank you, madam chairman. my action would strike action 547 which would divert 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. ms. lummis: 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 only

divisions -- 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 understand -- 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 of the constitution by the border patrol. i appreciate the chairman's staff taking time to try to work out this 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 we were not able to come to a 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 reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina rise? mr. price: madam chairman, i rise in opposition to this amendment and move to strike the last words. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. price: madam chairman, the gentlewoman's amendment strikes language permitting the use of

previously appropriated and specifically designated d.h.s. funds for land acquisition along the southwest border for environmental mitigation. 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. . now for concerns about such a massive upside take, much of it on environmentally sensitive lands, congress has taken steps to mitigate these consequences. $50 million in fiscal 2009 and $50 million in 2010.

some of this mitigation effort requires buying land from willing sellers as a buffer zone for habitats, principally along the rio grande in texas. since the department doesn't have the authority to acquire land for the purpose of environmental consideration, we came to an agreement over an omnibus 2011 bill to allow limited authority to transfer these specific funds to the department of superior for land acquisition. interior has the statutory authority to acquire land for this purpose. so let me, madam chairman, let me read the section of the chairman's report so everyone knows how noncontroversial this provision is that mrs. lummis seeks to strike. i'm quoting. in order for them to strike agreements, the committee

includes a general provision, section 547 in the bill, permitting the transfer of previously appropriated environmental mitigation funds under bizfit to the u.s. department of interior to carry out this purpose. the authority is narrowly tailored and controled to ensure that funds will only be transferred in accordance with the a written agreement between the secretaries of homeland security and interior, where the secretary of the interior submitted an expenditure plan 15 days in advance, detailing the actions proposed to be taken with amounts transferred, where the secretary of homeland security testifies that the actions outlined can in the be legally executed under the authorities of c.p.b. or any other component of the department of homeland security and the actions are determined to be necessary for the mitigation of construction operation and maintenance activity related to border security, end of quote.

madam chairman, as a government, we have many responsibilities and priorities, including securing our borders, 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 encourages, especially because this arrangement is explicit that intearor cannot take any action that c.b.p. does not first a gree to. let me repeat, they can't take any action that c.b.p. doesn't approve. i urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from washington. for what purpose does the gentleman rise? >> i rise in opposition to the amendment and i move to strike the requisite number of words the chair: the gentleman from

washington is recognized for five minutes. >> i want to commend the gentleman -- mr. dicks: i want to commend the gentleman for his work on this bill and this provision. i have been down to the border and have seen the very large fences we have created there. which do have an adverse effect on some of the species in that area who in the past would go back and forth from texas or arizona into mexico and back. the department of 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 interior, that was avoid sod 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 should be trying to protect and there are many problems down on the border because of these fences. so i urge that we defeat the lummis amendment and go along with what the committee has artfully worked out and it's a good compromise and should remain in the bill. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from utah rise? >> madam chair, i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. bishop: most people are

clearly not aware that national security on our border is accomplished on public land that have the ability to deny agents access to those lands. most people are not aware that we are putting money in for homeland security only to see it's transferred over to another agency without congress seeing or understanding what that transfer is or where. we have had transferred of at least $9 million, though the numbers are not clear. if you add up what homeland security spends, we may up to $15 million spent on this program this money can be used for land acquisition. if we really want land south carolinaation -- acquisition, we put this money in the interior where it belongs, so we know why it is there an can track for what it is used. this becomes a secret slush

fund from homeland security to interior and congress has no idea or clue how this money is being used. let me give you a specific example. border patrol wanted to put surveillance towers on a strategic location on the arizona boarer. unfortunately, the land manager would not allow them in a particular area so they had to be moved at least four miles away, creating specific blackout areas on that particular situation. security gap. it was a four-mile -- it was four miles of heavily trafficked area. then because there happened to be a bat in that area, of their own sources, homeland security had to monitor the amount of bats that may fly into the towers for five years after the implementation of the 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 prong horned antelope, homeland security had to back away,

without turning its back on the prong horned, at a speed no greater than 15 miles per hour until it was a certain distance away from that situation. we've already been told of situation 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 mitt gation money is going and can approve it ahead of time. madam chairman, most of the environmental degradation is taking place on our southern border, especially in the state of arizona. it's not being done by the border patrol. it's being done by illegal immigrant the drug cartels, human traffic evers, potential terrorists coming in with no design and no care about the ecology of the area. if we truly want to improve the ecology and improve our environmental quality on that

