[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 158 (2012), Part 6]
[House]
[Pages 8669-8704]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




        DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2013

  Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that, during 
further consideration of H.R. 5855 in the Committee of the Whole 
pursuant to House Resolution 667, no further amendment to the bill may 
be offered except (1) pro forma amendments offered at any point in the 
reading by the chair or ranking minority member of the Committee on 
Appropriations or their respective designees for the purpose of debate; 
and (2) further amendments, if offered on this legislative day, as 
follows: an amendment by Mr. Aderholt regarding funding levels; an 
amendment en bloc by Mr. Aderholt consisting of amendments specified in 
this order not earlier disposed of; an amendment by Ms. Baldwin 
limiting funds regarding Coast Guard Offshore Patrol Cutter class of 
ships; an amendment by Mr. Barletta regarding section 642(a) of the 
Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996; an 
amendment by Mrs. Black limiting funds for the position of Public 
Advocate within U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; an amendment 
by Mrs. Blackburn regarding Transportation Security Administration 
employee training; an amendment by Mrs. Blackburn regarding 
Transportation Security Administration teams used in any operation; an 
amendment by Mr. Brooks regarding section 133.21(b)(1) of title 19, 
Code of Federal Regulations; an amendment by Mr. Broun of Georgia 
limiting funds for Behavior Detection Officers or the SPOT program; an 
amendment by Mr. Broun of Georgia regarding the Screening Partnership 
Program; an amendment by Ms. Brown of Florida regarding funding levels 
for U.S. Customs and Border Protection; an amendment by Mr. Cravaack 
limiting funds for security screening personnel; an amendment by Mr. 
Cravaack limiting funds to pay rent for storage of screening equipment; 
an amendment by Mr. Cravaack regarding section 236(c) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act; an amendment by Mr. Crowley regarding 
India; an amendment by Mr. Culberson regarding the Immigration and 
Nationality Act; an amendment by Mr. Davis of Illinois regarding 
cybersecurity; an amendment by Mr. Ellison regarding the Civil Rights 
Act of 1964; an amendment by Mr. Engel regarding light duty vehicles; 
an amendment by Mr. Flores regarding section 526 of the Energy 
Independence and Security Act of 2007; an amendment by Mr. Fortenberry 
limiting funds to restrict airline passengers from recording; an 
amendment by Mr. Garrett limiting funds for VIPR teams; an amendment by 
Mr. Graves of Missouri regarding the rule entitled Provisional Unlawful 
Presence Waivers of Inadmissibility for Certain Immediate Relatives; an 
amendment by Ms. Hochul regarding unclaimed clothing; an amendment by 
Mr. Holt limiting funds for aerial vehicles; an amendment by Mr. Holt 
regarding scanning systems; an amendment by Mr. King of Iowa regarding 
Department of Homeland Security policy documents; an amendment by Mr. 
King of Iowa regarding Executive Order 13166; an amendment by Mr. 
Landry regarding aerial vehicles; an amendment by Mr. Loebsack limiting 
funds to deny assistance obligated by FEMA; an amendment by Mr. Meehan 
regarding Boko Haram; an amendment by Ms. Moore regarding a pending 
application for status under the Immigration and Nationality Act; an 
amendment by Mr. Murphy of Pennsylvania regarding a Federal Air Marshal 
Service office; an amendment by Mr. Pierluisi regarding section 1301(a) 
of title 31, United States Code; an amendment by Mr. Polis regarding an 
across-the-board reduction; an amendment by Mr. Price of Georgia 
regarding immigration laws; an amendment by Mr. Ryan of Ohio regarding 
visas; an amendment by Mr. Schweikert regarding the Secure Communities 
program; an amendment by Mr. Sullivan regarding section 287(g) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act; an amendment by Mr. Thompson of 
California regarding deportation of certain aliens; an amendment by Mr. 
Turner of New York regarding surface transportation security 
inspectors; and an amendment by Mr. Walsh of Illinois regarding 
software licenses; and that each such further amendment may be offered 
only by the Member named in this request or a designee, shall not be 
subject to a demand for division of the question in the House or in the 
Committee of the Whole, and shall not be subject to amendment except 
that the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
Appropriations (or their respective designees) each may offer one pro 
forma amendment for the purpose of debate; and that each further 
amendment shall be debatable for 10 minutes, equally divided and 
controlled by the proponent and an opponent.

