Floor Statements

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the fiscal 2012 Interior and Environmental appropriations bill.

I do want to start on a positive note. The bill would restore the President's proposed cuts to mitigation fish hatcheries. That's a good thing. It would increase funding for the Indian Health Service, and it would largely maintain funding for the National Park Service operations and the Smithsonian. So I commend the subcommittee for those decisions.

But I'm afraid the list of positive things is pretty short. So I want to, in the time I have, list some of the devastating cuts that this bill includes. And while our friend from California has suggested that these really aren't deep cuts, I believe the content of this bill belies that notion.

The bill before us picks up where H.R. 1 left off last spring making numerous and deep cuts to the programs that protect our air, water, public lands, and wildlife. Here are just a couple of the most egregious cuts in this bill:

First to the Land and Water Conservation Fund. This funds the acquisition of public lands so they're protected from development and can be enjoyed by future generations. The Land and Water Conservation Fund has a dedicated revenue stream from offshore drilling royalties. It takes nothing from the General Fund. And yet this bill would cut Land and Water Conservation funding by 80 percent--the lowest level for the program in 45 years.

It threatens completion of the acquisition of the Rocky Fork tract in Tennessee and several treasures in North Carolina that need protection. Every Member of this body should ask: How many acquisition projects would this halt in my State? There is no reassuring answer.

Secondly, the Environmental Protection Agency, the bill continues the Republican majority's assault on the EPA. After imposing a 16 percent cut in the current fiscal year, the majority is now proposing a further 18 percent reduction in the agency's budget. That would push agency staffing to 1991 levels. The goal of a cut so massive is plain and simple: to ensure that the EPA doesn't have the resources it needs to fulfill its core mission, and that mission includes lifesaving and life-enhancing research, largely based in my district, that Research Triangle part.

Third, the Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Fund. The SRFs provide funding directly to the States to fund water infrastructure projects that enable communities to better manage wastewater and polluted runoff and to protect clean and safe drinking water. This provides one of the most basic services taxpayers expect-- clean water. And yet this bill would cut funding for these two programs by nearly a billion dollars combined.

Given how essential water supply is to economic growth, this is ironic at this particular time as our communities struggle to retain and regain jobs. I suggest to colleagues, ask your State and local governments how they're going to make up this difference.

Mr. Chairman, as if these cuts weren't bad enough, the majority has loaded this bill with legislative policy riders and funding limitations that will roll back 40 years of progress towards clean air and clean water.

These anti-environmental riders have no place in an appropriations bill. They will not save the country a penny, and they will cost tens of thousands of lives. They will expose our children, families, and communities to unnecessary illnesses, and they will degrade our irreplaceable natural resources.

The majority claims that these cuts are needed to demonstrate fiscal discipline. Mr. Chairman, this book is a textbook case in false economies. In gutting critical environmental protection programs, it piles up frightful economic and human costs for the future.

Our constituents and our environment today and in future generations deserve better than what this bill is offering. I urge my colleagues to oppose this shortsighted appropriations bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I commend both the chairman and the ranking member for their hard work on this bill, although, with an inadequate allocation, there are decisions that have been made that I believe will adversely affect our work, and that I hope can be revisited down the line.

That's not what I want to talk at this moment, though. I want to talk about an unusual feature of the Legislative Branch bill that I hope also can be revisited down the line. I want to call the attention of my colleagues to the elimination of a program that has served this body and our Nation's interests well, the Open World Leadership Center, a unique enterprise, sponsored by the legislative branch of our government, something that I think should make us very proud of this institution and its international outreach. The bill before us today provides only shut down expenses for this program.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I am not going to offer an amendment to restore the program's funding because of the extremely low subcommittee allocation and the absence of acceptable offsets. There simply isn't money lying around to apply to this purpose. But I cannot let this body's commitment to the Open World Program end without voicing my disappointment and my hope that this matter will be reconsidered and can be reconsidered in the context of the Senate bill.

The Open World Leadership Program is a unique program administered by the Library of Congress that, over the years, has earned bipartisan and bicameral support. Since 1999, the program has brought emerging leaders from former Soviet States to all 50 States of our country, providing them a firsthand look at the U.S. democratic process, enabling them to exchange ideas with their American counterparts, and encouraging them to relate what they learn to their home environments.

The participants in Open World are not the people that typically participate in international exchange programs. They're not just the political or business leaders in the capital who venture to other nations frequently. No, they're teachers, they're judges, they're health workers, they're young activists. They're all sorts of people who live often in rural areas and smaller cities.

The program penetrates deeply. In my experience, uniquely so. It penetrates quite deeply, rather than just being another run-of-the-mill exchange program. I know about this, and many other Members in this body do as well. I've participated personally with these leaders as they've come to my district.

This is a well-designed program. It's a program that has made and can make a difference. It doesn't just merely scratch the surface. It involves Russia, Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Serbia. These countries remain strategically linked to U.S. interests because of their history and also because of their location in Eastern Europe and Central Asia.

The Open World Program is an effective diplomatic tool.

The Open World Program is an effective diplomatic tool, and one of the legislative branch's few direct democracy promotion programs.

My colleagues, Open World is not about us. It's not about us. It's not about our institution. It's an instrument of outreach, a unique one. We should be proud of this, a unique instrument of outreach to a critical part of the world. And its loss would be deeply felt.

Now, in previous Congresses there has been some question of whether the Open World Program should be placed where it is administratively, or in the Legislative Branch appropriations bill. I've looked at this. I've concluded that the program's very placement in the legislative branch is, in fact, an asset, making clear the program is not tied to a specific administration with its foreign policy goals and priorities and politics. This, in fact, we're told has sometimes reduced obstacles to participation and has made the program more accessible.

Mr. Chairman, Congress' sponsorship of Open World has made me proud of this institution. We've assumed responsibility, very directly, for projecting our democratic principles and values to countries with histories of oppressive rule. We need to reflect further. We need to think long and hard on what it would mean to drop this program. What does that say about us? What kind of opportunities would we forego? If we do think long and hard, I have some confidence that we would reconsider what the subcommittee has recommended, and I very much hope we will have that opportunity.

Mr. Speaker, This ``Cut, Cap and Gut'' proposal isn't just a retread of the policies our colleagues voted for in their extreme budget resolution that would end Medicare as we know it; it's worse. This bill holds an increase in the debt limit hostage to passage of a radical GOP Constitutional Amendment that would require even deeper cuts after ending Medicare as we know it.

It arbitrarily caps federal spending at 18 percent of GDP. To say this is unwise is an understatement. The last time federal spending was 18 percent or less of GDP was 1966. The problems of 2011 don't call for a rigid ideology 45 years behind the curve. Why would we tie Congress' hands in the event of future economic challenges? In economic downturns Congress should be able to cut taxes or increase investments to stimulate growth. This is basic economic policy.

This proposal turns a blind eye not just to basic economics, but to the two pressing and related challenges facing our country: growing the economy and charting a course back to fiscal balance. It would necessitate across the board cuts in the domestic programs--education, research, infrastructure and Medicare--that make us strong and ensure our economic success. We know that the best cure for a budget deficit is a growing economy, but this bill requires deep spending cuts starting in October that could stall the recovery and put more Americans out of work.