border, put every dime you can into border patrol, let them have the access they need to do their quobs because by stopping the illegals, the bad guys coming across, is the only way we'll 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 -- on this particular problem. i yield back, madam chairman. the chair: the gentleman -- mr. bishop: may i inquire how much time i have left? the chair: you have one minute and 30 seconds. mr. bishop: i'll give you 30 seconds. mr. price: i'd like to call the gentleman's attention to section d on page 90 and ask for his assessment of this, we worked it out carefully 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 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 amount transferred. does that not meet the standards of accountability? >> the gentleman's time has expired. mr. bishop: it sounds good on paper but it duvent work in reality. the mitigation money is not going to the area where the mitigation these to be done. if you care about that environment and want to solve the mitigation effort, but the -- put the money into the border patrol, not into the slush fund to move money from homeland security into interior for the acquisition of land and property. it is unrealistic. the chair: the gentleman from utah's time has expired.

any objection. the gentleman -- without objection, the gentleman from utah. mr. bishop: you've got 30 seconds, go for it. mr. price: here's what we should do. do both. stop all the illegal immigrants coming across -- mr. dicks: stop all the illegal immigrants coming across, 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 another. the gentleman raises a false choice. mr. bishop: if i could claim back my last 30 seconds, i'll do this as quickly as i can that should be the role of the intooror appropriation because there's 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 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. apparently i'm yielding back my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the quelt from alabama rise? >> i want to thank the gentlelady. the chair: does the gentleman move to strike the last word? mr. aderholt: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. aderholt: i want to thank the gentlelady for working with us and i appreciate the concerns she has raised and also that the gentleman from utah has raised. the committee has attempted to address both to address both requests of the department of homeland security and the interest of the number of members on both sides of the aisle and drafting section 547. it was narrowly tailored to address only the most narrow environmental securities

related to border security and maintenance. it included strict controls on the transfer of funds from the department of homeland security to the department of interior. only where the secretary of homeland security certifies 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 activity. further, the secretary of interior must provide a detailed plan with advanced notification, allowing the economy to rejection the plan. the committee's interest was a border security, unfortunately, we're not able to balance the views and viewpoints and concerns to find a compromise in this process. for that reason, i support the lummis amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, madam chair. federal public lands -- mr. poe: federal public lands

have become the chosen path for drug smugglers and illegals entering the 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 toil legal traffic coming into the united states. in certain areas, border patrol agents are limited to pale toing on foot or horseback, even if the drug runners have a.t.v.'s, four by four trucks or even humvees. a recent g.a.o. report rereeled the department of interior is taking months to approve simple permits that are necessary for the border patrol to do its job, protect the border. the g.a.o. report 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 interior

negotiates mitigation packages with the border patrol. but these are forcing the border patrol to fork over money for environmental activities. the obviously is being missed by the department of entire -- the obvious is being missed by the department of interior, that the illegal activity itself destroys the environment they're trying to preserve. i recommend adoption of the lummis amendment. i yelled back the remainder of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from wyoming. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. >> madam chair, i ask for a roll call vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from wyoming will be postponed. .

the clerk will read. the chairman: section 548, of the funds transferred to the department of homeland security, the following funds are rescinded from the following programs in the specified amounts, $20,997,225 from the u.s. immigration and customs salaries and expenses. two, $5494,945,000 from violent crime reduction programs. section 549, unobligated balances available for homeland security, immigration, and enforcement construction, $11,300,000 is rescinded. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from louisiana rise? the gentleman from alabama? mr. aderholt: i reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment. the chair: we'll let the

gentleman first offer the amendment. for what purpose does the gentleman from louisiana rise? >> i have an amendment at the desk, madam chair. the chair: did the gentleman submit the text of the amendment? >> yes. the chair: the clerk will read. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. richmond of louisiana. at the end of the bill before the short title, insert the following. the chair: the gentleman from alabama recognized. mr. aderholt: i reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment. the chair: the gentleman will suspend.

