the chair: on this vote the yeas are 273. the noes are 150. the amendment is agreed to. the unfinished business is a request for a recorded vote on

the amendment offered by the gentleman from texas, mr. sessions, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. sessions of texas. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 218, the noes are 204, the amendment is agreed to. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on offered by the gentlelady from wyoming, mrs. lummis, on which further proceedings were postponed. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mrs. lummis of wyoming. the chair: those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is again a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly

prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 238, the noes are 177, the amendment is agreed to. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment offered by the gentleman from texas, mr. carter, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 1 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. carter of texas. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device.

this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 238, the noes are 178.

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 242, the noes are 180. the amendment is agreed to. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from north carolina, mr. price, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment.

the clerk: amendment offered by mr. price of north carolina. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 264, the noes are 157, the amendment is agreed to. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california, mr. sherman, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. sherman of california.

the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 208. the noes are 312. the amendment is not agreed to. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona, mr. gogh sar, on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: an amendment offered by mr. gogh sar of arizona. -- mr. gosar of arizona. the chair: those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 183. the noes are 234. the amendment is not agreed to. the committees will be in order. -- the committee will be in order.

the committee will be in order. for what purpose does the gentleman from alabama rise? mr. aderholt: mr. chairman, i move the committee do now rise. the chair: those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the committee rises. mr. speaker, the committee of

the committee of the whole house on the state of the union having had under consider h.r. 2017 has come to no resolution thereon. the speaker pro tempore: the chairman of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports that the committee has had under consideration h.r. 2017 has come to no resolution thereon.

for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? mr. webster: mr. speaker, by the direction of the committee on rules, i call up house resolution 288 and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: house calendar number 43. house resolution 288.

resolved, that at any time after the adoption of this resolution the speaker may, pursuant to clause 2-b of rule 18, declare the house resolved into the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for consideration of the bill h.r. 2055, making appropriations for military construction, the department of veterans affairs, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2012, and for other purposes. the first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. all points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. general debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on appropriations. after general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. points of order against provisions in the bill for failure to comply with clause 2 of rule 21 are waived. during consideration of the bill for amendment, the chair of the committee of the whole may accord priority in recognition on the basis of whether the member offering an amendment has caused it to be printed in the portion of the congressional record designated for that purpose in clause 8 of

rule 18. amendments so printed shall be considered as read. when the committee rises and reports the bill back to the house with a recommendation that the bill do pass, the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except, one, proceedings under section 2 of this resolution, and two, one motion to recommit with or without instructions. section 2, the proceedings referred to in the first section of this resolution are as follows -- a, after disposition of any amendments reported from the committee of the whole, the chair shall put the question on retaining the title beginning on page 25, line 14 department of veterans affairs. and b, after disposition of the question under subsection a, the chair shall put the question on engrossment and third reading of the text comprising those portions of the bill as perfected, one, retained by the house pursuant to subsection a and two, not

subject to proceedings under subsection a. section 3, in the engrossment of h.r. 2055, the clerk shall conform title and section numbers and make related corrections to cross-references in the event a portion of the bill is not retained pursuant to section 2 of this resolution. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida will be recognized for one hour. mr. webster: for the purpose of debate only i yield the customary 30 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from florida, mr. hastings, pending which i yield myself such time as i may consume. during the consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for debate only. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks . the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. webster: mr. speaker, i rise today in support of this rule and the underlying bill. this house resolution 288 provides for an open rule for consideration of house

resolution 2055, the military construction and veterans affairs and related agencies appropriations act of 2012. this provides opportunities for the members of the minority and majority side to participate in that debate. the rule places no limitation on the number of amendments which there -- that may be considered as long as they comply with the house rules. similar to the open rule that was passed yesterday on the department of homeland security appropriations bill, the difference is in section 2 of this rule, it allows for a separate rule on a title addressing the department of veterans affairs. in doing so we're delivering on the speaker's promise to reduce the so-called omnibus bill, and give members the opportunity to have an up or down vote on cabinet level departments contained in the bill. part of the speaker's and rules committee chairman's is to have a more open and transparent

process. in the end that's what this does. it's an open bill -- open rule that allows for debate and for amendments. i think every member of the congress was elected by a group of people in their districts, citizens in their district and they assumed that that member would be able to come and debate and offer amendments to bills at will. sometimes that's not the case. but it is the case in this particular time. every one of us come here, whether democrat or republican, liberal, moderate, conservative with the desire of affecting policy in a real way and the only way is if the process is more open and honest and transparent and that's what this rule does for this particular bill. it's been a long time, yesterday being one of the first times, but a long time since we considered and appropriation bill with an open rule. this bill does not have a -- it's truly, i would say, a bipartisan effort.

it's one of the first times and i am very delighted to present this -- the underlying bill through this rule because it is such a bipartisan effort. even the rule itself was adopted by unanimous consent by the rules committee, which is something i have not experienced in my first five months here. so that, too, is something very, very different. i think that's the way the process should work. i think we got to work together. we got problems in this country and they're deep problems. if we don't work together we'll never solve them. i think this may be the start of something that's different than the way it's been. the democrats on the appropriations committee said these things about this bill. the bill sufficiently funds critical military construction, family housing and quality of life improvements for our brave men and women in uniform and their families. the bill meets the need of our military veteran communities for the coming year. that really states the purposes of this bill, and so to me it has met the needs, not only in

the eyes of republicans but also democrats. the care for our service men and women is not a partisan issue. it's not. and it's proven out in this particular rule and this bill. i'd like to stress that there are many programs funded at previous levels or above previous levels and kept the promise to -- made to our men and women in uniform. it increases veteran affairs budget for things like veterans' benefits and health programs by $8.7 billion to $127.7 billion. it includes full funding for v.a. compensation and benefits, education benefits, rehabilitative -- rowcational rehabilitation and housing programs. it includes $5 2 billion for -- $52 billion for v.a. housing for medical support, compliance and medical facilities. this advanced funding will ensure that our veterans have full access to their medical

care needs regardless of whether we stand in our annual appropriations process. . once again i rise in support of this rule. they have worked to provide us with a fiscally responsible appropriation bill that promises to meet the needs of our military. our construction, and our promises to the american veterans. i encourage my colleagues to vote yes on the rule and yes on the underlying bill. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from florida. mr. hastings: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hastings: thank you very much, mr. speaker. i thank my good friend from florida, mr. webster, for yielding the customary time. as he has said, the military construction and veterans' affairs appropriations act for fiscal year 2012, provides $144 billion in appropriations for veterans programs, military

construction, projects, and other agencies and programs. this bipartisan effort, and mr. webster underscored that and i echo his sentiments in that regard, brought democrats and republicans together to craft legislation that provides the necessary funds for important military construction projects as well as improve the quality of life for veterans and military families. one of our colleagues who no longer serves here would be very proud of this measure, he and mr. dicks and others worked together for years, but i know ike skelton spent the greater portion of his career working to improve the quality of life for veterans and military families. so i pay homage to him that i have the privilege of presenting this measure on the floor. it increases overall funding for

veterans health and benefits programs, ensuring that service men and women who have dedicate the themselves to our con-- dedicated themselves to our country will continue to receive the benefits they deserve. this legislation provides $14 billion in military construction for a wide range of new, upgraded, and improved housing projects for members of the military and their families. this funding also includes important upgrades for military medical facilities and defense department education facilities located both here, at home and on bases around the world. the department of veterans affairs has provided a total of $128 billion in budget authority , an increase of almost $9 billion over last year. this legislation ensures full funding for essential v.a.

compensation and benefits programs in areas like education, vocational training, and housing assistance. it also includes $52 billion in advance funding for the v.a., ensuring that veterans will continue to have full access to their medical care needs, regardless of where congress stands in the annual appropriations process. this underlying legislation includes funding for important national programs and activities such as arlington national cementary, the american battle monuments commission, the u.s. court of appeals for veterans claims, and the armed forces retirement home. however, mr. speaker, i'm a little disappointed to see that the majority included an unash ash an unfortunately and politically divisive amendment

regarding project labor agreements. in february, 2009, president obama issued an executive order to allow federal agencies to consider requiring the use of project labor agreements in connection with large-scale construction projects. the executive order did not mandate the use of these agreements. in fact the order explicitly states that federal officials have the option to determine if these agreements are ripe for a project. unfortunately, the committee adopted an amendment to the underlying legislation that prohibits funds from being used to implement this order. effectively blocking agencies from even considering such labor agreements. these labor agreements are useful to promote the economy and efficiency in federal procurement practices, project

labor agreement as a prehire agreement that establishes the terms and conditions of employment for a specific construction project, and it can be a useful tool to ensure coordination of large-scale projects involving multiple employers. the executive order still allows for competition in contracts and subcontracts, contains guarantees against strikes and similar job disruptions, and provides mechanisms for management and labor cooperation. but while the executive order does not mandate the use of project labor agreements, the language adopted by the committee rules out that possibility all together. the executive order ensures that construction projects are built correctly the first time. on time, and as a result on budget. frankly, this is an

inappropriate and unnecessary so lidization of this appropriations bill and i believe in the end will simply add cost to the taxpayer through a less efficient procurement process. at this time, mr. speaker, i would like to point out that i'm also troubled by the provision regarding guantanamo bay detainees. this legislation indeed all of the appropriations bills are going to include provisions to prohibit funds to renovate, expand, or construct facilities in the united states in order to house guantanamo bay detainees. let me say the same thing i said during last year's appropriations cycle when similar language was included. the language in this bill is not going to solve the problem of what to do with the indefinite detention of individuals at guantanamo bay.

the debate over guantanamo is missing the larger picture and that is the need to reform our entire detainment policy. as i have maintained the proble. without a system of justice to deal with suspected terrorists wherever they are held, we are left with a broken system that has been a significant recruiting tool for al qaeda and other groups. we need to deny them that image of america. we need a judicial process that accomplishes three things. one, protects our national security by holding and prosecuting those who have committed crimes or pose a threat to our country to uphold international standards of human rights. and three, strengthens our nation's image as a country that

upholds the rule of law and does not resort to arbitrary justice even while under threat. underlying legislation is the second appropriations bill this cycle to contain provisions relating to guantanamo. i expect that the remaining bills also will include this language. at some point soon we are going to need to move beyond trying to legislate this matter into appropriations bills and instead deal with establishing new and appropriate policies and guidelines to bring our national security needs in line with our historic national values. mr. speaker, the underlying legislation contains essential funding for critical military construction programs and for our nation's veterans. it is fitting that we consider this legislation so soon after memorial day when the sacrifices made by so many service men and

women are still on our minds. veterans deserve our thanks and our admiration and we owe them the necessary resources to meet their health care, education, and housing needs. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from florida. mr. webster: i yield five minutes to the gentleman from florida, mr. nugent. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida is recognized for five minutes. mr. nugent: thank you, mr. speaker. i also thank my friend, my fellow floridian and rules member, mr. webster, for the opportunity to speak, in support of this rule and also support of the underlying legislation, h.r. 2055. which appropriates funds for military construction and our nation's veterans. mr. speaker, florida's fifth congressional district which i represent is home to over 116,000 veterans, one of the highest veteran populations of

any district in america. the funds we are talking about here today have a direct effect on the lives, on the men and women who proudly served our nation in uniform. this bill provides for full funding for the v.a. and health and education benefits. it also funds vocational rehabilitation training for those troops who come home for more with service connected disabilities. thanks to programs like vet success, these veterans can work with job counselors to develop skills necessary to find meaningful civilian employment. these programs also help connect veterans who are unable to work and give them additional training to allow them to be independent living in america. given the number of veterans living in my district, i'm lucky enough to have visited a large number of v.a. health and benefit facilities throughout my

district. during these trips i had the opportunity to see and visit with a number of physicians, nurses, and staff which these funds help keep on the mission of protecting and taking care of our veterans on a daily basis. i have also had the opportunity to speak with the true american heroes. those who answered the call for duty and put their life on the line to protect our country, our way of life, and our freedoms. mr. speaker, we as a nation owe our veterans a debt that can never be repaid. however, as members of congress we can assure that we keep our promise to our troops. h.r. 2055 fully funds the benefits that gives our veterans back a small measure of what they truly deserve. as a member of the rules committee, i'm proud of this rule. we are continuing to make the 112th congress the most open,

transparent congress the american people have seen in years. in fact, this may be the first rule that i have seen that was a voice vote, unanimously approving the rule. i'd like to thank the appropriations committee for their hard work on this underlying legislation that we bring this -- this rule will bring to the house floor. i spoke to about visiting -- to you about visiting hospitals within my districts. haley hospital, the v.a. hospital in tampa, i got to meet a number of those that have had serious brain traumatic injuries, amputees, those that have the ability to try to get their lives back on track after giving so much to this nation. i have point to the stars on my chest here that indicate i have

three sons serving. they were more concerned about me as a dad than their own physical deformities they are fighting to overcome. mr. speaker, as a father of three sons who are currently serving in the united states army, we have been blessed as a family and as a nation and as my older son came back over 18 months in afghanistan in combat, but for the grace of god he came back whole not like so many others that have served this country and given so much. so h.r. 2055 is a good bill and this rule is a good rule. i encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support them both. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida reserves. the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. hastings: i thank you very much, mr. speaker.

