David Price

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentleman from Indiana for this very well-conceived amendment, Mr. Ellsworth's proposing that the Department of Homeland Security be prohibited from awarding contracts to those that owe the Federal Government money. It seems pretty straightforward and sensible, and a rule that we need to adopt. This would apply to contractors that violate tax laws, that fail to pay Federal taxes, that have an unsatisfied Federal liability. The Federal Acquisition Regulation, fortunately, does have a rule- making under way that we believe will eventually provide similar coverage to all Federal agencies, including DHS. But the gentleman has anticipated that ruling. He's got language here that would offer protection earlier and would confirm what we hope will be more general policy. So it's a very well-conceived amendment, and I commend him for it and hope that we can adopt it. I urge its adoption. Point of Order

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, this amendment prohibits funds in the act from implementing a plan to permit entry into the U.S. using any identification document other than a passport. I understand the security concerns that underlie this amendment, but I believe it overreaches considerably, and I will take just a minute to explain why I think so. This amendment would effectively prohibit DHS efforts to develop infrastructure or systems to process State Department passport cards for U.S. citizens living near and commuting across the land borders of the U.S., thus requiring all U.S. citizens who leave the U.S. to possess a passport, which currently costs $97 for adults, $82 for children. A passport card would cost less than half of that. In addition, the language would effectively prohibit anyone who did not have a valid passport, such as permanent residents who lack other citizenship documents, from reentering the U.S. If I read it correctly, that is exactly what it would do. And it would effectively invalidate millions of Mexican border crossing cards issued by the State Department. So it is an overreach, I would say, Mr. Chairman. It represents a draconian approach to border security. It would adversely affect the ability of U.S. citizens and workers and residents to move easily across the border. So I urge the House to reject the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield to our colleague from New York (Mr. Serrano).

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. 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. Chairman, I want to commend our colleagues for this amendment. I certainly will not be objecting to it and will be happy if it is adopted. It is not exactly the same approach that was taken in our bill. I must say that. But I do think it is consistent with the bill. The amendment would prohibit funds in the act from being used to implement a plan before June 1, 2009, to comply with the Intelligence Reform Act of 2004 requirement to require all who enter the U.S. to have passports or equally valid identification. The Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative is intended to reduce the likelihood of entry by people who mean us ill. We believe this could be done effectively in a way that doesn't sacrifice good relations with our neighbors, that doesn't cause undue hardship for U.S. citizens or doesn't affect legitimate travel and commerce. But we are certainly not there yet. Our bill fences $100 million of the $225 million in funding until the Department reports on the results of pilot projects in Washington State, until it provides an update on project milestones, until it demonstrates that statutory requirements are met and the system has been operationally tested, and until it reports on privacy safeguards. So we do have those kinds of protections in this bill. We have not included a date certain, but as I said, I believe the inclusion of a date is compatible with what we've suggested, and so we will not object to this amendment. We commend the gentleman for offering it. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield to our colleague, subcommittee member, Mr. Farr.

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

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of our time to Mr. Farr.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. 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. Chairman, I want to commend our colleague for her effective focus on this issue of pipeline safety and her good work on the authorizing committee and her coming here at this very late hour to offer this very fine amendment. I am pleased on behalf of the majority to accept the amendment.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, section 642(a) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 prohibits governments from withholding immigration-related data when it is requested by other government entities with a legitimate need for the information. This amendment, which our friend from Colorado has offered many times before, would prevent DHS from awarding funds to any government entity that fails to comply with the law. Now, as far as I know, Mr. Chairman, the Department of Homeland Security has never reported a failure to comply with the law, with this underlying law. The Justice Department has never filed suit against any entity for violating this statute. So I don't know how our friend would explain that. I would say it renders unclear why this amendment is necessary or what effect it is likely to have. I would yield to the gentleman, and I would appreciate his responding to a few questions that would help us understand the thrust of this amendment. Does the gentlemen know of any DHS funding today that is used in contravention of section 642(a) of the 1996 Immigration Act?

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. The question is, do you know of any violations that have occurred?

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. You are aware of DHS funding that has been used in contravention?

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I am asking about DHS funding, Homeland Security funding, which, after all, is the department we are appropriating for.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Let me maybe phrase this another way. Is disaster relief funding being used in contravention of this section?

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Let me ask about DHS grant dollars generally. Have they been used in contravention of this section?

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I am asking though what evidence exists that this is actually a problem.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

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

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, let me just reiterate that anyone who will look at this bill for a minute or two will realize that the border infrastructure, including the fencing, is fully funded in this bill. It is not underfunded; it is fully funded at the administration's request. We do provide for the very careful consideration of what is the appropriate mix of technology and infrastructure to create this barrier along the border. That is what the Department, of course, 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 I ask my colleagues to oppose it.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This amendment would increase funding for the Border Security, Fencing, Infrastructure and Technology account by 9 percent above the administration request. The bill funds the $1 billion request, bringing funding for the Border Security program, since its inception, to $2.54 billion, but the amendment would increase this further. Now, the requested fiscal year 2008 funding that we have included will enable CBP to complete construction of 370 miles of primary fencing and 200 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 detailed expenditure plan, the Department has broken out its proposed investments in a way that aligns its requirements with its resources. There is no rationale in its 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 management is arbitrary. I must say, it fits the pattern of the last couple of days of simply going after the departmental secretary of this Republican administration. But it is an arbitrary cut. It would have the effect of degrading the capacity of the Department to oversee itself and thus reduce the very accountability we want to establish. I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I now yield to my colleague from California (Mr. Farr).

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I must say to the gentleman, the sponsor of the amendment, that we on the committee have heard nothing from DNDO about this pending agreement. I will say this, though: that if between now and the conference on this bill, if this agreement is forthcoming and if we feel that the basis exists to move ahead, then we will certainly be happy to work with the gentleman in 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.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I would be happy to yield 30 seconds for a response.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to Mr. Israel.

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