David Price

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, this is an extraordinary amendment, a listing of over 3 pages of organizations by name, singled out on the floor of the House of Representatives for this kind of negative treatment, this kind of legislation that would simply render them ineligible for any kind of activity under this legislation, under this appropriations bill. Now, I seriously doubt that there is money in the Homeland Security bill that would go to any of these organizations; but still, the principle is very troubling. So I want to ask the gentleman, the offerer of the amendment, just about a few of these organizations and ask him to document whatever information he has about this specific organization that would justify their being included on this kind of list, being singled out in this way. What does the gentleman have, what kind of information does the gentleman have on the Arkansas Community Housing Corporation?

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Reclaiming my time, I guess this would appear to be some kind of guilt by association, but I'm not sure it even rises to that level. Do we know about the associations of these organizations that would warrant their being tarred by this treatment here tonight? Wouldn't the gentleman have the respect for his colleagues to bring to the floor the documentation that leads him to smear these organizations and include them on this extraordinary amendment? You're expecting us to vote on this. What about the Affiliated Media Foundation Movement? Does the gentleman have information about that organization?

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

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Yes, I would be glad to yield.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. But you are singling out that foundation. You are singling out that foundation.

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

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I wish to join the chairman of our subcommittee in opposing this amendment--not because there are any funds in this bill for these advanced imaging machines, this particular technology. There is no funding in this bill for this purpose, but on principle, this amendment is objectionable. It could be very damaging. I won't dwell on the privacy safeguards. I think they've been debated in this body before, and we're well aware that privacy safeguards surrounding the use of this equipment are extensive--the face is blurred, there is no storage of the images, the operator of the machine is off the premises. And as the chairman just said, the technology is constantly being improved to protect privacy further. But the point also needs to be made that an amendment like this, if it were implemented--not just with respect to the current year funding, but with ongoing acquisition of these machines--this amendment would reduce our ability to find non-metallic explosives and weapons or bombs carried on a person's body. That's the fact of the matter. These advanced imaging machines are better able to detect a wide variety of threats that metal detectors simply cannot pick up. So adopting this amendment would put our citizens at risk. It's a step backwards in our security provisions and it should be rejected. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I rise in opposition to the amendment and move to strike the last word.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I want to join Chairman Aderholt in urging rejection of this nongermane amendment. Members of course would not want to vote against contravening the law in anything that we do, but we have to acknowledge that this amendment is not germane to this bill. And the rhetoric that has attended the introduction of this amendment contains, just to put it mildly, insinuations and charges that this Member finds unacceptable. This is not the place, however, Madam Chairman, to engage in a full debate of our Libyan operations or our foreign policy in general. So I will restrict myself to simply saying that I do think this amendment is inappropriate for this bill.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Chairman, my amendment would waive certain requirements attached to the Fire Grants and the SAFER grants, and this amendment is necessitated by the amendment passed earlier this evening. Members are aware that H.R. 2107 reduced funding for firefighter hiring grants, also known as SAFER grants, by $255 million, or 63 percent below 2011. Fortunately, the House resoundingly overturned that ill-advised move earlier today and adopted an amendment by Mr. LaTourette and Mr. Pascrell to restore the funding to the President's requested level. But my colleagues should also be aware that funding is only part of the problem with this bill when it comes to the SAFER program. The underlying bill also neglects to maintain provisions enacted in fiscal years 2009 through 2011 that allowed fire departments to use these grants to hire laid-off firefighters and to prevent others from being laid off in the first place. The law traditionally permits SAFER grants only to be used to hire new staff. Now, that provision makes sense when our economy is booming and local governments are in a position to hire new workers. But when the recovery is still fragile and local budgets are actually contracting and workers are being laid off, FEMA needs the flexibility to use these grants to keep firefighters from being cut in the first place. Secretary Napolitano and Administrator Fugate both testified to this need earlier this year during our appropriations hearings. So I am