Photo Identification Security Act

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman for a very useful amendment. The amendment would shift some funding around in ways that I think are well justified. It would apply $5 million to study the eradication of invasive cover species such as Cariso cane, Russian olive trees, salt cedar. It is a well-crafted amendment and I am happy to support it.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for raising this issue. And I am, of course, willing to work with him on this.

I do not believe the withholding of the $100 million is necessary or desirable in this case. But I believe we need to get the confirmation that you are talking about from CBP, and I am not eager to delay the release of needed funds, but I certainly am willing to work with the gentleman to make certain that we get the information we need and the confirmation that we need that the agency is on track.

Will the gentleman yield?

It is my expectation that CBP Air and Marine with enormous aviation and maritime operations, they should have as one of their priority missions supporting the investigative or other DHS agencies, in particular ICE. That was done by the legacy Air and Marine arm of the old Customs Service, and it should not decline.

So I appreciate the gentleman's raising the matter. I am happy to work with him to further the issue he has raised.

I am happy to yield such time as he needs to Mr. Farr to complete his argument.

I would be happy to yield.

I'm happy to yield to Mr. Farr.

I am happy to yield.

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, let me say to the gentleman from California that this language, I think, could be widely applied. If he has items he wishes to apply to it, he should propose that. We are asking simply for a determination that these items are of higher priority and more cost effective than other items included in the Air and Marine Strategic Recapitalization and Modernization plan.

We focused on this system because there are particular challenges here. But as Mr. Farr says, it is just a basic principle of good responsible government.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I mainly am confused about exactly what the gentleman is proposing and would like to try to clarify it if I might.

The effort here is to attempt to carve out $5 million for the ICE Mutual Agreement Between Government Employers Program, which he is, I believe, confusing with the Basic Pilot Program. ICE does not administer the Basic Pilot Program. The bill already includes $30 million for CIS to carry out Basic Pilot.

And it is indeed a well-regarded program to do exactly the same thing as the gentleman is describing here. But I don't understand the rationale for carving $5 million out of the ICE budget for a program that, as I understand it, would be totally duplicative. So maybe you can clarify.

I'm sorry. I believe the gentleman is mistaken about the bureaucratic location of the Basic Pilot Program.

The concern he expresses is certainly a legitimate one. Given the fact that we may be talking about duplicative efforts here, though, could I suggest that the amendment be withdrawn and we work with him as we go to conference to see how we might accommodate his concerns.

I will yield.

Mr. Chairman, is the gentleman saying he is willing to withdraw the amendment?

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I can understand the need for flexibility and for these programs not to be in totally separate spheres, but I just have to say that CIS administers the Basic Pilot Program. It can't be in two agencies. The bill has $30 million for this purpose. I simply do not, cannot, grasp the rationale for carving $5 million out of the ICE budget for the same purpose. There does seem to be confusion here. That is why I am offering to take the concern forward and suggesting the amendment be withdrawn.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, Basic Pilot is a program which lets employers check the employment status of people they are hiring. It is not an enforcement program, and it can't be located in two agencies. So I have no choice but to oppose the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would cut the Coast Guard operating expenses account, the budget that pays for military officers and personnel, by $8 million. Given our country's need for port security, marine environmental protection and search and rescue operations, it doesn't seem like a very good time to be cutting back on Coast Guard personnel.

The amendment would also cut the alteration of bridges program by $8 million. That is half of the budget for that program included in the bill. The amendment would instead move this money to the Coast Guard aircraft acquisitions budget in the Deepwater Program.

The question is not whether these aircraft are needed. We know that they are. But there is a serious question about whether the Coast Guard is or would be prepared to utilize the funding that the gentleman is suggesting. The Coast Guard's aircraft acquisitions are behind schedule. The newest planes that the service is buying have not even been shown to meet the Coast Guard's needs through flight testing.

So, again, as with many items in this budget, the question is not whether this is a worthy expenditure or a worthy object of expenditure. The question is what the traffic will bear in terms of next year's budget and the money that can be wisely and usefully spent. Our judgment, after carefully looking at this, is that the bill provides adequate funding for aircraft acquisition.

Moreover, these items that would be cut to make room for this funding would have a negative impact on the day-to-day operations of the Coast Guard. In particular, they would delay the replacement of bridges in a major way, bridges that are a hazard to maritime safety.

For all these reasons, though we certainly want to work with the gentleman in trying to push this aircraft acquisition forward. We want to do that in a prudent way, and we think this amendment is basically not helpful.

So we reluctantly urge a no vote.

The item that the gentleman is discussing, let me just clarify. We're talking about $21.5 million. It requires that the Coast Guard shall submit a plan for the use of this money to the committee by November 1.

Well, it calls for a submission of a plan. It does not say how the money shall be spent otherwise.

Yes, I can assure you of that.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant opposition to this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman seeks to add $150 million to fund REAL ID grants while cutting the Coast Guard's Deepwater program. I'm certainly sympathetic to the gentleman's basic idea of providing some funding for REAL ID. In fact, we added in this bill $50 million that was not requested by the administration in order to put some seed funds out there, to get the department in gear to adequately assess what the Federal Government must do to assist States in complying with this Federal mandate, which many of us have heard concerns about from our home States.

I am certainly sympathetic with the idea of getting some seed funding out there for REAL ID. But I have to take issue with the offset, with the source of these funds. The gentleman is proposing to take $150 million from the Coast Guard's Deepwater program.

Now, he rightly notes that the Deepwater program has had financial management problems. The committee is well aware of that. We have explored

them thoroughly both under the former chairman, Mr. Rogers, and this year. Deepwater is one of the items in this bill that, while we place great importance on it, great emphasis on it, we are trying to make a very careful decision about the amount provided and the conditions under which it is provided.