the clerk will designate the other richmond amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. richmond of louisiana, page 91, after line 10, insert the following, section a, in this section, the term covered assistance means assistance provided, one, under section 408 of the robert t. stafford disaster relief and emergency assistance act. >> madam chair? the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from alabama rise? mr. aderholt: i respectfully reserve. the chair: the point of order is reserved. the clerk will read. the clerk: united states code 5174, and two, in relation to a major disaster declared by the president -- >> i request we suspend the reading. the chair: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. the gentleman from louisiana is recognized for five minutes. mr. richmond: madam chair, what this amendment would do is under the provisions of the

stafford act and the disaster relief and emergency assistance act, there are approximate 160,000 american citizens across this country who in the aftermath of hurricanes katrina, rita, ike and goose to -- and gustav, received benefits under an error under our federal emergency and management agency and what the government is attempting to do now almost six years later is 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 in which our fema agency made a mistake. and madam chair, just in these economic times, we as government should not go back and penalize citizens 60 years after the government made an error and gave them disaster relief funds in the aftermath of the worst natural disaster

we faced in this country's history. what this amendment does is 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 to try to recoup those funds. and that's simply all it does, and i would ask we support it. the chair: does the gentleman yield back? mr. richmond: i yield back, yes. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from alabama rise? mr. aderholt: insist upon a point of order. the chair: the gentleman will state his point of order. mr. aderholt: i make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes changing existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriations bill and therefore violates clause 2 of rule 21. the rule states in pertinent part, an amendment to a general appropriations bill shall not be in order if changing existing law gives affirmative action in effect.

i ask for a ruling from the chair. the chair: 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 21. the point of order is sustained and the amendment is not no order. the clerk will read. the clerk: page 91, line 11, title 6, emergency supplemental funding for disaster relief, including recision and transfer of funds. section 601, effective on the date of the enactment of this act, unobligated balances remaining available at the department of energy, $500 million, is rescinded and $1 billion is hereby transferred to department of homeland

security federal emergency management agency disaster relief. title 7, spending reduction account, section 701, the amount by which the applicable allocation of new budget authority made by the committee on appropriations under section 302-b of the congressional budget act of 1974 exceeds the amount proposed in the budget authority is zero dollars. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> madam chairman, i rise today to offer an amendment. the chair: at the gentleman submitted the amendment. >> the amendment has been submitted. the chair: would the gentleman specify the number of the amendment? >> number one. the chair: the clerk will designate. the clerk: amendment 1 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. carter of texas.

the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized for five minutes. mr. carter: thank you. madam chairman, i rise today to offer an amendment 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 e.p.a., hasal budget of $6.6 billion and find phis taking action on climate change as the number one goal in its f.y. 2011-2015 strategic plan. the national oceanic and atmosphereic association, noah, which among other things is charged with climate monitoring

has a budget of $5.6 billion for f.y. 2011. so i ask 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 shoot-out along the texas-mexico border, the same lake where a u.s. citizen was caught and -- shot and killed by pirates while voting last september. an untold number of men and 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 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 a chicago area synagogue 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 unprotected from attacks originating from countries such as russia and china. these are the priorities the secretary should be focusing on, not wasting time duplicating the work of the environmental protection agency and noaa. the secretary's climate change adaptation task force is a waste of time and resources. and it should be -- 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. thank you. and i yield back. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina rise? mr. price: madam chairman, i rise in opposition to the amendment and ask to strike the last words. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. price: madam chairman, i was intrigued with this amendment, 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 effect of this amendment might be. so i'd 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 and 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 d.h.s. 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 tornados and 500 deaths, it's understandable that d.h.s. might just want the

best available information on climate change. now, i want to clarify any misinformation here. there are no d.h.s. employees, nor are any d.h.s. funds dedicated full time to climate change. one person at the department has spent a limited amount of time representing d.h.s. at these task force meetings and activities. one person. so prohibiting funds going towards this effort is not going to save any money. but there are several d.h.s. 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 d.h.s. persons from meeting or

even talking to each other regarding the task force. now, it's prudent and necessary for d.h.s. 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 d.h.s. 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, intelligent planning and responsible coordination. i urge my colleagues to vote against the amendment. and i yield the balance of my time. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from washington rise? mr. dicks: i rise in opposition to the amendment and strike the requisite number of words.

the chair: the gentleman from washington is recognized for five minutes. mr. dicks: i again want to compliment the ranking member for his lucid description of the department of homeland securities' work on climate change. we have had a weather season that's been extraordinary. whether this is caused -- this climate change we're experiencing is caused by humans or is -- 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're seeing the polar ice

melting and the coast guard is going to have more responsibilities to go into those areas because other countries are trying to exploit this. so i would just say to the gentleman, i mean, if there's only one person working part time on this, i don't see a reason to prohibit it. i would urge the gentleman to withdraw his amendment. i yield. >> i believe he said -- mr. carter: i believe he said it had gone to the task force including fema and the task force, is that what you said? >> yes. mr. carter: aren't fema and the coast guard part of the department of homeland security? if it's so negligible and of no consequence, why -- i don't understand why you won't accept the amendment?