proposing a waiver amendment which would save thousands of firefighter jobs. Right now the real challenge to community safety is not the reluctance of local governments to hire new fire personnel. It's the potential and actual layoffs of public safety personnel, which means fewer first responders, longer response times, and more lives being put at risk. This amendment also contains a provision that waives certain budgetary requirements local fire departments have to fill in order to receive a grant. These include not allowing a fire department's overall budget to drop below a certain level, not reducing staff over a number of years even if budgets continue to suffer, and providing local matching funds. Again, these provisions are fine when local coffers are healthy, but we all know how strapped our cities and counties are right now. So in the current economic environment, very few municipalities would be able to meet these requirements, jobs would go unfilled, and firefighter and public safety would be placed at greater risk. Finally, to address concerns that these waivers have gone on well beyond what was originally anticipated, the fire organizations tell me that 2012 will be likely the last year that they will need these waivers. When colleagues are weighing this amendment, Madam Chairman, I encourage them to consider the intent of the SAFER program, ensuring we have a safe level of staffing of our Nation's preeminent first responders, the firefighters. We have already overwhelmingly supported funding for the firefighter jobs by adding funding back to the SAFER program. So if Members really support these jobs, they need to take this additional step. We should vote to allow these funds to be used in the most flexible way possible, the best way possible to keep firefighters on staff. So I urge support of this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I'll be happy to yield.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Chairman, I support this amendment because it restates the Department's broad discretionary authority to grant relief or deferred action to deserving individuals. The authority of law enforcement agencies to exercise discretion in deciding what cases to investigate and prosecute under existing civil and criminal law, including immigration law, is fundamental to the American legal system. And since this amendment recognizes this essential executive authority, especially when it comes to relief for humanitarian purposes or when it serves the public's interest, I recommend that my colleagues support it. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment which will preclude the Department of Homeland Security or any entity that receives funding from the Department of Homeland Security, such as State and local governments, from insisting on fair labor standards for construction contracts, also known has the Davis- Bacon Act standards. Davis-Bacon is a pretty simple concept and a fair one. It requires that workers on federally funded construction projects be paid no less than the wages paid in the community for similar work. According to the Economic Policy Institute, the differences in labor costs that this makes are insignificant. Average labor costs, including benefits and payroll taxes, are roughly one-quarter of construction costs. Thus, if there's an increase in overall contract costs due to higher wages, it likely would be modest to the point in many cases of being virtually undetectable. And in fact, Davis-Bacon, in ensuring that fair wages attract skilled workers, this might actually mean that the work is completed at a higher quality and in less time. This amendment flouts the basic concept of wage fairness. At the exact time we're trying to get people back to work across the country, is this House going to vote to drive down the wages of workers who do business with the government on the theory that it might cost a little less money on construction projects? Are we going to strong-arm the States and say they can't uphold the labor standards they've adopted in their own right? I strongly recommend a ``no'' vote. The House has spoken repeatedly on this issue this year. We've taken two votes on this, during H.R. 1 and during the FAA reauthorization, and both times amendments to strike Davis-Bacon standards failed. We don't need to revisit this again here tonight. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. The bill before us provides full funding for the Department's request for the 287(g) program, and $1 million more simply is not needed. The increase proposed by the gentleman comes at the expense of the Secretary for Homeland Security, an account which is already significantly reduced in this bill and will likely be reduced further, based on amendments that we have seen already. Further cuts in these accounts would eliminate key staffing positions, limiting the Department's ability to respond to national emergencies and to provide for stable leadership in the event of a large disaster or a terrorist attack. I should also note that while this bill slashes funding for many worthwhile and needed Homeland Security programs that support first responders, it cuts Homeland Security research, much-needed research. But the bill piles more funding onto immigration enforcement. In fact, it adds $28 million in unrequested funding for immigration detention and removal. Now, the bill provides full funding for the Secure Communities program to continue expanding this program across the country, allowing Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, to identify criminal aliens who are in local custody. I bring up the Secure