[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 84 (Wednesday, June 6, 2012)]
[House]
[Pages H3528-H3575]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2013
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bishop of Utah). Pursuant to House
Resolution 667 and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for the further
consideration of the bill, H.R. 5855.
Will the gentleman from Florida (Mr. West) kindly take the chair.
{time} 1839
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for the further consideration of
the bill (H.R. 5855) making appropriations for the Department of
Homeland Security for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2013, and
for other purposes, with Mr. West (Acting Chair) in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The Acting CHAIR. When the Committee of the Whole rose earlier today,
all time for general debate had expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment
under the 5-minute rule.
During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chair may accord
priority in recognition to a Member offering an amendment who has
caused it to be printed in the designated place in the Congressional
Record. Those amendments will be considered read.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
H.R. 5855
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the
following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the
Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the Department of
Homeland Security for the fiscal year ending September 30,
2013, and for other purposes, namely:
TITLE I
DEPARTMENTAL MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONS
Departmental Operations
Office of the Secretary and Executive Management
For necessary expenses of the Office of the Secretary of
Homeland Security, as authorized by section 102 of the
Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 112), and executive
management of the Department of Homeland Security, as
authorized by law, $121,850,000: Provided, That not to exceed
$45,000 shall be for official reception and representation
expenses, of which $17,000 shall be made available to the
Office of Policy for Visa Waiver Program negotiations in
Washington, DC, and for other international activities:
Provided further, That all official costs associated with the
use of government aircraft by Department of Homeland Security
personnel to support official travel of the Secretary and the
Deputy Secretary shall be paid from amounts made available
for the Immediate Office of the Secretary and the Immediate
Office of the Deputy Secretary: Provided further, That
$5,000,000 shall not be available for obligation by the
Office of General Counsel until a final rule for aircraft
repair station security has been published: Provided further,
That $71,079,000 shall not be available for obligation until
the Secretary of Homeland Security submits to the Committees
on Appropriations of the Senate and the House of
Representatives all statutorily required reports and plans
that are due with the submission of the President's budget
proposal for fiscal year 2014 pursuant to the requirements of
section 1105(a) of title 31, United States Code: Provided
further, That the Secretary of Homeland Security shall submit
the consolidation plan, as directed under the heading
``Consolidation of Weapons of Mass Destruction Defense
Programs'' in the accompanying report, not later than 180
days after the date of enactment of this Act.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Flake
Mr. FLAKE. I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Page 2, line 17, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $50,000)''.
Page 7, line 13, after the first dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $43,000)''.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Arizona is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is straightforward. It would
reduce funding for the Office of the Secretary by $50,000 and transfer
a revenue neutral amount to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection
salaries and expenses.
This is a nominal cut from the Secretary's nearly $122 million in
funding, again only slightly more than the committee provided for the
Secretary to spend on receptions this year. I offer this amendment as a
means of bringing up an important issue both to Congress and to the
Secretary's attention.
Let me start by thanking the chairman and the ranking member for
their attention to border issues in this bill, as well as the staff's
assistance in bringing this amendment to the floor. In the report
accompanying last year's Homeland Security appropriations bill, the
committee directed the Department to provide a ``resource allocation
and staffing model for ports of entry.'' As would appear to be the
trend with congressional requests for information, answers to these
questions or budget documentation were never provided. The Department
either failed to prioritize or simply ignored the request.
The committee report notes:
As the committee has not yet received the CBP workload
staffing allocation model, the committee cannot assess CBP's
identified needs.
As we are all no doubt aware, funding for border security efforts
between the
[[Page H3529]]
ports of entry has increased exponentially over recent years--and
justifiably so--while the budget for Customs and Border Patrol officers
at the ports has not kept pace.
When I travel on the border region, there are often concerns raised
at that point that there is insufficient staffing at the ports. Those
serving at the ports of entry have a dual role. They have to facilitate
commerce across the border and prevent unauthorized people from
crossing the border.
I could talk at length about the benefits of cross-border trade for
communities along the border, but let me cite just a couple of
examples. Focusing on the southern border, Mexico is the third-largest
U.S. trading partner and the second-largest U.S. export market, with a
reported 6 million U.S. jobs depending on trade with Mexico.
The executive director of the Arizona-Mexico Commission was recently
quoted saying:
Arizona's border is the gateway for some $26 billion worth
of imports and exports and some 44 million people each year.
A recent Maricopa Association of Governments release cited that legal
Mexican visitors spend roughly $7.3 million a day in Arizona, and
Arizona businesses exported nearly $6 billion in goods in 2011. So
there are benefits all over for trade of this type.
The Mariposa port of entry in Nogales is one of the largest ports of
entry for fruits and vegetables in the U.S. In 2011, the U.S. imported
13.4 billion pounds of fresh produce grown in Mexico, and more than a
third of that entered through Nogales.
To summarize, we have to have better staffing at these ports. The
Department has been asked to provide us with their needs and they
simply won't. We simply haven't been able to get that information.
I'm the last member of the Appropriations Committee that would
support writing a blank check to any department, but we have got to
make sure that these needs are met, and that's why this amendment is
critical, and I am grateful to the chairman and ranking minority member
for working with me on it.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Alabama is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. ADERHOLT. I rise in support of the gentleman's amendment. The
Secretary has failed to submit critical reports necessary for this
committee's oversight, including workload staffing models for CBP
officers. Therefore, we do accept the gentleman from Arizona's
amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment Offered by Ms. Moore
Ms. MOORE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Page 2, line 17, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $3,000,000)''.
Page 9, line 7, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $4,800,000)''.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Wisconsin is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. MOORE. Mr. Chairman, the purpose of my amendment is to restore $3
million to the Department of Homeland Security Office of Civil Rights
and Liberties. This amendment would simply level fund this account at
the fiscal year 2012 level.
Mr. Chairman, it troubles me to see the continued rollout of Secure
Communities and increase in funding for these 287(g) programs in the
underlying bill, especially juxtaposed with a 13 percent decrease in
funding for the office of Civil Rights and Liberties. Experts and
officials across the country have concerns about these programs that
shift Federal immigration laws into the hands of local police.
I have a letter from 88 civil rights organizations urging the Federal
Bureau of Investigation to ``end its facilitation of the fundamentally
flawed Secure Communities deportation program.'' The letter states:
Secure Communities has caused widespread controversy
because it threatens public safety, encourages racial
profiling, undermines community policing, and serves as a
deportation dragnet, ensnaring anyone who is booked into
police custody.
As cochair of the Women's Caucus, I am particularly concerned when I
hear stories of the effects this program has on victims across our
communities. Women and their children are increasingly afraid to go to
local police to get confidential help, to call 911 during an emergency
because they are terrified of being caught in this dragnet.
{time} 1850
For many, suffering through an abusive situation is better than
watching their families being torn apart. Mr. Chairman, these are real
people who are victims or witnesses to domestic violence or other
crimes, but they cannot come forward.
According to an October 2011 report by the UC Berkeley Law School's
Warren Institute, more than one-third of individuals arrested in this
program report that they have a U.S. citizen spouse or child. In other
words, an estimated 88,000 families with U.S. citizen members have been
impacted by Secure Communities. The same report found that Latinos
comprise 93 percent of the individuals arrested in this program,
despite only compromising 77 percent of the population.
Mr. Chairman, I suggest that this is not the America we want to
create. We should all be able to agree that we don't want to see an
America where victims are afraid of the police or an America where
racial profiling is encouraged or tolerated.
Now, I understand, Mr. Chairman, that some of my colleagues on the
other side of the aisle believe that increasing enforcement policies is
the right approach to solve our broken immigration system. With that
being said, I appeal to my colleagues to support efforts by the
Department of Homeland Security to ensure adequate oversight of this
program.
Steps that the Department of Homeland Security's Office of Civil
Rights and Liberties have taken and will take to:
Analyze arrest data to make sure that there are no serious
indications of racial profiling in any of the participating
communities;
Help improve training for local law enforcement officers to reduce
confusion and ensure that there are clear guidelines to prevent misuse
of the program;
To inform the public about options they have and recourses they can
use if their civil liberties are violated by department action; and,
finally,
To help investigate and resolve cases where an individual alleges
that their rights were violated.
I support these important efforts towards promoting accountability
and oversight over these enforcement programs, and I urge my colleagues
to support this amendment. It is fully offset, as is required of this
appropriations process, and it is not an increase in this program, but
it simply level funds it at 2012 levels.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I respectfully yield back the balance of my
time.
March 8, 2012.
R. Scott Trent,
CJIS Designated Federal Officer, Criminal Justice Information
Services Division, Federal Bureau of Investigation,
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Trent: We, the undersigned, call on the Federal
Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to end its facilitation of the
fundamentally flawed Secure Communities deportation program.
We urge the FBI's Criminal Justice Information Services
Advisory Policy Board (APB) to adopt the attached proposal to
mitigate the damage this program has done to public safety
and community policing. The proposal would respect the wishes
of states and localities that chose not to participate in
``Secure Communities'' and would prevent the implementation
of the program in jurisdictions with a documented pattern of
civil rights abuses.
Secure Communities is a wide-sweeping deportation program
launched in 2008 by the Immigration and Customs Enforcement
agency. It has been sharply criticized by the governors and
state legislators of Illinois, New York, and Massachusetts;
local officials from numerous cities and counties, including
the District of Columbia, Los Angeles, Chicago, and San
Francisco; dozens of Congressional representatives; many
prominent law enforcement officials; hundreds of immigrant
rights, criminal justice, and privacy advocates; religious
leaders; and community members.
As described in more detail in the attached proposal,
Secure Communities has caused widespread controversy because
it threatens public safety, encourages racial profiling,
undermines community policing, and serves
[[Page H3530]]
as a deportation dragnet, ensnaring anyone who is booked into
police custody.
The FBI plays a large role in Secure Communities by
automatically initiating the immigration background check
that sets the deportation process in motion for anyone booked
into police custody. The CJIS APB approved this process
almost two years ago, well before the problems caused by
Secure Communities came to light. It is urgent that in the
upcoming August 2012 meeting, the APB Working Groups consider
the newly disclosed information regarding the fatal flaws in
this program, and adopt the attached proposal to mitigate the
damage.
Thank you for your time and consideration. Please contact
Jessica Karp at 213 380 2214 or [email protected] with any
questions or information about the status of this request.
Sincerely,
Alliance for a Just Society; American Friends Service
Committee; Angels For Action; Asian American Legal
Defense and Education Fund; Asian Law Caucus; Bill of
Rights Defense Committee; Black Alliance for Just
Immigration; Blauvelt Dominican Sisters Social Justice
Committee; Bronx Defenders; CAAAV Organizing Asian
Communities; Casa Esperanza; Casa Freehold; CATA The
Farmworker's Support Committee; Center for
Constitutional Rights; Central American Refugee
Center--New York; Central American Resource Center--
Houston; CHIRLA, Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights
of Los Angeles; Coalicion de Organizaciones Latino-
Americanas (COLA); Community Service Organization;
Creating Law Enforcement Accountability and
Responsibility; Defending Dissent Foundation; Detention
Watch Network; Disciples Justice Action Network; Drug
Policy Alliance.
El Comite de Apoyo a los Trabajadores Agricolas;
Franciscan Action Network; Grassroots Leadership;
Graton Day Labor Center; Hayward Day Labor Center;
Hispanic Resource Center of Mamaroneck; Houston's
America for All; Houston Peace and Justice Center;
Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights;
Immigrant Defense Project; Immigrant Legal Resource
Center; Immigration Circle of Justice, Sisters of St.
Dominic, Blauvelt, NY; Immigration Justice Clinic of
John Jay Legal Services, Inc.; inMotion; IRATE & First
Friends; Ironbound Community Corporation; Junta for
Progressive Action; Kathryn O. Greenberg Immigration
Justice Clinic, Cardozo School of Law; Labor Council
For Latin American Advancement Central Florida Chapter;
Labor Justice Committee; Latino Foundation; Legal Aid
Justice Center's Immigrant Advocacy Program; Make the
Road by Walking New York; Massachusetts Immigrant and
Refugee Advocacy Coalition.
Mennonite Central Committee East Coast; Mennonite Central
Committee U.S. Washington Office; Muslim Legal Fund of
America; National Day Labor Organizing Network;
National Employment Law Project; National Guestworker
Alliance; National Immigration Law Center; National
Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild;
National Network for Immigrant and Refugee Rights;
Neighbors in Support of Immigrants; New Orleans Workers
Center for Racial Justice; New Sanctuary Coalition NYC;
New York Immigration Coalition; Passaic County
Coalition for Immigrant Rights; Presente.org; Prison
Activist Resource Center; Progressive Leadership
Alliance of Nevada; Progressive States Network; Pueblo
Sin Fronteras; Puente Arizona; Queer Women of Color
Media Arts Project (QWOCMAP); Rights Working Group;
Rockland immigration coalition; Restaurant
Opportunities Center of New York; Services, Immigrant
Rights & Education Network; South Asian Americans
Leading Together (SAALT); Tenants and Workers United;
The Reformed Church of Highland Park Immigration
Committee; The Workplace Project; United Methodist
Church, General Board of Church and Society;
VivirLatino; Voces de la Frontera; Voces Unidas Por los
Inmigrantes; WeCount!; Welcome Everybody Organization;
Wind of the Spirit, Immigrant Resource Center, NJ;
Workers Defense Project; Young Workers United.
Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Alabama is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, I'm going to have to rise to oppose the
gentlelady's amendment.
The problem with the amendment is it guts the immigration enforcement
and it demoralizes the frontline law enforcement personnel. This
amendment would actually empower more bureaucrats from Washington to
look over the shoulders of the hardworking officers in the field that
are trying to keep us safe.
So I would urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I yield
back the balance of my time.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this
amendment to restore funding for the Office of Civil Rights and Civil
Liberties in order to ensure that both the 287(g) program and the
Secure Communities program are not illegally profiling individuals.
The bill before us funds the Office of Civil Rights and Civil
Liberties at a level that is $2.2 million below the budget request and
$3 million below current year funding. Now, we're in a tight fiscal
environment, we all know that, but surely we can meet the needs of our
frontline personnel without jeopardizing the proper and robust and
careful oversight of the activities provided by the Civil Rights and
Civil Liberties Office.
In fact, at the same time this bill is reducing funding for
oversight, it's actually increasing funding for the controversial and
all-too-often mismanaged 287(g) program. Three different audits by the
DHS inspector general have found serious concerns about the 287(g)
program, and ICE has had to terminate some 287(g) task forces, notably
in Maricopa County, Arizona, after the Justice Department documented
clear racial profiling and other programmatic abuses. So we need to
make sure this authority is being exercised properly, and that's
exactly the task of the Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties.
So I thank the gentlewoman for offering this amendment. It's a good
amendment, and I urge colleagues to support it.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Ms. MOORE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Wisconsin
will be postponed.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Broun of Georgia
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Page 2, line 17, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $3,655,500)''.
Page 3, line 23, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $6,393,840)''.
Page 5, line 7, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $1,492,290)''.
Page 5, lines 22 and 23, after each dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $7,246,290)''.
Page 6, line 8, after the first dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $9,522,000)''.
Page 6, line 15, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $3,277,920)''.
Page 11, line 21, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $157,089,930)''.
Page 15, line 23, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $151,236,900)''.
Page 19, line 4, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $3,792,540)''.
Page 19, line 11, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $5,772,720)''.
Page 19, line 18, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $27,859,890)''.
Page 20, line 6, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $26,388,000)''.
Page 29, line 14, after the first dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $46,681,650)''.
Page 32, line 9, after the first dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $1,359,630)''.
Page 33, line 8, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $5,741,400)''.
Page 35, line 10, after each dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $3,960,090)''.
Page 36, line 4, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $21,376,950)''.
Page 51, line 16, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $3,357,720)''.
Page 52, line 20, after the first dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $6,854,010)''.
Page 54, line 17, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $3,900,000)''.
Page 55, line 19, after the first dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $1,140,000)''.
Page 99, line 17, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $498,099,270)''.
Mr. BROUN of Georgia (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask
unanimous consent to dispense with the reading of the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Georgia?
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
[[Page H3531]]
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would reduce the
administrative salaries in the expense accounts in the underlying bill
by just 3 percent, with the exception of the U.S. Coast Guard. It does
not affect their expenses.
Our Nation is facing a total economic meltdown, and now more than
ever it is apparent that we have to stop the outrageous spending that's
going on here in Washington, D.C.
Over the last 2 years, House Members have voted to reduce their own
administrative accounts--their Members' Representational Allowances--by
more than 11 percent. Yet over that same period of time, many agencies
have seen minimal reductions and, in some cases, even increases in
their accounts.
For a good example, the TSA has only experienced a 3.5 percent cut
over the last 2 years. I know many of my colleagues can agree that the
TSA has not only been a complete and utter failure, but it also has
been a colossal waste of taxpayer money, amounting to almost $60
billion.
Moreover, TSA personnel have not prevented the first terrorist attack
from happening on American soil. In fact, at least 17 known terrorists
have flown in the United States more than 24 different times. Yet this
year, TSA screener personnel will receive increased funding for their
compensation and benefits that totals more than $30 million above
fiscal year 2012. This is totally unacceptable.
Another example I'd like to point to in the underlying bill is
funding for a brand new agency called the Office of Biometric Identity
Management. This new office will receive almost $200 million for their
administrative salaries and expense accounts. Mr. Chairman, we need to
be looking for areas where we can make cuts, not for opportunities to
grow the size and scope of the Federal Government.
Now, certainly we can all agree that many of the offices, agencies,
and individuals employed by the Department of Homeland Security are
very deserving of the pay for which they receive but, Mr. Chairman,
let's be realistic. If we are serious about reducing spending and
reducing our deficit, we have to ask every agency to follow Congress'
lead and take a small reduction in their administrative funding instead
of asking for increases or trying to create new programs.
To be clear, a 3 percent reduction in these accounts would, in many
cases, still result in less than a 10 percent reduction in funding from
FY11 levels.
{time} 1900
While this amount is small, it would pay dividends, huge dividends,
resulting in nearly a half a billion dollars in savings in this bill
alone.
It is long past time to get serious about spending, Mr. Chairman, and
this amendment represents a balanced way to achieve significant
savings. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment and to reduce
spending in these accounts by just a mere 3 percent.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. ADERHOLT. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Alabama is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, I rise to reluctantly oppose my good
friend from Georgia's amendment. I think he makes some very good
points, but one thing, as I had mentioned in the debate this afternoon
and the general debate, this is the third fiscal year in a row that the
bill has tried to work at cutting already.
Fiscal discipline and funding for homeland needs are the two most
important things. And as I said earlier, that fiscal discipline is
something that is a very important aspect of this bill. The bill
actually has a decrease of $484 million below last year's bill, and it
is $394 million below the President's request.
As I had mentioned earlier this afternoon, we do think that we need
to be very much mindful of the situation we find ourselves in in this
country. But bear in mind that we have cut, we have reached a delicate
balance to make sure that we make sure frontline operations are secure,
that they are operating at a level that we can make sure that our
Nation is secure.
The Office of the Secretary, for example, has been cut 9 percent
below the President's request, and it's 8 percent below the FY 2012
act.
This is the 10th year anniversary of the establishment of the
Department of Homeland Security, and certainly we've got to make sure
that our Department is strong, it has strong management. My concern is
that this amendment would undermine that goal. And so I would ask
Members to oppose this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I want to second the
remarks of our chairman. I think this is an amendment that, while well-
intentioned in certain respects, is not one that we can or should
accept.
I know it's easy to target management and administrative costs. They
sometimes lack concreteness. They lack a consistency. But, as a matter
of fact, we depend on these management and administrative functions to
run the Department. And at the end of the day, cutting those functions
will, indeed, affect frontline operations. We should make no mistake
about that.
In my opinion, this bill already cuts administrative functions by
imprudent amounts. It already slashes funding for offices at the
departmental level, for example, by 21 percent below the
administration's request.
So while this amendment may be appealing to some, I believe it's
unwise, and I urge colleagues to oppose it.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Broun).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia will
be postponed.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Holt
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Page 2, line 17, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $10,000,000)''.
Page 6, line 8, after the first dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $25,000,000)''.
Page 15, line 23, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $15,000,000)''.
Page 16, line 6, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $15,000,000)''.
Page 37, line 18, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $50,000,000)''.
Mr. HOLT (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent
to dispense with the reading of this amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from New Jersey?
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chair of this subcommittee and
the ranking member for the work they've put into this.
I rise with an amendment that is designed to ensure that our rail and
transit systems have the additional resources, or at least some of the
additional resources, that they need to help thwart any potential
terrorist attacks on buses and trains.
Now, just over a year ago, when our forces raided Osama bin Laden's
compound, they discovered materials in his hideout indicating that he
was planning attacks on rail and transit systems, and we have no reason
to believe that al Qaeda's remnants have abandoned any such plans. As
we've seen repeatedly, the threat is very real.
Since 2004, terrorist cells have conducted successful and deadly
bombings on major passenger rail systems in Spain, the United Kingdom,
India, Belarus, with over 600 people killed, thousands wounded. And
despite this threat, over the last few years, our country has been
backsliding in providing our rail and transit systems the resources
they need.
In years past, rail and transit security funding had its own line
item in the budget. But a couple of years ago, it was rolled into the
overall State and local grant programs, and it's funding has been
slashed, and slashed is not an overstatement, from a previous high of
$300 million, down to only about $88 million this past year.
[[Page H3532]]
The large reduction was made in the face of an existing $6 billion in
rail and transit security funding needs identified by rail and transit
operators around the Nation, as reported by the American Public
Transportation Association.
My amendment addresses part of this shortfall by moving a total of
$50 million from three accounts--Overall Management and Administration,
Intelligence and Analysis, and the Transportation Security
Administration--to the State and Local Programs Grant Account for the
express purpose of increasing funding available for rail and transit
security grants. I propose these moves reluctantly, but we need the
funding in the transit security. This would bring to $138 million the
account for rail security, well above the $88 million currently there,
but well below the $300 million that only a few years ago was the
funding level.
This amendment actually saves the taxpayer $36 million because of the
difference in the account spend-down rates. It's a responsible
amendment, I believe, that addresses a crucial vulnerability in our
rail and transit security posture, and I ask support for this
amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
American Public Transportation
Association,
June 6, 2012.
Hon. Rush Holt,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative Holt: On behalf of the 1,500 members of
the American Public Transportation Association, I am writing
to express our support for your amendment to H.R. 5855, the
Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act for Fiscal
Year 2013. The amendment aims to restore critical funding for
the public transportation security grant program.
Sharp decreases in public transportation security grant
funding over the past several federal budget cycles have
hampered the ability of transit agencies to make needed
capital security improvements throughout their systems.
Decreases in transit security funding could not be more ill
timed as transit ridership continues to soar. In 2011, more
than 10.4 billion trips were taken on public transportation
as Americans commuted to work, school, medical appointments
and their houses of worship. This trend has continued as
dozens of transit agencies across the country have set
ridership records over the first quarter of 2012. We must do
all we can to ensure the safety and security of our riders
and transit workers. We urge Congress to support your
amendment and increase vital funding for the public
transportation security grant program.
Thank you for your continued support of public
transportation, and we look forward to working with you on
this and future legislation. If you have any questions,
please have your staff contact Brian Tynan of APTA's
Government Affairs Department at (202) 496 4897 or email
[email protected]. Thank you.
Sincerely yours,
Michael P. Melaniphy,
President & CEO.
Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Alabama is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. ADERHOLT. The bill that we have before us that we have brought to
the floor is something that has already cut programs substantially
across the board. But the way that we have cut it, we feel, is
responsible and manageable.
Some of the cuts that we have had in here--the Office of Secretary,
as I had mentioned earlier, has been cut by 9 percent below the
request, 8 percent below FY 2012, and it is 18 percent below the FY
2010 level. The bill has reduced management to a bare minimum, with
decrease in most offices, including General Counsel.
The bill has already cut TSA management by $60 million, and $20
million is cut in the Aviation Security Account.
This amendment that the gentleman from New Jersey is bringing up, by
taking $15 million more from this account, will impair TSA's ability to
manage its aviation security missions and is also simply not
responsible. The amendment would slash funding for the Department's
intelligence programs, which represent a core homeland security
capability.
For grants, the bill provides $2.8 billion for Homeland Security
first responder grants, $400 million more than provided in FY 2012. Of
that, the bill provides $1.8 billion for the Secretary to provide to
programs that address the highest need, based on the threat and based
on risk.
Breaking out specific grants, as this amendment does, funds projects
for various programs without an overreaching lens. The consolidation of
this bill forces the Secretary to examine the intelligence and risk and
put scarce dollars where they are needed most. I would urge my
colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
{time} 1910
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I want to commend our colleague from New
Jersey for offering an amendment that takes explicit account of the
need for robust funding for State and local grant programs, including
those aimed at rail and transit security.
As I noted as this debate began, we are indebted to Chairman Aderholt
and to the majority for increasing the funding for these grants in this
fiscal year 2013 bill over the 2012 levels; but as the gentleman from
New Jersey has noted, this funding is against a baseline that has been
significantly reduced in the previous 2 fiscal years.
I was privileged to serve as the chairman of this subcommittee in the
years 2007 2010. We worked very hard in those years to provide robust
funding for important grant programs, and we increased the funding for
FEMA first responder grants by $1 billion between fiscal '07 and fiscal
'10. Unfortunately, these programs are now under threat. Since 2010,
funding for FEMA grants has been cut by nearly 50 percent to a total
level of $1.3 billion for fiscal 2012. Those cuts are shortsighted and
they're dangerous, and I have said so repeatedly.
After all, local governments are the first responders to terrorist
attacks, natural disasters, and other major emergencies. Local law
enforcement, fire, emergency, medical, as well as county public health
and other publicity safety personnel, are responsible for the on-the-
ground response and recovery action. Local communities or public
entities own, operate, and secure essential aspects of our Nation's
infrastructure, of our ports and transit systems, of our water
supplies, and of our schools and hospitals. So, plainly put, these
grants protect our communities and are vitally important in our ability
to detect, deter, and respond to a variety of threats and disasters.
As the gentleman from New Jersey has stressed, our rail and transit
systems are an important part of this network, and they are in many
cases very much in need of the kind of funding that this bill has
provided and should provide. I reluctantly add, though, Mr. Chairman,
that there are problems with these offsets, and I will repeat what the
chairman has said about some of the cuts that are included in these
bills, these important accounts:
The Secretary's office, that may seem an easy thing to cut, but this
bill already reduces the Secretary's office by 9 percent. Analysis and
Intelligence, this bill already cuts this by 8 percent. Then TSA
aviation security has one of the largest cuts in this bill. It's $212
million below the 2012 levels.
There are very few good places to turn, I realize. We're so often in
a position of trading off worthwhile objectives, but I do feel bound
both to commend the gentleman for calling our attention to these grant
programs and the need for robust funding, but also to highlight some of
the problems with the offsets in this particular amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey
will be postponed.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Office of the Under Secretary for Management
For necessary expenses of the Office of the Under Secretary
for Management, as authorized by sections 701 through 705 of
the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 341 through 345),
$213,128,000, of which not to exceed $2,500 shall be for
official reception and
[[Page H3533]]
representation expenses: Provided, That of the total amount
made available under this heading, $5,448,000 shall remain
available until September 30, 2017, solely for the alteration
and improvement of facilities, tenant improvements, and
relocation costs to consolidate Department headquarters
operations at the Nebraska Avenue Complex; and $9,689,000
shall remain available until September 30, 2015, for the
Human Resources Information Technology program: Provided
further, That $124,325,000 shall not be available for
obligation until the Secretary of Homeland Security submits
to the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the
House of Representatives all statutorily required reports and
plans that are due with the submission of the President's
budget proposal for fiscal year 2014 pursuant to the
requirements of section 1105(a) of title 31, United States
Code: Provided further, That the Under Secretary for
Management shall, pursuant to the requirements contained in
House Report 112 331, submit to the Committees on
Appropriations of the Senate and the House of Representatives
a Comprehensive Acquisition Status Report, including the
information required under the heading ``Office of the Under
Secretary for Management'' under title I of division D of the
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012 (Public Law 112 74),
with the President's budget proposal for fiscal year 2014
submitted pursuant to the requirements of section 1105(a) of
title 31, United States Code, and quarterly updates to such
report not later than 45 days after the completion of each
quarter.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Grimm
Mr. GRIMM. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Page 3, line 23, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $7,667,000)''.
Page 36, line 4, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $7,667,000)''.
Page 37, line 3, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $7,667,000)''.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. GRIMM. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of my amendment that
would fund the National Urban Search and Rescue Response System at
$35.18 million, which is level with the Senate bill; but it still
reflects a reduction of, roughly, $6 million from fiscal year 2012.
The National Urban Search and Rescue Response System provides a
significant national resource for search and rescue assistance in the
wake of major disasters and structural collapses. A typical US&R task
force will conduct physical search and rescue operations, provide
emergency medical care to trapped victims, assess and control hazards
such as ruptured gas and electric lines, and evaluate and stabilize
damaged structures.
Due to the critical life-saving nature of their missions, US&R task
forces must be prepared to deploy within 6 hours of notification and
must be self-sufficient for the first 72 hours. These teams have been
deployed in response to the Joplin, Missouri, tornado, the Japanese
tsunami, the Haiti earthquake, Hurricane Katrina, the 9/11 attacks on
the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the Oklahoma City bombing, the
Turkey earthquakes, the grain elevator explosion in Wichita, Kansas,
and many other foreign and domestic disasters.
In 2006, FEMA estimated the annual and recurring cost for each task
force to be approximately $1.7 million. Today, in many jurisdictions,
the cost exceeds $2 million. In addition to program management costs,
this estimate includes expenses for training, for exercises, the
medical monitoring of personnel, and equipment maintenance and storage.
Current Federal funding for the Nation's US&R teams only provides a
fraction of the funds necessary to maintain each task force, leaving
local government sponsors to pick up the remainder of the cost and
diverting much-needed funding away from local first responders'
budgets.
The recent tornado in Joplin, Missouri, and the subsequent response
underscored the importance of the national search and rescue
capability. Providing proper funding for the National Urban Search and
Rescue Response System will help ensure that these highly skilled teams
are available to respond to major emergencies without jeopardizing the
budget priorities for local first responders.
Therefore, I urge you to vote ``yes'' on my amendment and to properly
fund this critical program.
Mr. ADERHOLT. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GRIMM. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.
Mr. ADERHOLT. We will accept the amendment of the gentleman of New
York.
Mr. GRIMM. If I can reclaim my time, I just want to thank a friend
and colleague, Mr. Connolly, for all of his work in joining me in this
effort. I just wanted to say thank you very much.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. I want to thank the distinguished chairman
and the ranking member and my colleague Mr. Grimm from New York for
this thoughtful amendment and for accepting it.
Fairfax County, which I represent, has one of the outstanding US&R
teams in the world. As my colleague from New York indicated, they have
served both here in the United States in many, many manmade and natural
tragedies, as well as around the world in saving lives. This is a great
partnership between local governments and the Federal Government, and
it's one that we desperately need to be enhanced.
So I very much thank the majority and the minority leaders for
accepting this thoughtful amendment. I am proud to join with my
colleague, Mr. Grimm, in cosponsoring this amendment as an original
cosponsor, and I am delighted it's going to be adopted.
I yield back the balance of my time.
I am pleased to join my colleague, Congressman Grimm, in sponsoring
this amendment to restore funding for our nation's elite Urban Search
and Rescue, USAR, Teams. Our simple common sense amendment would
restore about half of the reduction proposed by the Committee, matching
the level of the Senate markup, and it has the support of the
International Association of Fire Fighters and the National Association
of Police Organizations.
When earthquake survivors are trapped in the rubble of a collapsed
building, the window of survivability is measured in hours. Without
highly-trained responders, rescue attempts can imperil victims and
rescuers alike. Thankfully, we have made strategic investments in
specialized USAR teams. These elite firefighters and emergency medical
technicians are not just first responders. For people awaiting rescue,
they are the last hope.
Prior to coming to Congress, I served 14 year on the Fairfax County,
Virginia, Board of Supervisors, and for 9 of those years, I shared my
office with a fire station. I saw daily the selfless dedication of the
men and women who put their lives at risk every day in service to
others.