The bottom line is that this bill is already $197 million below the President's request for the Coast Guard's Deepwater acquisition program. There are reductions to projects with high carryover funding. There are reductions in projects where the lead asset, the first of a series to be purchased, has not yet been tested. In fact, we've been discussing some of those situations tonight. So we're reducing the program. We're also restoring accountability. $400 million of Deepwater funding is withheld pending the submission of a detailed management and expenditure plan.

So we are well aware of the Deepwater challenges. But I think in light of the way we have dealt with them and the level of funding we have provided, another $150 million cut would be most unwise. So my opposition is more out of a concern for that than it is out of any inclination to downplay the REAL ID challenge. It's more in terms of this offset that I have to oppose this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

I yield to Mr. Farr from California.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment, but I rise mainly to raise questions with him and see if we can't work something out on this because I very much identify with what he is trying to achieve here. After all, North Carolina is very hurricane-prone.

We certainly support your goals, support the gentleman's goals in building up preparedness. But I believe moving money around within FEMA, as the gentleman has proposed, is unlikely to achieve the goal. Let me explain why I think that is so.

The gentleman is proposing to move funds from the management and administration account at FEMA to the disaster relief account. However, FEMA tells us and I believe this is accurate, the very account that FEMA uses to support the activity that the gentleman is interested in is the management and administration account. Now we are providing a good bit of money here. We are providing adequate funding, I believe, for identifying hurricane-related preparedness gaps within the FEMA management and administration accounts. We are funding it at $685 million. That is $150 million above the current fiscal year. But we don't want to take money from that account, particularly when it is being applied to the very purpose the gentleman identifies.

So here is what I would like to suggest, Mr. Chairman. If the gentleman would be willing to withdraw the amendment, I would certainly be happy to work with him to ensure that FEMA is fulfilling its responsibilities on identifying preparedness gaps related to hurricanes.

The season is approaching, and we need to assure ourselves about that. I fully appreciate that goal. And as the conference approaches, if there are further ways that we can address this, we should. But I do suggest that the amendment be withdrawn because I think there needs to be some further investigation of exactly which accounts we are talking about to perform the functions that the gentleman is concerned about.

I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.

I can assure the gentleman, Mr. Chairman, that I will work with him in communicating that priority.

We have also had our staff in consultations, and we are told that management and administration is the correct account for what the gentleman is talking about.

We'll need to do a little more work on that. We'll confer with you. So we will appreciate the chance to collaborate going forward.

I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

I rise to thank the gentleman for his amendment and indicate that I'm hopeful we can work with him on this CEDAP program. I certainly support it. Many on our side of the aisle support it. We understand the value that it provides for rural communities in need of emergency response equipment.

We were frankly surprised that the President zeroed out this program. We think that was unwise. As the gentleman has stated, we restored the CEDAP program to $20 million, but we were faced with the challenge of needing to work on a number of the grant programs to bring them up to the levels needed.

The gentleman presumably not knowing quite where else to turn has proposed reducing some of those programs to make up the difference here with CEDAP. Some of those offsets we're not particularly happy with, the State grants, the fire grants, the port security grants and so forth.

So it's a difficult problem. The gentleman knows quite well that this program has strong support in this House. I'm well aware of that. It has strong support in the other body. We will be going to conference and trying to come

to an understanding of what level we can afford here and what level is wise.

So while I can't support the amendment in its present form, I certainly don't want to downplay the challenge here, and I want to assure the gentleman that going forward we're aware of this need. We're aware of his concern in particular, and we will work very hard to address it.

Reclaiming my time, I most certainly do make that pledge to you both in terms of looking at the CEDAP dollars and also in terms of finding other ways that we can address this need.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would remove a restriction that the committee included in order to prevent the Department of Homeland Security from wasting more money developing a human capital system that would, we believe, be judged illegal. DHS has not been willing to negotiate with its employees unions to develop a human capital system that lines up with the negotiated labor contracts.

That becomes our committee's problem, when money that gets appropriated is wasted on projects that are judged illegal and in violation of contractual agreements. DHS shouldn't be spending millions of dollars on systems that will need to be thrown away simply to frustrate unions and to intimidate their employees. It's a waste of taxpayers' money and from what I have heard, Mr. Chairman, has led to many morale problems at the Department.

I will remind Members that unfortunately the Department of Homeland Security ranked dead last in employee morale across government agencies in a survey taken recently. We need to reject this amendment, and I ask my colleagues to do so.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

I commend my friend, the chairman of the Homeland Security authorizing committee, for a fine amendment, and I am pleased to suggest that it be adopted.

Mr. Chairman, the amendment, as the gentleman has stated, would impose a statutory cap of 45,000 on the number of aviation screeners. I'm reluctantly opposed to this, because under the Committee mark, we fund considerably fewer than that amount, that number. We fund only 43,688 screeners. So we're nowhere close to the statutory cap that the gentleman would impose.

The budget is what really controls how many screeners TSA can fund, as 53 percent of TSA's aviation security budget goes to screener salaries and benefits.

Now, I agree with the gentleman that our goal should be to provide more efficient explosive detection systems, ones that rely less on humans and more on machines that identify possible threats.

Instead of the cap, I think a better way to provide the funding for additional explosive detection systems for passengers and carry on baggage and checked baggage and air cargo is to fund those systems adequately. And the bill before us does that. It has $251 million more than the President's request for these systems.

To make sure that DHS spends funding for better detection systems, we've withheld funding from a key asset, namely, their new headquarters building, until the Department submits an expenditure plan for checkpoint and explosive detection systems. We do believe that this will provide a rather powerful incentive for TSA to become less people dependent and more technology driven in the near term. But I just want to stress that I agree with the gentleman on that point, that priority.

