Mr. Poe: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting chairman: The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 28 offered by Mr. Poe:
At the end of title V, add the following new section:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act may be used by the Secretary of Homeland Security to implement a plan under section 7209 of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-458; 8 U.S.C. 1185 note) that permits travel into the United States from foreign countries using any document other than a passport to denote citizenship and identity.
The Acting chairman: Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe) and the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price) each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. Poe: Mr. Chairman, the amendment I offer today will help reduce the lengthy delays consumers are facing when applying for passports, while at the same time strengthening security at our borders.
The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 mandated that the U.S. Secretaries of Homeland Security and State develop and implement a plan to require all U.S. citizens and foreign nationals to present a passport or some other document when entering the United States, as of January 1, 2008.
For many years United States citizens and citizens from other countries in the Western Hemisphere have not been required to present a passport to enter the United States. They were admitted by stating verbally that they were from a country that didn't require passports or by presenting a wide variety of less secure documentation, including up to 5,000 documents that our border agents must be versed in.
The 9/11 Commission in their findings highlighted "for terrorists travel documents are as important as weapons… . In their travels terrorists use evasive methods, such as altered and counterfeit documents, and they study and exploit America's vulnerabilities." The 9/11 Commission rightfully recommended we end the practice of traveling without passports. I am glad Congress took action on that recommendation. However, here we are 2½ years later, and it seems we are still going further and further away from putting this policy in place due to the bureaucracy in the Department of Homeland Security and the State Department through the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative.
It seems bureaucrats implementing the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative continue to spend large amounts of time and money to come up with other "alternative documents to passports" to comply with this law. The answer is why? We have a secure document, the passport, that has been implemented and is being used. But the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of State, even though they continue to say the passport is the "gold standard" for identity and citizenship documents because of its security, have come up with all different types of forms and documents that they are studying. All of these documents are unproven. They are called the Pass card, the BCC card, the SENTRI card, the Nexus card, the Fast card. And we are spending taxpayer money experimenting on these, while not implementing the proven document like the passport.
So this bill would require the Department of Homeland Security to use and implement only passports and quit spending money on documents that are unproven. And that is the purpose of this amendment: to spend money on passports only.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Price of North Carolina: 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. Poe: Mr. Chairman, with all due respect to the chairman, I understand his concerns, but the problem is exactly as he stated. There are too many documents to allow people to travel back and forth across U.S. borders. The United States discriminates against citizens from other nations because we require all those people that enter the United States to have a passport. Because of the different special interest groups that have thwarted the implementation of passports by having other types of documents, those documents are unproven. In fact, Homeland Security is still studying those, which means they are spending money on trying to come up with various systems.
So rather than have three or four or five systems, I think it is important that we have one system, as the 9/11 Commission recommended. And that passport system is the one that is the most foolproof. It will take time to implement, but these other systems haven't been implemented at all.
So the purpose of this is to make sure that we are on the same page: Require a simple document, a passport document, one that I have here; one that is faster than trying to examine numerous documents; one that you can, as we say, slide and glide by coming across the border. It won't take any more time. In fact, it will take less time than some of these other unsecured documents.
So with that, I ask the approval of this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Price of North Carolina: Mr. Chairman, I yield to our colleague from New York (Mr. Serrano).
Mr. Serrano: Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I think you said it well. The problem here is that we have in place documentation that is acceptable for these kinds of crossings. Yes, as we go forward, we have to make sure that we secure our borders. But to undo that which has been working for a while and that which is accepted by our State Department is just to take a step backwards. And rather than doing that, we should accept what we have now and build on it. And what you are proposing is really to take a step that would only hurt us.
Throughout the years, the State Department has worked, in the case of the Mexican Government, to bring about a proper crossing of the border for work purposes and family visits and so on. That has been in place for years. That has worked. That is not the issue that we deal with when we talk about undocumented immigration into the country. That is not the issue we deal with when we talk about terrorist acts. This is the crossing of the border in a proper and safe and legal manner, and that is what we have in place, and we shouldn't be reinventing the wheel at this stage.
Mr. Price of North Carolina: Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Poe: Mr. Chairman, just in summary, we are requiring people who fly into the United States to have passports. Even people from Mexico who fly into the United States will have to have passports. And when we fly to Mexico or Canada, we have to have passports. The same is true of people coming in by sea. And now it is appropriate that we have that same recommendation for those people who travel into the United States by land.
That is why I recommend and ask for the adoption of this amendment, that the universal document for entry into another nation be adopted.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting chairman: The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. Poe: Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting chairman: Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas will be postponed.
Mr. LaTourette: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting chairman: The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. LaTourette:
At the end of title V, add the following new section:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act may be used to implement any plan developed under section 7209(b)(1) of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-458; 8 U.S.C. 1185 note) before June 1, 2009.
The Acting chairman: Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. LaTourette: First of all, Mr. Chairman, I want to compliment you on the way you have conducted this debate. In happier times I had the privilege of being where you are, and I have to tell you, you have done a tremendous job and I appreciate it very much.
I am pleased to offer this amendment with my friend, a colleague from Cleveland, Ohio, Congressman Kucinich.
This amendment basically recognizes what I think that every Member of this House should recognize: that the implementation of the passport travel requirements in the Western Hemisphere has been a disaster. The State Department and Department of Homeland Security made an estimate, and they have been swamped. My constituents call me on a regular basis saying that they have applied for passports 12, 14, 20 weeks. They don't have their passports. Their trips are canceled. And this is a bad thing.
You would think in the face of that track record that perhaps we wouldn't go to phase 2. Phase 2 says that we need to have documents as we cross the border by land into Canada. Where Congressman Kucinich and I are from, we go through Detroit or Buffalo and the southern border as well. But that hasn't been the case.
On Friday the two agencies announced, reluctantly, that, you know what? We have got it wrong, and as a result we are not going to require passports for air travel to the Caribbean or to Canada anymore, and that a photo ID will be sufficient. However, even with this chaos, the administration has vowed that it will move forward with phase 2 on January 1.
Now, I want to commend the chairman of the Rules Committee, Congresswoman Slaughter, for the work that she has done to put in this bill triggers that say maybe we don't have it right. Let's do some pilot programs and things of that nature. But those provisions were put in this bill before this disaster happened. And I don't assume that I am the only Member of this body that has received angry phone calls from their constituents and say, you know what? Maybe, maybe, we just need to slow it down.