Fairfax County is home to one of nation's outstanding USAR teams. In
partnership with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, the U.S.
Agency for International Development, and the local county government,
the Fairfax team serves U.S. interests at home and abroad. It is
comprised of highly-skilled career and volunteer fire and rescue
personnel, whose daily duties are to serve the Fairfax community by
responding to local fire and medical emergencies.
When called into service by DHS, the Fairfax team, designated as
Virginia Task Force One, is mobilized for quick response to domestic
disasters, natural or manmade, with special expertise in collapsed
building rescue. Our team was deployed to Oklahoma City in the wake of
the 1995 bombing, and it was among the first on the scene at the
Pentagon on September 11, 2001. It also was dispatched to Mississippi
and Louisiana in response to Hurricane Katrina in 2005. The team has
answered the call for help in multiple states, including California,
Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, North Carolina, Texas, Florida,
Kansas, Georgia, Massachusetts, New York, and New Jersey. In addition,
the Fairfax Team deployed and was on call during the Presidential
Inauguration in 2009, the Republican National Convention in Minnesota
in 2008, the Democratic National Convention in Massachusetts in 2004,
and the Olympic Games in Utah in 2002 and Georgia in 1996.
Fairfax and other USAR teams also have answered the call to respond
to disasters abroad under the direction of USAID. In the past 2 years
alone, the Fairfax Team, designated as USAR Team One, has deployed to
offer rescue and recovery assistance following the devastating
earthquake in Haiti and Japan. In 1998, the Team deployed to Kenya in
response to the bombings at the U.S. embassy. Throughout its more than
20 years of operation, USAR Team One has carried the banner for
America's diplomatic efforts in response to disasters in Armenia, the
Philippines, Italy, Turkey, Taiwan, Mozambique, the Czech Republic,
Iran, Morocco, Pakistan, Bolivia, Peru, Honduras, Burma, China, Panama,
and Chile.
[[Page H3534]]
When disaster strikes--whether natural or manmade, domestically or
internationally--Fairfax and the other select USAR teams have rushed to
the scene saving countless lives and property. Their heroic efforts
have shown this to be a wise investment and one that ought to be
maintained.
I urge my colleague to support the Grimm-Connolly amendment to ensure
that this successful partnership with our local partners and first
responders continues, so that when the next alarm is called, we can
take comfort in knowing they are on the job.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Grimm).
The amendment was agreed to.
{time} 1920
Amendment Offered by Mr. Clarke of Michigan
Mr. CLARKE of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the
desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Page 3, line 23, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $10,000,000)''.
Page 37, line 18, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $10,000,000)''.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. CLARKE of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would add $10
million to State and local grant programs under this budget, and the
offset would be from the management account.
I'm offering this amendment because our State and local units of
government don't have the revenue to adequately protect our citizens in
the event of a natural disaster or another emergency. The housing
crisis has depressed housing values throughout this country and, as a
result, has lowered the tax base from which State and local governments
depend on raising their revenue.
I urge this House to approve this amendment to better prepare our
State and local units of government for emergencies and other natural
disasters and terrorist attacks which could occur.
I appreciate your support, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Alabama is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, as I have stated earlier, this bill
provides $2.8 billion for Homeland Security first responder grants,
$400 million more than provided in FY12. Of that, the bill provides
$1.8 billion for the Secretary to provide to programs that address the
highest need based on threat and based on risk.
The funding for grants has been a high priority for our bill this
year, and we believe there's adequate funding for grants. Like I said,
I would reluctantly have to oppose the gentleman's amendment.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise to commend the
gentleman from Michigan for his attention to the need for robust grant
programs, FEMA grant programs for State and local governments and their
various emergency preparedness functions.
As we said earlier with respect to Mr. Holt's amendment, these
programs have been underfunded in recent years. We're doing better this
year in this bill, but we're building on a depleted base. So I commend
him for his attention to this.
At the same time, I feel bound to say that the offset is problematic.
The Under Secretary for Management--I know that sounds like an easy
target. But with the Grimm-Connolly amendment that we just adopted, by
my calculation, that brings the Under Secretary for Management $30
million below the 2012 level. That's 12 percent. It is a cut that, in
my opinion, we can ill afford. That's already what we've done with this
bill.
Eventually, management and administrative cuts do affect frontline
operations. So I feel bound to say that, as we balance the equities
here, the need for robust grant programs and for making them more
robust wherever we can, but at the same time to preserve essential
departmental functions.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Clarke).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. CLARKE of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan
will be postponed.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Poe of Texas
Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Page 3, line 23, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $10,000,000)''.
Page 9, line 14, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $10,000,000)''.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment along with my
friend from Pennsylvania, Mr. Altmire.
This amendment takes $10 million from the Office of the Under
Secretary of Management of DHS and moves it to the border security,
fencing infrastructure, and technology account with the purpose of
being used for border cell phone communication infrastructure to help
border residents disseminate border security-related information to the
Border Patrol and law enforcement for their protection and the security
of the border.
Mr. Chairman, the history goes back to March 27, 2010, when, in
Arizona, Rob Krentz was murdered 20 miles north of the border in an
isolated area in Arizona. The lack of communications capability made
Krentz more vulnerable than he would have been otherwise and
complicated the search for the assailant. His wife, Sue--who I've
talked to on numerous occasions--believes that he was in a cell phone
dead zone when he was killed and that he was trying to call for help at
the time of his murder.
Before leaving office, Congresswoman Giffords had been working
diligently on this specific issue. I became involved with her staff
when they took the time to show me around the Arizona border and
introduced me to the Krentz widow, Sue. I thank Gabby Giffords for her
work on this issue, bringing it to my attention and other Members of
Congress, and wish her well.
Mr. Chairman, these dead zones are so common that oftentimes border
ranchers in Arizona and in Texas rely on shortwave radios to
communicate or call for help.
The inability of the U.S. Government to secure the U.S.-Mexico border
creates public safety hazards for residents who live on the border and
the law enforcement agents who patrol them. Many border areas are rural
and lack wireless communication capabilities like cellular phone
service, making border security a public safety issue.
Last year, I worked with Congresswoman Giffords and Representative
Altmire to pass a similar amendment to the Department of Homeland
Security bill. We received overwhelming support in this House with a
vote of 327 93, and I urge the House to support this initiative again.
However, the omnibus bill passed later that year weakened this
provision to make it a mere suggestion for DHS to solve this problem.
Despite that language, the Department of Homeland Security has done
very little if anything to address this issue. More work needs to be
done, and there is a large number of dead zones along our southern
border. That's why this amendment is offered again this year.
Rural areas along the border present a unique public safety challenge
that can be addressed through the extension of wireless communications
into those areas. An additional $10 million can be used to enhance
wireless communication capabilities that would allow residents to
report threats against them and instances of illegal activities to law
enforcement. Such capabilities would enhance communications among our
law enforcement and our border protectors.
Richard Stana, Director of Homeland Security Issues at the Government
Accountability Office, recently told the
[[Page H3535]]
Senate Homeland Security Committee that, as it stands right now, we
have the ability to prevent or stop illegal entries into the U.S. for
only 129 miles of the 1,954-mile U.S. border with Mexico. He continued
to say that we have achieved, ``an acceptable level of control'' on 873
miles of the border. Whatever ``acceptable level of control'' means,
I'm not sure.
In any event, that means 1,081 miles of the United States' border is
a wide-open space, Mr. Chairman, and we simply cannot stop illegal
crossings of any kind in those areas. The United States doesn't control
that area of the border. Mexico does not either. I suspect it's the
drug cartels that control that area of our sovereignty.
If the Federal Government is not going to secure the border, the
least we can do is give the border residents a chance to call for help
when they need help. Ten million dollars will go a long way in helping
American citizens have a safer place to live and also allow them to
communicate with law enforcement.
The Office of the Under Secretary of Management for DHS is funded at
$213 million in the bill, and $10 million is a 4.5 percent reduction in
that account. I think, as the ranking member said, to balance the
equities, we need public safety as opposed to more funding for the
Under Secretary for Management.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. ALTMIRE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. ALTMIRE. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank my friend,
Congressman Poe, for his strong leadership on this issue and for again
working with me this year to highlight the critical importance of
expanded mobile communications along our southern border.
{time} 1930
Last year I had the opportunity to visit the district of our former
colleague, Gabrielle Giffords, in southwestern Arizona, where I met
with customs and Border Patrol agents, examined construction of the
border fence and spoke with ranchers and residents who live and work in
the remote areas along the U.S.-Mexico border. In rural areas along
that border, cell phone service is virtually nonexistent, and where
service does exist, it's often unreliable. Some ranchers even have to
resort to communicating through the use of two-way radios.
The lack of cell phone service presents an obvious safety issue for
ranchers, as my friend, Congressman Poe outlined, and it's a safety
issue for residents and the National Guard troops who patrol that
protected area. If a rancher feels threatened, he cannot currently call
for help or alert law enforcement to the situation.
To address this issue, our amendment adds $10 million to the general
account for border security fencing, infrastructure, and technology to
expand mobile communications in remote areas along our southern border.
These funds may be used by the Department of Homeland Security to enter
into public-private partnerships which will provide a more reliable
communications link between law enforcement officials and citizens who
live and work in our border areas.
Last year, Congressman Poe and I offered a similar amendment that
passed with a strong bipartisan vote of 327 93. Despite its inclusion
in last year's omnibus funding measure, little action to date has been
taken by DHS to implement stronger cell coverage along the U.S.-Mexico
border. I urge support of our amendment to show DHS that the safety of
our southern border is a priority for this Congress.
This is a problem we can and must fix. Supporting this amendment will
not increase spending, but what it will do is protect the public and
increase the effectiveness of law enforcement in rural border areas.
I ask my colleagues to support this amendment, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Alabama is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. ADERHOLT. I do commend the gentlemen from Texas and Pennsylvania
for their attention to border security. Border security is a top
priority with this subcommittee and with this chairman, but the
amendment that is before us at this time proposes to cut the Department
of Homeland Security to pay for cell towers to provide phone service,
actually to the general public.
I am very sympathetic to the needs of rural communities. I represent
a rural community and am certainly sympathetic to remote ranchers, but
this is simply not a cost currently with the situation in this country
that Homeland Security can bear.
This proposal would cut the Department's management functions below
what is possible for our Nation's security. The bill already cuts the
Office of Under Secretary for Management 4 percent below the request of
the President and 11 percent below the FY12 level. It should be noted
that this bill fully funds the Department's tactical communications.
I would urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I yield back
the balance of my time.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise also to oppose this
amendment. I do so reluctantly, because I know that the need that
Representative Poe and Representative Altmire are addressing is a real
one. There are vast expanses of territory, including a lot of territory
near the borders, that suffer from a lack of mobile communications.
We do need to work in concert with State and local governments and
the private sector to address this need. This is not something, though,
that this bill or the Department of Homeland Security can take on. It
simply is not feasible. It is not a DHS function.
We need to work on it, but I think this remedy is flawed, and I, once
again, say that I know it's an easy target to go after the
administrative expenses of the Department, but in this case the Under
Secretary for Management is already something like 12 percent below the
2012 level, that is, assuming the passage of the Grimm-Connolly
amendment, and I do not think that further cuts can or should be
sustained.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas will
be postponed.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Runyan
Mr. RUNYAN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Page 3, line 23, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $5,000,000)''.
Page 41, line 22, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $5,000,000)''.
Page 41, line 23, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $2,500,000)''.
Page 41, line 25, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $2,500,000)''.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. RUNYAN. Mr. Chairman, my amendment increases funding for the
Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response Grant by $2.5 million
and Assistance to Firefighters Grants, restoring these programs to FY12
levels.
The funding increase is deficit neutral, as it is offset by a $5
million decrease to the Office of Under Secretary for Management. These
grants provide vital funding to our Nation's first responders to help
them adequately staff firehouses and to provide the necessary
specialized equipment to protect our brave men and women.
With first responder budgets being slashed all around the country,
this portion of funding will help ensure fire departments can
adequately respond to our constituents' emergency. During this period
of budgetary constraints, we must prioritize the programs we need the
most.
My amendment clearly shows that our brave first responders are a
priority. This amendment is endorsed by
[[Page H3536]]
the International Association of Fire Fighters and the International
Association of Fire Chiefs.
I thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for helping me
support this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CLARKE of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. CLARKE of Michigan. I want to thank the gentleman from New Jersey
(Mr. Runyan) for offering this amendment.
I have joined him in a bipartisan fashion because our local units of
governments need this money to be able to rehire their firefighters and
to get the training equipment that they need to better prepare our
firefighters to respond to a natural disaster or a terrorist attack.
I support this amendment. This will help cities like Detroit and
other municipalities in metro Detroit that need to apply for these
funds. This provides more money--back to the level in prior years--so
that our communities can be safer.
Again, I want to commend the author of this amendment. He has my
support. I'm honored to be on this amendment as a cosponsor.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Alabama is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. ADERHOLT. We accept the gentleman from New Jersey's amendment,
considering this is only a $5 million cut.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. KISSELL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from North Carolina is recognized for
5 minutes.
Mr. KISSELL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. I
appreciate my colleague from New Jersey for bringing this forward. With
full support, I agree with him.
I would like to point out that, just for example, June 17 through 23,
that week is EMS fire safety survival week. It's just one of the many
weeks that we recognize our firemen for what they do for us and the
importance of what they do for us. There is an image of 9/11, the
firemen and what they did for our Nation in New York when we were
attacked.
{time} 1940
But that image is also recurring throughout the Nation, throughout
the communities, when firemen come to our homes or come to our
businesses or go to scenes of accidents. Anywhere our communities need
them, the firemen go. This restoring of the grant is just something
that we should do--and I'm glad that we are going to do it--to secure
that bond to allow them the training and equipment that they need to
take care of us. So this is an investment in them so they can take care
of us.
I appreciate my colleague bringing this amendment forward. I'm very
happy and proud to be on this amendment, and I yield back the balance
of my time.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support
of firefighter grant programs. I applaud Chairman Aderholt for fully
funding the budget request for these programs, that is, providing $670
million for the assistance to the Firefighter Grant Program equally
divided between SAFER hiring grants and equipment grants.
I also commend the chairman for accepting the amendment our
colleagues have just offered. Although, again, the offset is not what
one would wish, this is a case, I think, where the consideration, the
balance of values clearly leads us to bring this program to the present
funding levels, which is what the amendment does.
We have approved in committee these firefighter grants and we've also
approved the continuation of the waivers. That was my amendment in
committee and I am pleased that we were able to adopt those--the
economic hardship waivers that are currently in place.
The law traditionally permits SAFER grants only to be used to hire
new firefighters. That provision makes sense when our economy is
booming and local governments are in a position to hire new workers.
But when the local budgets are continuing to shrink and some fire
stations are closing their doors and others are laying off workers,
FEMA needs the flexibility to use these grants to keep firefighters
from being laid off in the first place. The administration has
requested this, and FEMA Administrator Fugate testified to this need
earlier this year during our appropriations hearings.
I believe strongly in the need to assist local fire departments and
ensuring they have the personnel and equipment necessary to keep our
communities safe. When I was chairman of the subcommittee from 2007
2010, we were able to more than double the funding for the SAFER
program, reaching a peak of $410 million in fiscal year 2010.
It's regrettable that we're still not able to maintain that level
because any cuts to firefighter grants do result in thousands of fewer
firefighters on the job. They leave fewer departments able to maintain
safe staffing levels and much less to add needed personnel. So we need
to maintain this support.
The real challenge in many communities is not the reluctance of local
governments to hire new personnel. It's the potential and actual
layoffs of personnel, which would mean reduced levels of safety. So
it's very important for us to maintain robust grant funding for these
programs. It's going to help preserve public safety and security. In
this bill we've provided for this. And this amendment adds to that.
So I urge its adoption, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Runyan).
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Office of the Chief Financial Officer
For necessary expenses of the Office of the Chief Financial
Officer, as authorized by section 103 of the Homeland
Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 113), $49,743,000, of which
$6,700,000 shall remain available until September 30, 2014
for financial systems modernization efforts: Provided, That
$29,017,000 shall not be available for obligation until the
Secretary of Homeland Security submits to the Committees on
Appropriations of the Senate and the House of Representatives
all statutorily required reports and plans that are due with
the submission of the President's budget proposal for fiscal
year 2014 pursuant to the requirements of section 1105(a) of
title 31, United States Code.
Office of the Chief Information Officer
For necessary expenses of the Office of the Chief
Information Officer, as authorized by section 103 of the
Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 113), and Department-
wide technology investments, $241,543,000; of which
$116,870,000 shall be available for salaries and expenses;
and of which $124,673,000, to remain available until
September 30, 2015, shall be available for development and
acquisition of information technology equipment, software,
services, and related activities for the Department of
Homeland Security.
Analysis and Operations
For necessary expenses for intelligence analysis and
operations coordination activities, as authorized by title II
of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 121 et seq.),
$317,400,000; of which not to exceed $4,250 shall be for
official reception and representation expenses; and of which
$93,764,000 shall remain available until September 30, 2014.
Office of Inspector General
For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General
in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector General Act
of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App.), $109,264,000, of which not to exceed
$300,000 may be used for certain confidential operational
expenses, including the payment of informants, to be expended
at the direction of the Inspector General.
TITLE II
SECURITY, ENFORCEMENT, AND INVESTIGATIONS
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses for enforcement of laws relating to
border security, immigration, customs, agricultural
inspections and regulatory activities related to plant and
animal imports, and transportation of unaccompanied minor
aliens; purchase and lease of up to 7,500 (6,500 for
replacement only) police-type vehicles; and contracting with
individuals for personal services abroad; $8,366,024,000; of
which $3,274,000 shall be derived from the Harbor Maintenance
Trust Fund for administrative expenses related to the
collection of the Harbor Maintenance Fee pursuant to section
9505(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (26 U.S.C.
[[Page H3537]]
9505(c)(3)) and notwithstanding section 1511(e)(1) of the
Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 551(e)(1)); of which
not to exceed $38,250 shall be for official reception and
representation expenses; of which not less than $284,530,000
shall be for Air and Marine Operations; of which such sums as
become available in the Customs User Fee Account, except sums
subject to section 13031(f)(3) of the Consolidated Omnibus
Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (19 U.S.C. 58c(f)(3)),
shall be derived from that account; of which not to exceed
$150,000 shall be available for payment for rental space in
connection with preclearance operations; of which not to
exceed $1,000,000 shall be for awards of compensation to
informants, to be accounted for solely under the certificate
of the Secretary of Homeland Security: Provided, That for
fiscal year 2013, the overtime limitation prescribed in
section 5(c)(1) of the Act of February 13, 1911 (19 U.S.C.
267(c)(1)) shall be $35,000; and notwithstanding any other
provision of law, none of the funds appropriated by this Act
may be available to compensate any employee of U.S. Customs
and Border Protection for overtime, from whatever source, in
an amount that exceeds such limitation, except in individual
cases determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security, or
the designee of the Secretary, to be necessary for national
security purposes, to prevent excessive costs, or in cases of
immigration emergencies: Provided further, That the Border
Patrol shall maintain an active duty presence of not less
than 21,370 full-time equivalent agents protecting the
borders of the United States in the fiscal year: Provided
further, That $836,600,000 shall not be available for
obligation until the Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border
Protection submits to the Committees on Appropriations of the
Senate and the House of Representatives the multi-year
investment and management plans that are due with the
submission of the President's budget proposal for fiscal year
2014 as submitted pursuant to the requirements of section
1105(a) of title 31, United States Code.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Grijalva
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Page 7, line 13, after the first dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $30,000,000)''.
Page 9, line 14, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $30,000,000)''.
Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the
gentleman's amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The point of order is reserved.
The gentleman from Alabama is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. GRIJALVA. I rise today to offer an amendment to the Department of
Homeland Security appropriations bill that strengthens our efforts to
have a secure and prosperous border. As you know, these issues are
foremost in the thoughts of people across this country. As was noted by
my friend and colleague from Arizona, Mr. Flake, his amendment
acknowledged the reality that strengthening the ports of entry should
be a national priority. His amendment was accepted as a means to begin
to increase and pay attention to that national priority. It's a jobs
issue, and it's a security issue.
Land ports of entry are the economic drivers for the U.S. economy and
also the front line for facilitating legitimate trade and travel while
preventing unauthorized entry and contraband from crossing the border.
Along the nearly 2,000-mile border with Mexico, U.S. Customs and Border
Protection carry out this mission in 42 land ports of entry located in
Arizona, California, New Mexico, and Texas. While significant
investments in the border have been made in recent years, including the
opening of three new crossings in 2010, more is demanded.
Staffing at our land ports of entry have been severely overlooked,
compromising our national and economic security. While a necessary
buildup of border enforcement has occurred over the last 10 years, that
proportional increase and attention to customs and ports of entry has
not occurred.
It is estimated that in Arizona alone, our ports of entry need 500
additional officers to meet a staffing need: 250 at the port of entry
in Nogales, 50 in Douglas, and 150 in San Luis. Nationwide there is a
need for up to 5,000 additional CBP officers. These shortages are
alarming and they have alarming consequences.
A 2008 GAO report said ``weakness in traveler inspections exists at
our Nation's ports of entry.'' And according to this report: ``Field
office managers said that staffing shortages created vulnerabilities in
the inspections process.''
In 2008, the Department of Commerce found that the ``cumulative loss
in output due to border delays over the next 10 years is estimated at
$86 billion.'' Our economy and indeed our security will continue to be
compromised unless we take strong measures.
My amendment seeks to redirect within the account of border
infrastructure additional funds for the personnel sorely needed.
Let me just end by indicating some facts and points of reference.
U.S.-Mexico bilateral trade reached nearly $400 billion in 2010. Mexico
is the third-ranked commercial partner of the U.S. and second largest
market for U.S. exports. Mexico spent $163 billion in U.S. goods in
2010. Twenty-two States count on Mexico as their number one or two
export market, and it's the top five for 14 other States. One in every
24 workers in the Nation depends on U.S.-Mexico trade for their
employment.
This is an issue of the economy. It's an issue about jobs. My
amendment merely addresses a reality: from unobligated and enhancement
funds within the budget to transfer $30 million to begin that initial
step to bring our ports of entry and customs to a full force in terms
of staffing and to begin to expedite legitimate trade and end long
waiting periods, improve our economy, and, yes indeed, continue to
provide the advanced security that we need on those borders.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
{time} 1950
Point of Order
Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, I insist on my point of order.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Alabama may state his point of
order.
Mr. ADERHOLT. The amendment proposes to amend portions of the bill
not yet read. The amendment may not be considered en bloc under clause
2(f) of rule XXI because the amendment proposes to increase the level
of outlays in the bill.
I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
The Acting CHAIR. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point
of order? If not, the Chair will rule.
To be considered en bloc pursuant to clause 2(f) of rule XXI, an
amendment must not propose to increase the levels of budget authority
or outlays in the bill. Because the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Arizona proposes a net increase in the level of outlays in the
bill, as argued by the chairman of the Subcommittee on Appropriations,
it may not avail itself of clause 2(f) to address portions of the bill
not yet read.
The point of order is sustained.
Amendment Offered by Ms. Hahn
Ms. HAHN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Page 7, line 13, after the first dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $10,000,000)''.
Page 55, line 2, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $24,250,000)''.
Page 55, line 4, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $24,250,000)''.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. HAHN. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is simple. It would increase $10
million in funding to the Customs and Border Protection salaries and
expense account and decrease funding of the National Bio and Agro-
Defense Facility by S&T for $24,250,000 in order to increase the
staffing of CBP agents in our Nation's airports.
This amendment is intended to strengthen security and improve the
American business advantage by putting more CBP agents in our airports
so that they can handle the continuously growing number of travelers to
this country.
My own district in California is book-ended by two great economic
engines of the Los Angeles region--the Port of Los Angeles at the
southern end and the Los Angeles International Airport at the north.
One of the common complaints I hear from LAX airport is that there are
simply not enough Customs and Border Protection agents to effectively
and efficiently process the amount of foreign visitors that enter this
country every year. In fact, the delays at our country's airports have
resulted in losing nearly $100 billion in economic output over the last
10 years.
If we want to continue being a top destination for immigrants,
foreign
[[Page H3538]]
visitors, and businesspeople, we need to establish a welcoming presence
to people who wish to visit this country. This means ensuring we have
an efficient CBP staff that can continue to handle the growing number
of people who visit this country.
In a letter sent from the L.A. World Airports to the United States
Customs and Border Protection Commissioner, it states that:
Insufficient CBP staff has triggered alarming delays for
LAX international passengers waiting to be processed through
customs and immigration.
And while this shortage referred to LAX airport, delays due to
personnel shortages are prevalent throughout our entire country, and I
think this is extremely disconcerting. These delays are weakening our
competitiveness in the global market, slowing the pace of business, and
impeding the commerce we need to fuel our economic recovery. This adds
costs to our Nation's airlines and businesspeople.
What's more, we know if we overextend and overwork our already
overheroically overperforming CBP personnel guarding the gateways to
our Nation, they are more likely to miss things--something or someone
is more likely to get through. They deserve support and numbers equal
to the scale of the task that we are charging them with.
While I understand the intended purpose of the National Bio and Agro-
Defense Facility, the reality is that this facility was appropriated
$75 million even though the President did not need nor request these
funds. Additionally, DHS is still waiting for the recommended design
modifications made by the National Academy of Sciences and for the
administration to review the cost and scope of the project, which isn't
anticipated to be completed until 2020.
I think these funds are better spent on increasing the security and
promoting American commerce through our country's airports. The
commerce that flows through our international airports powers our
economy and keeps the United States a global leader in business. We
need to preserve that commerce while protecting our homeland from those
who would try to sneak through and do us harm.
I urge my colleagues to support what I think is a very important and
crucial amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise to join the gentlelady
from California in this amendment to increase staffing funding for
Customs and Border Protection.
This is a critical issue for our economic competitiveness. If our
Nation is going to compete globally, we need to think of ports of entry
as strategic assets and real opportunities to expand our economy.
Without adequate resources and staffing, wait times at ports of entry
grow longer and longer. And every minute, Mr. Chairman, that goods and
people sit at the border waiting to cross is an opportunity lost.
That's opportunities lost for American businesses, for manufacturers,
and workers. In total, these long delays are projected to result in
lost output of more than $86 billion over the next 10 years. In this
tough economy, I don't think we can afford to lose these precious
dollars.
And yet, despite the overwhelming need, increases in staffing in past
years represent only a small fraction of what is needed to fully staff
our ports of entry, according to the Government Accountability Office.
To fully meet this need, we need to ensure that CBP has the resources
it needs to get the job done. At a time when we need commerce to be
moving full steam ahead to drive an economic recovery, we can't afford
understaffing at our ports of entry.
Additional funding provided by this amendment to hire additional CBP
officers will allow for faster processing times through ports of entry
and allow more goods to flow through our borders. By facilitating
trade, we not only support businesses and jobs, but we also add
revenue, as CBP is the second largest source of revenue for the
Treasury. It is only second to the Internal Revenue Service.
As my colleague has stated, the offset for this provision is a cut in
funding for the National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility, which was
appropriated about $75 million in spite of the fact that the
administration did not request these funds. The National Academy of
Science is reviewing the security risk of revised design measures right
now, and before that risk is fully mitigated, it's premature, I think,
premature to appropriate additional funds, especially when funding for
FY 2011 and FY 2012 remains unobligated. So this amendment, Mr.
Chairman, will put these dollars to better use by promoting our
economic growth, and I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting it.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentlelady's
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Alabama is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. ADERHOLT. This bill already provides robust funding for border
security operations. In fact, this year we increase CBP border security
inspection and trade facilitation by $85 million above the President's
request.
CBP border security is important, I totally agree, but let me mention
that the funding that we've increased supports 21,186 CBP officers and
other increases in the National Targeting Center and Global Entry,
among other programs and initiatives, to increase efficiency in CBP
operations.
CBP's budget faces real challenges. Seventy percent of CBP funds go
for pay and benefits, up from 65 percent just last year.
{time} 2000
This figure does not include costs associated with supporting
frontline officers, such as equipment and facilities, much less new
technology.
The committee report outlines opportunities for better managing fee
funds and innovating CBP processes. Further, the Secretary has not yet
submitted the workload staffing allocation model that will justify any
additional CBP officer resources. Given these issues, it is not the
time to increase CBP officer staffing.
I will say that it must be noted that the facility that would be cut,
we have an immediate need to build up our capacity for research into
pathogens that afflict animals and our food chain and, by extension,
human beings. The Under Secretary for the Department for Science and
Technology herself testified before our subcommittee that the threat of
a biological attack through a large and vulnerable food chain is a top
priority. She has confirmed that the NBAF facility is required to meet
this threat. So the administration itself has said that this is very
important.
I would urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I yield back
the balance of my time.
Ms. HAHN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman will suspend. Does the gentlewoman
ask unanimous consent to strike the last word?
Mr. HAHN. Yes.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from California?
Mr. ADERHOLT. I object.
The Acting CHAIR. Objection is heard.
Ms. JENKINS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Kansas is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. JENKINS. Mr. Chairman, after an exhaustive review, the Department
of Homeland Security chose Manhattan, Kansas, as the site for the new
BSL 4 National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility. This will be the only
such facility capable of researching large animals in the United
States. The construction of this cutting-edge facility must move
forward quickly so we can safely conduct critical research to develop
vaccines and countermeasures in order to protect the public and our
livestock from the threats of devastating diseases.
But not only will the NBAF accelerate America's ability to protect
ourselves, our food supply, and the ag economy from biological threats;
it will also be the world's premier animal health research facility and
further solidify our Nation's place as the international leader in
animal health.
[[Page H3539]]
The NBAF is needed to replace the obsolete and increasingly expensive
Plum Island Animal Disease Center. This lab was built in the 1950s and
has reached the end of its life. The facility does not contain the
necessary biosafety level to meet the NBAF research requirements, and
it never will. Any attempts to upgrade Plum Island would cost more than
building the NBAF as planned. Currently, we do not have the ability to
research the effects of these diseases on large animals at any facility
in the United States, nor can we rely on international partners for our
own security needs.
The NBAF project has a history of broad-based support. DHS, under
both the Bush and Obama administrations, and the House Appropriations
Committee under both Democrat and Republican leadership have made it
clear time and time again that our country needs the NBAF, and the best
place for the NBAF is in Manhattan, Kansas.
Congress has already appropriated $90 million, and the State of
Kansas and the city of Manhattan have already committed more than $200
million towards this project.
In this age of uncertainty and global threats, conducting vital
research to protect our Nation could not be more crucial. We cannot
just wish away these threats or rely on others for our own security.
And the truth of the matter is we are dangerously under-protected from
the threat of a biological attack against our people and our food.
While the gentlelady's amendment to increase salaries for the Custom
and Border Patrol has merit, it shouldn't be done by cutting 29 percent
of the funding for construction of this important lab. The result of
this amendment will be stopping or delaying construction of this
nationally important NBAF facility, and our Nation's food supply cannot
afford another delay.
We need to protect our food and our families from danger. We need to
stay on the cutting edge of this research field. Our security is at
risk, and delaying this project further should not be an option. We
need NBAF.
I urge my colleagues to vote against this destructive amendment, and
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. POMPEO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Kansas is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. POMPEO. Mr. Chairman, just as Congresswoman Jenkins opposed this
amendment, I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment as well.
The facility at NBAF is a facility that is not just about Kansas.
It's important that it's in Kansas. I'm happy that Kansas went through
an incredible competition against businesses all across the State and
facilities all across the country to make sure that we had the best
facility, the facility that was right not for Kansas, but right for
America. After that competition, Manhattan, Kansas, was chosen for the
site of the National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility, and now Kansas and
the United States have already invested heavily in this facility. It's
a facility that creates a biosafety lab level four. It's like no other
asset, no other national security asset in America. It's incredibly
important. It's important for our food supply and safety for human
health.
It's not a partisan issue. It was supported by both the Bush and
Obama administrations and was passed through both a Republican- and a
Democrat-controlled Congress. So there's no partisan nature to what's
going on at the National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility. It's simply
about national security.
There have now been multiple reports and commissions indicating that
this kind of threat is one of the most imminent threats to our Nation's
entire homeland security. It's been for that reason that DHS has been
very supportive of NBAF and NBAF being built in Kansas.