I should also say, Mr. Chairman, that our authorizers oppose this cap. They've specifically asked us not to include this bill language in fiscal 2008.

I'm more than willing to work with the gentleman to ensure that the committee is kept well informed of screener staffing levels at airports. And if it appears that TSA is out of control regarding staffing, we will be the first to get on the case. But I cannot support this amendment.

Speaking of authorizers, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentleman from Indiana for this very well-conceived amendment, Mr. Ellsworth's proposing that the Department of Homeland Security be prohibited from awarding contracts to those that owe the Federal Government money. It seems pretty straightforward and sensible, and a rule that we need to adopt.

This would apply to contractors that violate tax laws, that fail to pay Federal taxes, that have an unsatisfied Federal liability.

The Federal Acquisition Regulation, fortunately, does have a rule- making under way that we believe will eventually provide similar coverage to all Federal agencies, including DHS. But the gentleman has anticipated that ruling. He's got language here that would offer protection earlier and would confirm what we hope will be more general policy.

So it's a very well-conceived amendment, and I commend him for it and hope that we can adopt it. I urge its adoption.

Point of Order

Mr. Chairman, this amendment prohibits funds in the act from implementing a plan to permit entry into the U.S. using any identification document other than a passport. I understand the security concerns that underlie this amendment, but I believe it overreaches considerably, and I will take just a minute to explain why I think so.

This amendment would effectively prohibit DHS efforts to develop infrastructure or systems to process State Department passport cards for U.S. citizens living near and commuting across the land borders of the U.S., thus requiring all U.S. citizens who leave the U.S. to possess a passport, which currently costs $97 for adults, $82 for children. A passport card would cost less than half of that.

In addition, the language would effectively prohibit anyone who did not have a valid passport, such as permanent residents who lack other citizenship documents, from reentering the U.S. If I read it correctly, that is exactly what it would do. And it would effectively invalidate millions of Mexican border crossing cards issued by the State Department.

So it is an overreach, I would say, Mr. Chairman. It represents a draconian approach to border security. It would adversely affect the ability of U.S. citizens and workers and residents to move easily across the border.

So I urge the House to reject the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to our colleague from New York (Mr. Serrano).

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I want to commend our colleagues for this amendment. I certainly will not be objecting to it and will be happy if it is adopted. It is not exactly the same approach that was taken in our bill. I must say that. But I do think it is consistent with the bill.

The amendment would prohibit funds in the act from being used to implement a plan before June 1, 2009, to comply with the Intelligence Reform Act of 2004 requirement to require all who enter the U.S. to have passports or equally valid identification. The Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative is intended to reduce the likelihood of entry by people who mean us ill.

We believe this could be done effectively in a way that doesn't sacrifice good relations with our neighbors, that doesn't cause undue hardship for U.S. citizens or doesn't affect legitimate travel and commerce.

But we are certainly not there yet.

Our bill fences $100 million of the $225 million in funding until the Department reports on the results of pilot projects in Washington State, until it provides an update on project milestones, until it demonstrates that statutory requirements are met and the system has been operationally tested, and until it reports on privacy safeguards. So we do have those kinds of protections in this bill. We have not included a date certain, but as I said, I believe the inclusion of a date is compatible with what we've suggested, and so we will not object to this amendment. We commend the gentleman for offering it.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to our colleague, subcommittee member, Mr. Farr.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of our time to Mr. Farr.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I want to commend our colleague for her effective focus on this issue of pipeline safety and her good work on the authorizing committee and her coming here at this very late hour to offer this very fine amendment. I am pleased on behalf of the majority to accept the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this is an issue that came up when our committee traveled to the border and had discussions with the Border Patrol. And what you are talking about here is striking language that gives some ability for comparing the expenditure of costs on one piece of intelligence equipment versus the other. And what the gentleman didn't tell you is that of all the assets on the border, this is the most expensive, $10 million, $8 to $10 million per unmanned vehicle. The other assets that are on the border, which everybody agreed was much more effective, is the new radar system, which costs about $700,000, that are portable.

We have others. We have balloons. We have helicopters. We have as many assets looking at the border as there are in Iraq. And what the language in the bill says is that before you go out and just buy more Predators at 8 million bucks, there is already $50 million in the account and we want to know before you spend that whether it is cost- effective compared to other issues that you have to do.

You have on the border not only the Customs and Border Patrol, and I would submit that the arrests were not made by that unmanned vehicle, and I don't think that was the only system they used to discover that. It was just one. It happened to be a very, very expensive one. The radar systems are the most effective. The most effective. And you have responding to that Customs and Border Patrol that are in aircraft, in different kinds of helicopters, including Black Hawk helicopters, you have all-terrain vehicles, you have Border Patrol on horseback, you have Border Patrol with SUVs, with four-wheel-drive vehicles. You have all kinds of response mechanisms and all kinds of detection mechanisms.

But to suggest that we shouldn't even ask the question of whether an $8 million expense is more cost-effective than another kind of assets, I think, is just ridiculous.

And, frankly, that is one thing the committee found out, that there isn't all the money you always want to spend on everything here. There have got to be some priorities. And if you have made the priority that of the Customs and Border Patrol, this is not what they would spend it on.

So I think the amendment and the language in the bill is particularly appropriate. It doesn't prohibit the expenditures. It just says before you come back and spend up to another $8 billion, compare this to what other assets you can buy, and you make the suggestion to us as to what is the best expenditure of limited public funds.

Will the gentleman yield?

First of all, the Predator has to be monitored. There is manpower on the Predator. And as I recall, there are three people that it takes to fly it.