[[Page 8670]]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Yoder). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Alabama?
  There was no objection.


                             General Leave

  Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks 
and include extraneous material on H.R. 5855 and that I may include 
tabular material on the same.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Yoder). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Alabama?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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 New Hampshire (Mr. Bass) kindly resume the 
chair.

                              {time}  1715


                     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. Bass (Acting Chair) in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The Acting CHAIR. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Wednesday, 
June 6, 2012, an amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Bishop) had been disposed of and the bill had been read through page 
99, line 17.
  Pursuant to the order of the House of today, no further amendment may 
be offered except those specified in the previous order, which is at 
the desk.


               Amendment Offered by Ms. Brown of Florida

  Ms. BROWN of Florida. I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  The amounts otherwise provided by this Act are 
     revised by reducing the amount made available for 
     ``Departmental Management and Operations--Departmental 
     Operations--Office of the Secretary and Executive 
     Management'', and increasing the amount made available for 
     ``U.S. Customs and Border Protection--Salaries and 
     Expenses'', by $28,400,000 and $25,000,000, respectively.

  Mr. ADERHOLT. I reserve a point of order.
  The Acting CHAIR. The point of order is reserved.
  Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the gentlewoman from 
Florida (Ms. Brown) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Florida.
  Ms. BROWN of Florida. I'm going to offer and withdraw my amendment 
but would like to continue to work with the committee to ensure our 
busiest airports have the Customs and Border Protection personnel they 
need to operate efficiently.
  It is clear from the amendment being offered and statements being 
made that we have a severe need for additional Customs and Border 
Protection officers at every point of entry into the United States. 
Airports across America are losing customers and alienating foreign 
visitors because of the lack of Customs and Border Protection officers 
and the major delays it causes. Many foreign tourists anxious to spend 
money in the U.S. are kept on the tarmac for hours waiting to get 
processed by Customs and Border Protection. This is unacceptable and is 
forcing tourists to travel to non-U.S. destinations. This is also 
causing significant economic harm to many of our country's busiest 
cities.
  My home airport, Orlando International Airport, which is one of the 
busiest ones in the U.S. and the number one tourist destination, 
bringing tourists from all over the world to visit our amazing 
amusement parks, universities, and business centers, is a prime example 
of the problem.
  Since 2009, Orlando International Airport traffic has grown by more 
than 17 percent without any increase in Customs and Border Protection 
personnel. The results are waiting times that exceed 2 and sometimes 3 
hours. However, this does not take into account those all too frequent 
instances where passengers are required to remain onboard the arriving 
aircraft, parked on ramps for up to an additional hour because the 
lines in the Federal Inspection Station are too long to securely and 
efficiently process them.
  President Obama recognized this fact when he traveled to central 
Florida to announce his Executive order directing the Department of 
Homeland Security and the Department of Commerce to develop and 
implement a plan within 60 days to increase nonimmigrant visa 
processing capacities in China and Brazil by 40 percent in the coming 
year. Clearly, increased visitation to the United States means jobs, 
yet without additional Customs and Border Protection resources, Orlando 
International Airport will not be able to help the President achieve 
this goal.
  With just 15 new Customs and Border Protection agents, the airport 
could accommodate additional flights that would generate 2,000 jobs and 
generate revenues of $360 million a year. That is a great return on our 
investment and exactly the kind of shot in the arm that our region 
desperately needs.
  I know we're not going to solve this problem today, but I want to 
encourage this committee and the Department of Homeland Security to 
make every effort to ensure that a simple lack of Customs and Border 
Protection personnel isn't costing thousands of jobs and millions in 
economic development.
  I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
  There was no objection.