before turning over to mr. dicks, i'd like to point out that during the rules committee hearing, mr. sanford bishop, the ranking member of the subcommittee, raised a concern about the consequence of requiring separate votes on various parts of the bill. we feel that this is a serious issue and we intend to continue to monitor the process closely as we consider the remaining appropriations bills. mr. speaker, i'm very pleased at this time to yield three minutes to my good friend, the distinguished gentleman from washington, mr. dicks, the ranking member of the appropriations committee. . mr. dicks: i rise in reluctant opposition to this rule. i know many members, especially members of the minority appreciate the openness of the amendment process. my concern lie elsewhere with this rule.

namely that this rule for the first time requires a separate vote in the house on title 2 instead of following the regular order process. mr. speaker, i believe this procedural change sets a very bad precedent for the appropriations committee and for the house as a whole. . toties cregsearg appropriations. over the years that i have served on this committee, those jurisdictions have been changed, broadened, narrowed, switched places and we have created new subcommittees to address the current need, such the homeland security subcommittee following the terrible events of 9/11. there have been realignments such as the be a list of the v.a.-h.u.d. subcommittee for

others to compete within the same bill for annual funding. we now fund military with veterans. they have every tool available to them to change the jurisdictions. we need not change the way we consider these bills on the floor and complicated a fairly straightforward process members are already familiar with. as ranking member of this committee on appropriations i must also focus on the impact this change would have on our entire process. especially our process of reconciling these bills with the other body. the theoretical defeat of a title compromises the position of the house in conference committee negotiations. now, i don't think that will happen on the milcon-v.a. bill. however, in some instances, the house may reject a title in

that circumstance. how does the house proceed to conference with the senate on that particular bill? we cannot just decline a fund an entire title and then impon to negotiate its terms with the senate. striking a title of an appropriations bill will limit the house's ability to negotiate anything in that title by limiting the scope of that conference to only measures approved by both chambers. mr. speaker, i'm grateful for the open amendment process this rule provides, but do wish we would stick to true regular order for consideration of this bill. and i just want to also add that this is a good bill and it could be a little better. i think this is a bill that should be passed overwhelmingly. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the ranking member yields back. the gentleman from florida. mr. hastings: i'm prepared to

indicate to my colleague that i'm prepared to close at this time. so i don't know whether you have other speakers. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida, the democratic side, is prepared to close. the gentleman from florida. mr. webster: i'm prepared to close so so i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. mr. webster: i do. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida reserves. mr. hastings: thank you very much, mr. speaker. at this time -- so soon after commemorating memorial day and honoring our nation's veterans, we all can be pleased by the level of support, bipartisan support provided in this legislation for essential veterans programs. we all know that they deserve the very best support our nation has to offer, and i'm pleased to note that democrats and republicans came together to craft legislation that

provides the necessary resources for veterans and their families. as i pointed out, i wish that the language relating to project labor agreements was not in this bill. i believe that president obama's executive order gives rightly federal officials flexibility in determining the most cost-effective measure in completing large-scarle construction projects. the executive order simply provides option. the language in the bill provided by the majority closes those options off. i believe this will be costly and should not be included in the underlying legislation. so, too, must this congress deal reasonable with the issues i spoke of -- reasonably with issues i spoke you have regarding guantanamo

guantanamo. we must ensure that the -- guantanamo bay. we must ensure that the united states upholds the rule of law, remains true to the ideals of our democracy and has flexibility in its counterterrorism policies to ensure an effective national security strategy. i urge my colleagues to vote yes on the rule, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida yields back. the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. webster: thank you, mr. speaker. as you heard me say earlier, my republican colleagues and i are committed to providing a more open and transparent and accountable process here. and today's bill is a monumentable step towards that right direction. and it's an example of a big desire within our own speaker's heart to change the way things work here in washington.

the underlying bill has bipartisan support, went through regular order. it was provided an open rule to allow republicans and democrats alike to bring up their ideas and debate them, even some that have been brought up by the minority here, those are brought up in a way that we'll have an opportunity to amend at a later date. i yield. mr. dicks: can the gentleman explain why all of a sudden the new majority has decided to have a separate vote on one department and risk the possibility of going to conference, say, with military construction, but not with the veterans affairs? what is the purpose for this? especially with an open rule when you can vote on any provision in the bill. mr. webster: in doing so we are delivering on the speaker's promise to reduce so-called omnibus bills to a smaller,

more understandable bill that gives members the opportunity to have an up or down vote on cabinet level departments contained in the bill. i will tell you this, i experienced the same thing. i used to be a leader of a group in florida which was known as the house of representatives. and the speaker there, we did the same thing. it was the first time ever, and i always knew, a lot of people questioned, can you divide up the different appropriations and send them to a senate who may have a smaller yes you can. and basically all we did was break up the conferences. the conferences stayed exactly the same. the members were appointed and two bills, let's say, instead of one, was sent to a particular conference while the senate added their one and they were combined at a later date and passed. it can work. i promise you, i know it's new, i know it's different. i know you probably would question that and there are some things -- mr. dicks: do you think it's a good idea? mr. webster: i do believe it's a good idea and the reason i believe it's a good idea, i think there was some angst

about looking at a large package at one time. and this is just an opportunity to break it up. i don't think it changes anything. i think it gives us an opportunity to actually scrutinize in a better way. mr. dicks: you could have another subcommittee. you could have a subcommittee do veterans administration and one do homeland security. anybody thought about that? mr. webster: i don't know. mr. dicks: thank you. i appreciate the gentleman yielding. mr. webster: i reclaim my time and i'll start where i left off. anyway, the vote on the rule, which provides an open and transparent process which makes no limitations on amendments where ideas and policies will rise and fall on their merits is an awesome opportunity for this house to speak its will. not just an up or down vote on one bill, but an up and down vote on every amendment in order to perfect the bill.

the clash of ideas is a good thing. as we debate these ideas and we hear them on the floor of the house and then we have an opportunity to vote on them, it makes a good bill a better bill. this is what the american people expect from their elected officials. it is an expectation that is fulfilled by the rule and produced in the underlying bill. i encourage all my colleagues to join me in supporting passage -- this underlying passage of this bill. for over two centuries our u.s. military has protected america from both our enemies and the enemies of our friends. the voter -- the valor and dignity and courage of our men and women in uniform remains strong from valley forge to desert storm, to operation enduring freedom. it is due to the lives selflessly lived and lost in defense of our country that we have the privilege to stand here today free and grateful.

so thank you, veterans. thank you for -- and i, too, am glad this happened just a few days after memorial day because it is a great way to remember the people that have given their lives for our country. i yield back the balance of my time and i move the previous question on the resolution. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. without objection, the previous question is ordered. the question is on adoption of the resolution. all those in favor say aye. all those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the resolution is adopted. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. pursuant to house resolution 287 and rule 18, the chair declares in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the further consideration of h.r. 2017. will the gentleman from georgia, mr. gingrey, kindly take the chair?

the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for further consideration of h.r. 2017 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill making appropriations for the department of homeland security for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2012, and for other purposes. the chair: when the committee of the whole rose earlier today, the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from texas, ms. jackson lee, had been disposed of and the bill had been read through page 92, line 7. for what purpose does the gentleman from oklahoma seek recognition? >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 42 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. cole of

oklahoma. mr. cole: mr. chairman, i ask that the reading be dispensed with. the chair: without objection. mr. cole: mr. chairman, in april, a draft executive order was circulated. it would force companies as a condition of applying for a federal contract to disclose all federal campaign contributions. in my view, if implemented this executive order would lead to a significant politicization of the federal procurement process. instead of a company being evaluated and judged on its merits, their past work experience, the ability to complete the government contract in question, this executive order would introduce the potential they would be evaluated politically as opposed to professionally. it's never a good idea, mr. chairman, in my view to mix politics with contracting. my amendment would prevent the president from implementing the proposed disclosure requirements. congress actually considered something similar to what the

president is proposing in the 111th congress, the so-called disclose act. it's instructive to me that that congress, the majority of which in both houses were controlled by our friends on the other side, decided not to implement such a requirement. frankly, i think doing so now by executive order is effectively legislating through the executive branch. the objective order in question that's being considered would not in fact lead to more objectivity in the bidding process, and it could potentially chill the constitutionally protected rights of people to donate politically to whatever candidate, political party or cause they choose to do so. it's worth noting that nothing in this amendment would affect the current federal disclosures under the law. not trying to change things. we're not trying to let people do something they can't do now. we're simply trying to make sure that political

contributions and political activities never move into the contracting process. pay to play has no place in the federal contracting process and requiring disclosures of campaign contributions for federal contracts does just that. mr. chairman, i would respectfully urge that the amendment be adopted, and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman may not reserve. mr. cole: i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from north carolina. mr. price: mr. chairman, i rise in opposition to the cole amendment and -- the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. price: i move to strike the last words. the amendment before us is a legislative attempt to circumvent a draft executive order which would provide for increased disclosure of the campaign disclosures of contractors. it would require federal contractors to disclose more

information about their political contributions than they currently provide. . particularly those contributions given to thirty party entities. some say they oppose this effort because additional information could be used in fairously to create some kind of enemies list. in other words they argue that companies should not disclose more information because people in power could misuse that information to retaliate against them. i just think there are fundamental problems with this premise. under this logic, all campaign disclosures would be bad, not just the new ones. government contractors already disclose contributions and expenditures by their pacts. and those who contribute to them. contributions by the officers and directors of government contractors are also required to be disclosed. should we eliminate those provisions, too? of course not. the information is required to be provided already in law.

and the executive order that the amendment would circumvent simply enhances the quality of that information. more than 30 groups, including nonpartisan, nonprofit organizations like democracy 21, the project on government oversight, many others have concluded that the draft executive order would enhance transparency and decrease corruption. these aren't the only groups that support the exec tiffer order. two weeks ago a coalition of institutional investors and investor coalitions collectively managing more than $130 billion in assets also wrote to express their support. in their letter they explain that corporate political activity presents significant risks to shareholder value. and transparency allows investors to put together in a more complete picture of the various risks to our investments. so, mr. chairman, as the "los angeles times" said in a recent

editorial, disclosure is the solution not the problem. i believe that is the case. i urge members to defeat this amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. kingston:00 thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in support of the cole amendment. i do think there are questions about what are the motives, why should you have to tell the federal government absolutely everything in our society today when you just bid on a contract. i see some good in it. the gentleman mentioned the "l.a. times" article. i think it made some good points. i also see how there is the devil that there's too much information out there. the other thing is this is a major change and possible encroachment on your constitutional right of first amendment freedom of speech as to who you get to. so if we are going to make this

the law of the land, public policy, it really should go through legislative process. hearings and testimony, let everybody have something to say about it instead of just one more executive order from the administration. so i think we should adopt the cole amendment and i would be glad to yield back my time unless mr. cole wants any of it. with that i yield back. thank you. the chair: the gentleman from georgia yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington rise? mr. dicks: i rise in opposition to the -- the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. dicks: thank you. i, too, am concerned about this amendment. especially when these campaign contributions are given secretly . our system has been improved by having public disclosure of political contributions. i think the more the public

knows about where the money's coming from, the better off the citizenry is. so i just support the ranking member, mr. price, who gave a very complete description of why we are against this amendment, and i urge its defeat. 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 oklahoma. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair -- mr. cole: i ask the yeas and nays. the chair: the gentleman has asked for the yaints -- yeas and nays. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from oklahoma will be postponed. for what purpose does the