mr. dicks: it would bar the department from discussing it with anybody. it's 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 afingt navy installations all over the country. i brugget in the park service when i was chairman of the interior, the fish and wildlife service, they all see the affects. we've got a longer fire season. this is something you can't ignore. this is a national issue that is significant and -- the department of homeland security that isn't going to look at the consequences of climate change after what we've seen this year is just ridiculous on the face of it. mr. carter: if the gentleman will yield. mr. dicks: i yield. mr. carter: i do not ask that the department not look into climate change. ski that we take any funds

allocated to the department of homeland security's climate change adaptation task force, there is -- if there is no such task force -- i believe there is, but if there is none, there is none. i know two agencies that are close to $15 billion that are in cly hat change. you named the navy and other agencies looking into it. they are all getting money, why can't we get information from those people? why do we have to go and spend money we desperately need on our borders to protect ourselves from the real terrible violence that's slaughtering people on the mexican board her why do we have to spend money on something that -- you can name five different groups studying it and i named two additional. mr. dicks: why can't homeland security with the coast guard and fema and all these

organizations be part of the interagency effort? they're not wasting money on this. this is important research. >> will the gentleman yield? mr. dicks: i yield. >> is it actually less efficient to shut off this kind of interagency discussion, say the representative from fema or the coast guard can't participate, they have to reinvent the wheel? mr. price: i don't understand the rationale for saying when interagency work is going on that has the potential to inform homeland security's work why they shouldn't take advantage of that? mr. carter: i don't have any time. mr. dicks: fema respoppeds to weather disasters. they've got to be involved in the task force looking at climate change. it's just -- i mean -- i just can't believe that no one wants to do this. mr. carter: if the gentleman will yield, it's the weather bureau. that's the weather folks studying this thing. they've got $5.6 billion to

study it. i'm not asking for the world. i'm just say, why don't we -- we also, last time you were in charge, took a spy satellite or two, took them out of afghanistan and put them over the poles to study the poles. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. dicks: the gentleman has about expired, too. thank you. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from texas. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. >> i ask for a roll call. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the

gentleman from texas will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> madam chair, i have an amendment at the desk, marked number 9. the chair: the clerk will read. the clerk: amendment number 9 printed in the congressional record, offered by mr. poe of texas. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. does the gentleman from -- the gentleman from alabama is recognized. mr. aderholt: i reserve a point of order. the chair: the point of order is reserved. the gentleman from texas is recognized for five minutes. mr. poe: thank you, madam chair. it's 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 f.y. 2010.

deferred action is a technical term which means that a person is subject to deportation but 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 in a senate judiciary hearing. these numbers also seem to be drastically -- or they drastically contradiction statements by the administration that deferred action would not be used to provide back door amnesty to illegal ail generals. in short, it's part of prosecutorial discretion, and that discretion is not to pursue removal from the united states of a specific individual for a period of time. it is only intended to be used

in special occasions but now over 12,000 people a year are given this deferred actionful 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 that 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 ebb fore-- enforce the immigration laws of this clint 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 may be used to grant deferred action or parole to any person in the united states for any reason than a case-by-case basis for two reasons, one, urgent

humanitarian reasons, or, significant public benefit. this prevents the administration from going arn corning an the will of the american people by granting administrative amnesty called deferred action. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: would the jelled -- the speaker pro tempore: would -- >> would the gentleman yield? the chair: the gentleman from alabama is recognized for five minutes. mr. aderholt: we would like to clarify which amendment is being considered. the chair: amendment number 9. mr. aderholt: i ask unanimous consent that the clerk read the amendment. the chair: without objection, the clerk will report the amendmentful the clerk: at the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the following, section, 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 united states code 1373-a. the chair: the gentleman from inteam recognized. mr. aderholt: i reserve my point of order. the chair: the gentleman will state his point of order. mr. aderholt: i make a point of order against the amendment because it violates rule 21. it states that an amendment shall not be in order if changing additional law and imposing additional duties and i ask for a ruling from the chair. the chair: does any other member wish to be heard on the point of order? >> i wish to be heard. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. poe: this is the amendment i mentioned to the majority i was going to introduce at this

