will slow consideration of the bills by up to two weeks c j s will not be considered until the proposed earmarks are ready for attachment hopefully before the july fourth recess the labor h transportation hutton agriculture bills will be considered after the july fourth recess that is a change in order to give committee staff more time to include earmarks for those bills the minority has agreed that they will help facilitate reasonably speedy consideration of the remaining bills the expectation is that the house will adopt you see agreements to place reasonable limitations on the time for consideration for each of the appropriations bills which are expected to be roughly and generally similar to the overall time agreements that were adopted for consideration of appropriation bills in the past the bill managers will be expected to be reasonably flexible in establishing those time limits if modest flexibility is required this is the understanding of the appropriations committee the house democratic and republican leadership the house should be pleased with this agreement because it recognizes the reality that there is not enough time to responsibly include earmarks in the earliest appropriation bills to be considered by the house while providing that recognition it assures a reasonable process that would provide an opportunity to question earmarks  have let me thank the chairman for that clarification reclaiming my time i appreciate the gentleman's clarification i do have one question as a list of the gentleman explain the agreement and read it  believe the gentleman said and you can check the notes you have in front of you that is the intention that there will be a point of order in place with regard to this bill and the milk on bill with the john with you it would be my understanding that there has actually been an agreement on that point and i'd be happy to gie to yield to the minority leader the rule change that has been discussed earlier on the point of order of the on the consideration of an appropriation conference report  with regard to air dropped your remarks is expected to be offered to the house under a unanimous consent agreement on monday evening i thank you gentlemen we are all operating on good faith here i simply want to establish that there is good faith not that there will in fact be a your intent there will fact be a point of order in place before these two bills returned from conference i said yes that's what i represented mr rogers on a repeated to you the agreement put forward and certainly would would like to ask in the jordie later in the appropriations committee chair as i understand it laid out for this colloquy in this series of questions there are three separate issues at hand first the house rules under that unanimous consent agreement monday night the house rules will revert to the point of order that republicans put in place in the last congress that the congress put in place that members can lodge a point of order against earmarks and is that the case is trying to get a commitment from the majority since they are they are in fact in the majority but i'd be happy yelps my republican leader i appreciate the gentleman you have him because we have we've we've we've come to an agreement amongst us and the rule that we're we're talking about putting in place is identical to what we had last year on the consideration of a leader concur with that the happy meal thank my friend for yielding i won't tell my young friend in north carolina that is the representation i've now made three times i've made it to your leader i suggest you ask your leader  whether he trusts me to do that at reclaiming my time i certainly want to understand this agreement and since it's a unanimous consent agreement put before the house we need to have unanimous consent to proceed with that and i want to understand it three elements of this rule and since you do schedule the majority leader does schedule the floor mr speaker madam speaker i should say i want to make sure that i understand the agreement from you since you actually do control to the have it on the record what this agreement is not simply a discussion behind closed doors because as we heard earlier today michigan has as some of us heard earlier today there was an agreement reached last night  then there was a change of heart from the majority and leadership on the georgian side and i want to hear it so we have a proper understanding of what that was and the proper understanding of what we were in the papers and  the rumors we hear here if the gentleman would yield to happen to the chairman let me correct the gentleman in one respect there was no change of heart on the part of the majority leadership on anything to my knowledge secondly if we're talking about trust the fact is that i have been asked in this agreement to trust the word of the minority leader that when we describe what the conduct will be during future appropriation bills that that conduct will be reasonably close to what is described in this paper there is no guarantee in this paper to me that that conduct will be what will be appropriate conduct in this case however i'm simply taking the word of the majority leader and the minority leader if it's good enough for me i hope it's good enough for you and when the day comes that we cannot trust the word of the majority leader of the minority leader in this house then this house is really in sad shape reclaiming my time i want to lay before the house with the three elements of as i understood it and have i have full faith that i know that the gentleman is an honorable man i'm not questioning the integrity of any of my colleagues in this process and i certainly have the utmost respect for the majority leader and and and and as well the preparations committee chair but i actually want to understand the agreement and the trust that you all have but i want to make sure the house understands what that agreement is if the general yield i was not part of the agreement on the point of order i'm simply trusting the majority leader in the minority leader and i would suspect that virtually every member of this house has that same feeling of trust toward both of them reclaiming my time actually the final question would be is it the intent and the commitment from the majority that future appropriations bills save by tradition the legislative branch appropriations bill would come to this floor under an open rule i think that question's already been answered in the affirmative so long as the conduct of the house justifies open rules i'd be happy yield to the majority leader i thank my friend for yelling i said yes i've said it about three or four times i can say it again but i want to an understanding make clear and i'll reiterate we have an agreement  agreement between people who are trying to move america's business pulling that agreement assumes conduct on both sides there's going to be open rules but if the conduct that is expected on both understand why we are going to be voting on the water bill and then coming back and voting on the earmarks attached to another bill that does not seem logical to me that it all if the gentleman would yield it is not going to be attached to another bill the bill is already out of committee it needs to proceed it takes a great deal of time there are a lot of things in that bill decides earmarks thank god and so we are trying to move the business ahead as fast as we can what this agreement states is that we will finish all of the non project oriented issues in that bill that bill will then we will complete consideration of the bill except we will then rise and and when the report is finished that will be attached to the energy and water bill it will be reported to the full house and when it's reported to the full house who will then have before the house for consideration the projects that are included in that report and that will be during consideration of the aisle the energy and water bill itself will not be a separate bill it's the energy and water bill and we are just allowing the projects to catch up to the bill and then before the bill goes to the senate you will have a full opportunity to deal with the appreciate that i know we've been discussing this a long time i have and i appreciate the tolerance of of all involved and i'm and i'm sorry that that using the word before that that you have to endure this but i have three very specific questions the gentleman the chair of the appropriations committee in his initial comments said about the agreement that's been worked out there were that it has not been signed or not been a great deal because there was an issue that had yet to be worked out did i this bill to proceed and i wanted to simply perfect the statement which i just read to make certain everyone agree and we thought that when we had more time to review that and check for any changes we would come right back to the house members wanted us to discuss and now so forget everything that i just said with respect to that other and i appreciate that the second question is the earmarks for these two bills homeland security and military construction past it has appeared that the agreement between the majority party in the minority party regarding the unanimous consent and time limits on appropriations bills has tended to be during the process of the debate and in that the debate was moving along expeditiously that there was no need for or you see my question is is it the intent to operate as traditionally has been done or is it the intent to adopt a unanimous consent agreement prior to the bill being taken up if you will take a look at the time that's been taken for every bill last year that time that we've been talking about it included the entire time for consideration of the bill so example when we say that it took seventeen hours and twelve minutes for the commerce just this bill last year that means that it took seventeen minutes and twelve seconds to do the entire bill from start to finish only a part of that time was represented by the time of allocated two amendments all we're saying is that we it is our hope that we can keep each of these bills to roughly the same amount of total time if you need some flexibility between the bills the state that makes clear and the understanding is that we will try to show that flexibility so long as it is not abused and the majority leader may be able to assist it is it is it i give thi consent been modified it has not so that whatever agreement at whatever time it's reached will have to have the unanimous consent of the body each and every member that ought to be the protection against any arbitrary or caprici action we are pursuing that as the minority leader said there has been no change in that and i thank the leader and i withdraw my reservation reservation gentleman further the gentleman from of coming together across a what is an increasingly very wide gulf between the two sides of this aisle and appreciate the difficulty of doing that but if i'm a man directly involved with a handful of our own when we worked through our side changing the rules in the spring of two thousand and five for that point of border protection it is in effect a stopgap at the point of consideration of the conference report an essential element of that is that the point of order is debatable and i wanted to get your assurance that as we move toward adopting that rule change that that point of order would be debatable i believe it was for at least ten minutes per side without the opportunity to debate there would be no capacity for members or the public to know what projects are objectionable and that might prevent going forward in consideration i would welcome and yield time for your response thank the gentleman first for his comments secondly i thank the gentleman first question i happen to believe i want the gentleman know that the rule that you were involved in that the minority leader and i have discussed is a good rule it's a good rule because if something is dropped in conference that nobody knows about it whatever it may be we've talked i'm not going to mention a specific projects but we've talked about some during the course of the last two days we will in the rule provide for ten minutes on each side  what we're doing is a spending under those circumstances by a third the time available for debate on a conference report so it is a pretty substantial extension of time i think to the extent again the gentleman was involved it's an appropriate extension of time so that we do ensure what all want to ensure and that projects that do not justify inclusion in bills and this this house or the senate rejects them or wants to reconsider them that we have that opportunity so the debate will be included in the rules recommendation i think that things majority leader for that very direct and  those aspects of the legislation or objectionable but i'll also say and be prepared to yield time to the distinguished chairman of the appropriations committee for question i would also say that point of order protection obviously calls for a vote on whether to proceed with consideration for the entire conference report it would not in members should be alerted it would not be a specific vote on a specific objectionable project and therefore the likelihood that a point of order would be successful given the fact that appropriation bills generally have many fathers and mothers in this institution is fairly remote so i would say to the disting appropriations committee that it certainly is not a substitute for the opportunity