The budget surpluses we achieved during the 1990s were the result of a concerted effort to balance the budget through a comprehensive approach. Revenues, entitlements, military and domestic spending--all were on the table. We balanced the budget four years in a row. We paid off more than $400 billion of the national debt. Yet those surpluses were squandered during the George W. Bush administration through trillions in tax cuts and two wars and a privatized prescription drug plan--none of it paid for. Then, when the recession hit in 2008, we were already deep in a fiscal hole and our ability to take effective countermeasures was dangerously compromised. We must never let that happen again.

The bill before us is the opposite of a balanced, comprehensive approach. This bill makes it easier for future Congresses to cut Medicare than to close tax loopholes for oil companies or millionaires, because it requires a 2/3 vote for any measure that raises revenue. The Ronald Reagan-Tip O'Neal agreement to save Social Security in 1983 would not have passed this hurdle. George H. W. Bush's bipartisan 1990 deficit reduction plan would not have passed this hurdle, nor would the Democratic deficit reduction plan of 1993. So this bill willfully cuts off Congress' access to the tools that have produced meaningful deficit reduction and boosted economic growth, at a time when our economy is fragile and millions of Americans are out of work.

Perhaps this is just positioning by the House majority, but there is no need for this brinksmanship. We should not be making these decisions under duress, but that is exactly where the Republican no-compromise majority has left us. They ask us to alter the fundamental relationship between our people and government--undermining Medicare, education, infrastructure and research funding--by voting on a bill that has never seen a committee vote and was only completed last Friday.

This legislation is not worthy of Congress' approval, and it deserves rejection from those on both sides of the aisle who understand that it is a dangerous diversion from the pressing tasks of job creation and sound fiscal policy.

Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

Madam Chair, I rise today in opposition to the recision of funds from the high-speed rail program that was unwisely included in the fiscal year 2012 Energy and Water bill reported from the Appropriations Committee.

My home State of North Carolina has been working for many years to advance the Southeast High-Speed Rail Corridor from Charlotte to Raleigh and Richmond, and ultimately linking the southeastern States with Washington, D.C. and providing a connection to rail service in the Northeast.

Over the last 15 years, North Carolina has invested approximately $300 million in State intercity rail service capacity, including the construction of new train stations and track improvements. These strategic investments have already helped reduce travel time between Raleigh and Charlotte by 1 hour. But over the last two decades, the Federal investment in the Southeast or other high-speed rail corridors has been very, very modest. The burden fell almost completely on the States. In light of the enormous capital investments needed, while our progress has been steady, it has also been very slow.

Madam Chair, this has been an area where President Obama has demonstrated strong leadership, making major Federal investment in high-speed rail one of his top priorities.

Competition for the billions of dollars allocated under the Recovery Act was intense, and ultimately funds were distributed to 31 States, with half a billion dollars awarded to North Carolina. These funds will help our State achieve a goal set long ago--2-hour train service from Raleigh to Charlotte--and I'm happy to report that work is already well underway. And we know what comes next: Raleigh to Richmond.

These planned rail investments will relieve congestion, reduce our dependence on foreign oil, make our neighborhoods more livable and environmentally sustainable, make our communities more attractive places to live and do business in the long term, and create well-paying construction and manufacturing jobs in the near term--20,000 jobs in North Carolina alone, as a matter of fact.

Rescission of these funds is penny-wise and pound-foolish. It undermines an infrastructure project that would create jobs and pay dividends for years and years in the future. If we want to stay competitive in the international economy, we cannot continue to lay behind countries like China in developing a 21st century infrastructure. Rather than cutting funds for high-speed rail, we should be investing further in a high-speed rail network that will enhance our Nation's overall transportation system, moving us forward the way the highway system drove us forward in the mid 20th century.

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

Mr. Chair, today, the House is considering H.R. 2018, the so-called Clean Water Cooperative Federalism Act. This bill, which represents the latest attempt by the House to weaken the Environmental Protection Agency, could just as easily be called the ``Dirty Water Act.''

Since 1972, the Clean Water Act, which is one of the nation's most successful and effective environmental laws, has protected the waterways Americans depend on for fishing, swimming, and clean drinking water. H.R. 2018 would overturn almost 40 years of federal protection by preventing the Environmental Protection Agency from safeguarding public health and protecting water quality. It also would undermine the agency's authority to ensure that state water quality standards comply with the law. What's at stake here is not federal oversight versus state's rights, but rather clean water versus dirty water.

In case anyone is wondering why the Congress might consider such a bill, consider this example: coal companies want to conduct mountaintop removal mining in Appalachia and dump the waste they generate into Appalachia's streams and waterways. The EPA has rightly declined to classify this waste as fill material. Should the financial interests of a few coal companies outweigh the environmental and public health interests of the people of the entire region?

Rather than weakening our federal clean water protection laws, we should be strengthening these laws to protect our oceans, rivers, lakes and streams. I urge my colleagues to vote against H.R. 2018.

Madam Speaker, I do not intend to oppose this measure because I agree with its basic premise: that the United States Congress strongly supports a negotiated two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and opposes any action that will make such an outcome harder to achieve.

However, I have serious reservations about several of the assertions this resolution makes--as well as those it doesn't make--about recent developments in, and U.S. policy toward, Israel and the Palestinian territories. These concerns are more than abstract: at a time of generational change in the Middle East, the positions that this Congress takes on an issue of such vital importance will have lasting implications for our nation's goals and interests in the region.

For two decades, irrespective of which party has controlled the White House or Congress,

the central aim of U.S. policy toward the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been to encourage a negotiated resolution based on the principle of a democratic, Jewish state of Israel living side by side in peace and security with a viable, democratic Palestinian state. Republican and Democratic presidents alike have affirmed that such an outcome will only be achieved through direct negotiations between the two parties, and have opposed any action by either side that undermines or diminishes the prospects for a negotiated peace.

To be sure, the Palestinian leadership's intent to pursue diplomatic recognition at the United Nations qualifies as such an action, and on this point I agree with the sponsors of this resolution. I also share their concerns about the prospect of a Palestinian unity government that does not recognize Israel's right to exist or renounce violence against innocent civilians. Either development would represent a major setback for the peace process as we know it, and Congress is right to warn Palestinian leaders about the consequences of their course of action.

But as usual, the resolution before us today tells only half the story. It says nothing about Israel's responsibility to act as a serious negotiating partner and abide by its previous commitments under the Road Map and other agreements. It says nothing about Israel's refusal to halt settlement construction in order to allow direct negotiations to resume--even when the Obama Administration offered a lavish package of aid and assurances for Israel to do something that was manifestly in its own interest to begin with. It condemns the Palestinian president for his unilateral actions while failing to comprehend that it has been Israel's intransigence that has led him to view the United Nations as his only recourse. And as usual, the resolution has been rushed to the floor without any serious debate or any opportunity for input from the many members of this body who care about this critical issue.