Communities program because it accomplishes the objectives of the 287(g) program but much more efficiently and without deputizing local police to enforce immigration law, a proposition that is rife with complications and potential abuses. So if we were really serious about deficit reduction and efficiency, we would tell ICE to transition out of this duplicative program, 287(g), and to concentrate on making Secure Communities work efficiently and fairly and well to identify and remove convicted criminal aliens. I'd also like to note for my colleagues that GAO and the Inspector General have reviewed the 287(g) program, in some cases at our subcommittee's request; and they found serious flaws in the implementation of this program and in ICE's ability to oversee its operation in local communities. The IG found 33 major deficiencies in 287(g) last year and then found 16 more when it recently reassessed the program. So this is an unwise and unneeded amendment, and I urge its rejection. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, let me state it very plainly: We need to increase funding for Urban Areas Security Initiative grants, UASI grants, to a minimum of the 2011 level of $725 million. I offered amendments in full committee and asked for a waiver from the Rules Committee in order to do just that. Now, the majority has taken over $2.2 billion appropriated for these grant programs in 2011 and has consolidated them into a block grant of $1 billion. If you take that $1 billion, which includes all of these State and local grants, and then you reduce this for the statutory carve-outs, and then you reduce it again, assuming the minimum statutory funding for the States, what is going to be left? There is going to be half a billion dollars for UASI, for ports, for rail, for transit, and for other key grants all together. This is simply not enough. Unfortunately, the proposed offset is also unacceptable. This bill, just like the 2011 final CR, greatly reduced fencing, infrastructure, and technology projects to secure our borders. While some of this reduction is due to a termination of the SBInet contract, this proposed additional cut would prevent CBP from acquiring off-the-shelf technology to support our Border Patrol along the southwest border, as well as to conduct pilot projects on our northern border. So the offset would be a damaging reduction. But this simply illustrates the impossible dilemma posed by this bill. The root problem is an inadequate allocation, and it is compounded by the majority's refusal to call an emergency an emergency. So I commend the gentleman from Rhode Island for his initiative to address the dangerous gap left by the majority's bill when it comes to protecting our Nation's urban areas. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise in qualified support of the LaTourette-Pascrell amendment. The bill before us more than halves the total amount of funding for firefighter assistance grants compared to 2011 and 2010. If this bill is adopted as written, the hiring grants known as SAFER grants are going to be cut by 63 percent below 2011, and equipment grants will be cut by 51 percent. That is simply unacceptable. These cuts would result in thousands of fewer firefighters on the job. It would leave fewer departments able to maintain safe staffing levels. It would prevent many fire departments from purchasing equipment, purchasing breathing apparatus and protective gear that our firefighters depend on during a time of emergency. This bipartisan amendment provides $320 million to restore this funding to the President's requested level. Mind you, that's still below the 2011 level, but it comes at least to the President's requested level. And it would divide the funds between SAFER and equipment grants as we've been urged to do by the various fire associations. Retaining this funding when local governments are cutting firefighter budgets will help preserve public safety and security. This amendment will help keep thousands of firefighters on the job. And the notion that we are talking here about some kind of Federal take-over of local security responsibilities, I think everyone in this Chamber knows that that is not an accurate characterization of what's going on here. Of course, these expenditures are still mainly occurring at the local level, but we're in a world where our fire departments are being asked to equip themselves in new ways, to train themselves in new ways, to meet new kinds of threats and hazards, and these FIRE grants-- the personnel grants and the equipment grants--have been a critical way of establishing a partnership whereby our local fire departments can do what they need to do in this new era when they confront all kinds of new hazards. Now, I don't believe the offsets in this amendment are workable at the end of the day. I want to acknowledge that. But the inadequate Republican budget allocation, combined with the decision to transfer $850 million from first responder grants to disaster relief and to refuse emergency designation for disaster relief leaves my colleagues no good place to cut and no good options to find offsets for the absolutely essential restoring of these grants to firefighters. So I support the amendment, but I will work diligently to restore these funding cuts as the bill progresses; and we will get down, at the end of day, I trust, to responsible budget negotiations with the Senate and the White House. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I would like to yield to my colleague from Texas so that she can respond to the last speaker.

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