But that's not the issue of this, because you would have money to buy Predators. All it says is that the same people that operate them, Customs and Border Patrol, that this isn't a high priority for them. That is all it says.

Mr. Chairman, the language is that the very people that are operating these vehicles, the Customs and Border Patrol, certify that these are the higher priority and the more cost effective than other items included in the Air and Marine Strategic Recapitalization and Modernization plan. It puts the burden on them. If this is what they think is the most cost effective, fine. It doesn't block it; it just says do that analysis.

I am really just surprised, because I sat here all these days and just heard riling after riling, people getting up on the other side talking about money, and we need to be very conscientious about how we spend money. There is language in there that says, Customs and Border Patrol, you certify that this is a high priority for you and it's cost effective. What's wrong with that? Why do you want to strike that language? It doesn't make any sense at all.

Because as the gentleman knows, this is an almost $10 million per cost item. And you know what? The one we had crashed, and the other one we have is about to be delivered. And there is $50 million in the account. If they want to come back and use that $50 million to buy more of them, that's what we are asking. You tell us what is the most cost-effective use. Frankly, and I wish you were there, the new equipment that is coming out, this technology on radar, for 100 miles can detect when even rabbits are crossing the border. It's very cost effective. The Border Patrol is very excited about it. They would like to have more, but they can't because they're spending money like this.

So, with all due respect, these are professionals that are on the job every single day, you want to let them tell you what they think is the most effective tool to do their job. That is all this language does. I don't know why you would oppose that.

Don't read in this language what isn't there. That's not what it is about.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for yielding.

I wasn't even going to speak on this issue, but I have to concur with my Chair and ranking member, and I'll tell you why, Mr. Bilbray. The Deepwater project, the first Deepwater vessel is being delivered to Alameda, California. As you know, the Alameda office is in charge of the entire ocean from California to the Indian Ocean, half the world. The other half is monitored by this side. If you think that that operation isn't about national security with the vessels that are in the entire Pacific and with the drugs that are being run up through the ocean from South America, I don't think we can afford to take the newest vessel which is going through all its trials and sea trials and is going to be stationed in our own State and cut funding that's going to affect that. I hear you. I think we need to do something about identification, but I frankly think that if you're thinking that REAL ID is going to solve that identification problem, all IDs tell you is that you are who you are. There is no national ID. There is no citizenship ID. There's nobody in this room that has a card in their wallet that shows that they're an American citizen. You may have a driver's license. You don't have to be an American citizen to have a driver's license. You may have a Social Security card. You don't have to be an American citizen to have a Social Security card. There is no card. You may have a passport. Very few Americans have them, but those who have them, that shows that you are an American citizen.

The issue is whether these fake IDs which the States are working with can be made more secure, and I think that's important to do, but I don't think that's going to answer your national ID issue. It's not.

Frankly, this is a debate worth having. We are not having it here, we are not having it on your amendment, we are not having it tonight because I think the real debate is: Is this the time in the development of our country where we really ought to form an ID? I have been opposed to it. If you look at the politics, the left and the right have been very much opposed to having a national ID program. But if you are going to do it, it is going to need to make much more sense than 58, our States plus our territories, all having different measurements and not having any one way to tell if it is a citizenship issue which you want to talk about, which is what this Border Patrol and Customs is all about. This is not the way to do it, and certainly not cutting money from a budget that has already been whacked and oversighted and conditioned more than any other budget item than in this bill.

It is very interesting. I am from California, and I sit on the committee and I have never heard from the Governor about your amendment, nor anyone else in California. I support the chairman and the ranking member's opposition.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for yielding.

I rise as one of the cochairs of the Travel and Tourism Caucus, and I rise because I think you are trying to fix something here that isn't broken.

We have not had problems with the Visa Waiver Program. In fact, it has worked very well. And the reason you get qualified as a country for the Visa Waiver Program is because the visitors from that country, all who have passports, those passports all are screened and have to pass the screening before they get on an airplane. And so if there is such a traveler that is on the ``no fly'' list, they would be selected out at that point.

The reason these countries have qualified is because they haven't had people visiting our country who have skipped, who have stayed on, who have violated. The visa is time certain. These are frequent travelers; they are from the countries that are our allies, most of whom are members of NATO or other security forces. I think it is a very bad way to go. One is it's going to alienate the travel and tourism industry in the United States that relies a lot on foreign travelers; they spend a lot of money in this country. And, frankly, right now visiting America is a bargain. It is one of the best vacation packages you can buy compared to costs in Europe and so on. And what you do by cutting these funds, you would prohibit funds from this act from carrying out the Visa Waiver Program.

Now, within that program is also the ability of DHS sharing information with the State Department, maintaining records of these visa-waiver applications. Remember, you have to apply for that. You would prohibit the administering of programs which air carriers use relating to verifying travelers as qualified, visa-waiver residents.

So what you are going to do is you are not going to stop the program. You are just going to stop the sharing of inside information. And I think it's a fear that hasn't been demonstrated as a problem. Therefore, nothing is broken that needs fixing. There isn't support for this program among the travel and tourism industry, and particularly the air carriers. And I think the fact that all these visitors have to have a passport and those passports have to meet our standards, that these Visa Waiver Program visitors are very well protected.

Mr. Chairman, none of the facts stated by the gentleman have anything to do with the amendment. The amendment cuts the ability for us to manage a program which is working very well. Every one of these travelers has to get a passport; those passports have to meet our standards. They have to go through the screening at airports. If they are on a ``no fly'' list, they won't be allowed on an airplane. This is not the way to try to prevent good visitors to this country who are allies of the United States.

And, frankly, adopting this amendment is not only going to create an incredible bureaucracy for us; it is going to create an alienation among countries that we get along with very well and have allowed a visa waiver. Without it, every one of these would have to flood a foreign council. And you would have frequent travelers unable to get to the United States and be a good tourist and good visitors of our country and good friends.