This resolution is also being considered at a pivotal moment in the history of the peace process, as well as the history of the broader Middle East. After years of false starts and broken promises, the prospects for a negotiated peace appear as dim today as at any time in recent memory, and may grow dimmer still as the political winds in the Arab world shift in unpredictable ways. Now, perhaps more than ever before, strong and decisive U.S. leadership is needed to persuade both sides of the urgency of the moment and bring them back to the negotiating table. It is only a matter of time before there is no table left around which to negotiate.

Yet instead of urging the President to redouble his commitment to the pursuit of peace, we are urging him to lead a diplomatic initiative to oppose Palestinian recognition. Instead of encouraging him to bring the full weight of American ideas, influence, and resources to bear on this critical issue, we are asking him to suspend U.S. assistance to the Palestinian Authority--the very assistance that has been so essential to laying the foundations for a future Palestinian state. Instead of congratulating him for his efforts to revive the stalled negotiations by outlining his ideas for the boundaries of a future Palestinian state, too many of my colleagues seem more interested in manufacturing a controversy for political gain. Unfortunately, the current Israeli prime minister seems all too willing to play along, despite the fact that the two previous U.S. presidents--not to mention at least two former Israeli prime ministers--have advocated positions nearly identical to that outlined by President Obama.

So while I will cast my vote in favor of H. Res. 28, I am reminded of the story of Nero playing the fiddle as Rome burns. The Middle East is transforming before our eyes, and the window of opportunity for the United States to achieve a just and lasting resolution to this age-old conflict may be closing rapidly. We should seize this moment of opportunity and recommit ourselves to the pursuit of peace before it is too late.

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

I want to commend our colleague from the authorizing committee, a leader of the authorizing committee, for focusing on the deployment of air marshals to maximum effect. I want to offer support for her amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

The amendment before us is a legislative attempt to circumvent a draft Executive order which would provide for increased disclosure of the political contributions of government contractors.

The draft Executive order being developed by the Obama administration would require Federal contractors to disclose more information about their political contributions than they currently provide. Particularly, those contributions given to third-party entities.

Some have said they oppose this effort because additional information could be used nefariously 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 PACs 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, Public Citizen, many others have concluded that the draft Executive order would enhance transparency and decrease corruption. And these aren't the only groups that support the Executive 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 explained that corporate political activity presents significant risks to shareholder value. And transparency allows investors to put together in a more complete picture 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.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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 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 DHS to renew leases in the Washington, D.C., area, which means the leases would lapse, leaving DHS 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 lost rent.

The amendment might require DHS to break current construction contracts due to a lack of funds if a new purchase or lease is required. It would not permit the GSA to condemn facilities that the DHS occupies if that were necessary. Therefore, it would force DHS 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 DHS 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 DHS facility in D.C. has a fire or a flood and we can't use it? This amendment would prevent, as I read it, rebuilding if a new construction contract was required as part of that rebuilding, as of course it might well be.

So the questions just go on and on. This is not a well-advised or wise amendment. It's far-reaching. It has negative implications. I urge its rejection.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

My understanding, Mr. Chairman, maybe the gentleman can clarify, but my understanding was that the 5-minute address we had just heard was addressing the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I've 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, TSA would need to lay off 5,000 screeners. That's 10 percent of the current screener workforce. It would also eliminate nearly all of 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 when passenger growth is rebounding at our country's airports. 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 is really nothing in this amendment that grants such discretion. There is not any augmenting in this amendment of the private screener account, 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 are 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 protections that have been put in place in the last year or so. So I think it is a most unwise amendment, and I urge rejection.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the chance as we enter the homestretch of this debate to also 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 that he has taken as the subcommittee chairman and for the professional approach that he has brought to this, the careful process, the inclusive process. We are very grateful to him.

We had a good, full season of hearings and an open process in the Appropriations Committee, at markup, and we've had an open process here on the floor. That's the way Appropriations is supposed to work. And 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.

And so when the partisan divisions that inevitably characterize our work here, when those partisan divisions are evident on Appropriations, we try our best to overcome them. Historically, we have tried our best to overcome them. That has been very difficult this year, and we have a bill that we are divided on--but 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 frontline operations of the Homeland Security Department intact, keeping those operations strong.

Where they've fallen down is, I believe, to pass a budget resolution that contains a Homeland Security allocation that is simply inadequate. That has been compounded by the treatment of disaster funds beyond the President's request, a refusal to designate those as emergency funds. And so we are left with a bill that's severely squeezed. I won't elaborate except to say that this is the bigger picture we are dealing with, the radical shortfall in the State and local grants, a challenge we will have to continue to work on.

We will move on from this point today and be working with our colleagues in the other body and with the White House to come up with a final product that hopefully keeps faith with the States and local communities who depend on us for a reliable partnership.

I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

I thank the gentleman for his comments. I certainly 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 staff whom we always depend on, and the way the staff has scrambled with this amendment process----

At a time like this floor debate when we've had such a flurry of amendments from all sorts of sources, we realize anew how dependent we are on our staff for staying on top of all this and helping guide us, and we are very grateful to our staff on both sides of the aisle.

With that, we are ready to proceed, Mr. Chairman.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Amendment No. 23 Offered by Mr. Polis

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

Mr. Chairman, I want to commend our colleague from Colorado for offering 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 would have wished for an amendment, though, that would have given the Department of Homeland Security 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 conclusively, but I want to offer just a few reflections on the 287(g) 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 their communities. At the end of the fourth quarter of fiscal year '10, the 287(g) program had established partnerships with 72 local jurisdictions; but both the DHS Inspector General and the GAO have raised serious concerns about the 287(g) program, particularly related to the lack of oversight by Immigration 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 he recently reassessed the program. Based on these concerns, I believe we do need to take a hard look at 287(g) and make sure that that authority is being exercised properly before we simply appropriate more money for the program.

Now, Mr. Chairman, when I chaired the Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security, we pushed ICE to place a much greater emphasis on the identification and removal of criminal aliens. Part of ICE's response has been the Secure Communities Program, which we fully supported and continue to do so in this bill. Since 2008, resources have consistently grown for ICE to make progress in finding aliens in local and State custody and in removing them at the completion of their criminal sentences.

This bill supports the continued expansion of Secure Communities, which already covers 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. I think we should concentrate on making the Secure Communities Program work

well. It accomplishes the objectives of 287(g) but much more efficiently, much less problematically, and without deputizing local police to enforce immigration law. That is a proposition that is 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 is a program that is highly problematic. If we work on Secure Communities--make sure it works responsibly and monitor it carefully--I believe it can 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 balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1954, a clean up-or-down vote on extending the debt limit, refusing to hold this critical measure hostage to other economic and political objectives.

I must confess that I am perplexed to see the majority bring an utterly vital bill to the floor that it has no intention of passing-- and is actually urging its members to vote against. I must also note that it contains a poison pill: a hypocritical and deceptive clause that seeks to lay full blame on President Obama for the need for a debt limit increase.