So this is a complete prohibition. It says to the Department of Homeland Security in this bill, and we will do it again in the State Department bill, saying we gave you until June of 2009 to get this right, to come up with the Pass card, to come up with whatever you are going to come up. But please, please, don't do this to our constituents on January 1, 2008.
Mr. Chairman, at this time it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to my good friend and colleague from Cleveland, Ohio, Congressman Kucinich.
Mr. Kucinich: Mr. Chairman, as my colleague Mr. LaTourette points out, our offices are getting deluged with requests and complaints from constituents who are suffering under this backlog that has been created, and some of the action that has been taken by our Federal Government is only going to compound it. So the amendment is aimed at being constituent-sensitive and also sensible with respect to the border crossings, particularly at Canada.
I think that Members realize, and all of us are here as legislators, but another important part of our responsibility is constituent service. And every one of us knows that we have been swamped.
So this amendment that I am proud to work with Mr. LaTourette on is aimed at not just deferring a problem, but at really taking a sound and sensible approach to what has become a nightmare in terms of our constituents not being able to get the kind of responsiveness they have the right to expect on these issues that relate to visas and passports.
So thank you very much, Mr. LaTourette, for your work on this, and I am very grateful that I have a chance to work with you on it.
Mr. LaTourette: I thank my colleague.
Mr. Price of North Carolina: 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. LaTourette: Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining.
The Acting chairman: The gentleman from Ohio has 1½ minutes remaining.
Mr. LaTourette: I would like to thank Chairman Price for not only accepting this amendment, but also for the work that he has done on this bill.
This has been a very difficult process. And just like you, Mr. Chairman, he has also had a tough go of it. It's tough to lead, it's tough to be in the majority, it's tough to govern, and I think Chairman Price has done great work.
I commend the committee for the work they have done on this bill. And I mentioned Chairwoman Slaughter for the work that she put in, and that was her language, that $100 million.
I don't want to be an obstructionist, but because the Republicans and Democrats are being killed on this passport issue, even though the chairman has indicated he will accept the amendment, I will ask for a recorded vote.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting chairman: The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. LaTourette: Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting chairman: Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio will be postponed.
Mr. Tancredo: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting chairman: The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Tancredo:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the following:
Sec. 544. None of the funds made available in this Act may be used to carry out the visa waiver program under section 217 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1187).
The Acting chairman: Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) and the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price) each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado.
Mr. Tancredo: Mr. Chairman, my amendment simply suspends the Visa Waiver Program for fiscal year 2008.
The Visa Waiver Program was established in 1986 as a temporary, and I underline temporary, program to allow tourists or short-term business visitors to enter the United States for 90 days or less without obtaining a visa. The program was later made permanent by Congress and currently allows nationals of 27 countries into the United States with a simple stamp.
The Visa Waiver Program ill advisedly trusts the security of our Nation to the background check capabilities and passport procedures of foreign governments. There are numerous instances of terrorists and would-be terrorists who have exploited this program, or easily could have.
September 11 conspirator Zacharias Moussaoui is a great example of this. He exploited the Visa Waiver Program to travel to the United States. The 9/11 Commission stated that "a maximum U.S. effort to investigate Moussaoui conceivably could have unearthed his connections. Those connections might have brought investigators to the core of the 9/11 plot."
It's an interesting case because, of course, he was actually under investigation at the time by the French Government, by their secret service. Had we required a visa program that allowed for us to conduct that kind of background check, we may very well have identified those connections and not allowed him the visa. It seems clear that a maximum effort would include a thorough vetting of those seeking access to the United States.
Would-be "shoe bomber" terrorist Richard Reid exploited the Visa Waiver Program to board the flight he tried to bomb. The London subway bombing was executed in large part by British citizens with known ties to terrorism. Under the Visa Waiver Program, any British citizen can travel to the United States without having to apply for a visa and without giving our government the ability to do even a cursory investigation as to whether he or she may have ties to a terrorist group. British citizen Hemant Lakhani is just such an example. He was busted in a sting in New Jersey in 2003 when he tried to sell shoulder- fire surface-to-air missiles to a Federal operative who he believed to be a Somali terrorist plotting against American jetliners.
Mr. Chairman, we cannot give those who wish to harm us open access to America under the cloak of the Visa Waiver Program. We need to suspend the program until we are equipped to check the criminal and terrorist background of every visitor who arrives at any port of entry to confirm the identity of each visitor using the biometric identifiers.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Price of North Carolina: Mr. Chairman, I yield to our colleague, subcommittee member, Mr. Farr.
Mr. Farr: 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. Price of North Carolina: Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Tancredo: Mr. Chairman, if passports alone provided the kind of security that the gentleman suggests they provide, then of course we would not need visas at all. Why would we impose this particular kind of background check if passports alone gave us the kind of security that we need to make sure that the people entering this country are, number one, who they say they are, and more importantly, that their backgrounds do not show anything that might suggest that they should not be allowed into the country.
But don't just take my word for it. Listen to what former DHS Inspector General Clark Kent Ervin recently said: "We ought to be ending the Visa Waiver Program, not expanding it. There is a reason why terrorists are keen to obtain passports from visa-waiver countries. They don't have to undergo extensive security checks."
So when you say there is no opposition to the program, I would suggest that that is not correct. There certainly are people involved with the program who feel as I do, that we need to abandon this particular visa-waiver idea.
And the IG isn't alone. Last September, the Government Accountability Office found that stolen passports from visa-waiver countries are prized travel documents among terrorists, criminals and immigration law violators. Based on a State Department report from January 2002 until June 2004, 28 foreign governments reported 56,943 stolen blank foreign passports. The Director of the U.S. National Central Bureau of Interpol has said that for 55 of the 181 Interpol countries, there were probably over 10 million lost and stolen passports that might be in circulation. In August of 2004, according to CBP, their database contains 1.2 million records of stolen passports. Notably, between January and June of 2005, DHS confiscated 298 passports issued by visa-waiver countries that travelers were attempting to use at ports of entry to fraudulently enter the United States.
I encourage the adoption of the amendment.
The Acting chairman: The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Price of North Carolina: Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of our time to Mr. Farr.
Mr. Farr: 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. Price of North Carolina: Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting chairman: The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. Tancredo: Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting chairman: Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado will be postponed.
Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting chairman: The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas:
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
Sec. __. Critical Infrastructure Vulnerability
None of the funds in this Act may be used to limit the implementation of Homeland Security Presidential Directive 7 (HSPD-7).
The Acting chairman: Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas.
Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas: Mr. Chairman, might I add my appreciation for the manner in which the chairman has conducted this process with the appropriations of the Homeland Security Appropriations Committee.
Let me thank the ranking member of the committee and the chairman of the subcommittee for working with the authorizers. And let me thank my chairman, Chairman Thompson of the full committee, the Homeland Security Committee, for creating the committee which I Chair, the Transportation, Security and Critical Infrastructure.
This amendment speaks directly to the immediacy of our concerns about pipeline security, refineries and other critical infrastructure.
A CRS report indicates that there are now nearly half a million miles of oil and gas transmission pipelines across America. We got a wake-up call just a few weeks ago with the discovery of a possible plot to blow up the fuel lines at John F. Kennedy Airport. Now we understand that we have a dilemma, and that dilemma requires the Department of Homeland Security to consider assessing the vulnerability of pipelines, refineries and other critical infrastructure around America.
Natural gas, gasoline, petroleum and other pipelines can produce catastrophic fires and explosions when they fall, and it is imperative that we begin to assess the vulnerabilities of such.
A weekly bulletin from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and FBI told law enforcement officials and businesses this week that the Independence Day holiday might make an attack more appealing.
This was an article in 2005. The bulletin said important economic infrastructure like refineries are possible targets for terrorists.
We need to assess the vulnerabilities of our refineries and pipelines.
Another article said, apparently some international terrorists have targeted our oil refining assets in the United States as potential targets. FBI Director Mueller said between 1999 and 2001, the FBI prevented 10 possible domestic terrorist incidents, including two potentially large scale, high casualty attacks by right wing groups, and the planned bombing of a trans-Alaska pipeline in 1999. Our pipelines are on the front lines of terrorists.
A New York Post article said for years, city residents have questioned the safety of the 40 year old artery that pumps jet fuel, heating and diesel oil and gasoline into the city, and some have even cited the pipeline as a potential terrorist attack.
We saw what happened when this allegation of terrorism that is still being investigated was uncovered regarding the John F. Kennedy pipeline. We have to get in front of this. We have to be preventive. Our committee will go forward having oversight hearings on these important questions. But it is important for the Department of Homeland Security to adhere to its directive and to recognize that the responsibility of security of pipelines and critical infrastructure remains in the Department of Homeland Security.
It is interesting as to whether or not beyond the question of impacting our security and our lives, that this damage to critical infrastructure can generate increased oil prices, something that many Americans are now saying, enough is enough.
I would ask my colleagues to recognize that our responsibility, the Homeland Security Appropriations Committee that has put together a very inclusive appropriations bill, to answer the questions of the needs of America's homeland security. But we also have to recognize that we have to be diligent, we have to be vigilant, and we have to make sure that we are in front of the ideas, the threats, of those perpetrators who would want to do us harm.
The half a million miles of pipelines, the many, many refineries, speaks loudly and volumes to the necessity of creating a vulnerability assessment of those pipelines and refineries and other critical infrastructure around the United States.
I would ask that my colleagues support this amendment, and I would ask additionally that the Department of Homeland Security have as one of its chief responsibilities the vulnerability assessment of these critical infrastructure sites.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Price of North Carolina: 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.
Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas: Mr. Chairman, I am absolutely delighted. It means America will be safer.
I thank the Chair for this opportunity to explain my amendment to H.R. 2638, the "Homeland Security Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year of 2008." As a member of the Homeland Security Committee and the chair of the Transportation Security and Infrastructure Protection Subcommittee, I am pleased to offer this amendment, which enhances the bill by requiring the Department of Homeland Security to conduct a security vulnerability study of the Nation's pipelines and refineries.
Less than two weeks ago, four would-be terrorists were arrested for hatching a plot to blow up John F. Kennedy Airport and swaths of Queens by attacking fuel tanks and an underground pipeline in the hope of igniting a catastrophic explosion that would surpass the horrific devastation visited upon the Nation on September 11.
Because of their length, ubiquity, and remoteness, pipelines can be nearly impossible to defend. Natural gas, gasoline, petroleum, and other pipelines can produce catastrophic fires and explosions when they fail. "Environmental" damage aside, these events can kill and injure people, and the casualties can be worse when pipelines are located near populated areas.
We need to ensure that everything that can be done to secure the Nation's pipelines and refineries is being done. There may be, of course, other actions that pipeline and refinery operators can and must do to reduce the threats terrorists could present.
My aim of my amendment is to increase the knowledge base pertaining to potential vulnerabilities of a critically important segment of the Nation's economic infrastructure so that effective countermeasures can be taken to protect the public health, safety, and welfare.
For these reasons, I urge the adoption of this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I am very happy to yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting chairman: The question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. Tancredo: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting chairman: The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 7 offered by Mr. Tancredo:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the following:
Sec. 544. None of the funds made available in this Act may be used in contravention of section 642(a) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1373(a)).
The Acting chairman: Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado.
Mr. Tancredo: Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment that I offered many times in the past. It was actually passed by the House, I believe, in the last session. The fact is that we need to, unfortunately, run at it again.
My amendment would prevent State and local governments who refuse to share information with Federal immigration authorities from obtaining Federal funds under this act. These are so-called sanctuary policies, and they are not only misguided and dangerous, but they also are illegal.
That is an interesting aspect of this that we have brought to the attention of the Congress many times in the past. There is in fact a law. It has been on the books now for over 10 years. Section 642 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 already makes it illegal for a State or local government to block communications between State and local police and Federal immigration enforcement authorities.
Unfortunately, there are no provisions for enforcement. Therefore, many local governments adopt policies that explicitly prevent their police officers from cooperating with immigration and Customs enforcement agents.
A recent example of this increasingly brazen defiance of Federal law is the City of San Francisco. Just a couple of months ago, Mayor Gavin Newsome assured a concerned audience that he would "not allow any of his department heads or anyone else associated with the city to cooperate in any way, shape or form with these immigration raids." Unfortunately, San Francisco is not is not the only jurisdiction in this category.