time. it is in order, it is number 9 which was stated to me by the clerk as number 9. so it is in order. the chair: the clerk has read amendment number 9 and the chair will rule on amendment number 9. the chair finds that this amendment includes language imparting direction. the amendment therefore constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2 of rule 21, the point of order is sustained and the amendment is not in order. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. poe: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the gentleman will specify the number of the amendment. mr. poe: the title is sanctuary cities amendment, i have it as

number 10. the chair: the clerk will report amendment number 10. the clerk: amendment number 10 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. poe of texas. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized for five minutes. mr. poe: i'd like the amendment read. the chair: without objection, the clerk will read the amendment. the clerk: at the enof the bill, before the short title, insert the following, section, none of the funds made available by this act may be used in contravention of section 642-a of the illegal immigration reform act of 1996, 8 united states code 1373-a. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized for five minutes. mr. poe: thank you, madam chair. over the past years, the number of ail yeps who unlawfully reside in the united states has group significantly from an estimated three million to 1986 to about 11 million to 2005 an some put those estimates today

at 2010 at 20 million. it is estimated that 400,000 illegal immigrants entered our country last year. even modest estimates with the cost of illegal immigration to the federal government at over $29 billion. that's roughly the annual budget for the entire department of justice. we cannot afford to have this continue. some jurisdictions have assisted federal authorities in apprehending and detaining violators. under this, state and local agencies can carry out various functions. i commend these jures dicks. however there are some jurisdictions that continue to mandate that their employees not communicate with i.c.e. when they come across someone in the country illegally. these jures dicks are known as

sanctuary cities and are located throughout the -- throughout the united states. it is in violation of current law, 8 u.s.c. 1373. however, despite the law, many cities and localities still place the resics on law enforcement officers and other employees. 8 u.s.c. 1373 states, and i quote, notwithstanding any other provision of federal, state or local law, a federal, state, or local entity or official may not prohibit or in my way restriction any government entity or official from sending to or receiving from the immigration and naturalization service now called i.c.e. information regarding this 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 contradiction u.s. law which i just read. this amendment should pass unanimously because it's intens the law for cities and other jures dicks. it will prevent employees from sharing information with i.c.e. this amendment is saying that no money will support an already illegal activity. it's a common sense amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. . mr. aderholt: i appreciate the gentleman's concerns and -- the chair: does the gentleman strike the last word? mr. aderholt: i strike the last words. this amendment supports existing law and we accept this amendment. the chair: the gentleman from yields back? does any other member wish to be heard?

the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from texas. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from louisiana rise? mr. richmond: madam chair, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. richmond of louisiana. at the end of the bill before the short title, insert the following -- mr. richmond: i ask we dispense with the reading. the chair: is there objection? mr. aderholt: madam chair. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. aderholt: i reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment. the chair: the point of order is observed. without objection, the reading of the amendment is suspended. the gentleman from louisiana is recognized for five minutes.

mr. richmond: madam chair and to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle and on the same side of the aisle as i am, i rise today to do two things. one is to thank the american people, thank congress, and thank two presidents for the assistance they gave to the gulf coast after hurricanes katrina and rita and even after the b.p. oil spill. but at the same time, i rise because just in the last two 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've decided that any disaster assistance would require a pay-forward and that would leave a large number

of our american taxpayer citizens out to fend for themselves when they simply can't do it. so when we look at the tornados and we look at the flooding that's occurred in the last two months and we're talking about states like minnesota, tennessee, arkansas, georgia, missouri, mississippi, louisiana, i think it should be the policy of this body that we're going to be wherever our citizens need us. and if you look at the fund which fema uses to pay for disaster response, recovery and mitigation projects, it's facing a $1 billion shortfall this fiscal year. and if you look at the entire whole, it's much bigger. you're talking at least a $3 billion hole for the fiscal year 201. that does not even include estimates of the incidents and disasters i talked about earlier, the many tornados and the massive flooding we've injured -- incurred in the last two months. that's worrisome. but let's take a step further.

let's assume that -- or even not assume, but there's a possibility that we would see another event similar to the flooding, similar to a hurricane. hurricane season started june 1. and i think it is absolutely irresponsible for us to tell the american people, it's disengineous, it's wrong and sinful to say we're not going to help you if we don't cut the budget somewhere else. we've not done that in the past and i don't think that we should do it. 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, 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 the government was there for me when katrina and rita hit, and the government should be there for the people in mississippi, minnesota, georgia, missouri, texas, louisiana, and everywhere the tornados hit. 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 and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from alabama is recognized. mr. aderholt: madam chair, i insist my point of order.

