Robert Aderholt

Mr. ADERHOLT

Mr. ADERHOLT. Madam Chair, I insist on my point of order.

Mr. ADERHOLT. I ask unanimous consent that the Clerk read the amendment.

Mr. ADERHOLT. We would like to clarify which amendment is currently being considered.

Mr. ADERHOLT. Parliamentary inquiry, Madam Chair.

Mr. ADERHOLT. I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriation bill and therefore violates clause 2 of rule XXI. The rule states, in pertinent part, an amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law gives affirmative action in effect. I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

Mr. ADERHOLT. Madam Chairman, I insist upon my point of order.

Mr. ADERHOLT. Madam Chair, I respectfully reserve a point of order on this amendment.

Mr. ADERHOLT. I want to thank the gentlewoman from Wyoming for working with us on this issue, and I appreciate the concerns that she has raised and also that the gentleman from Utah has raised. The committee has attempted to address both the requests of the Department of Homeland Security and the interests of Members on both sides of the aisle in drafting section 547. It was narrowly tailored to address only the most necessary environmental mitigation activities directly related to border security construction, operations, and maintenance. It included strict controls on the transfer of funds from the Department of Homeland Security to the Department of the Interior, only where the Secretary of Homeland Security certifies that the transfer is absolutely necessary for border security and that the Department of Homeland Security does not have the authority to carry out the necessary activities. Further, the Secretary of the Interior must provide a detailed spend plan with advance notification, allowing the committee to reject the plan. The committee's interest was border security. Unfortunately, we were not able to balance the various viewpoints and the concerns to find the compromise in this process. For that reason, I support the Lummis amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ADERHOLT. I move to strike the last word.

Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman from California's views, and we accept this amendment. However, I would like to state for the record that the $132 million of appropriated funds provided in this bill would not fund immigrant integration grants. They are provided for verification programs, both E-Verify and SAVE, and these are critical programs to the fund.

Mr. ADERHOLT. The amendment proposes to amend portions of the bill not yet read. Section 17, Chapter 2 of the House Practice book states, in part: It is not in order to strike or otherwise amend portions of a bill not yet read for amendment. I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment.

Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, we are trying to work out an agreement with the gentlelady from New York. If you will give us a minute to work this out, we will try to find something that can be accommodating to both parties.

Mr. ADERHOLT. I move to strike the last word.

Mr. ADERHOLT. If you would give us just a minute, we are trying to see if we can work something out on this.

Mr. ADERHOLT. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. ADERHOLT. I object.

Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman----

Mr. ADERHOLT. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support the REAL ID implementation. REAL ID is the law. The Department has an obligation to support the States in moving forward toward full compliance with enhanced driver's license security. Congress has appropriated a steady stream of funding for REAL ID since 2006--$295 million, to be exact. Additionally, driver's license security is an allowable expense under the State Homeland Security Grant Program. So the actions taken in this bill should in no way be taken as a sign of diminishing support for REAL ID implementation.

Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, as we approach the 10th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, we are reminded that a key recommendation of the 9/11 Commission is still not completely addressed, that is, the security of the most commonly used form of identification in the United States, the driver's license. All but one of the 9/11 hijackers carried some form of government- issued ID, mostly State driver's licenses, many of which were obtained in fraudulent manners. During the planning stages of the attacks, these documents were used to rent vehicles, evade law enforcement officials, enroll in flight school and board airplanes. In 2005, Congress passed, and the President signed, the REAL ID Act to address the security gap and require States to meet certain security standards for the issuance of driver's licenses and identification cards. Despite that action 6 years ago, REAL ID has yet to be fully implemented. My distinguished colleague, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Smith, has some views to offer on this important topic. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

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

Mr. ADERHOLT. The bill before us today was born out of the need for reform. It consolidates various grant programs and provides discretion to the Secretary. These reforms include funding reductions, requirements for measurement and requirements for spending languishing dollars. The consolidation of this bill forces the Secretary to examine the intelligence and risk and puts scarce dollars where they are needed most, whether it is port, rail, surveillance or whether it is high-risk urban areas or to States, as opposed to reverse engineering projects to fill the amount designated for one of the many programs or granting funds to lower-risk areas. Additionally, as noted by the gentleman, the bill limits Urban Area Security Initiative grants to the top 10 highest cities. Again, this puts scarce dollars to where they are most needed. That means cities like New York are funded at the significantly higher levels than other cities because they are the highest threat to urban areas. I don't think anyone here can argue that. This does not mean lower-risk areas will lose all funding. It would just mean the funds will come from other programs such as State homeland grants that are risk and formula based. I strongly urge my colleagues to support fiscal discipline by aligning funding with areas of highest risk and vote ``no'' on this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. ADERHOLT

Mr. ADERHOLT. I have no objection and accept the gentleman's amendment.