I don't think in nation building that this is the way that you want to attack the problem. So I ask for a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, it is an honor to present our report to the American people on the status of the immigration issue tonight, and it is an honor to be able to welcome you to the Speaker's chair.

As a new freshman, or as one of your first times up there, I want to congratulate you on your advent to service of the people of America as the acting Speaker tonight.

Mr. Speaker, actually tonight we are talking about an issue that a lot of Americans have asked for a long time to be addressed, and that is the many different ways that we are encouraging illegal immigration. But actually tonight, we are to be talking about one of the items that originally was not intended to be one of immigration, it was one to be basically addressing national security and neighborhood security.

For good reasons, Congress in the past, both Democrats and Republicans, have said that the movement of capital funds, of bank accounts, was a major issue in fighting things like drug trafficking, of terrorist activities and of other illegal activities to where the United States' Congress, with this support and the consent of the people of the United States, said that before somebody opens a bank account, before they start getting involved in business transactions with a lending institution, they need to show and prove who they are so we know who is moving this cash back and forth. The identification issue became critical to make sure that drug cartels and criminal elements and terrorist elements were not able to use our institutions of lending, of finance, as part of their terrorist and illegal activity.

Sadly what has happened, though, is we passed a law that said everyone must be identified. There are lending institutions that have found ways to get around the law and say that if somebody is able to get a phony ID from a phony government document, we will look the other way and use that to be able to open bank accounts.

A lot of this discussion is specifically about illegal immigrants being able to get these documents, because you have countries such as Mexico that are willing to give documents, ID documents to individuals without any proof of who they are. Thus, the document such as the consulate card from the Republic of Mexico isn't worth the paper it is written on.

What has happened is these institutions, these American institutions, are actually participating in business transactions that they know violates the spirit of the law and accepts phony identification as a way to be able to engage in business that otherwise would be illegal for legal resident aliens and U.S. citizens to engage in, because the rest of us are required to show viable identification.

At this time I have the privilege to recognize the gentlelady from Tennessee. At this time I would like to yield whatever time she may consume to Mrs. Blackburn.

Thank you. I appreciate the gentlelady. Let me say at this time, it is my privilege to introduce the gentleman from Texas, who actually is a, in his previous life, was a judge who saw over 25,000 cases. So this is a man who knows a crime when he sees it. And at this time I would yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe).

Thank you very much.

Mr. Speaker, I think that the gentleman from Texas pointed out a real issue here, and that is the special treatment being given to somebody who is being perceived to be legally in the country. If you are a resident, legal alien, if you are a U.S. citizen, you are expected by these institutions to show up with the proper documentation, viable ID to prove you are who you are. But under this misguided concept that if you are here illegally, we can't expect you to live up to the minimum standard that everyone legally is playing here, that we will accept this consular card, which, admittedly, is given without any documentation, without any verification, and could be used by drug cartels, could be used by terrorists, could be used by anyone as a way of hiding their identity. But because we perceive you may be illegally in the country, we will abandon all our standards that we apply to everyone else and allow you to have a special standard that does not hold you to the viable ID requirement.

I just think that Americans across this country keep saying, how far off course can we go in America? And sadly, this is an issue that the Federal Government has been allowing to happen, that the administration has looked the other way on, and I think it is something that this administration has to address, this Congress has to address. And the American people need to call their Members of Congress and say, where do you stand on this issue of viable identification for the opening of financial arrangements?

At this time, Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege to be able to yield whatever time he may consume to the gentleman from Virginia, Virgil Goode.

Thank you very much. I appreciate the gentleman from Virginia.

Just to let you know, a lot of people might say, Mr. Speaker, how many illegal alien babies can be born in America, can it be that big a deal? Well, let me just say to the gentleman of Virginia, in my State of California, the cost of just giving birth to the children of illegal aliens every year is $400 million. That is just for the birth. Then the parents who are illegally in this country qualify to get welfare payments in the name of their children because we give them automatic citizenship, even though technically the parents are not totally subject to the jurisdiction as required by the 14th amendment. You can't draft them, you can't try them for treason. But $400 million just for the birth. And in fact, just the cost of the welfare, Mr. Speaker, paying for the children of illegals have gotten so big that even a great moderate like Arnold Schwarzenegger, our terminator, or what we call ``governorator'' has recognized that he wants to be able to provide health care to these children, he wants to be able to take care of the costs, but even he is proposing that we now have to cut off welfare payment to the children of illegal aliens at 5 years, not because he wants to cut it off, but because even the wealthiest State in this Union, California, can no longer afford to pay the benefits to illegal aliens that have been going on for so long. It has gotten that far.

And I think anybody would recognize that Arnold Schwarzenegger is not exactly anti-immigrant. He is probably the flagship and the banner boy for the successful immigrant story. But even he has looked at the bottom line and said there is a place where you have got to be able to say enough is enough. How much are you going to take from the law- abiding citizens and the children of law-abiding citizens and shift it over and give it to people who have broken our laws? .

I appreciate the gentleman from Virginia for bringing that up. And all I have to say is a lot of people may talk about this issue of banks looking the other way and accepting these consular cards, even they are not viable because their argument is, but we are making money. This is America. We are supposed to be making money. This is breaking that fine line between legal and illegal. Those who make money legally are totally separate from those

who are making it illegally. And the banks are saying we are getting away with it, so let us keep doing it.