gentleman from texas rise? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. gohmert 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 for the new construction, purchase, or lease of any building or space in the district of columbia except where a contract for the construction, purchase, or lease was entered into before the date of the enactment of this act. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized for five minutes. mr. gohmert: thank you, mr. chairman. under this amendment no funds would be made available by this act for the new construction, purchase, or lease of any building or any space in the district of columbia except where a contract was entered into before the date of the enactment. in the district of columbia right now, the federal government had exactly 304

leases at the start of this year. these leases covered more than 23.6 million square feet. this bureaucracy has grown beyond the bounds of being reasonable. the federal government in addition to the 23.6 million square feet that it leases, also owns 109 buildings in the district of columbia, and that doesn't even include all of the department of defense buildings because those are administered by -- other than the g.s.a. the 23.6 million square feet come at a cost of around $1 billion every year to the taxpayer. here we are in financially

troubling times and we need to send a message back to america. we know you're tightening your belts. we know that states and municipalities are having to tighten their belts, and we get it here also. the appropriations committee and the chair is to be applauded. they have done a wonderful job on this bill. there is an amount zeroed out for new building space in a specific area of this bill. it takes that good step and goes one step further and says no funds made available in this act can be used in any way for construction, for lease, or building out any space in the district of columbia. it also should be noted that

every cubicle, every desk we add in the district of columbia ends up requiring states and municipalities to add space there. they have to put somebody in that space because every time we add a desk with a bureaucrat behind it in the district of columbia, they have to justify their existence. they have to create requirements for people back in the states or in the municipalities to respond so that they can justify their existence in the district of columbia. the federal funds that might be used for new construction, or new leases to add to the 23.6 million square feet of space already under lease and 109 buildings not even including the department of defense buildings,

that money could be better spent reducing the federal deficit or protecting our homeland in other ways. let's let america rebound. let's let america build back before we build or lease one more square foot in washington, d.c. with that, mr. chair, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina rise? mr. price: mr. chairman, i rise in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. price: mr. chairman, this amendment would prohibit any funds in this bill to be used for new construction, purchase, or lease of a new building or space in washington, d.c., in the fiscal year 2012. the life of this bill. if adopted this amendment as i read it would, or could do several things. first of all it would not allow

d.h.s. to renew leases in the washington, d.c., area which means the leases would lapse,ing leafing d.h.s. employees without offices to work in. and subjecting the federal government to lawsuits because the lessors would have no choice but to begin litigation for damages to include costs to evict and lose rent. the amendment might require d.h.s. to break current construction contracts due to a lack of funds if a new purchase or lease is required. it would not permit the g.s.a. to condemn facilities that the d.h.s. occupies if that were necessary. therefore it forced d.h.s. to maintain occupancy until follow-on leases might be executed in 2013 or further down the road, or alternative space could be identified and prepared for use. the amendment as i read it might not permit d.h.s. even to reconfigure its current facility

space to provide seats for the new staff being hired, particularly for some of these new functions that are going to require reconfiguring such as cybersecurity and intelligence missions. and then we need to ask, mr. chairman, what happens if a d.h.s. facility in d.c. has a fire or flood? and we can't use it, this amendment would prevent, as i read it, would prevent rebuilding if a new construction contract was required as part of that rebuilding. as it might well be. the questions just go on and on. this is not a well advised or wise amendment. it's far-reaching, it has negative implications, and i urge its rejection and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington the ranking member -- mr. dicks: i rise in opposition. if i could ask the gentleman from texas, the sponsor of the amendment, a question, mr. gohmert, if i could ask you a

question. why, just the district of columbia? there's federal buildings in virginia and maryland, surrounding the whole area. why just the district of columbia? mr. gohmert: the intent is that since this is where so much construction and leasing has been done, that that's where it needs to stop. that the bureaucracy here in washington has expanded to the point that this was a good place to draw the line. if the gentleman is wishing to extend that across the country, -- mr. dicks: i'm not interested in that. why just the district of columbia when this whole area here is -- has many different government buildings, both in maryland and virginia, which are proximate to the district of columbia. mr. gohmert: if the gentleman would like to add those to this amendment i would be glad to accept that. mr. dicks: let me also ask the

gentleman, on the point that mr. price made about leases, do you see that a situation would occur that if a lease is expired, once this amendment was enacted, and signed into law, i doubt it will be, but that the -- that a person couldn't redo a lease? what would you do in that situation if you couldn't build office space or you couldn't lease office space? mr. gohmert: if the leases were appropriately drafted, then normally they would have an option for additional time. that under this amendment would mean that that was a contract entered into prior to the enactment of this bill. and so that wouldn't be a problem. if it is a major lease expiring, then heaven forbid but they would actually come back to congress and it would be a form of sunset for them to justify

why they need to have a new lease. i think it's a great way of having oversight over groups that don't have their own building. we have leased massive 23.6 million square feet of space. let's sensor some of that or otherwise justify why you need another lease. mr. dicks: reclaiming my time. i feel that mr. price has the better argument here and i urge defeat of this amendment. . 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 noes have it. the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. mr. gohmert: mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman from texas. mr. gohmert: i ask for the yeas and nays. 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 california, mr. issa, rise? mr. issa: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by in issa of california. at the end of the bill for the short title insert the following -- section, none of the funds made available in this act may use to promulgate regulations that will result in private sector job losses to the united states companies. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from alabama rise? mr. aderholt: i reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment. the chair: the gentleman reserves a point of order. the gentleman from california is recognized for five minutes in support of his amendment. mr. issa: i thank the gentleman. this is a critical amendment. if not now then when? if not on this bill then when are we going to get to looking at american job creators in a positive way? there's no question that this amendment is held to a point of order, that it will be seen again and again by those of us that care about jobs in america.

website that my committee launched, americanjobcreators.com, has already seen countless examples in the thousands now of different ways in which regulatory excesses have in fact cost jobs. moreover, what we're seeing is a pattern, a pattern of no cost benefit analysis being done in any way, shape or form on new regulations. promulgating regulations if they don't cost jobs, if they are a net benefit to the economy wouldn't be a problem, at least not overall. but in fact we have had e.p.a. administrator, the former mineral management service, now ocean energy, the assistant secretary of interior, and countless more before our committee each of whom seems to be muddled about cost benefit on the regulations they create.

they often say, of course, we do cost benefit. then if you say, what do the cost benefits show on a particular regulation, they're never familiar with it. it is in fact very clear that we know that we are costing jobs. the estimate by the small business administration, i repeat, the estimate by the u.s. small business administration is that regulations cost $1.75 trillion or about $8,000 per employee, perhaps as much as $10,000 per employee. not every regulation that cost money needs to in fact not happen. but it certainly should be a decision of the congress and not an unelected individual somewhere in a well-windowed office with beautiful carpetting deciding on their own to have guidance or rulemaking that cost american jobs. the department of homeland security is one of the mostance lahr organizations.

they -- are the most ance lahr organizations. they -- most ancillary organizations. this is an agency that is so, so excessive that they even found that sending requests to political employees who redacted or simply didn't send them out was ok. that's the kind of thing we need to deal with here in appropriations. and if not in appropriations, then in broader legislation. my amendment simply seeks to force back to congress the responsibility for regulations that cost jobs. if a study is done and it doesn't cost jobs, it would go forward. the fact is that most of our laws require some cost benefit analysis, but since they're able to do it without ever formalizing it or waive it because they say they don't believe it would happen, we don't have that kind of fact. an amendment like this simply says if you're going to cost

american jobs, come back to congress. with that i would urge the passage of this amendment, strongly believe that with 9% unemployment and in california 11% and more in other areas, it's time for us to say don't pass a new regulation that costs jobs unless you're willing to bring it back to congress. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. does the gentleman yield back the balance of his time? does the gentleman from california yield back the balance of his time? does the gentleman from california yield back the balance of his time? mr. issa: i'd like to know if they are going to insist on their point of order? the chair: does the gentleman yields back the balance of his time? mr. issa: i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: does the gentleman insist on his point of order? mr. aderholt: we insist on our point of order. i'd like to make a point of order against the amendment because it constitutes legislation in an appropriations bill and therefore violates cause 2 of rule 21. it says an amendment to a

general appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law. then it requires a new determination. i ask for a ruling from the chair. the chair: does any other member wish to be heard on the point of order? the gentleman is recognized. mr. issa: mr. chairman, i believe that in fact you will rule, if allowed to, on this point of order. it is unfortunate that our rules allow appropriators to legislate when they want to but don't allow us to bring sensible reform when we believe it is necessary. i am not legislating. i am limiting. but i recognize that the ruling is inevitably going to go against us. i will endeavor to bring this to the attention of the body at every opportunity and we'll be drafting regulation -- a bill that would change the whole regulatory format. i would hope those who say on a technical basis they cannot support us today even though they know that regulations are costing american jobs every

day. we'll support legislation had a would change this across government. with that i ask unanimous consent to -- the chair: does any other member wishing to be heard on the point of order? -- wish to be heard on the point of order? mr. issa: i withdraw my amendment. the chair: without objection, the amendment is withdrawn. for what purpose does the gentleman from alabama rise? mr. aderholt: i wish to be heard on the point of order? the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. aderholt: i wish to yield to the gentleman. mr. fortenberry: appropriate funds are provided for the 287-g program in this bill. the federal government must have well-equipped partners to address interior enforcement concerns. however, the bill does not state specifically all funds

for the 287-g program which would allow for robust law enforcement capacity. i want to ensure the record reflects that the administrators' request is $87,321,000 and that this bill supports the president's request. citizens nationwide are rightfully demanding secure u.s. borders and enforcement of our immigration laws. the desire in many places across this country are to strengthen interior enforcement -- the chair: the chair wants to remind the gentleman from alabama he must remain on his feet. the gentleman must proceed. mr. fortenberry: the desire in many places across the country to strengthen interior points to an overwhelming perception that throughout the nation the federal government is not as effectively as possible addressing serious security concerns such as the pernicious criminal activity related to illegal immigration in the border region. we need to better empower states and local law

enforcement and the 287-g is a very important program. in 1996 congress enacted section 287-g as an amendment to the immigration and nationality act to provide necessary immigration enforcement assistance to state and local law enforcement entities. it authorized the department of homeland security to enter into agreements with states and local law enforcement equipping them through thorough training to perform important immigration enforcement functions. local law enforcement agencies are often closest to the problem. today, immigration and customs enforcement has trained more than 1,240 state and local officers nationwide pursuant to 287-g programs. since 2006, the 287-g program, according to i.c.e., has resulted in the identification of more than 200,000 potentially removable aliens, mostly at local jails. 69 separate local law

enforcement agencies participate in the program in 24 states including colorado, connecticut, delaware, florida, georgia, maryland, minnesota, missouri, nevada, new jersey, new mexico, north carolina, ohio, oklahoma, south carolina, tennessee, texas, utah and virginia. and i.c.e. it appears has worked very diligently since 2009 to fix concerns with the program by strengthening public safety and improving consistency. in my home state of nebraska, there is interest at the local level. the city of fremont, in particular, has voiced enthusiasm for this program and could directly be impacted by increase of funds to help their community. ensuring full funding for the 287-g program preserves the high spirit of federalism and empowering states to work together with the federal government on a critical homeland security matter. mr. speaker, mr. chairman, america has been very for a long, long time a just and

generous nation in regards to immigration policy. opening her arms to persons, particularly those facing social, economic or even political persecution who wish to come here and make a new contribution and a new community to the well-being of their own lives. this should remain the hallmark and spirit of sound immigration policy, but uncontrolled borders are a serious threat to united states' national security and with laxed interior enforcement security, we are not a just and generous nation in regards to immigration policy. 287-g should be funded at the administration's request. mr. aderholt: will the gentleman yield? mr. fortenberry: i yield. mr. aderholt: the gentleman from nebraska makes some good points. i support immigration laws which includes partnerships with the states and law enforcement through the 287-g program.