in the regular process here on the floor to challenge specific elements of bills whether they be earmarks or other policy related additions and programs and so it's to that point and to this longer term understanding that i wanted to ask the chairman of the appropriations committee for some some further clarification and i again i want to reiterate my respect for the chairman for the leader in my special respect and gratitude for the minority leader for their efforts in this regard but with regard your expectation i think you just used the phrase that that the amount of time that would be subject to negotiation for unanimous consent on each bill going forward would be a good faith negotiation and it would be based on in your words roughly the same amount of time that had been attributable to those specific appropriations bills in the past i think the chairman made reference to one hundred eight hours earlier in the last session of the last year of the congress  i would note that we did not consider to my recollection a labor h h s filtering that period of time i just wanted wanted that to give the chairman a respectful opportunity to express what your expectation with that be because for many of us the opportunity to come to the floor and challenge individual provisions of bills and also make amendments for additions to bills is critical and i would yield let me simply say that when we compiled these numbers since there was no labor age bill considered last year we simply looked at the at the amount of time that it took the previous year to consider the labor rates bill and that was twelve hours and forty three minutes so i think that in twelve hours and forty three minutes if members have an objection to an earmark or any other provision they're going to manage to find a way to bring it to the attention of the house and if they can't figure out  is is intended to preserve every member's right to make additions to make changes to offer amendments to the bill but i think what how i can best describe this is that over the course of at least the last two or three years that i'm aware of we've brought these bills to the floor under an open rule and there's been there have been bipartisan agreements in  generally the time limit so that the times are used in the past but it's general you know we don't know what these bills look like some of them yet we're not sure what they may contain and so i  chairman of the appropriations committee i see in good faith by both the distinguished gentleman and i will say i certainly reserve the right to object to future unanimous consent agreements but i  look forward to supporting the unanimous consent agreement today and i withdraw my reservation jacket for the objection the gentleman from texas is recognized under his reservation i thank you madam speaker and first i want to thank to distinguish majority leader thank the chairman of the appropriations committee thank the republican leader for all of their efforts to bring us to the point where we are at the moment i think we certainly heard much about the process in procedures that will take place under this anticipated agreement but i think it's very important to note for the entirety of the body and particularly for those of us who have spent a lot of time on the floor since this debate ensued that with this agreement what we will see going forward after these first two bills is that we will see earmarks in the bills we will see transparency we will see the ability of members to be able to strike at those earmarks that is what i believe i've heard this evening this is what much of this debate has been about lo these many hours i for one believe that to be a good thing i believe i heard that there is hopefully an expectation of open rules i understand the majority leader's caviar i understand there's an  jusice and six story norms dictate i understand there is an anticipation that substantive amendments will be accommodated i understand that substantive amendment may be in the eye of the but holder and men and women of good faith must work together and then i understand there is an in to suppose that if bills are of historic norms that debate time may be of historic norms as well but i did want to signal that if i have the proper understanding that i wanted to think the majority leader the chairman of the two procreation is committee in the republican leader for their efforts to bring the ability of members to be able to see these earmarks and challenge these earmarks i assume that as i have spoken if any of the gentlemen involved believe that my understanding is incorrect i would be happy to yield time to them seeing no one believing my understanding is incorrect again i want to thank them for bringing us to this  earlier this year when the authorizations came to the floor authorization bills and the c r and also last year with appropriation bills and in previous years it is a common practice to have the report come to the floor very late in the day in fact for the intelligence authorization bill i believe the report came to the floor a few hours after the deadline for submission for earmarks what assurance do we have that reports the committee reports will actually that contain the earmarks will actually come to the floor in a timely manner because it  be difficult to enter into any unanimous consent agreement on a bill if we haven't had adequate time to actually review the earmarks i know there's been talk there's always talk about some forty eight hour rule or seventy two hour rule but it is routinely broken and is there any assurance that we can have on the side that will do better in that regard because the record so far this year is not good with regard to authorization val's i know that that is not your fault that i'm concerned that we won't get the committee report in time to adequately review the earmarks in it in order to enter into a useful you know unanimous consent agreement let me say and i'm going to be very blunt about this this agreement requires a lot of trust between people i've had to i've had to rely on a lot of trust on the minority leader tonight and i expect i have the right to expect the same consideration from from others and sometimes we have not had much experience in the last fourteen years at either producing or delaying reports that has been the prerogative of the majority party we're now the majority and we are trying to as you know we had a lot of catch up work to do from the last session and we've been working  hours it is not our responsibility to run the printing office sometimes we don't have control over all over when documents are printed sometimes the process breaks down there sometimes it does assure the gentleman is that we will we are we are going to try to comply not only with the letter but the spirit of the rules of the house when i was in the minority i was pushing very hard to see the three days of practice maintain and even though the rule had been changed to two days we intend to continue to do that in the same vein we ha now have rules that require submission of a letter you have them in the committee now what assurance do we have that the letters will be released to the public at the same time the committee write i'm sorry for every year mark that is in the legislation will there be a letter with the member's name next to it the description of the earmark the entity that is receiving it will that be released to the public as soon as a committee report comes out is the answer the gentleman's question is yes ok with regard to authorization i sent a staff member to the armed services committee a staff member could not remove the list could not take could not make copies had to sit and actually just make notes of the some six hundred eighty earmarks letter request forms that were there is that going to be the practice of the appropriations committee will copies be available can outside groups come let me be very frank i haven't had time to consider any of these questions because i've been because i mentioned tired of simply trying to move a bill it's all i can tell you is we will comply with whatever the rules of the house are and frankly at this point i'm not exactly sure what they are but whatever they are i will comply with them i would submit that that it's unacceptable to have the reason we have this transparency where we have letters actually requesting the m r indicating the entity that it goes to the specific purpose for the earmark is so that we can make informed judgments here on the floor and if all we can do is have one staff member go in they have to wait while the meetings are held they can't go in certain rooms they're told that they can only read from the list and take notes not make copies the practice in the past has been and  not i'm not saying that this is more a problem with the majority than it was with the previous majority we had trouble then but but if we're going to have an open transparent process it would be nice to have to actually think that where you want this information out rather than than holding it back as as long as you can no one is trying to hold back information what i need is time to know what that information is with respect to the certifications you're talking about they will be available in the committee office to the public to members of congress and they will meet  whatever requirements whatever really other requirements of the rules that there are all i can tell you is that we haven't given any consideration to earmarks at this point because we haven't had time to and i think the agreement that we have here tonight finally recognises the fact that if word of proceed with these bills that there is a that we simply haven't had time to produce the initial earmarks we're slowing down this process considerably i want to assure you of that we're going to do everything we possibly can to comply with the spirit and the letter of the law the gentleman knows me i hope the gentleman regards me as someone who lives up to his commitments  and that's all i can honestly say but i think the gentleman and i do i do hold the gentleman high regard it just seems to me that when the committee report is released there is no reason for the appropriations committee at that time to make it difficult for other members to to view requests letters and so is there any reason why any one is trying to make anything for a new member  review anything i don't know what experience you had under the last regime we have and i had an opportunity to perform on that didn't just want it on the record that there would be we've had it with the authorizing committee already i just want to make sure it doesn't h have little respect i take no responsibility for anything done by any authorizing committee you could point out another another point if you'd made the education bill last year that took some twelve hours to get through my expectation is that there will be a lot of earmarks in that bill that and many others last year i offered a total of thirty nine on all appropriation bil i was constrained considerably many of the earmarks or the amendments that i drew up and brought to the parliamentarian i was told that it would be subject to a point of order because the remark was so vague that there the language was so vague and that it didn't refer to a specific facility there were many amendments that i wanted to bring forward and couldn't i don't expect that to be the case this time because we have better rules in terms of the letters the request forms the entity that has to be there so what i'm saying is i expect there to be more amendments brought and so i think it may be unrealistic to expect us to be constrained by last year's timeframe it may be longer and as long as it is subject to to a unanimous consent agreement and members like myself or others who want to bring additional or maybe more than were brought last year i can still bring those forward than tha bills it's it's it's not intended to die any members right to offer an amendment here on the floor the gentleman would yield one of the reasons i've been trying to explain to the house why it takes so long to carefully screen these earmarks is because many of the requests that come in arsal vague that we don't understand where that money is intended to go to and so then we have to go to the individual member and we have to say hey we really can't tell if your request where this is supposed to go you need to change your request really know what you're talking about and then we have to sort them out so we know that you don't have three people asking for the same thing in different language and that takes a lot of time so if the gentleman thinks that sometimes your confused so are we that's why we were asking for more time and i want to stipulate one thing i recommended to this hops a proposal that i thought would give us the best possibility of avoiding future embarrassment this agreement indicates the house wants to go on a somewhat different direction that means that let's respect almost all of these bills we will have less time for our staff to review them than would have been the case under the proposal that i was suggest g in my judgment that means that we will run a higher risk of mistakes than we would have otherwise had because we will not have the entire month of july or the staff to review these yes so we are so i'm giving up on that expectation for a higher level of staff review so that we can continue to do the people's business and get through these bills in time for program managers to get funding out for these