Mr. Speaker, I think you would admit, this is right where the issue of racketeering brought the Federal government in to address people who were into bootlegging, though they were making big money, people that were into prostitution, people that were in drug dealing, people that were involved in the labor market below fair market value. We have laws against racketeering, and these major banks are involved in racketeering. They are profiteering from illegal activity because they are willfully and openly encouraging people that are in violation of the law, working and making money in violation of our laws, and then taking that money and profiteering by cutting a deal with the illegal alien that we will let you be in our institution if we get a wink and a nod and we are able to get our pound of flesh out of it. So I think it is something we need to address.

I appreciate the chance to be able to be here tonight with you. And Mr. Speaker, let me just say that American people may say they hear a lot about the problem of illegal immigration and what do we do about it, but not enough people talk about simple answers. And I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, and everybody that wants to find a simple answer, it is not a Republican or Democrat problem, it is an American problem. And there were two great Americans, one was a Democrat, a former Border Patrol agent called Sylvester Reyes, another was the former chairman of Rules, now ranking member of Rules, a Republican from California named David Dreier, who sat down with the Border Patrol agents, the men and women that are tasked with taking care of the immigration issue. And they were asked, what is the one thing you would do if you had one law to take care of illegal immigration? And they didn't say be mean to anybody, all they said is give the American employer such a simple way as a tamper resistant Social Security card, one document, only one document to prove who is legal to work in the United States and who isn't. Make it so simple for an employer to know who is legal that there is no excuse for somebody to hire an illegal so the Border Patrol agents then can go in and really crack down on those who are hiring illegals. Because the employers who are knowingly hiring illegals cannot hide behind the guise of well, I am like the little guy who didn't understand, it will become so clear.

So I would ask, Mr. Speaker, that you do us the privilege of looking at H.R. 98. Sylvester Reyes is a very respected member of the Democratic Party, David Dreier is a very respected member of the Republican Party. This bill has had the support from members of the Hispanic Caucus and members of immigration groups. This is where Democrats and Republicans can work together, and I think it is a place that America expects us to work together.

And I would ask anyone that is within the range of my voice, call their Member of Congress, call their Senator. Mr. Speaker, all they have to do is ask where the Member of Congress stands on H.R. 98, because this is where both Americans, Democrat and Republican, should be able to come together for the good of our future and for the future of our children and our grandchildren.

At this time, Mr. Speaker, I would yield back my time.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman has offered a very thoughtful amendment. I think it is worthwhile, and I would like to add my name to it and support it.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Like the chairman, I am sympathetic with the gentleman's concern about funding for REAL ID. It is a mandate that we put on the States that we need to match money for. And we've done that. As the chairman indicated, there's $50 million in this bill which was unrequested by the administration. In addition to that, there's $40 million that was put in this program in '06 and most of that is unobligated. So there will be around $90 million that REAL ID has. So there's plenty of money, I think, in the REAL ID program. The gentleman, I think, should be pleased with that.

But at the same time, I must say that we can't afford to take more money out of the Deepwater program. This subcommittee has maintained aggressive oversight of that program. But this bill also makes, as the chairman said, substantial cuts already of almost $200 million to Deepwater that will, in effect, slow down the program's acquisition schedule and delay the much-needed modernization of the Coast Guard's ships and aircraft.

Specifically, the bill cuts $60 million from the National Security Cutter, $70 million from the Maritime Patrol Aircraft, and over $50 million from the Fast Response Cutter. Now, those reductions are made in the name of good oversight, but I fear that the security of shores will be further delayed by these sizable reductions, and may unnecessarily prolong the operation of antiquated systems, some dating back to World War II.

We're confident the Coast Guard is putting in place the right managerial tools and controls and organizational improvements to get Deepwater heading in the right direction. But let me be clear. Mr. Chairman, no one has been harder on Deepwater than this Member. Too much of our national security is at stake for the Coast Guard to continue to struggle with inadequate managerial and budgetary controls. I think the commandant of the Coast Guard now has seized control of this program, and I am convinced that he is on the right track and will have the capability to make it work.

And so while we're cutting Deepwater in this bill and putting controls on how they spend their money, they still need this money, and this amendment would cut too much from the Deepwater program for a REAL ID program that is flush with money already.

So I oppose the amendment reluctantly and congratulate the gentleman for his thoughtful but misplaced amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to compliment the gentleman. He's been very hard working on these whole issues, and I appreciate him bringing this to our attention and appreciate the chairman being willing to listen further to your request.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

I want to first thank the chairman for including $20 million in this program when it was zeroed out in the budget request and also to congratulate my colleague from Kentucky (Mr. Davis) for this amendment which I strongly support.

It increases the funds for this CEDAP program by $30 million to get it back up to the historic funding level of $50 million. That's what we've always had in this program. In fact, Mr. Chairman, this program was created by this subcommittee in fiscal year 2005, and the reason was we found that a lot of small towns and small communities were not being able to get grants out of their State allocations or these other grant programs because the moneys were being consumed by the larger cities. And this was the only way we could find to get money directly to those smaller communities.

These are not grants that go to the State. These grants go directly from here to the local community, designed to target those areas that may not directly benefit from the large amounts of grant funding because of competing priorities within the States or larger urban areas. It gets basic first responder equipment into all first responder hands.

And it's been one of the most successful programs DHS has run. It made close to 4,000 awards in fiscal 2005 and 2006, another 2,000 awards for fiscal 2007.

There is some report language in the bill that changes how the program is run from a direct assistance program to a grant program. I don't necessarily agree with that, but I think it is very important to get the level of funding back to the 2007 level of $50 million.

Listen to what some of the local communities say about this program: ``Your program is one of the absolutely best run and organized programs I have ever seen in the rescue service. The equipment you offer to emergency responders for homeland security is right on target for our needs in the field.''

Another one says: ``The CEDAP program has allowed us to obtain, train with, and deploy an essential fire fighting tool that we would have otherwise not have had available to us.''

