[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 158 (2012), Part 6]
[House]
[Pages 8482-8532]
[From the U.S. 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.

[[Page 8483]]

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 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.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chair, I rise to offer an amendment, designated as 
Flake #1.
  This amendment is straight forward; it would reduce funding for the 
Office of the Secretary by $50,000 and transfer a revenue neutral 
amount to 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 next year.
  I offer this amendment as a means of bringing an important issue to 
both Congress' and more importantly the Secretary's attention.
  Let me start by thanking the Chairman and 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 the ports of entry.''
  As would appear to be the trend with Congressional requests for 
information, answers to questions, or budget documentation, the 
Department either failed to prioritize or simply ignored this request 
and it is reiterated in this year's report.
  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 ports of entry has increased exponentially over recent 
years, while the budget for Customs and Border Patrol officers at the 
ports has not kept pace.
  As I travel the border region, in addition to concerns regarding 
border security and the changing nature of threats between the ports, I 
hear persistent concerns that our ports of entry are understaffed.
  Those serving at the ports of entry have at least a dual role, 
facilitating legitimate trade and travel safely while also preventing 
unauthorized people and goods to cross the border.
  I could talk at length about the benefits of cross-border trade for 
communities along our borders and beyond, 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 six million U.S. jobs depending on trade with Mexico.
  The executive director of the Arizona-Mexico Commission was recently 
quoted as 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 business exported nearly $6 billion in goods in 2011.
  Benefits of trade along the southern border are certainly not limited 
to border communities.
  For example, the Mariposa Port of Entry in Nogales is one of the 
largest ports of entry for fruit 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.
  Clearly, a secure border and economic stability in the border region 
are not mutually exclusive and main component of success toward that 
goal is the right staffing levels.
  I can assure you that I am the last member that would support writing 
any agency a blank check. The process of the Appropriations Committee 
performing the necessary oversight and accurately reviewing port of 
entry staffing needs begins with the Department delivering the staffing 
model and information that was requested a year ago.
  I thank the chairman and urge adoption of the amendment.
  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

[[Page 8484]]

     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 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

[[Page 8485]]

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.
  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.

[[Page 8486]]

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.
  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

[[Page 8487]]

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 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

[[Page 8488]]

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.
  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

[[Page 8489]]

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 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

[[Page 8490]]

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 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.

[[Page 8491]]


  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. 
     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

[[Page 8492]]

     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 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

[[Page 8493]]

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.
  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

[[Page 8494]]

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 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 
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

[[Page 8495]]

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.

                 construction and facilities management

       For necessary expenses to plan, acquire, construct, 
     renovate, equip, furnish, operate, manage, and maintain 
     buildings, facilities,

[[Page 8496]]

     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

[[Page 8497]]

least 1.9 million removable criminal aliens in the United States. There 
is the general acknowledgment of an illegal alien population of 
approximately 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.

[[Page 8498]]

  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 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

[[Page 8499]]

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 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.

[[Page 8500]]

  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.
  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 its 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 returned 
control 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

[[Page 8501]]

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).
  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

[[Page 8502]]

     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 
headquarters 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 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

[[Page 8503]]

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 
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 halve 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

[[Page 8504]]

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 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, insert 
     ``(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.

[[Page 8505]]

  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 
Marshall (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 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 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 incidents, 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;

[[Page 8506]]

     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 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. Rescue 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 Lakes 
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

[[Page 8507]]

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 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, 
savings 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.

[[Page 8508]]



                        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 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

[[Page 8509]]

     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, 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

[[Page 8510]]

     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 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.

[[Page 8511]]

  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.
  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

[[Page 8512]]

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 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

[[Page 8513]]