programs in an orderly manner so a lot of us have a lot of complaints about this i didn't invent the earmark process if i had my way there wouldn't be any as the gentleman knows but it's my job as chairman not to pursue what i believe it's my job to try to find a balance point in the house that i think will achieve consensus in the house hopefully between two parties that's and we're trying to your caucus and two thirds of my caucus were mad as hell of me when i did that and i'm now trying and so is our leadership to reduce earmarks by at least fifty percent and as you know there are a lot of people who are angry about the fact that we are cutting earmarks by that much i understand and i know we need to move on let me just make one point i think it is extremely important that the letters requesting the ear made public at the quickest possible time and i will object to any unanimous consent request where i feel that they respect the letters of requesting earmarks are not going to be made public and let me know what will be made public will take responsible it will be for every year mark that i recommend but i have no intention of taking responsibility for somebodies pipe dream that we reject oh no i'm talking about those that are approved that are that go into the bill i've already told you goals will be available as a nominee time or they have to chew my cut but i've already told you know when to but what i'm saying outside groups have come as well and that they would like access and if you're and i share the gentleman's pain in terms of trying to go through and review these that's why it would be useful at the quickest possible top to let outside groups as well reviewed the with all due respect we will comply with the house rules and that's the best assurance that i can give the gentleman that's what i'm after you know that gentleman for seven three and rule eighteen the chair declares the house in a committee of the whole house on the state of the union for further consideration of h r twenty six thirty eight well the gentleman from arkansas mr ross kindly take the chair for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland arrive i ask unanimous consent to speak out of order for one minute without objection jealous recognize mr chairman i've had a a discussion not directly with the minority leader but i have it on the representation the minority leader i've discussed with  e ranking member mr rogers from kentucky and mr price and the chairman of the committee it will be our intention to roll all votes until tomorrow morning so that there is no expectation that there will be any more votes tonight for members of the debate will be concluded and tomorrow morning when we come in we will  mr shays asked me informally when we're getting out we are working on a unanimous consent agreement between the minority and the majority on the milk on bill and that will hopefully facilitate  will tell you the minority and the majority both believe it ought to be relatively brief as the milk and bill has been in the past  the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the further consideration of h r twenty six thirty eight which the clerk will report the title and bill making appropriations for the department of homeland security for the fiscal year ending september thirtieth two thousand and eight and for other purposes with the committee the whole rose on wednesday june thirtieth two thousand and seven the bill had been read through page three line ten and pending was the member at number nine by the g woman from virginia mrs drane pursuant to the order of the house of today that amendment shall be debatable for ten further minutes equally divided and controlled by the proponent and opponent no further amendment to the bill may be offered except those specified in the previous order of the house of today which is at the desk a gentlewoman from virginia mrs drane and a member opposed a jewel control five minutes gentlewoman from virginia is recognized and we have what purpose does the gentleman from kentucky right good way of order gentleman has called for order the gentleman is correct he will come to order the committee will come to order place take all conversations off the house floor the committee will come to order please take all conversations off the house floor the gentlewoman from virginia's recognize thank you mr chairman mr chairman this amendment reduces the office of the secretary of management ten point four million dollars and increase says i salaries and the expense account by nine point one mail million re storing the funding that was in the president's budget to fund the two eighty seven g program i chose this account because between zero seven and zero eight budgets it is increased sixty per cent or a total increase of eighty nine million dollars t eighty seven g program provides training technology and resources to local law enforcement officers to work with the federal government with ice to identify illegal aliens who have broken our laws this is a voluntary program available to both our state and local governments currently it is implemented in thirteen locations one of the most prominent of these is sheriff pendergraph in north carolina who has detained and deported nineteen hundred illegal criminal aliens in the last year america saw the very tragic accident that occurred in virginia beach that took the lives of two  beautiful young women at the hands of an illegal alien drunk driver and mr chairman this individual had been arrested and detained and dui offenses in the past and was released onto our streets i believe that immigration is a federal responsibility but we need the help of local and state law enforcement officials we need to identify the gaps and figure out how to bridge those gaps the two eighty seven g program can also be used to better coordinate with our d m v these none of us want fraudulent documents used and driver's license issued for our states and can also be used with our departments of corrections so that when an illegal alien has served time in our prisons and jails that they are deported immediately and there's no additional expense to us contrary to the report language in this bill by the end of june there will only be one million dollars remaining in the two eighty seven g coffers due to the success of this program such a mecklenburg north carolina and high profile cases like in virginia beach there is an increased awareness and an increased demand for this program i asked my colleagues to support this amendment make our communities safer and allow better ordination between local state and federal government i'll be glad to excellent amendment hard work that she's put into this issue i have some problem with the offset but that's overridden by the urgent need that the gentle lady has eliminated in her amendment allowing our local law enforcement officials and first responders to have authority in illegal immigration problems is the only way and madge meant that we will ever be able to solve this problem and so i commend the gentle lady for this gentleman opposed to a moment as a gentleman is recognized for five minutes thank you and i you myself so much time as i may consume it's clear it should be clear to all members what this amendment does and what this program does this in fact has local law enforcement that enforcing immigration law this is the most unpopular and rejected program for there within the law enforcement in this country when it comes to these type of programs the parliament after the parliament police the parliament after police departments sheva supply men after show us the parliament has said we don't want this responsibility we don't want this job in fact that is the reason why the number of communities that have participated in this program is not anywhere where the proponents wanted to be because the mainstay the strength of local law enforcement is the ability to fight crime to protect the community and yes even to flush out possible terrorist act is by getting information from the community granted there is an immigration issue but the police departments the local law enforcement do want do not want to play the role of immigration officers because they want the ability to be able to speak to members of the community and get information now that information may be who did you see near that car that is now missing from that corner but that information can also be where they do see and who did you see going into the building where we later found  equipment to make bombs occur in fact be involved in a terrorist attack local law enforcement have told us in big cities and small cities throughout this country in a rural communities that they want the ability to work with their communities and they don't want to be hampered by being asked to enforce immigration law and how it works it's very simply that there are people who are in this country without proper documentation we would call them illegal aliens some of us call them on documented but they still live in the community they still haven't formation and law enforcement needs to work with them if they now know that the local police officer if they now know that the local sheriff's deputy is going to be dealing with them in terms of an immigration situation they will not open up to that person and give them any information and in the long run we will suffer as a nation that's why i think that this is a bad program sorry  has even a penny assigned to it but to add more money to it would be a total waste of time to you always thank you joe the today show energy program is  voluntary by local communities as of now it may be voluntary but what happens is that local all alike that officials who sound like some of us here begin to put pressure on the police department to get into the program when indeed just about every law enforcement agency local law enforcement in the nation has gone public to say we don't want it and in this case we don't we don't want people to ask us to join in with the gentleman w your very briefly to the every community has a decision to make if they don't want to participate that's their business but for those communities that do want to participate it seems to me like we ought to allow the local action to take effect well but it's reclaiming my time it's just with all due respect to my brother mr rogers it's just their policy it is not the way to get on an issue you know we are now dealing in the senate and we'll be dealing in the house with an immigration reform bill we will eventually deal with that issue in the meantime we have other businesses take care of in this country other protections to offer to our citizens to have a local police officer on top of the fact that they're busy already now you want to give them another assignment but to have them in force immigration law i can't tell you how much all the people i speak to say they they don't want that they want the freedom to get information at all levels of a community and not be seen as an immigration officer are always used to be a bad joke about somebody would come into a restaurant and yell out immigration and a lot of people would leave and jump out the window and that's funny and it's sad at the same time but if you adjust that to a police department in a neighborhood looking for information and having people's run away from them because they see them as immigration enforcement agents then we lose the opportunity to really protect our community briefly you do you have a problem though if mecklenburg county north carolina wants to do the two eighty seven g program you know i have to do it but i was it ok for them to do i have a problem if we set in motion a wave of desire and push to force local people to do it and what we hear from local law enforcement is that they're under incredible pressure political pressure from elected officials to join a program that they know it's not a good program gentlewoman from virginia chairman how much time do i have remaining in and a half i'd like to yield to bennett to the gentleman from north carolina mr mchenry gentleman of north carolina is recognized for one minute i thank my friend from virginia for yielding this patch this past march burt county authorities pulled over an s u v and morgan to north carolina packed with eleven illegal immigrants local law enforcement officials were forced to release the illegals after being notified that there were not enough immigration and customs enforcement agents available to check on the group's immigration status even though they admitted they were the gl law enforcement officials not illegal aliens were handcuffed that night on i forty our hands were tied by red tape and bureaucracy and underfunding the two eighty seven g program is working efficiently in my home county of gaston and our sheriff there share of is doing a fantastic job of cross training deputies to also in force our in our immigration laws of this land and gives them the authority the legal authority and investigate detain you arrest illegal aliens on civil and criminal recognized for thirty seconds i thank the general a view for yielding this a very good amendment the state of arizona reports to save ten point two million dollars by removing illegal aliens into federal custody the city of nashville tennessee its first year of implementing this program is reportedly on track to deport as many as four thousand two hundred illegal immigrants this is a good program it needs to be expanded the lady should be commended all of my colleagues should vote in support of this