Another one says: ``This award represents a purchase that would have not been possible for my agency. Thank you for giving us this ability.''

So, Mr. Chairman, this is a popular program. It is effective. It helps communities that otherwise are not getting help and there's no other place for them to turn. So I urge our colleagues to support the gentleman's amendment and restore funding for this worthwhile program to the previous year's level and the level it was set at in 2005 and every year since.

And I want to congratulate Mr. Davis for bringing this amendment forward. It's thoughtful, it is needed, and it fits the bill; and I congratulate the gentleman and support his amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.

Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriation bill and therefore violates clause 2 of rule XXI, which states, in pertinent part: An amendment to a general appropriations bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.

I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this is a simple amendment.

It would restore to the bill the traditional historic 45,000-person cap on the number of screeners that the TSA can employ.

The reason for this is simple. This screener cap has been in place since before there was a Department of Homeland Security.

When we first created the Transportation Security Administration in 2001, I think it was, or 2002, TSA was in the Department of Transportation. At the time, I chaired the subcommittee that funded that Department.

When we first began to place federally employed screeners in the airports, TSA came to us and said we need 35,000 screeners. We said, okay, here is the money, hire them.

They came back a few days later, a few months later, and said no, we're going to need 40,000. Then they came back a few months later and said no, we have to have 45,000. Then it was 50,000 and 60,000, and then finally they said we need to have 70,000. We said, wait a minute, time out. We can't afford this many. Where are you going to stop?

What they did at the outset, TSA was poorly managed, poorly run, and was not operating properly. They made up for their difference, their shortcomings, by hiring more people. I remember going to an airport in the South, a moderate-sized airport. The lobby was full of the trace detection machines where they swab your briefcase and then run it through the machine, very time-consuming, very labor-intensive, and not very accurate.

And the lobby was full, passengers having trouble getting through the doorway to get to the boarding gates. And I called over the Federal director, security director for that airport and I said, when are you going to apply for an x-ray machine to more efficiently and more securely search people as they go to board the airplane? They said, oh, we don't need, we don't want an x-ray machine to replace these trace detection machines in the lobby. I said, why not? The person said, our people are perfectly happy. I said, you mean the passengers? No, the screeners. Of course they were perfectly happy. One machine, Mr. Chairman, would have taken the place of all of those trace detection machines in that lobby.

And so we came up with a screener cap mainly to force TSA to bring technology to bear on the detection of explosive devices in briefcases and baggage of passengers. The 45,000 screener limit works. TSA now is placing the machines in airports.

This committee, this subcommittee, has now appropriated many hundreds of millions of dollars in this bill, along with others, to buy more machinery.

But the cap on screeners needs to be kept in place. It's been there since we first began TSA 5 years ago. You take that screener cap off, as this bill does, and TSA will go back to their old ways. I guarantee it. They'll go back to their old ways of hiring screeners to run trace detection machines, very unreliable, insecure, and disruptive, actually, of people trying to get on the airplane.

So I urge our colleagues to keep in place, put back in place the 45,000 screener limit that's been in the bill ever since we've had a Department of Transportation, TSA in the Department of Transportation and now Homeland Security.

I know the bill contains funds only for some 44,000 screeners, and the argument can be made that we can control the number of screeners by the amount of money we appropriate. And this bill starts us along that line.

But we all know that these agencies can come back to the Appropriations Committee and request a reprogramming of funds from one account to the next, and the pressure would be great if they came to us to assign that reappropriation of monies. But the limit works. Keep the limit.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriations bill and, therefore, violates clause 2 of rule XXI.

I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentleman for the amendment. This is a horse of a different color that you have brought up here. And I think it is a humane thing to do, and I congratulate the gentleman. And being from horse country, I doubly appreciate it.

I thank the gentleman from California, and I thank him for his insightfulness on the immigration issue.

He has done so much work in his service in this Congress addressing this issue and encouraging people to look at the issue, to learn about the issue and to realize it is more than just a surface issue.

I also have appreciated the fact that the gentleman has encouraged people to realize the compassionate thing to do in this is to make certain that we keep immigration legal and that we honor the men and women who have gone through the process legally.

That is important to do, and it is the right step It is the compassionate step to make.

H.R. 1314 addresses the issue that Mr. Bilbray mentioned and referenced as he opened his remarks about those that have entered the country illegally, getting access to our financial markets. Now, H.R. 1314 is the Photo Identification Security Act. This is a great piece of legislation. It is not a lengthy bill, it is one that I think everybody here in the House can pick up and read in 1 or 2 minutes. As you see, it is only about three pages.

What it does is something very big and very important, though, it closes a loophole that exists in the PATRIOT Act and the IRS regulations, and it is through that loophole that you could literally drive a truck. That is the

loophole that we know that not only illegal immigrants use, but sexual predators and identity thieves, those people that want to be anonymous, that need to be anonymous, that have to be anonymous to the legal system. This is what they are choosing to use to gain access to banking institutions, to wire transfer services from the Federal Reserve, the U.S. Treasury, the IRS. It is giving them the ability to sign up for credit cards, to get home mortgages, to obtain taxpayer identification numbers, which employers call ITEN numbers, and to transfer money from this country back to Mexico.

This is a difficult situation for our country, because we have spent a lot of time, effort and energy trying to seek out terrorist groups and those that would do us harm. We are spending a lot of time, effort and energy talking about protecting intellectual property and looking at money laundering and how those pirates are laundering money and sending it back out of the country, taking money out of our communities.

We are spending a lot of time routing out identity thieves. Certainly in my community I hear from so many people who have had their identity lifted. They have had it stolen. They have had somebody take that from them, and then these individuals want to go open checking accounts, they want to go open credit cards and run up the number, just swipe those numbers off that credit card, run it ragged.