Mr. Speaker, how many members of Congress have voted for a tax cut or an appropriations bill over the past few Congresses? The answer is nearly all. While we may debate the merits of each of those past proposals and reach different conclusions on their merit, the bill for these prior legislative acts is now due. Not paying it would be reckless, and you don't have to be an economist to figure that out. Every American family knows that you must pay your bills when those bills come due. The United States can be no different.

Passage of a clean debt ceiling bill would affirm that America always pays her bills. This isn't about authorizing new spending; it's just ensuring that we can pay for what we have already bought. Whether Congress is paying for tax cuts, tanks, or teachers, there's no free lunch.

As troubling as the motivations behind this vote are, more troubling still is the majority's willingness to put the full faith and credit of the United States at risk to gain leverage over economic policy. Republicans should not be holding the economy hostage to advance their ideological agenda, especially when the economic recovery is still fragile.

Earlier this year, I joined with my colleagues in asking House Republicans to support a clean debt limit increase, but today it's clear they will not. In short, the majority is playing with fire. Remember this: default would set off a catastrophic chain of economic consequences, putting not just the economic recovery at risk, but risking a new, deeper recession. It would affect every single American family, every single worker and every single retiree. There is no reason to manufacture a crisis, but we have seen this play before from the majority, who manufactured a crisis over funding the government in the 2011 fiscal year: a crisis that ended up costing taxpayers more money and realizing none of the promised savings this year.

The majority can do better than partisan posturing, and it must. There are many members--on both sides of the aisle--who I suspect share this conviction. I have long advocated a comprehensive approach to deficit reduction. I believe any serious approach puts all the options--revenue, as well as domestic, defense and entitlement spending, carefully targeted in all cases--on the table as we chart a course back to fiscal balance. But where we cut and of whom we ask additional sacrifice should be consistent with our priorities and values.

If we consider all the options, we can chart a course to fiscal balance, one that invests in the things that ensure our economic success: education, innovation, and infrastructure. If we consider all the options, we can safeguard our commitment to seniors instead of undermining it by turning Medicare into a voucher program. Congress must do better than a budget that ends Medicare as we know it to pay for tax cuts to oil companies and wealthy individuals, and at the same time sinks the country $1.9 trillion further into debt. Not long ago, many responsible members of the majority party favored a comprehensive approach. As we move forward, I urge them not to wilt on the vine in the face of pressure from those on the far right.

Congress must come together and negotiate in good faith if we are going to do the two critical things required of us: to put the American people back to work in a fully recovered economy, and to chart a course back to fiscal balance. I will vote for this legislation today, because America must pay its bills. But this Republican move is far more symbolic than serious, harnessing only Congress' power as an instrument of partisan politics, and not its power as an instrument to answer the country's problems.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that we're considering the fiscal year 2012 Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill in a timely fashion and under an open rule. Chairman Aderholt has been a true professional in the drafting of this bill, and I appreciate his willingness to include input from our side all along the way. And I certainly want to share in his commendation of all of our staff on both sides of the aisle.

For the second year in a row, overall funding for the Department of Homeland Security will drop. The bill decreases funding for Homeland Security by 6.8 percent below the President's request and essentially returns funding to the 2009 level, which is concerning to many people, including myself.

This allocation has required Chairman Aderholt to make some tough decisions. He has been able to retain adequate funding for the frontline employees of the Department of Homeland Security to continue conducting critical operations along our borders, to protect our Nation's airports and seaports, and to respond to the wave of natural disasters that our country has experienced this spring.

The same, however, is not true, unfortunately, of Homeland Security grant programs, which are cut radically. Providing a total of $1 billion for all State and local grants, or 65 percent below the President's request, and providing $350 million for firefighter assistance grants--that's almost 50 percent below an already reduced request--breaks faith with the States and localities that depend on us as partners to secure our communities. These cuts will be especially harmful as many of our States and municipalities are being forced to slash their own budgets.

For example, according to the International Association of Fire Fighters, 1,600 fewer local firefighters will be on the job if the cuts in this bill are enacted. I can't conceive of any defensible argument for cuts of this magnitude, cuts that come on top of cuts to grants already made in the fiscal 2011 appropriations. They will do great damage to local preparedness, to emergency response in our communities, and to the recovering economy.

These grant programs equip our State and local partners to be ready for a disaster so they can mitigate its impact and respond effectively. While this bill rightly seeks to help States and localities rebuild after a disaster strikes, it decimates the work required to prepare for a disaster before it happens. That exposes our communities to greater risk, and it potentially raises the cost of attacks and disasters when they do occur. And we shouldn't ignore the impact of first responder layoffs on our economic recovery.

This bill recommends other drastic reductions, for example, by cutting research funding in half. At this level, the Science and Technology Directorate informed us that it would concentrate its remaining resources on

aviation security and explosive detection devices and on two cutting- edge, near-term research projects. But other critical research underway, including research on cyber security, disaster resiliency, and detection of chemical and biological threats, this research simply wouldn't be funded in 2012, if ever.

The bill also greatly reduces funds for information technology needs and construction activities. It includes no funding for the new DHS headquarters that are already under construction and the related lease consolidation efforts. We've been told repeatedly by the administration that deferring these investments will ultimately affect frontline operations and cost us more money in the future, and I believe that they are absolutely correct.

Now, I recognize that the administrations budget left Chairman Aderholt some holes to fill, but the real problem here is the bill's allocation in the budget resolution. That's thanks to a completely unrealistic spending cap set by the House Republican budget. We are now seeing the real implications of that deeply flawed plan. It simply leaves no room to keep departmental operations strong, and at the same time to fund our dual responsibility to prepare for and respond to all hazards.

The majority further exacerbated the allocation's inadequacy by adding $850 million in disaster relief beyond the President's request to respond to recent flooding and tornado emergencies. Now, that's fine; that's important to do. But contrary to bipartisan tradition, the additional spending was not designated as an emergency for budget purposes, and as a result these disaster funds come out of the hide of first responder funding.

We gave the majority two chances to correct this flaw by designating the funding increase, that is, the increase beyond the President's request, as an emergency, once in last week's appropriation committee markup and yesterday in the Rules Committee. Unfortunately, the majority refused and passed up the opportunity to get us to a point where both parties might be able to support this bill.

I want to close by reiterating my appreciation for the chairman's efforts, for the staff's efforts to work with us on many, many issues in this bill, and for their valiant efforts to sustain our frontline Federal homeland security operations; but the bill does fall short of our obligations in critical aspects. The inadequate allocation makes it difficult to repair this bill, but I and other Members will be offering amendments to move it in a positive direction.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the ranking member of our full committee, the distinguished gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks).

I yield 3 minutes to one of our fine subcommittee members from California (Ms. Roybal-Allard).

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in qualified support of the LaTourette-Pascrell amendment. The bill before us more than halves the total amount of funding for firefighter assistance grants compared to 2011 and 2010.

If this bill is adopted as written, the hiring grants known as SAFER grants are going to be cut by 63 percent below 2011, and equipment grants will be cut by 51 percent. That is simply unacceptable. These cuts would result in thousands of fewer firefighters on the job. It would leave fewer departments able to maintain safe staffing levels. It would prevent many fire departments from purchasing equipment, purchasing breathing apparatus and protective gear that our firefighters depend on during a time of emergency.