The State is uniquely qualified. It has exactly the right kind of
scientific experts and precisely the expertise to be applied
immediately and for the facility to be built in a way that it can
operate safely.
We've got to protect animals and people from disease and make sure
that when we do that our communities are safe and secure. This is a
challenge that our country is ready and able to undertake at the
facility in Kansas.
I urge my colleagues to reject this effort to delay this critical
development essential to the health and safety of our food supply, and
ultimately the safety of the American people.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Hahn).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Ms. HAHN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California
will be postponed.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
automation modernization
For expenses for U.S. Customs and Border Protection
automated systems, $700,242,000 to remain available until
September 30, 2015, of which not less than $138,794,000 shall
be for the development of the Automated Commercial
Environment.
border security fencing, infrastructure, and technology
For expenses for border security fencing, infrastructure,
and technology, $327,099,000, to remain available until
September 30, 2015.
Amendment offered by Mr. Bishop of Utah
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Page 9, line 14, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $3,000,000)''.
Page 10, line 5, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $624,000)''.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, the Border Patrol does a great job
when they are allowed to do a great job. Unfortunately, one of the
ironies we have is there are certain areas of access into this country
by those who are illegal that seem to be an area of choice, especially
of the drug cartels and the human traffickers. There is also an unusual
correlation between these areas of access and Federal property which
has been designated as wilderness area or endangered species habitat.
In fact, in the last year's figures that I have, over half of the
illegal entries into this country went through one sector in Arizona.
Only a portion of the State of Arizona is 80 percent federally
controlled, much of that in wilderness area and endangered species
habitat.
Ironically, the Border Patrol is restricted in these areas from the
way they can enforce their purpose of patrolling the border. I find
that one of the things that's very strange is the Border Patrol, on
private property, has almost unlimited ability to do their job in
enforcing border security.
{time} 2010
It's only on Federal property that the Federal Border Patrol is
restricted on how it fulfills its Federal purpose.
Fortunately, the drug cartels and the human trafficking, they don't
necessarily care about that restriction. They, for some reason, don't
necessarily respect the environmental laws that we have, and the
destruction to our environment is caused by them. The trampling of
those sensitive areas, pictures of endangered cacti that have been cut
down and used by the drug cartels as blockades on the roads, the amount
of trash that is left behind is not only destroying the environment,
but also an amazingly expensive effort to try and clean it up. I have
often flippantly said that the drug cartel would rather eat an
endangered species than protect it.
Nonetheless, the Border Patrol is required to pay for environmental
mitigation damages. Since 2007, the Department of Homeland Security has
used the money we think we are appropriating to Homeland Security, to
the amount of $7 million, to go to the Department of the Interior for
this proposed mitigation of environmental damages.
Let me give you a couple of examples of what this has bought us in
the past. At the Arizona border they had to reposition their
surveillance towers, which, of course, did lead to some security gaps
in those areas, but it also caused a problem with the lesser long-nosed
[[Page H3540]]
bat, which has the nasty habit in evenings of flying into the towers.
So one of the mitigations that was insisted upon by the Department of
the Interior is that the Border Patrol had to pay for a bat patrol,
costing thousands of dollars, to monitor and track a bat who may,
indeed, sometimes fly into a tower.
On the Sonoran pronghorn sheep, over $5 million has been paid in the
last decade for the Border Patrol to create another Sonoran pronghorn
herd, and to make sure that they have people there to monitor, feed,
and avoid the pronghorn. And if they ever come across it, they have to
stand really, really still.
Even though this provision has been revoked in recent years, at times
some of this money was used by the Department of the Interior to buy
land that had nothing to do with border security whatsoever.
My amendment, therefore, takes what is in this proposal, $3 million
that has been earmarked for environmental mitigation, and moves it to a
more legitimate and deserving use of that activity by taking it to the
Air and Marine Interdiction Account to provide money for the Border
Patrol to recapitalize their aging fleet.
Almost half of all the airplanes that the Border Patrol has are 33
years or older. This has impeded their operational readiness. These
obsolete planes that they have make it unable for them to assist in
properly securing the border. GAO, in its report, said in 2010 only 73
percent of the over 38,000 requests for air support could be granted
simply because the fleet was aging at that particular time.
What it's simply trying to do here is a very simple concept. The
better the Border Patrol is at controlling the border, the better the
environment will be on the border. It's not the Border Patrol that
causes environmental havoc; it is the drugs cartels and the human
traffickers coming across. To take this money, which would go to
mitigation, and put it where it is desperately needed, to try and help
the infrastructure so the Border Patrol can better do their job, simply
means we'll actually have a better environment by doing it.
It's the right thing to do. It would be an appropriate and
intelligent thing for us to put the money where it would do the most
good, in giving the Border Patrol the infrastructure they need to do
their jobs along our borders, both in the North and in the South.
I urge adoption of this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Alabama is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. ADERHOLT. The funds are included in support of border security,
albeit to facilitate only the most necessary environmental mitigation
activities directly related to border security construction, operation,
and maintenance. However, I do understand the gentleman's position and
concerns and, for that reason, we accept the amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to
this amendment, which would eliminate $3 million funding for
environmental mitigation in our border security efforts, and add that
money to air and marine assets, which is already greatly, greatly
increased in this bill.
First a bit of context. Since 2006, this subcommittee has increased
funding for border security by over $2 billion annually. We invested
well over $1 billion for fencing and other tactical infrastructure
alone during that period.
Responding to concerns about possible environmental problems
associated with such a massive construction undertaking, much of which
has taken place on environmentally sensitive lands, Congress provided
very modest amounts to mitigate these potential environmental
consequences.
Now, as a government, we have many responsibilities and priorities,
and these include both securing our borders and protecting our natural
and cultural resources. The sort of interagency agreement that Homeland
Security and Interior have entered into for environmental mitigation is
what we should be encouraging and supporting, especially because this
arrangement is explicit, in that Interior cannot take any action that
CBP does not first agree to.
So we've got to keep that commitment to protecting and preserving our
environment. We have to maintain that commitment. And I urge colleagues
to defeat this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mrs. LUMMIS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Wyoming is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mrs. LUMMIS. Mr. Chairman, the Bishop amendment strikes environmental
mitigation funding that has no place in this bill. This is a Homeland
Security bill. We spend this money to protect the homeland and secure
our borders. These are some of the most important responsibilities we
have as a Congress under our Constitution.
But this money won't go to border security. This money will go to pay
off Federal agencies just so the Border Patrol can access public lands.
Our Border Patrol is locked out of huge swaths of public lands along
our border unless they fork over tax dollars for environmental
mitigation. So we, the Congress, under the auspices of border security,
are spending the people's hard-earned money on a slush fund for land
managers.
Just to name a few examples, agencies have demanded this money to
monitor bats, to monitor pronghorn antelope--my State of Wyoming has
three times more antelope than people--and in one case, to protect the
endangered ocelot, which hasn't even been seen in the area for 20
years.
This is madness. If you want to protect the species and ecosystems
along the border, then secure the border. Rampant border crossings
across wilderness do more damage than our Border Patrol ever could.
We need to eliminate restrictions on the Border Patrol's access to
Federal land, not enable them. If you want to stop this extortion of
border security dollars, vote for the Bishop amendment. This puts money
toward air and marine interdiction.
And if you want environmental mitigation, put it in the Interior bill
where it belongs, and where Congress can keep track of where the money
goes, and where land managers have to justify it.
Let our Border Patrol do its job. Vote for the Bishop amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Utah will be
postponed.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
air and marine interdiction, operations, maintenance, and procurement
For necessary expenses for the operations, maintenance, and
procurement of marine vessels, aircraft, unmanned aircraft
systems, and other related equipment of the air and marine
program, including operational training and mission-related
travel, the operations of which include the following: the
interdiction of narcotics and other goods; the provision of
support to Federal, State, and local agencies in the
enforcement or administration of laws enforced by the
Department of Homeland Security; and, at the discretion of
the Secretary of Homeland Security, the provision of
assistance to Federal, State, and local agencies in other law
enforcement and emergency humanitarian efforts, $518,469,000,
to remain available until September 30, 2015: Provided, That
no aircraft or other related equipment, with the exception of
aircraft that are one of a kind and have been identified as
excess to U.S. Customs and Border Protection requirements and
aircraft that have been damaged beyond repair, shall be
transferred to any other Federal agency, department, or
office outside of the Department of Homeland Security during
fiscal year 2013 without the prior approval of the Committees
on Appropriations of the Senate and the House of
Representatives: Provided further, That the Secretary of
Homeland Security shall report to the Committees on
Appropriations of the Senate and the House of
Representatives, not later than 90 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, on any changes to the 5-year strategic
plan for the air and marine program required under this
heading in Public Law 112 74.
[[Page H3541]]
construction and facilities management
For necessary expenses to plan, acquire, construct,
renovate, equip, furnish, operate, manage, and maintain
buildings, facilities, and related infrastructure necessary
for the administration and enforcement of the laws relating
to customs, immigration, and border security, $252,567,000,
to remain available until September 30, 2017: Provided, That
the Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection shall
submit to the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and
the House of Representatives, at the time that the
President's budget proposal is submitted pursuant to the
requirements of section 1105(a) of title 31, United States
Code, an inventory of the real property of U.S. Customs and
Border Protection and a plan for each activity and project
proposed for funding under this heading that includes the
full cost by fiscal year of each activity and project
proposed and underway in fiscal year 2014.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement
salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses for enforcement of immigration and
customs laws, detention and removals, and investigations,
including overseas vetted units operations; and purchase and
lease of up to 3,790 (2,350 for replacement only) police-type
vehicles; $5,236,331,000; of which not to exceed $10,000,000
shall be available until expended for conducting special
operations under section 3131 of the Customs Enforcement Act
of 1986 (19 U.S.C. 2081); of which not to exceed $12,750
shall be for official reception and representation expenses;
of which not to exceed $2,000,000 shall be for awards of
compensation to informants, to be accounted for solely under
the certificate of the Secretary of Homeland Security; of
which not less than $305,000 shall be for promotion of public
awareness of the child pornography tipline and activities to
counter child exploitation; of which not less than
$68,321,000 shall be used to facilitate agreements consistent
with section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8
U.S.C. 1357(g)); and of which not to exceed $11,216,000 shall
be available to fund or reimburse other Federal agencies for
the costs associated with the care, maintenance, and
repatriation of smuggled aliens unlawfully present in the
United States: Provided, That none of the funds made
available under this heading shall be available to compensate
any employee for overtime in an annual amount in excess of
$35,000, except that the Secretary of Homeland Security, or
the designee of the Secretary, may waive that amount as
necessary for national security purposes and in cases of
immigration emergencies: Provided further, That of the total
amount provided, $15,770,000 shall be for activities to
enforce laws against forced child labor, of which not to
exceed $6,000,000 shall remain available until expended:
Provided further, That not less than $10,000,000 shall be
available for investigation of intellectual property rights
violations, including the National Intellectual Property
Rights Coordination Center: Provided further, That not less
than $134,626,000 shall be for worksite enforcement
investigations, audits, and activities: Provided further,
That of the total amount available, not less than
$1,600,000,000 shall be available to identify aliens
convicted of a crime who may be deportable, and to remove
them from the United States once they are judged deportable,
of which $138,249,000 shall be for completion of Secure
Communities deployment: Provided further, That the Assistant
Secretary of Homeland Security for U.S. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement shall report to the Committees on
Appropriations of the Senate and the House of
Representatives, not later than 45 days after the end of each
quarter of the fiscal year, on progress in implementing the
preceding proviso and the funds obligated during that quarter
to make such progress: Provided further, That the Secretary
of Homeland Security shall prioritize the identification and
removal of aliens convicted of a crime by the severity of
that crime: Provided further, That funding made available
under this heading shall maintain a level of not less than
34,000 detention beds through September 30, 2013: Provided
further, That of the total amount provided, not less than
$2,749,840,000 is for detention and removal operations,
including transportation of unaccompanied minor aliens, of
which not less than $91,460,000 shall be for alternatives to
detention: Provided further, That of the total amount
provided, $10,300,000 shall remain available until September
30, 2014, for the Visa Security Program: Provided further,
That none of the funds provided under this heading may be
used to continue a delegation of law enforcement authority
authorized under section 287(g) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1357(g)) if the Department of
Homeland Security Inspector General determines that the terms
of the agreement governing the delegation of authority have
been violated: Provided further, That none of the funds
provided under this heading may be used to continue any
contract for the provision of detention services if the two
most recent overall performance evaluations received by the
contracted facility are less than ``adequate'' or the
equivalent median score in any subsequent performance
evaluation system: Provided further, That nothing under this
heading shall prevent U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement from exercising those authorities provided under
immigration laws (as defined in section 101(a)(17) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(17)))
during priority operations pertaining to aliens convicted of
a crime.
Amendment Offered by Ms. Loretta Sanchez of California
Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment
at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Page 11, line 21, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $40,000,000) (increased by $40,000,000)''.
Page 13, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $40,000,000)''.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is
simple. Let us combat human trafficking and child exploitation.
{time} 2020
My amendment would take $40 million from the Detention and Removal
Operations and transfer those funds to the Office of Investigations to
support antichild exploitation and trafficking initiatives.
ICE is one of the key global partners aimed at dismantling criminal
infrastructures engaged in child exploitation. These special agents are
in many countries throughout the world and in the United States, and I
have had the opportunity to meet with them overseas where child
exploitation is rampant, such as in Thailand and Cambodia.
That is why I would like to increase the funding to combat child
exploitation, and I am requesting $40 million be transferred to them.
The funds are coming from an account that is $70 million over the
President's budget. I didn't even take all of that excess. I'm just
asking for $40 million, leaving roughly $30 million over the
President's budget in ICE Detention and Removal Operations.
With women and girls accounting for over 80 percent of the people
trafficked throughout the world, including within the United States,
this issue is something that is very close to my heart, and I have been
a vocal advocate to stop and combat sex exploitation trafficking.
My district represents the largest Vietnamese population in the world
outside of Vietnam. The fact is that most of the human trafficking
victims originate from Asia. I have a responsibility to the people I
represent to seek out ways to ensure that ICE can combat child
exploitation globally since it impacts us locally. In fact, in
Cambodia, brothel owners pay traffickers anywhere from $350 to $450 for
each attractive Vietnamese virgin 16 years or younger. Nonvirgins and
those considered less beautiful are trafficked for about $150 apiece.
I am asking the chairman to join me in this outrage that these things
still happen in our modern world, and more often than not, they occur
in our own districts here in the United States. The only way to
eradicate child exploitation is to stand together to protect every
child's right to be free from victimization. We can all work towards
eliminating child exploitation by ensuring that we have people who
combat this and by putting this money into this account. We need to
give those people on the front line the tools to stop this. I thank the
chairman for the time, and I ask him to support my amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentlelady's
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Bishop of Utah). The gentleman from Alabama is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. ADERHOLT. The concern is that the amendment seeks to gut
detention operations just as the administration has tried to do;
whereas, this bill holds the administration's feet to the fire and
provides the resources to force them to actually enforce the law. The
committee recommends $2.75 billion for ICE Detention and Removal
Operations, $71 million above the request to sustain a minimum of
34,000 detention beds. Detention beds are a necessary resource to
support robust immigration enforcement.
Make no mistake. There is a need for these resources. First, by the
administration's own estimate, there are at least 1.9 million removable
criminal aliens in the United States. There is the general
acknowledgment of an illegal alien population of approximately
[[Page H3542]]
11 million. With the expansion of Secure Communities and ICE's prior
utilization, there is no doubt they need at least 34,000 beds. Despite
the fact that Congress has funded every request that ICE has provided
for bed spaces, we have gotten excuses that they do not have the
resources needed. Now the resources are being provided, and the
committee insists that ICE intensify its enforcement efforts and fully
utilize these resources.
Let me say that countering child exploitation is a critical effort in
this bill for which we already have provided increases for ICE and
Secret Service activities. The Wasserman Schultz amendment, which will
be brought up shortly, provides an additional 25 percent to the child
exploitation center. We have been working with Congresswoman Wasserman
Schultz on this amendment. We are accepting that 25 percent increase
for the child exploitation center, so I would urge my colleagues to
oppose this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my
colleague's amendment, that of the Congresswoman from California, Ms.
Sanchez.
I think it is a well-designed amendment both in its positive purpose
and in the offsets that she has chosen. She proposes that we increase
ICE funding for child exploitation, and that is a worthy cause that we
do need to fund more generously than is present in the bill as brought
to the floor.
Each year, millions of children fall victim to sexual predators.
These young victims are left with permanent psychological and physical
and emotional scars. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, ICE, targets
and investigates child pornographers, child sex tourists and
facilitators, the human smugglers and traffickers of minors, criminal
aliens convicted of offenses against minors, and those deported for
child exploitation offenses who have returned illegally. ICE is at the
forefront of these activities and can make good use of the funding that
our colleague proposes, so I commend her for bringing this issue to our
attention and for putting this amendment before us.
The offsets are particularly well chosen. As I said as we began the
debate on this bill, this bill contains some ill-advised funding
floors, some mandatory spending that is rigid and is wasteful: an
increased minimum of detention beds, for example, and the required
floor funding for the 287(g) program, a program that is very
problematic and that really needs to be transitioned, in my view, to
the Secure Communities Program, which maintains the Federal and local
roles much more distinctly. These are offsets that we can afford and
offsets that, in fact, would improve the bill, and only rarely can one
say that about offsets in these debates.
So I commend the gentlelady for her amendment, and I urge its
adoption.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded
vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California
will be postponed.
Mr. FORTENBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Nebraska is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. FORTENBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I wish to enter into a colloquy with
the gentleman from Alabama, Chairman Aderholt.
First, I want to commend his leadership on this appropriations bill
concerning the security screenings of children by the Transportation
Security Administration. The TSA should absolutely have particular
sensitivity in the screening process of children and should minimize
children's distress and discomfort. I am very thankful to the gentleman
for raising this issue in the manager's amendment and for recognizing
this need.
But as this process moves forward, I would encourage the chairman to
stress the importance of this same sensitivity to the elderly and the
infirm. We have all seen too many images in high-profile news stories
about the mistreatment of the elderly and the infirm as well as of
passengers with religious or conscience objections. No good American
should be forced to check his modesty at the airport door--maybe his
luggage but not his modesty.
I also appreciate the fact that the report encourages various
alternative screening models that would better preserve the civil
liberties and privacy of all passengers by moving toward a more risk-
based approach, using intelligence more than relying on technology. I
encourage the chairman to continue moving TSA along this path.
{time} 2030
Would the chairman be willing to work with me on these issues for the
benefit of America's airline passengers?
Mr. ADERHOLT. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FORTENBERRY. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.
Mr. ADERHOLT. I thank the gentleman for his support of the House
report language on sensitivity for child passenger screenings, and it
is certainly reasonable to include other vulnerable individuals like
the elderly and the infirm.
I will work with the gentleman going forward on these matters, and
thank him for bringing the challenges of screening these other
individuals to the floor. I look forward to working with him on this
matter.
Mr. FORTENBERRY. I thank the gentleman from Alabama again for his
leadership on the overall appropriations bill here and for his
particular sensitivity to this issue.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Amendment Offered by Ms. Wasserman Schultz
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Florida is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Chairman, first let me just say how much I
appreciate the opportunity to work with the chairman, and I appreciate
his work both when we worked together in the leadership of the
legislative branch appropriations subcommittee and also to express
appreciation for his commitment to increasing the amount of funds
available to pursue child exploitation in this bill, and for your
commitment in protecting children. Both of us being parents of 8- and
13-year-olds, I have a particular appreciation for this.
I rise to ask for my colleagues' support for an amendment to protect
what we've been talking about here this evening, our most vulnerable
constituents, our children.
My amendment would fence off $20 million in funds through ICE,
Homeland Security Investigations, Cyber Crimes Center, for the purposes
of child exploitation prevention and interdiction.
There is no question that our children need our support now more than
ever. With the proliferation of the Internet and wireless technology,
the spread of child pornography on line must be addressed aggressively
now. We don't have a moment or an opportunity to waste.
The Department of Justice estimates that at any moment, there are
more than 1 million pornographic images of children on the Internet,
with an additional 200 images being posted every day. And more than
one-third of the world's pedophiles involved in organized pornography
rings worldwide live in the United States.
The Internet allows these images to be disseminated indefinitely,
victimizing that child victim again and again with each click of the
mouse. Because let's not forget that these are not just heinous
images--they are crime scene photos. Every face in those photographs is
the face of a child who needs our support in order to escape a living
hell of constant abuse and exploitation.
Since the 1970s, before we even had a child pornography statute, ICE,
which
[[Page H3543]]
was then called the U.S. Customs Service, was the leader in the fight
to protect our children. That is still true today. As recently as 2009,
ICE was responsible for 52 percent of cases prosecuted for receipt or
distribution of child pornography and 90 percent of cases prosecuted
for child sex tourism.
This is in addition to hundreds of arrests every year and thousands
of children rescued to date. Their efforts are second to none, and I
know they will put these resources to good use. But for every child
rescued, hundreds more remain trapped in a current of abuse, the
horrors of which none of us can truly imagine. And we need the absolute
best personnel going into the fight to rescue these children.
That's why it's my hope that some of these funds will be used to
employ our wounded warriors, in addition to the experienced agents
already fighting these battles. Our armed services have already
protected us abroad, so naturally our veterans are a perfect choice to
protect our most precious resources here at home. In fact, retired Army
Master Sergeant Rich Robertson is already fighting child exploitation
at the ICE field office in Tennessee. In his words, ``Who better to
hunt child predators than someone who's already hunted men?''
I'm enthusiastic about this initiative because I know that the
immense skills and motivation returning servicemen and -women possess
could be the key to our most successful affront on child exploitation
yet. Child predators won't stand a chance.
By harnessing the abilities of our wounded warriors, we not only
ensure that their skills, dedication, and drive are put to good use
back at home, we give them the most dignified thank you of all, a job
that truly makes a difference.
So let me be clear: With the passage of this amendment, we would be
putting predators on notice. Their reign of terror is coming to an end.
You can bet on it. I urge all of my colleagues to join me in committing
to fight until every American child can live free from terror and
exploitation, and support this important amendment, which, Mr.
Chairman, I have at the desk, which I should have started with. So
thank you very much.
I want to also add, Mr. Chairman, that I support my colleague from
California's amendment to increase the funds available to ICE for the
purpose of fighting child exploitation by reducing the funds available
for immigration detention and removal operations, which in this bill is
unnecessarily increased above the President's request.
I thank the chairman and my colleagues' indulgence for doing this
backwards.
Mr. ADERHOLT. Will the gentlelady yield?
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman will suspend.
The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Page 11, line 21, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $20,000,000) (increased by $20,000,000)''.
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Now that the amendment is formally before us,
I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.
Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, we would gladly accept the gentlelady's
amendment.
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I thank the gentleman, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment offered by
my colleague from Florida.
Each year, millions of children fall victim to sexual predators.
These young victims are left with permanent psychological, physical,
and emotional scars.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement, also known as ICE, targets and
investigates child pornographers, child-sex tourists and facilitators,
human smugglers and traffickers of minors, criminal aliens convicted of
offenses against minors, and those deported for child exploitation
offenses who have returned illegally.
The Child Exploitation Center is at the forefront of these
investigations. Unfortunately, funding for ICE's Child Exploitation
Center has decreased over the past 2 years from $16.7 million in 2011
to a proposed $14.7 million in 2013. This amendment bolsters funds for
this center by a modest amount, bringing total funding to $20 million,
restoring the budget cuts and providing a small additional amount to
make additional headway on ending these heinous crimes.
I appreciate the gentlelady bringing this issue to our attention, and
I support the adoption of this amendment. These dollars will be well
spent safeguarding our children worldwide.
I appreciate the chairman accepting the amendment, and I yield back
the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chair, I am pleased to support an
amendment by my dear colleague and friend, Representative Debbie
Wasserman Schultz, to increase the current level of funding to $20
million for the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, ICE budget
for the purpose of investigating child exploitation.
The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency has played a key
role in stopping child pornography from entering our country since the
1970's. With today's technology, abusers across the world can instantly
trade and share lewd material of children with the greatest ease,
unless we do something to stop it. Additionally, ICE is ramping up its
efforts to stop traveling child sex offenders who enter and exit this
country preying on innocent children. ICE's efforts are leading the way
identifying and investigating these criminals and rescuing their
victims.
Mr. Chair, this is a modest funding increase with the most important
of purposes, protecting the world's most vulnerable citizens, the
children. I wholeheartedly support this amendment, and urge my
colleagues to do so as well.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz).
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Alabama is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. CARTER. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ADERHOLT. I yield to the gentleman from Texas to talk about an
important immigration enforcement program.
Mr. CARTER. I thank the chair for yielding to me.
I would like to bring to the attention of my colleagues the recent
change made by the Department of Justice to the State Criminal Alien
Assistance Program, also known as SCAAP.
While this program is under the jurisdiction of the DOJ, it is a
consequence of the Federal Government's failure to secure our borders,
which is why I bring it up during this debate.
SCAAP reimburses States and counties for part of the cost of
incarcerating undocumented criminal aliens. I want to emphasize that
this program does not come close to fully reimbursing our States or our
counties for the full cost of incarcerating these individuals.
Recently, DOJ announced that they will offer no reimbursement for
what they consider to be unknown documented aliens. Being an unknown
documented alien simply means that DHS has no information on that
individual, a designation that would apply to a majority of the illegal
aliens in this country. For example, when the sheriff in my home county
picks up someone for aggravated assault and, in accordance with the
Secure Communities Checks, the Federal database, if this person has
never been processed by DHS, they will be considered unknown documented
aliens and therefore ineligible to be reimbursed for any part of the
cost of the incarceration under this new rule.
I would like to point out this change disproportionately affects
counties over States, both of which are eligible for reimbursement
under SCAAP.
{time} 2040
The county jail is the first point of contact with the criminal
justice system for many illegal aliens, so there is no background on
the individual. These inmates are also typically held for a shorter
period of time, making it difficult for them to be processed by the
Federal Government before they are transferred to a State institution
after
[[Page H3544]]
they are convicted. This change has much less impact on the States as
they typically hold inmates for a much longer period of time, giving
them plenty of opportunity to be processed by ICE agents who are
typically located at the State prisons, a luxury the counties do not
have.
If these changes were implemented in 2010, Williamson County, my home
county, would have received $90,000 less than their full payment for
that year, which is only about $150,000, and which is only a small
portion of the overall cost of incarcerating these individuals. That's
a lot of money for a moderately sized county in Texas. The impact on
larger counties would be much greater.
I do not think that our counties should be punished for the Federal
Government's failure to secure our borders and process undocumented
aliens in an acceptable timeframe.
Now, I would like to commend Chairman Aderholt for prioritizing the
frontline operations by funding Border Patrol agents and CBP agents at
the highest levels in history. I would like to propose to the chairman
that we work together with these Agencies to find a solution to this
problem.
In the meantime, I will be writing a letter to the Justice
Department, along with my friend and colleague, Congressman Honda of
California, to ask the Department to delay this change while we work to
find a solution that will not punish our counties for the failures of
the Federal Government.
Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I share the concerns
that have been raised by the gentleman from Texas this evening. The
Department of Homeland Security needs the support of States and
counties in border security, and SCAAP is an important tool to
facilitate that support.
I look forward to working with the gentleman to ensure that the
Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice find the
right solution. I know that my other distinguished colleague on the
Appropriations Committee from the State of Virginia has views on this
program within his jurisdiction.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, as chairman of the Commerce, Justice and
Science Subcommittee, I am very sympathetic to the concerns raised by
the gentleman from Texas.
I understand that last year DOJ notified prospective FY11 SCAAP
applicants of this coming change and encouraged jurisdictions to work
closely with DHS to increase inmate alien status verification. I did
not hear of any concerns with this new requirement during the
consideration of CJS appropriations for FY12 or 13, but I would be
pleased to work with you, as well as the Department of Justice and the
Department of Homeland Security, to help ensure that the SCAAP
reimbursement methodology is equitable for all types of jurisdictions
and maximizes the verification of status for individual aliens.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HONDA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. HONDA. As a member of the Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice,
Science, I would like to thank our chairman, Mr. Wolf, Chairman
Aderholt and my friend, Judge Carter, for speaking on this important
issue today.
The State Criminal Alien Assistance Program, SCAAP, is a bipartisan
issue and a bipartisan effort to address it.
California jurisdictions already receive 10 percent of the total cost
of reimbursement because of the drastic cuts this program has received
over the past few years. The recent funding solicitation change that
would stop reimbursements for all ``unknowns'' by the Department of
Justice has the potential to worsen the situation. It will devastate
county budgets at a time when they are already feeling the pinch of
State and Federal cuts.
As a former member of the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors, I
know firsthand how terrible the impact of this change will be on our
counties. It is undisputed that the vast majority of the undocumented
immigrants residing in the U.S. are unknown to the Federal Government.
Therefore, the unilateral decision by DOJ to only provide SCAAP funds
for those criminal undocumented that are known to the Federal
Government is deeply troubling and is a back-door attempt to kill the
SCAAP program.
As my friend, Judge Carter, has noted, counties in particular will be
hit by this change the hardest because of the inability for ICE agents
to be present at all times to process unknowns in county jails. In
State jails, prisoners are held longer and ICE agents are on staff, so
there is ample time and opportunity for unknowns to be processed in the
system.
If the Department would like to make this change, it has to provide
clear, timely, and accessible methods to the counties to process
unknowns properly, something which they clearly do not have now.
I look forward to working with the appropriate Agencies and
subcommittees to ensure that we can find an equitable solution to this
issue. I appreciate both Chairman Wolf and Chairman Aderholt's time on
this.
Until then, however, I will be writing a letter with my good friend,
Judge Carter, to the Department of Justice to delay this change until
the appropriate time.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Clarke of Michigan
Mr. CLARKE of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the
desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Page 11, line 21, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced
by $10,000,000)''.
Page 12, line 7, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced
by $10,000,000)''.
Page 37, line 18, after the dollar amount insert
``(increased by $10,000,000)''.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. CLARKE of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would add $10
million to FEMA's State and local grant programs. This will be an
additional $10 million that our State governments and our local units
of government could have available to them to better protect their
citizens in the case of an emergency and also to respond more
effectively to such a disaster.
This money can go to high-risk urban areas such as metro Detroit that
really need the resources. It can also go to better protect and secure
our ports, which would also benefit regions like metropolitan Detroit.
Again, the reason why I come to this Congress, to this budget and ask
for these additional resources is because in the past this Congress
failed to properly oversee the housing market, which resulted in a
crisis that dramatically reduced property values all around this
country and, most tragically, reduced the revenues available to States
and localities to fund these important services.
That's why I'm asking this Congress, this House, to amend this budget
to provide an additional $10 million to our States and local units of
government so they can better protect our citizens in case of an
emergency.
I look for your support.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CARTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. CARTER. This amendment seeks to cut critical funds for enforcing
our Nation's immigration laws. Those laws are important to be enforced.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. I yield back the
balance of my time.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the
gentleman's amendment.
It adds $10 million to FEMA, State and local grants. As we have said
many times this evening, these are grant programs that have been cut
severely in recent years. While this year's bill improves on that, we
certainly can use more funding in this area, and the gentleman has
figured out a way to do it. He has come up with an offset that actually
improves the bill.
[[Page H3545]]
The proposed offset is to the troubled 287(g) program, reduces it by
$10 million, moving it closer to the administration's request.
{time} 2050
Mr. Chairman, three Inspector General audits have found serious flaws
with this program and ICE has had to terminate some 287(g) agreements
because of racial profiling and other abuses. We have no business
funding this program at levels above the request, much less having a
mandatory funding level, which is included in this bill.
So the gentleman has come up with an amendment that adds needed grant
funding and improves the bill and it's offset. I urge its adoption, and
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Clarke).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. CLARKE of Michigan. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan
will be postponed.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Polis
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Page 11, line 21, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $501,331,000)''.