as the gentleman from nebraska noted, 287-g is an important tool among many and gives i.c.e. a force multiplier for immigration enforcement. i thank the gentleman from nebraska for his attention to this important program. and i will continue to work with him as we move this bill forward. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida, mr. mica, the chairman of the transportation and infrastructure committee, rise? seek recognition? mr. mica: mr. speaker, i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. mica: mr. speaker, at this point i was planning to offer to the house and to the committee for its consideration as we consider one of the most important appropriations measures that the house will consider and that's for our homeland security. i was prepared to offer an amendment here at this juncture

to limit some of the funds that are made available to the transportation security administration, and my intent is, i think, well-founded in having the opportunity to review t.s.a.'s operations. actually, one of the individuals responsible for creating t.s.a. back after the events of 9/11 when we had to put in place a transportation security measure and operation for the nation, which we didn't have prior to that. when we set up t.s.a. and particularly where we provided for a new way of aviation passengers' screening, we actually created two models. one, a private sector model, which is a federal set of

guidelines and screening and then federal operation of the screening but also a second model which was government setting the rules and protocols for the operation by using private screeners. and we set up five models of different size category airports to test this and see how it would work and testing all federal models against the federal model with the private operators. i can tell you that after testing this several years after operation testing, not by me but the government accountability office, they found that in fact the private screeners performs statistically significantly better than the other screeners. t.s.a. wasn't happy with these findings and it captured a great deal of the market

inactivity. so they did everything they could to distort some of the findings and change the way the airports were tested. even so, about 16 airports now operate with private screeners under federal supervision. tomorrow, our committee -- and this is the transportation committee -- investigations and oversight committee will reveal the most comprehensive report at looking at these operations and we're comparing apples and apples to see which ones runs better and more cost-effectively for the taxpayer. and without a doubt it the report will show a substantial savings. in fact, within five years if we converted 38 of the top airport to federal operations where, again, federal oversight with private screening, we could save $1 billion. and i was prepared to try to transfer earlier in the bill

double the amount of money. $144 million in here for private screening operations under federal supervision that we currently have and double that amount of money which could have gotten us much more passenger screening and do it much more cost-effectively for the taxpayers and actually most of our initiative -- positive initiatives that come from these private screening models. in any event, that was my intent, but this point in the bill i can only take money from the overall screening activity or limit it. after i strike the last word i have an opportunity to offer an amendment that will in fact limit the amount of money for the all federal screening model, not taking it out of the t.s.a.,

but giving discretion to the administrator and hopefully applying it once again -- it. once again we start the private screening under federal supervision, actually it continues, as i speak, all 16 airports continue, but we restart opening it at other airports. i want to make certain that we have the funds available to accomplish that goal and that's the purpose of my amendment. so i'm not taking away from the overall money to t.s.a., i'm limiting the amount of money that can be used and now we have a federal screening force i'm told of some 41,000 give or take screeners, this bill authorizes up to 46,000 i'm told. so we stay within the caps. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise?

for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? mr. mica: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. mica of florida. at the end of the bill insert the following, section of the amount meat available for screening operations under the heading, transportation security administration, aviation security, not more than $2,760,503,458. may be used for screening personnel, compensation and benefits. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from alabama rise? mr. aderholt: i'm ok. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina rise? mr. price: i rise in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman has not been recognized on his amendment yet. the gentleman is going to be recognized i thought -- mr. price: it's my understanding, mr. chairman, maybe the gentleman can clarify

it, my understanding was that the five-minute address we just heard was his address to the amendment. the chair: no, the gentleman rose to strike the last word and at the close that have he then offered his amendment so the gentleman has a right to be heard based on the fact that he is now just offering his amendment. he had not offered it before. the gentleman reserves a point of order. the gentleman from florida is recognized for five minutes in support of his amendment. mr. mica: thank you, mr. chairman. i do want to apologize to the members of the committee because we want to make certain that if we offered the amendment it was in the proper form as originally drafted, it was on a previous page. i understand from the parliamentarian that we could only do a limitation at this particular stage. so that's why i had the time to explain and striking the last word by position and some of the history of my involvement with this, it's not that i'm just johnny come lately on the floor

to do some mischief with t.s.a., it's that i have to actually create the agency, i want it to be effective, i want taxpayer money to be properly expended. but when i see the results and i see the way t.s.a. operates, you know, they started with 16,500 screeners on 9/11 and what failed on 9/11 was not the private screeners, it was the federal government because the federal government failed to put in place the rules, the protocols, the standards, the levels of operation. they were stalling for years, i found out, and never put them in place and that's something we had to do. but what we did is again we set up two models and airports had had the right to opt out from the very beginning and go to private screening under federal supervision. now we've been there, we've seen how it works. we have entire states that have

said that they want the opportunity to have the second model which is proven to be most cost effective, not just from dollars and cents but also from efficiency and effectiveness. this is all about the performance of t.s.a.. and the models that have been independently tested will show you that private screeners under federal supervision, again proper oversight, setting the rules, they perform better. so that's the purpose of this, is to set aside some of that money. t.s.a. came in and i think that the administrator, while well intended, was kept in the dark and fed a lot of mushrooms on what happens with these programs. and in order to justify 3,700 positions, administrative positions in washington, d.c., just in washington, d.c., $3,700 positions, making on average -- 3,700 positions making on

average $105,000 per person, imagine that, what we've created and another 8,000-plus administrators out in the field. but to justify those positions, what they did was they fudge and g.a.o. has also confirmed this, the facts on the cost of the private operation again under federal supervision of passenger screening. so all this does, it doesn't take any money out of t.s.a., it gives the administrator the discretion to have that money and he can use it for screening and we believe that with the pending applications, which this bill and your bill helps open up, we want to make certain that there are adequate funds available to do it in the most cost effective manner and that's what my amendment provides for. i understand, mr. speaker, that i'm not allowed to yield back any of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time.

mr. mica: how much time do i have? the chair: the gentleman has a minute and a half left. mike so again, the whole point of this -- mr. mica: so again, the whole point of this is doing the best possible job for security and stop and think about this. this bill provides $3 billion -plus just for screening, $3 billion. i think the total of this bill is what $8 billion? i'm sorry. i got -- the entire bill is $46 billion. but just for t.s.a. is how much? $7.8 billion, close to $8 billion for t.s.a.'s operation. and i wouldn't begrudge them a penny if it's in fact used properly for the security of our nation to make certain that people are safe in the skies. but i'm saying that this amendment does make certain that

for a very cost effective means of providing passenger screening we can do a better job, we'll have the money available and we won't rely on just the all federal model. i urge your support of this amendment and your consideration. the chair: the gentleman yield back the balance of his time? mr. mica: i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. does the gentleman from washington insist on his point of order? >> i withdraw my point of order. the chair: the gentleman withdraws his point of order. for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina rise? mr. price: mr. chairman, i rise in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. price: thank you, mr. chairman. i have been listening carefully to the gentleman as he described his intentions in offering this amendment and all i can do, i think all any of us can do is react to the amendment before us. not to hypothetical future amendments or future administrative actions and on the face of it i oppose this

amendment. the bill provides $3.03 billion for screeners, this amendment would cut funding by $270 million. if this amendment is accepted, t.s.a. would need to lay off 5,000 screeners, that's 10% of the current screener work force. it would also eliminate nearly all the new screeners hired over the past 12 months. these are screeners that are needed to support, to operate new security equipment. mr. chairman, there's no way around it, this would decrease security. it would lead to longer wait lines just at a time that passenger growth is rebound -- rebounding in our country's airplanes and we continue to hear from the intelligence -- airports and we continue to hear from the intelligence community about aviation threats. these threats are becoming more and more ominous, more diversified. why on earth would we want to cut back our screener force at this point? now, the gentleman has talked

about giving the secretary discretion to somehow make up for this cut in the private screener force. but there's really nothing in this amendment that grants such discretion, there's not any augmenting in this amendment of the private screener account, no -- nor is there any assurance that even if that account were to be augmented that the people that could be hired would replace one for one the 5,000 we're talking about laying off. so, just taking this amendment on the face of it, i think it is an amendment that would lessen aviation security and particularly undo a lot of the additional personnel and protections that have been put in place the last year or so. so i think it's a most unwise amendment and i urge rejection and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the ranking member of the full committee, the gentleman from washington, rise? >> i rise in opposition to the

amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> again, this amendment comes to us late, the gentleman from florida happens to be the chairman of the transportation committee. mr. dicks: he could write a bill in his committee to change this, all these things he's, you know, bemoaned here on the floor, could he fix in his committee and bring the bill to the floor and we could have a debate and a discussion. but instead he comes here with a meat axe approach, 10% across -- 10% reduction in screeners, also i think the gentleman's figure of 3,700 people i think are screeners here in the nation's capital. so again, i just wish that the gentleman would use his jurisdiction and his committee and hold the hearings, bring t.s.a. up here and do the job that the chairman of the transportation committee should do and get this thing fixed. if it's so good, why don't you fix it?

and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from alabama rise? mr. aderholt: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. aderholt: i yield to the gentleman from florida. the chair: the gentleman from florida voiced. mr. mica: i thank the chairman for yielding to me for a second. let me try to clarify the record. the information i have on the number of screeners from our investigative staff director is -- 49,553 screeners. that's the figure that was given to us by t.s.a. the number of screeners is 49,553. mr. dicks: would the gentleman yield? mr. mica: just wait a second, i'd be glad to yield because i'm on mr. alder -- aderholt's time.

again, if mr. aderholt would like to do that, i'll try to leave time. the other point, too, when i said 3,700 administrative personnel i'm talking about t.s.a. bureaucrats here, i'm not talking about screening force, not one screener am i including in that. i'm just talking about t.s.a. headquarters or t.s.a. administrative personnel making on average $150,000 a year. now -- $105,000 a year. some of these screeners are starting at the lowest wage. the money isn't going for professional screeners. although this bill, i understand the average pay is about, if you calculate $3 billion divided by 49,000, you come out i guess close to $60,000 and there's costs for benefits and all that we'll grant you. but let me try to make the record clear that, again, we have 3,700ed a minute

straightive t.s.a. people -- administrative t.s.a. people in the headquarters or associated here in the washington area, not screeners. mr. dicks: will the gentleman yield? mr. mica: i yield to the gentleman from washington. mr. dicks: your amendment wouldn't do anything about those managers because it's aimed at the screeners themselves. and also the bill already reduces screeners to 46,000. mr. aderholt: reclaiming my time. i yield to the gentleman from florida. mr. mica: again, the justification of most of the 3,700 who fed the administrator mushrooms and kept them in the dark was in fact you had to have someone to supervise all these people. we have another 8,000 supervisors out in the field. when you go through the airport line sometime, i challenge you to ask some of these people what they're doing standing around, 1,000 standing around. the whole point of this is there is another model.

we created that in 2001. we had 16 airports, five initially, the biggest one in the minority leader's district, ms. pelosi. it set the standard, the examples for the rest of us. tomorrow we'll show a report and we've examined position by position with san francisco airport against l.a.x., because we wanted to compare apples and apples, and you'll see the incredible savings. you'll see the efficiency which is about twice as much than twice as screeners. taking the money and the positions out of the federal and making them available to the discretion of the administrator to use them hopefully for this program which is private screeners under federal supervision which works so well. mr. aderholt. mr. aderholt: reclaiming my time. mr. dicks: will the gentleman yield? well, again, the gentleman is

the chairman of the transportation committee. you're the one that helped create this bureaucracy. why don't you fix it and bring a bill to the floor so we can have a chance to vote for it? mr. aderholt: reclaiming my time. mr. dicks: why don't you come to the -- mr. aderholt: i yield to the gentleman from florida. the chair: the gentleman from alabama controls the time. mr. aderholt: i yield to the gentleman from florida. mr. mica: again, i'd love anything -- i love nothing more than have jurisdiction. i don't have the jurisdiction. i do have jurisdiction for some oversight which we've -- mr. dicks: homeland security does that. mr. mica: yeah, they do. when homeland security comes marching through the pasture here and try to make the changes that are necessary. we discussed with your staff the changes that we believe are necessary. but i don't have that jurisdiction. i wish i did, but i'm doing all

i can to work with the appropriators and you guys in your committee, excuse me, your professionals are doing all they can within the limitations of your jurisdiction. i'm doing my little oversight bit. and then we have the homeland security committee that will march forward with their authorization. and i will be there -- i will be here for that parade. i yield back. mr. dicks: thank you. mr. aderholt: i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from florida. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the noes have it -- for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? mr. mica: i request the yeas and nays. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from florida will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from alabama rise? mr. aderholt: i move that the

committee do now rise? the chair: the question is on the motion. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the ayes have it. accordingly, the committee rises. the speaker pro tempore: mr. chairman. the chair: mr. speaker, the committee on the committee of the whole house on the state of the union having had under consideration h.r. 2017 directs me to report it has come to no resolution thereon. the speaker pro tempore: the chairman of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports that the committee has had under consideration h.r. 2017 and has come to no resolution thereon.

pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the house will stand in

quite the house is in recess. when they come back, they will -- >> the house is in recess. when they come back, they will resume work on the spending bill for fiscal year 2012. the house this week kicked off consideration of the annual spending bills, beginning with homeland security. how is it going so far? >> as you can see, they are taking a good amount of time on this. there are a lot of amendments. it has been a lively debate. >> what will be next in line for the house on the 2012 spending bill? >> they will take of the military construction and veterans affairs bills. they could do this as early as friday, depending on how much more time they spend on these bills. >> what is the total number of spending bills the house will take up? looking into next week, what do

you see coming down the pike? >> they would like to take up everything before the recess. some of them are easier than others. there is support for veterans affairs -- that should not take too long. homeland security is not taking too long. as they move down the list from the easier bills to the more difficult ones, we will see how many they are able to get to the floor. >> to house republican leaders have a target date or a plan for getting these spending bills wrapped up? >> mostly probably by september. the democrats on the appropriations committee, while objecting strongly to what is in the bills, have been cooperative in moving them along, letting them get to the floor, and putting in amendments. they may get the bulk of this done through the summer. >> in terms of the spending

levels, do the spending bills reflect the fiscal restraint that house republicans promise when they came into power this year? >> there is a very funny statement, a white house statement on the two bills, pointing out military construction on the homeland. we do not know the actual level of cuts that republicans will be willing to agree to this year. i think that's at this level would be difficult, but they would not be out of the ballpark of reality. is maybe where the republicans are aiming now are cuts that they could actually get democrats in the white house and the senate to agree to. >> what about the senate? when are they going to pick up the senate -- the spending bill ball? >> there is a lot of work going on behind the scenes. appropriators and their staff are taking a look at things. they really want to see the

number coming out of the debt ceiling negotiations. they're sort of getting a jump on things. without having a top line #set in spending, they are moving ahead on the bills. they have a number they are using for their own purposes. get're really working to that to the floor and discussed. >> the debate has begun spending bills for fiscal year 2012. thank you for the update. the house did voice and approval over the role for military construction and the va bill, but they have not finished up on homeland security. we expect more work on both bills when they returned. they are in recess as house democrats are meeting with president obama at this hour. live coverage here on c-span when the gavel back in. >> today marks the first time when our legislative branch in

its entirety will appear on that medium of communication through which most americans get their information about what our government and our country does. >> several times today this has been referred to as an historic occasion. whether or not it will be an historic occasion is, i think, a subject for the judgment of history. >> this week marks 25 years of televised coverage of the u.s. senate. on the first day in 1986, c- span2 was carried in a little more than 6.5 million homes. now it is in over 89 million homes. watch all of our coverage online at the c-span library. it is all searchable, cheryl and free. -- shareable and free. this weekend, authors on native

americans, sexual politics, the taliban, the beginning of the 20th century, clarence darrow and more. also from chicago, in-depth, with a live studio audience and your calls and questions with law school professor eric poser. sign up for schedule e-mails online at c-span.org. you are watching c-span, bringing you politics and public affairs every -- politics and public affairs. every morning, it is washington journal, our live program covering the news of the day. weekdays, watch live coverage of the u.s. house. weeknights, congressional hearings and policy forms. also, supreme court oral arguments. on the weekend, you can see our signature interview programs. on saturday, "the communicator's," and on sundays, "q&a," and "prime minister

questions." c-span, washington your way, a public service created by america's cable companies. >> house democrats are meeting with president obama right now. he met with republicans yesterday. both meetings come after it the house rejected a bill tuesday that would raise the debt ceiling without additional cuts. john boehner says that any increases must be met with spending decreases. he said other wise it sends the message that congress does not want to stop the "spending addiction" in congress. this briefing is about 10 minutes.

>> all and all, it has not been much of a recovery. the american people are struggling with high gasoline prices, high food prices. jobs continue to be scarce, and frankly, the rebound in the economy has failed to materialize. yesterday we told the president what many americans are thinking, that the economy is not creating enough private sector jobs, and washington continues to be a big reason why. listen, this issue has been and continues to be the focus of our meetings. last week, we put forward a plan that builds on our pledge to america, and we ask the president to take a look at it. this blueprint recognizes that spending or borrowing our way to

prosperity has not worked and it will not work. that is why a release of statements yesterday signed by more than 150 economists who agree that in order to create jobs, any debt limit increases must be met with even larger spending decreases. because increasing the debt limit without spending cuts and reforms would send a message to our job creators that we are just not serious about stopping the spending addiction going on here in washington. the american people will not stand for it, which is something that you have heard me say since the obama administration first raised this issue back in january. we have also passed a budget that backs up this position, paying down the debt over time without raising taxes. we actually have a plan that eliminates our budget deficit and pays off our debt over time.

it is no surprise that yesterday our members continued to press the case to the president. where is your plan, mr. president? it is pretty clear to us that if we do not act soon to get our fiscal house in order, the markets will act for us. remember, the warning from standard and poor's six weeks was about the washington failurei have said for months im ready. our members are ready. and i think the country is ready. and the time to act is now. the white house is truly committed to its own goal and timeline and should a real plan on the table as soon as possible. we have talking to -- we have talked to the vice president and majority leader and we have been productive.

but the fact is we have not seen enough progress from the white house. if the white house wants to get things done it is time to step up to the plate and get serious. i think we have demonstrated to the american people that we are ready to do with the big challenges that face our country. i hope the president will join as soon. questions? >> in talking about libya here for just a moment, is there concern that this plan would not have passed if you had put it on the floor. and number two, and that is why there is consideration of the turner resolution? >> we will meet with members this afternoon to talk about libya. we will see what our members have to say. but i expect this issue will be resolved tomorrow.

>> which one is going to survive when it is all said and done? what we will have a conversation with our members today and see what they have to say about it. >> what do you make of this controversy involving twitter and congressman wiener? >> he will have to talk to representative winner about that -- you will have to talk to representative wiener about that. >> [unintelligible] >> he will have to talk to representative wiener about this issue. >> mitt romney is in presidential contention. because he once one of the original architect of what is now what the republicans call obama care and he hasn't changed

that position, i'm wondering how you feel -- and he has changed that position, i'm wondering how you feel, how comfortable are you with him running your party? especially with the movements like the tea party that say they're going to stop him. >> i have got all i can do as speaker of the house. my folks -- really, my job is to deal with that giant debt problem and get back to work. the primary election for president will sort itself out. >> in view of the authorization bill last week, there was this mission forced transfer enhancement fund of $1 billion, which was killed before it passed. i think $700 million of it was authorized before congressman blake's amendment killed that.

will these be your marked? -- earmarked? >> the house has made clear in our rules that there will be no earmarks. we have gone to great lengths to make clear to our members what the rules are and the fact that there will not be your marks. -- earmarks. word toing to keep our the american people. >> i wanted to ask you about the cyber attacks on google. google said they think it originated from china. are you aware of any accounts that might have been compromised and you have any reason to believe the chinese government might be behind it? >> i am concerned about the reports that i just heard about. i am confident that the fbi will be looking at this.

we just do not have the details yet. i am hopeful that we will soon. >> mr. speaker, on your decision to hire [unintelligible] are you confident that this is not in violation of the act? second, [unintelligible] >> de you think those measures are an indication that maybe support is turning for the u.s.

abroad? >> i think there's a lot of concern given the budget deficit, given our debt. i think every penny that the congress spends is getting a lot more scrutiny. in addition, there is, as i said several weeks ago, her -- members are a bit weary about the amount of money being spent in iraq and afghanistan and in libya. as a result, we really are wondering what the vital national security interests are there. i really do believe that the president needs to speak out. in terms of our mission in afghanistan. our mission in iraq. our mission in libya. and the doubts that our members

have, frankly, are reflective of what they are hearing from their constituents. i think the president has a role to play here. and the president really needs to step up and help the american people stay -- understand why these missions are vital to the national security interests of our country. >> >> [unintelligible] >> i have been supportive of the president's goals in afghanistan. i have been supportive of the surge in troops in afghanistan. and i said then and i will continue to say, as long as the president is listening to our diplomats and commanders on the ground, i will support him. i do not know what the correct number should or should not be, but he continues to work with our diplomats and generals on the ground.

he will have my support if he does that. thank you all. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> the house today has been working on the homeland security spending bill for fiscal year 2012. more work ahead. they're also working on the military construction and veterans programs bill. they approved a rule for that earlier and possible action later today in the house when the gavel back again. we will have live coverage when they do here on c-span. >> today marks the first time when our legislative branch in its entirety will appear on the medium of communication through which most americans get their information about what our government and our country does. several times today this has

been referred to as an historic occasion. whether or not it will be an historic occasion, i think, will be the subject of the judgment of history. >> this week marks the 20th year of the televised senate. today it is available and over 89 million homes. watch over 21,000 hours of senate coverage on line at the c-span video library. if it is all searchable, cheryl, and free. it is washington, your way. >> about an hour ago, the white house house democrats are arrived for a meeting with president obama to talk about the debt ceiling and conditions that need to be met to pass an increase. president obama met yesterday with house republicans. we are expecting to hear from democratic members of the house when they wrap up the meeting.

we hope to have those live for you when they brought of that meeting. in the meantime, barbara lee was our message -- our guest this morning on "washington journal ." host: on your screen is representative barbara lee, democrat of califnia. congresswoman, the democrats are meeting with president obama today. what is your message to him? guest: my message, of course, to e president -- and i am certain he agrees with -- we must not allow medicare to be on the table to be cut. we must preserve medicare. and also we must create jobs. the economy, of course, we see some glimmers of hope that we see setbacks in many communitie gec setbacks. in many communities the rate is 16%, especially communities of color. but you have to have direct investments in job creation, in infrastructure, in education, in scientific research. there are ways we can create

jobs and create them right away. our roads need repair, our bridges needed repair. and we have to do that. i know the message is going to be communicated to the president that we also need to begin to end this war in afghanistan. this is costing 100 billion-plus a year. our young men and women have done a phenomenal job and it is time to bring them home. it is time to reduce our military fit front -- footprints that afghanistan and use the money to create jobs here at home. preserving medicare and creating jobs and helping to move our country forward is going to be the message. >> congresswoman, the republicans met with the president yesterday. they are pushing for deficit reduction, for spending cuts. would you be willing to accept spending cuts? guest: i a not willing to accept spending cuts that would cut of the most lovable and hurt

those who are unemployed -- that would cut the most vulnerable. but let me tell you what i would support. we are looking at a pentagon budget that is really almost out of control. $750 billion-plus. again, we have iraq, afghanistan, and n libya. we have to look at how we ensure national security in a smart way. we talk about subsidies to the oil companies. you have revenues that can be raised there. to just talk about spending cuts without talking about going back to the drawing board as it relates to the bh era tax cuts for the very wealthy, for millionaires and billionaires, to me, that is unacceptable and i know many of us are not going to go for that. we have to do something about the debt ceiling and go on and move to raise it.

host: do you feel as a member of the progressive caucus, sidelined? guest: absolutely not. when you look at the capri -- progressive caucus, our two co- chairs have done at some of his job. i co-chaired. we have the people's budget that was balanced, that the not cut medicare, which was a budget that creed job and provided for a rational national security strategy it really is a mainstream budget that reflect the priorities of the american people. what i have seen over the years, the progressive vision, a progressive caucus, which is of course the largest caucus in congress, is really -- reflects the values and priorities of the american people. we have now over 80 members. when you look at many of the

bills that have been passed or have come close to passing - i have some of the toughest bills and efforts on afghanistan. 81 members signed a letter that we forwarded to the present as saying we should have a significant and sizable drawdown of troops beginning in july. when you look at many of the measures coming forth, the progressive cauc has held firm, has held steady and it definitely has been against these oil subsidies and also the progressive caucus has held firm in not eliminating medicare, which republicans want to do. host: do you feel you have got to board from democratic leadership -- nancy pelosi a president obama -- do you feel you have gotten support? guest: in rms of afghanistan? did general, absolutely yes. if you look at the progressive caucus and you look at the votes

that were cast and you look at what the president is engaged in -- of course, he has the weight of the world on his soldiers -- on his shoulders. we have our jobs to do as progressives and as members reflecting the people. this is the people's house. our leadership gets it. our leadersp is a leadership that brings together the caucus. of course, we have many different caucuses in congress. have a very diverse democratic caucus. and i think our leadership -- and i have been here 13 years -- our leadership has been very fair and has made sure that the progress of the voice is included in the deliberations. we always may not win and, of course, our mission may decide to take a different course, but what i can say is they have listened. we have been at the table. many of our amendments have been included and they recognize the progressive caucus is a very strong caucus and our voice is very loud and we do reflect the

will of the american people, and we are willing to work in a bipartisan way and with all members of the caucus to see medicare preserved and to help create jobs that our country so desperately need host: what time did you meet with the present? guest: this afternoon, i believe at 2:00 or 2:30 p.m. representative barbara lee is our guest. the first call for congresswoman lee comes from glenwood, indiana. guest: don't cut me off. -- caller: don't cut me off. how're you doing? two things. the republicans are not going to let the president and anything.