very valuable amendment and i thank the gentle lady very much for yelling time all time on the amendment having expired the questions on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from virginia those in favor please say i those eighteen further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from virginia will be postpone the gentleman from new york mr king and a member opposed each will control five minutes the chair recognizes the gentleman from new york mr chairman i recognize myself for two minutes you myself so minutes sham at the outset me commend chairman price and ranking member rogers for the outstanding job i believe in the effort they put into putting this legislation together and i commend them on an issue which is so vital to our nation homeland security my men will restore forty million dollars to the domestic nuclear detection office the indio specifically relating to the securing the cities initiative and the radiation point to monitor program this recall is the co sponsor of the amendment will address themselves in a few moments to the radiation portal monitor program going to stress the s t c mr ed chairman intelligence and recent terrorist attacks overseas have led to the conclusion at the very that the next attack against our cities may very well come from outside the cities from suburban areas and certainly in new york city it's been concluded that the f c c is the only program which is dedicated to protecting cities against this threat specifically the f c c program involves a ring  detectors on highways bridges tunnels and waterways leading into cities indeed the police commissioner new york mission kelli has said that this program is our best last defense to keep nuclear a dirty bomb from being detonated within cities so this should be bipartisan matter while directly affects new york at this moment this is a pilot program which will affect the entire nation there's already been two full exercises run i was president one of them last week see how effective it was it involves  ninety counties three states numerous cities and many agencies and it to me serves no purpose at all to be taking in fact twenty million dollars out of a valuable program a program very well could end up saving thousands and thousands of lives and say that someone who came from a district who was well over a hundred people on september eleventh certainly doesn't want to go through that again this is a very effective meaningful program and i would again  the house restore this money forty million dollars to d purpose does the gentleman from north carolina rise as a gentleman opposed to the moment gentleman's recognized for five minutes into the gentleman from new york's amendment to add a total of forty million dollars to the funding recommended by the committee for the domestic nucular detection office have concerns first of all about the proposed offsets two of them firstly a member proposes to reduce funding for the site under secretary of management about thirty five million dollars after reflecting upon the amendments adopted earlier this week that already cut the office of the site undersecretary for management by seventeen percent this amendment if adopted reduce the office by another eighteen percent this means th s will be unable to consolidate its sixty locations in the d c metro area into a new headquarters facility at santa lesbos secondly the m m a would reduce five million dollars from the coast guard's research development testing and evaluation program this disc this decrease but eliminate priority research to resolve have the coast guard can best operate unmanned aerial vehicles at sea after recent failures in the deepwater program as well as f ways to better manage invasive species such as zebra mussels and ballast water at this time i don't believe mr chairman that funding for the domestic nuke and or detection office needs to be increased by forty million dollars the committee has already increased the funding from last year's level by thirty five million dollars excluding the the supplemental funding the bill before you did make some reductions in this office reduction of twenty million dollars for securing the cities in order to detect this advice an elaborate network of radiation detection devices would be installed in a ring around the city congress provided ten million dollars into you know seven to begin this effort yet to the best of my knowledge very little of this funding has been spent because the department of homeland security has not reached agreement with new york and new jersey officials on the architecture for this initiative or developed immune fully acceptable deployment plan t h s testified that this not occur until at least the summer of two thousand and seven a memo being offered by the gentleman from new york would restore funding that we reduced from the president's budget request for this program in zero eight and totally appropriate nineteen point seven million instead of the thirty nine point seven million requested because of the delays in bringing in beginning the pilot program it's premature to quadruple this program in one year without a clear architecture and deployment plan that has been agreed to by all the parties in place the bill before you also reduce funding to procure a radiation portal monitors for two reasons first the domestic nuclear defection office provided information after the submission of their budget request that reduce the number of radiation portal monitors a plan to procure from one hundred forty nine to one hundred twenty seven systems in zero eight now we fully fund this revised figure not a higher level that d n d zero no longer plans to procure secondly the recently enact supplemental provided one hundred million dollars for the procurement of radiation portal monitors this funding coupled with the house level for zero eight means were actually eighty million above the funding level requested in zero eight so more is not needed once this is probably this is again a letter signed by all of the ranking officials in new york state new jersey and connecticut all that's holding it up is the is this appropriation once the amount is known they will go ahead but other than that they cannot go ahead and the delmas saying that the present appropriation the money in the pipeline is not sufficient that it depends on your amendment passing that they pull their plan together yes that is true well that's a strange a strange way to plan what was done in concert i thank the chairman and i thank the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee i serve on the appropriations committee as i said i support the spirit of the intent of this amendment i am concerned that new york city has not effectively advocated for these funds didn't in my view do a sufficient job of alerting the members of the appropriations committee to this problem hasn't lined up its ducks but i'm willing to put that behind us i would just as the gentleman i'd be happy to yield to him will the gym and work with me to pressure new york city to ensure that this agreement is signed the concern i have is that if it is not signed it is entirely possible that the bureaucracy at the department of homeland security will take the money meant for new york and send it elsewhere so what what my very good friends from long island do with whom i have a wonderful partnership on so many issues commit to work with me to pressure the city of new york to get this agreement signed so the money goes to worse intended and i will yield to my friend t the general yield to the gentleman from north carolina control the time if we have to deal thirty seconds for response generally yes i absolutely sure him that i will work with the city of new york and department homeland security to ensure that this money is allocated and used for this purpose and that the agreement be expedited quickly as possible if the gentleman would yield back i want to again i want to thank the gentleman i understand the concerns he has i am deeply disappointed in how the city of new york approached the committee or did not approach the committee on this but i will work closely with the the gentleman from long island in pressuring the city to conclude this agreement and i'd like to say to the gentleman the sponsor of the amendment if if this agreement is is forthcoming and if we feel that the basis exists to to move ahead then we'll certainly certainly be happy to work with the with the gentleman and and considering the final appropriations level but as i said earlier i  do not believe the basis for an increase of this magnitude currently exists we just can't responsibly do it issues raised the d n d zero has reached an agreement in principle state local state holmes and it's about ninety five percent there i said that we cannot wait another year for the appropriation cycle to take place the summit is important restores forty million dollars to the domestic nuclear detection office the lack of these funds threatens to delay the completion of the radiation portal monitor and significantly impair the implementation of securing the cities initiative both of these initiatives aimed to strengthen the nation's defenses against a terror attack by a nuclear device or a radioactive dirty bomb there's no doubt that the risks are real we know that nuclear terrorism is the number one threat facing our country and then the economic cost associated with a dirty bomb could reach about a trillion dollars we know that osama bin laden and his al qaeda terrorist network have been attempting to acquire a nuclear bomb we also know that hundreds of the necessary ingredients of nuclear weapons are dangerously insecure all over the world there have been numerous documented cases of theft of weapons grade nuclear material but nuclear terrorism is in fact preventable and we should be spending homeland security dollars on preventing what could be a catastrophic attack against the united states twenty million of these cuts to the d m d a comes out of the radiation portal monitor program it would delay the completion of these until the year two thousand and thirteen acquisition of systems from five ports of entry including the port of houston to my home state of texas would be delayed and this means that more and screen cargo would get into this country such a delay is unacceptable and the best deterrence against terrorism is to disrupt the ability of terrorists to do what they want to do and that is to kill americans i urge my of new york second for gentleman thirty seconds just very strongly urge the adoption of this amendment you know the focus as we all know should be on preventing another nine eleven as the police commissioner of new york city has underscored many many different times that two places running around new york city in major urban areas will be a strong deterrent to anybody even contemplating this so i just very urgently strongly urge the adoption of this great amendment by my good friend expired gentlemen from new york i'm ashamed of myself the balance of the time let me again at the outset when the general from north carolina has good faith and effort we have an honest disagreement on this but i certainly commend him for the time and the concern he's shown on this issue and i certainly appreciate his offer to work with me i would just ask to introduce into the record this letter from virtually every lord foresman official in new york new jersey and connecticut state police local police  nassau county suffolk county westchester county and all of the state officials of new jersey connecticut and i urge the dom of the amish expired all time on the m m and having expired the questions on the m m n offered by the gentleman from new york those in favor  chairman americans are in a crisis of confidence they hear members of this congress proclaiming the importance of border port an airport security but then they hear about lapses they hear about neglect for instance several of my constituents contacted me about an immigration reform rally in the tampa area it was widely understood that illegal aliens were going to be present well a constituent called ice to report this information and they told her they did not have credible intelligence or staff capable to go to the rally to investigate when my local sheriffs call ice because they've apprehended an illegal alien i says they can't come because the far too busy but when this congress said that they will build seven hundred miles of a border fence last year d h s s it seems said no thank you we'll stick to three hundred seventy miles we'll take a lot of time and money to do it and frankly i'm fed up with some elected officials and non elected people promoting amnesty while ignoring the illegal presence in our country congress said build a fence that means amendment is very simple it takes eighty nine million from the undersecretary for management's account keeping the account at the f y o seven levels and transfers that amount to the border security fencing infrastructure and technology a can't see below his score this amendment is budget neutral and i ask that their analysis actually be inserted in the record congress must not accept anything you congress must not accept anything less than the seven hundred miles of fencing in the exact locations that were authorized with this money we send both a stark wake up call to the department and we'll be keeping promises to our constituents the people of america deserve better than what the h s is giving them so far a measly one point eight percent of the fence