Page 99, line 17, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $501,331,000)''.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. POLIS. My amendment would bring down funding for ICE to fiscal
year 2008 levels. I know that this is a time when it's critical to
balance our budget and to cut government spending, and here's an
example of a line item where we simply can't afford to continue to
reward failure. This bill is a great place to start in making sure that
we have a sound policy for our country. We can't afford to continue
wasting billions of dollars of hard-earned taxpayer money to fund an
Agency that, frankly, isn't producing results.
This bill proposed to appropriate billions of dollars to ICE to
enforce our broken immigration laws. That means they spend this money
to continue deporting hardworking immigrants, separating families, and
kicking out students who have lived in this country their entire lives,
all at taxpayer expense.
How much does this cost the American taxpayer? ICE itself has said
that each deportation costs $12,500. Outside estimates actually put the
number higher--around $23,000. In fact, it costs an average of $112 a
night just to detain illegal immigrants. That's right. This country is
putting illegal immigrants up, effectively, at hotels. We might as well
put them up at a bargain hotel. Let's find a $49 room rather than
spending $112 a night to feed and house illegal immigrants every night.
My amendment will not end that practice, but it will take it back to
2008 levels.
We simply can't deport our way out of our current immigration
problems. One study estimates it would cost $285 billion to deport all
the illegal immigrants in the country, not to mention the devastating
impact on the economy that that would have.
We need to replace our broken immigration system with one that works.
Simply throwing good money after bad at a failed Agency like ICE, which
has not stopped illegal immigration, is simply a recipe for continued
disaster.
In addition, ICE is responsible for shutting down Web sites.
Frequently, they have taken down legitimate Web sites without any due
process of the law. The story of the music blog dajazz1 should be a
warning to all of us that we need to take a closer look at these
efforts. This site was seized by ICE for over a year without any
explanation or due process. When the government finally return
controlled of the site to its owners, they couldn't even explain why
they took control of the Internet site. Imagine if the government had
seized a printing press or magazine or a newspaper. We would be
outraged on the left and on the right. Why is this any different?
Seizing a Web site without any due process of the law is contrary to
the principles enshrined in our Constitution, is un-American, and
violates our freedom of speech.
Now make no mistake: even if my amendment passes, the bill would
still appropriate far too much for a failed agency. It still would
appropriate billions of dollars. And I would still oppose that
appropriation. But at least let's return that appropriation to 2008
levels to stop putting illegal immigrants up at hotels, stop closing
down Web sites that are free press, stop funding enormous amounts of
taxpayer money not solving our immigration problem.
It's more important than ever that we balance our budget and end the
deficit. We can start that by reducing wasteful government spending
instead of increasing wasteful government spending. ICE has failed to
stop illegal immigration. Let's not reward failure. ICE has shut down
Web sites without any due process. Let's not reward failure.
Obviously, there are Members on both sides of the aisle, myself
included, that want to address our broken immigration system, and we
should have a country that has zero illegal immigrants--not 10 million,
not 12 million, not 15 million. Frankly, the less ICE does, the more
likely we can eliminate illegal immigration in this country, because
all they do is contribute to it. And my bill will at least reduce their
funding to 2008 levels. I think it's a commonsense amendment. Anybody
who opposes this amendment is effectively rewarding the continued
failure of one of the most poorly performing government Agencies.
I urge my colleagues to vote for my amendment, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
Mr. CARTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. CARTER. Mr. Chairman, this amendment slashes immigration
enforcement and will result in laying off many, many ICE agents and
potentially releasing dangerous criminal aliens from custody.
Now, the gentleman's argument is interesting. His argument seems to
be that if you fire the enforcing officers and legalize the criminals,
you're not going to have a problem. Well, I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, but
that's not the way it operates. When you break the law, you have to
face the consequences. And we need the enforcement officers to go out
and assist us enforcing the law.
Whether or not the immigration law is broken--I happen to agree that
it is broken. We might not necessarily agree on how to fix it, but I
agree that it is broken. Because I agree we have porous borders. But I
believe the ICE people are doing the very best they can. Quite
honestly, I'm shocked that the solution to a criminal problem is fire
the law enforcement officers. And that's not good policy under
anybody's thinking.
Supposedly, those who object are not thinking straight. Well, I would
argue the contrary is the case in this particular argument.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to
this amendment. It cuts ICE salaries and expenses by over $500 million
and puts all of that spending in the Spending Reduction Account.
There's some ironies in this amendment. It would actually hinder our
efforts to move away from the flawed 287(g) program. It would hinder
nationwide deployment of the much more conceptually sound Secure
Communities effort. It would greatly reduce funding for alternatives to
detention, where we very much need to go. It would lay off thousands of
ICE personnel. And what do these personnel do? We've hired them to
fight the drug trade, to fight human trafficking, to fight violence
along the Southwest border.
I urge defeat of this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my
time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis).
[[Page H3546]]
The amendment was rejected.
Mr. HONDA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. HONDA. I would like to thank the chairman, the ranking member,
and members of the subcommittee for recognizing the importance of
supporting a path for legal immigrants to become citizens. The United
States has a special interest in and draws unique benefits from
extending citizenship to immigrants who have met legal residence,
character, English, and civics knowledge requirements. I appreciate the
chairman's willingness to encourage U.S. Citizenship and Immigration
Services to keep the naturalization application fee affordable so that
we don't prevent legal immigrants from pursuing citizenship simply
because they cannot afford it. But I am concerned that the way the bill
approaches funding for immigrant integration grant programs could
undermine this effort to keep fees affordable.
{time} 2100
Integrating immigrants strengthens their commitment to the United
States and makes us a stronger and more prosperous democracy.
Integration grants have proven to be a cost-effective means of
encouraging immigrants to integrate. It is unfair that the cost and
limited availability of citizenship education and legal assistance is
the reason that many of the more than 8 million legal and taxpaying
permanent residents are unable to naturalize, despite their eligibility
to do so.
This bill only allows funding of immigrant integration programs
through fees collected, departing from past practice of providing
discretionary funding to support the program. This approach will
require fee hikes that push naturalization further out of the reach of
people who already struggle to pay costs of up to thousands of dollars
for the current application, attorneys' fees, required document
collection and preparation for the naturalization examination,
defeating the subcommittee's own stated goal of keeping fees
affordable.
The future viability of the immigrant integration grant program may
depend on Congress's willingness to reinstate discretionary funding to
support it, as the Senate has proposed to do in its version of the
bill. I support the Senate's approach to provide direct discretionary
funding in the amount of $5 million, regardless of the funds deposited
into the immigration examination fee account, and I hope that as we
move forward to conference with the Senate, we can adopt that approach.
It is in this country's interest to support our future U.S. citizens,
and so it is in all of our interest to get support for immigrant
integration grants right.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
automation modernization
For expenses of immigration and customs enforcement
automated systems, $232,006,000, to remain available until
September 30, 2015: Provided, That, subject to section 503 of
this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security may transfer up
to $5,000,000 to the Office of Biometric Identity Management
to support the transition of the Arrival and Departure
System: Provided further, That amounts transferred pursuant
to the preceding provision shall remain available until
September 30, 2014.
construction
For necessary expenses to plan, construct, renovate, equip,
and maintain buildings and facilities necessary for the
administration and enforcement of the laws relating to
customs and immigration, $5,450,000, to remain available
until September 30, 2016.
Transportation Security Administration
aviation security
For necessary expenses of the Transportation Security
Administration related to providing civil aviation security
services pursuant to the Aviation and Transportation Security
Act (Public Law 107 71; 115 Stat. 597; 49 U.S.C. 40101 note),
$5,041,230,000, to remain available until September 30, 2014,
of which not to exceed $8,500 shall be for official reception
and representation expenses: Provided, That of the total
amount made available under this heading, not to exceed
$3,969,569,000 shall be for screening operations, of which
$409,000,000 shall be available for explosives detection
systems; $120,239,000 shall be for checkpoint support; and
not to exceed $1,071,661,000 shall be for aviation security
direction and enforcement: Provided further, That of the
amount made available in the preceding proviso for explosives
detection systems, $100,000,000 shall be available for the
purchase and installation of these systems, of which not less
than 9 percent shall be available for the purchase and
installation of certified explosives detection systems at
medium- and small-sized airports: Provided further, That any
award to deploy explosives detection systems shall be based
on risk, the airport's current reliance on other screening
solutions, lobby congestion resulting in increased security
concerns, high injury rates, airport readiness, and increased
cost effectiveness: Provided further, That security service
fees authorized under section 44940 of title 49, United
States Code, shall be credited to this appropriation as
offsetting collections and shall be available only for
aviation security: Provided further, That the sum
appropriated under this heading from the general fund shall
be reduced on a dollar-for-dollar basis as such offsetting
collections are received during fiscal year 2013 so as to
result in a final fiscal year appropriation from the general
fund estimated at not more than $2,971,230,000: Provided
further, That any security service fees collected in excess
of the amount made available under this heading shall become
available during fiscal year 2014: Provided further, That
notwithstanding section 44923 of title 49, United States
Code, for fiscal year 2013, any funds in the Aviation
Security Capital Fund established by section 44923(h) of
title 49, United States Code, may be used for the procurement
and installation of explosives detection systems or for the
issuance of other transaction agreements for the purpose of
funding projects described in section 44923(a) of such title:
Provided further, That none of the funds made available in
this Act may be used for any recruiting or hiring of
personnel into the Transportation Security Administration
that would cause the agency to exceed a staffing level of
46,000 full-time equivalent screeners: Provided further, That
the preceding proviso shall not apply to personnel hired as
part-time employees: Provided further, That not later than 90
days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary
of Homeland Security shall submit to the Committees on
Appropriations of the Senate and the House of Representatives
a detailed report on--
(1) the Department of Homeland Security efforts and
resources being devoted to develop more advanced integrated
passenger screening technologies for the most effective
security of passengers and baggage at the lowest possible
operating and acquisition costs;
(2) how the Transportation Security Administration is
deploying its existing passenger and baggage screener
workforce in the most cost effective manner; and
(3) labor savings from the deployment of improved
technologies for passenger and baggage screening and how
those savings are being used to offset security costs or
reinvested to address security vulnerabilities:
Provided further, That Members of the United States House of
Representatives and United States Senate, including the
leadership; the heads of Federal agencies and commissions,
including the Secretary, Deputy Secretary, Under Secretaries,
and Assistant Secretaries of the Department of Homeland
Security; the United States Attorney General, Deputy Attorney
General, Assistant Attorneys General, and the United States
Attorneys; and senior members of the Executive Office of the
President, including the Director of the Office of Management
and Budget, shall not be exempt from Federal passenger and
baggage screening.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Broun of Georgia
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Page 15, line 23, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced
to $0)''.
Page 99, line 17, after the dollar amount insert
``(increased by $5,041,230,000)''.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would completely
eliminate funding for the Transportation Security Administration, TSA,
and transfer that money into the deficit reduction account, saving
taxpayers more than $5 billion.
The fact of the matter is very simple: TSA is not doing the job that
it was created to do 10 years ago.
Originally, Congress intended for TSA to be an efficient, cutting-
edge, intelligence-based agency responsible for protecting our airports
and keeping passengers safe and secure. Today it has grown into one of
the largest bureaucracies, bigger than the Departments of Labor,
Energy, Education, Housing and Urban Development, and State all
combined--larger than all of those. They've had a 400 percent increase
in staff over the past 10 years. A good portion of that has gone to
headquarter employees making six figures on average.
What's worse is that American passengers aren't getting a good return
on the nearly $60 billion that they've invested and spent on TSA.
Reports indicate that more than 25,000 security
[[Page H3547]]
breaches have occurred at U.S. airports since 2001. Plus, we have
evidence today that terrorists that are on the no-fly list have been
still able to fly successfully aboard U.S. aircraft.
On top of this startling information, we've all seen the recent news
headlines detailing the lack of professionalism, unreliable training,
and even alleged corruption in the TSA ranks. Just about the only thing
that TSA is good at is using its extensive power to violate American
travelers' civil liberties. The stories range from embarrassing near-
strip searches all the way to agents being hired without background
checks. This is all evidence that TSA has veered dangerously off course
from what it was intended to do.
I've repeatedly asked that we use our resources to focus on
intelligence and technologies that can be more effective when it comes
to catching terrorists--instead of patting down grandmas and children.
I've demanded Administrator Pistole's resignation, and I've called for
the privatization of TSA, along with some of my other colleagues here
in the House. But we have still yet to see the necessary changes made
to the TSA personnel or procedures that will ensure the safety and
security of our airports and passengers.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment to zero out funding for TSA forces
Congress and the Department of Homeland Security to start all over
again, start from scratch on a better, more effective, more progressive
system for protecting our airlines without violating the person and
liberties of our citizens.
I urge my colleagues to support my amendment, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
Mr. CARTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. CARTER. Mr. Chairman, again, it's never been a solution for
failed enforcement to fire all the police officers and get rid of them
and then hope it will all work out. Without speaking to the criticisms
of the gentleman, the terrorist threat is still real. This is an agency
that has that duty and responsibility. To zero them out and lay them
all off would not be productive in stopping criminal activity in the
United States, and for that reason I oppose the gentleman's amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I, too, rise to oppose
this amendment.
Aviation continues to be the main focus for terrorists seeking to do
us harm. I would think we all realize that. This amendment would
prohibit all of the screening, all of the scanning, all of the
protective measures that we have undertaken for our protection. It's
indiscriminate, it's excessive, and it should be rejected.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Broun).
The amendment was rejected.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Surface Transportation Security
For necessary expenses of the Transportation Security
Administration related to surface transportation security
activities, $126,418,000, to remain available until September
30, 2014.
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman and my colleagues, I had intended to offer an
amendment at this stage in the proceedings, but I'm not going to do it
at this time because I have received some cooperation from the
Appropriations Committee, and I want to thank Chairman Aderholt and the
staff and others for including in this DHS bill some reforms of TSA
that are long overdue.
The gentleman from Georgia just mentioned that this is an agency that
is out of control, and it is important that we as Members of Congress
try to get agencies that spin out of control under control, and that's,
I think, what we're attempting to do here.
Let me say about this process, this is an incredible process and it's
an open process, and so I thank our side of the aisle for allowing
Members to have these opportunities.
{time} 2110
We were closed off from many opportunities in the past to make these
changes that are necessary in reforming agencies like TSA.
Well, let me say what they have done in this bill that is important,
and one reason I'm going to support the bill--they need to go a lot
further than they've gone, but one reason I'm going to support the bill
is they have taken some opportunity to cut some of the administrative
overhead.
Listen to this: TSA has grown to 65,000 employees. Of that, there are
14,000 administrative personnel--4,000 in Washington, D.C., not very
far from us, 4,000 making on average--and they've got the statistics
right here, the staff will give them to you--$104,000 on average per
administrative person. Ten thousand administrative people out in the
field. So this bill does reduce--I believe it's by about $60 million--
some of that administrative overhead. That's only the beginning, but at
least it's a beginning.
This bill also cuts out programs that have failed, like the Behavior
Detection Program. It reduces some of the spending there--another
program that doesn't work that we need to cut funds on. It does
redirect some money. And I must congratulate the committee for
restoring the flight deck officer cuts.
The Obama administration proposed disarming our pilots, 50 percent of
that program--volunteer pilots who pay their own way to learn how to
arm themselves to protect their aircraft, themselves, and their
passengers; one of the most cost-effective programs we had. I guess
that would be the way that the Obama administration goes. You want to
keep the bureaucracy but do away with cost-effective programs. But
thank you, committee members and staff, for restoring that.
So almost every proposal we made from the Transportation Committee
for cuts and reassignment of funds have been made here--not to the
degree I would like, but at least I will say it's a beginning.
Finally, let me say that we've got to do something to further get
this agency under control. Last week, we learned a little bit about a
meltdown in security at one of my Florida airports, Fort Myers. We got
some information because we get tips all the time. Everybody tells us
what's going on at TSA--except the TSA bureaucrats that are trying to
protect their positions. You know, they waited until Friday afternoon
and released a one-paragraph statement pooh-poohing what had taken
place at Fort Myers and keeping our committee in the dark, trying to
keep it from the public and the press and from Congress.
I took the opportunity to let the press and the public know what I
knew--which wasn't much. And thank goodness for a free and open press
because they went after TSA. We found out Monday morning, along with
everyone else, what they had done in not providing accurate
information, not telling us it was one of the most serious of meltdowns
of TSA personnel. And we've had them before in Newark and Charlotte,
we've had them in New York City and others. So this is an agency that's
out of control. We need to cut the bureaucracy, as they've begun to do
here. We need to realign where the moneys need to be spent.
I have no problem with spending money for security and making certain
that terrorists don't take advantage of our most vulnerable Achilles'
heel in the transportation network, and for the American public, that's
aviation. We've seen them go after it again and again. But you need to
spend the money where it makes the most sense and does the most as far
as true aviation security. Expensive aviation theater security is not
the way we're going to go.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. DUNCAN of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. DUNCAN of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, I had intended to or had
considered offering an amendment again this year concerning the Federal
Air Marshal Program. I offered an amendment last year to simply keep
[[Page H3548]]
the Federal air marshals at level funding. They were approaching almost
$1 billion spending each year, and they've been given 10 straight years
of increases.
This program, though, was called to my attention by an article that I
read in USA Today in which they said that more air marshals had been
arrested than had been arrests made by air marshals, and that they were
spending approximately $200 million per arrest each year. I became
convinced, because of that report and other reports, that this really
was probably one of the most useless, needless agencies in the entire
Federal Government. But I offered the amendment knowing that it's
almost impossible to cut a law enforcement agency or an agency that can
claim it's doing something toward aviation safety and security. So my
amendment received a lot more votes than I expected but did not pass.
But at that time, Chairman Rogers and Ranking Member Price assured me
that they would look a little more closely at this program, and I feel
that they have done so. So I rise to commend them and tell them that I
appreciate the fact that they have taken an $86.5 million cut to this
program. That is, frankly, more than I had planned to cut in the
amendment that I offered last year.
I want to say that I am a really strong supporter of law
enforcement--always have been and always will be--but when you take
scarce law enforcement dollars that are especially needed for our local
law enforcement people, who are the ones out there fighting the real
crime that needs to be fought, then you're depriving the agencies that
really need it when you give it to an agency like the Federal Air
Marshal Program that is doing almost no good whatsoever for this
country. Almost every Member in this Congress flies a couple of times
each week; thus, we're doing the same thing that these Federal air
marshals are doing. It's one of the softest, easiest jobs in the
Federal Government just to fly back and forth, back and forth, back and
forth.
So I want to say that I appreciate the fact that Chairman Rogers and
Ranking Member Price have agreed to this $86.5 million cut. I wish it
was a lot more, and I still think this agency needs to be eliminated,
but I do appreciate the progress that's being made thus far. So I will
not offer an amendment this year because I think at least we've started
in the right direction on this program.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Cravaack
Mr. CRAVAACK. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to consider my
amendment at this point in the reading.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Minnesota?
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Page 15, line 23, after the dollar amount insert
``(increased by $10,000,000) (reduced by $10,000,000)''.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Minnesota is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. CRAVAACK. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment to the
fiscal year 2013 Homeland Security appropriations bill to increase the
funding for the Federal Flight Deck Officer--or the FFDO--program. This
amendment is fully offset, costing the taxpayers no additional money.
This amendment is also supported by the National Rifle Association.
Mr. Chairman, 9/11 woke us up. The reality is that we live in a very
dangerous world with varied and morphing threats. While screening can
reduce some threats, terrorists are constantly probing and exploiting
our weaknesses. FFDOs, along with Federal air marshals, act as a chief
deterrent, but ultimately the last line of defense is the Federal
flight deck officer.
Reinforced doors are an important step to slow an attacker and buy
time, but ultimately the armed pilot is the last line of defense in
someone taking over the aircraft to be used as a weapon of mass
destruction. Let me say that again. The last line of defense is not the
secured cockpit door, but the armed pilot behind it.
According to estimates by the Air Line Pilots Association, Federal
flight deck officers only cost $15 per flight segment. Currently, FFDOs
defend over 100,000 flight segments per month and 1.5 million flight
segments per year. Thousands of Federal flight deck officers have been
certified for the program, despite a budget that hasn't grown since
this program's inception. Federal flight deck officers pay many of the
expenses out of their own pockets for the privilege and the honor to
defend our country from terrorist attack.
This year, the Obama administration proposed to half the program,
effectively shutting it down. With their proposal of only $12.5 million
in funding, the program would not be able to recertify all of the
pilots in the program or even maintain its current management
structure, and it certainly would not be able to train any new Federal
flight deck officers.
I'm thankful that Chairman Aderholt and Ranking Member Price have
restored the funding levels to the same as they were last year at $25.5
million, but level funding means that over a thousand pilots who have
expressed interest in becoming FFDOs cannot be vetted or trained. Also,
at this funding level, the program could only train a limited number of
pilots who have been vetted and would take almost 10 years to process
the current backlog, to say nothing of future pilots who may volunteer
for the program.
{time} 2120
With the coming mandatory retirement of many pilots at the age 65 and
with the combination of fewer new FFDOs coming online, the program will
not provide the same level of deterrence.
I'd like to reiterate that the increased funding for the program will
not come at a greater expense to taxpayers, and the increase in this
amendment of $10 million is fully offset.
For only $15 per flight, Federal flight deck officers provide the
most cost-effective aviation security program in existence. As a former
Federal flight deck officer myself, I can personally testify about the
sacrifices and expenses pilots undergo to participate in the program.
They actually pay to protect and defend the Nation.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. CARTER. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CRAVAACK. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. CARTER. We accept the amendment.
Mr. CRAVAACK. I thank the gentleman, and I yield back the balance of
my time.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to
this amendment. It increases funding for the Federal Flight Deck
Officers program. But the bill already greatly increases this program
above the request, 50 percent above the request, returning the program
to its 2012 level.
And it's not a harmless offset. On the contrary, aviation management
is already cut by $20 million in this bill, and we can ill afford to
cut it further. So this is an unnecessary and unwise trade-off, and I
urge rejection of the amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan. Mr. Chair, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. CRAVAACK. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, over 700 pilots have been vetted and not trained; 1,500
pilots have applied for the program but have not yet been vetted. It
costs about $6,000 per pilot to put them through the backlog for check
and training. At current funding at $25.5 million, they're only able to
bring about 250 new pilots per year on board, which leaves them in less
than a status quo status, probably declining once the age of 65 hits
many of the pilots in backlog.
Funding is the bottleneck, rather than the training center capacity.
$10 million would not clear the backlog that currently exists. It would
be a good start, though.
The proposal to reduce the funding for screening and maintenance and
screener PC&B by $5 million each, we
[[Page H3549]]
have strong approval of many organizations for this program, including
the Airline Pilots Association.
Mr. Chairman, this is one of the most valuable programs and
deterrents that is in the air at the current time. It costs again, once
again, $15 per flight to protect the American traveling public. To me,
Mr. Chairman, this is a no-brainer.
Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan. I would like to commend my friend, my
freshman colleague from Minnesota, for offering this amendment, and
commend him for his service to our country in the military and then
what he's been doing. I think it's a valuable lesson, having been there
in that cockpit yourself, dealing with this program. And I support this
amendment as well.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Cravaack).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment Offered by Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the
desk, and I would ask unanimous consent that my amendment be considered
out of order.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Texas?
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Page 15, line 23, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $61,000,000)''.
Page 20, line 6, after the dollar amount, inser
``(increased by $50,000,000)''.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank the chairman of the subcommittee
and the ranking member for their courtesies.
I am the ranking member on the Transportation Security Committee and
have had the privilege of serving as the chairperson of that committee.
I now work with the chairperson, and I appreciate the opportunity to
speak to the issues of our committee as relates to the present
appropriations.
I think we can all be reminded of a number of incidents, starting
with 9/11 and the attack on the Nation's aviation and the Nation's
soul. During that time, we did not have the structure of Federal Air
Marshals that we have today.
We can be reminded of the shoe bomber, the Christmas Day bomber, the
issue of the pilot that caused a disturbance some weeks and months ago.
We know that the idea of aviation security is crucial. In the course of
that, we have developed a very important system called the Federal Air
Marshal system.
If you would query much of the traveling public, whether domestic or
international, they would say yes to more Federal Air Marshals, and I
agree. I've offered amendments and legislation to require more Federal
Air Marshals on international trips and certainly have encouraged the
training and utilization of FAMs on domestic trips.
I have visited their offices. I've sat down and spoken to them. They
are committed and dedicated public servants.
My amendment will restore the Federal Air Marshals, FAMs, budget by
$50 million.
As you're aware, FAMs is an integral program to the homeland security
mission. I believe that this recommendation takes into consideration
the crucial operational challenges FAMs will face as a result of a
reduction.
The FAMs risk-based concept of operations, CONOPS, outlines the two
constraints that impact its optimal allocation of flight coverage:
First, FAMs is, of course, dependent on the number of Federal Air
Marshals available;
Secondly, FAMs' flight coverage is reliant on the mission travel
budget which covers all FAM travel expenses, including hotel and per
diem costs.
With the large cost difference between domestic and international
flight operations, CONOPS must be used to conduct the most optimal
mission allocation that can be maintained within those limitations.
In deciding the FAMS appropriation, the House must take into
consideration FAMS' plan to extend its current hiring freeze in FY
2013, as mandated by the President's budget. It plans to be
cooperative.
With limited employees, if the proposed $50 million reduction were to
be implemented, FAMS' operation would be severely undermined. I would
venture to say they would be shut down to a great extent. The program
would be forced to extend the hiring freeze to include civilian
personnel, implement a furlough of all FAMS personnel for a minimum of
4 days, reduce mission coverage, assess which offices can be shut down,
and consider a reduction in force, or RIF, to strategically reduce
onboard staffing levels. This is not the time to do this in the course
of franchise terrorism.
In addition, FAMS would suffer a significant decline in critical
operational programs, including travel, information technology, and
logistical support. A reduction would be an obstruction to the good
work and progress of this program.
For these reasons, I encourage my colleagues to look closely at the
devastation and the loss of these dollars and ask you to restore the
$50 million to the FAMS budget.
I would ask my colleagues to consider this amendment, and I would ask
that we include or recognize FAMS as an integral part of a homeland
security, Nation security, frontline security, and an important point
and program to consider funding necessary to ensure the security of the
traveling public and the Nation's homeland.
With that, I ask support of the Jackson Lee amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I rise today to offer my amendment to H.R. 5855, Making
Appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security for the Fiscal
Year ending September 2012. My amendment will restore The Federal Air
Marshalls (FAMS) budget by $50 million. As you are aware, FAMS is an
integral program to the homeland security mission. I believe that this
recommendation takes into consideration the crucial operational
challenges FAMS will face as a result as of a reduction.
The FAMS risk-based concept of operations (CONOPS) outlines the two
constraints that impact its optimal allocation of flight coverage.
First, FAMS is of course, dependent on the number of Federal Air
Marshals available. Secondly, FAMS flight coverage is reliant on the
mission travel budget which covers all FAM travel expenses including
hotel and per diem costs. With the large cost difference between
domestic and international flight missions, CONOPS must be utilized to
conduct the most optimal mission allocation that can be maintained
within these limitations.
In deciding the FAMS appropriation, the House must take into
consideration FAMS' plan to extend its current hiring freeze into FY
2013 as mandated by the President's Budget. With limited employees, if
the proposed $50 million reduction were to be implemented, FAMS'
operations would be severely undermined.
The program would be forced to extend the hiring freeze to include
civilian personnel, implement a furlough of all FAMS personnel for a
minimum of four days, reduce mission coverage, assess which offices can
be shut down and consider a reduction in force (RIF) to strategically
reduce on-board staffing levels. In addition, FAMS would suffer a
significant decline in critical operational programs including travel,
information technology and logistical support. A reduction would be an
obstruction to the good work and progress of this program. For these
reasons, I urge my colleagues to restore the $50 million to the FAMS
budget.
Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, I rise to reluctantly oppose the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Alabama is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. ADERHOLT. While the Federal Air Marshals Service, known as FAMS,
does and certainly will continue to provide an additional layer in
aviation security, the committee saw an opportunity in this bill to
strike a balance and achieve some savings in a program that, before
this year, had been growing rapidly.
FAMS deployment surged following the 9/11 attacks and again following
the 2009 Christmas Day bombing attempts. Exactly how they are deployed,
and how many there are cannot be discussed in open session. However, it
is possible to note that many other security measures have been put
into place since both of those events took place.
Intensified screening, new and more capable intelligence, information
sharing, a more secure cockpit, and the expansion of the Federal Flight
Deck Officer program are examples of steps
[[Page H3550]]
taken to secure aviation that reduce the need to rely on FAMS on routes
that do not represent the highest threat potential.
{time} 2130
The bill takes these security improvements into account and focuses
on funding to cover the top priority routes based on threat, whether
domestic or whether international. The bill also fully funds the FFDO
program, which complements FAMs, and in some cases it is the only
security element on board. In addition, the report directs the TSA and
the FAMs to look again at how to include other Federal law enforcement
agents working with them.
This amendment, while I believe it is well-intentioned, would sustain
funding to lower priority flights at the expense of other security
measures that offer more immediate security impacts. The committee
report calls for FAMs to brief the committee within 60 days on its
optimal mix of staffing, scheduling, and recommendations for any
regulatory or legislative actions needed to improve the FAMs operation.
I believe the bill will support a robust and targeted FAMs mission,
and I look forward to moving forward with a more focused and effective
posture in aviation security. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to oppose
this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield to the
gentlelady from Texas for a response.
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank the distinguished ranking member,
and I really thank the chairman for his comments.
I don't want to give a whole historical perspective, but I've
certainly been on the Homeland Security authorizing committee since 9/
11. I am quite familiar with the technologies and various changes in
aviation travel in particular, and we've made great strides. We have
certainly made great strides, but here is my point that I think is
crucial: How long are we going to continue to count on heroic, if you
will, passengers and continue to cite them as great heroes until the
day of some tragic and horrific incident?
We thank the American traveling public for what it has done to thwart
a number of incidences, some of which, obviously, are not terrorist-
directed but which do impact on the traveling public's security while
airborne.
Air marshals are the frontline support and defense in a vessel, if
you will, in an aircraft that, if tampered with airborne, can be a
catastrophe of enormous proportions. Air marshals are, in essence, a
crucial part of the security of this Nation. If we are to literally
obliterate them by the $50 million reduction, you will see a reduction
in mission, what offices will be ultimately shut down, FAMs personnel
being furloughed for a minimum of 4 days, and civilian personnel gone.
I don't deny that we can look to be responsible fiscally and that we
can find ways that will streamline. I happen to believe that $50
million is too drastic a cut and should be restored. So I would ask my
colleagues, in spite of what changes may have been made, that they do
not act superior to that human resource on that aircraft that is
standing in the gap for a dastardly devastating terrorist act or some
other altercation that needs the resources and expertise of the Federal
Air Marshals.
Let me conclude by saying for a very long time I've introduced
legislation to give flight attendants the kind of security training
that would help them in the course of a potential terrorist incident on
the aircraft. We'd hoped that that would have already occurred. I
believe the other front-liners are TSO officers. That flight training
has not yet occurred, so Federal Air Marshals act in the capacity of
that standing in the gap to secure the crew and as well to secure the
traveling public.
Who wants to subject the traveling public, domestic or international,
to that kind of gaping hole of the reduction of cost or dollars that
would ultimately result in this huge reduction of mission, furloughs,
loss of civilians, closed offices?
I think that we need to reconsider, and I would ask my colleagues to
support this amendment of adding back the $50 million reduction that
has taken place.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance
of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas will
be postponed.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Transportation Threat Assessment and Credentialing
For necessary expenses for the development and
implementation of screening programs of the Office of
Transportation Threat Assessment and Credentialing,
$192,424,000, to remain available until September 30, 2014.
Transportation Security Support
For necessary expenses of the Transportation Security
Administration related to transportation security support and
intelligence pursuant to the Aviation and Transportation
Security Act (Public Law 107 71; 115 Stat. 597; 49 U.S.C.
40101 note), $928,663,000, to remain available until
September 30, 2014: Provided, That the Administrator of the
Transportation Security Administration shall submit to the
Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the House of
Representatives detailed expenditure plans for air cargo
security; checkpoint support; and explosives detection
systems refurbishment, procurement, and installations; on an
airport-by-airport basis for fiscal year 2013: Provided
further, That these plans shall be submitted not later than
60 days after the date of enactment of this Act.
