John Carter

Mr. CARTER

Mr. CARTER. Mr. Chairman, I insist on my point of order.

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

Mr. CARTER. Mr. Chairman, I strongly endorse robust enforcement of our Nation's immigration laws. I happen to be from the State that has more of the Mexican border than any other State in the union. We are very familiar with that border. We have been living with it for our entire lives, and for the life of our State, from before the time when it was a State when it was a republic. Our law enforcement officers see an epidemic of lawlessness flowing across the southern border of the United States, and our law enforcement officers in our area want to be involved in protecting the life, liberty, and property of Texans, and they are perfectly willing to be involved in protecting the life, liberty, and property of every American citizen. They are deeply concerned with what is going on at the border, and they want to be involved. They have volunteered to go into the 287(g) program, which gives them the kind of training which this Congress believes, and has made it a point to believe, that they should have, to know how to deal with immigrants who are looked upon as having special law enforcement needs. The best I've been able to figure, I don't know who's imposing this on the people of Boulder, Colorado, but it is not being imposed on anybody else that I know of. It's a volunteer program. Law enforcement officers go and seek 287(g) training so that they can meet the standards that those who deal in immigration issues want them to know and understand. That's why we created 287(g), to make knowledgeable law enforcement officers at the local level who could be effective in assisting those who have the Federal requirement and the Federal duty to protect our borders. I only agree with one thing that I have heard from my colleague: I agree we are failing at protecting our borders. And I would argue that this committee has done everything and continues to do everything that we can do to protect our borders, and this bill does everything it can do and does not short the people who protect our borders any because of the dangerousness that we are aware of on our southern border. I don't understand why enlisting volunteers to assist in law enforcement would be offensive to anyone. Now if the folks in Colorado don't want to be part of the 287(g) program, don't volunteer. This is not hard stuff. But, you know, if you are one or two lone border patrolmen out in the middle of Brewster County in Texas, you've got a lonely, dangerous job. You've got some people coming through for economic reasons, and other people coming through who are clearly violators of the laws of the State of Texas and the laws of the United States, and our law enforcement officers who believe in their oath of office to protect people that they are there to protect. They volunteer for this program so that they can assist the border patrolmen in the effort both of the economic immigrants and the criminal immigrants that come across our border. And don't tell a law enforcement officer that he's not happy to see a sheriff when he sees a body of armed men packing packs across open country in Texas. This is a good program. It is a program that has effectively trained law enforcement to understand the rules that Federal agents have to play by, and still gives them the authority to assist people who need their assistance. I would argue that the safest part of the Texas border is the part of the border where local law enforcement and local sheriffs and Operation Stonegarden in other areas--the safest part is where local law enforcement has joined with Federal law enforcement to enforce the laws of this land. I think anything short of that is leaving resources on the table that will protect the United States of America. So I very much oppose this gentleman's amendment, and I very much hope that our colleagues will realize that we need every resource available, and in my opinion even troops, to protect the American border and make sure Americans citizens and their property and their lives are safe. So I urge my colleagues to not support this gentleman's amendment, to oppose this gentleman's amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CARTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. CARTER

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

Mr. CARTER. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriation bill and therefore violates clause 2 of rule XXI. The rule states in pertinent part: an amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law. This amendment constitutes a transfer not permitted under rule XXI. I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

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

Mr. CARTER. I must insist upon my point of order.

Mr. CARTER. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation on the point of order, and I rise in opposition to this amendment.

Mr. CARTER. Mr. Chairman, in total, this bill provides $1.7 billion for Homeland Security first responder grants. Of that, the bill provides $1 billion for the Secretary to provide a program that addresses the highest need and risk. However, as we are all aware, not all programs are funded at the previous year's level. Several issues drove these reductions. First, as of today, almost a decade after the establishment of DHS, there is no method of measuring what our Nation is receiving for the $38 billion investment in DHS grants. There are no metrics that indicate how much safer we are today or how much safer we will be if we provide additional funds. This lack of quantitative measurement is intolerable, particularly in today's tight economic times. Second, grant recipients are not spending the funds that have been provided. Of the $38 billion provided for the first responder grants, $13 billion remained unspent. In these trying times, we cannot afford to leave funds sitting on the table when other programs need additional resources and the debt skyrockets. These cuts will not be easy, but they are long overdue and necessary to address the out-of-control Federal spending. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. Point of Order