is completed leaving funds at the f y o seven levels for the department shows that we are serious why should their management be rewarded with bigger budgets when they haven't completed their work for f y o seven let me see fence build the fence or build the bureaucracy i think our constituents were answer that very clearly build the fence i want to be able to say that we kept our promise to america mr chairman this man simply says build the fence in a vote for this amendment is to complete the fence we permi gentleman opposed to the moment yes i am john is recognized for five minutes i was chairman this amendment would increase funding for the border security fencing infrastructure and technology program nine percent about the administration request the bill funds the one billion dollar request bringing funding for the border security program since its inception to two point five four billion dollars but the amendment would increase this further now the requested fiscal year zero eight funding that we have included will enable c b p to complete construction of three hundred seventy miles of primary fencing and two hundred miles of vehicle barriers while the specific mix of technology and infrastructure has yet to be determined the department has confirmed that those are the current limits of such infrastructure required to achieve operational control of the southwest border with the remainder being addressed through technology or existing assets in part because of the requirements for a detail expenditure plan the department has broken out its proposed investments in a way that aligns its requirements with resources and there's no rationale in these plans for additional funding at this time in short additional funding for this program would be based on no rationale and no known program needs on the other hand the proposal to reduce funding for the office that oversees departmental arbitrary i must say it fits the pattern of the last couple of days of simply going after the the department departmental secretary of of this republican administration but it's an arbitrary cut it have the effect of degrading the capacity of the department to oversee itself and thus reduce the very accountability we want to establish so irish colleagues to reject this amendment and i yield now to my colleague from from california mr far corners recognize high rise also in opposition and i'll tell you why i've been to the border and i've traveled the area that you're talking about it's in the barry goldwater range it's a very rural area  it's actually an area where you have the indian tribes that are and this is so real you can't believe it and i'm really surprised that gentlewoman rose on this because she doesn't have any border in her state nor fence i come from the state of california which only has a border and has the busiest border in the world and i'm also an opposition is because i've talked to the border patrol this is not a fence that they're asking for what this fence is for is a fence in the military range and it should be coming out of the military budget because it's just in the middle of absolutely nowhere where there's very little if any crime and you'd be much more effective in detection rather than fences as someone once said of border patrol and said that you know a twelve twelve foot fence you just need a thirteen foot ladder and i respect the fact that you think that this is going to get you somewhere but i can tell you that it's not wisely spent money there are much more cost effective ways to do border detection than building a fence in the middle of nowhere gentlewoman from florida i would inquire as to the time remaining and recite gentlewoman from florida has two minutes remaining thank you i'd like to yield to really good friend from west virginia this more capital for how much time for a minute i don't want from west virginia's recognize for one minute thank you i rise today in support of most of my colleagues in florida and her amendment with enhancing the ability to secure our borders the atman of the secure fence act last year was a step in the right direction because this act recognize that most illegal immigrants do enter from the southern border the security to construct hundreds of miles of reinforced fencing not just fencing but additional physical barriers roads lighting cameras and sensors along that southwest border  building the fence is experience is very expensive and it is urgent construction and my constituents in west virginia who do not have a border say what is taking so long and why are so many people still able to enter our country illegally unfortunately part of it has been a lack of funding so with this amendment i think the gentlewoman from florida has put forth a good faith effort to see that this fence not only is built but is built quicker and and that border becomes more secure and i support her time in which we find ourselves every state's a border state in every town is a border town because of the situation that we find on the southern border of this nation two hundred ninety three members of this body voted to build a f so it is incumbent upon us to appropriately and fully fund that fans i support the amendment of the gentle lady from florida i rise to support her efforts i commend her for this the bill before us underfund the effort  building the fan and i yelled the balance of my time gentleman from florida i think the gentleman from tennessee it is not just the border states that are affected by illegal immigrants who come into our country they're not all coming here for jobs folks and i think we are very naive if we believe that some are coming here to form terrorist cells and since may not be the perfect answer but it's the answer that this congress voted on last gentleman's time has expired gentlemen of north carolina reiterate that and anyone who will look at this bill for a minute or two will realize that the border infrastructure including the fencing is is fully funded in this bill it's not under funded it's fully funded at the administration's request we do provide for the very careful consideration of what is the appropriate mix of of technology and infrastructure to to create this this barrier along the border that's what the department of course as has requested and it's what i think rationally they should undertake so i reiterate that there is no reason for this additional funding and colleagues to oppose it for recorded vote and they were so it's called six rule eighteen further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from florida will be postpone ajmal control two and a half minutes chair recognizes the gentleman from texas i think the chairman mr chairman this is a very simple amendment to secure flight offset amendment will reduce the department of homeland security office of undersecretary for management by fifteen million dollars and increase a transportation threat assessment account by fifteen million dollars the department of homeland security for management oversees the audit liaison office of department of homeland security this liaison office helped oversee the department's efforts to coordinate with  general accountability office the office of inspector general and d h s component agencies liaison officers have not been meeting the goal for which they were first funded that is to keep the agencies updated to avoid duplication to avoid gaps and avoid inefficiency liaison offices have not been successful in providing a centralized and coordinated process therefore this amendment reduces the funding for this office by fifteen million dollars and places that money increases the funding for the transportation threat assessment act by fifteen million dollars the funding would be used by the transportation security administration to further the development of the passenger prescreening program called secure flight when fully implemented secure flight will be able to more effectively compare passenger information to information that is contained within the federal terrorist watch lists secure flight will decrease the chance for compromised watchlist data by centralizing the use of a comprehensive watch list it will further provide earlier identification of potential threats allowing for expedited notification of law enforcement and threat management and finally it will offer consistent application of an expedited an integrated retest redress process for passengers who have been as a threat secure flight is a critical part of the t s a is overall strategy to secure the nation's commuter commercial air transportation system and deserves more money to be fully implemented as soon as possible it will give cleaner and more efficient data to our air carriers constituents throughout our country certainly constituents in my district have contacted my office because they have been mislead in a five by the transportation security administration and they can't simply cannot be removed from the watch list increasing the secure flight initiative wouldn't help that process and it is time we did increase the funding to that i will reserve the balance of my time for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina arise the chairman are rising opposition to the amendment germans reckon asked for five minutes from sorry for two and a half chairman i i am opposed to this amendment will briefly explain my reasoning i do support the development of an effective screening program that would prevent known terrorists from boarding airlines headed to the united states of course we all we all favor that for that reason i recommended ten million more dollars for secure flight than what congress appropriated last year and that is in this bill further funding is premature and you know so many times tonight i'm sure we're going to be dealing with with questions of priorities and objectives that we all agree with but as many people on both sides of the aisle are fond of saying it doesn't solve anything just to throw money at something you have to look at what can be intelligently and wisely spent and we have done that we've done that throughout this bill the secure flight program is troubled in ways that make us reluctant to throw the kind of money at it that the gentleman suggested while earlier this year t s a completed the yearlong assessment of the program the assessment didn't include total cost estimates for the bell of the program did not assure the committee that privacy rights will be protected the government accountability office has reported multiple times this year on concerns i flight program and has recommended a variety of management actions that t s a should undertake to get this program back on track they have to have incentives to undertake those improvements we don't do them any favors simply to load more money on the existing appropriations t s a continues to provide our subcommittee with conflict information on how the budget request for secure flight will be spent in two thousand and eight and finally recent documents show that the operational testing of this program has now slipped into two thousand and nine for all of these reasons we've very carefully calibrated what the traffic will bear and what the appropriation should be it's an increase but there is no rationale for the kind of increase the the gentleman is suggesting now like many other people he's targeted the secretary chertoff for office for the offset fifteen million dollars well if you everybody does that and many are then we're going to produce these accounts of the point that the h s simply cannot consolidate its sixty locations into this new headquarters to sell to and i can't carry on their basic operation so i mr chairman until t s a can get a firm handle on what secure flight will do the milestones to develop this program its costs and how it will protect the privacy of us isn't it's premature to provide additional funding for this troubled program and i urge members to oppose this amendment has expired gentleman from mr chairman i would just simply say this is a good management i would encourage my colleagues to vote in favor of this as someone who travels frequently i want this program to be up funded and running well i'll yield back the balance of my time the questions on the  asian person to call six rule eighteen further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from texas will be postponed for what purpose of the gentleman from north carolina arises from or not move strike last words homeland security subcommittee on emerging threats i have security in science technique in technology i've worked and to bring greater attention to the issue of cyber security which remains a vulnerability in our national infrastructure i believe it's critical that adequate funding to cyber security research and development be made a priority at the science and technology directorate and fortunately this issue has been largely overlooked within the department of homeland security in fact out of the twenty two point seven for f y two thousand and eight the president slashed the budget again requesting only fourteen point eight million dollars which than eight million dollars cut from the previous c e o now as that the chairman knows my my subcommittee  raised attention to this issue and the full committee authorize fifty million dollars besides purely research and development as the committee's authorization and appropriations bills moves forward i'd like to work with the champion so that we can ensure appropriate of funding besides kerry research and i yield back to the gym i think the