When local governments refuse to share information with Federal immigration authorities, police departments often stop and/or arrest criminal aliens time and time again, only to release them without ever checking their immigration status. As a result, instead of being deported, these aliens move on to commit other crimes.
The City of Denver also has a sanctuary city policy that violates Federal law. Their police manual explicitly prohibits officers from initiating actions whose objective is to "discover the immigration status of a person."
Mr. Chairman, I can tell you from my own experience that there have been numerous occasions where this sanctuary city policy in Denver alone has resulted in the deaths of individuals, and certainly other kinds of crimes being perpetrated, because people that were involved with these murders and/or manslaughter charges that were brought against them were illegal aliens. They had come in contact at some time in the past with the authorities, but because of these sanctuary city policies, none of the authorities were able to communicate with ICE and therefore, of course, these people went undetected and otherwise almost certainly would have been taken into custody and deported and those crimes would not have been committed.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Price of North Carolina: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, section 642(a) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 prohibits governments from withholding immigration-related data when it is requested by other government entities with a legitimate need for the information. This amendment, which our friend from Colorado has offered many times before, would prevent DHS from awarding funds to any government entity that fails to comply with the law.
Now, as far as I know, Mr. Chairman, the Department of Homeland Security has never reported a failure to comply with the law, with this underlying law. The Justice Department has never filed suit against any entity for violating this statute. So I don't know how our friend would explain that. I would say it renders unclear why this amendment is necessary or what effect it is likely to have.
I would yield to the gentleman, and I would appreciate his responding to a few questions that would help us understand the thrust of this amendment.
Does the gentlemen know of any DHS funding today that is used in contravention of section 642(a) of the 1996 Immigration Act?
Mr. Tancredo: Mr. Chairman, the issue is not whether DHS funding is used in contravention. It is whether or not there is any penalty to be assessed to enforce the law that is on the books. Naturally there has been no suit brought or whatever because there is no penalty in the law itself. What we are doing here is providing a penalty for the violation of the law.
Mr. Price of North Carolina: The question is, do you know of any violations that have occurred?
Mr. Tancredo: Yes, I most certainly do, and I have brought them to the attention of the body. There are many, many more like this.
Mr. Price of North Carolina: You are aware of DHS funding that has been used in contravention?
Mr. Tancredo: No. The question was am I aware of any violations of the law, and the answer is yes, many violations of the law.
Mr. Price of North Carolina: I am asking about DHS funding, Homeland Security funding, which, after all, is the department we are appropriating for.
Mr. Tancredo: That is correct. I am trying to assess a penalty for a violation of the law, and this is the penalty that I believe is appropriate.
Mr. Price of North Carolina: Let me maybe phrase this another way. Is disaster relief funding being used in contravention of this section?
Mr. Tancredo: At the present time, it is not. But if we pass this amendment, it would be, yes. There has to be some sort of penalty assessed to the law that is already on the books or, of course, it is of no value. That is why so many cities have adopted these sanctuary city programs, and that is why we have to do something about it.
Mr. Price of North Carolina: Let me ask about DHS grant dollars generally. Have they been used in contravention of this section?
Mr. Tancredo: Mr. Chairman, any first responder money, any of the money we are talking about here in San Francisco, is currently appropriated in violation of the law, actually, and what this would do is establish that fact.
Mr. Price of North Carolina: I am asking though what evidence exists that this is actually a problem.
Mr. Tancredo: Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield further, there are innumerable cases we could cite, and certainly I did, of where cities were in contravention of the law. They described themselves as sanctuary cities. They have said they will not in fact obey the law, the 1996 law that I have already described, that we have laid out, section 642 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act.
Mr. Price of North Carolina: Reclaiming my time, New York City has a law on the books, for example, that prohibits the provision of Immigration information to the Federal Government, I understand. Would this amendment prohibit any DHS funding to New York City?
Mr. Tancredo: Yes. The fact is if they chose to maintain this particular program, it would prohibit the funding.
Mr. Price of North Carolina: The answer is yes. Reclaiming my time, it is a simple straightforward question. Border Patrol agents are funded in this bill. If DHS were to find that a border city or county were in contravention of section 642(a), would this provision require them to remove all Border Patrol agents from that city or county?
Mr. Tancredo: They are not protecting the city. They are protecting the border.
The Acting chairman: The gentleman's time has expired. The gentleman from Colorado has 2 minutes remaining.
Mr. Tancredo: Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).
Mr. King of Iowa: Mr. Chairman, I thank Mr. Tancredo for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I would take it to this, that one thing that has happened with these sanctuary policies is the cities have gotten together, I think I looked at the same attorney opinion, and tried to find a loophole, and in many of these sanctuary policies it says if you are an employee of the city, you shall not gather information. If you are prohibited from gathering, then you don't have any information to share with the law enforcement people who do enforce our Immigration laws. That is one of the loopholes that is there.
But the philosophy here is really the difference. There are two trains of thought. One of them says if you enforce immigration law in my community, people won't come forward and report other laws, like domestic abuse or whatever. And the other side is, how in the world can you enforce some laws and not others?
This is a statute that is clear on the books. Mr. Tancredo is seeking to enforce that statute. And the decision needs to be made by the cities, do you like your Homeland Security funding? Is the funding that comes from the Federal Government that provides that security in those cities worth more to you than your sanctuary policy? That is the bottom line. Federal law has got to prevail.
Mr. Serrano: Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to the bill, and I claim the time in opposition.
The Acting chairman: The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Serrano: Mr. Chairman, this may be one of those classic moments where we are dealing with something that really isn't broken. The fact of life is that everybody at every local government and in every locality throughout this country knows what the law is and knows how to react to that law. People are not withholding information from the Federal Government.
What happens, however, on many occasions, is that local communities will make a statement, and basically it is a statement in many cases, in most cases, saying that that area is a sanctuary, meaning that they look at the immigration issue differently than you may in other parts of the country. But it doesn't mean that they flaunt the law, that they laugh at the law, that they will not participate.
I assure you that in the case of New York City, where the scene of the crime took place on September 11, no one in that city government, no one in that State government, is interested in doing anything else but complying with every law that will help us secure our borders and protect our city.
But we in that city look at immigration different than other people in other parts of the country, perhaps. We don't see immigrants as a problem to society that we have to somehow create a problem for them.