Somebody pays the bill, and it always comes back to being the American taxpayer that is going to pay the bill for fraud and for misuse. Happens every single time, every single time. This is a very serious problem to the faith that people have in our governing institutions. It is a serious problem to the stability of our financial markets. But there is a solution to this problem, and it is H.R. 1314, the Photo Identification Security Act.

As I said, it is a very simple bill, and I will do three things. It says in order to access our nation's financial services, in order to do business with the Federal Government, you have to present one of the three secure forms of ID as recognized in this country.

Number one would be a Social Security card with a government-issued State or Federal government issued photo ID. This could be a driver's license, if you are from a State that complies with the REAL ID Act.

Then you have got number two, a U.S. passport or a foreign nation passport. That would be a passport that we recognize, that we have a reciprocity agreement with.

The third form of ID would be a US citizenship and immigration service photo ID card. Now, that would be your USCIS permanent resident card, permanent alien card, work card, green card. Simply put, you have to have a visa before you can apply for a visa if this legislation passes, and we are encouraging everyone to join us in this. We are encouraging everyone, both parties, both Houses, to sign on, let's close this loophole and close it quickly.

I was talking to one of my constituents about this problem after it had arisen, it was a banker, in rural west Tennessee in my district. He was excited that we were working on this bill and thrilled that we were going to be closing this loophole. He looked at it like this, he told me a story of a couple of his customers, they had worked at a local plant, both had retired.

Then they decided they wanted to buy a motor home, which they did, good customers at the bank, so they get the motor home. They decide to start travelling.

Well, they needed a credit card to make reservations at those campgrounds. This banker could not get them a credit card because they had never had a credit card. They had a checking account. They had pretty much operated on cash, they had retired, they were now unemployed. They could not qualify for a credit card.

So, when the scandal began that we had major iconic banks in this country issuing credit cards to those that had illegally entered this country, as long as they were willing to put $100 in a checking account and leave it there for a month, then they could get a $500 credit card, that gentleman, that good, solid, patriotic American man that has worked for a company, retired from a company and wanted to enjoy his retirement years, walked into that bank, and he asked that banker, do I need to be an illegal immigrant just to get a credit card in this country?

That is the right question for him to ask. That is how ludicrous the practice is and how horrific it is that we would have these big banks, big banks, big iconic companies that have benefitted from the prosperity of this great Nation to play favorites and to say, all right, if you are an illegal immigrant, if you want to put $100 in over here, I am going to give you a $500 credit card.

Basically, I will tell you, that is predatory lending. Basically, that is a pretty high interest rate to go get a credit card, but that is the way we are doing it, and their response is we are exploiting a loophole. So the loophole needs to be closed because it just isn't right. It isn't a practice that should continue.

Another thing I have heard from some of my constituents is this, all of our local communities depend on keeping money in that community and having it turn over in the community several times before it leaves. You know, once somebody earns a dollar, they like to have that dollar turn over three and a half, four, four and a half, five times, in order to keep that economy humming along.

You earn the dollar, you go by the grocery store and make the purchase, and by the dry cleaners and by the shoe shop. You go over and you take the kids out for ice cream after you have gone to the ball game. You go buy new sporting goods for them to play in that ball game. Then you go buy new clothes for Easter as you are getting ready for Easter, and a swim suit for summer, maybe even a little swimming school for the backyard. The point is, the money has to turn over in that community in order for the community to be available.

Guess what, our friendly Federal Reserve system has done? The Federal Reserve system of the U.S. government has set up a system that allows illegal immigrants to transfer money back to the Bank of Mexico, direct to Mexico is the program.

The funny thing about this is, there are 27,000 transaction a month to the tune of $23 billion a year.

Mr. Speaker, guess what? Friendly Federal Reserve is bragging about keeping the fees low, $0.67 a 100. Well, I have not found a one of my constituents who has said their ATM fees are going down. I have not had a one of them say their checking account fees are going down. I haven't had a one of them say they have had any transaction fee go down. My merchants complain about the fees that they get charged. And we even have a hearing reported in one of our Hill newspapers today about retailers and banks duking it out over transaction fees.

But then we have another article that came out of the L.A. Times that is talking about the Federal Reserve bragging about being able to keep these fees low.

Now, Mr. Speaker, it is a little bit of a head scratcher, I will have to admit it, my goodness gracious, you know, when they can go in here and they can wire this money out of the country, 27,000 transactions a month, $23 billion a year, the money is not turning over in the local communities.

Some of our friends across the aisle are saying, well, you know, we are not seeing what we want in jobs growth and income growth, even though it has been pretty healthy. Maybe they need to look at some of this. Maybe they need to join us in stopping illegal immigration. Maybe they need to join us in standing against amnesty. Maybe they need to make sure that we are a sovereign and free Nation, and that we remain so.

The Photo Identification Security Act, closing the loophole that allows those that have illegally entered this country, that allows those who are predators and identity thieves to remain anonymous to the system; closing that loophole, so that they do not have access to credit, so that they do not have access to our financial markets, so that they cannot have the ability to remain anonymous to the system.

I encourage everyone to join me in supporting H.R. 1314, the Photo Identification Security Act. I encourage everyone in this body, Mr. Speaker, to join us in closing this loophole that exists in the PATRIOT Act and the IRS

regulations. And I encourage them to join us in encouraging the Federal Reserve to end the program that allows $23 billion to be transferred out of this Nation every year without turning over in the community. Every single year.

Let's be certain that we keep our economy secure and safer. Let's be sure that we keep our communities secure and safe, and let's be certain that we are fair to the families and the working men and women in this great Nation.

And I yield back to the gentleman from California.