challenge is gentleman from rhode island for raising this important issue and i agree that our nation must protect its critical infrastructure from cyberattacks research and development efforts that's the t directorate will be vital to our homeland security activities i look forward to working with the gentleman to bring greater attention to the issue of cyber security and to provide adequate funding for these efforts and i very much appreciate his vege vigilance  this on this bill i rise to offer this amendment which holds great importance not only to my home state of new jersey but really to the entire nation my men men is a simple one and it's it's one that's a step in acknowledging the dangers that we're still faced following the attacks of september eleventh two thousand and one my memo to transfer fifty million dollars from the d h s s office of undersecretary for management to grants contracts and cooperative agreements to state and local law enforcement agencies for terrorism prevention activities this amendment would increase funding for d h s buffer zone protection grants these funds can be used to enhance security and protection around sites of national importance these are clues not only banking and financial sites but also the t v in boston the barts in san francisco plants which pose one of the most dangerous threats to our domestic security today these funds could be used to provide increased law enforcement patrols around chemical plants and to protect these critical infrastructures as well as enhanced information sharing among federal state and local officials and those in the intelligence community for example in two thousand and seven the state of california received four point six million dollars of these grant funds my home state in new jersey received a million and a half dollars in these grants funds other states that have benefited from this grant program include maryland and south carolina which have each received nearly a million dollars states like illinois have benefited even states like idaho one hundred eighty thousand dollars in these funds in fact in two thousand states in america received grants from this important program new jersey ranks as one of the leading states for chemical production most unsettling lee new jersey chemical plants are specifically listed by federal authorities as ripe targets for potential terrorist attack millions of people and essential transportation routes around these chemical plants an attack on one of these plants could not only c tremendous loss of life but also irreversible environmental damage by unleashing secondary explosions or toxic fumes and substances make no mistake this amendment would not only benefit new jersey target but as a matter of fact this department's functions are scattered all over washington d c and we we all agree and wanting a an effective strong department of homeland security we also know the obstacles that have stood in the way of integrating this department and making it function smoothly because it involves integrating twenty two separate agencies into a functioning department so for years now we've just baffling that members of the minority person after person gets up and shows so so low low regard so little regard for that that kind of part of they seem to think that this departmental budget is some kind of cash cow that can be dipped into it at will without this funding the coast guard will be able to move into its new headquarters how about that the department wouldn't be able to consolidate its management functions at this modern facility underfunded the buffer zone protection program but the bill already funds the president's budget for this program the same as the president has requested and the same as as provided in in fiscal year two thousand and seven  which the president deemed sufficient the general wants to double double that funding throw money at it and at the same time remove money from this critical native facility pull these twenty two agencies together in a functioning department it is unwise it isn't needed and it simply it simply disregards the kind of careful consideration of this account the kind of careful balancing of these needs that has gone into the production of this bill so although i appreciate the gentleman's intentions and his support of this program i have to ask colleagues to oppose this amendment manual but the gentleman you gentleman's time has expired for what purpose all time on the amendment having expired the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new jersey those in favor please say aye those opposed please say no to any of the chair the nos have it the member has not adopted its chairman what happens to the gentleman from jersey rise i ask for a recorded vote pursuits call six rule eighteen further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new jersey will be postpone i believe this is that no major contributor to america's illegal immigration problem is the inability of the u s customs and immigration services to process legal immigration applications in a timely manner u s c i s uses horribly antiquated systems for processing applications so antiquated in fact that they're still tracking immigration applications using paper and sending them around the country with the u s postal service every customer of a major bank in this country can track his or her accounts payments and transactions online in real time but the federal government is still using stone age technology or paper age rather when it comes to the basic functioning of granting citizenship take for instance a constituent of mine met a dan met a danica actually is a was born in turkey he spent sixteen years trying to become a united states citizen the right way the legal way my office worked with them for a number of years in fact helping him through this bureaucratic process and cutting through this outdated red tape but due to the end efficiency of the current system which processes over seven million immigration applications per year using paper printouts met ses case has been a two and a half year debacle marked by mistakes errors and blunders the minute i'm offered today would prevent this sort of this sort of horror from king continue to happen in the future a few years ago embarked on a major technological overhaul for how it handles the millions of immigration applications it receives every year the problem though is that they're not really putting this into place fast enough and that's why i'm proposing that we take thirty million dollars and apply it to stay carrying out the strategic information transformation through us c i s their plan includes online counts that federal agencies and applicants and selves can use to track their immigration status as it moves through the national application process to background checks to add adjudication and a final approval it's a very commonsense way for us to track immigration applications beyond that what we have to understand is u s c i s estimates that handle seven million immigration applications using paper today we should use information age technology to make sure that we have a fair process for those seeking to come to our country and thereby reducing eal egal immigration in the process but the bulk of those seven million applications applications for census of shipping nine immigration residency require up to eleven different forms apiece that means that u s c i s has to handle tens of millions of forms annually just to keep track of the people currently in the system that's why there are just reported fifteen thousand pending cases from the one nine hundred eighty six amnesty plan passed by congress  law that's right eleven years later actually twenty one years later there are still more than fifteen thousand unresolved cases if we want people to immigrate to the united states legally and come to our country without sneaking across our border or breaking our laws are coming under the cover of darkness then we must really remove the barriers of illegal immigration the thirty million dollars i'm proposing to devote to u opposition to the amendment germans recognize for five minutes the chairman this amendment would put unrequested funding that is unrequested by the administration into the business transformation program once again it would take the funds from the efforts to consolidate the h s operations on the sand elizabeth's campus which secretary chertoff has cited as one of his top priorities for improving the by by utilizing user fees my understanding is that this is a program funded by about user fees that it that it really is is not in need of appropriated funding and knowing knowing the gentleman's  support for economies in government we've heard a lot about that the last couple of days for many many hours in fact why would we don't want to have this program pay for itself so to speak  and why would we want to dip into appropriated funds to to make this kind of kind of increase i i just raise that as a question maybe i should let the gentleman answer it before i reach my final conclusion but i certainly appreciate it and  in place this plan until two thousand and thirteen and so at the time frame i don't think is as fast enough and i think that is very deserving for us to put up appropriate funds so we can actually have a more efficient process no matter where you are on the immigration debate whether you want amnesty or border security this actually is a pretty sensible thing from both sides  if gentleman's argument of this this thirty million dollars is that right is that what he's asking for here is that thirty million dollars would make a significant impact on what i think is about a two hundred fifty million dollar program department is is so encouraging this why do you suppose we didn't get a request from them when the budget was set up it's gentleman yield yes i well i spoke last night about a lack of competence within some of our bureaucracies even those led by republicans by my fellow republican brother and i see a failure in the bureaucracy and i'm willingness for them to step forward and make this happen faster and you're correct it is a much larger price tag however limited by the offsets available to me which in this legislation the confines of the rules thirty million would be a good start in this process and hopefully pull that day closer to being enacted well the general will  problems that the gentleman's identified doesn't seem like a very discriminating response to simply throw appropriated funds at the at the agency i must say now if the point is to make sure that this program comes online to make sure that it that it does what it's supposed to do and that it's monitored carefully and that we exercise oversight responsibilities and that we encourage the department asked for whatever kind of support it needs then that's another matter but i but simply simply reaching into appropriated funds and throwing them at this at this program in this way i must say to the gentleman it's not something that i can accept he he might want to withdraw the amendment and let us work with him on on trying to give this program appropriate emphasis but that of course is his option ulysse wishes to respond will actually like it to have a vote on this so that we can begin that process i do think they have a good plan in place to go to the information age and finally get out of the sort of one nine hundred fifty s mentality of paperwork being shifted around and i think it's a i'd like to at least take a step forward in the process but on going after that i'd certainly like to work with the chairman because i know he very much cares about efficiency of the money appropriated will reclaim my time will work on this in any case but i must say if they're the kind of problems that the gentleman is a den of five simply throwing appropriated funds at them in  in what seems to me to be a fairly undiscriminating way doesn't seem to be a very promising remedy so for that reason mr chairman i i do or john no vote on this amendment so much time has expired gentleman from north carolina how much time you have remaining place for moving forward to electronic or digital age level of technology and what concerns me is this a bureaucracy that deals with seven million applications each year tens of millions of pages of paper each year doesn't move to technology sooner than two thousand and thirteen which is their current plan and so i'd like to start that process give them the money to begin earlier on moving to the information age and with that i'd be happy to yield to the rights of member of the sub i think the gentleman for yielding i'll be brief and i understand much chairman's concerns of that he's expressed notwithstanding that though this agency is so far behind with this backlog and trying to catch up with equipment and procedures that are decades old i think demands that we do something different and so i appreciate the gentleman bringing this thousand pending cases from the one nine hundred eighty six amnesty plan still stuck in the system i think we have a flaw in the system we need to update that use current technology so we can fairly bring legal immigration to the that the chair of the house is to be an in impartial arbiter of the proceedings the gentlewoman from florida is offering a member that is not part of this paragraph and will need to come back to are there any other amendments to this pending paragraph if not read page three line comes to prepare in response nothing shows this more than the evacuations do and here hurricane katrina when