So sanctuary movements, which incidentally are growing throughout churches of all denominations throughout the country in very conservative and in very liberal areas, those movements are simply statements by communities saying we see the immigration issue from a humane point of view. We see it differently than other people. We don't think these people are problems for the country. Let's work to resolve the problem in a proper way.
This, again, is a classic case of coming to the House floor and saying, one, we are going to tell local governments what to do, something that side does not usually like to do, and in this case freedom of speech. Simply a statement by many communities that they see immigration in a different way and we should not be badgering them and creating issues where issues do not exist.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Tancredo: Mr. Chairman, talking about not telling local communities what they should do, we have a law. It is on the book. I am not imposing new legislation telling communities what to do, I am simply assessing a penalty for the law that already exists.
It is interesting that the gentleman would bring up New York City. As a matter of fact, in New York City there was a case where there was a woman brutally raped by five people, four of whom were illegal immigrants and had already come in contact with the police many times. It was that case that made New York City rethink, albeit temporarily, their whole sanctuary city policy, and they did take it away for a while because of that. They have sort of reimposed it.
Also, the 9/11 hijackers, had we known that they had been stopped before, which they actually had, if they had come in contact with the police, which they did, we may have been able to stop them had we not had sanctuary city policies in place, not just in New York but throughout the country.
These are cities violating the law at the present time. Honestly, I am not trying to make new law, just enforce existing law.
The Acting chairman: The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. Tancredo: Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting chairman: Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado will be postponed.
Mr. Royce: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting chairman: The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Royce:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act for customs and border protection fencing, infrastructure, and technology may be used for anything but at least two layers of reinforced fencing and roads pursuant to section 102 of Public Law 104-208.
The Acting chairman: Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr) each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. Royce: Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I want to start off by thanking Mrs. Blackburn, Messrs. King, Hunter, Franks, Bilbray, Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite, Mrs. Capito, and Mrs. Drake for all coming together and working towards this amendment.
This amendment will give badly needed funding to the border security fence as provided by the law in the Secure Fence Act. Congress authorized it last year, provided funding to get it started in the 2007 DHS spending bill.
The point I would like to make, although Congress mandated the construction of 847 miles of fencing, to date only 13.01 miles have been completed. And as you know, it is supposed to be a double-border fence, and only one-half of the 13.01 miles is completed in the sense it is only one side of the fence.
So the amendment being offered today takes funding made available in the bill for border protection and directs it to the fencing.
This amendment will give the administration, I think, what it needs to construct the remaining portions of the border fence. It is vital to national security. I had a number of hearings down on the border when I was chairman of the Terrorism and Nonproliferation Subcommittee. But Border Patrol told me about the effectiveness of the fence. There are over 400 attacks on Border Patrol agents a year. They need this fence. They find it is a great force multiplier. It extends their capacity. It allows them the discretion to redeploy agents to areas where they are not vulnerable or at risk.
Frankly, I think we have a difference of opinion on how important it is to follow the law under the Secure Fence Act with the administration.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).
Mr. King of Iowa: Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California for yielding.
I want to clarify what this amendment does. It does really two things. One is it directs the $1 billion already in the bill to go to the 854 miles of the most critical areas of the border that were identified in the Secure Fence Act. The first thing is put the resources where they are the most critical, where Congress has, by more than a 2-to-1 margin in the House, said let's do this. And the Senate has said by a more than 4-to-1 margin, 80-19, let's build this 854 miles.
The second thing that the bill does is that it confines the billion dollars to fence and access roads. You have to have roads to build it, and you have to have roads to maintain it. What the administration has demonstrated is out of the $1.187 billion that we appropriated last year, they spent perhaps $30 million on real fence, the 13.01 miles that Mr. Royce addressed. The balance of that is on virtual technology.
Now we need some virtual technology; but overall, this will provide in the end $2.2 billion. And of that, $1 billion is set aside for physical structures, fence and roads. The balance of that, the decision can be made by DHS as to whether that is virtual and real or whatever combination.
So we are asking for $1 billion of the overall $2.2 billion to go to physical fence and access roads. That is consistent with what Congress has passed by a large margin.
What is so important about this that isn't brought into this debate is the fact that there are $65 billion worth of illegal drugs coming across that southern border. Ninety percent of the illegal drugs that come into America come there. The force of that $65 billion is overpowering, and no amount of virtual fence is going to stop a real drug cartel that is pushing on all 2,000 miles of that border and will find the weak spots.
Mr. Farr: Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, and must say it has been very interesting tonight. There has been a lot of discussion about fences and very little discussion about Homeland Security which is what this budget is all about.
It is interesting, in traveling the border and talking to the Border Patrol, there was never, never a request for this. What you are doing, very interesting in this amendment, you say "none of the funds made available in this act for customs and border protection fencing, infrastructure, and technology may be used for anything but at least two layers of reinforced fencing and roads."
No technology, no infrastructure, just got to build two fences. Wait a minute. This committee went to a lot of effort to find out how to prioritize spending. What we heard from the experts is follow risk management principles.
And the question was asked in committee: Where is the risk on our border? Where have we seen terrorism? And guess what the head of the Border Patrol said, the Customs and Border Patrol Commissioner said, when asked about how many terrorists we have apprehended or found on the Mexico-U.S. border? The answer was zero. How much material have you apprehended on that border? The answer was zero.
When asked about the northern border the answer was yes, we have apprehended terrorists coming across that border, and we have apprehended material coming across that border.
So based on risk management, if this is about terrorism, the fence is not an issue. I think this fence discussion here has created fence bulimia. That is all we can talk about, and it is only one fence, and now you want to build it double when the customs people don't even ask for that.
We are sitting here as fence managers here in Washington and have nothing to do with trying to patrol that border. This is cutting off funds for technology and infrastructure. If there is anything that is needed along that border, it is infrastructure. This is like building a huge levee on one side of the river and not taking care of anything on the other side.
I will tell you, if you are going to have security, you are going to have to have a much more comprehensive approach. Mexico is our important ally. It is our neighbor. It is our leading trade partner with the State of California which the gentleman is from. It has the busiest border between California and Mexico. More people cross that border every day and more legitimate commerce cross that border than any other place in the world.
And we are doing that with existing resources. Guess what, they are working because the committee has put in some very good detection systems using smart cards and other things.
I think this amendment does absolutely the opposite of what you want to do. This doesn't secure the border, this takes money away from technology and infrastructure development. Without a problem, you don't need to fix it.