the chair: the gentleman will state his point of order. mr. aderholt: i make an amendment against the amendment because it constitutes legislation in an appropriations bill and therefore violates clause 2 of rule 21. the rule states in pertinent part, an amendment to a general appropriations bill shall not be in order if changing existing law changes the application of existing law, and i ask for a ruling from the chair. the chair: does any other member wish to speak on the point of order? the chair will 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 21. the point of order is sustained and the amendment is not in order. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> madam chair i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. poe of texas. at the end of the bill before

the short title insert the following section, none of the funds made available by this act may be used 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 chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized for five minutes. mr. poe: thank you, madam chair. 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 that person's action, the criminal action, or the action to deport that individual, rather, is deferred to some unknown date. the person is released, and

what occurs is that person is never deported and never has a hearing. it started -- this procedure started years ago with a few hundred people a year. but last year in 2010, over 12,000 people had their im gration 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 an individual which allows them to end up staying in the united

states, and no funds can be used to implement deferred 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. and i urge adoption of this amendment. and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. does any member seek recognition on the amendment? mr. aderholt: chair? the chair: the gentleman from alabama. mr. aderholt: yes, we accept the gentleman from texas' amendment. the chair: the gentleman accepts. the gentleman from north carolina is recognized -- for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina seek recognition? mr. price: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is

recognized for five minutes. mr. price: madam chair, 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 and i yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from texas. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to.

for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina rise? mr. price: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will read. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. price of north carolina. mr. price: i ask unanimous consent the reading be dispensed with. the chair: without objection, the reading bill be dispensed with. mr. price: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. price: thank you, 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 reduces funding for firefighter hiring grants, also known as safer grants, by $255 million, or 63% below 2011. fortunately, the house resoundingly overturned that

ill-advised move earlier today and adopted an amendment by from 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 2009-2011 that allows fire departments to use these grants to hire and lay off firefighters and 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 testified to this need earlier this year in our appropriations hearings. 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 continues the 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 environment, 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 a 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 that we have a safe level of staffing of our nation's preeminent first responders, the firefighters. we've 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 to keep firefighters on the staff. i urge support of this amendment and yield the balance of my time. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from alabama rise? mr. aderholt: i rise to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five 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 hand out. safer was not intended to retire or retain firefighters, and currently 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 the last three years. when initially proposed by the

democrats in 2009, mr. price who was chairman of this subcommittee acknowledged niece waivers were just a short term, temporary effort that will expire at the end of f.y. 2010. yet here we are today debating the continuation of f.y.-2012 as a subsidy our country cannot afford. under these costly waivers, there are no controls, no salary limits, and there's no local commitments. these proposed waivers totally undermine the original purpose and intent of the safer program by forcing the taxpayers to subsidize the every day operating expenses of the local first responders. . given our nation's dire situation today, we must take a stand it's not the federal government's job to bail out every municipal budget or serve as a fire marshal for every city, town across this country. therefore, madam chair, i would strongly urge my colleagues to support fiscal discipline and

vote no on this amendment. the chair: the gentleman yields back. mr. aderholt: i yield back. the chair: does any member wish to speak on the amendment? the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from north carolina. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it, the amendment is not agreed to. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from north carolina will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from louisiana rise? mr. richmond: madam chair i have an amendment at the desk regarding transportation worker credentials. the chair: the clerk will read the amendment. >> number 28. . .

the chair: the clerk will read amendment 28. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. scalise of indiana. at the end of the bill before the short title insert the following section, none of the funds made available under this act may be used to require an approved transportation worker i'd credential applicant to personally appear in a designated enrollment center for the purpose of twic renewal or activation. the chair: the gentleman from louisiana is recognized for five minutes. mr. came lease: thank you, madam -- mr. scalise: thank you, madam chair. what i bring forward is addressing the bureaucratic red tape and inefficiency that's

causing over a million american workers to make multiple trips to get a document that their workers require, the federal government requires them to have, it's a transportation worker i'd credential and it's an important document to have but was created back in 2007 with the five-year limitation and has to be renewed. a worker has to go in a registered office and go and get their fingerprint taken, they've got to get their picture taken, 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 a passport, example, how it is issued, you can go in and 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 program the department has been