hundreds of children was separated from their parents are god yes because of  writing down names of evacuating children was not implemented children you legally need and all been overlooked because of the fallacy that children can be treated like little adults children on the most vulnerable members of the population and then these they're very different for example i had a meeting with the cheap at the business of community pediatrics from the university of florida and he brought a match engine that emergency evacuation equipment is often brought for adults but children can't be transported in adult women and that they often the types of equipment is missing my i'm in that would make sure our children don't go unnoticed and we are thinking about prepare materials children represent nearly twenty five percent of the population and their knees in disaster planning should be met children should be learning the importance of making an emergency plan what to ask their parents in about the knees for the emergency contract and then if occasion caught in addition children should take the message back home to their families involved in the education of children in the best way to get mina does who don't hear the plan a message getting gentlewoman from florida ms brown in a member opposed each will control five minutes the chair recognizes gentlewoman from florida thank you mrs speaker address to offer an amendment to grant addition a funded to the inspector general office so that they may in for section eight and small disadvantage business contract at the department of homeland security put your men at the department of homeland security increase one hundred and eighty nine percent between two thousand and three and two thousand and five which was eleven ten spare them the growth of the rest of the government yet according to the federal procurement data system the rest sent contracting for small disadvantaged business have these decrease in two thousand and three small disadvantage been accounted for sixteen percent of contracts in two thousand for the name of the priest in that point five percent and in two thousand by the name a decrease to seven point six percent if spinnin is increased at the department of homeland security then why aren't minorities and small business contracts increasing to after them several businesses about their frustrations with being awarded federal contracts as a member of the congressional black caucus and women well as talking to members of the congressional hispanic caucus and going around my district and speaking with minutes mall been in general they feel like the government has shipped them out of course with the abundance of noncompetitive contract been rampant in the department of homeland security it has been the policy of the federal government to assist minorities and of the social and economic disadvantage small business to become fully competitive and that would business concern this policy must be taken seriously at all agencies a specially the department of homeland security this amendment is important to the members of the congressional black caucus the congressional hispanic caucus and the congressional women's  any other member of this pending paragraph not the clerk will read page three line fifteen office of the chief information officer two hundred fifty eight million six hundred twenty one thousand dollars an operations two hundred one thousand million six hundred nineteen thousand dollars remain available until september thirtieth two thousand and nine s of the federal coordinator for golf coast rebuilding rebuilding three million dollars inspector general operating expenses ninety nine million one hundred eleven thousand dollars title two security enforcement investigations unit and states customs and border protection salaries and expenses six billion six hundred twenty nine million seven hundred  thirty three thousand dollars for what purpose does the gentleman from new mexico writes jim and i have an amendment at the desk the clerk will designate the amendment and then the number one twenty one hundred twenty eight printed in the congressional record offered by mr pierce of new mexico pursuant to the order of the house of today the gentleman from new mexico mr pierce and a member opposed each will control five minutes to recognize the gentleman of new mexico and thank the  and the third time is charmed and certainly in this amendment will be charmed at this point we speak or i would like to amend this video in order to make our borders more secure i'm one of the members who lives on a border and on the southern border in the mexico we experience many of the problems of having a porous border we find drugs human trafficking and other problems there at the border because of our failure to secure and many of our residents are affected daily with an overwhelming amount of funding and preexisting t s a full time employees i think it is them it is proper for us to divert funding from t s a the transportation security administration the border security the t s a i've heard my constituents call it thousands standing around seems to have plenty of people to do its work and yet we do not have enough people to put on the border  and so we're simply requesting a move of less than three percent of the fund less than three percent of an agency and every single american that travels on airlines understands the number of people i see standing around when they walk through the check points  were asking that less than three percent of that money be sent over to where we can use it along the borders our calculation is that we can hire over four thousand new people to help us secure the southern border of the united states now cvo recognizes the value of this and scores this at forty three million dollars savings so we would like to draw that to the attention of the body every year between five hundred thousand and one million illegal immigrants come into the united states we need more people to help on our southern border many problems are coming into this country and many problems are affecting each state but especially the states that lie on the border so mr  i would reserve the balance of my time in respect we ask members to support this amendment jim reserves the gentleman reserves the balance of his time what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina arise as chairman i rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman gentleman you reckon up five minutes the gentleman's amendment is is well intentioned and understandable particularly given the part of the country he represents but i'd like to explain to colleagues briefly why  believe this this amendment is ill advised it would reduce one hundred twenty five million dollars from the transportation security administration to fund activities by customs and border protection i do appreciate the gentleman's wish to further strengthen the frontline agency for our borders and our ports of entry the fact is though i believe we have addressed his concerns very adequately in this bill the bill fully funds the three thousand additional border patrol agents requested by the administration and any more i believe would exceed c b p capacity to recruit and to absorb the bill provides for two hundred fifty additional c b p officers above the request to strengthen port and cargo inspections security so it seems that putting more manic money into the agency this time would be at best symbolic and at worst wasteful on the other hand let's look at the reduction let's look at the offset by a reduction of this magnitude from t s a says aviation security program will slow to a crawl plans to move explosive detection machines out of crowded airport lobbies and in line with the airport baggage conveyor systems we're aware of at least sixty airports that need these necessary improvements without them airport lobbies will remain congested for the same perceivable future and and the use of technology under developed after years of stalling this cut would delay improvements that are finally under way at a with the airport checkpoints such as installing a next generation systems to better detect explosives and weapons that paris passengers might carry on their bodies or in their checked baggage a reduction of this size in t s a would toward efforts to double the amount of air cargo screened for explosives and other dangerous items before it's placed on passenger aircraft explosive detection equipment is a key technology we used to screen for these dangerous objects finally this reduction would require t s a to lay off something like three thousand screeners for the past two years we've seen record air travel resulting in a longer lines at many airports and screening checkpoints a reduction in chairman and in opposing the amendment reluctantly because the gentleman from new mexico makes a compelling argument for better border security and coming from his state i can fully understand that as he is but as the chairman has said we have increased in this bill monies for an additional three thousand border patrol agents and the gentleman i was arguing strongly for that and i appreciate that that we have accommodated his request to that extent as well as five hundred additional customs and border patrol officers and increases the salaries and expenses by over fifty million dollars so i think there's more help on the way that the gentleman has been asking for but the monies that you would the gentleman would take from t s a is not for screeners it wouldn't come from screeners it would come from the equipment that we're trying to furnish airports with explosive detection machines x ray machines to locate explosives so that we can clear the lobbies of many airports to have the trace detection machines in the lobby and so that passengers in small and medium size airports really can't get through to fly and so and that's been a pet project of this member for some time so that's where the money would come from one hundred twenty five million dollars and that really is my objection  because if we take that money from these explosive detection machines which are already underfunded and this bill increases the number quite a bit but still underfunded it would cripple severely crippled the effort lot of money on the the puffer machines that are at the airports we spend hundreds of millions of dollars on those and i would ask the gentleman for the quality of the quality of product that we're getting from those puffer machines out that one hundred twenty five million dollars is what we're requesting to be taken from t s a t s a has a budget of over four billion dollars one hundred twenty five million represents less than three percent i would also point out that over fifty four hundred miles exist of border and we have thirteen thousand border patrol agents and yet we have forty three thousand employees in t s a to screen employees i'm telling the american people that we have underfunded consistently for the last decades the last thirty forty fifty years the efforts that are needed on the southern border and today is not the day to find three percent to be an honor it's feet i sat on the transportation committee watch some of the elements and two year two terms ago last year i was on homeland security saw the waste fraud and abuse and i will tell the american people that tonight we must make the stand that our border must be secured and would deal back about a month time or speaker  i will not take anything like that amount of time the gentleman asked about the puffer machines which and they do have some utility but have some so very obvious shortcomings as he observed that's not what we're talking about funding in this bill we're talking about simple point was that the same agency that approves the puffer machines is going to prove the sky explosion devices and my feeling is that the agency has been ill managed since the beginning we have a desperate need on the southern border today right now and finding equipment and funding equipment that the t s a has approved both now and in the past has shown to be very very ineffective and i would just say that we've got an emergency crisis on the southern border all  chairman this case has been stated i repeat my request for a no vote questions on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new mexico those in favor please say aye those opposed please say no opinion of the chair the i have it the after the ice and ice for so it's called six relating further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new mexico will be postponed what purpose does the gentleman from mamma rise mr chairman i have an amendment at the desk number one hundred four printed in the congressional congressional record offered by mr king of iowa pursuant to the order of the house of today of the gentleman from iowa mr king and a member opposed each will control five minutes jerry recognizes the gentleman from iowa chairman this amendment that i bring in this simple function of it goes into the law charged six billion dollars appropriation speace takes out a million dollars and puts back in a million dollars and it's for the purposes of directing custom border protection and our in our border protection people to go in and take out the lookout posts that have been established i'll call them on military positions from the mexican border all the way up to phoenix  tucson and all the way up to phoenix and in the time that i've spent on the southern border the border patrol people have pointed out to me the shadow wells of pointed out to