Federal Air Marshals
For necessary expenses of the Federal Air Marshals,
$879,600,000: Provided, That the Director, Federal Air
Marshal Service, shall submit to the Committees on
Appropriations of the Senate and the House of Representatives
not later than 90 days after the enactment of this Act a
detailed, classified expenditure and staffing plan for
ensuring optimal coverage of high risk flights.
United States Coast Guard
operating expenses
For necessary expenses for the operation and maintenance of
the Coast Guard, not otherwise provided for; purchase or
lease of not to exceed 25 passenger motor vehicles, which
shall be for replacement only; purchase or lease of small
boats for contingent and emergent requirements (at a unit
cost of no more than $700,000) and repairs and service-life
replacements, not to exceed a total of $31,000,000; purchase
or lease of boats necessary for overseas deployments and
activities; minor shore construction projects not exceeding
$1,000,000 in total cost at any location; payments pursuant
to section 156 of Public Law 97 377 (42 U.S.C. 402 note; 96
Stat. 1920); and recreation and welfare; $6,759,627,000; of
which $340,000,000 shall be for defense-related activities;
of which $24,500,000 shall be derived from the Oil Spill
Liability Trust Fund to carry out the purposes of section
1012(a)(5) of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (33 U.S.C.
2712(a)(5)); and of which not to exceed $17,000 shall be for
official reception and representation expenses: Provided,
That none of the funds made available by this Act shall be
for expenses incurred for recreational vessels under section
12114 of title 46, United States Code, except to the extent
fees are collected from owners of yachts and credited to this
appropriation: Provided further, That the Coast Guard shall
comply with the requirements of section 527 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (10 U.S.C.
4331 note) with respect to the Coast Guard Academy: Provided
further, That of the funds provided under this heading,
$75,000,000 shall be withheld from obligation for Coast Guard
Headquarters Directorates until a revised future-years
capital investment plan for fiscal years 2014 through 2018,
as specified under the heading Coast Guard ``Acquisition,
Construction, and Improvements'' of this Act, is submitted to
the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the House
of Representatives.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Dold
Mr. DOLD. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Page 21, line 1, after the first dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $5,200,000)''.
Page 22, line 14, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $5,200,000)''.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. DOLD. I certainly want to thank the chairman and the ranking
member for their leadership on this legislation, and I want to thank
the staff for working with me on this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, my amendment increases the Coast Guard operating
expenses by $5.2 million to address search
[[Page H3551]]
and rescue capabilities in the Great Lakes Region. Search and rescue is
one of the Coast Guard's oldest missions, dating back to the U.S.
Revenue Cutter Service that was founded in 1790.
Today, Coast Guard search and rescue response involves multimission
stations, cutters, aircraft, and boats linked by communication
networks. It also includes over 5,000 commercial vessels that provide a
voluntary global response force. Using these assets in the past year,
the Coast Guard has responded to over 6,468 search and rescue cases,
assisting over 10,000 people and saving over 1,400 lives. Just last
week, Mr. Chairman, two young women were saved by the Coast Guard's air
assets on Lake Michigan.
Unlike the President's budget, which makes dramatic cuts to critical
search and rescue operations, this amendment would increase our
Nation's search and rescue capabilities by adding funding for needed
assets, assets vital to lifesaving capabilities.
Mr. Chairman, these investments build on previous investments that
specifically increase capability in the Great Lakes to include the
installation of Rescue 21 this past December. Rescue 21 is now standing
watch on over 42,000 miles of coastline, improving the Coast Guard's
ability to assist mariners in distress and saving lives and property.
Further, by the end of this fiscal year, the Coast Guard will have
delivered the last of three new long-range response boats to the Great
Lakes area, which will enhance response capabilities.
Mr. Chairman, the Great Lakes is one of the most popular recreation
areas in our country, and the Coast Guard is a vital part of making it
safe for thousands each year. We can't stand by and allow the
administration to eliminate lifesaving efforts on our Great Lakes, so I
certainly urge support for this amendment.
I do want to yield the remaining time I have to my good friend who
has been instrumental in assisting me on this amendment, the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Huizenga).
Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan. I thank my good friend from Illinois for
yielding.
Mr. Chairman, we not only serve on the Financial Services Committee
together, we also share a Great Lake.
Michigan is uniquely situated, literally bordering all five of the
Great Lakes--Lake Superior, Lake Huron, Lake Michigan, Lake Saint
Clair, Lake Ontario. Four of those are actually international boundary
waters with thousands of miles of shoreline that are on there, and
there are dozens of ports throughout the Great Lakes. I might add that
they are aptly served by the District Nine commander out of Cleveland
as he is juggling all of the various assets that the Coast Guard has.
{time} 2140
But I do reject the plans by this administration to decrease the
search and rescue capabilities in the Great Lakes. This vital amendment
restores funding in order to maintain a level of capability that has
been present in the Great Lakes for many years, and it has been much
needed, Mr. Chairman.
As the gentleman noted, these funds, combined with offsets in this
bill, address shortfalls that this administration has actually
advocated for. So Coast Guard search and rescue in all of the Great
Lakes cannot be shortchanged. As we see in example after example,
whether it be by boat or by helicopter in Lake Superior, Lake Michigan,
Lake Huron, Lake St. Clair, Lake Ontario, some of the busiest boating
traffic--recreational, as well as commercial traffic--that we see
anywhere in the world concentrated in that area.
I urge a ``yes'' vote on this amendment.
Mr. DOLD. I thank the gentleman for his help.
I do urge my colleagues to support this amendment. It is commonsense
legislation. We cannot afford to have search and rescue capabilities be
diminished. As we look at the number of recreational boaters, it's a
vital part of making sure that we're saving lives in the Great Lake's
region.
Mr. ADERHOLT. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DOLD. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.
Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentlemen from
Illinois and from Michigan for their commitment for search and rescue,
and we would gladly accept their amendment.
Mr. DOLD. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Dold).
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. At this time, I would like to engage the
distinguished chairman in a colloquy regarding the Polar Sea, the Coast
Guard's second heavy icebreaker. It has been decommissioned and will
soon be put in dry dock to prepare it for scrapping. However, I believe
that before the resale of the Polar Sea is significantly reduced by
removing its propellers and shafts that the Coast Guard must consider
another option.
To date, the Coast Guard has not yet officially surveyed the private
sector for interest in the Polar Sea in its current condition. Private
sector interest in the Polar Sea may increase after the summer's Arctic
drilling season, when permitted drilling is expected to be shortened
due to heavier than usual ice.
My good friend from Washington (Mr. Dicks) and I are offering this
colloquy to delay the scrapping. Our goal is to specifically instruct
the Coast Guard to provide a survey of whether or not there is a better
use for this vessel.
I was prepared to offer an amendment today that would direct the
Coast Guard to report back to Congress on the condition of the Polar
Sea, the costs associated with reactivating the vessel for service, and
the interest of private or public entities in purchasing and operating
the Polar Sea.
This amendment would have prevented the Coast Guard from moving any
major equipment or systems from the Polar Sea until the Coast Guard
submitted its report to Congress. Unfortunately, this amendment is
subject to a point of order, but I would ask the chairman for his
support and commitment to work with me and Mr. Dicks on this important
issue as we pursue an alternative legislative fix in the Transportation
Committee. Time is of the essence.
Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I yield to my good friend from Washington.
Mr. DICKS. I thank my good friend from Alaska for yielding, and I
thank the gentleman for raising this important issue.
The dramatic reduction in the Arctic sea ice that is happening at the
North Pole is leading to substantial growth in activity in the Arctic
region.
The Coast Guard in the High Latitude Study determined that it needs a
minimum of three heavy and three medium icebreakers to meet its
statutory mission. This bill includes funding to start the design phase
of a new heavy icebreaker; however, it will not enter service until
2020 at the earliest. Until then, there will be only one heavy
icebreaker, the Polar Star, and one medium icebreaker in operation.
This is clearly not enough for the Coast Guard to accomplish its
mission. And given the age of the Polar Star, which entered service in
the 1970s, the possibility of a breakdown or extended maintenance
period is significant, which would leave us without any serviceable
heavy icebreaker at all.
As my friend has noted, the Polar Sea, the Coast Guard's second heavy
icebreaker, has been decommissioned and is awaiting the final orders to
scrap it. Given our rapidly growing need in the polar region, I worry
that the Coast Guard is not considering other options for the Polar
Sea.
Personally, I think a compelling case can be made for directing the
Coast Guard to make the investment and put it back into service. But,
at the very least, the Coast Guard needs to take time to review
alternatives. In my judgment, it would be a shame to scrap such a
potentially useful asset when there is so much evidence before us that
we need more immediate icebreaking capacity.
My friend from Alaska has noted that he and I had been considering
working on language that would direct the Coast Guard to consider
alternatives but that such an amendment would be subject to a point of
order.
I am glad the gentleman will be able to work on the issue on a bill
pending
[[Page H3552]]
before the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. I want to
indicate to him that I share his commitment to ensuring that the
Nation's icebreaking needs are met and will continue to work with him
to ensure that the Coast Guard considers all available options for the
Polar Sea.
Mr. ADERHOLT. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.
Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, I understand the concerns of my
colleagues from the State of Washington and from the State of Alaska.
It is important to keep the vessel intact. My subcommittee agrees with
this important goal.
I urge the Coast Guard to work with the authorizing committee to
accomplish this assessment.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I am thankful for the understanding of the
chairman and the ranking member of the full committee. This is
important to our Nation and especially Alaska, and I do appreciate your
consideration.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Gardner
Mr. GARDNER. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Page 21, line 24, insert before the period at the end the
following:
: Provided further, That of the funds made available under
this heading, such sums as may be necessary shall be
available to the Secretary of Homeland Security to comply
with the Coast Guard's energy management requirements under
section 543(f)(7) of the National Energy Conservation Policy
Act (42 U.S.C. 8253(f)(7))
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. GARDNER. Mr. Chairman, this amendment which I'm offering along
with my colleague, Mr. Welch from Vermont, addresses an important issue
relating to Coast Guard facilities.
We've offered this same amendment to the two other appropriations
bills this week, and they've passed by a voice vote. And while my
colleague from Vermont is not here this evening, I want to commend him
for his hard work on these amendments, and energy savings performance
contracts in general.
I think the passage of these amendments sends a clear signal that
Congress understands the importance of saving energy and, therefore,
saving costs for the Federal Government.
This amendment does one simple thing. It says that the Coast Guard
should provide an inventory of ways to improve efficiencies in their
buildings, which is already a directive under current law.
Under current law, energy savings performance contracts, or ESPCs,
are provided as a mechanism for private companies to come into Federal
buildings and make energy efficiency upgrades. ESPCs result in savings
for the Federal Government and create well-paying private sector jobs
at no cost to taxpayers. It creates a win-win situation of reducing
debt and creating jobs. The private sector company must guarantee the
project improvements will produce energy savings sufficient to pay for
the project.
In this fiscal climate, there is no reason we shouldn't be helping
the Federal buildings find ways to save money and upgrade Federal
buildings with cleaner and more efficient facilities.
I urge adoption of this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Alabama is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, we accept the gentleman from Colorado's
amendment, and we appreciate him bringing this to the subcommittee's
attention.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Gardner).
The amendment was agreed to.
{time} 2150
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
environmental compliance and restoration
For necessary expenses to carry out the environmental
compliance and restoration functions of the Coast Guard under
chapter 19 of title 14, United States Code, $12,151,000, to
remain available until September 30, 2017.
reserve training
For necessary expenses of the Coast Guard Reserve, as
authorized by law; operations and maintenance of the Coast
Guard reserve program; personnel and training costs; and
equipment and services; $115,528,000.
automation modernization
For expenses of the Coast Guard automated systems,
$50,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 2015.
acquisition, construction, and improvements
For necessary expenses of acquisition, construction,
renovation, and improvement of aids to navigation, shore
facilities, vessels, and aircraft, including equipment
related thereto; and maintenance, rehabilitation, lease, and
operation of facilities and equipment; as authorized by law;
$1,428,593,000, of which $20,000,000 shall be derived from
the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund to carry out the purposes
of section 1012(a)(5) of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (33
U.S.C. 2712(a)(5)); of which $938,000,000 shall be available
until September 30, 2017, to acquire, effect major repairs
to, renovate, or improve vessels, small boats, and related
equipment; of which $204,500,000 shall be available until
September 30, 2017, to acquire, effect major repairs to,
renovate, or improve aircraft or increase aviation
capability; of which $59,000,000 shall be available until
September 30, 2017, for other acquisition programs; of which
$109,911,000 shall be available until September 30, 2017, for
shore facilities and aids to navigation, including waterfront
facilities at Navy installations used by the Coast Guard; of
which $117,182,000 shall be available for personnel
compensation and benefits and related costs: Provided, That
of the funds provided under this heading, $66,000,000 shall
be immediately apportioned for contract for long lead-time
materials, components, and designs for the seventh National
Security Cutter notwithstanding the availability of funds for
production costs or post-production costs: Provided further,
That $10,000,000 shall be available for infrastructure
construction, to include design, engineering, and oversight
required to support the continued development of the
Department of Homeland Security consolidated headquarters;
and all projects using this funding, with all related
obligations and expenditures, shall be subject to the
management review, approval, and oversight of the Department
of Homeland Security, Office of the Under Secretary for
Management: Provided further, That the Secretary of Homeland
Security shall submit to the Committees on Appropriations of
the Senate and the House of Representatives, at the time that
the President's budget proposal is submitted pursuant to the
requirements of section 1105(a) of title 31, United States
Code, a future-years capital investment plan for the Coast
Guard that identifies for each requested capital asset--
(1) the proposed appropriations included in that budget;
(2) the total estimated cost of completion, including and
clearly delineating the costs of associated major acquisition
systems infrastructure and transition to operations;
(3) projected funding levels for each fiscal year for the
next 5 fiscal years or until acquisition program baseline or
project completion, whichever is earlier;
(4) an estimated completion date at the projected funding
levels; and
(5) a current acquisition program baseline for each capital
asset, as applicable, that--
(A) includes the total acquisition cost of each asset,
subdivided by fiscal year and including a detailed
description of the purpose of the proposed funding levels for
each fiscal year, including for each fiscal year funds
requested for design, pre-acquisition activities, production,
structural modifications, missionization, post-delivery, and
transition to operations costs;
(B) includes a detailed project schedule through
completion, subdivided by fiscal year, that details--
(i) quantities planned for each fiscal year; and
(ii) major acquisition and project events, including
development of operational requirements, contracting actions,
design reviews, production, delivery, test and evaluation,
and transition to operations, including necessary training,
shore infrastructure, and logistics;
(C) notes and explains any deviations in cost, performance
parameters, schedule, or estimated date of completion from
the original acquisition program baseline and the most recent
baseline approved by the Department of Homeland Security's
Investment Review Board, if applicable;
(D) aligns the acquisition of each asset to mission
requirements by defining existing capabilities of comparable
legacy assets, identifying known capability gaps between such
existing capabilities and stated mission requirements, and
explaining how the acquisition of each asset will address
such known capability gaps;
(E) defines life-cycle costs for each asset and the date of
the estimate on which such costs are based, including all
associated
[[Page H3553]]
costs of major acquisitions systems infrastructure and
transition to operations, delineated by purpose and fiscal
year for the projected service life of the asset;
(F) includes the earned value management system summary
schedule performance index and cost performance index for
each asset, if applicable; and
(G) includes a phase-out and decommissioning schedule
delineated by fiscal year for each existing legacy asset that
each asset is intended to replace or recapitalize:
Provided further, That the Secretary of Homeland Security
shall ensure that amounts specified in the future-years
capital investment plan are consistent, to the maximum extent
practicable, with proposed appropriations necessary to
support the programs, projects, and activities of the Coast
Guard in the President's budget proposal as submitted
pursuant to the requirements of section 1105(a) of title 31,
United States Code, for that fiscal year: Provided further,
That any inconsistencies between the capital investment plan
and proposed appropriations shall be identified and
justified: Provided further, That subsections (a) and (b) of
section 6402 of Public Law 110 28 shall apply with respect to
the amounts made available under this heading.
research, development, test, and evaluation
For necessary expenses for applied scientific research,
development, test, and evaluation; and for maintenance,
rehabilitation, lease, and operation of facilities and
equipment; as authorized by law; $19,690,000, to remain
available until September 30, 2017, of which $500,000 shall
be derived from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund to carry
out the purposes of section 1012(a)(5) of the Oil Pollution
Act of 1990 (33 U.S.C. 2712(a)(5)): Provided, That there may
be credited to and used for the purposes of this
appropriation funds received from State and local
governments, other public authorities, private sources, and
foreign countries for expenses incurred for research,
development, testing, and evaluation.
retired pay
For retired pay, including the payment of obligations
otherwise chargeable to lapsed appropriations for this
purpose, payments under the Retired Serviceman's Family
Protection and Survivor Benefits Plans, payment for career
status bonuses, concurrent receipts and combat-related
special compensation under the National Defense Authorization
Act, and payments for medical care of retired personnel and
their dependents under chapter 55 of title 10, United States
Code, $1,423,000,000 to remain available until expended.
United States Secret Service
salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses of the United States Secret Service,
including purchase of not to exceed 652 vehicles for police-
type use for replacement only; hire of passenger motor
vehicles; purchase of motorcycles made in the United States;
hire of aircraft; services of expert witnesses at such rates
as may be determined by the Director of the Secret Service;
rental of buildings in the District of Columbia, and fencing,
lighting, guard booths, and other facilities on private or
other property not in Government ownership or control, as may
be necessary to perform protective functions; payment of per
diem or subsistence allowances to employees in cases in which
a protective assignment on the actual day or days of the
visit of a protectee requires an employee to work 16 hours
per day or to remain overnight at a post of duty; conduct of
and participation in firearms matches; presentation of
awards; travel of United States Secret Service employees on
protective missions without regard to the limitations on such
expenditures in this or any other Act if approval is obtained
in advance from the Committees on Appropriations of the
Senate and the House of Representatives; research and
development; grants to conduct behavioral research in support
of protective research and operations; and payment in advance
for commercial accommodations as may be necessary to perform
protective functions; $1,556,055,000, of which not to exceed
$21,250 shall be for official reception and representation
expenses; of which not to exceed $100,000 shall be to provide
technical assistance and equipment to foreign law enforcement
organizations in counterfeit investigations; of which
$2,366,000 shall be for forensic and related support of
investigations of missing and exploited children; and of
which $6,000,000 shall be for a grant for activities related
to investigations of missing and exploited children and shall
remain available until September 30, 2014: Provided, That up
to $18,000,000 for protective travel shall remain available
until September 30, 2014: Provided further, That up to
$4,500,000 for National Special Security Events shall remain
available until September 30, 2014: Provided further, That
the United States Secret Service is authorized to obligate
funds in anticipation of reimbursements from Federal agencies
and entities, as defined in section 105 of title 5, United
States Code, for personnel receiving training sponsored by
the James J. Rowley Training Center, except that total
obligations at the end of the fiscal year shall not exceed
total budgetary resources available under this heading at the
end of the fiscal year: Provided further, That none of the
funds made available under this heading shall be available to
compensate any employee for overtime in an annual amount in
excess of $35,000, except that the Secretary of Homeland
Security, or the designee of the Secretary, may waive that
amount as necessary for national security purposes: Provided
further, That none of the funds made available to the United
States Secret Service by this Act or by previous
appropriations Acts may be made available for the protection
of the head of a Federal agency other than the Secretary of
Homeland Security: Provided further, That the Director of the
United States Secret Service may enter into an agreement to
provide such protection on a fully reimbursable basis:
Provided further, That none of the funds made available to
the United States Secret Service by this Act or by previous
appropriations Acts may be obligated for the purpose of
opening a new permanent domestic or overseas office or
location unless the Committees on Appropriations of the
Senate and the House of Representatives are notified 15 days
in advance of such obligation.
acquisition, construction, and improvements
For necessary expenses for acquisition, construction, and
improvement of physical and technological infrastructure,
$56,750,000, of which $4,430,000, to remain available until
September 30, 2017, shall be for acquisition, construction,
improvement, and maintenance of facilities, and of which
$52,320,000, to remain available until September 30, 2015,
shall be for information integration and technology
transformation project execution: Provided, That the Director
of the United States Secret Service shall submit to the
Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the House of
Representatives at the time that the President's budget
proposal for fiscal year 2014 is submitted pursuant to the
requirements of section 1105(a) of title 31, United States
Code, a multi-year investment and management plan for its
Information Integration and Technology Transformation program
that describes funding for the current fiscal year and the
following 3 fiscal years, with associated plans for systems
acquisition and technology deployment.
TITLE III
PROTECTION, PREPAREDNESS, RESPONSE, AND RECOVERY
National Protection and Programs Directorate
management and administration
For salaries and expenses of the Office of the Under
Secretary for the National Protection and Programs
Directorate, support for operations, and information
technology, $45,321,000: Provided, That not to exceed $4,250
shall be for official reception and representation expenses.
infrastructure protection and information security
For necessary expenses for infrastructure protection and
information security programs and activities, as authorized
by title II of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C.
121 et seq.), $1,110,430,000, of which $200,000,000, shall
remain available until September 30, 2014.
federal protective service
The revenues and collections of security fees credited to
this account shall be available until expended for necessary
expenses related to the protection of federally owned and
leased buildings and for the operations of the Federal
Protective Service: Provided, That the Director of the
Federal Protective Service shall include with the submission
of the President's fiscal year 2014 budget a strategic human
capital plan that aligns fee collections to personnel
requirements based on a current threat assessment.
office of biometric identity management
For necessary expenses for the Office of Biometric Identity
Management, as authorized by section 7208 of the Intelligence
Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (8 U.S.C. 1365b),
$191,380,000: Provided, That of the total amount made
available under this heading, $156,486,000 shall remain
available until September 30, 2015: Provided further, That,
subject to section 503 of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland
Security may transfer up to $5,000,000 to U.S. Immigration
and Customs Enforcement to support the transition of the
Arrival and Departure Information System: Provided further,
That amounts transferred pursuant to the preceding proviso
shall remain available until September 30, 2014: Provided
further, That the Secretary shall submit to the Committees on
Appropriations of the Senate and the House of Representatives
not later than 60 days after the date of enactment of this
Act, an expenditure plan for the Office of Biometric Identity
Management: Provided further, That of the total amount made
available under this heading, $25,000,000 may not be
obligated for the Office of Biometric Identity Management
until the Secretary of Homeland Security submits to the
Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the House of
Representatives, at the time that the President's budget
proposal for fiscal year 2014 is submitted pursuant to the
requirements of section 1105(a) of title 31, United States
Code, a multi-year investment and management plan for the
Office of Biometric Identity Management: Provided further,
That such multi-year investment and management plan shall
include, for the current fiscal year and the following 3
fiscal years, for the Office of Biometric Identity Management
program, the following--
(1) the proposed appropriations for each activity tied to
mission requirements and outcomes, program management
capabilities,
[[Page H3554]]
performance levels, and specific capabilities and services to
be delivered, noting any deviations in cost or performance
from the prior fiscal year expenditure or investment and
management plan;
(2) the total estimated cost, projected funding by fiscal
year, and projected timeline of completion for all
enhancements, modernizations, and new capabilities proposed
in such budget and underway, including and clearly
delineating associated efforts and funds requested by other
agencies within the Department of Homeland Security and in
the Federal Government, and detailing any deviations in cost,
performance, schedule, or estimated date of completion
provided in the prior fiscal year expenditure or investment
and management plan; and
(3) a detailed accounting of operations and maintenance,
contractor services, and program costs associated with the
management of identity services.
Office of Health Affairs
For necessary expenses of the Office of Health Affairs,
$132,003,000; of which $27,702,000 is for salaries and
expenses and $85,394,000 is for BioWatch operations:
Provided, That $18,907,000 shall remain available until
September 30, 2014, for biosurveillance, chemical defense,
medical and health planning and coordination, and workforce
health protection: Provided further, That not to exceed
$2,500 shall be for official reception and representation
expenses: Provided further, That the Assistant Secretary for
the Office of Health Affairs shall submit an expenditure plan
for fiscal year 2013 to the Committees on Appropriations of
the Senate and the House of Representatives not later than 45
days after the date of enactment of this Act.
Federal Emergency Management Agency
salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses of the Federal Emergency Management
Agency, $712,565,000, including activities authorized by the
National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4001 et
seq.), the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency
Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.), the Cerro Grande
Fire Assistance Act of 2000 (division C, title I, 114 Stat.
583), the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977 (42 U.S.C.
7701 et seq.), the Defense Production Act of 1950 (50 U.S.C.
App. 2061 et seq.), sections 107 and 303 of the National
Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 404, 405), Reorganization
Plan No. 3 of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App.), the Homeland Security Act
of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 101 et seq.), and the Post-Katrina
Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006 (Public Law 109 295;
120 Stat. 1394): Provided, That not to exceed $2,500 shall be
for official reception and representation expenses: Provided
further, That for purposes of planning, coordination,
execution, and decision making related to mass evacuation
during a disaster, the Governors of the State of West
Virginia and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, or their
designees, shall be incorporated into efforts to integrate
the activities of Federal, State, and local governments in
the National Capital Region, as defined in section 882 of the
Homeland Security Act of 2002: Provided further, That of the
total amount made available under this heading, $27,513,000
shall be for the Urban Search and Rescue Response System, of
which no funds may be used for administrative costs: Provided
further, That, of the total amount made available under this
heading, $22,000,000 shall remain available until September
30, 2014, for capital improvements and other expenses related
to continuity of operations at the Mount Weather Emergency
Operations Center.
automation modernization
For necessary expenses for automated systems of the Federal
Emergency Management Agency, $58,048,000 to remain available
until September 30, 2015.
state and local programs
(including transfer of funds)
For grants, contracts, cooperative agreements, and other
activities, $1,762,589,000, which shall be distributed,
according to threat, vulnerability, and consequence, at the
discretion of the Secretary of Homeland Security based on the
following authorities:
(1) The State Homeland Security Grant Program under section
2004 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 605):
Provided, That notwithstanding subsection (c)(4) of such
section 2004, for fiscal year 2012, the Commonwealth of
Puerto Rico shall make available to local and tribal
governments amounts provided to the Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico under this paragraph in accordance with subsection
(c)(1) of such section 2004.
(2) The Urban Area Security Initiative under section 2003
of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 604).
(3) The Metropolitan Medical Response System under section
635 of the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of
2006 (6 U.S.C. 723).
(4) The Citizen Corps Program.
(5) Public Transportation Security Assistance and Railroad
Security Assistance, under sections 1406 and 1513 of the
Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of
2007 (6 U.S.C. 1135 and 1163), including Amtrak security:
Provided, That such public transportation security assistance
shall be provided directly to public transportation agencies.
(6) Over-the-Road Bus Security Assistance under section
1532 of the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11
Commission Act of 2007 (6 U.S.C. 1182).
(7) Port Security Grants in accordance with section 70107
of title 46, United States Code.
(8) The Driver's License Security Grants Program in
accordance with section 204 of the REAL ID Act of 2005 (49
U.S.C. 30301 note).
(9) The Interoperable Emergency Communications Grant
Program under section 1809 of the Homeland Security Act of
2002 (6 U.S.C. 579).
(10) Emergency Operations Centers under section 614 of the
Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance
Act (42 U.S.C. 5196c).
(11) Buffer Zone Protection Program grants.
(12) Organizations (as described under section 501(c)(3) of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and exempt from tax section
501(a) of such code) determined by the Secretary to be at
high risk of a terrorist attack:
Provided, That of the amount provided under this heading,
$55,000,000 shall be for Operation Stonegarden and no less
than $150,000,000 shall be for areas at the highest threat of
a terrorist attack: Provided further, That $231,681,000 shall
be to sustain current operations for training, exercises,
technical assistance, and other programs, of which
$155,500,000 shall be for training of State, local, and
tribal emergency response providers: Provided further, That
for grants under paragraphs (1) through (12), applications
for grants shall be made available to eligible applicants not
later than 60 days after the date of enactment of this Act,
that eligible applicants shall submit applications not later
than 80 days after the grant announcement, and the
Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency
shall act within 65 days after the receipt of an application:
Provided further, That notwithstanding section 2008(a)(11) of
the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 609(a)(11)), or
any other provision of law, a grantee may use not more than 5
percent of the amount of a grant made available under this
heading for expenses directly related to administration of
the grant: Provided further, That 7.02 percent of the amounts
provided under this heading shall be transferred to the
Federal Emergency Management Agency ``Salaries and Expenses''
account for program administration: Provided further, That
for grants under paragraphs (1) and (2), the installation of
communication towers is not considered construction of a
building or other physical facility: Provided further, That
grantees shall provide reports on their use of funds, as
determined necessary by the Secretary of Homeland Security:
Provided further, That in fiscal year 2013: (a) the Center
for Domestic Preparedness may provide training to emergency
response providers from the Federal Government, foreign
governments, or private entities, if the Center for Domestic
Preparedness is reimbursed for the cost of such training, and
any reimbursement under this subsection shall be credited to
the account from which the expenditure being reimbursed was
made and shall be available, without fiscal year limitation,
for the purposes for which amounts in the account may be
expended; (b) the head of the Center for Domestic
Preparedness shall ensure that any training provided under
(a) does not interfere with the primary mission of the Center
to train state and local emergency response providers; and
(c) subject to (b), nothing in (a) prohibits the Center for
Domestic Preparedness from providing training to employees of
the Federal Emergency Management Agency in existing chemical,
biological, radiological, nuclear, explosives, mass casualty,
and medical surge courses pursuant to section 4103 of title
5, United States Code, without reimbursement for the cost of
such training.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Flake
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk designated
as No. 2.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Page 37, line 18, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $412,908,000)''.
Page 99, line 17, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $412,908,000)''.
Mr. FLAKE (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent
that the reading be dispensed with.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Arizona?
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I object. We do not
have a copy of the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Objection is heard.
The Clerk will continue to report the amendment.
The Clerk continued to read.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Arizona is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. FLAKE. I apologize that my objecting to the reading took longer
than the reading, but we will try to get through this quickly.
This amendment is straightforward and would simply reduce the amount
appropriated for State and local programs in the bill by $412 million,
making the amount available for the Homeland Security grants consistent
with FY 2012 levels. I understand that some
[[Page H3555]]
of these are popular programs, and I'm under no illusions about the
prospect of this amendment.
But I also understand that these programs were cut heavily last year
within the fiscal year 2012 Homeland Security appropriations bill, but
it was reported out of the committee with $1.3 billion cut from the
previous year and a funding level $2.8 billion less than the
President's request.
By comparison, this $412 million cut looks a bit chintzy. There are
good reasons for this. Setting aside the steep financial precipice that
we find ourselves on, and we're still on, there are some problems with
these programs that led to them being cut last year. According to the
House appropriations report from 2012:
``These reductions are due to the persistent lack of quantifiable
metrics that measure the additional capability that our Nation has
gained for the billions of dollars that have been invested'' in these
grant programs.
In other words, we don't have good metrics actually to determine if
this money is being spent well or not.
The report continues:
``Based on the latest estimates, the Department currently has almost
$13 billion in previously appropriated funds that remain unspent dating
back to FY 2005. This level of unexpended balances is unacceptable.''
That's what the report reads.
Mr. Chairman, the House Committee on Appropriations approved this
bill and the report which accompanies it just less than 1 year ago.
When it did, it appropriated only $1 billion for these programs.
While the conference report increased that to $1.34 billion today, we
are preparing to approve a bill that appropriates more than 750,000
more than the House thought appropriate last year.
These programs, I should mention, were heavily criticized last year,
and here we are with this massive increase. What dent has been made in
the $13 billion in unspent funds that existed less than 1 year ago? The
criticisms levied by the House against these programs have been echoed
by GAO as well.
In 2009 GAO found that:
``FEMA's assessments do not provide a means to measure the effective
UASI region's projects that they have had on building regional
preparedness capabilities, which is the goal of the program. Taxpayers
have footed the bill for tens of billions of dollars in grants to
States and localities with no clear way of telling how the money has
improved readiness or national security. In fact, it remains difficult
for any Member of Congress to even know what these funds are being
spent on.''
We've got to do better than this. When we don't get good reports back
as to how the money is being spent, how can we ensure that additional
monies like this are going to be spent in an appropriate manner?