This bipartisan amendment provides $320 million to restore this funding to the President's requested level. Mind you, that's still below the 2011 level, but it comes at least to the President's requested level. And it would divide the funds between SAFER and equipment grants as we've been urged to do by the various fire associations.

Retaining this funding when local governments are cutting firefighter budgets will help preserve public safety and security. This amendment will help keep thousands of firefighters on the job.

And the notion that we are talking here about some kind of Federal take-over of local security responsibilities, I think everyone in this Chamber knows that that is not an accurate characterization of what's going on here. Of course, these expenditures are still mainly occurring at the local level, but we're in a world where our fire departments are being asked to equip themselves in new ways, to train themselves in new ways, to meet new kinds of threats and hazards, and these FIRE grants-- the personnel grants and the equipment grants--have been a critical way of establishing a partnership whereby our local fire departments can do what they need to do in this new era when they confront all kinds of new hazards.

Now, I don't believe the offsets in this amendment are workable at the end of the day. I want to acknowledge that. But the inadequate Republican budget allocation, combined with the decision to transfer $850 million from first responder grants to disaster relief and to refuse emergency designation for disaster relief leaves my colleagues no good place to cut and no good options to find offsets for the absolutely essential restoring of these grants to firefighters.

So I support the amendment, but I will work diligently to restore these funding cuts as the bill progresses; and we will get down, at the end of day, I trust, to responsible budget negotiations with the Senate and the White House.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, let me state it very plainly: We need to increase funding for Urban Areas Security Initiative grants, UASI grants, to a minimum of the 2011 level of $725 million. I offered amendments in full committee and asked for a waiver from the Rules Committee in order to do just that.

Now, the majority has taken over $2.2 billion appropriated for these grant programs in 2011 and has consolidated them into a block grant of $1 billion. If you take that $1 billion, which includes all of these State and local grants, and then you reduce this for the statutory carve-outs, and then you reduce it again, assuming the minimum statutory funding for the States, what is going to be left? There is going to be half a billion dollars for UASI, for ports, for rail, for transit, and for other key grants all together. This is simply not enough.

Unfortunately, the proposed offset is also unacceptable. This bill, just like the 2011 final CR, greatly reduced fencing, infrastructure, and technology projects to secure our borders. While some of this reduction is due to a termination of the SBInet contract, this proposed additional cut would prevent CBP from acquiring off-the-shelf technology to support our Border Patrol along the southwest border, as well as to conduct pilot projects on our northern border. So the offset would be a damaging reduction.

But this simply illustrates the impossible dilemma posed by this bill. The root problem is an inadequate allocation, and it is compounded by the majority's refusal to call an emergency an emergency.

So I commend the gentleman from Rhode Island for his initiative to address the dangerous gap left by the majority's bill when it comes to protecting our Nation's urban areas.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

The bill before us provides full funding for the Department's request for the 287(g) program, and $1 million more simply is not needed.

The increase proposed by the gentleman comes at the expense of the Secretary for Homeland Security, an account which is already significantly reduced in this bill and will likely be reduced further, based on amendments that we have seen already. Further cuts in these accounts would eliminate key staffing positions, limiting the Department's ability to respond to national emergencies and to provide for stable leadership in the event of a large disaster or a terrorist attack.

I should also note that while this bill slashes funding for many worthwhile and needed Homeland Security programs that support first responders, it cuts Homeland Security research, much-needed research. But the bill piles more funding onto immigration enforcement. In fact, it adds $28 million in unrequested funding for immigration detention and removal.

Now, the bill provides full funding for the Secure Communities program to continue expanding this program across the country, allowing Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, to identify criminal aliens who are in local custody. I bring up the Secure Communities program because it accomplishes the objectives of the 287(g) program but much more efficiently and without deputizing local police to enforce immigration law, a proposition that is rife with complications and potential abuses. So if we were really serious about deficit reduction and efficiency, we would tell ICE to transition out of this duplicative program, 287(g), and to concentrate on making Secure Communities work efficiently and fairly and well to identify and remove convicted criminal aliens.

I'd also like to note for my colleagues that GAO and the Inspector General have reviewed the 287(g) program, in some cases at our subcommittee's request; and they found serious flaws in the implementation of this program and in ICE's ability to oversee its operation in local communities. The IG found 33 major deficiencies in 287(g) last year and then found 16 more when it recently reassessed the program.

So this is an unwise and unneeded amendment, and I urge its rejection.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I would like to yield to my colleague from Texas so that she can respond to the last speaker.

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

I rise in opposition to the amendment.

I will not go on at length.

I simply don't think the case has been made for a further reduction. The suspicious passenger, the observation techniques programs that have been cited aren't even under the jurisdiction of the Under Secretary being cut. And the bill already cuts $4,993,000 off of the fiscal year 2011 level for the Office of Under Secretary for Management; and it cuts $14,118,000 off of the administration's request.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I know this is an easy target. Who knows even what under Secretary for Management does. It's a very common technique around here to go after these accounts, these administrative and front office accounts, just for the sake of cutting or maybe to pay for something else that sounds good. But I don't think it's wise. I don't think it's responsible. And I would urge rejection of the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to briefly address the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I want to commend our colleague from the District of Columbia for her persistent advocacy for this headquarters consolidation and construction, and also for the history she has recounted for us today. I think it's time well spent to understand how both the Bush and Obama administrations and the Subcommittee on Homeland Security Appropriations, through both parties' leadership, have until now supported this project.

The bill before us, however, provides no funding for the new DHS headquarters or for the consolidation of leased property in 2012. That's a penny-wise and pound-foolish decision. Already based on the delay in finalizing the 2011 bill and the reduced resources provided in that bill for DHS headquarters construction activities, the cost of the headquarters project has grown. It's grown by $200 million, from a total cost of $3.4 billion to $3.6 billion.

The decision to deny an additional $159.6 million in 2012 to finalize construction of the first phase of the headquarters project and to begin construction of the second phase will result in yet higher costs in the out-years, and will delay by at least 2 years when the Coast Guard can move into its new headquarters facility, which is already under construction.

Similarly, the bill doesn't provide $55.6 million requested for lease consolidation activities. Last year, this subcommittee held a very informative hearing with DHS and the General Services Administration on this activity. We heard testimony about the significant financial benefits of reducing the number of leases DHS has from 70 buildings across 46 locations in the greater D.C. area to six to eight buildings. Witnesses testified that this massive footprint disrupts the effectiveness and the cohesiveness of departmental operations and adds needless layers of costs and complexities to facilities management. Additionally, the leases will consume an increasingly larger share of the Department's budget through overhead costs in the coming years.

In a time of fiscal constraint, the Department will not have extra dollars to pay for all of these lease increases without shortchanging frontline and mission-essential programs.

So, Mr. Chairman, at a time when real estate prices continue to be low in the greater Washington area and construction and material costs are relatively low as well, this is the time to make this kind of investment. Funding this activity would save taxpayers money for years to come.

With that, I again commend the gentlewoman for her passionate and effective argument on this point.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, we have not seen the amendment.