me ice people have pointed out to me that the lookouts be on top of those small mountains that overlook the transportation routes and so what they do with their sophisticated the drug smugglers the drug cartels with their sophisticated surveillance equipment good optical equipment good at radio equipment ahead of us they position one or two people on top of those lookout mountains and then they can then they can tell their own people exactly where their border patrol are they can run a decoys through those routes and one as soon as the border patrol converge is on that the coil sacrifice two hundred pounds of marijuana have been there to help interdict that meanwhile they run the truck loads through when all of those all those focused resources are on that on that lookout that's one of the tactics they deploy a number of tactics but they are they are occupying and controlling what we would describe as military positions way inside the united states all the way to tucson and all the way to phoenix i've been there i've looked at them i've seen them and congressman feeney is actually on his way to add to this debate he's gone to the top of these mountains we have pictures i have produced a map this is a map of at least seventy five locations that may well go over one hundred locations i sat there and watched the watch there are border protection people but the access on a map i stood there and looked at the mountains with them i presented this to the vice president i presented this to the secretary of homeland curity and what i get is a letter that is more or less designed to pacify me and i believe that if you're going to play cat and mouse with drug smugglers we ought to take those tools away from them we should be taking these these drug smugglers off of these tactical positions the instant they arrive there and not letting them set up there and control military positions inside the united states controlling the transportation routes for their drugs molly all the way to phoenix this is a fact is a well established fact in this congress needs to send a message that department homeland security needs to take them out the minute they're occupied and i reserve the balance of my time as  gentleman reserves the balance of the time what purpose of the gentleman from north carolina writes chairman i rise to oppose the amendment gentleman is recognized for five minutes mr chairman i i agree with the gentleman that traffickers traffic s are using lookouts to spy on law enforcement operations and to assess where our agents are just as we're looking at them but i don't see any rationale for  initiative of the sort that he describes the bill provides funding for additional three thousand border patrol agents and a billion dollars to continue and expand the border security program the and the elimination of the kind of lookout posts that he's describing on u s territory is a matter for c b p to deal with if it involves crossing the border and for other law enforcement agencies to deal with if it's strictly a domestic violation now the funding in this bill has been increased increased a great deal to grow the border patrol all these new agents to better meet the cargo and port security vulnerabilities address for example in the safe fort act so this is not a costless funding shift it's a shift in funding that would reduced resources for these departmental of priorities priorities in which the  unnecessary to designate funds for these purposes i think shifting the funds around in this way could do some damage as we have temp to develop the department and so i reluctantly ask members to oppose the amendment and i yield the balance of my time but he's asking us to accept the argument that out of six point six billion dollars homeland security is not going to spend one million to take out the lookout outposts on top of the mountains that the drug cartels are a man these things are full time often two at a time often with assault weapons on top they believe fortress up there with setting up stones like sandbags and it's a military position they set up there with optical equipment infrared equipment at night they can see further than we can see and they can communicate as well as we can communicate many times better and so it wouldn't be rational to say we're playing a game of cat and mouse but we're going to let this this cat knew what everyone's to do and we're going to play the mouse and so mr authored a letter that went to the secretary of homeland security shirt off on august thirtieth of last year that asked them to take out these lookout posts and then take those drug smugglers off the top of those mountains that's the short version of it we got the letter back the answer back from the assistant to the assistant let me see the deputy assistant secretary of homeland security that the secretary general explanation was and i quote from the letter recently agents in san diego sector using advanced technology discovered that scouts for a drug trafficking organization were watching border patrol movements and were trying to coordinate the crossing of narcotics into the united states using this intelligence border patrol agen hundred pounds of marijuana and the vehicle used to transport the narcotics close quote that's their huge accomplishment for sixty five billion dollars worth of drugs pouring across our southern border and drug smugglers with weapons taking up tactical military positions to control our transportation routes and so they explain to us that they have interdicted four hundred pounds of marijuana which is an even and i double the fence in that region of the world it was two hundred fifty pounds but they had too many too many criminals so they had to raise it to five hundred pounds these guys get a pass and that's all the department homeland security is doing not very like to much to yield a minute or so to mr feeney was just arriving and ready for his vigor hoping chance to close i really appreciate the gentleman's amendment i want to share with you i'm a skeptic even when my friends tell me things when congressman king told me about the problem the border i thought he was exaggerating i went down last summer gentleman's reckon up five minutes and he'll admit it to the tune i'm very grateful this is very important as congressman king just told you we have a problem on our border most congressman and few americans know about i'm a skeptical guy even when a good patriot and friend of mine like steve king told me something so i went down personally inspected a machine a nest seventy five miles inside the arizona border run by coyote it was the thirteenth in a list of machine gun nests where they warm with the surveillance techniques radios with one with radios and they use these facilities inside our border to facilitate drug trafficking and illegal immigration ladies and gentlemen i do not believe that our government is in forcing our own security there's nothing more important we can do that to support symbolically the king amendment to send a message we want to take these machine gun nests out it was the bureau of land management that took me up there why because they are cleaning up the mess that these coyote's leave behind them as they are poison drugs and illegals across our border please i saw it with my own eyes or i would not have believed it please support the king amendment if nothing else than to send a message we want our border secure and our laws in appreciate making sure that the breathless mr feeney had an opportunity to say a few words and i know i ran up the stairs this is an important symbolic vote and we've worked on this for years i didn't i didn't realize how difficult it was to convince farmer homeland security what was going on here but this letter in response that they have written where they brag about taking out one interdicting one person with four hundred pounds of marijuana as if somehow that's addressing all of these tactical positions that look over all of our transportation routes inside the united states congress need to send a message we can't tolerate that inside this country we wouldn't if we were at war we're in a drug war thank you chairman and i they have ranking member and ideal back to him i yield back the time go ahead just i want to thank the gentleman from north carolina mr price for the time for the opportunity to discuss an important issue to me with every passing day i hear more talk about how to prevent illegal immigration we're discussing it at this very moment many of the proposals to deal with undocumented immigrants involve punishing them through deportation or what has been termed as touchback which requires immigrants to expel themselves and pay a heavy extremely  however we could best reduce the number of undocumented immigrants by improving every forming our own government bureaucracy while many members of this body believe that every undocumented immigrant walks across the southern border the fact is that forty percent of them enter our country legally and many of them have only broken the law after falling through the cracks of a vast bureaucracy back home in brooklyn new york an area they're both immigrants from every corner of the world i have personally talked to countless people who are frustrated because they had no intention of breaking the law but simply became tied up in an overly complicated backlog system as their applications were delayed until their visas expired and suddenly they were here illegally i'm further concerned with the proposed fee increases at c r yes to process applications all of the people who immigrate here from other countries have come looking for a better life many of these people work hard at jobs that pay so little that most americans do not want to take them we cannot expect these individuals to pay astronomical fees that they cannot afford as they effectively create another barrier to citizenship for many immigrants who only want to make an honest living and leave those who cannot pay in undocumented limbo we in congress must ensure that c i s has the funding it requires to be eat fish and an effective without resorting to taking money from those who cannot afford the extremely punitive costs as the debate on immigration reform progress is it is vital that we address the issues and ensure that c i s will be able to help everyone who desires to play by m b in compliance with the rules it is simply not right that many people have been deemed criminals simply because our government is still ill equipped to process these applications or because we have made it totally an affordable i thank the gentleman from north carolina mr price for his efforts at improving the legal immigration process and i look forward to working together to bring about improvements and reforms to an immigration system that is reflective of the twenty first century united states i thank the gentleman from new york her perspective on this issue while the appropriations committee has no direct control over the fees that c i s charges or the revenues that it collects the committee report encourages the department to continue a regular reviews of its cost estimates and to apply any savings generated by business transformation to reducing fees in the future the committee also requires c i s to report on the performance measures it will implement to ensure that the increased fees charged to its customers result and commensurate improvements in the service provided by the agency so i encourage a woman to work closely with the judiciary committee to address these concerns since the authorities to collect immigration fees are ultimately within that of connecticut pursuant to the order of the house of today a gentleman from connecticut mr shays and a member opposed each will control five minutes just want to make sure the clerk has the proper amendment maybe she should read it to the gentleman with that objection the clerk will report the m m m m n offered by mr shays of connecticut page seven line sixteen after which insert the following one hundred one hundred thousand dollars and to promote information and education exchange with nations friendly to the united states in order to promote sharing of best practices and technologies relating to homeland security as authorized by section eight seventy nine a public all one of seven dash two ninety six and thank you mr mr chairman to the order of the house of today the gentleman from connecticut m a member opposed each will control five minutes chair recognizes the gentleman from kentucky very much i first want to thank mr price for the work he's done on this legislation and mr rogers and say i know we're going to be spending a lot more money but this is homeland security and i intend to support this legislation the amendment would appropriate one hundred thousand dollars to allow the department of homeland security d h s s and the international criminal police organization interpol to share counterterrorism and stolen and los travel document information to d h as secretary has already publicly stated he hopes to integrate the interpol and information appoints aventure e this amendment simply provides funding for that stated activity the funding would provide the necessary startup costs for the minimum i t equipment to set up the data sharing as well as additional funds to facilitate travel and professional exchanges interpol currently maintains a database of fourteen point four million lost and stolen internationally recognized travel documents from one hundred twenty three countries this includes sixty seven million passports