I'm certain that my colleagues want to ensure that money is spent
well. That's why I think we should simply forego spending this
additional amount. That's what this amendment is intended to do. This
amendment would simply reduce the amount appropriated by $412 million,
making it level with 2012 funding levels.
Again, we have got to start cutting spending somewhere, and when we
increase spending on programs like this, where we don't get good
information from the Agencies that spend it as to whether or not it's
doing the good that it was intended to do, then I say this is an area
that we should cut.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the
gentleman from Arizona's amendment.
In fact, he beat me to the microphone because I had intended to
introduce the same amendment that he is presenting to us now.
I would like to say that this amendment of Mr. Flake's will keep
funding the State and local programs that fall under FEMA set at those
2012 levels. It does not affect disaster assistance, only State and
local programs.
Mr. Chairman, our Nation is broke and many Agencies, along with
entire branches of the Federal Government, are experiencing drastic
cutbacks. As it stands, the underlying bill increases funding for State
and local FEMA programs by more than $400 million. While I'm well aware
that FEMA provides necessary support for various grant training
programs, I'm also a firm believer that these would be better regulated
solely by State and local governments, not by the Federal Government.
Therefore, I feel it is more than reasonable to ask that, for right
now, particularly while we are in such a crisis economically as a
Nation, that we simply freeze funding for these programs at the 2012
level.
{time} 2200
I congratulate my friend from Arizona (Mr. Flake) for his amendment
and I heartily support it. I congratulate him on his longstanding
efforts to bring the Federal Government into fiscal sanity. I urge
support of this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to
this amendment. This amendment would decimate the funding for our FEMA
Homeland Security grants. By that I mean the State and local grants on
which our communities depend. I mean the transit and rail grants that
we've heard so much about in this evening's debate; I mean the port
security grants; I mean the UASI grants--the urban area grants that are
risk based and targeted to the areas in this country that are under the
greatest risk; and other programs of smaller size. These programs have
helped keep our communities safe. After all, our first responders are
not at the Federal level. Our first responders are at home. And our
States and our communities are on the frontlines of responding and
preparing to respond, mitigating, and then dealing with disasters--
disasters of terrorist attacks, natural disasters, and other major
emergencies.
This amendment would return to the 2012 funding levels, which were
greatly reduced from previous-year funding levels. In fact, the levels
in 2012 were at an all-time low and were widely decried by our States
and localities. So this year we've begun in this bill to build those
funding levels where they need to be, and this amendment would wipe all
that out in a single stroke.
The author of this amendment has made a great deal of the pace of the
spending on these grant programs. I have to say that the figures cited
tonight are misleading in the sense that these are multiyear programs.
They're often dealing with large construction projects. All of this
money except the money for the current year is obligated. It's not just
sitting there. The money is obligated. Of course, after the projects
are completed, the full amount will be registered as spent.
And so we need to oversee these programs carefully. We need to make
sure that they're being administered in a responsible way. We need to
exercise careful oversight. But the notion that we would come in and
wipe it out with a single amendment the progress we've made in getting
these funds back to a level that will give our communities and States
the support they need, I think, is unthinkable.
I hope this body will reject this amendment.
Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I am happy to yield to the gentleman
from Washington.
Mr. DICKS. I would just like to associate myself with the gentleman's
remarks. I feel these programs are very important and that there have
been major cuts made in the last 2 years, as I understand it, and that
this would just be another major cut on top of this.
To my friend from Georgia, austerity isn't helping England, it isn't
helping France, it isn't helping Greece, and it's not going to help the
United States. We need the recovery here at home. That's what we need--
not mindless cutting and slashing of the budget that will throw people
out of work and not create jobs for the American people.
Austerity has failed. I think it's time for the majority to wake up
and recognize that.
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I would be happy to yield to the
gentleman.
[[Page H3556]]
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. I thank my friend from North Carolina for
yielding.
I would just remark about, Mr. Chairman, my friend from Washington
State's remark. The countries in Europe are failing because they spend
too much money. The government does not make jobs. It's the private
sector that makes jobs. Republicans have passed bill after bill after
bill here in the House that Harry Reid throws in the trash can as soon
as they get over to the Senate.
We've passed bills here that would lower the cost of gasoline and
oil. Natural gas, of course, is very low because of the amount that we
have, and it's gone down because the marketplace works. We need to
develop our God-given resources.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, we are
talking here about State and local grant programs whereby the Federal
Government shares in emergency preparedness and response. It is
virtually without dissent in our communities that this funding is
needed.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. ADERHOLT. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Alabama is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. ADERHOLT. We rise to oppose the amendment as well. We have
concerns about the cuts in funding as well. I want to go on record that
we do have concerns about this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
The amendment was rejected.
Amendment Offered by Ms. Hahn
Ms. HAHN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Page 37, line 18, after the dollar amount insert
``(increased by $75,000,000)''.
Page 55, line 2, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced
by $75,000,000)''.
Page 55, line 4, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced
by $75,000,000)''.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. HAHN. My amendment would increase funding for port security
grants by $75 million.
I came to Congress to really bring the issue of our ports into our
national dialogue and how important they are to our economy, to our
jobs, to our national security. I've been the cofounder, with my friend
Ted Poe, of the Congressional Ports Caucus. As a Representative of a
district that borders one of the largest ports in the country, this
issue is very important to me.
The lessons of 9/11 have taught us that we must continuously be
vigilant in proactively seeking out and preventing our country's most
pressing threats. The Port Security Grant Program helps address these
threats by providing key funding to port areas for enhancing maritime
security.
We have millions of tons of cargo shipments coming into ports across
this country, and they provide viable entry points for terrorists who
seek to use weapons of mass destruction. When people ask me what keeps
me up at night, it's the thought of what could happen at one of our
ports and what that would mean not only to our national economy but to
the global economy. An attack at our Nation's ports could severely
damage our own fragile economy right now and cause a ripple effect
across the global supply chain. This requires us to take proactive
steps and invest in critical detection and response operations and
equipment.
Each year, port security officials attempt to address these many
threats that exist at our Nation's ports by applying for these port
security grants. Unfortunately, the irresponsible cuts to preparing
these grants this last year resulted in huge gaps being left
unaddressed and security officials unable to build and sustain
capabilities needed to prevent, detect, respond to, and recover from a
potential attack.
While I commend the chairman and ranking member's efforts in
bolstering funding for State and local homeland security programs this
year, this amendment will ensure that the ports receive the funding
they need in order to address the lingering gaps in port security of
which there are many.
And even though I understand the intended purpose of the National Bio
and Agro-Defense Facility, the reality is that this facility was
appropriated $75 million even though President did not need or request
these funds.
{time} 2210
Additionally, Department of Homeland Security is still waiting for
the recommended design modifications made by the National Academy of
Sciences and for the administration to review the cost and scope of
this project which isn't anticipated to be completed until 2020. I
think this money could be better spent on providing critical support
for our American ports and inland waterway system which is provided
through this Port Security Grant Program.
I have no doubt that all of us recognize the urgency of this threat
and the importance of having safe and secure maritime facilities in
order to protect our critical borders, moving goods, and our American
citizens. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Alabama is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. ADERHOLT. As I mentioned earlier in the evening, our Nation does
have an immediate need to build up our research capacity into pathogens
that afflict animals and our food chain and, by extension, human
beings. This amendment would put that at risk, and therefore, I would
oppose the amendment.
I now yield to the gentlelady from Kansas to have her speak on this
amendment as well.
Ms. JENKINS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
DHS, under both the Bush and Obama administrations, has made it clear
that a BSL 4 lab is essential to our national security, and building a
new structure to host the National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility is
both responsible and cost effective. Manhattan, Kansas, was selected as
the new site for the NBAF after an exhaustive study by the Bush
administration's DHS, and then reconfirmed by the current
administration's 2012 budget. We need NBAF, and Manhattan is the best
place to build it, a fact that Secretary Napolitano confirmed earlier
this year in a hearing with the Appropriations Committee.
While FEMA's State and local grants are important, increasing them by
eliminating the funding for construction of this lab is simply
irresponsible. Make no mistake about it; if we had a surplus, it might
be nice to increase these grants. But the result of this amendment will
be stopping or delaying construction of the nationally important NBAF
facility and jeopardizing the security of our Nation's food supply.
I urge the body to reject this amendment.
Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, we oppose the amendment, and I yield back
the balance of my time.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I hope we've established
in the course of this discussion tonight that I and our side of the
aisle are strongly in favor of the FEMA grants, and that most certainly
includes the port grants. And so I commend our colleague for calling
our attention to the importance of these port security grants and the
need for more funding. Although in this bill we have begun the way back
in terms of restoring funding for the State and local grants and the
port grants and the rail and transit grants and the UASI high risk area
grants, we're not there yet. And so our colleague has made a
constructive suggestion as to how we might augment this funding.
I do feel obligated, though, to make a comment about the proposed
offset. Our colleague has made some very cogent points about the NBAF
project. I believe that with the funding that's already in the pipeline
and the National Academy of Sciences reviews that are underway, that we
do not need to include money in this year's bill for
[[Page H3557]]
NBAF construction. But this is part of the science and technology
account, and we're going to have later this evening an amendment from
our colleague from New York that will suggest taking the NBAF-
designated funding and restoring it to the science and technology
account. And I have to say that that science and technology account is
very much in need of that funding.
Science and technology research activities have been drastically and
unwisely cut in recent years. They were cut by 60 percent over the past
2 years. There's a $158 million increase in this bill that restores
some of these cuts, but that's taking place against a baseline that was
simply too low to meet the needs of the different homeland security
components and the needs of our Nation.
So in weighing the equities here, as we said earlier, we have one
compelling need and we also have an offset that raises some serious
issues. We will have an occasion later this evening to talk about the
science and technology account and the place of NBAF within that
account.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. YODER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Kansas is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. YODER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Hahn amendment,
which strikes a dagger in our efforts to protect our country, our
homeland security, from threats to our food system, our agriculture
system, and threats to the American people.
As horrific as it is to imagine, reports show that one of our
greatest vulnerabilities is threats to our food supply, to agriculture.
One doesn't have to stretch too far to think how mad cow disease or
some other viral spread could grind our economy to a halt and strike
fear in the hearts of all Americans. This simply cannot happen.
The Hahn amendment, which completely defunds 100 percent of the
National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility in this year's appropriations
bill, would completely set us back, would make us very vulnerable to
threats to our agricultural system from foreign-borne illness and those
terrorists who would seek to injure and strike fear in the hearts of
Americans.
Currently, our country lacks a biosafety level 4 lab needed to keep
our food supply safe. Both Secretary Vilsack and Secretary Napolitano
have stated that this is a priority, and it has bipartisan support
within the administration. Both President Bush and President Obama have
supported it. Homeland security is not a partisan issue. We're here
today to do what we can to protect the American people.
I want to commend the chairman and the committee for their work in
ensuring that the National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility was properly
funded and that we can move forward and continue to protect ourselves
from terrorists around the world. I can assure us here today that
terrorists are not sleeping. They are not waiting for this committee to
debate. They're not waiting for conference committees. They're doing
everything they can to strike fear in the hearts of Americans and
disrupt our food supply.
This weakness is something that we can not continue to let go by.
That's why I stand strongly against the Hahn amendment. It's dangerous
for our national security. It's dangerous for the American people, and
I ask the body to reject it this evening.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Hahn).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Ms. HAHN. I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California
will be postponed.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Higgins
Mr. HIGGINS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Page 37, line 18, after the dollar amount insert
``(increased by $58,000,000)''.
Page 55, line 2, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced
by $58,000,000)''.
Page 55, line 4, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced
by $58,000,000)''.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. HIGGINS. Mr. Chairman, my amendment, which is cosponsored by
Representative Stivers, is a bipartisan effort to provide essential
public safety funding to communities across the country that have been
determined to be at high risk of a terrorist threat.
This amendment would provide for an additional $58 million to State
and local grant programs that the Secretary of Homeland Security should
use to increase eligibility for the Urban Areas Security Initiatives to
all communities at high risk, including Buffalo, which I represent. The
intent is to restore the eligibility of these communities to again
participate in the UASI program after being unfortunately cut out in
the past.
The Buffalo-Niagara region was made ineligible without merit. The
area includes four international border crossings and the busiest
passenger crossing along the northern border with Canada, the largest
electricity producer in New York State, and the area was home to the al
Qaeda terrorist cell, the Lackawanna Six. It sits along two Great
Lakes, which contain the largest freshwater supply in the world, and is
within a 500-mile radius of 55 percent of the American population and
62 percent of the Canadian population.
{time} 2220
Buffalo is not alone either. Border communities like El Paso, San
Antonio, and Austin were cut as well. Cities in close proximity to
large ports, refineries, and utilities like Columbus, New Orleans,
Memphis, Nashville, and Oklahoma City were cut as well. Thirty-six
communities in total were cut from all across the country. Now, as we
are only beginning to realize the threats posed by these places, is it
penny-wise and pound-foolish to leave them without the resources to
maintain the capacity gains they developed throughout this program?
Mr. Chairman, the 9/11 Commission made it clear that protecting the
homeland from terrorist threats can and should be a Federal priority.
Yet the Department has hedged on this commitment by excluding too many
vulnerable communities that need to participate in this Department of
Homeland Security program. We know that the threats to these areas are
real, and we should be doing everything possible to provide law
enforcement with the tools to prevent and to respond to them.
Again, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan
amendment because the terrorist threat to these communities is real and
it is dynamic. We should be doing everything that we can to empower
these communities to protect themselves from these threats.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Alabama is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, I would strongly urge my colleagues to
support fiscal discipline as well as critical research and development.
Therefore, with the concerns we have about the gentleman's amendment,
we ask for a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, here we have another
amendment dealing with FEMA grants. And once again, we've come to
appreciate the need for more robust support for urban area grants, for
State and local grants, for transit and port grants, rail grants, the
kind of protective efforts that our communities require. We are
reminded again that those grants have been cut very drastically in
recent years, and in this bill we are only beginning to bring them back
to the levels required.
So I want to commend our colleague for this amendment, which proposes
$58 million, I believe, in increased funding for these grants. This is
money that could be well spent, wisely spent, prudently spent by our
States and local communities.
[[Page H3558]]
Again, I simply call attention to the problems posed by the offset.
Members will have to make their own judgments about this. The money is
taken out of the Science and Technology Directorate at the Department
of Homeland Security, taken out of the labs accounts, as I understand
it, which does include the NBAF item discussed earlier, but isn't
limited to NBAF.
I just remind colleagues that science and technology research
activities have been cut 60 percent over the last 2 years. And so
there's an increase in this bill. We fought our way back in this area,
too, in this bill, restoring some of these cuts against the baseline
that was way too low. And so these science and technology--this is not
free money. This is related just as surely as anything in the bill to
this country's security, and its underinvested in at the moment. So we
do have to weigh competing values here, and certainly in the balance
the science and technology priorities deserve serious consideration.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Higgins).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. HIGGINS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York
will be postponed.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
firefighter assistance grants
For necessary expenses for programs authorized by the
Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act of 1974 (15 U.S.C.
2201 et seq.), $670,000,000, to remain available until
September 30, 2014, of which $335,000,000 shall be available
to carry out section 33 of that Act (15 U.S.C. 2229) and
$335,000,000 shall be available to carry out section 34 of
that Act (15 U.S.C. 2229a): Provided, That in addition to the
purposes otherwise authorized for SAFER grants in section 34
of that Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall make
such grants available for the retention of firefighters:
Provided further, That subsections (a)(1)(A), (a)(1)(B),
(a)(1)(E), (c)(1), (c)(2), and (c)(4)(A) of section 34 of
that Act shall not apply to amounts made available under this
heading: Provided further, That not to exceed 4.7 percent of
the amount available under this heading shall be available
for program administration.
emergency management performance grants
For necessary expenses for emergency management performance
grants, as authorized by the National Flood Insurance Act of
1968 (42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.), the Robert T. Stafford
Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121
et seq.), the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977 (42
U.S.C. 7701 et seq.), and Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978
(5 U.S.C. App.), $350,000,000: Provided, That total
administrative costs shall not exceed 2.7 percent of the
total amount appropriated under this heading.
radiological emergency preparedness program
The aggregate charges assessed during fiscal year 2013, as
authorized in title III of the Departments of Veterans
Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and Independent
Agencies Appropriations Act, 1999 (42 U.S.C. 5196e), shall
not be less than 100 percent of the amounts anticipated by
the Department of Homeland Security necessary for its
radiological emergency preparedness program for the next
fiscal year: Provided, That the methodology for assessment
and collection of fees shall be fair and equitable and shall
reflect costs of providing such services, including
administrative costs of collecting such fees: Provided
further, That fees received under this heading shall be
deposited in this account as offsetting collections and will
become available for authorized purposes on October 1, 2013,
and remain available until September 30, 2015.
united states fire administration
For necessary expenses of the United States Fire
Administration and for other purposes, as authorized by the
Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act of 1974 (15 U.S.C.
2201 et seq.) and the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C.
101 et seq.), $42,460,000.
disaster relief fund
(including transfer of funds)
For necessary expenses in carrying out the Robert T.
Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42
U.S.C. 5121 et seq.), $6,088,926,000, to remain available
until expended, of which $5,481,000,000 is for major
disasters declared pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford
Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121
et seq.): Provided, That the latter amount is designated by
the Congress as being for disaster relief pursuant to section
251(b)(2)(D) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control Act of 1985 (Public Law 99 177, 2 U.S.C.
901(b)(2)(D)): Provided further, That of which $24,000,000
shall be transferred to the Department of Homeland Security
Office of Inspector General for audits and investigations
related to disasters: Provided further, That the
Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency
shall submit an expenditure plan to the Committees on
Appropriations of the Senate and the House of Representatives
detailing the use of the funds made available in this or any
other Act for disaster readiness and support not later than
60 days after the date of enactment of this Act: Provided
further, That the Administrator of the Federal Emergency
Management Agency shall submit to such Committees a quarterly
report detailing obligations against the expenditure plan and
a justification for any changes from the initial plan:
Provided further, That the Administrator of the Federal
Emergency Management Agency shall submit to the Committees on
Appropriations of the Senate and the House of Representatives
the following reports, including a specific description of
the methodology and the source data used in developing such
reports:
(1) an estimate of the following amounts shall be submitted
for the budget year at the time that the President's budget
is submitted each year under section 1105(a) of title 31,
United States Code:
(A) the unobligated balance of funds to be carried over
from the prior fiscal year to the budget year;
(B) the unobligated balance of funds to be carried over
from the budget year to the budget year plus 1;
(C) the amount of obligations for non-catastrophic events
for the budget year;
(D) the amount of obligations for the budget year for
catastrophic events delineated by event and by State;
(E) the total amount that has been previously obligated or
will be required for catastrophic events delineated by event
and by State for all prior years, the current year, the
budget year, the budget year plus 1, the budget year plus 2,
and the budget year plus 3 and beyond;
(F) the amount of previously obligated funds that will be
recovered for the budget year;
(G) the amount that will be required for obligations for
emergencies, as described in section 102(1) of the Robert T.
Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42
U.S.C. 5122(1)), major disasters, as described in section
102(2) of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5122(2)), fire management
assistance grants, as described in section 420 of the Robert
T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42
U.S.C. 5187), surge activities, and disaster readiness and
support activities; and
(H) the amount required for activities not covered under
section 251(b)(2)(D)(iii) of the Balanced Budget and
Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C.
901(b)(2)(D)(iii); Public Law 99 177);
(2) an estimate or actual amounts, if available, of the
following for the current fiscal year shall be submitted not
later than the fifth day of each month beginning with the
first full month after the date of enactment of this Act:
(A) a summary of the amount of appropriations made
available by source, the transfers executed, the previously
allocated funds recovered, and the commitments, allocations,
and obligations made;
(B) a table of disaster relief activity delineated by
month, including--
(i) the beginning and ending balances;
(ii) the total obligations to include amounts obligated for
fire assistance, emergencies, surge, and disaster support
activities;
(iii) the obligations for catastrophic events delineated by
event and by State; and
(iv) the amount of previously obligated funds that are
recovered;
(C) a summary of allocations, obligations, and expenditures
for catastrophic events delineated by event; and
(D) the date on which funds appropriated will be exhausted.
disaster assistance direct loan program account
Subject to section 502 of the Congressional Budget Act of
1974, gross obligations for the principal amount of direct
loans shall not exceed $25,000,000.
flood hazard mapping and risk analysis program
For necessary expenses, including administrative costs,
under section 1360 of the National Flood Insurance Act of
1968 (42 U.S.C. 4101), $92,145,000, and such additional sums
as may be provided by State and local governments or other
political subdivisions for cost-shared mapping activities
under section 1360(f)(2) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 4101(f)(2)),
to remain available until expended.
national flood insurance fund
For activities under the National Flood Insurance Act of
1968 (42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.) and the Flood Disaster
Protection Act of 1973 (42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.),
$171,000,000, which shall remain available until September
30, 2014, shall be derived from offsetting collections
assessed and collected under section 1308(d) of the National
Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4015(d)), and shall be
available for salaries and expenses associated with flood
mitigation and flood insurance operations; and floodplain
management and flood mapping: Provided, That not to exceed
$22,000,000 shall be available for salaries and expenses
associated with flood mitigation and flood insurance
operations; and not less than $149,000,000 shall be available
for flood plain
[[Page H3559]]
management and flood mapping, which shall remain available
until September 30, 2014: Provided further, That any
additional fees collected pursuant to section 1308(d) of the
National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4015(d))
shall be credited as an offsetting collection to this
account, to be available for flood plain management and flood
mapping: Provided further, That in fiscal year 2013, no funds
shall be available from the National Flood Insurance Fund
under section 1310 of that Act (42 U.S.C. 4017) in excess of:
(1) $132,000,000 for operating expenses;
(2) $1,056,602,000 for commissions and taxes of agents;
(3) such sums as are necessary for interest on Treasury
borrowings; and
(4) $120,000,000, which shall remain available until
expended, for flood mitigation actions; for repetitive
insurance claims properties under section 1323 of the
National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4030); and
for flood mitigation assistance under section 1366 of the
National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4104c),
notwithstanding subparagraphs (B) and (C) of subsection
(b)(3) and subsection (f) of section 1366 of the National
Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4104c) and
notwithstanding subsection (a)(7) of section 1310 of the
National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4017):
Provided further, That the amounts collected under section
102 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 (42 U.S.C.
4012a) and section 1366(i) of the National Flood Insurance
Act of 1968 shall be deposited in the National Flood
Insurance Fund to supplement other amounts specified as
available for section 1366 of the National Flood Insurance
Act of 1968, notwithstanding subsection (f)(8) of such
section 102 (42 U.S.C. 4012a(f)(8), and section 1366(i) and
paragraphs (2) and (3) of section 1367(b) of the National
Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4104c(i), 4104d(b)(2)
(3)): Provided further, That total administrative costs shall
not exceed 4 percent of the total appropriation.
national predisaster mitigation fund
For the predisaster mitigation grant program under section
203 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency
Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5133), $14,331,000, to remain
available until expended: Provided, That the total
administrative costs associated with such grants shall not
exceed 3 percent of the total amount made available under
this heading.
emergency food and shelter
To carry out the emergency food and shelter program
pursuant to title III of the McKinney-Vento Homeless
Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11331 et seq.), $120,000,000, to
remain available until expended: Provided, That total
administrative costs shall not exceed 3.5 percent of the
total amount made available under this heading.
TITLE IV
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, TRAINING, AND SERVICES
United States Citizenship and Immigration Services
For necessary expenses for citizenship and immigration
services, $111,924,000 for the E-Verify Program, as described
in section 403(a) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and
Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1324a note),
to assist United States employers with maintaining a legal
workforce: Provided, That, notwithstanding any other
provision of law, funds otherwise made available to United
States Citizenship and Immigration Services may be used to
acquire, operate, equip, and dispose of up to 5 vehicles, for
replacement only, for areas where the Administrator of
General Services does not provide vehicles for lease:
Provided further, That the Director of United States
Citizenship and Immigration Services may authorize employees
who are assigned to those areas to use such vehicles to
travel between the employees' residences and places of
employment.
Federal Law Enforcement Training Center
salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses of the Federal Law Enforcement
Training Center, including materials and support costs of
Federal law enforcement basic training; the purchase of not
to exceed 117 vehicles for police-type use and hire of
passenger motor vehicles; expenses for student athletic and
related activities; the conduct of and participation in
firearms matches and presentation of awards; public awareness
and enhancement of community support of law enforcement
training; room and board for student interns; a flat monthly
reimbursement to employees authorized to use personal mobile
phones for official duties; and services as authorized by
section 3109 of title 5, United States Code; $228,467,000; of
which up to $44,758,000 shall remain available until
September 30, 2014, for materials and support costs of
Federal law enforcement basic training; of which $300,000
shall remain available until expended to be distributed to
Federal law enforcement agencies for expenses incurred
participating in training accreditation; and of which not to
exceed $10,200 shall be for official reception and
representation expenses: Provided, That the Center is
authorized to obligate funds in anticipation of
reimbursements from agencies receiving training sponsored by
the Center, except that total obligations at the end of the
fiscal year shall not exceed total budgetary resources
available at the end of the fiscal year: Provided further,
That the Director of the Federal Law Enforcement Training
Center shall schedule basic or advanced law enforcement
training, or both, at all four training facilities under the
control of the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center to
ensure that such training facilities are operated at the
highest capacity throughout the fiscal year: Provided
further, That the Federal Law Enforcement Training
Accreditation Board, including representatives from the
Federal law enforcement community and non-Federal
accreditation experts involved in law enforcement training,
shall lead the Federal law enforcement training accreditation
process to continue the implementation of measuring and
assessing the quality and effectiveness of Federal law
enforcement training programs, facilities, and instructors.
acquisitions, construction, improvements, and related expenses
For acquisition of necessary additional real property and
facilities, construction, and ongoing maintenance, facility
improvements, and related expenses of the Federal Law
Enforcement Training Center, $27,385,000, to remain available
until September 30, 2017: Provided, That the Center is
authorized to accept reimbursement to this appropriation from
government agencies requesting the construction of special
use facilities.
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Management and Administration
For salaries and expenses of the Office of the Under
Secretary for Science and Technology and for management and
administration of programs and activities, as authorized by
title III of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 181
et seq.), $130,000,000: Provided, That not to exceed $8,500
shall be for official reception and representation expenses.
Mr. ADERHOLT (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the remainder of the bill through page 54, line 19, be
considered as read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any
point.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Alabama?
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIR. Are there any amendments to that portion of the
bill?
If not, the Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Research, Development, Acquisition, and Operations
For necessary expenses for science and technology research,
including advanced research projects, development, test and
evaluation, acquisition, and operations as authorized by
title III of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 181
et seq.), and the purchase or lease of not to exceed 5
vehicles, $695,971,000, of which $493,539,000 shall remain
available until September 30, 2015; and of which $202,432,000
shall remain available until September 30, 2017, solely for
operation and construction of laboratory facilities:
Provided, That $20,000,000 shall not be available for
obligation until the Secretary of Homeland Security submits
to the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the
House of Representatives an updated plan for the expenditure
of funds for construction of the National Bio- and Agro-
defense Facility.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Bishop of New York
Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the
desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Page 55, line 3, after the dollar amount insert
``(increased by $75,000,000)''.
Page 55, line 4, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced
by $75,000,000)''.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is simple: It
reduces by $75 million the amount that DHS can spend on construction of
laboratory facilities--specifically, the National Bio and Agro-Defense
Facility, or NBAF, planned for Manhattan, Kansas--and returns those
funds to the research, development, acquisitions, and operations
account. This unnecessary government spending is little more than an
attempt to earmark funds for a project that the Obama administration
zeroed out in its FY13 budget proposal, that the DHS acknowledges will
cost over $1 billion to construct, that the National Academy of
Sciences has raised real concerns about the possibility of foot and
mouth disease release, and that many in the agricultural community are
asking, why take the chance?
When the National Academy of Sciences last reviewed the NBAF
proposal, they indicated that the risk of foot and mouth disease in the
Nation's Heartland was a 70 percent risk over a 50-year period. The
academy also estimated the cost of a potential release of foot and
mouth disease at $9 billion to $50 billion.
[[Page H3560]]
While it is correct that earlier this year DHS indicated this risk
had been mitigated with additional design features, the National
Academy of Sciences is still revising the Revised Risk Assessment.
Common sense requires that until the Revised Risk Assessment is
complete, we should not be entertaining the idea of appropriating
precious taxpayer dollars for construction of this project.
NBAF has also become a financial boondoggle. The estimated cost of
construction has skyrocketed from an original estimate of $451 million
only a few years ago to well over $1 billion today. At this time, it is
a colossal risk to the American taxpayer to advance a project the cost
of which has doubled in less than 5 years, and when funding for fiscal
years 2011 and 2012 remain unobligated.
At a time when my Republican colleagues continually argue that our
Nation's debt is out of control and the deficit must be reined in, it
is both hypocritical and unwise to spend taxpayer dollars that the
President has not requested for a project that is still under design
review, to be placed in a region that is acutely sensitive to the
horrible diseases that will be studied at the facility. The only
logical, responsible thing to do while the many questions surrounding
NBAF remain unanswered is to wait to invest taxpayers' hard-earned
money and continue to utilize existing DHS assets to study the various
animal diseases that face our agricultural community.
Mr. Chairman, funding for the construction of NBAF is tantamount to a
$75 million earmark for the Kansas delegation. Funds were not included
in the President's budget, and the project has yet to spend the money
that has already been appropriated. DHS has other important research
and more pressing construction projects than NBAF.
I urge my colleagues to support my amendment, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Alabama is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. ADERHOLT. I oppose the amendment because of concerns that we had
noted earlier about the importance of the NBAF program that the
administration has stressed, and also the need that was stressed in our
hearings earlier in the spring.
At this time I'd like to yield to the lady from Kansas to speak on
this amendment as well.
Ms. JENKINS. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
The first priority of the Federal Government is to protect the
American people, and the National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility has
been declared necessary to provide that protection.
The Department of Homeland Security, under both the Bush and Obama
administrations, and the House Appropriations Committee under both
Democrat and Republican leadership, have made it quite clear time and
time again that the country needs the NBAF, and the best place to do
that research is in Manhattan, Kansas.
Congress has already appropriated $90 million, and the State of
Kansas and the city of Manhattan have already committed more than $200
million towards the project. For the record, the calculations performed
in this updated SSRA that were previously mentioned indicated that the
estimated probability that an accident happening at this facility was
less than 11 percent.
{time} 2230
While again, this proposal might be nice if we had a surplus, the
result of this amendment will be stopping or delaying construction of
this vital NBAF facility, jeopardizing our security and our Nation's
food supply. I urge the body to reject this amendment.
Mr. ADERHOLT. I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the
amendment offered by my friend from New York (Mr. Bishop), an amendment
that will increase funding for research and development activities
within the Science and Technology Directorate by $75 million, and it
will dictate that no new appropriated funds will be available in fiscal
year 2013 for the National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility, NBAF. I
stress, no new funds.
The administration did not request funds for NBAF in 2013, and I
simply cannot support inclusion of the $75 million contained in this
bill until two National Academy of Sciences reviews are completed on
the security of this new facility to prevent the accidental release of
foot-and-mouth virus or other harmful pathogens.
Members may recall that the GAO, the National Academy of Sciences,
and Congress itself have had longstanding concerns about the decision
to relocate the National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility to the mainland
unless we have a comprehensive and validated strategy to prevent the
release of foot-and-mouth virus and other harmful pathogens into the
community.
In 2011, the National Academy of Sciences found that, based on
preliminary designs of the facility, there would be a 70 percent risk
of a release of foot-and-mouth disease leading to infection outside the
laboratory. The economic cost was estimated to be between $9 billion
and $50 billion over the next 50 years as the life span of NBAF would
be projected.
DHS has redone its site security risk assessment now that the NBAF
design is further along, adding additional protective measures
suggested by the original National Academy study. As required by
statute, the National Academy is reviewing the site security risks
again to take into account these new mitigation strategies.
Now, even if we assume that the National Academy gives a positive
review to NBAF, and I very much hope such a review will be warranted,
the facility has 2 years of previously appropriated funds that remain
unobligated. Science and Technology has told us that these funds will
permit construction to begin and fund all necessary activities through
fiscal year 2013, so the $75 million included in the bill before us is
not needed at this time and will not be needed in the new fiscal year.