If you want to build a fence where the terrorists are coming, then build that fence across the Canadian border.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Royce: Mr. Chairman, yielding myself the time, I chaired the committee meetings down on the border. Mahmoud Qurani crossed that border in the trunk of a car, an agent for Hezbollah, whose brother, by the way, was in charge of the southern front in the attack on Israel recently. He came across in the trunk of a car.
I have talked to Border Patrol agents who have made apprehensions on that border, and I can tell you the San Diego fence has not only cut the crime rate by half in San Diego, but also on the Mexican side, and nobody has designed a way to get around the San Diego fence. This double-border fence works. It is what the Border Patrol has asked me for and testified up here for.
And 69 percent in the polling last night by Rasmussen, actually the polling was on the 12th, 69 percent of the public say they want, they favor an approach focusing on securing the border with this kind of approach. Only 20 percent of people want Congress to try to pass the immigration reform bill that failed in the Senate last week.
Mr. Farr: Mr. Chairman, this gold-plated fence costs $3 million a mile. To do that takes money away from technology and infrastructure. It takes money from effective border control. Effective control is where they detect and apprehend. That is what they want the money spent on, being able to detect and apprehend. This takes money away from doing effective border security. I oppose the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Price of North Carolina: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
I am intrigued by the suggestion that Border Patrol officials have come requesting this kind of approach for protecting the border. I have never heard any Border Patrol official make such a request.
On the contrary, during our travels on the southwest borders and in talking to officials here in Washington, Mr. Farr is absolutely correct. The first thing they say is this isn't an enforcement problem alone, it requires a comprehensive immigration reform effort.
The second thing they say is that one size does not fit all in terms of border protection. The gentleman cites the San Diego example. Yes, that may well be a situation where a fence is called for. But the people who know the most about this and who are charged with protecting us every day invariably say that different technologies, different kinds of barriers, vehicle barriers, pedestrian barriers, barriers that might be suited to one kind of terrain rather than another, electronic surveillance, there are a range of technologies that are required here. This is an incredible amendment. This amendment forgoes any kind of analytical effort and examination of differences and simply says two-layer fences will be erected everywhere.
And by the way, this is far more expensive than other kinds of barriers. So whatever it is, we would build less of it. The number of miles we are talking about here, to build that with the kind of fencing that the gentleman wants to see would cost $2 billion. That is twice what we have in this bill; so, of course, it would protect far less of the border.
The Department needs some discretion here, some discretion for the best minds in law enforcement and technology to decide what sort of protection makes sense in what portions of the border.
Our bill does that. Our bill has generous funding, but it also has some requirements about documenting the cost-effectiveness, the effectiveness in protecting the border, as well as the kind of effects we've talked about earlier this evening on the communities in the path of this.
So it's a sensible approach. It's one that draws on the best expertise we've been able to engage, and I strongly urge that it be retained in the bill, and therefore, this amendment be rejected.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting chairman: The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. Royce: Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting chairman: Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California will be postponed.
Mr. Forbes: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting chairman: The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Forbes:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the following:
Sec. 544. None of the funds made available in this Act may be used to extend the designation of any foreign state under section 244(b)(3)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1254a(b)(3)(C)).
The Acting chairman: Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Forbes) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. Forbes: Mr. Chairman, as you know, Congress has granted the Secretary of Homeland Security the authority to grant temporary refuge to aliens, usually illegal immigrants, from particular countries under temporary protected status. Congress intended this provision to live up to its name and be temporary. Unfortunately, a pattern of abuse has emerged in the temporary protected status, or TPS, program. DHS can grant TPS status to the nationals of a country for as long as 18 months and can later extend the TPS period indefinitely by adding extensions up to 18 months each.
The administration has begun to utilize TPS as a de facto amnesty for illegal immigrants from certain Central American countries. TPS status was granted to Honduran and Nicaraguan nationals at the end of 1998 following Hurricane Mitch. The administration has extended TPS for these individuals multiple times, the latest extension lasting until January 2009, more than 10 years after the hurricane. TPS status for Salvadoran nationals was granted early in 2001 as a result of earthquakes hitting the region. The latest TPS extension for Salvadoran nationals lasts until September 2007, again, long after temporary dislocations caused by the earthquakes.
There are currently some 248,000 Salvadorans, 81,000 Hondurans and 4,000 Nicaraguans, mostly aliens who came illegally to the United States, benefiting from TPS status. Our Nation currently has a growing gang problem, and we have had testimony in the Judiciary Committee that 60 to 85 percent of some of the most violent gang members in the United States are here illegally. Of 5,000 gang members in a database that ICE compiled for Operation Community Shield, 291 El Salvadoran nationals, 43 Hondurans, and 1 Nicaraguan had been granted temporary protected status, 6.7 percent of the total.
At least one of the suspected MS-13 members accused in the 2002 rape of two deaf girls in Massachusetts had been in our country protected by TPS. In fact, currently, a criminal gang member could literally stand on a street corner and announce that they were a member of a violent criminal gang and that they came here illegally, and if protected under TPS, no law enforcement officer could touch them until they had actually committed a crime.
TPS is being used to grant long-time residence, a perpetual amnesty, to illegal immigrants of certain favored nationalities. This amendment will return TPS to its original intent of providing temporary refuge during temporary periods of crisis. It would bar any funds made available in this Act from being used to extend TPS for nationals of a country beyond the original period of not more than 18 months.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Price of North Carolina: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose this amendment and in the strongest possible terms. The amendment would prohibit funds made available in the Act from being used to extend temporary protected status for countries covered under that program.
Temporary protected status is a special immigration benefit for citizens of countries with severe hardships: civil wars, massive natural disasters, humanitarian crises, some of those troubled places in the world where people are fleeing absolutely horrendous conditions. This program offers the citizens of those countries temporary sanctuary in our country until their countries' troubles are resolved.
In total, 4,198 people currently in the U.S. could be deported if their temporary protected status were not extended. These individuals would be sent back to countries with extreme conditions, places like Burundi, Somalia, the Sudan. Of course, we hope that these troubles will end and that these people could eventually return to their home countries. This is temporary status, but the notion that we would defund this program or refuse to extend it where it's called for.
This amendment would also be detrimental to the effective administration and enforcement of immigration laws. It would create confusion about the degree to which the U.S. government can be trusted to maintain its commitment to those for whom it offers immigration benefits.