Yes, I am. We have not seen the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I simply want to back my chairman in this instance and also urge a rejection of the amendment.

I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to underscore what our chairman has said about the generous addition in this bill for this function. These offsets, again, may be easy for Members for whom this looks like just an abstract, front office expenditure; but in fact, they carry real costs. I urge rejection of the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Offered By: Mr. Price of North Carolina

Amendment No. 39: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

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

I want to express my support, Mr. Chairman, for the intent of my colleague from New York in calling attention to the major deficiency in this bill.

But, Mr. Chairman, I feel compelled also to express my extreme disappointment about what has just occurred on this floor. Our colleague was on her feet ready to offer her amendment. She was on her feet ready to offer this amendment. Somebody may have thought that she was a couple of seconds late in doing that. But even if that were true, we expect the basic comity that a colleague who has been waiting here for an hour to offer this amendment, has been waiting in turn, that we would have the basic comity to allow her to offer that amendment.

I can't believe what we've just witnessed.

I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from Alabama.

I certainly hope so.

That's good, Mr. Chairman. I am very pleased to hear that.

Let me go ahead and say something about my colleague's intent, because there is a major deficiency in this bill, and we need to address this, although it's extremely hard to address without the presence of viable offsets.

State and local grants in this legislation are 55 percent below the enacted 2011 level. They are 70 percent below the enacted 2010 level. Moreover, these State and local grants are block granted. Individual programs, such as State grants and urban area grants and port grants and transit and rail grants, could be cut even farther because at the Secretary's discretion she is going to have to choose within this block grant as to what kind of money goes to individual programs.

At the full committee markup of this bill, Congressman LaTourette and

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

I rise merely to express my support also for Mr. Honda's amendment. I think it is entirely appropriate to permit appropriated funds to be used for immigration integration, and that, indeed, has been our past practice.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I move to strike the last word.

Madam Chairman, Mr. Sessions' amendment frankly has been known to us only a short period of time, and we are not certain that all Members who might have an interest in this have been alerted. I wonder if the gentleman would yield for a question or two on this.

Mr. Sessions, would you be willing to yield?

My recollection is that this amendment was placed in the bill some years ago when there was an active dispute about contracting out some services at CIS.

Could you tell us, what precipitates your trying to remove this language now? As I understand it, your amendment would not require the contracting out, but it would simply remove the prohibition. Is that right?

Reclaiming my time, I understand the operation of the A-76 process. And I also understand that there are times when contracting out makes sense and other times when it does not. But given the fact that the gentleman is not mandating any particular approach to any particular jobs but is simply removing the prohibition, leaving this essentially to the judgment of the Department, I will not object to this. I do wish that there had been a better opportunity for Members who had an interest in this, possibly had a stake in this, to be here and respond, but with the gentleman's explanation, I will not object.

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

Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

Madam Chairman, the gentlewoman's amendment strikes language permitting the use of previously appropriated and specifically designated DHS funds for land acquisition along the southwest border for environmental mitigation.

I feel I need to take a moment just to provide a bit of context. Since 2006, our subcommittee, which I chaired from 2007 to 2010, has increased funding for border security by over $2 billion annually. We invested well over a billion for fencing and other tactical infrastructure alone during this period.

Now, responding to concerns about possible environmental problems associated with such a massive construction undertaking, much of which has taken place on environmentally sensitive lands, Congress provided modest amounts to mitigate these potential environmental consequences: $50 million in fiscal 2009 and $40 million in fiscal 2010. Some of this mitigation effort involves acquiring land from willing sellers for buffer zones to protect fragile habitats, principally along the Rio Grande Valley in Texas.

Since the Department doesn't have the statutory authority to acquire land for the purpose of environmental mitigation, we came to an agreement among Democrats and Republicans last year in the context of negotiations over an omnibus 2011 bill to grant the limited authority to transfer these specific funds to the Department of Interior for land acquisition. Obviously, Interior has the statutory authority to acquire land for this purpose.

So let me, Madam Chairman, read the section of the chairman's report so everyone knows how noncontroversial this provision is that Mrs. Lummis seeks to strike. And I am quoting, ``In order for the Department to execute interdepartmental agreements with the U.S. Department of the Interior to complete environmental mitigation activities, the committee includes a general provision, section 547 in the bill, permitting the transfer of previously appropriated environmental mitigation funds under BSFIT to the U.S. Department of Interior to carry out this purpose. The authority is narrowly tailored and controlled to ensure that funds will only be transferred: in accordance with a written agreement between the Secretaries of Homeland Security and the Interior; where the Secretary of the Interior has submitted an expenditure plan 15 days in advance of the proposed transfer, detailing the actions proposed to be taken with amounts transferred; where the Secretary of Homeland Security has certified that the actions outlined in the expenditure plan cannot be legally executed under the authorities of CBP or any other component of the Department of Homeland Security and the actions are determined to be necessary for mitigation of construction, operation, and maintenance activities related to border security.''

Madam Chairman, as a government we have many responsibilities and priorities. These include, of course, securing our borders, something I have worked on a lot in these past 4 years. It also includes protecting our natural and cultural resources. The sort of interagency agreement that Homeland Security and Interior have entered into for environmental mitigation is exactly what we should be encouraging, especially because this arrangement is explicit that Interior cannot take any action that CBP does not first agree to. Let me repeat: Interior cannot take any action that CBP does not approve.

I urge my colleagues to honor this agreement, a reasonable arrangement, and defeat this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

The gentleman has raised the issue of accountability, so I would like to call his attention to section D on page 90, and ask him for his assessment of this. We worked this out carefully, as I said earlier, worked it out with the chairman in a cooperative way. And it addresses directly the question of accountability. The Secretary of the Interior, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, shall submit to the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate and the House of Representatives not later than 15 days before any proposed transfer under this section, an expenditure plan that describes in detail the actions proposed to be taken with the amounts transferred.

Does that not meet the gentleman's standards of accountability?

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Madam Chairman, I was intrigued with this amendment. I didn't quite understand the import of it. So I have done a little research, talked to the Department of Homeland Security about the extent of their activities with this task force and what the affect of this amendment might be. So I would like to offer a little reality check here and suggest that this amendment is not merited.

This amendment, for starters, will not save any money. It simply prohibits the Department of Homeland Security and its employees from, in any way, planning for the effects of climate change.

Now the debate isn't about whether or not one believes that climate change is being caused by human beings. The fact is that whatever the cause, climate change is occurring in certain parts of the world. Both the U.S. Coast Guard and the Navy have testified before congressional committees that their operations are greatly affected, particularly in the Arctic region.

The Department of Homeland Security has identified other specific climate change-related impacts on DHS missions. These include, as you might expect, disaster response activities and the protection of critical infrastructure.

Now given the historic flooding that's occurred along the Mississippi as well as the worst tornado season we've experienced since 1950 with over 1,200 tornadoes and 500 deaths, it's understandable that DHS might just want the best available information on climate change.

Now I want to clarify any misinformation here. There are no DHS employees nor are any DHS funds dedicated full-time to climate change. One person at the department has spent a limited amount of time representing DHS at these task force meetings and activities--one person. So prohibiting funds going toward this effort is not going to save any money.

