Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2008
Floor Speech
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2008 -- (House of Representatives - June 13, 2007)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, the problem with this bill is there is never a last word. There is a big debate going on about earmarks, when there are none in the bill. There were none in last year's bill or the year before's bill. This is the first bill to come before the floor, and they attack this bill saying where are the earmarks.
Well, there are none. Speakers on the other side of the aisle can't stand the fact that there is a new congressional leadership here. It's rolling up its sleeves and doing the oversight work, the oversight work for an agency called Homeland Security that was created just a few years ago, the biggest bureaucracy in modern American history, 200,000 employees, $36 billion in expenditure, made up of all kinds of things from airports, seaports, Border Patrol, immigration, the list goes on and on.
The leadership of this committee decided to really put some fact-finding into it. It had more hearings than any committee in history in this subject matter, visited more sites, visited the borders, the hot spots, visited Katrina sites, talked with Customs and Border Patrol, with harbor district patrol, with Coast Guard, with truck inspectors at the Ota Mesa truck center, the biggest truck inspection center in the word; with the San Ysidro crossing, the largest traffic crossing in the world.
You know what every one of those patrolmen and inspectors told me? We can't do our job unless you pass a comprehensive immigration bill. It's not just about more fences and more assets on the border. It's about the whole enchilada, the whole immigration bill.
I think there is an underlying current here. They don't want an immigration bill, and they know that this is the agency that deals with it. So it's a delay tactic.
Now, a delay tactic, we have been here for 24 hours. We have taken up two amendments. The first amendment cuts $79,000 out of the administrative office of Homeland Security, $79,000 out of a $36 billion bill. But, wait, they adopted a second amendment. It was for a cut for $300,000.
We have successfully cut $379,000 out of a $36 billion bill. It's taken us 24 hours, numerous procedural votes to adjourn, to rise, to do anything but deal with the issue. We ought to be very proud of ourselves.
We have been able to cut one one-thousandth of 1 percent. That's what the great might of the United States Congress has been doing on this bill.
Now, I know that the other side of the aisle likes to cut, squeeze, and trim. They are cutting the agency that they like the most. They are cutting an agency created by President Bush, they are cutting the money that President Bush asked for in this bill, and they have introduced another 110 amendments to deal with more cuts, more frivolity.
Where's your leadership? This is an important bill. It's probably the best-combed bill, best-managed bill in the history of this agency. You ought to be proud of it. You were proud of it in committee, because nobody voiced a negative vote.
So it was unanimous in the Appropriations Committee, everybody liked the bill. Where is your leadership? Where is your responsibility?
ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE ACTING CHAIRMAN
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Chair must ask the gentleman to address his remarks to the Chair.
Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, this bill is about finding the answers to interoperability. You have seen that we have interoperability right here. This bill is about responding to first responders, to be a first responder.
The other side of the aisle is neither operable nor responsible for being first responders. Don't call on them next time there is help needed.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I rise to strike the last word.
I rise on this issue with just some concern here that we don't lose perspective of what we're really trying to accomplish.
This was an issue brought up in the committee, probably the most popular issue of all, which was that we wanted ICE, which is the second largest law enforcement agency in the country next to the FBI, at the rate it's growing, it's going to be bigger than the FBI, we wanted them to do their job of being able to determine whether people who had been arrested at the local level and were in jail, maybe not yet sentenced, but were pending trial or were being held, that somebody would review their legal status.
The question is that this program that we are debating and wanting to put more money into, and frankly, the committee doubled the amount of money that's going into it, which is a grant program to local governments, not all local governments are keen on wanting to do this. Why? Because they have emphasized what they call ``community policing.''
They want the local law enforcement officer to be a friend of the community in order to be involved with the community, to have communities trust them. And if they think that the local law enforcement is also the Border Patrol, they are going to shut up and stop talking to cops. And you get all kinds of issues with this, particularly when it comes to children who are afraid of law enforcement, and so on, if they are the ones that are going to arrest their moms and dads.
So, let's put this into some perspective. What we really need to do is make sure that the ICE, the Federal law enforcement, does their job. Why? Because they are trained.
I have a note here from my sheriff saying that the ICE comes to our jails in Monterey County, a small rural county in California, three times a week. He said the number of confirmed, undocumented prison inmates varies. Last quarter, there were 52 identified undocumented inmates in Monterey County. The previous quarter there were also 52; prior to that, 72.
Some of the inmates claim citizenship status or legal permanent residency and don't have their documentation order. It takes some time to label them and do all that legal background work.
That is not what the legal background work is. We have that information. That is Federal information.
As we pointed out before, we have no national ID. None of you in here can prove you are an American citizens by any card you carry in your wallet, unless you want to show your voting card, but they won't accept that in the airport so I don't know what valid status that has.
The point here is, let's not stop making ICE do their job. They should be doing these local jail checks. If you want to do additional training for local jailers, that is fine. That is what this program is about. But don't substitute it so the local government has to do it, because I think you ought to believe that criminal management up to your local elected officials, your sheriffs and your police chiefs, to make that decision.
This is the second largest police force in the United States. It ought to be doing jail checks. They are the ones that have the qualifications to look into the Federal Information Bank to see whether these people are properly documented, and I think we ought to make sure that they do their job.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, this amendment has been accepted. I am just concerned that we still need to put pressure on ICE to do the real jail checks.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. FARR. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I have been in elected office, local, State and Federal, for 34 years, and I cannot imagine how any of your community got built without earmarks at the local level, the State level and the Federal level.
There are also earmarks in the bill the President sends down. I think you have misstated the whole symbol of earmarks. The reform in here is more severe than any local, State or Federal office has ever had in the history of the United States.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source