So I urge a "no" vote on this amendment.
Mr. Serrano: Mr. Chairman, I'm opposed to the amendment, and I rise to claim the time in opposition.
The Acting chairman: The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Serrano: Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, this may go down as the meanest and most misguided amendment of the evening. TPS has been known and worked as a proper legal statement by the U.S. government to give protection to people who are in situations where they cannot go back home. These people did not come into the country illegally. In fact, in many cases, our actions being involved in those countries invited them to come here, and this is why we offer that protection.
The countries that would be affected are countries where we either have had a standing tradition of being involved in trying to resolve some difficulties in those countries and participated militarily and otherwise in those countries and, as a result, gave them this protection. And secondly, there are also a set of countries which are going through very difficult situations.
I'm thinking, as I hear the gentleman speak, if Mr. Frank Wolf was here now he would be up on our side talking to you about the Sudan and talking to you about other places where we should continue to give the temporary protection status.
But here's the main point which I've already mentioned and needs to be mentioned again. This is a situation where these folks should not be looked at as people who are here illegally. They're here legally. They're here because this Congress, this administration and other administrations, have seen fit to give them this protection. They're here because they can't go back home.
And again, we may disagree on this, and frankly, there might be people on this side that disagree with me, but in some of those countries our policies have played a role in creating a situation where they can't go back home. So to lump them in with the undocumented immigrant situation of the country is totally unfair because it's two different issues. This one is sanctioned.
Interestingly enough, I notice that there's always a little bit of politics involved in this because the gentleman doesn't suggest that all Cubans go back to Cuba and that they should not get special treatment as they do under the Cuban Adjustment Act. We never touch that one. We touch this one.
Well, that's sad. It shouldn't be, and we should continue to protect these folks and try to make situations back home bearable for them. In the meantime, we should not be throwing them out of the country.
And lastly, we're not talking about 12 million people. We're not talking about 15 or 20 million people. We're talking about a much smaller number of people who need our protection.
There's a lady in the harbor to the city where I live and where I've grown up. That lady, known as the Statue of Liberty, tells us to bring to these shores the people that are hurting.
This is a fine example of America at its best. Don't lump it in with any other problem. That's not fair and that's not right.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.
Mr. Forbes: Mr. Chairman, could you tell me how much time I have remaining?
The Acting chairman: The gentleman from Virginia has 2 minutes remaining.
Mr. Forbes: Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remaining time.
Mr. Chairman, the gentleman stated that this would perhaps be the meanest and most misguided amendment of the night, but I would suggest that the gentleman look in the eyes of the father who had his deaf daughter raped and assaulted by individuals who were here illegally, protected only because we shielded them with temporary protected status, where they could have literally been standing on the street and have said, I'm a member of a violent criminal gang, I was here illegally, and there would have been nothing law enforcement could have done to have gotten rid of those individuals until they'd actually raped that little girl. One of those individuals was here protected by temporary protected status. The other one had applied for it and was in the process of getting it.
The second thing, Mr. Chairman, we heard it mentioned that these individuals are here and we're protecting them on a temporary basis. It's mighty hard to look into the eyes of the American people, and say that when we have extended something for 10 years, that that is a temporary situation.
And Mr. Chairman, I would just suggest to you when we talk about they're here legally, it is true they're here legally because we've put this shield of protection around them. If we're going to truly deal with the law and be honest with the American people and what this law says, we need to either take the word "temporary" out and just tell them it's protected status, or we need to let the law do what it's intended to do, which is to truly be temporary by being an 18-month period of time, not a 10-year period of time.
Mr. Chairman, once again, I hope that it will be the pleasure of my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting chairman: The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Forbes).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. Forbes: Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting chairman: Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia will be postponed.
Mr. Rogers of Kentucky: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting chairman: The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Rogers of Kentucky:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the following:
Sec. 544. None of the funds made available in this Act may be used to implement section 536 of this Act.
The Acting chairman: Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) and the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price) each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky.
Mr. Rogers of Kentucky: Mr. Chairman, this amendment is simple. It strikes the Davis-Bacon section in the bill. That section has consequences that I'm not sure the majority has thoroughly thought through.
Requiring all DHS contract and grant funds to comply with Davis-Bacon could unfairly disadvantage communities that are unfortunate enough to be struck by a disaster. It could reduce funds available for their recovery. It could slow the pace of assistance and significantly increase non-Federal cost-share requirements. This section would likely cost already cash-strapped States and localities additional funds.
The Congressional Budget Office says that Davis-Bacon will cost taxpayers more than $9.5 billion from 2002 to 2011. This expansion would only greater the burden on taxpayers.
This expansion further disadvantages small, emerging and minority businesses new to the complex, inefficient wage and work restrictions which make it nearly impossible for them to compete with better capitalized corporations, disadvantaging the very companies we often seek to help following a disaster.
And so I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and strike this onerous restriction on the Nation's communities.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Price of North Carolina: Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The amendment would eliminate the requirement that the funding provided in this bill comply with the prevailing wage requirements of the Davis-Bacon Act. Nobody remembers who Davis and Bacon were, but the Act was enacted back in 1931 by a Republican Congress and a Republican administration, that of one Herbert Hoover.
It sets minimum labor standards for workers employed in Federal contract construction. It simply says that they've got to pay their employees, if they're using Federal funds, not less than the locally prevailing wage.
The Department of Homeland Security interpreted the application of Davis-Bacon far too narrowly. They said it applies only to Stafford Act grant programs, virtually no other DHS programs, despite the fact that a lot of these programs do involve construction projects like State and urban area Homeland Security grants, buffer zone protection grants, port security grants, airport security grants, transit security grants, and so forth.
Our belief simply is that there is no good reason for denying prevailing wage protection to jobs involved in these activities. There is a waiver that the President can employ in situations where Davis- Bacon requirements would truly have a detrimental impact, but for most jobs most of the time, carrying out the intent of this bill, fair, locally prevailing wages should prevail.
If you are talking about the quality of construction, I think that adds an argument as well. Davis-Bacon encourages a higher quality of workmanship. It encourages enhanced productivity. It reduces the need for remedial work, probably saving dollars in many instances. So there are many, many arguments for this which I won't belabor at this late hour. I believe the inclusion of the Davis-Bacon requirements is prudent and fair, and I urge the rejection of this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting chairman: The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. Rogers of Kentucky: Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting chairman: Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Kentucky will be postponed.