requiring multiple trips. the reason it's a big issue for all of these workers, there's 1.8 million americans who are required to have a twid card to do these jobs. under these current rules they have to go and make mum tim trips and in some cases it's not an office down the street but an office over a hundred miles away. i have a letter from the passenger vessel association from this amendment and they point out the enrollment center is hundred of miles away from a mariner's home necessitating two round trips of many hours in duration and it's not uncommon for the mariner to be forced to stay overnight during each roundtrip and of course the employee has to pay for these roundtrips, has to pay for the overnight and 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 cards but yet are making the employees go with these multiple trips, if you imagine

a state like alaska where you might have to spend days to get the card and you have to first go spend days to go file for the card and then you have to spend days to go get the card. this is unnecessary. and it is an incredible burden on our work force and it's something that we can address by preventing the funds from being used by implementing this policy. it gives them broad discretion to implement a successful program but unlike other forms of identification, over 1.8 million workers should not be forced to jump through these bureaucratic red tape hoops that are costing them money that they should be able to spend on their family. so with that i would ask for support and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. does anyone seek recognition to speak on the amendment? for what purpose does the gentleman from alabama rise? mr. aderholt: to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> i'd like to ask the

gentleman if he can confirm this amendment requires the applicants to bimetrically enroll in person. mr. scalise: if the gentleman yields, yes. mr. aderholt: i yield time. mr. scalise: they'd 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 they would have to go in person, take the photo i.d. and implement the bimetric data but make sure they don't have to go through these continuous bureaucratic hurdles to get the card and i yield back. mr. aderholt: madam chair, i thank the gentleman for yielding and based on the

requirement the applicants bimetrically enroll we'll accept the amendment. the chair: does the gentleman yield back? mr. aderholt: yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the amendment is offered by the gentleman from louisiana. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> i have an amendment the desk designated as sherman a. the chair: the clerk will read. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. sherman of california. at the end of the bill before the short title insert the following. section, none of the funds made available by this act may be used in contravention of the war powers resolution, 50 united states code, 1541ed a

seqitor. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five 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. so many have embraced the idea of an imperial presidency, have embraced the idea a united states president can send our forces into battle for an unlimited duration, unlimited 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. but this president, like some others, believes 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. the respect the national branch for congress is called upon them to hide their contempt for the law. and so they've implied without stating it there are substitutes for a congressional authorization. they've implied resolutions by the united states, 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. this is different than the law we'll deal with. we should try to act now. in addition, this amendment ought to be put on every appropriations bill 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 to the navy to the coast guard or 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 will be limited in time and scope. perhaps it will be limited to air forces and not ground forces and perhaps require renewal every six months instead of being permanent. there may be conditions such as why are we funding this out of taxpayer money and not the $33 billion of gaddafi money 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. and why shouldn't we support those who have blood on their hand. this is an issue of dereliction in congress. because, yes, we'd like to avoid tough votes, particularly those that divide our constituents and even the constituents 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 which was carefully tailored and severely limited.

. this vote is not about democracy and the raul of law in libya. this vote is about democracy and the rule of law in the united states. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from alabama rise? >> i move to strike -- mr. aderholt: i move to strike the last word. i rise knopp sigs to the amendment. it's notter is main to the department of homeland security appropriations bill. it's better addressed within the national defense authorization or defense appropriation bill. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina rise? >> i move to strike the last words. the chair: the gentleman is recognized.

mr. price: i want to join chairman aderholt in this. members would not want to vote to contravene the law in anything we to. but we have to acknowledge this is nottier main to this bill and the rhetoric that has attended the introduction of this amendment contains, just to put it mildly, insinuations and charges. this is not the place to ebb gauge in a full debate so i'll restrict myself to saying that i do think that this is inappropriate for this bill. >> i support the gentleman's position and rise in opposition. mr. price: i thank the gentleman and yield back my time.

the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the no haves it. further proceedings offered by the gentleman from california will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona rise? >> madam chairwoman i have an amendment at the table. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. would the gentleman please state the title of the amendment. the clerk will read. the chair: an amendment offered

by mr. gosar of arizona. at the thoached bill insert the following. no part of this act may be used under the code known as the davis-bacon act. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. go sar: i rise in support of my amendment that would exempt all construction projects from the inflationary and unwise davis-bacon act. as members of congress, we are stewards of 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