Mr. CARTER. I make a point of order against the amendment because it provides an appropriation for an unauthorized program and therefore violates clause 2 of rule XXI. Clause 2 of rule XXI states in pertinent part: ``An appropriation . . . may not be in order as an amendment . . . , for an expenditure not previously authorized by law . . . '' Mr. Chairman, the amendment proposes to appropriate funds for a program that is not authorized by law. The amendment therefore violates clause 2 of rule XXI. I ask for a ruling of the Chair.

Mr. CARTER. Mr. Chairman, I must insist upon my point of order.

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

Mr. CARTER. I make a point of order against the amendment because it provides an appropriation for an unauthorized program and therefore violates clause 2 of rule XXI. Clause 2 of rule XXI states in pertinent part: ``An appropriation . . . may not be in order as an amendment . . . , for an expenditure not previously authorized by law.'' Mr. Chairman, the amendment proposes to appropriate funds for an earmark that is not authorized. The amendment therefore violates clause 2 of rule XXI. I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

Mr. CARTER. Mr. Chairman, I understand the gentlelady's argument, and I am sympathetic; but I must insist upon my point of order.

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

Mr. CARTER

Mr. CARTER. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CARTER. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. CARTER. NOAA is the Weather Bureau. They're the weather folks who are studying this thing. They've got $5.6 billion to study it. I'm not asking for the world. If you'll recall, the last time you all were in charge, you took a spy satellite or two, moved them out of Afghanistan, and put them over the roles in order to study the roles.

Mr. CARTER. I don't understand why you won't accept the amendment.

Mr. CARTER. So there is more than one person for sure, and if it is so negligible and of no consequence----

Mr. CARTER. Aren't FEMA and the Coast Guard part of the Department of Homeland Security?

Mr. CARTER. I may have misunderstood Mr. Price; but I believe he said there was one person who had gone to the meeting of the task force, which included FEMA and the Coast Guard. Is that what you said?

Mr. CARTER. Let me point out that I did not ask that the department not look into climate change. I asked that we take any funds that are allocated to the Department of Homeland Security's Climate Change Adaptation Task Force. If there is no such task force, there is none. I believe there is, but if there is none, then there is none. I'm not saying they can't talk about climate change. In addition, I named two agencies that are spending close to $15 billion in studying climate change. You, in addition, named the Navy, and you named other agencies that are looking into it. All of these agencies are spending tons of money. So why can't we get information from those people? Why do we have to go off and spend money, which we desperately need on our borders in order to protect ourselves from the real terrible violence that is slaughtering people on the Mexican border, on something for which you named five different groups that are studying it and for which I named two additional? Explain that to me.

Mr. CARTER

Mr. CARTER. I rise today in support of the fiscal year 2012 Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act. This bill cuts $1.1 billion from last year's level and $3 billion from the President's request while still providing the resources needed to ensure that our borders are safe and secure and our homeland is safe and secure. All frontline defenders, including the Border Patrol, Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents, Coast Guard, military personnel, and Secret Service agents are fully funded. In fact, this measure substantially increases funding for many of these frontline defenders over the President's budget request while eliminating waste in other areas. It ensures our borders will be secure by providing both CBP and ICE with all necessary resources. It ensures our homeland will be protected from terrorist threats by giving TSA additional funds to conduct air cargo screening. It ensures that the Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA, will have the flexibility of funds needed to respond to disasters, including the floods along the Mississippi River Valley, the tornados that have swept the Nation, and the ongoing wildfires that have devastated my home State of Texas. This bill also includes 169 oversight actions which will force the Obama administration to be accountable to the Congress and ultimately to the people of the United States. At a time when China owns $1.1 trillion of our publicly held debt, we must make hard choices on spending here in D.C. during these difficult economic times, just like families across this country do every day. I would like to commend Chairman Aderholt and Ranking Member Price for their leadership on this critical measure, and I urge my colleagues to join in supporting this very important bill.