second, the democrats need to get behind this president and help him. i and a first-time voter and i want to these democrats -- i'm a first-time voter. we need these jobs. so, thank you. guest: i believe what you have seen with democrats is an agenda that wants to ensure the erican people that we will preserve medicare. and i know the president wants to do that also. we have been working very closely with the president as democrats to create jobs for those who are unemployed and also to create jobs to help turn our economy around. we have not seen republicans, for with one job creation initiative. democrats have been burning for the job creation efforts. we have been trying to make sure the president understandsnd we support -- and he knows that -- his economic recovery efforts.

with the recovery bill, we have created millions of zit -- of jobs but also helped stop what would have been a depression. the president turned it around. of course democrats in the congress how to do that. we did not receive any republican votes for that. there are going to be disagreements. this is a demracy. and we have three branches of government. you can't expect constantly for everyone to walk lockstep. what you can expect is unity on behalf of democrats and held for the american be but in terms of mang sure senior citizens understand we ll not let medicare be touched and we will move forward to create jobs. host: from "the politico" this morning. paul ryan conference obama on medicare. he directly confronted president obama over democratic ridicule of his controversial medicare overhaul plan. while other gop leaders accused the president of demagoguery during a chilly bipartisan

meeting. ryan, wisconsin republican, stressed the president -- ask the president to stop describing his plant -- to say it is what it is. his budget cut medicare. yesterday in the homeland security -- which is a rule, a measure that came up on the floor, to establish the pameters for debate for the homeland security bill, they cut medicare again. so, i think what mr. ryan is doing is trying to figure out a way to back off of that now because i think they see the majority of the american people are seniors. young people support medicare. and we do not want to see it tinkered wit we don't want to see it on the table to be cut.

and naturallyhey would get very defensive because i think they could see what is happening in the country and where public opinion is. again, it is what it is. you can see they want to eliminate medicare. there have been votes cast to demonstrate that in the house and senate and another vote yesterday. that is what they want to do. host: the next call comes from scottsdale, arizona. steve, republican. thecaller: i took my daughter to the hospital yesterday, she was really sick with stomach flu. i cannot believe how bad -- every time you go there, there is so much waste involved, so much time spent. there are overcharging everything. i think the problem lies in basically, especially tse southern states, and they're all against the bill that arizona proposed, but they are trying to do something to save arizona.

i think there is a lot of trouble with the health-care industry right there at the hospital. they should go down -- the different congress people should go down and see how terrible things are. host: congresswoman lee, any comment for him? guest: i hope your daughter is doing ok. believe you me, i know what hospitals and emergency rooms are like. i have been in many with family and friends. that is one of the reasons why health care reform is so important and why we cannot let republicans roll it back. for the most part, the people that end up in emergency rooms do not have primary care. we want to prevent what you saw yesterday in terms of making sure that our citizens and people in our country are able to access to affordable, quality

health care with the primary care doctor or in a community clin. health care reform is so important, and many of us are drawn to try to continue to strengthen the -- are going to try tcontinue to strengthen the health care bill. and to ensure that all people in our country have access to affordable health care so we can avoid situations that you saw yesterday. many of the measures of the republicans would actually increase and exacerbate the problems of people who need health care. when you look at the fact that they have not created any jobs nor are talking about creating jobs, we are talking about people who are unemployed who are losing their health care. so what you saw again yesterday, many people who actually lost their jobs, lost their health care, so they end up in emergency rooms. that is unacceptable in the wealthiest and most powerful country in the world. host: joe tweaks to you, "is

medicare soerfect that they cannot be ttinkered with in any way? there are no improvement a no cost savings possible?" guest: we are going to keep medire as we know it and insure that our seniors have medicare. that's the point. i do not want to see any tinkering with medicare that will lead to what the paul ryan plan wants to do. that is either privatize or provide a voucher for medicare recipients to buy health insurance where they would have to come out of their pockets, hundreds, maybe thousands of dollars to access quality health care. so we need to preser medicare as it is and make sure that it is there for those who are seniors is sin citizens nowd those who will be very soon. host: next call from texas, herman, a democrat. caller: what i am afraid of is

that behind closed doors, when meeting with the president, why don't the democrats then not given to republicans' demands? what the republicans have done is they have kind of like taken from a piggyback, they stuck their hand in and day what the democrats -- we are going to force you to put your hand in their. you put your hand in there. take subsidies from oil companies. my next point is that we should change the way our credit scores are done because the housing market is down. many folks cannot get a loan now. they are not lending.

guest: sir, you are absolutely right. the democrats need to hold firm, and i'm confident democrats will hold firm because the public understands and we understand that medicare cannot be tinkered with and that we must preserve medicare and that we must not allow the republicans to dismantle medicare, which is what they want to do. secondly, as it relates to credit scores, so many people have lost their jobs and their houses, first of all. thmajority of the american people, that is the only equity, the only money, the only cash they can access throughout their lives, is the equity in their homes. thirdly, these scam known artists, subprime lenders, came into many minority communities disproportionately affected by the scammed loan artists -- by the scam loan artists. several years later, they lost

their homes. what we have to do as a government -- i believe we should have a moratorium on foreclosures. we have not figured it out yet. secondly, we should ask the credit agency to revamp the formula that they use when they establish credit scores. many people whoave lost their homes have been paying their bills all of their lives. when you look at their credit ratings, the rating goes down because they cannot pay their mortgage. that is not fair and it is not their fault. i think you're absolutely right, and i wish we had the backbone in congress to tackle the financial services industry so that we can say no more of this. you have to insure the consumers -- to ensure the consumers are treated fairly. in most instances, it is not their fault that they end up with a home in foreclosure and the debt that has been incurred as a result of wall street going

of muck. host: representative barbara lee is a member of the appropriations committee. she represents the oakland and berkeley area of northern california and began her political career as any intern -- as an intern. this tweet comes in for you. "california is a mini example of the u.s.. voters wanted government to take care of everything for them and look what happened." guest: i don't think voters want the government to take everything -- to take care of everything for that. i think they want government to be responsible and provide for the common good. voters what the priorities of government to ensure opportunities, to provide equal access to opportunities. voters want the government to make sure that the basics are there for the most vulnerable because not everyone has a fair

shot. we want equal opportunity for everyone. i think voters want medicare preserved. i think voters do not want to see republicans cut medicare. i think voters want to see tax dollars go into investment into our infrastructure and creating jobs. i think voters what affordable accessible health care networks. voters want to make sure that women and children and men, families, have the opportunities to live the american dream. so government, while i do not believe government can take care of all our problems, we certainly have as a government the responsibility and the duty to provide for the common good and to provide those opportunities so people can achieve the american dream host: next call for congresswoman barbara lee. at the rouge, louisiana,

republican line. caller: 1 comment and one qution. i agree with representative lee about the militarism of our country. we should secure our borders. secondly, and this is a question -- my ownepresentative from louisiana could not answer the question. why don't we usurp the power from the federal reserve and give it back to the representatives in congress to regulate and issue our currency? that way we can hold them accountable. it wl eliminate -- the federal reserve is a cesspool organition. nobody i talked to can name any member that creates the money because they're not even based in the united states. they are european-based people. nobody can hd them accountable. the voter can not hold a

representative accountable because the constitution guarantees that -- that is my question -- can you please answer that? guest: think the federal reserve has a responsibility, and certainly it can do better in protecting the financial entities in our country and should be consumer-oriented, a consumer-driven. in the past, the federal reserve, i believe, has not been too out of sync with the met majority of the amecan -- with the majority of the american people. in the financial-services industry, to have capital have access t mortgages. it needs to be more consumer- oriented. host: house majority leader eric cantor this morning was on t cbs "early show come out and this is what he had to say. "washington must demonstrate that it can put its fiscal house in order before the country will

seen the strong rip -- will see the strong economic growth necessary to create new jobs." guest: it sounds like he's putting forth a catch-22 situation that does not exist. washington needs to invest in providg for efforts to create jobs for the american people. when you look at the fact that we have an unemployment rate of over 9%, and in some communities come in communities of color, 11% to 16.5%, recorded, that tells me that washington needs to -- you have to have jobs so that people have money to spend. consumer

>> we are live from the white house.

>> you are watching democratic members of the house, john those leavingng th the white house. the president held a similar meeting yesterday with house republicans talking about the debt ceiling and conditions we needed to pass an increase. this is a live look at the white house as we may -- wait for members to come to the microphones. the house itself is expected to gavel back in shortly. they have been working on spending bills for 2012 and particularly homeland security spending, still some work ahead on that. also, the veterans program bill

for 2012. today, they voiced approval for the rule of the bill. we expect them to gavel back in between now and about 4:15 p.m. eastern.

>> congressman jim mcgovern there to the right and a number of other house democrats. they have been meeting at the white house and are just wrapping up a meeting about the debt limit. house republicans held a similar meeting with president obama yesterday. we were hoping to hold some -- have some comments on the meeting from president obama. >> about libya and afghanistan. >> i talked about afghanistan. i told the president that we needed to get out of afghanistan and i remind him that represent as last week had an amendment that call for accelerated exit strategy with regard to u.s.

forces. i told him that we are going broke paying for this war, that we are not paying for it. it is all off budget. we are barley $82 billion per month for just the military -- we are borrowing $82 billion per month for just the military. we are talking about how to reduce the debt. we ought to end this war sooner rather than later. >> what did he say? >> he said he was sympathetic. i did not get the assurance that the july hwhen he announces number of trips that there will be a substantial drawdown. -- troops that there will be a substantial drawdown. but i urge him to have a substantial drawdown. obviously, people like me want to end this war. we have a lot more work to do.

this war needs to come to an end. >> as far as afghanistan and libya -- >> i think people have had with afghanistan. they are tired of supporting a corrupt government in kabul. we have had to cut the fuel assistance for poor people in the u.s. in the wintertime because we cannot afford it, but we are an atm machine for president karzai. people have had it. we need to bring our troops home where they belong. >> were you satisfied with the response that you got? >> i got to ask the question. i'm glad i got to express my views. i'm not quite satisfied with the answer. i think we have a lot more work to do. i would prefer an assurance that there will be a substantial drawdown. that does not mean there will not be won in july, but i did not give that assurance. >> was and most of the

conversation on the deficit issue? >> yes, most of it was on medicare and the deficit, but look, the debt is tied to the war in afghanistan and iraq. we are borrowing $2 billion per month just for afghanistan. >> congressman jim mcgovern after the meeting of the white house with the house democrats and president, mainly about the debt ceiling, that certain things would have to be met to pass a debt ceiling increase. the congressman there just talked about afghanistan and libya. congressional officials say the house republican leadership is crafting legislation to allow the u.s. military to continue participating in the

lead up against libya. the ap rights that it would set up house members for a potential political tug-of-war in a showdown with president obama. the house is in tomorrow beginning at 9:00 a.m. they are in recess now, the u.s. house, waiting for democrats to return. when the gavel back in, the house is likely to resume consideration of the fiscal year 2012 spending bill for homeland security. they have worked on a number of amendments. there are still more ahead. there is still more work on military construction and the veterans' programs bill. they have just begun work on that. it will be approved for debate today.