But there are several DHS components, including FEMA and the Coast Guard, that have been able to leverage cross-government expertise from the task force on both climate issues and on long-range planning generally. I would think that's exactly what they should do.

So what this amendment would do, rather than saving any money, it would simply prevent DHS persons from meeting or even talking to each other regarding the task force.

Now it's prudent and necessary for DHS to be able to work with its partner agencies to plan for the effects of climate change on their missions, and it's proper and important that our government agencies be able to talk to each other about the changes they are witnessing and the accommodations to their missions that might need to be made.

So, Madam Chairman, again, the Carter amendment will not save one dollar. Instead, it will prevent DHS from engaging in contingency planning with partner agencies across government. This is a debate, if it's about anything, it's about ensuring good government and intelligent planning and responsible coordination.

I urge my colleagues to vote against the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Yes, FEMA and the Coast Guard.

Yes.

Will the gentleman yield?

Is it actually less efficient to shut off this kind of interagency discussion and to say that the representative from FEMA or the Coast Guard simply can't participate and that they have to reinvent the wheel? I simply don't understand the rationale, when interagency work is going on and when it has the potential to inform Homeland Security's work, why they shouldn't take advantage of that.

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Madam Chairman, I support this amendment because it restates the Department's broad discretionary authority to grant relief or deferred action to deserving individuals.

The authority of law enforcement agencies to exercise discretion in deciding what cases to investigate and prosecute under existing civil and criminal law, including immigration law, is fundamental to the American legal system. And since this amendment recognizes this essential executive authority, especially when it comes to relief for humanitarian purposes or when it serves the public's interest, I recommend that my colleagues support it.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chairman, my amendment would waive certain requirements attached to the Fire Grants and the SAFER grants, and this amendment is necessitated by the amendment passed earlier this evening.

Members are aware that H.R. 2107 reduced funding for firefighter hiring grants, also known as SAFER grants, by $255 million, or 63 percent below 2011. Fortunately, the House resoundingly overturned that ill-advised move earlier today and adopted an amendment by Mr. LaTourette and Mr. Pascrell to restore the funding to the President's requested level.

But my colleagues should also be aware that funding is only part of the problem with this bill when it comes to the SAFER program. The underlying bill also neglects to maintain provisions enacted in fiscal years 2009 through 2011 that allowed fire departments to use these grants to hire laid-off firefighters and to prevent others from being laid off in the first place.

The law traditionally permits SAFER grants only to be used to hire new staff. Now, that provision makes sense when our economy is booming and local governments are in a position to hire new workers. But when the recovery is still fragile and local budgets are actually contracting and workers are being laid off, FEMA needs the flexibility to use these grants to keep firefighters from being cut in the first place. Secretary Napolitano and Administrator Fugate both testified to this need earlier this year during our appropriations hearings. So I am proposing a waiver amendment which would save thousands of firefighter jobs.

Right now the real challenge to community safety is not the reluctance of local governments to hire new fire personnel. It's the potential and actual layoffs of public safety personnel, which means fewer first responders, longer response times, and more lives being put at risk.

This amendment also contains a provision that waives certain budgetary requirements local fire departments have to fill in order to receive a grant. These include not allowing a fire department's overall budget to drop below a certain level, not reducing staff over a number of years even if budgets continue to suffer, and providing local matching funds. Again, these provisions are fine when local coffers are healthy, but we all know how strapped our cities and counties are right now. So in the current economic environment, very few municipalities would be able to meet these requirements, jobs would go unfilled, and firefighter and public safety would be placed at greater risk.

Finally, to address concerns that these waivers have gone on well beyond what was originally anticipated, the fire organizations tell me that 2012 will be likely the last year that they will need these waivers.

When colleagues are weighing this amendment, Madam Chairman, I encourage them to consider the intent of the SAFER program, ensuring we have a safe level of staffing of our Nation's preeminent first responders, the firefighters.

We have already overwhelmingly supported funding for the firefighter jobs by adding funding back to the SAFER program. So if Members really support these jobs, they need to take this additional step. We should vote to allow these funds to be used in the most flexible way possible, the best

way possible to keep firefighters on staff.

So I urge support of this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

I want to join Chairman Aderholt in urging rejection of this nongermane amendment. Members of course would not want to vote against contravening the law in anything that we do, but we have to acknowledge that this amendment is not germane to this bill.

And the rhetoric that has attended the introduction of this amendment contains, just to put it mildly, insinuations and charges that this Member finds unacceptable.

This is not the place, however, Madam Chairman, to engage in a full debate of our Libyan operations or our foreign policy in general. So I will restrict myself to simply saying that I do think this amendment is inappropriate for this bill.

I'll be happy to yield.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I rise in opposition to the amendment and move to strike the last word.

Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment which will preclude the Department of Homeland Security or any entity that receives funding from the Department of Homeland Security, such as State and local governments, from insisting on fair labor standards for construction contracts, also known has the Davis- Bacon Act standards.

Davis-Bacon is a pretty simple concept and a fair one. It requires that

workers on federally funded construction projects be paid no less than the wages paid in the community for similar work. According to the Economic Policy Institute, the differences in labor costs that this makes are insignificant. Average labor costs, including benefits and payroll taxes, are roughly one-quarter of construction costs. Thus, if there's an increase in overall contract costs due to higher wages, it likely would be modest to the point in many cases of being virtually undetectable.

And in fact, Davis-Bacon, in ensuring that fair wages attract skilled workers, this might actually mean that the work is completed at a higher quality and in less time.

This amendment flouts the basic concept of wage fairness. At the exact time we're trying to get people back to work across the country, is this House going to vote to drive down the wages of workers who do business with the government on the theory that it might cost a little less money on construction projects?

Are we going to strong-arm the States and say they can't uphold the labor standards they've adopted in their own right?

I strongly recommend a ``no'' vote. The House has spoken repeatedly on this issue this year. We've taken two votes on this, during H.R. 1 and during the FAA reauthorization, and both times amendments to strike Davis-Bacon standards failed. We don't need to revisit this again here tonight.

I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

I thank the ranking member. I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

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

We, too, would like to accept the amendment and commend the gentleman from New York for offering the amendment. He's bringing Federal practice into line with the Presidential memorandum of a few days ago, and this will promote the use of alternative fuel vehicles--hybrids, electrics, natural gas, and biofuels--by 2015. It will be a positive step to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, to develop alternative energy sources, and to make of the Federal Government and its fleet an example that the rest of the country can look to.

So we urge adoption.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, we have not seen this amendment.

I object. We don't have a copy of the amendment.

I object, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment, and I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, this is an extraordinary amendment, a listing of over 3 pages of organizations by name, singled out on the floor of the House of Representatives for this kind of negative treatment, this kind of legislation that would simply render them ineligible for any kind of activity under this legislation, under this appropriations bill.

Now, I seriously doubt that there is money in the Homeland Security bill that would go to any of these organizations; but still, the principle is very troubling.