22% above market wages. every dollar wasted is a dollar we can't use on other projects. in most city the davis-bacon act proposes wages that bear no resemblance to market wages. i ask for everyone's support on this measure and i yield back my time. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from -- for what purpose does the gentleman rise? mr. price: i rise in opposition to this amendment and move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. price: this will preclude the homeland security or any entity that receives money from insisting or fair labor standards for construction -- for standards known as the davis-bacon standards. it's a simple concept and a fair one.

it requires that workers on federally funded construction projects be paid no less than 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 1/4 of construction costs. thus, if there's an increase in overall construct cost 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 assuring 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? and 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 f.a.a. re-authorization and both times amendments to strike davis-bacon standards failed. we don't need to revisit this again here tonight. and i yield back. mr. dicks: will the gentleman yield? i rise in strong support against this amendment. davis and bacon were two republicans, so they knew what they were doing. mr. price: i thank the ranking member and yield back.

the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from iowa rise? >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> i rise in support of the gosar amendment. i don't know another member of congress that's lived under davis-bacon. i have. mr. king: i've lived underneath it for more than 30 years. i received davis-bacon wages when i was working for other contractors and paid a lot of davis-bacon wages as an owner-operator of a construction company i operated over 28 years. i can tell you that the federal government interfering with a contractual relationship between an employer and employee is the wrong thing to do. it does drive up the cost. the gentleman's opening remarks were spot-on. my own construction records show the costs go up between 8% and 35%, hardly insignificant. and it scrambles the relationship between employers

and employees who are always jockeying for the highest paid federally designated scale. i've seen wages change from double to 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'm 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 construction 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 four miles of road or five, we go without davis-bacon and we build five. if we stay with davis-bacon, we'll build four. 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 government should not be involved in. for the federal government to tell me that i can't say to my own son, i'd like to climb in the seat of your excavator and sit there for $10 an hour, federal government says i can't, he's got to pay me some $28 rate or whatever that is, the government has no business interfering and no business driving up these costs. and 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've 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've worked with

them and alongside them on projects, but the quality of merit shop work cannot be challenged. we do it according to the specification, according to the plans, according to the architecture and according to the engineer. and if we didn't meet those specifications we'd reject the work and pay the penalty. my company doesn't take penalties but we do quality work and the people i associate and bid with. i get worn down on the quality of workmanship and am proud of the merit shop. i think free market should set the wages. labor is a commodity like corn or beans or oil or gold and the value that needs to be determined by the competition supply and demand in the workplace. i urge the adoption of the gosar amendment and i'll certainly support it and be happy to carry this on all throughout this whole appropriations process and i yield back the balance of my time. i would be happy to yield. mr. dicks: i want to know if i can get the address, you didn't mention that, of where it's

located, your company. mr. king: it's in chiron, iowa, been there since 1975 and we're a second-generation company. thanks. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from iowa yields back. does anyone else seek recognition? the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. >> i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will read. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. altmire of pennsylvania. at the end of the bill before the short title, insert the following new section, use of american iron steel and manufactured goods, section,

mom of the funds appropriated -- none of the fund appropriated or made available for this act may be used for the construction, modification, maintenance or repair of vehicle or pedestrian fencing along the southern border unless all the iron, steel and manufactured goods used in the construction modification maintenance or repair are produced in the united states. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from alabama rise? mr. aderholt: i reserve a point of order to the gentleman's amendment. the chair: the point of order is reserved. the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for five minutes. mr. altmire: i thank the chair. and i rise in support of american steel in maintaining security along our southern border. this amendment is actually very simple. i'm 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'm sure my colleagues

are aware the buy american act which was enacted in 1933 already requires the government to purchase domestic goods for 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'm 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 a 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. and i would yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from alabama rise? mr. aderholt: i insist on my point of order. the chair: the gentleman will state your 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 21. the rule states in pertinent part, an amendment to a general appropriations bill shall not be in order if changing existing law requires new determination. i would ask for a ruling from

the chair. the chair: does any member wish to be heard on the point of order? the chair is ready to make it so. in ruling the chair find this amendment includes language requiring a new determination where certain items are produced. the amendment therefore constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2 of rule 21. the point of order is sustained and the amendment is not in order. for what purpose does the gentleman from louisiana rise? >> to present an amendment. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. >> i want to reserve a point of order on this amendment. the chair: point of order is resebbed. 24e clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. scalise of louisiana. insert the following, none of the funds may be used to the funds may be used to implement executive order