Mr. Rogers of Kentucky: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting chairman: The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Rogers of Kentucky:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the following:
Sec. __. Each amount appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act that is not required to be appropriated or otherwise made available by a provision of law is hereby reduced by 5.7 percent.
The Acting chairman: Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) and the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price) each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky.
Mr. Rogers of Kentucky: Mr. Chairman, this is the final amendment, and it is the fiscal responsibility amendment. This amendment would implement an across-the-board cut in the bill of 5.7 percent, thereby limiting the increase of this bill to 7.2 percent over the current year, the amount the President requested, instead of the current 13.6 percent in the current bill.
Let me emphasize that point again. This amendment does not cut anything. It provides a more than generous and responsible 7.2 percent increase in Homeland Security funding over the current year. It's a small downpayment on fiscal discipline, an issue we heard a lot about last November.
The national debt is burgeoning, the public is demanding that we gain control of Federal spending. Despite the President's overall budget request of $933 billion for fiscal year 2008, and an already generous $63 billion over the current year's level, the majority plans to add another $20 billion on top of that at the minimum. Where will it stop?
This year's $20 billion could become $40 billion next year and on and on and on. The only thing this does is ensure our children and their children will be paying for this generations to come.
The Homeland Security bill before us today represents 10 percent of that $20 billion increase in spending, more than $2 billion above the President's request. Nobody on this side is proposing that we cut Homeland Security, not our President, not this Member, certainly not this amendment.
I agree with the funding level requested by the administration. It's a responsible 7.2 percent increase from the base 2007 level, a rate that is already over double the rate of inflation.
As I said before, the public is demanding accountability and fiscal responsibility. I don't think we can exclude any Federal agency, even Homeland Security, from fiscal discipline. Otherwise, there will be no discipline at all.
I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment, a fiscally disciplined amendment still providing a 7.2 percent increase in Homeland Security security.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Price of North Carolina: Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The gentleman's amendment would reduce the funding in this bill by just over $2 billion, or 5.7 percent. As this debate began, we did discuss the comparison of the bill that we have reported to last year's level of funding, and I am going to just repeat those figures here, because I think it is important to put the increase in perspective.
The fiscal 2007 bill, with the emergency funding included that was adopted at the time that bill was passed, when that is considered as the baseline for 2007, our bill represents a 7.5 percent increase over last year's funding. If the supplemental funding is included in the 2007 base, then, actually, our bill represents a 7.5 percent decrease in funding.
But the point is not just to throw abstract numbers around. The point of the considerable deliberation our subcommittee has undertaken is to match up the available resources with this country's needs.
I believe we have done that in a conscientious way. I think it's extremely hard to find anything in this bill that is funded to excess, funded lavishly.
That's the reason that the gentleman has chosen not to focus on specific items, but, rather, to propose an across the board cut, indiscriminately applied, across the country, of 5.7 percent. It would have consequences, even spread across all the accounts. It would mean a reduced level of funding for a number of things that we have put in this bill for very good reason. The SAFE Port Act, the authorization, has required that we apply more funding to port security. This cut would reduce that substantially. It would, in all likelihood, mean that we could provide very limited additional programs for fire grants or transit emergency security grants, or emergency grants, State and urban grants, other important programs to our hometowns.
It would mean that border and immigration enforcement improvements would be hard to come by. It would make it very, very difficult to increase the amount of cargo that is carried on passenger aircraft that is screened and so forth. These cuts would be consequential.
Although our friends on the other side of the aisle have been rather selective in their treatment of the President's budget request, the chairman has repaired that request in this measure. But I do need to point out that we have not, under his leadership in past years, or in our deliberations this year, taken the President's requests as serious requests, but we have not hesitated to alter them when we felt that was required. It's not unusual for the Homeland Security bill in the House of Representatives to increase President Bush's request. In fact, we have done it every time we have brought a bill to this floor.
In 2004, the House bill contained $1 billion more than the Bush request; in 2005, $900 million more than the Bush request; in 2006, $1.3 billion more than the Bush request; in 2007, $1.1 billion more than the Bush request.
So we are in that mode once again. There is no reason to be surprised that in some respects we found the Bush requests inadequate, and we have increased them. In other respects, we have reduced them. We have done both. But there is a net increase, and I think a net increase that is amply justified.
The hour is late, I believe that the funding levels in this bill are quite carefully considered. This amendment would do some real damage to some things that we need to improve.
So I ask my colleagues to vote against this amendment.
Mr. Rogers of Kentucky: Mr. Chairman, I urge an "aye" vote on the amendment.
Before yielding back, I want to thank the Chair for being a very responsible and fair-minded chair tonight. We thank you for that service. I want to congratulate the chairman of the subcommittee, who has been easy to work with and understanding of issues on this side of the aisle, and he has been very forthcoming and cooperative, but, at the same time, disciplined in his own approach, and to the staff on both sides of the aisle. This has been a long week for them, as well as a long several months now. I want to thank the staff for the great work that they have done.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Price of North Carolina: Mr. Chairman, I simply want to echo his kind words. It's a pleasure to work with him, it has been for these last 4 years, as he has chaired this committee, and it has been a pleasure to work with him this year, a real professional who takes oversight seriously and who takes writing this budget seriously.
Mr. Rogers and his staff, the staff here on this side, I won't ask how many hours of sleep they have had in the last several days.
But it has been a real pleasure. I hope we will have a chance in the presence of the whole body tomorrow morning to pay tribute a bit more formally. But we are grateful.
We are also grateful to see this evening come to a close. We will, of course, with our colleagues tomorrow, be having, I think, probably a record number of roll call votes in rapid sequence.
With that, we are ready to conclude, and I yield back my time.
Mr. Rogers of Kentucky: I thank the chairman, and I am glad that he is continuing the tradition of this subcommittee in being a bipartisan, strong oversight subcommittee to see this new Department to a success one of these days, we hope.
Mr. Chairman, I urge an "aye" vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting chairman: The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. Rogers of Kentucky: Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting chairman: Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Kentucky will be postponed.
Mr. Price of North Carolina: Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Serrano) having assumed the chair, Mr. Ross, Acting Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 2638) making appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and for other purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.