So I want to ask the gentleman, the offerer of the amendment, just about a few of these organizations and ask him to document whatever information he has about this specific organization that would justify their being included on this kind of list, being singled out in this way. What does the gentleman have, what kind of information does the gentleman have on the Arkansas Community Housing Corporation?

Yes, I would be glad to yield.

Does the gentleman have documentation as to what kind of problems he is alleging with the Arkansas Community Housing Corporation that would warrant their inclusion on a list of this sort?

Don't you think you should produce it before you ask Members to vote on the amendment?

Can you produce that information tonight before you ask us to vote on this amendment?

What about the American Environmental Justice Project? Does the gentleman have information on that organization?

Well, you're asking your colleagues here tonight, before the entire Nation, to stigmatize these organizations, to slay these organizations.

You have information, you're claiming, about these organizations that would warrant this kind of treatment, this kind of blackballing of these organizations with respect to any ability to compete legitimately for governmental funds. Don't you think you should have brought with you to the floor documentation of the problems with these organizations that would warrant this kind of treatment?

Let me ask you about the Agape Broadcast Foundation. What kind of information do you have about the Agape Foundation?

I yield to the gentleman.

But you are singling out that foundation. You are singling out that foundation.

How about the Affiliated Media Foundation Movement? Does the gentleman have documentation of why that organization should be included here tonight?

Reclaiming my time, I guess this would appear to be some kind of guilt by association, but I'm not sure it even rises to that level. Do we know about the associations of these organizations that would warrant their being tarred by this treatment here tonight?

Wouldn't the gentleman have the respect for his colleagues to bring to the floor the documentation that leads him to smear these organizations and include them on this extraordinary amendment? You're expecting us to vote on this.

What about the Affiliated Media Foundation Movement? Does the gentleman have information about that organization?

Well, the gentleman has been planning to offer this amendment. Why didn't you have the basic respect for this body to gather this documentation, knowing that these questions would be raised by anyone who wants conscientiously to vote on this amendment?

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

Mr. Chairman, I'm not going to prolong this, but I do want to plead with my colleagues.

This is something that this body simply, simply should not be a party to. Bringing in three pages-plus of organizations that many of us, most of us, have never heard of, have no knowledge of. They may be on somebody's list somewhere. We have no knowledge of the basis for inclusion on that list. There may have been media reports about them. Whatever there is that would back up this kind of list, at a minimum it should be provided to us tonight. Anyone offering an amendment of this sort ought to provide the basic documentation for the kind of stigmatizing, the kind of exclusion that is being proposed here of these organizations from any ability to compete for funding in this bill.

I hope it's obvious--I hope it's obvious to everybody here, no matter what their political persuasion, that this is simply unacceptable and must be rejected.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I wish to join the chairman of our subcommittee in opposing this amendment--not because there are any funds in this bill for these advanced imaging machines, this particular technology. There is no funding in this bill for this purpose, but on principle, this amendment is objectionable. It could be very damaging.

I won't dwell on the privacy safeguards. I think they've been debated in this body before, and we're well aware that privacy safeguards surrounding the use of this equipment are extensive--the face is blurred, there is no storage of the images, the operator of the machine is off the premises. And as the chairman just said, the technology is constantly being improved to protect privacy further.

But the point also needs to be made that an amendment like this, if it were implemented--not just with respect to the current year funding, but with ongoing acquisition of these machines--this amendment would reduce our ability to find non-metallic explosives and weapons or bombs carried on a person's body. That's the fact of the matter.

These advanced imaging machines are better able to detect a wide variety of threats that metal detectors simply cannot pick up. So adopting this amendment would put our citizens at risk. It's a step backwards in our security provisions and it should be rejected.

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

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

Once again, I want to join the chairman in urging rejection of this amendment. The reasoning that I applied to the previous amendment applies with equal force to this amendment.

We're talking here about the need in our airports to employ the best and latest possible technology to save lives, and we're not doing this without knowledge of emerging threats. And the ability of different technologies to pick up more sophisticated threats, more difficult threats to detect, that's what these machines are all about.

It's most unwise, I think, most irresponsible on the floor of this House to make judgements about this that actually could compromise our security in very, very serious ways. I urge rejection of this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose this amendment.

I want to deal just for a moment, though, with some of the accusations that have surrounded this proposal and others like it. In fact, the House Oversight Committee conducted an investigation concerning allegations that Homeland Security improperly politicized the Freedom of Information Act process by allowing political appointees to review documents before they were released to the public.

The committee's lengthy investigation and a corresponding review by the inspector general found no evidence that the documents were edited, prior to release, for political reasons. According to the IG, ``During our review, we learned that the Office of the Secretary was involved in examining several hundred FOIA requests prior to disclosure. This process was created so the Department would be aware of certain FOIA requests that it deemed to be significant. After reviewing information and interviewing FOIA experts, we determined that the significant request review process of DHS did not prohibit the eventual release of information.''

Now, to be clear, both the IG and the committee found the process to be inefficient and cumbersome. But I understand from the committee that it has since been modified to address these concerns.

Now, on the amendment, I think it's a bad idea and perhaps counterproductive. It could lead to the exact opposite of the gentleman's intended result. Let me explain what I mean. In some cases, political review and decision-making will allow the Department to be more proactive in disclosing information to the public.

Under this amendment, the head of the agency or another political appointee could not override an arbitrary decision by a bureaucrat to withhold documents that should be released. That bureaucrat could be protecting himself and his colleagues or those documents should be released. There could be a perverse result, I think, if this amendment were adopted.

And at least under the reading of our oversight committee colleagues, the amendment might prevent the agency from faithfully carrying out its responsibility to comply with FOIA requests. That's because, technically, the agency head is in charge of ensuring the process is completed. If they're taken out of the mix, it really calls into question who's accountable and whether the FOIA process would operate as intended.

So we better be careful in treading on this ground. We could have exactly the opposite results from what is intended. And for that reason, I oppose this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Chairman, our chairman has expressed very well the reasons for opposing this amendment. It simply would weaken our security dangerously. And we are talking here not just about first responders and firefighters, we are also talking about frontline DHS personnel in a number of our agencies. I join him in urging rejection of this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

It is premature; there has not yet been a completed election for union representation at TSA. Moreover, it is unwise. The TSA administrator has made a modest and limited proposal to allow limited collective bargaining for transportation security officers. I think that is in the best interests of TSA, and it has been restricted to nonsecurity issues.

So it is a wise proposal and a modest one, and we should allow it to go forward.

I yield to our colleague, the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson) who is the ranking member of the authorizing committee on Homeland Security.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Offered By: Mr. Price of North Carolina

Amendment No. 39: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Mr. Speaker, Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant to the following:

Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the Constitution provides Congress with the authority to ``make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper'' to provide for the ``general Welfare'' of Americans. In the Department of Education Organization Act (P.L. 96-88), Congress declared that ``the establishment of a Department of Education is in the public interest, will promote the general welfare of the United States, will help ensure that education issues receive proper treatment at the Federal level, and will enable the Federal Government to coordinate its education activities more effectively.'' The Department of Education's mission is to ``promote student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access.''