Floor Statements
Floor Debate on Nadler National Name Check Amendment to the Science, State, Justice, Commerce and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2007
Washington, DC,
June 26, 2006
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment. The text of the amendment is as follows: Amendment offered by Mr. Nadler: Page 4, line 9, after the dollar amount, insert the following: ``(reduced by $40,000,000)''. Page 10, line 18, after the first dollar amount, insert the following: ``(increased by $40,000,000)''. The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York. Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, my amendment increases funding for the FBI by $40 million to conduct security background checks. Since the attacks of September 11, the FBI's National Name Check Program has remained dangerously underfunded and has accumulated a significant backlog of uncompleted required security checks. Backlogs in security checks requested by the Immigration Service have led to major delays in the processing of immigration applications and, therefore, to a very real national security risk. If some of these applicants pose a genuine national security risk, they need to be found, arrested and deported immediately. Instead, there is a backlog of over 116,000 applications for permanent residency in the New York district office alone awaiting FBI background checks. In fiscal year 2006, the National Name Check Program received 3.3 million requests for background checks, but it has only 125 people to process them and an anemic operating budget of $12.4 million. The program does charge fees, but the fee structure was set prior to 9/11 and falls far short of covering the program's cost. Program employees have to search FBI files, often manually, in over 265 different locations across country. Having to spend so much of its resource on background checks dilutes the FBI's responsiveness, limits information sharing, and hampers counterintelligence and counterterrorism work. People who are here legally seeking residency or citizenship are prevented from renewing work or travel documents while awaiting the okay from the FBI. Those receiving Social Security face termination of their benefits if they don't become citizens within 7 years, even though their citizenship applications cannot be processed while awaiting the FBI report. Last year, the committee included report language directing the FBI to conduct a review of the fee structure for background checks done for the Immigration Service. As far as I know, the FBI has yet to send this review to Congress. This year the committee report says it ``expects the FBI to work with these agencies to ensure that sufficient resources are made available to eliminate the backlog as soon as possible.'' ``The committee expects the FBI to set the Name Check fee at a level that adequately covers the cost to conduct requested background checks.'' This is not an adequate fix to this problem. Congress should do more than tell the FBI it expects it to do more. That is why I am offering this amendment. CRS estimates that $40 million is needed to eliminate the backlog. This amendment will enable the FBI to create a centralized records repository where all of its paper files can be located and to develop, design, implement the system to store its active files electronically. It will reduce the burdens on people who are here legally seeking permanent residency and citizenship, and it would get would-be terrorists out of America swiftly. Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge the adoption of this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, our Members should know that this cuts the Justice Department litigating division by $40 million. The bill already cuts this account by $16 million below the level requested. This account that they are cutting funds critical justice litigating activities such as the criminal division. Wow, this is good news for the criminals, because they will not be litigated; we are going to cut the funding. To combat gangs. Gangs are spreading. MS-13 are spreading around the Nation. But we cut it. Prosecute intellectual property rights crimes. Wow. Are you going to cut Katrina fraud cases. No way. The civil rights division prosecution of human traffickers. Women and children are being trafficked. Justice prosecutes, but we are going to cut the money so they cannot do it. For all of you who care about the environment, the environmental and natural resources division prosecution of organizations that violate our environmental laws go away. The tax division prosecution of tax fraud, impacted. This account also funds the U.S. dues for Interpol. We are in a global war on terror. We need to work with Interpol. So we cut them. The Name Checks that the gentleman is concerned about are funded through a fee. There is a backlog in the Name Checks Program because the fees the FBI charges are not sufficient to adequately cover the cost of the program. In the fiscal year 2006 report, we directed the FBI to review this fee structure and submit a report to the Committee. The fee review is ongoing and a report is estimated to be submitted in August. In addition to this year's bill, we also include additional report language in this bill directing the FBI to work with the agencies that request these background checks to ensure that sufficient resources are made available to eliminate the backlog. The gentleman is on the authorizing committee that oversees the FBI and immigration issues. If he wants to address the issue, he would go to the Judiciary Committee that he serves on, introduce a bill, try to convince Mr. Sensenbrenner to deal with it. This amendment also would cut 200 employees; we just added Justice Assistance grants here not too long ago, because we are concerned about crime. This would cut more than 200 employees working to combat crime such as organized crime, gangs, human traffickers, Katrina fraud, and environmental crimes in order to fund the FBI Name Checks that are fee-funded. This would be a blow to the Justice Department litigating capacity. If you wanted to say do not prosecute organized crime, do not worry about the environmental convictions you have to go after, do not worry about the tax frauds, how will you do it then? You cannot say you are going to go after them and take their money away. Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge a ``no'' vote for this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have left?
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the distinguished chairman makes a good point. If we were not splurging all of our money trying to get rid of the estate tax, we could put $40 million more into the Department of Justice. That would be preferable. But the fact is, we are limited to the amount we are, and I have to take an offset from somewhere. This $40 million will enable people not to lose their Social Security because their time limit runs out while they are waiting for the FBI background check. It will enable this country to be safer because we will find out about some would-be terrorists while they are still within the clutches of the law. That makes sense. Yes, it will take money away from the rest of the Justice Department. And the account that it will take the money away from will go from $669 million to $629 million, a 5.9 percent cut. Yes, we are cutting the rest of the Justice Department by 5.9 percent to fund this crucial area of the FBI. Now, the gentleman says that it is fee-based, that he asks for a report to the fee. But where is that report? If they increase the fees, if the FBI increases the fees, they are still taking the money from the other agencies within the Departments of Justice or Homeland Security. The immigration service would pay a bigger fee. Other agencies within DOJ that are asking the FBI for the background check would pay a bigger fee. It is all the same pot of money. So the question is, Do we want to be able to catch would-be terrorists and get their names by getting the background check on time? Do we want people who are legal immigrants to be able to get their citizenship processed and not wait 7, 8, 9, 10 years? Yes, it would be most preferable if we did not have to rob Peter to pay Paul. But because of what that side of the aisle is doing, we have to rob Peter to pay Paul. I submit we ought to pay Paul here and Peter can afford it better than Paul can, because we are reducing a $669 million account, which is an important account, by 5.9 percent; but we will get justice done on time. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time. Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan). Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. I think that the committee has looked very carefully at this. And the committee has, in its report language, if the gentleman who is offering the amendment would look, stated that the committee expects the FBI to set the Name Check fee at a level to adequately cover the cost to conduct the requested background checks. So the provision that allows them to move forward and to be funded is contained in our report, number one. Number two, the gentleman sits on the committee that could address this issue in an authorization, and obviously he is not in the majority so he would have to go to the majority to have this issue addressed. But I would suggest that that might be a good way to approach it if he wants to change the way that the appropriations committee has dealt with the issue. Secondly, the offsets coming from the criminal division, the civil rights division, and the office of immigration litigation are difficult offsets. And again I go back to comments in the opening statements before this committee, before general debate, when we considered general debate on this bill. There are going to be a lot of good amendments. I wish there were more money. We have tried to provide for how this function would be funded by directing the FBI to set a reasonable fee. But the offsets here are difficult offsets. And they cut programs that are important programs. So regrettably, I rise in opposition to the amendment on that basis. Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. MOLLOHAN. I yield to the gentleman from New York. Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, since the committee had the same language in last year's report, do we have any reason to expect the FBI will, in fact, change the fee structure this year? Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I think that is an interesting question. I think that is a question that the authorizing committee in the first instance has the responsibility to explore with the FBI. The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler). The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes appeared to have it. Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote. The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York will be postponed. |