This $75 million set-aside in the bill for NBAF has some serious
consequences for the science and technology function. It will eliminate
most, if not all, funding for new research projects at the Department
that they plan to begin in 2013. These projects focus on critical
homeland security capabilities and would do the following:
Improve maritime transit security, improve explosive detection
capability for mass transit, bulk cargo and suicide bombers, provide
building security and checkpoint security with a stand-off ability to
detect trace explosives on people and personal items, would improve
TSA's capability to identify threats to aviation security, would
integrate passenger screening at airports to improve security and the
travelers' overall screening experience, would increase government
security when using cloud-based computing systems, would improve
Federal, State and local and animal health officials' emergency
response to control the spread of foreign animal diseases and mitigate
any impact on the livestock industry, develop countermeasures against
high-priority diseases that threaten U.S. livestock, provide building
and facility operators a rapid warning and response capability to
protect occupants in the event of a chemical or biological attack, and
would improve the national, State and local ability to respond to and
recover from the effects of a nuclear radiological attack.
Mr. Chairman, that is an impressive list of research priorities. We
should take very, very seriously any budget proposal that would
displace or move aside these research priorities.
So, under this amendment, this $75 million will be returned to this
critical research and development function, restoring these efforts,
taking them back to their requested level. These funds will permit S&T
to resume research and development work on 22 projects not funded in
fiscal 2012, and would increase funding for 34 projects in the
important Homeland Security missions such as border security, bio
security, chemical security, explosives detection, hostile behavior
detection and disaster resiliency.
There's a lot at stake in this amendment, my colleagues. I urge you
to adopt it.
[[Page H3561]]
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HUELSKAMP. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Kansas is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. HUELSKAMP. Mr. Chairman, as a farmer and rancher myself, I am
very concerned by this amendment. One might be led to believe that with
the adoption of this amendment, somehow important research would
continue. Actually the opposite is true, Mr. Chairman.
We have billions and billions of dollars in this country that are
based on our livestock industries, and unless this Congress and this
President continue forward with a plan to build a BSL level 4 security
research facility, we will not do the necessary research to protect
critical industries, livestock industries in particular, in this
Nation. Let me identify two diseases, the Hendra virus and the Nipah
virus, that research is not occurring on right now. The Hendra virus'
first outbreak was in Australia in 1994. It killed 13 horses. But more
importantly, it killed a number of humans. It's a zoonotic disease, and
the research is not occurring now.
Secondly, how about the Nipah virus? First identified in Malaysia in
1999, the outbreak resulted in the killing of more than 1 million hogs
and 257 cases in humans, killing 105 of them.
Without this type of research, Mr. Chairman, these are the kinds of
viruses we have no protection for. Folks might say, well, don't worry,
if we would have this type of virus in America, we can outsource the
research to friendly countries, Australia and Canada, that will do the
research for us.
But, Mr. Chairman, I'm not willing to rely on outsourcing the
protection of very important industries. And these are just accidental
outbreaks. There are numerous other viruses, numerous other diseases
that are in the hands, I believe--and research will show--in the hands
potentially of enemies of our country. And we need to oppose this
amendment and protect our key vital food and agriculture industries
from accidental, as well as potential bioterrorist, attacks.
So I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and defend our
critical industries.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Bass of New Hampshire). The question is on the
amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York
will be postponed.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
DOMESTIC NUCLEAR DETECTION OFFICE
Management and Administration
For salaries and expenses of the Domestic Nuclear Detection
Office, as authorized by title XIX of the Homeland Security
Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 591 et seq.), for management and
administration of programs and activities, $38,000,000:
Provided, That not to exceed $2,500 shall be for official
reception and representation expenses: Provided further, That
the Secretary of Homeland Security shall submit to the
Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the House of
Representatives at the time of the submission of the
President's budget proposal for fiscal year 2014 pursuant to
the requirements of section 1105(a) of title 31, United
States Code, a strategic plan of investments necessary to
implement the Department of Homeland Security's
responsibilities under the domestic component of the global
nuclear detection architecture that shall--
(1) define each departmental entity's roles and
responsibilities in support of the domestic detection
architecture, including any existing or planned programs to
pre-screen cargo or conveyances overseas;
(2) identify and describe the specific investments being
made by departmental components in fiscal year 2013, and
planned for fiscal year 2014, to support the domestic
architecture and the security of sea, land, and air pathways
into the United States;
(3) describe the investments necessary to close known
vulnerabilities and gaps, including associated costs and
timeframes, and estimates of feasibility and cost
effectiveness; and
(4) explain how the Department's research and development
funding is furthering the implementation of the domestic
nuclear detection architecture, including specific
investments planned for each of fiscal years 2013 and 2014.
Research, Development, and Operations
For necessary expenses for radiological and nuclear
research, development, testing, evaluation, and operations,
$226,830,000, to remain available until September 30, 2014.
Systems Acquisition
For expenses for the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office
acquisition and deployment of radiological detection systems
in accordance with the global nuclear detection architecture,
$51,455,000, to remain available until September 30, 2015.
TITLE V
GENERAL PROVISIONS
(including rescissions of funds)
Sec. 501. No part of any appropriation contained in this
Act shall remain available for obligation beyond the current
fiscal year unless expressly so provided herein.
Sec. 502. Subject to the requirements of section 503 of
this Act, the unexpended balances of prior appropriations
provided for activities in this Act may be transferred to
appropriation accounts for such activities established
pursuant to this Act, may be merged with funds in the
applicable established accounts, and thereafter may be
accounted for as one fund for the same time period as
originally enacted.
Sec. 503. (a) None of the funds provided by this Act,
provided by previous appropriations Acts to the agencies in
or transferred to the Department of Homeland Security that
remain available for obligation or expenditure in fiscal year
2013, or provided from any accounts in the Treasury of the
United States derived by the collection of fees available to
the agencies funded by this Act, shall be available for
obligation or expenditure through a reprogramming of funds
that--
(1) creates a new program, project, or activity;
(2) eliminates a program, project, office, or activity;
(3) increases funds for any program, project, or activity
for which funds have been denied or restricted by the
Congress;
(4) proposes to use funds directed for a specific activity
by either of the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate
or the House of Representatives for a different purpose; or
(5) contracts out any function or activity for which
funding levels were requested for Federal full-time
equivalents in the object classification tables contained in
the fiscal year 2013 Budget Appendix for the Department of
Homeland Security, as modified by the joint explanatory
statement accompanying this Act, unless the Committees on
Appropriations of the Senate and the House of Representatives
are notified 15 days in advance of such reprogramming of
funds.
(b) None of the funds provided by this Act, provided by
previous appropriations Acts to the agencies in or
transferred to the Department of Homeland Security that
remain available for obligation or expenditure in fiscal year
2013, or provided from any accounts in the Treasury of the
United States derived by the collection of fees or proceeds
available to the agencies funded by this Act, shall be
available for obligation or expenditure for programs,
projects, or activities through a reprogramming of funds in
excess of $5,000,000 or 10 percent, whichever is less, that:
(1) augments existing programs, projects, or activities;
(2) reduces by 10 percent funding for any existing program,
project, or activity, or reduces the numbers of personnel by
10 percent as approved by the Congress; or
(3) results from any general savings from a reduction in
personnel that would result in a change in existing programs,
projects, or activities as approved by the Congress, unless
the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the House
of Representatives are notified 15 days in advance of such
reprogramming of funds.
(c) Not to exceed 5 percent of any appropriation made
available for the current fiscal year for the Department of
Homeland Security by this Act or provided by previous
appropriations Acts may be transferred between such
appropriations, but no such appropriation, except as
otherwise specifically provided, shall be increased by more
than 10 percent by such transfers: Provided, That any
transfer under this section shall be treated as a
reprogramming of funds under subsection (b) and shall not be
available for obligation unless the Committees on
Appropriations of the Senate and the House of Representatives
are notified 15 days in advance of such transfer.
(d) Notwithstanding subsections (a), (b), and (c) of this
section, no funds shall be reprogrammed within or transferred
between appropriations after June 30, except in extraordinary
circumstances that imminently threaten the safety of human
life or the protection of property.
(e) The notification thresholds and procedures set forth in
this section shall apply to any use of deobligated balances
of funds provided in previous Department of Homeland Security
Appropriations Acts.
Sec. 504. The Department of Homeland Security Working
Capital Fund, established pursuant to section 403 of Public
Law 103 356 (31 U.S.C. 501 note), shall continue operations
as a permanent working capital fund for fiscal year 2013:
Provided, That none of the funds appropriated or otherwise
made available to the Department of Homeland Security may be
used to make payments to the Working Capital Fund, except for
the activities and amounts allowed in the President's fiscal
year 2013 budget: Provided further, That funds provided to
the Working
[[Page H3562]]
Capital Fund shall be available for obligation until expended
to carry out the purposes of the Working Capital Fund:
Provided further, That all departmental components shall be
charged only for direct usage of each Working Capital Fund
service: Provided further, That funds provided to the Working
Capital Fund shall be used only for purposes consistent with
the contributing component: Provided further, That the
Working Capital Fund shall be paid in advance or reimbursed
at rates which will return the full cost of each service:
Provided further, That the Working Capital Fund shall be
subject to the requirements of section 503 of this Act.
Sec. 505. Except as otherwise specifically provided by
law, not to exceed 50 percent of unobligated balances
remaining available at the end of fiscal year 2013 from
appropriations for salaries and expenses and operating
expenses for fiscal year 2013 in this Act shall remain
available through September 30, 2014, in the account and for
the purposes for which the appropriations were provided:
Provided, That prior to the obligation of such funds, a
request shall be submitted to the Committees on
Appropriations of the Senate and the House of Representatives
for approval in accordance with section 503 of this Act.
Sec. 506. Funds made available by this Act for
intelligence activities are deemed to be specifically
authorized by the Congress for purposes of section 504 of the
National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 414) during fiscal
year 2013 until the enactment of an Act authorizing
intelligence activities for fiscal year 2013.
Sec. 507. (a) Except as provided in subsections (b) and
(c), none of the funds made available by this Act may be used
to--
(1) make or award a grant allocation, grant, contract,
other transaction agreement, task or delivery order on a
Department of Homeland Security multiple award contract, or
to issue a letter of intent totaling in excess of $1,000,000;
(2) award a task or delivery order requiring an obligation
of funds in an amount greater than $10,000,000 from multi-
year Department of Homeland Security funds or a task or
delivery order that would cause cumulative obligations of
multi-year funds in a single account to exceed 50 percent of
the total amount appropriated;
(3) make a sole-source grant award; or
(4) announce publicly the intention to make or award items
under paragraph (1), (2), or (3) including a contract covered
by the Federal Acquisition Regulation.
(b) The Secretary of Homeland Security may waive the
prohibition under subsection (a) if the Secretary notifies
the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the House
of Representatives at least 3 full business days in advance
of making an award or issuing a letter as described in that
subsection.
(c) If the Secretary of Homeland Security determines that
compliance with this section would pose a substantial risk to
human life, health, or safety, an award may be made without
notification, and the Secretary shall notify the Committees
on Appropriations of the Senate and the House of
Representatives not later than 5 full business days after
such an award is made or letter issued.
(d) A notification under this section--
(1) may not involve funds that are not available for
obligation; and
(2) shall include the amount of the award, the fiscal year
for which the funds for the award were appropriated, and the
account from which the funds are being drawn.
(e) The Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management
Agency shall brief the Committees on Appropriations of the
Senate and the House of Representatives 5 full business days
in advance of announcing publicly the intention of making an
award under ``State and Local Programs''.
Sec. 508. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no
agency shall purchase, construct, or lease any additional
facilities, except within or contiguous to existing
locations, to be used for the purpose of conducting Federal
law enforcement training without the advance approval of the
Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the House of
Representatives, except that the Federal Law Enforcement
Training Center is authorized to obtain the temporary use of
additional facilities by lease, contract, or other agreement
for training that cannot be accommodated in existing Center
facilities.
Sec. 509. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available by this Act may be used for expenses for any
construction, repair, alteration, or acquisition project for
which a prospectus otherwise required under chapter 33 of
title 40, United States Code, has not been approved, except
that necessary funds may be expended for each project for
required expenses for the development of a proposed
prospectus.
Sec. 510. (a) Sections 520, 522, and 530, of the Department
of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2008 (division E of
Public Law 110-161; 121 Stat. 2073 and 2074) shall apply with
respect to funds made available in this Act in the same
manner as such sections applied to funds made available in
that Act.
(b) The third proviso of section 537 of the Department of
Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2006 (6 U.S.C. 114),
shall not apply with respect to funds made available in this
Act.
Sec. 511. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used in contravention of the applicable provisions of the
Buy American Act. For purposes of the preceding sentence, the
term ``Buy American Act'' means chapter 83 of title 41,
United States Code.
Sec. 512. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used by any person other than the Privacy Officer
appointed under subsection (a) of section 222 of the Homeland
Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 142(a)) to alter, direct that
changes be made to, delay, or prohibit the transmission to
Congress of any report prepared under paragraph (6) of such
subsection.
Sec. 513. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to amend the oath of allegiance required by section
337 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1448).
Sec. 514. Within 45 days after the end of each month, the
Chief Financial Officer of the Department of Homeland
Security shall submit to the Committees on Appropriations of
the Senate and the House of Representatives a monthly budget
and staffing report for that month that includes total
obligations, on-board versus funded full-time equivalent
staffing levels, and the number of contract employees for
each office of the Department.
Sec. 515. Except as provided in section 44945 of title 49,
United States Code, funds appropriated or transferred to
Transportation Security Administration ``Aviation Security'',
``Administration'', and ``Transportation Security Support''
for fiscal years 2004 and 2005 that are recovered or
deobligated shall be available only for the procurement or
installation of explosives detection systems, air cargo,
baggage, and checkpoint screening systems, subject to
notification: Provided, That quarterly reports shall be
submitted to the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate
and the House of Representatives on any funds that are
recovered or deobligated.
Sec. 516. Any funds appropriated to Coast Guard
``Acquisition, Construction, and Improvements'' for fiscal
years 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006 for the 110 123 foot
patrol boat conversion that are recovered, collected, or
otherwise received as the result of negotiation, mediation,
or litigation, shall be available until expended for the Fast
Response Cutter program.
Sec. 517. Section 532(a) of Public Law 109 295 (120 Stat.
1384) is amended by striking ``2012'' and inserting ``2013''.
Sec. 518. The functions of the Federal Law Enforcement
Training Center instructor staff shall be classified as
inherently governmental for the purpose of the Federal
Activities Inventory Reform Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 501 note).
Sec. 519. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b), none of
the funds appropriated in this or any other Act to the
``Office of the Secretary and Executive Management'', the
``Office of the Under Secretary for Management'', or the
``Office of the Chief Financial Officer'', may be obligated
for a grant or contract funded under such headings by any
means other than full and open competition.
(b) Subsection (a) does not apply to obligation of funds
for a contract awarded--
(1) by a means that is required by a Federal statute,
including obligation for a purchase made under a mandated
preferential program, including the AbilityOne Program, that
is authorized under chapter 85 of title 41, United States
Code;
(2) pursuant to the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 631 et
seq.);
(3) in an amount less than the simplified acquisition
threshold described under section 3101 (b) of title 41,
United States Code; or
(4) by another Federal agency using funds provided through
an interagency agreement.
(c)(1) Subject to paragraph (2), the Secretary of Homeland
Security may waive the application of this section for the
award of a contract in the interest of national security or
if failure to do so would pose a substantial risk to human
health or welfare.
(2) Not later than 5 days after the date on which the
Secretary of Homeland Security issues a waiver under this
subsection, the Secretary shall submit notification of that
waiver to the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and
the House of Representatives, including a description of the
applicable contract to which the waiver applies and an
explanation of why the waiver authority was used: Provided,
That the Secretary may not delegate the authority to grant
such a waiver.
(d) In addition to the requirements established by
subsections (a), (b), and (c) of this section, the Inspector
General of the Department of Homeland Security shall review
departmental contracts awarded through means other than a
full and open competition to assess departmental compliance
with applicable laws and regulations: Provided, That the
Inspector General shall review selected contracts awarded in
the previous fiscal year through means other than a full and
open competition: Provided further, That in selecting which
contracts to review, the Inspector General shall consider the
cost and complexity of the goods and services to be provided
under the contract, the criticality of the contract to
fulfilling Department missions, past performance problems on
similar contracts or by the selected vendor, complaints
received about the award process or contractor performance,
and such other factors as the Inspector General deems
relevant: Provided further, That the Inspector General shall
report the results of the reviews to the Committees on
Appropriations of the Senate and the House of Representatives
no later than February 4, 2013.
Sec. 520. None of the funds provided by this or previous
appropriations Acts shall be used
[[Page H3563]]
to fund any position designated as a Principal Federal
Official (or the successor thereto) for any Robert T.
Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42
U.S.C. 5121 et seq.) declared disasters or emergencies
unless--
(1) the responsibilities of the Principal Federal Official
do not include operational functions related to incident
management, including coordination of operations, and are
consistent with the requirements of section 509(c) and
sections 503(c)(3) and 503(c)(4)(A) of the Homeland Security
Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 319(c) and 313(c)(3) and 313(c)(4)(A))
and section 302 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5143);
(2) not later than 10 business days after the latter of the
date on which the Secretary of Homeland Security appoints the
Principal Federal Official and the date on which the
President issues a declaration under section 401 or section
501 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency
Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5170 and 5191, respectively), the
Secretary of Homeland Security shall submit a notification of
the appointment of the Principal Federal Official and a
description of the responsibilities of such Official and how
such responsibilities are consistent with paragraph (1) to
the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the House
of Representatives, the Transportation and Infrastructure
Committee of the House of Representatives, and the Homeland
Security and Governmental Affairs Committee of the Senate;
and
(3) not later than 60 days after the date of enactment of
this Act, the Secretary shall provide a report specifying
timeframes and milestones regarding the update of operations,
planning and policy documents, and training and exercise
protocols, to ensure consistency with paragraph (1) of this
section.
Sec. 521. None of the funds provided or otherwise made
available in this Act shall be available to carry out section
872 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 452).
Sec. 522. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used by United States Citizenship and Immigration Services
to grant an immigration benefit unless the results of
background checks required by law to be completed prior to
the granting of the benefit have been received by United
States Citizenship and Immigration Services, and the results
do not preclude the granting of the benefit.
Sec. 523. Section 831 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002
(6 U.S.C. 391) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a), in the matter preceding paragraph
(1), by striking ``September 30, 2012'' and inserting
``September 30, 2013''; and
(2) in subsection (c)(1), in the matter preceding
subparagraph (A), by striking ``September 30, 2012'' and
inserting ``September 30, 2013''.
Sec. 524. The Secretary of Homeland Security shall require
that all contracts of the Department of Homeland Security
that provide award fees link such fees to successful
acquisition outcomes (which outcomes shall be specified in
terms of cost, schedule, and performance).
Sec. 525. None of the funds made available to the Office
of the Secretary and Executive Management under this Act may
be expended for any new hires by the Department of Homeland
Security that are not verified through the E-Verify Program
as described in section 403(a) of the Illegal Immigration
Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C.
1324a note).
Sec. 526. None of the funds made available in this Act for
U.S. Customs and Border Protection may be used to prevent an
individual not in the business of importing a prescription
drug (within the meaning of section 801(g) of the Federal
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act) from importing a prescription
drug from Canada that complies with the Federal Food, Drug,
and Cosmetic Act: Provided, That this section shall apply
only to individuals transporting on their person a personal-
use quantity of the prescription drug, not to exceed a 90-day
supply: Provided further, That the prescription drug may not
be--
(1) a controlled substance, as defined in section 102 of
the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802); or
(2) a biological product, as defined in section 351 of the
Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 262).
Sec. 527. The Secretary of Homeland Security, in
consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury, shall notify
the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the House
of Representatives of any proposed transfers of funds
available under section 9703.1(g)(4)(B) of title 31, United
States Code (as added by Public Law 102 393) from the
Department of the Treasury Forfeiture Fund to any agency
within the Department of Homeland Security: Provided, That
none of the funds identified for such a transfer may be
obligated until the Committees on Appropriations of the
Senate and the House of Representatives approve the proposed
transfers.
Sec. 528. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used for planning, testing, piloting, or developing a
national identification card.
Sec. 529. If the Administrator of the Transportation
Security Administration determines that an airport does not
need to participate in the E-Verify Program as described in
section 403(a) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and
Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1324a note),
the Administrator shall certify to the Committees on
Appropriations of the Senate and the House of Representatives
that no security risks will result from such non-
participation.
Sec. 530. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law
during fiscal year 2013 or any subsequent fiscal year, the
Secretary of Homeland Security shall ensure that the
Administrator of General Services sells through public sale
all real and related personal property and transportation
assets which support Plum Island operations, subject to such
terms and conditions as may be necessary to protect
Government interests and meet program requirements.
(b) The proceeds of the sale described in subsection (a)
shall be deposited as offsetting collections into the
Department of Homeland Security--Science and Technology--
``Research, Development, Acquisition, and Operations''
account and, subject to appropriation, shall be available
until expended, for site acquisition, construction, and costs
related to the construction of the National Bio- and Agro-
defense Facility, including the costs associated with the
sale, including due diligence requirements, necessary
environmental remediation at Plum Island, and reimbursement
of expenses incurred by the General Services Administration.
Sec. 531. Any official that is required by this Act to
report or to certify to the Committees on Appropriations of
the Senate and the House of Representatives may not delegate
such authority to perform that act unless specifically
authorized herein.
Sec. 532. Section 550(b) of the Department of Homeland
Security Appropriations Act, 2007 (Public Law 109 295; 6
U.S.C. 121 note), as amended by section 550 of the Department
of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2010 (Public Law 111
83), is further amended by striking ``on October 4, 2012''
and inserting ``on October 4, 2013''.
Sec. 533. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available in this or any other Act may be used to transfer,
release, or assist in the transfer or release to or within
the United States, its territories, or possessions Khalid
Sheikh Mohammed or any other detainee who--
(1) is not a United States citizen or a member of the Armed
Forces of the United States; and
(2) is or was held on or after June 24, 2009, at the United
States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, by the Department
of Defense.
Sec. 534. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used for first-class travel by the employees of agencies
funded by this Act in contravention of sections 301 10.122
through 301.10 124 of title 41, Code of Federal Regulations.
Sec. 535. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to propose or effect a disciplinary or adverse
action, with respect to any Department of Homeland Security
employee who engages regularly with the public in the
performance of his or her official duties solely because that
employee elects to utilize protective equipment or measures,
including but not limited to surgical masks, N95 respirators,
gloves, or hand-sanitizers, where use of such equipment or
measures is in accord with Department of Homeland Security
policy, and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and
Office of Personnel Management guidance.
Sec. 536. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to employ workers described in section 274A(h)(3) of
the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1324a(h)(3)).
Sec. 537. (a) Any company that collects or retains personal
information directly from any individual who participates in
the Registered Traveler or successor program of the
Transportation Security Administration shall safeguard and
dispose of such information in accordance with the
requirements in--
(1) the National Institute for Standards and Technology
Special Publication 800 30, entitled ``Risk Management Guide
for Information Technology Systems'';
(2) the National Institute for Standards and Technology
Special Publication 800 53, Revision 3, entitled
``Recommended Security Controls for Federal Information
Systems and Organizations,''; and
(3) any supplemental standards established by the
Administrator of the Transportation Security Administration
(referred to in this section as the ``Administrator'').
(b) The airport authority or air carrier operator that
sponsors the company under the Registered Traveler program
shall be known as the ``Sponsoring Entity''.
(c) The Administrator shall require any company covered by
subsection (a) to provide, not later than 30 days after the
date of enactment of this Act, to the Sponsoring Entity
written certification that the procedures used by the company
to safeguard and dispose of information are in compliance
with the requirements under subsection (a). Such
certification shall include a description of the procedures
used by the company to comply with such requirements.
Sec. 538. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act,
none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by
this Act may be used to pay award or incentive fees for
contractor performance that has been judged to be below
satisfactory performance or performance that does not meet
the basic requirements of a contract.
Sec. 539. (a) Not later than 90 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the
Transportation Security Administration shall submit to the
Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the
[[Page H3564]]
House of Representatives, a report that either--
(1) certifies that the requirement for screening all air
cargo on passenger aircraft by the deadline under section
44901(g) of title 49, United States Code, has been met; or
(2) includes a strategy to comply with the requirements
under title 44901(g) of title 49, United States Code,
including--
(A) a plan to meet the requirement under section 44901(g)
of title 49, United States Code, to screen 100 percent of air
cargo transported on passenger aircraft arriving in the
United States in foreign air transportation (as that term is
defined in section 40102 of that title); and
(B) specification of--
(i) the percentage of such air cargo that is being
screened; and
(ii) the schedule for achieving screening of 100 percent of
such air cargo.
(b) The Administrator shall continue to submit reports
described in subsection (a)(2) every 90 days until the
Administrator certifies that the Transportation Security
Administration has achieved screening of 100 percent of such
air cargo.
Sec. 540. In developing any process to screen aviation
passengers and crews for transportation or national security
purposes, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall ensure
that all such processes take into consideration such
passengers' and crews' privacy and civil liberties consistent
with applicable laws, regulations, and guidance.
Sec. 541. (a) Notwithstanding section 286(n) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1356(n)), of the
funds deposited into the Immigration Examinations Fee
Account, $9,200,000 shall be available to United States
Citizenship and Immigration Services in fiscal year 2013 for
the purpose of providing an immigrant integration grants
program.
(b) None of the funds made available to United States
Citizenship and Immigration Services for grants for immigrant
integration may be used to provide services to aliens who
have not been lawfully admitted for permanent residence.
Sec. 542. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available by this Act may be used by the Department of
Homeland Security to enter into any Federal contract unless
such contract is entered into in accordance with the
requirements of subtitle I of title 41, United States Code or
chapter 137 of title 10, United States Code, and the Federal
Acquisition Regulation, unless such contract is otherwise
authorized by statute to be entered into without regard to
the above referenced statutes.
Sec. 543. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, if
the Secretary of Homeland Security determines that specific
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Service Processing
Centers or other U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
owned detention facilities no longer meet the mission need,
the Secretary is authorized to dispose of individual Service
Processing Centers or other U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement owned detention facilities by directing the
Administrator of General Services to sell all real and
related personal property which support Service Processing
Centers or other U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
owned detention facilities, subject to such terms and
conditions as necessary to protect Government interests and
meet program requirements: Provided, That the proceeds, net
of the costs of sale incurred by the General Services
Administration and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement,
shall be deposited as offsetting collections into a separate
account that shall be available, subject to appropriation,
until expended for other real property capital asset needs of
existing U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement assets,
excluding daily operations and maintenance costs, as the
Secretary deems appropriate: Provided further, That any sale
or collocation of federally owned detention facilities shall
not result in the maintenance of fewer than 34,000 detention
beds: Provided further, That the Committees on Appropriations
of the Senate and the House of Representatives shall be
notified 15 days prior to the announcement of any proposed
sale or collocation.
Sec. 544. None of the funds made available under this Act
or any prior appropriations Act may be provided to the
Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now
(ACORN), or any of its affiliates, subsidiaries, or allied
organizations.
Sec. 545. The Department of Homeland Security Chief
Information Officer, the Commissioner of U.S. Customs and
Border Protection, and the Assistant Secretary of Homeland
Security for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement shall,
with respect to fiscal years 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016,
submit to the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and
the House of Representatives, at the time that the
President's budget proposal for fiscal year 2014 is submitted
pursuant to the requirements of section 1105(a) of title 31,
United States Code, the information required in the multi-
year investment and management plans required, respectively,
under the headings ``Office of the Chief Information
Officer'' under title I of division D of the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2012 (Public Law 112 74), ``U.S. Customs
and Border Protection--Salaries and Expenses'' under title II
of such division, and ``U.S. Customs and Border Protection--
Border Security Fencing, Infrastructure, and Technology''
under such title, and section 568 of such Act.
Sec. 546. The Secretary of Homeland Security shall ensure
enforcement of immigration laws (as defined in section
101(a)(17) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.
1101(a)(17))).
Sec. 547. (a) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall
ensure by submitting proposals that the fees collected
pursuant to section 13031(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Consolidated
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (19 U.S.C.
58c(b)(1)(A)(i)) and described in section 601 of the United
States-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement Implementation Act
of 2011 (Public Law 112 42) shall be available to U.S.
Customs and Border Protection in fiscal year 2014 and
subsequent fiscal years.
(b) The President's budget request shall include proposals
to completely offset any budgetary cost associated with the
provisions of subsection (a).
Sec. 548. Section 401(b) of the Illegal Immigration Reform
and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1324a
note) is amended by striking ``September 30, 2012'' and
inserting ``September 30, 2013''.
Sec. 549. (a) Restriction.--Except as provided in
subsection (b), the Secretary and the Deputy Secretary of
Homeland Security and the Commandant and Vice Commandant of
the Coast Guard may not travel aboard any Coast Guard owned
or operated fixed-wing aircraft after the date of the
submission of the President's budget request for fiscal year
2014 if the Secretary has not provided the Committees on
Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate
the Comprehensive Acquisition Strategy Report required in
title I and the Commandant has not provided the Capital
Investment Plan, required in Coast Guard Acquisition,
Construction and Improvement of title II.
(b) Exception.--Subsection (a) shall not apply in the case
of travel aboard an aircraft described in such subsection--
(1) to respond to a major disaster or emergency declared
under section 401 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief
and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5170);
(2) to respond to a discharge classified as a spill of
national significance under part 300.323 of title 40, Code of
Federal Regulations;
(3) for evacuation purposes, including for a medical
emergency; or
(4) to respond to emergent national security issues as
required by the President.
(c) Notification.--The Secretary shall notify the
Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives
and the Senate in writing not later than 5 days after
engaging in travel prohibited in subsection (a) under an
exception provided in subsection (b).
Sec. 550. Notwithstanding Office of Management and Budget
Circular A-11, in a budget submission of the Coast Guard for
Department of Homeland Security, Coast Guard, ``Acquisition,
Construction, and Improvements'' for fiscal year 2014 or any
fiscal year thereafter, costs related to the construction or
conversion of a cutter shall be requested in accordance with
the following guidelines:
(1) Costs of outfitting and post-delivery activities and
spare or repair parts shall be requested not earlier than for
the first fiscal year in which it is necessary to incur such
costs to maintain a planned production schedule, which may be
subsequent to the fiscal year for which cutter end costs are
requested.
(2) Costs of long lead time items shall be requested for
the fiscal year in which it is necessary to incur such costs
to maintain a planned production schedule, which may be in
advance of the fiscal year for which cutter end costs are
requested.
(3) Costs of program management shall be requested for each
fiscal year, for the portion of program management costs
attributable to such fiscal year.
(4) For purposes of the preceding paragraphs--
(A) the term ``long lead time items'' means components,
parts, material, or effort with significantly longer lead
times than other elements of an end item;
(B) the term ``outfitting'' means procurement or
installation of on board repair parts, other secondary items,
equipage, and recreation items; precommissioning crew
support; general use consumables furnished to the
shipbuilder; the fitting out activity to fill a vessel's
initial allowances; and contractor-furnished spares;
(C) the term ``post delivery activities'' includes design,
planning, Government furnished material, and related labor
for Government-responsible defects and deficiencies
identified during builders trials, acceptance trials, and
testing during the post-delivery period; costs of all work
required to correct defects or deficiencies identified during
the post-delivery period; and costs of all work required to
correct trial card deficiencies on a vessel of a particular
class, as well as on subsequent vessels of that class
(whether or not delivered) until the corrective action for
that cutter class is completed; and
(D) the term ``cutter end costs'' includes the cost of
construction or conversion of a vessel, deferred work
identified prior to vessel delivery, and, when unrelated to a
specific fix, normal changes authorized prior to completion
of fitting out, advanced planning, and travel.
Sec. 551. (a) The President, acting through the
Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency,
shall establish new procedures to administer assistance for
debris and wreckage removal provided under sections
403(a)(3)(A), 407, and 502(a)(5) of the Robert T. Stafford
Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C.