>> a live look waiting at the white house for possible additional comments for democrats -- from democrat to have been meeting with president obama. he held a similar meeting yesterday with house republicans. the house will gavel back in momentarily, and when they do, more consideration of the spending bill, homeland security spending bill for 2012.

it is 3% less this year and 6% less than requested by president obama. the senate is out today. it is the first time in 30 years since they began coverage. looks like the houses gaveling back in now. consideration of h.r. 2017. will the gentleman from california, mr. dreier, kindly resume the chair? the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for further consideration of h.r. 2017 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill making appropriations for the sheet of homeland security for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2012, and for other purposes. the chair: when the committee of the whole rose earlier today, a request for a recorded vote on an amendment offered by the gentleman from florida, mr. mica, had been postponed. and the bill had been read through page 92, line 7.

are there any members who seek recognition?

the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from alabama rise? >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman needs to request unanimous consent as he already struck the last word. mr. aderholt: i ask unanimous consent. the chair: is there objection? hearing none, the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. aderholt: this is about supporting the most essential functions of the department of homeland security. the department of homeland security with all its critical missions is not immune from fiscal discipline. that's been the theme we have been talking about since we

started the bill yesterday afternoon. that means the department has to find the most cost effective way to meet its mission requirements. the american people quite honestly are demanding no less in this regard. i do want to again, this has been a long -- we of course started yesterday afternoon around 3:30, we went until about 2:30 this morning, we started again about 12:30 -- until about 12:30 this morning, started again about 12:30 this afternoon we're -- and we're continuing, it'll probably take us a couple more hours before we finish. a lot of people have done a lot of work to make this bill happen and to make it take place. i want to thank each of them for their hard work. again, the ranking member, mr. price, has been a true partner in this as we have worked together and i want to thank him for his contribution that he's made. also, i'd like to thank the full committee chairman and the

ranking member, mr. rogers and mr. dicks for their support. they have been very helpful as we've gone through this process and they have had to make some very difficult choices as they have to work with all 12 subcommittees. and so i want to congratulate them as we have gotten kicked off the start of a new appropriations season and we have -- we are nearing the first appropriation bill to enter the floor. i do want to take a moment and thank the committee staff for their hard work. namely, stephanie gupta and paul cox on the minority side and of course the majority staff has worked closely with the minority and we do appreciate their hard work but on the majority staff, jeff ashford, chris mallard, kathy kraninger, miles taylor, rebecca orr have all done a

tremendous job and of course last but not least, ben nicholson he serves as the clerk of the homeland security subcommittee on appropriations and they have done -- ben has done a tremendous job, has helped me up here as i have managed the time on this particular piece of legislation. also, on the appropriations staff, jennifer miller-robin -- jennifer miller, microbinson, also tim, they have been very helpful in making sure this process moves forward. as you can imagine, there's a lot of moving parts. i do want to thank mike, jennifer, and tim for -- and jim for their hard work and at this time, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields become the balance of his time.

the staff obviously delayed the process to be recognized here. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> i move to strike the last word. mr. price: i appreciate the chance here as we enter the homestretch of this debate to express my appreciation to the many colleagues and staff members who have brought us to this point. i want to commend chairman aderholt for this first voyage he's taken as the subcommittee chairman and the professional excellence he's brought to this, the careful process, the inclusive process, we're very grateful to him. we had a good full season of hearings and an open process. in the appropriations committee, a markup, and an open process here on the floor. that's the way appropriations are supposed to work so i do

commend the chairman and the leadership for that. we have had a good robust debate here. i certainly wish that we were in closer agreement on this bill. i have always believed that on appropriations, we should look out for the institutional role of this house in holding the executive accountable on a bipartisan basis no matter which party is in charge either here or in the white house. so when the partisan divisions that inevitably characterize our life here, our work here, when those partisan divisions are evident on appropriations, we try our best to overcome them. historically, we've tried our best to overcome them. that has been very difficult

this year and we have a bill that we're divided on. not on the entire bill, by any means. as i said in my opening statement yesterday, the chairman and the majority have done a good job in keeping the front line operations of the homeland security department intact, keeping those operations strong. where we've fallen down is, i believe, with an inadequate budget resolution that's given us an allocation that is simply inadequate and that's been compounded by the treatment of some disaster funds beyond the president's request, a refusal to designate those as emergency funds, so we're left with a bill that's severely squeezed. i won't elaborate on that more now except to say that this is the bigger picture we're dealing with and it's one we have to continue to work on. we will move on from this point today and be working of course

with our colleagues in the other body and with the white house to come up with a final product that hopefully does justice to our local communities especially, the immediate to keep faith with states and local communities who depend on us for a reliable partnership. >> would the gentleman yield? mr. price: i'm happy to yield. >> one of the things that worried me about this bill is the role the department of homeland security plays in cybersecurity. mr. dicks: and the fact that we have cut the s. & t budget worries -- the s&t budget worries me because there were a number of science and technology projects under way to help us deal with this threat to our country. i serve on the defense subcommittee, i served on the other subcommittees, this gives an asymmetrical advantage to

others, china, russia, iran, penetrating the networks of our nage defense companies. we had storied this week about lockheed, something that's been going on since the 1990's, and this issue worries me. i just am concerned. you have bioterrorism, the threat of nuclear weapons, you have the threat of cyberattacks. and this is one where we're vulnerable. we have critical infrastructure in this country where homeland security is supposed to be taking care of -- the defense department has a cybercommand, general alexander, n.s.a., and they've signed an agreement between -- between defense department and homeland security about sharing people so we get some of the expertise from the n.s.a. over in homeland security. and my concern is that we still don't have a real plan for our

utilities, our critical infrastructure in this country and this is something that homeland security has to be involved in and as i said, they take care of all the rest of the government, besides -- i ask unanimous consent to have two additional minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two additional minutes. does the gentleman yield to the gentleman from washington? mr. price: i'm happy to yield. mr. dicks: so the cybersecurity vulnerability, i think our financial institutions make a major effort at trying to protect themselves but i have been told that when you think about intellectual property over the last few years, $1 trillion has been stolen through these cyberattacks. from the free world to others. and some of these people are criminals, some of them are

acting under state authority. but this is one of those issues that affects -- that we're still vulnerable to. i hope that these dramatic cuts in science and technology won't undermine our ability to come up with solutions on this cyberissue. i also believe the administration, the president and his people and homeland security have a responseability to make certain that we have a plan and we have an approach and we work with the private sector in a way that will make sure we are protecting our critical infrastructure. i just urge you, mr. price, as ranking member, and the chairman to see if we can't keep -- make certain that we keep in -- in conference, keep some of this money in there for the cybersecurity program that

i know dr. o'toole is concerned about. mr. price: i thank the gentleman for his comments. i share the commitment to developing a more comprehensive approach to cybersecurity in particular and to the research and development budget in general. with that, let me reiterate my thanks for all who have brought us to this point on both sides of the aisle, for our fine -- for our fine staff we always depend on. the chair: the time of the gentleman has expired. mr. price: 30 additional seconds please? the chair: is there objection to the gentleman's request to be recognized? the gentleman is recognized. mr. price: at a time like this floor the bait when we had such a flurry of amendments from all sorts of sources we realize anew how dependent we are on our staff to stay on top of this and guide us and we are grateful to them.

the chair: the gentleman yields back. mr. price: i yield back. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado rise? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the gentleman has two amendments, which of the amendments -- mr. polis: this is the amendment, the number -- there's no number on the amendment. the chair: amendment number 53. the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 23. the chair: the clerk will suspend. mr. polis: 23. the chair: without objection, the clerk will report the amendment.

the clerk: amendment number 23 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. polis of colorado. 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 carry out section 287-g of the immigration and nationality act, 8-u.s.c.. the chair: is this the correct amendment? mr. polis: it is. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes in support of his amendment. mr. polis: i thank the gentleman. and thank the rules committee for allowing an open rule under this debate, including the offering of my commonsense amendment which would save millions of dollars by cutting funding to 28 7-g. something that's called the immigration enforcement program, that actually increases crime by expanding the mandate of our local crime fighting officials. this program effectively adds responsibilities which should be federal responsibilities to

local law enforcement so that they effectively engage in federal immigration enforcement. so instead of keeping serious criminals from threatening our communities, the 287-g program forces police to waste their time trying to figure out the immigration status of noncriminals as well as opening them up to charges of racial profiling which can be expensive to defend. instead we should use our precious dollars on these kinds of programs this bill has estimated savings of $6.4 million for the next year alone. the inspector general found this program costs $68 million. these programs force local law enforcement officers to follow and enforce federal laws, even though they're not trained to do so. that's why law enforcement officers from across the country have spoken out against it. the i.g. found 43 problems the first time they investigated

this last year. the biggest problem was that they found the program did not focus on noncitizens who actually posed a threat to public safety. instead, it focused on noncitizens who posed no threat to public safety. 287-g forces police officers to enforce laws they're not rain thatted to do which is why law enforcement leaders across the board tend to oppose this law. a chief from austin said it's a matter of resources and priority, my priority is dealing with criminals and terrorism issues, not dealing with civil matters. i point out that the failure to enforce our federal immigration laws is a federal failure, it is a national failure, it is a national disgrace. but the answer is not to add an additional burden to our hardworking men and women who are working at local law enforcement to keep our communities safe at a time when their budgets are being constrained. why are we not listening to our local law enforcement officials?

instead of cutting funding for firefighters and police, we should stop wasting taxpayer funds on failed programs like 287-g. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman has to yield back the balance of his time. does the gentleman yield back? mr. polis: i'd like to mange an inquiry as to how much time re-- make an inquiry as to how much time remains on both sides? the chair: the gentleman has two minutes remaining. mr. polis: ok. i'd like to show the detrimental affect of the program. you can see across arizona statewide incidences of violent crime have gone down 12% in the past 10 years but they have one particular sheriff who does a particularly bad job protecting his community, his name is sheriff apayo. he is one of the notorious abusers of the program in his community. crime went up 58%. so you have a 12% decrease and then you have this incompetent sheriff who has a 58% increase.

you might be -- he might be incompetent in other areas well but one of the reasons crime has gone up there is because he's diverted law enforcement resources to try to enforce federal laws that we at this body are irresponsibly ignoring day in and day out and that this bill does nothing to fix. in recent years local law enforcements have increased community policing efforts, working with our residents, both documented and undocumented to defeat violent crime and keep our communities safe. this is the reason why law enforcement officers across my community, including sheriffs, police chiefs are strongly opposed to 287-g which stretches local police forces beyond the breaking point and hinders law enforcement and causes real harm and danger to american citizens living in our communities. i call on congress to fix our broken immigration system, we need to enforce our federal laws, we need better border security. no one from either side of the aisle disagrees with that but it's time to stop playing

politics with this issue and stop trying to foist a federal responsibility into our already overtasked local community law enforcement efforts, increasing crime and putting innocent americans in harm's way at the risk of violent crime. i strongly urge a yes vote on my amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. carter: mr. chairman, i rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes in opposition to the amendment. mr. carter: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, i strongly support robust enforcement of our nation's immigration laws. i happen to be from the state that has more of the mexican border than any other state in the union. and we are very familiar with that border, we've been living with it for our entire lives and from the life of our state from before the time it was a state, when it was a republic. our law enforcement officers see a epidemic of lawlessness flowing across the southern border of the united states and

our law enforcement officers in our area want to be involved in protecting the life, liberty and property of texans. and they're perfectly willing to be involved in protecting the life, liberty and property of every american citizen. they are concerned, deeply concerned by what's going on the border. and they want to be involved and they have volunteered to go into the 287-g program which gives them the kinds of training that this congress believes and has made it a point to believe that they should have to know how to deal with immigrants who are looked upon as having special law enforcement needs. this is -- i don't know who's imposing this on the people of boulder, colorado, but it's not being imposed on anybody else that i know of. it's a volunteer program. and law enforcement officers go and seek 287-g training so they

can meet the standards that those who deal with immigration issues want them to know and understand. that's why we created 287-g, to make knowledgeable law enforcement officers at the local level who could be effective in assisting those who have the federal requirement and the federal duty to protect our borders. i only agree with one thing i heard from my colleague, i agree, we are failing at protecting our borders. and i would argue that this committee has done everything and continues to do everything that we can do to protect our borders and this bill protects -- does everything it can do and does not short the people who protect our borders any. because of the dangerousness that we are aware of on our southern border. i don't understand why enlisting volunteers to assist in law

enforcement would be offensive to anyone. now, if the folks in colorado don't want to be part of 287-g program, don't volunteer. this is not hard stuff. but you know, if you're a one or two loan border patrolmen out in the middle -- lone border patrolmen out in the bush county in texas, you have a lonely, dangerous job, and you have some people coming through for economic reasons and other people coming through that are clearly violators of the law of the state of texas and the laws of the united states and our law enforcement officers who believe in a their oath of office, to protect the people that they are there to protect, they each volunteer for this program so that they can assist the border patrolmen in the effort both of the economic immigrants and the criminal immigrants that come across our border. and don't tell a law enforcement officer that's thank he's not happy to see a sheriff when he sees a body of armed men packing