                              {time}  1720

  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 would yield to the gentleman from 
Nebraska (Mr. Terry) to talk about an important cyber-critical 
infrastructure issue.
  Mr. TERRY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me the opportunity 
to express my concerns with proposals that would allow the Department 
of Homeland Security to impose cybersecurity private infrastructure 
that it deems ``critical.''
  The administration wants to expand DHS's role in designating private 
networks as critical infrastructure for the purpose of subjecting them 
to regulation, but it has yet to take care of its own networks. I 
commend Chairman Aderholt for including language in this bill that 
requires executive branch agencies to get their act together and 
formulate expenditure plans to protect their own networks. If they 
can't even secure Federal networks, why in the world would we want to 
give them authority to regulate private sector networks?
  I understand that DHS currently works with the private sector on a 
voluntary basis, but that should be the extent of their involvement 
with critical infrastructure. As a member of the Speaker's Task Force 
on Cybersecurity, as well as the co-chairman of the Energy and Commerce 
Working Group on Cybersecurity, I have the very firm opinion that DHS 
simply should not be allowed to regulate cyber-critical infrastructure 
in the private sector.
  I have great respect for the chairman. I will not be offering my 
amendment. I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues on 
this issue, and again thank the chairman for his courtesy.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. I thank the gentleman for his comments. I am also a 
member of the Speaker's Task Force on Cybersecurity, and I understand 
the concerns that the gentleman has expressed this afternoon.
  As the gentleman noted, this bill focuses on Federal network security 
by addressing the failure of the administration to protect its own 
networks. Again, I want to thank the gentleman

[[Page 8671]]

for his comments, and I would be happy to work with him to address his 
concerns.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. Who seeks recognition?
  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 yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Murphy).
  Mr. MURPHY of Pennsylvania. I want to thank the chairman and Ranking 
Member Price for their hard work in writing a bill that keeps American 
families safe and prioritizes border and immigration law enforcement in 
a very tough budget environment.
  In this bill, the Federal Air Marshal Service is under particular 
pressure to reduce costs, and we all share the common goal of pursuing 
the most cost-efficient and mission-effective air marshals to protect 
our skies.
  In my district, there are over 80 dedicated and professional air 
marshals at the Pittsburgh International Airport, which is one of the 
country's 50 busiest airports. We all know about the air marshals' hard 
work, training, and risk to keep us safe; but I'm concerned about the 
potential impact on air marshals' cost and the impact upon families if 
the Federal Air Marshal Service moves forward with a restructuring 
plan. That's why I was going to offer an amendment with Congressman 
Altmire to ensure no decision is made impacting Pittsburgh's air 
marshal workforce without first conducting a cost-benefit analysis that 
explores all potential options.
  I'm concerned if the Transportation Security Administration proceeds 
with closing the Pittsburgh office, any potential for savings would be 
dwarfed by the hundreds of thousands of dollars spent to relocate 
employees and their families.
  Currently, taxpayers and the TSA pay almost nothing in commuting 
costs because the Pittsburgh air marshal office is less than 2 miles 
from the Pittsburgh airport terminal. Since air marshals are doing most 
of their work on a plane, the office exists mostly as a place for 
employees to go and complete their paperwork. Forcing air marshals to 
travel between a new office potentially much further from the 
Pittsburgh airport would dramatically increase costs and travel time.
  What's most important for purposes of cost and security is the 
proximity of the air marshal workforce to the airport. I have asked the 
Federal Air Marshal Service to review alternatives to closure or 
transfer of the Pittsburgh field office, including co-locating its 
office on the grounds of the 911th Airlift Wing, which is an Air 
Reserve military base, part of the Pittsburgh International Airport.
  Moving to the 911th would save the Agency a significant amount of 
overhead and rent costs while preserving the Federal Air Marshal 
Service operational mission to keep the skies safe.
  I've been assured by the director of the Federal Air Marshal Service 
that he will look into alternatives to save costs, and I would like to 
get the assurance from the chairman that he'll work with me on securing 
that report.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Ellison

  Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used in contravention of any of the following:
       (1) The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution 
     of the United States.
       (2) Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (relating to 
     nondiscrimination in federally assisted programs).
       (3) Section 809(c)(1) of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe 
     Streets Act of 1968 (relating to prohibition of 
     discrimination).
       (4) Section 210401(a) of the Violent Crime and Law 
     Enforcement Act of 1994 (relating to unlawful police pattern 
     or practice).