5170b(a)(3)(A), 5173, and 5192(a)(5)).
[[Page H3565]]
(b) The new procedures established under paragraph (a) may
include--
(1) making grants on the basis of fixed estimates to
provide financial incentives and disincentives for the timely
or cost effective completion of projects under sections
403(a)(3)(A), 407, and 502(a)(5) of such Act if the State,
local government, or owner or operator of the private non-
profit facility agrees to be responsible to pay for any
actual costs that exceed the estimate;
(2) using a sliding scale for the Federal share for removal
of debris and wreckage based on the time it takes to complete
debris and wreckage removal;
(3) allowing utilization of program income from recycled
debris without offset to grant amount;
(4) reimbursing base and overtime wages for employees and
extra hires of a State, local government, or owner or
operator of a private non-profit facility performing or
administering debris and wreckage removal; and
(5) notwithstanding any other provision of law, if the
actual costs of projects under subparagraph (b)(1) are less
than the estimated costs thereof, the Administrator may
permit a grantee or sub grantee to use all or part of the
excess funds for any of the following purposes:
(A) Debris management planning.
(B) Acquisition of debris management equipment for current
or future use.
(C) Other activities to improve future debris removal
operations, as determined by the Administrator.
Sec. 552. (a) Of the amounts made available by this Act for
``Department of Homeland Security--National Protection and
Programs Directorate--Infrastructure Protection and
Information Security--Federal Network Security'',
$202,000,000 shall be used to deploy on Federal systems
technology to improve the information security of agency
information systems covered by section 3543(a) of title 44,
United States Code: Provided, That funds made available under
this section shall be used to assist and support Government-
wide and agency-specific efforts to provide adequate, risk-
based, and cost-effective cybersecurity to address escalating
and rapidly evolving threats to information security,
including the acquisition by the Department of Homeland
Security of an automated and continuous monitoring program
that includes equipment, software, and Department of Homeland
Security-supplied services: Provided further, That not later
than January 1, 2013, and quarterly thereafter, the Under
Secretary of Homeland Security of the National Protection and
Programs Directorate shall submit to the Committees on
Appropriations of the Senate and House of Representatives a
report on the obligation and expenditure of funds made
available under this section: Provided further, That
automated and continuous monitoring software procured by the
funds made available by this section shall not collect or
store personally identifiable information, nor monitor the
content of network traffic: Provided further, That such
software shall be installed, maintained, and operated in
accordance with all applicable privacy laws and agency-
specific restrictions and standards on access to personally
identifiable information.
(b) Funds made available under this section may not be used
to supplant funds provided for any such system within an
agency budget.
(c) Not later than April 1, 2013, the heads of all Federal
agencies shall submit to the Committees on Appropriations of
the Senate and House of Representatives expenditure plans for
necessary cybersecurity improvements to address known
vulnerabilities to information systems described in
subsection (a).
(d) Not later July 1, 2013, and quarterly thereafter, the
head of each Federal agency shall submit to the Director of
the Office of Management and Budget a report on the execution
of the expenditure plan for that agency required by
subsection (c): Provided, That the Director of the Office of
Management and Budget shall summarize such execution reports
and annually submit such summaries to Congress in conjunction
with the annual progress report on implementation of the E-
Government Act of 2002 (Public Law 107 347), as required by
section 3606 of title 44, United States Code.
(e) This section shall not apply to the legislative and
judicial branches of the Federal Government and shall apply
to all Federal agencies within the executive branch except
for the Department of Defense, the Central Intelligence
Agency, and the Office of the Director of National
Intelligence.
Sec. 553. (a) None of the funds made available in this Act
may be used to maintain or establish a computer network
unless such network blocks the viewing, downloading, and
exchanging of pornography.
(b) Nothing in subsection (a) shall limit the use of funds
necessary for any Federal, State, tribal, or local law
enforcement agency or any other entity carrying out criminal
investigations, prosecution, or adjudication activities.
Sec. 554. None of the funds made available under this Act
may be used by a Federal law enforcement officer to
facilitate the transfer of an operable firearm to an
individual if the Federal law enforcement officer knows or
suspects that the individual is an agent of a drug cartel
unless law enforcement personnel of the United States
continuously monitor or control the firearm at all times.
Sec. 555. The Director of the Office of Management and
Budget shall instruct any department, agency, or
instrumentality of the United States Government receiving
funds appropriated in this Act to track undisbursed balances
in expired grant accounts and include in its annual
performance plan and performance and accountability reports
the following:
(1) Details on future action the department, agency, or
instrumentality will take to resolve undisbursed balances in
expired grant accounts.
(2) The method that the department, agency, or
instrumentality uses to track undisbursed balances in expired
grant accounts.
(3) Identification of undisbursed balances in expired grant
accounts that may be returned to the Treasury of the United
States.
(4) In the preceding 3 fiscal years, details on the total
number of expired grant accounts with undisbursed balances
(on the first day of each fiscal year) for the department,
agency, or instrumentality and the total finances that have
not been obligated to a specific project remaining in the
accounts.
Sec. 556. (a) None of the funds made available in this Act
may be used to send or otherwise pay for the attendance of
more than 50 employees from a Federal department or agency at
any single conference occurring outside the United States,
unless --
(1) such conference is a law enforcement training or
operational conference for law enforcement personnel and the
majority of Federal employees in attendance are law
enforcement personnel stationed outside the United States; or
(2) such attendance is pursuant to law enforcement,
security, or military operations.
Sec. 557. (a) The head of any agency, office, or component
funded by this Act shall submit quarterly reports to the
Inspector General regarding the costs and contracting
procedures relating to each conference, ceremony, and similar
event, to include commissioning, de-commissioning, change of
command, and other ceremonies, held by the agency during
fiscal year 2013 for which the cost to the Government was
more than $20,000.
(b) Each report submitted under subsection (a) shall
include, for each event described in that subsection held
during the applicable quarter--
(1) a description of the subject of and number of
participants attending that event;
(2) a detailed statement of the costs to the Government
relating to that event, including--
(A) the cost of any food or beverages;
(B) the cost of any audio-visual services; and
(C) a discussion of the methodology used to determine which
costs relate to that event; and
(3) a description of the contracting procedures relating to
that event, including--
(A) whether contracts were awarded on a competitive basis
for that event; and
(B) a discussion of any cost comparison conducted by the
agency in evaluating potential contractors for that event.
(c) Not later than 30 days after the end of fiscal year
2013, the Inspector General shall submit a report to the
Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the House of
Representatives on Department of Homeland Security spending
on conferences, ceremonies, and similar events in fiscal year
2013, as reported pursuant to subsections (a) and (b). The
report shall list the relevant events, substantiate that the
Department complied with all applicable laws and regulations
associated with spending on such events, and describe in
detail the total costs to the Government associated with
those events, to include the amount of funding obligated and
expended by appropriation or other source of funding,
including relevant budget accounts.
Sec. 558. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to enter into a contract, memorandum of
understanding, or cooperative agreement with, make a grant
to, or provide a loan or loan guarantee to, any corporation
that was convicted of a felony criminal violation under any
Federal law within the preceding 24 months, where the
awarding agency is aware of the conviction, unless an agency
has considered suspension or debarment of the corporation and
has made a determination that this further action is not
necessary to protect the interests of the Government.
Sec. 559. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to enter into a contract, memorandum of
understanding, or cooperative agreement with, make a grant
to, or provide a loan or loan guarantee to, any corporation
that has any unpaid Federal tax liability that has been
assessed, for which all judicial and administrative remedies
have been exhausted or have lapsed, and that is not being
paid in a timely manner pursuant to an agreement with the
authority responsible for collecting the tax liability, where
the awarding agency is aware of the unpaid tax liability,
unless an agency has considered suspension or debarment of
the corporation and has made a determination that this
further action is not necessary to protect the interests of
the Government.
(rescissions)
Sec. 560. The unobligated balance of each amount specified
for a project or activity under the heading ``Federal
Emergency Management Agency--National Predisaster Mitigation
Fund'' in the explanatory statement accompanying Public Law
110 161 where the Federal Emergency Management Agency has
received written notification of the intent by
[[Page H3566]]
the recipient to not apply for the grant is rescinded, and
the overall unobligated balance available under such heading
in such Act is reduced accordingly.
(rescissions)
Sec. 561. Of the funds appropriated in Department of
Homeland Security Acts the following funds are hereby
rescinded from the following accounts and programs in the
specified amounts: Provided, That no amounts may be rescinded
from amounts that were designated by the Congress as an
emergency requirement pursuant to a concurrent resolution on
the budget or the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control Act of 1985, as amended:
(1) $42,500,000 from Coast Guard ``Acquisition,
Construction, and Improvements,'' 2010/2014.
(2) $91,100,000 from Coast Guard ``Acquisition,
Construction, and Improvements,'' 2011/2015.
(3) $40,412,000 from U.S. Customs and Border Protection
``Border Security Fencing, Infrastructure, and Technology,''
2012/2014.
(4) $48,000,000 from Coast Guard ``Acquisition,
Construction, and Improvements,'' 2012/2016.
(rescission)
Sec. 562. From the unobligated balances made available in
the Department of the Treasury Forfeiture Fund established by
section 9703.1 of title 31, United States Code, which was
added to such title by section 638 of Public Law 102 393,
$60,000,000 shall be permanently rescinded.
(rescissions)
Sec. 563. Of the funds transferred to the Department of
Homeland Security when it was created in 2003, the following
funds are hereby rescinded from the following accounts and
programs in the specified amounts:
(1) $1,316,000 from Department of Homeland Security
``Office for Domestic Preparedness''; and
(2) $2,831,000 from Federal Emergency Management Agency
``National Predisaster Mitigation Fund''.
Sec. 564. (a) Section 44945 of Title 49, United States
Code, is hereafter repealed.
(b) The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 449
of title 49, United States Code, is hereafter amended by
striking the item relating to such section.
Sec. 565. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to require a facility to employ or to not employ a
particular security measure for personnel surety if the
facility has adopted personnel measures designed to--
(1) verify and validate individuals' identification;
(2) check individuals' criminal history;
(3) verify and validate individuals' legal authorization to
work; and
(4) identify people with terrorist ties.
Sec. 566. None of the funds appropriated by this Act for
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement shall be available
to pay for an abortion, except where the life of the mother
would be endangered if the fetus were carried to term, or in
the case of rape or incest: Provided, That should this
prohibition be declared unconstitutional by a court of
competent jurisdiction, this section shall be null and void.
Sec. 567. None of the funds appropriated by this Act for
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement shall be used to
require any person to perform, or facilitate in any way the
performance of, any abortion.
Sec. 568. Nothing in the preceding section shall remove
the obligation of the Assistant Secretary of Homeland
Security for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to
provide escort services necessary for a female detainee to
receive such service outside the detention facility:
Provided, That nothing in this section in any way diminishes
the effect of section 567 intended to address the
philosophical beliefs of individual employees of U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
Mr. ADERHOLT (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the remainder of the bill through page 99, line 11, be
considered as read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any
point.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Alabama?
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIR. Are there any amendments to that portion of the
bill?
If not, the Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
spending reduction account
Sec. 569. The amount by which the applicable allocation of
new budget authority made by the Committee on Appropriations
of the House of Representatives under section 302(b) of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 exceeds the amount of
proposed new budget authority is $0.
{time} 2240
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings
will now resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were
postponed, in the following order:
An amendment by Ms. Moore of Wisconsin.
An amendment by Mr. Broun of Georgia.
An amendment by Mr. Holt of New Jersey.
First amendment by Mr. Clarke of Michigan.
Second amendment by Mr. Clarke of Michigan.
First amendment by Ms. Hahn of California.
Second amendment by Ms. Hahn of California.
An amendment by Mr. Poe of Texas.
An amendment by Mr. Bishop of Utah.
An amendment by Ms. Loretta Sanchez of California.
An amendment by Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas.
An amendment by Mr. Higgins of New York.
An amendment by Mr. Bishop of New York.
The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the minimum time for any
electronic vote after the first vote in this series.
Amendment Offered by Ms. Moore
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from
Wisconsin (Ms. Moore) on which further proceedings were postponed and
on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 154,
noes 260, not voting 17, as follows:
[Roll No. 345]
AYES--154
Ackerman
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Neal
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Pelosi
Peters
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Richardson
Richmond
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Sires
Smith (WA)
Speier
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Yarmuth
NOES--260
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Amash
Amodei
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boswell
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chandler
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Cuellar
Davis (KY)
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
[[Page H3567]]
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Hochul
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Israel
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Perlmutter
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Rahall
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Reyes
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schrader
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Walz (MN)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--17
Bass (CA)
Cardoza
Coble
Conyers
Culberson
Denham
Filner
Holden
Lewis (CA)
Myrick
Napolitano
Olver
Paul
Scott, David
Shuler
Slaughter
Stark
{time} 2304
Messrs. BISHOP of New York and ISRAEL changed their vote from ``aye''
to ``no.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chair, on rollcall 345, I was away from the Capitol
due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I
would have voted ``aye.''
Amendment Offered by Mr. Broun of Georgia
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia
(Mr. Broun) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 140,
noes 273, not voting 18, as follows:
[Roll No. 346]
AYES--140
Adams
Akin
Amash
Bachmann
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Benishek
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Conaway
Cravaack
DesJarlais
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Engel
Eshoo
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Fortenberry
Franks (AZ)
Gardner
Garrett
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Guthrie
Hall
Harris
Hartzler
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Jenkins
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
King (IA)
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latta
Lofgren, Zoe
Long
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Mulvaney
Neugebauer
Nugent
Nunnelee
Olson
Paulsen
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Polis
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Ribble
Roe (TN)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ross (FL)
Royce
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schmidt
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Smith (NE)
Southerland
Stearns
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thornberry
Tipton
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Wilson (SC)
Woodall
Yoder
Young (FL)
NOES--273
Ackerman
Aderholt
Alexander
Altmire
Amodei
Andrews
Austria
Baca
Bachus
Baldwin
Barletta
Barrow
Bass (NH)
Becerra
Berg
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boswell
Boustany
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Bucshon
Butterfield
Calvert
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Carter
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coffman (CO)
Cohen
Cole
Connolly (VA)
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Denham
Dent
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Dreier
Edwards
Ellison
Ellmers
Emerson
Farr
Fattah
Forbes
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gallegly
Garamendi
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gonzalez
Granger
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grimm
Guinta
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hanna
Harper
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hochul
Holt
Hoyer
Israel
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly
Kildee
Kind
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lowey
Lucas
Lujan
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Maloney
Marino
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinley
McNerney
Meehan
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (PA)
Nadler
Neal
Noem
Nunes
Owens
Palazzo
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Pearce
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Platts
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schilling
Schock
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Stivers
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Tiberi
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Webster
Welch
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (FL)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woolsey
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--18
Bass (CA)
Cardoza
Coble
Conyers
Culberson
Filner
Grijalva
Holden
Honda
Lewis (CA)
Myrick
Napolitano
Olver
Paul
Shuler
Slaughter
Speier
Stark
{time} 2308
Mr. CASSIDY changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chair, on rollcall 346, I was away from the Capitol
due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I
would have voted ``no.''
Amendment Offered by Mr. Holt
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey
(Mr. Holt) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the
noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 173,
noes 240, not voting 18, as follows:
[[Page H3568]]
[Roll No. 347]
AYES--173
Ackerman
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barletta
Bass (NH)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boswell
Boustany
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Buchanan
Burgess
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Cooper
Courtney
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Denham
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duncan (TN)
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Fitzpatrick
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Gibson
Goodlatte
Green, Al
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hanna
Hastings (FL)
Hayworth
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holt
Honda
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kissell
Kucinich
Landry
Langevin
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Marino
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
Meeks
Mica
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Neal
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pelosi
Pence
Perlmutter
Peters
Petri
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Rooney
Rothman (NJ)
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Scalise
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Sires
Speier
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Walden
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Yarmuth
NOES--240
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Amash
Amodei
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Castor (FL)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Costa
Costello
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Cuellar
Davis (KY)
Dent
DesJarlais
Dicks
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garamendi
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Heck
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Hochul
Hoyer
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Lankford
Larsen (WA)
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meehan
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Pastor (AZ)
Paulsen
Pearce
Peterson
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Quayle
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Runyan
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Upton
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walberg
Walsh (IL)
Waxman
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--18
Bass (CA)
Cardoza
Coble
Conyers
Culberson
Diaz-Balart
Filner
Grijalva
Hirono
Holden
Lewis (CA)
Myrick
Napolitano
Olver
Paul
Shuler
Slaughter
Stark
{time} 2312
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chair, on rollcall 347, I was away from the Capitol
due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I
would have voted ``aye.''
Amendment Offered by Mr. Clarke of Michigan
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the first amendment offered by the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Clarke) on which further proceedings were postponed and
on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 211,
noes 202, not voting 18, as follows:
[Roll No. 348]
AYES--211
Ackerman
Aderholt
Andrews
Baca
Bachmann
Baldwin
Barletta
Barrow
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boren
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Buchanan
Buerkle
Butterfield
Camp
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chabot
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Cooper
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Denham
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Emerson
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Fitzpatrick
Fudge
Garamendi
Gibson
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Graves (MO)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffith (VA)
Grijalva
Guthrie
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Hayworth
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hochul
Holt
Honda
Huizenga (MI)
Hunter
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jordan
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kissell
Kucinich
Landry
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Luetkemeyer
Lujan
Maloney
Marino
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCotter
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meehan
Meeks
Mica
Michaud
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Mulvaney
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Neal
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Petri
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reichert
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Rigell
Rivera
Rogers (MI)
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross (AR)
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Runyan
Rush
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Scalise
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Sires
Smith (NJ)
Southerland
Speier
Stivers
Stutzman
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Upton
Van Hollen
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Watt
Welch
West
Whitfield
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Yarmuth
NOES--202
Adams
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Amash
Amodei
Austria
Bachus
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Becerra
Berg
Bilbray
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Bucshon
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chaffetz
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Costa
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Davis (KY)
Dent
DesJarlais
Dicks
Dold
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Engel
Farenthold
Fincher
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
[[Page H3569]]
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Griffin (AR)
Grimm
Guinta
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Heck
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Hoyer
Huelskamp
Hultgren
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Langevin
Lankford
LaTourette
Latta
Long
Lucas
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Moran
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Pastor (AZ)
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Quayle
Reed
Rehberg
Renacci
Ribble
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Roskam
Ross (FL)
Royce
Ruppersberger
Ryan (WI)
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Stearns
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Waxman
Webster
Westmoreland
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--18
Bass (CA)
Bishop (GA)
Cardoza
Coble
Conyers
Culberson
Filner
Holden
Lewis (CA)
Myrick
Napolitano
Olver
Paul
Ryan (OH)
Shuler
Slaughter
Stark
Waters
{time} 2315
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chair, on rollcall 348, I was away from the Capitol
due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I
would have voted ``aye.''
Amendment Offered by Mr. Clarke of Michigan
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the second amendment offered by the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Clarke) on which further proceedings were postponed and
on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 159,
noes 254, not voting 18, as follows:
[Roll No. 349]
AYES--159
Ackerman
Andrews
Baldwin
Bass (NH)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gibson
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Hayworth
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hochul
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Manzullo
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Neal
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Pelosi
Peters
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Sires
Smith (WA)
Speier
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Yarmuth
NOES--254
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Amash
Amodei
Austria
Baca
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chandler
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Connolly (VA)
Cooper
Costa
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Davis (KY)
DeFazio
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Heck
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Perlmutter
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schrader
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--18
Barton (TX)
Bass (CA)
Butterfield
Cardoza
Clarke (NY)
Coble
Culberson
Filner
Holden
Lewis (CA)
Myrick
Napolitano
Olver
Paul
Shuler
Slaughter
Stark
Waters
{time} 2318
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chair, on rollcall 349, I was away from the Capitol
due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I
would have voted ``aye.''
Amendment Offered by Ms. Hahn
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the first amendment offered by the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Hahn) on which further proceedings were postponed and
on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 156,
noes 261, not voting 14, as follows:
[Roll No. 350]
AYES--156
Ackerman
Altmire
Amash
Baca
Baldwin
Barrow
[[Page H3570]]
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Ellison
Engel
Fattah
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Gallegly
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hochul
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McClintock
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meehan
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Neal
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Pelosi
Peters
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Rohrabacher
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Sires
Speier
Sutton
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Wasserman Schultz
Waxman
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Yarmuth
NOES--261
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Amodei
Andrews
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boswell
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Edwards
Ellmers
Emerson
Eshoo
Farenthold
Farr
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garamendi
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McCollum
McCotter
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Perlmutter
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Quayle
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Rothman (NJ)
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Sarbanes
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Upton
Visclosky
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Walz (MN)
Waters
Watt
Webster
Welch
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--14
Bass (CA)
Cardoza
Coble
Culberson
Filner
Holden
Lewis (CA)
Myrick
Napolitano
Olver
Paul
Shuler
Slaughter
Stark
{time} 2321
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chair, on rollcall 350, I was away from the Capitol
due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I
would have voted ``aye.''
Amendment Offered by Ms. Hahn
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the second amendment offered by the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Hahn) on which further proceedings were postponed and
on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 144,
noes 273, not voting 14, as follows:
[Roll No. 351]
AYES--144
Altmire
Baca
Baldwin
Barrow
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clay
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Courtney
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Dent
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Ellison
Fattah
Fitzpatrick
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hochul
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Israel
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kucinich
Lance
Langevin
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Loebsack
Lowey
Maloney
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Neal
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Pelosi
Peters
Pingree (ME)
Quigley
Rahall
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Sires
Smith (WA)
Sutton
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Waxman
West
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Yarmuth
NOES--273
Ackerman
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Amash
Amodei
Andrews
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boswell
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Brown (FL)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chandler
Clarke (NY)
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Crowley
Davis (KY)
Denham
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Edwards
Ellmers
Emerson
Engel
Eshoo
Farenthold
Farr
Fincher
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Fudge
Gallegly
Garamendi
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Heinrich
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Kaptur
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Landry
Lankford
Larsen (WA)
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren, Zoe
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
[[Page H3571]]
McCarthy (CA)
McClintock
McCollum
McCotter
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Perlmutter
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Polis
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Quayle
Rangel
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Speier
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Upton
Visclosky
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Walz (MN)
Watt
Webster
Welch
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--14
Bass (CA)
Cardoza
Coble
Culberson
Filner
Holden
Lewis (CA)
Myrick
Napolitano
Olver
Paul
Shuler
Slaughter
Stark
{time} 2324
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chair, on rollcall 351, I was away from the Capitol
due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I
would have voted ``aye.''
Amendment Offered by Mr. Poe of Texas
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Poe) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes
prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 302,
noes 113, not voting 16, as follows:
[Roll No. 352]
AYES--302
Adams
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Amodei
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Baldwin
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Berkley
Biggert
Bilbray
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonamici
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boswell
Boustany
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Carney
Carter
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chandler
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Cravaack
Crawford
Critz
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (KY)
DeFazio
DeLauro
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Doggett
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Engel
Eshoo
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Franks (AZ)
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hahn
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Heinrich
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Higgins
Himes
Hochul
Holt
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Landry
Lankford
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Markey
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McNerney
Meehan
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (PA)
Nadler
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Pascrell
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Petri
Pingree (ME)
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Rahall
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Reyes
Ribble
Richardson
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schakowsky
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schwartz
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Scott, David
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Sutton
Terry
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Tonko
Tsongas
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Walz (MN)
Waters
Webster
Welch
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOES--113
Ackerman
Aderholt
Amash
Andrews
Baca
Becerra
Berman
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capuano
Carnahan
Carson (IN)
Cassidy
Castor (FL)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Costello
Crenshaw
Crowley
Davis (IL)
DeGette
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Edwards
Ellison
Farr
Fattah
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Garamendi
Gonzalez
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Honda
Hoyer
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Kildee
Kingston
Kucinich
Lance
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Long
Lowey
Maloney
Matsui
McDermott
McGovern
Meeks
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Neal
Pallone
Pastor (AZ)
Pelosi
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Reed
Richmond
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schiff
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sewell
Smith (NE)
Speier
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Tierney
Towns
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Watt
Waxman
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--16
Bass (CA)
Cardoza
Coble
Culberson
Filner
Holden
Lewis (CA)
McCollum
McMorris Rodgers
Myrick
Napolitano
Olver
Paul
Shuler
Slaughter
Stark
{time} 2327
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chair, on rollcall 352, I was away from the Capitol
due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I
would have voted ``no.''
Amendment Offered by Mr. Bishop of Utah
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Utah (Mr.
Bishop) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the
ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 230,
noes 186, not voting 15, as follows:
[Roll No. 353]
AYES--230
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Amash
Amodei
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barrow
Bartlett
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boustany
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Brown (FL)
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Cole
[[Page H3572]]
Conaway
Costa
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Edwards
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Huizenga (MI)
Hurt
Issa
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Kelly
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
Latta
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Reyes
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Ryan (WI)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Schilling
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, David
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOES--186
Ackerman
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barletta
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Buchanan
Burgess
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coffman (CO)
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
DesJarlais
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Fitzpatrick
Fortenberry
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heck
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hochul
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Huelskamp
Hultgren
Hunter
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Jenkins
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
King (IA)
Kissell
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
LaTourette
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Long
Lowey
Lujan
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Neal
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree (ME)
Poe (TX)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Rehberg
Richardson
Richmond
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Scalise
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schmidt
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, Austin
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Sires
Smith (WA)
Speier
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--15
Bass (CA)
Cardoza
Coble
Culberson
Filner
Holden
Lewis (CA)
McCaul
Myrick
Napolitano
Olver
Paul
Shuler
Slaughter
Stark
{time} 2330
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chair, on rollcall 353, I was away from the Capitol
due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I
would have voted ``no.''
Amendment Offered by Ms. Loretta Sanchez of California
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez) on which further proceedings were
postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 167,
noes 249, not voting 15, as follows:
[Roll No. 354]
AYES--167
Ackerman
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hochul
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kucinich
Langevin
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Neal
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Sires
Smith (WA)
Speier
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Yarmuth
NOES--249
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Amash
Amodei
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chandler
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Davis (KY)
DeFazio
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
[[Page H3573]]
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Rahall
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--15
Bass (CA)
Cardoza
Coble
Culberson
Filner
Holden
Larsen (WA)
Lewis (CA)
Myrick
Napolitano
Olver
Paul
Shuler
Slaughter
Stark
{time} 2333
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chair, on rollcall 354, I was away from the Capitol
due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I
would have voted ``aye.''
Amendment Offered by Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas
(Ms. Jackson Lee) on which further proceedings were postponed and on
which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 60,
noes 355, not voting 16, as follows:
[Roll No. 355]
AYES--60
Ackerman
Amash
Baldwin
Bishop (GA)
Braley (IA)
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Conyers
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Ellison
Engel
Fitzpatrick
Fudge
Garrett
Green, Al
Griffith (VA)
Grijalva
Harris
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Hinchey
Hirono
Holt
Honda
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Jordan
Kucinich
Lee (CA)
Levin
Maloney
Markey
Meeks
Mica
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Mulvaney
Nadler
Polis
Price (GA)
Quayle
Quigley
Rangel
Richmond
Sanchez, Linda T.
Schweikert
Scott (VA)
Southerland
Stutzman
Sutton
Thompson (MS)
Towns
Walsh (IL)
Welch
Young (FL)
NOES--355
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Amodei
Andrews
Austria
Baca
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Becerra
Benishek
Berg
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boswell
Boustany
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Brown (FL)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Carney
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clyburn
Coffman (CO)
Cohen
Cole
Conaway
Connolly (VA)
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Davis (KY)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Edwards
Ellmers
Emerson
Eshoo
Farenthold
Farr
Fattah
Fincher
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garamendi
Gardner
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hall
Hanabusa
Hanna
Harper
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Hochul
Hoyer
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Israel
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly
Kildee
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Langevin
Lankford
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Long
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul
McClintock
McCollum
McCotter
McDermott
McGovern
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meehan
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (PA)
Neal
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Paulsen
Pearce
Pelosi
Pence
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Petri
Pingree (ME)
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (NC)
Rahall
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Reyes
Ribble
Richardson
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Scalise
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Scott, David
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Sewell
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stearns
Stivers
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tierney
Tipton
Tonko
Tsongas
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walberg
Walden
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (FL)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Woolsey
Yarmuth
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--16
Bass (CA)
Cardoza
Coble
Culberson
Cummings
Filner
Holden
Larsen (WA)
Lewis (CA)
Myrick
Napolitano
Olver
Paul
Shuler
Slaughter
Stark
{time} 2336
Mr. RUPPERSBERGER changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chair, on rollcall 355, I was away from the Capitol
due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I
would have voted ``no.''
Amendment Offered by Mr. Higgins
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Higgins) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 150,
noes 266, not voting 15, as follows:
[Roll No. 356]
AYES--150
Ackerman
Altmire
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barrow
Bass (NH)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blackburn
Bonamici
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Courtney
Cravaack
Critz
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Ellison
Engel
Farr
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Frank (MA)
Graves (MO)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hanna
[[Page H3574]]
Hastings (FL)
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hochul
Honda
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kline
Kucinich
Langevin
Larson (CT)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney
Manzullo
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCaul
McCollum
McGovern
McIntyre
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Moore
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Neal
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Paulsen
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree (ME)
Quigley
Rahall
Reed
Reichert
Richardson
Richmond
Rigell
Rothman (NJ)
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schrader
Scott, David
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Sires
Speier
Stivers
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Upton
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOES--266
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Amash
Amodei
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blumenauer
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boswell
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Carney
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chandler
Clyburn
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Costa
Costello
Crawford
Crenshaw
Crowley
Davis (CA)
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dold
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Edwards
Ellmers
Emerson
Eshoo
Farenthold
Fattah
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gallegly
Garamendi
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Heinrich
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Holt
Hoyer
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Israel
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee (CA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Marchant
Marino
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McClintock
McCotter
McDermott
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Moran
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Pearce
Pence
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Polis
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Quayle
Rangel
Rehberg
Renacci
Reyes
Ribble
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schiff
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schwartz
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott (VA)
Scott, Austin
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Southerland
Stearns
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Van Hollen
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Waxman
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Woolsey
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--15
Bass (CA)
Cardoza
Coble
Culberson
Filner
Holden
Larsen (WA)
Lewis (CA)
Myrick
Napolitano
Olver
Paul
Shuler
Slaughter
Stark
{time} 2341
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chair, on rollcall 356, I was away from the Capitol
due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I
would have voted ``aye.''
Amendment Offered by Mr. Bishop of New York
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Bishop) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 166,
noes 245, not voting 20, as follows:
[Roll No. 357]
AYES--166
Ackerman
Amodei
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barrow
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Carney
Castor (FL)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Fattah
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Grimm
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hanna
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hochul
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Keating
Kildee
Kind
King (NY)
Kucinich
Langevin
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Manzullo
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Neal
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Pelosi
Peters
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richmond
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Shimkus
Sires
Smith (WA)
Speier
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Turner (NY)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waxman
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Yarmuth
NOES--245
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Amash
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boswell
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Carson (IN)
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chandler
Clay
Cleaver
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cooper
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Farr
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garamendi
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Marchant
Marino
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCollum
McCotter
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Perlmutter
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Richardson
Rigell
[[Page H3575]]
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner (OH)
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Walz (MN)
Watt
Webster
Welch
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--20
Bass (CA)
Cardoza
Carter
Coble
Costa
Culberson
Filner
Holden
Kaptur
Larsen (WA)
Lewis (CA)
Miller (FL)
Myrick
Napolitano
Olver
Paul
Shuler
Slaughter
Stark
Waters
{time} 2344
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chair, on rollcall 357, I was away from the Capitol
due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I
would have voted ``aye.''
personal explanation
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chair, I was unavoidably detained and missed
rollcall vote Nos. 345, 347, 346, 347, 348, 349, 350, 351, 352, 353,
354, 355, 356, and 357. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye''
on rollcall vote Nos. 345, 347, 348, 349, 350, 351, 354, 356 and 357.
Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall Nos. 346,
352, 353, and 355.
Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Westmoreland) having assumed the chair, Mr. Bass, Acting Chair of the
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 5855)
making appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 2013, and for other purposes, had come
to no resolution thereon.
____________________