packs across the open country in texas. this is a good program, it's a program that is effectively trained law enforcement to understand the rules that federal agents have to play by and still gives them the authority to assist people who need their assistance. i would argue that the safest part of the texas border is a part of the border where local law enforcements and local sheriffs and operation stone guard understand and others, the safest part is where local law enforcement has joined with federal law enforcement to enforce the laws of this land. and i think anything short of that is leaving resources on the table that will protect the united states of america. so i very much oppose the gentleman's amendmenani very much hope that our colleagues will realize that we need every resource available and in my opinion even troops to protect the american border and make sure american citizens and their property and their lives are

safe. so i urge my colleagues to not support this gentleman's amendment, to oppose this gentleman's amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman has to yield. mr. carter: i yield back. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina rise? mr. price: mr. chairman, i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized for five minutes -- the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. price: i want to commend our colleague from colorado for altering this amendment and for calling attention to some of the deficiencies in the 287-g program and some of the ways that we need to do things better. i could have wished for an amendment, though, that gave more -- gave us more direction. if not 287-g, then what should immigration enforcement look like and what should the interface between the federal government and local authorities look like? i'm afraid the amendment doesn't really address that very con

cluesively. but i want to offer just a few reflections on the program and the ways in which i think we might transition to something more positive. in the area of immigration enforcement. the gentleman from colorado has already described the 287-g program, it delegates federal immigration authority to local law enforcement in many respects. supposedly to identify criminals in the communities that law enforcement polices. at the end of the fourth quarter of fiscal 2010, the 287-g program had established partnerships with 72 local jurisdictions. but both the d.h.s. inspector general and the g.a.o. have raised serious concerns about the 287-g program, particularly related to the lack of oversight by immigrations and customs enforcement and the fact that it was not really living up in many cases to its stated goal of focusing on serious criminals who pose a threat to the community. the inspector general found 33 major deficiencies in the

program last year and found 16 more when it recently reassessed the program. based on these concerns, i believe we do need to take a hard look at 287-g. make sure that that authority is being exercised properly before we simply appropriate more money for this program. now, mr. chairman, when i chaired the appropriations subcommittee on homeland security we pushed i.c.e. to place much greater emphasis on the identification and removal of criminal aliens. part of i.c.e.'s response has been the secure communities program which we fully supported and continue to do in this bill. since 2008 resources have consistently grown for i.c.e. to make progress in finding out aliens in local and state custody, removing them at the completion of their criminal sentences. this bill supports the continued expansion of secure communities which already covered many more prisons than 287-g. now, secure communities isn't perfect, either, by any means.

but at least it does draw that bright line between the federal role and the local role in immigration enforcement, it sorts that role out much more effectively than the 287-g program and i think we should concentrate on making the security communities program work well. it accomplishes the objectives of 287-g but much more efficiently. much less problematically, and without department advertising local police to enforce immigration law. that's a proposition that's rife with complications and potential abuses. so i believe and our subcommittee determined last year that it is desirable to transition from 287-g into the secure communities format, as it stands now, it's a duplicative program, it's a program that is highly problematic, secure communities, we work on that and make sure it works well, make sure it works responsibley, monitor it carefuly, but i believe it can more accomplish

the task more efficiently to identify and remove dangerous criminals from our communities which i think we very widely agree should be the main priority of immigration enforcement. with that i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment of the gentleman from -- for what purpose does the chairman of the committee on appropriations rise? >> to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> mr. chairman, for those who want to be sure that we send away from our borders illegal aliens who are criminals, surely would understand that the 287-g program gives us a hugely better opportunity to do that. mr. rogers: we've got a few thousand i.c.e. agents, border patrol agents doing a wonderful job, they are dedicated public

servants. but there are so few of them, relatively speaking, to deal with the millions of illegals crossing our border, many of whom are here in a criminal nature. a few thousand federal agents. by working with local law enforcement, we can multiply that by hundreds of thousands of enforcers of america's laws and get rid of the criminal aliens in this country. that's what 287-g empowers local authorities to do. if they don't want to receive funds to train their local official house to enforce the federal law, it's their choice, they don't have to do it, we don't make them do it. it's purely a local option. many communities have, i think 70-something.

however, they want to and they decide to seek federal assistance, it's there for them through this program, to help train their local officials. we need to better empower states and localities. and through this program, that's what we do. everyone admits we are failing to protect our borders. there's a consensus around that. we have not protected america's borders. yesterday, today, or probably tomorrow. the reason we can't do it is because we're outnumbered. there's not the federal manpower to stop it. if you're going to want to try to stop it, particularly keep criminal aliens out, i don't understand why you would not want to gain some extra help if the local law enforcement

officers properly trained under this program. and financed. i don't understand that. in 1996, this section was added as an amendment to the immigration and nationality act for the express purpose to provide necessary immigration enforcement assistance to state and local law enforcement entities. it authorizes the department to enter into agreements with state and local law enforcement, equiping them through thorough training to perform important immigration enforcement functions. local law ep forcement agencies are closest to the problem, are more threatened by the criminality involved and have a more -- and have more motivation to try to stop the criminal activity flowing across the border. to date, the i.c.e. agency has

trained more than 1,240 state and local officers nationwide pursuant to this program. since 2006, the 287-g program has, according to i.c.e., resulted in the identification of more than 200,000 -- of 200,300 criminal aliens, mostly at local jails. 200,069 localities participate, from minnesota, nevada, new mexico, new jersey, oklahoma, south carolina, tennessee, texas, utah, and virginia and others. they say -- those states say keep this program in place because it's helping us keep criminal aliens out of our local communities.

no longer selling drugs to our kids. no longer in any criminal activity in their communities. and so i urge the defeat of this amendment, this program works. it's the only program that has allowed us to engage tens of thousands of local law enforcement officers to help with this consuming problem we have with criminal aliens. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment of the quelt from colorado. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman rise? mr. polis: i'd like to request the yeas and nays. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from colorado will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota rise? >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. ellison: thank you, mr.

chairman. mr. chairman, i rise today to shed some light on an amendment offered by mr. king of iowa last night which the house will vote on later today. mr. chairman, the gentleman from iowa came to the floor at approximately 11:30 p.m. last night and under the open rule offered an amendment prohibiting any funds from the homeland security bill to be used for acorn and acorn affiliated community organizations. besides the fact that it's clear that acorn or acorn affiliated community organizations are not eligible for funds from the homeland security appropriations bill, because as far as i know acorn is not in the business of homeland security, in addition to going after acorn, the gentleman from iowa in his amendment goes after 300 organizations. let me quote from the ranking member, norm dicks, in his eloquent words in the debate

last night, quote, you're asking us how tissue this house to vote on something you haven't verified and you don't know what these groups are all about. mr. price, ranking member, also asked a good question and asked for specific information on what was the wrongdoing of these organizations. the gentleman from iowa's response was that he didn't know. to highlight the ridiculous nature of this amendment, the gentleman from iowa is asking this body to vote on an amendment to beat up on acorn and acorn affiliated organizations and can be the produce a single item of evidence for the record of wrongdoing by these organizations. one of the organizations listed and the reason i take certain umbrage at this amendment is that it's an organization in my own district known as minnesota's neighborhoods organizing for change. minnesota neighborhoods organizing for change are people who are known to me. they work hard every day. think work on foreclosure, they work on trying to get people

the vote they work with poor people in particular. let me read from their website to describe what they actually do, mr. chairman. minnesota neighborhoods organizing for change is a new nonprofit committed to building pow for the low income and moderate income neighborhoods through community organizing, civic engagement, political mobilization and education. n.o.c. is a member-funded and member-run organizations that take thopes social, economic justice issues that impact our community the most. whether it's huge issues like health care or bank reform or small neighborhood concerns like getting a stop sign installed at a dangerous intersection, n.o.c. members work together to apply their collective strength to get it done. this is a good, decent service organization and i resebt them being slandered the way they were last night. how did minnesota neighborhoods organizing for change get on the gentleman from iowa's hit list?

they used to be an affiliate of acorn. now they're an independent organization. i guess it's guilt by association. also, since the gentleman wants us to talk about acorn and community organizing groups on the homeland security bill, i think it's fair to talk about acorn. the house in 2009 voted to defund acorn. i voted against defunding it because it was unconstitutional and based on politics and guilt by association. it was a good vote and i'm proud i voted that way because a federal court, mr. chairman, a federal court in december of 2009 found the house ban on acorn grants unconstitutional. i'm proud i was not on the side of that unconstitutional vote. finally, the g.a.o. in a study released in june of 2010 found, quote, no evidence of acorn mismanaging federal funds. again, we held this organization up for ridicule and destruction and we, the

congress, were wrong. i ask unanimous consent to insert just a few item into the record regarding an individual who made a video that led to a lot of the attack on acorn. the chair: the gentleman can only make that request in the full house, not the committee of the whole. >> will the gentleman yield? mr. ellison: i will yield. mr. dicks: i hope other members watching tonight will look at this amendment offered by mr. king last evening. there are over 300 organizations. what the gentleman has said here is why mr. price and i so vehemently opposed this amendment. this is guilt by association. there's no question about it. and these various groups, some of which were just mentioned in the media, and they offer this amendment -- the author of this amendment said repeatedly when asked about these groups by mr.

price, he said i have no facts, i have no information, just the government oversight committee put together this list and we added some more names we found in the media. he couldn't describe one of these groups that had had a problem. so i hope that the members will look at this list. the chair: the time from the gentleman is expired. mr. dicks: i ask that the gentleman be yielded one additional minute. the chair: the gentleman is yielded one additional minute. does the gentleman yield? mr. ellison: i do. mr. dicks: this is a serious amendment. i hope it will be defeated. i appreciate the gentleman rising to tell us about this group in minnesota. and i'm sure that there are other groups here that are doing good work or helping people that are going to be banned from -- that would hurt them i think in other areas. people will say you're banned from getting a contract at homeland security even if

you're doing good work helping people, that i think is a serious mistake. i appreciate the gentleman yielding. mr. ellison: how much time do i have left? the chair: 20 seconds remaining. mr. ellison: let me say quickly, i putted articles about this whole thing, house ban on acorn ruled unconstitutional. acorn workers cleared of illegality. acorn did nothing wrong. all you need to know about acorn scandal is who is behind it. who is it? a young man named james o'keefe found guilty of a federal crime. i yield pack. -- i yield back. the chair: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california rise? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by ms. eshoo of california. at the end of the bill, insert the following, none of the funds made available may be

used to enter into a contract that does not disclose political expenditures. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman rise? >> i reserve a point of order. the chair: the gentlewoman from california is recognized for five minutes. ms. eshoo: i thank the chairman. mr. chairman, i rise today to speak about what i think is a very, very important undertaking. it deals with our democratic system and what works against it. my amendment would require that anyone that receives an appropriation a contract, doing business with the federal government produce full disclosure relative to political expenditures. i raise this because i think there is a dark corner of our system that is not being addressed. and it is an issue that is

about -- as much about deficit reduction as it is about our democracy. we know that there are political expenditures that are made. some are disclosed, some aren't. i think it's important to state that i think -- i really believe that this could have been a bipartisan agreement. it's important to remember that our republican colleagues were for disclosure before they were against it. in 2000, senator mitch mcconnel asked, quote, why would a little disclosure be better than a lot of disclosure. in 2007 on "meet the press," speaker john boehner said, we need, quote, full disclosure of all the money we raise and how it's spent. and i think sunlight is the best disinfectant, unquote. i agree with what the speaker said in 2007. but since then, our colleagues have changed their minds.

not a single republican voted for the disclose act and when i offered an amendment similar to this one in february, it wasn't even brought up, wasn't allowed to be brought up for a vote. since then, republicans have gone on high alert at the news that the president is considering an executive order to create the same kind of disclosure they used to favor. i know that the national chamber of commerce has weighed in and they've raised first amendment. i'm interest -- interested in this new effort and interest of the national chamber of commerce. i hope they'll come to my office an talk to me about forming a coalition on first amendment rights. this is not about that. this is not about that. and no one can say that with a straight face. my constituents are very smart. they can think for themselves. but even the smartest people can't make aec