Martin Sabo

Mr. SABO

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I would oppose this amendment. I read the amendment. I am not sure it does what the gentleman from Iowa says it does. I am not sure it does anything, but if it does something, then it is very comprehensive. It either does nothing or else potentially has the ability to limit how DHS responds to emergency and disaster relief. It either does nothing or it may limit what border patrol can do in certain cities in this country. I am not sure which. It either does nothing or it does something significantly more than what the gentleman has suggested. Mr. Chairman, I would urge the House, as it has the last 3 years, to reject this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez).

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

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.

Mr. SABO. I thank the gentleman for his amendment. It is a good amendment, and I hope it is passed.

Mr. SABO. Tracking of how the money is spent that they do not do today?

Mr. SABO. So DHS would have to clearly be tracking significantly more money than they track today?

Mr. SABO. What DHS funding is used today in contravention of section 642(a) of the 1996 Immigration Act?

Mr. SABO. My question was not about local government. It was about whether DHS would be doing something under his amendment that they are not doing today.

Mr. SABO. So the gentleman is suggesting that he wants the Department to be doing something that they are not doing today?

Mr. SABO. Yes, I do.

Mr. SABO. The Department of Homeland Security.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman tell me, does the Department have the authority, not the authority but is the Department doing what the gentleman suggests today?

Mr. SABO. Under my reservation, I would like to ask the gentleman from Iowa some questions.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, under my reservation, I would like to direct some questions to the gentleman from Iowa. I have trouble understanding the amendment.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that from the answers this gentleman has given, that this clearly is putting additional responsibilities on the Department of Homeland Security. Point of Order

Mr. SABO

Mr. SABO. I thank the chairman for his comments. I would share his opinion and ask for a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I am sorry that the point of order is raised. This provision does not undercut the ability of the committee to act. As a matter of fact, it encourages them to act. We have waited for years without any action on giving the Secretary the power to regulate some chemical facilities in this country that are prime targets for terrorists. Mr. Chairman, I have to concede that this is legislation in an appropriations bill. I would hope that the authorizing committees can pass legislation to deal with this real problem. I just hope a year from now when somebody else stands in this chair, we don't have another similar amendment because the authorizing committees in the House and the Senate have failed to act again.

Mr. SABO

Mr. SABO. She will only offer one.

Mr. SABO. If the gentleman would yield, visiting with Ms. Jackson- Lee, I think she only has one amendment left that she wants offered, and I think there are three on the list.

Mr. SABO

Mr. SABO. My understanding is that Mr. Pascrell and Mr. Marshall both have amendments to page 3 on line 15, so I assume what the Chair is saying is that if the gentleman redrafted his amendment before we moved to some place beyond Pascrell and Marshall, he would be in order to offer a revised amendment.

Mr. SABO. We made some modest cuts in the Office of Under Secretary in our first amendment as related to fire grants which was adopted which I thought was okay to do; but I notice a whole host of amendments are funded by additional cuts to that same office. I am curious if we roll votes and eventually there are more cuts than money exists, what happens? I understand this amendment takes an additional $60 billion out of the office. There are others coming with several million. There is a whole array of amendments, all of which take money from this particular office.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I would make a parliamentary inquiry of the Chair.