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.
  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.
  Mr. REYES. Mr. Chair, I rise to support the amendment offered by Mr. 
Higgins that would increase funding to the Federal Emergency Management 
Agency's State and Local Program by $58 million to allow communities 
such as the one I represent, El Paso, Texas, to be eligible for Urban 
Areas Security Initiative, UASI, funding under the FY2013 Homeland 
Security Appropriations Bill.
  As you know, UASI provides funding to address the unique planning, 
organization, equipment, and training needs of high-threat, high-
density urban areas. The program assists in building an enhanced and 
sustainable capacity to prevent, protect against, respond to, and 
recover from acts of terrorism.
  Unfortunately, the FY12 Homeland Security Appropriations bill 
contained provisions that would arbitrarily deny funding to more than 
50 cities like El Paso, Texas. These hinder the progress that 
communities like El Paso have made to prevent, protect against, respond 
to and recover from terrorist attacks and could potentially undermine 
the ability of these cities to safeguard their communities.
  As former Chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on 
Intelligence, I know very well the importance of providing our cities 
with adequate resources to prepare, prevent, and protect against 
attacks. This is a time for our communities to remain vigilant. It is 
unwise to cut off resources by including arbitrary language that 
restricts funding for cities like El Paso, which sits on the U.S.-
Mexico border across from what is arguably one of the most violent 
cities in Mexico--Ciudad Juarez. Yet, despite this, El Paso is ranked 
the safest large city in the U.S. I attribute this to the great work of 
law enforcement in our community which is supported by resources 
provided by UASI under the Department of Homeland Security's State and 
Local Grants programs. UASI has directed more than $21.8 million to El 
Paso since 2007. Additionally, El Paso-Juarez is a major center for 
manufacturing and international trade and commerce. El Paso is home to 
one of the largest ports of entry on

[[Page 8514]]

the U.S./Mexico border, and is recognized as one of the top trading 
points in the entire United States. El Paso is home to Fort Bliss, one 
of the United States largest military bases and the Department of 
Defenses top ranked military asset.
  In 2010, El Paso, Texas received $5,389,900 as part of the UASI 
program and an additional $75,000 through the UASI Nonprofit Security 
Grant Program to help nonprofit organizations at high risk of attack 
and located within one of the UASI-eligible areas.
  With continued violence in Mexico and other potential security 
threats in our area, these funds are especially critical. As our local 
governments continue to face budget difficulties, these Federal grants 
help ensure that our local law enforcement agencies have the resources 
they need to ensure El Paso remains the safest large city in the U.S.
  El Paso has a track record of wisely investing UASI funds in projects 
such as an emergency notification system, an information fusion center, 
urban search and rescue teams, hazardous materials specialty teams, and 
critical interoperable communications infrastructure upgrades.
  The UASI grant has provided the El Paso Region with equipment such 
as: chemical and hazardous materials detectors, thermal imaging 
cameras, personal protective equipment, command units, generators, 
tactical ballistic helmets and vests, security systems, response 
vehicles, emergency notification system, and even medical cache for 
H1N1 pandemic, as well as numerous other projects.
  The grant funds have also assisted in coordination exercises, 
including: ranged interdepartmental communication and training, agency 
communication and training, and EOC exercises to regional cross-
discipline and multi-agency training scenarios. All of the exercises 
are compiled and analyzed through After Action Reports, which are 
indispensable as training tools to reflect our areas of strength and 
weakness. In addition, the grant has also funded training such as 
National Incident Management System, Bomb Team, Hazmat, and other 
training exercises deemed eligible on the grant.
  El Paso area communities have all benefited from the regional UASI by 
significantly increasing their capabilities. The funds allowed for the 
purchase of equipment and training such as those outlined by the 
Department of Homeland Security's National Planning Scenarios and 
Target Capabilities Lists. I urge my colleagues to support Mr. Higgins' 
amendment, the Urban Area Security Initiative, to ensure that our 
communities and our country remain safe. Mr. Higgins' amendment ensures 
that communities like mine in El Paso, Texas, receive the support they 
need from the UASI program.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and help continue to 
keep our large cities safe.
  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

[[Page 8515]]

     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 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:

[[Page 8516]]



           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.
  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 point one-one 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

[[Page 8517]]

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.
  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

[[Page 8518]]

     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 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

[[Page 8519]]

     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 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

[[Page 8520]]

     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 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

[[Page 8521]]

     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)).
       (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

[[Page 8522]]

     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 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

[[Page 8523]]

     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
     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

[[Page 8524]]


     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:

                             [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

[[Page 8525]]


     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
     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.

[[Page 8526]]

  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
     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

[[Page 8527]]


     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
     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.

[[Page 8528]]

  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
     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

[[Page 8529]]


     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
     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

[[Page 8530]]

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
     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

[[Page 8531]]


     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
     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.

[[Page 8532]]

  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, 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.

                          ____________________