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment that I believe should 
enjoy bipartisan support on all sides. America being the land of the 
free, home of the brave, where liberty and justice for all is how we 
live. We recite those words every day when we come to the floor to say 
the Pledge of Allegiance.
  This is simply an amendment which says in America, law enforcement 
will respect the individual dignity of each person and operate on the 
basis of what would indicate criminal behavior, not race, not national 
origin, not religion.
  The leaders of four separate important caucuses in this Congress have 
come together and are in support. That includes the Congressional 
Progressive Caucus, the Congressional Black Caucus, the Congressional 
Hispanic Caucus, and the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus, 
which have all come together to say this is an important thing for all 
of us to support.
  Everyone here in this body appreciates the hard work of DHS employees 
and what they do on a daily basis to keep our country safe. We thank 
them and value the work that they do. And we appreciate all law 
enforcement, especially when they put their lives at risk for our 
safety. No one questions law enforcement in general. But you should 
know, and there is no doubt and there is ample evidence to demonstrate, 
that there have been occasions in which individual Americans have been 
singled out, and this is not what our Nation is about. It's not the 
policy that we should support; and, therefore, we should support an 
amendment which says that discrimination has no place in the 
administration of the law.
  Occasionally, reports of racial, ethnic, and religious profiling do 
surface. We see them in the media and reports in the civil liberty 
unions. In fact, I have reports in my hand, Mr. Chairman, ``Immigration 
Enforcement: Minor Offenses With Major Consequences by the ACLU,'' and 
``The Growing Human Rights Crisis,'' which details how people have been 
singled out based on impermissible criteria. And so it is important for 
us to affirm in America, after all we have gone through to create 
liberty and justice for all, that we've got to affirm this principle 
here today.
  Too many Americans who were simply going about their business have 
been discriminated against based solely on race, ethnicity, and 
religion. It's wrong when it happens, all of us can agree. And it's not 
what our country is all about. This amendment I'm offering today simply 
says it's contrary to our values. Our amendment is straightforward. It 
simply cites the Constitution and existing anti-discrimination laws to 
affirm that no funds made available by this bill can be used to engage 
in racial, ethnic, or religious profiling.

                              {time}  1730

  This is not a controversial amendment. It affirms core American 
values hard fought for not only in the civil rights movement, but many 
others, even including the Civil War. Nor it is partisan. In fact, it 
was a former Bush administration official who said, ``Religious or 
ethnic or racial stereotyping is simply not good policing.'' So that's 
not coming from me. That's an official from the Bush administration, 
and I quite agree with what he said.
  So I urge all my colleagues to stand with me and vote in favor of 
this important amendment.
  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 would be happy to accept the amendment from the 
gentleman from Minnesota.
  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 
chairman's willingness here to accept this

[[Page 8672]]

amendment. We think it's a good amendment, straightforward, intended to 
achieve goals about which we all ought to be able to agree. It simply 
seeks to ensure that Federal funding for the Department of Homeland 
Security is not used by law enforcement to discriminate or to deprive 
individuals of their constitutional rights.
  I commend the gentleman for offering this amendment and urge its 
acceptance.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).
  The amendment was agreed to.


              Amendment Offered by Mr. Graves of Missouri

  Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the 
desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to finalize, implement, administer, or enforce the 
     rule entitled ``Provisional Unlawful Presence Waivers of 
     Inadmissibility for Certain Immediate Relatives'' published 
     by the Department of Homeland Security on April 2, 2102 (77 
     Fed. Reg. 19902).

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Graves) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri.
  Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an 
amendment which would prohibit funds from being used to enforce a rule 
proposed by this administration.
  Under current law, certain spouses, children, and parents of U.S. 
citizens who are in this country illegally are not eligible to apply 
for a green card without first leaving the United States. These 
immediate relatives must travel abroad to obtain a green card from the 
Department of State and must also request from the U.S. Citizenship and 
Immigration Services a waiver to the 3-year or 10-year ban that they 
received as a result of their unlawful presence.
  The DHS-proposed rule would allow illegals with U.S. citizen 
relatives to stay in the United States while the Federal Government 
decides on their waiver requests. Specifically, the rule allows 
illegals to apply for and receive a provisional waiver to the 3-year or 
10-year ban they received. The rule would simply allow them to remain 
in the U.S. illegally.
  I'm a strong proponent of enforcing our current immigration laws, and 
this proposed rule allows illegals to circumvent Federal statutes that 
govern admission. It makes it easier for illegals to stay in our 
country unlawfully.
  The core impact of the proposed rule will be to encourage relatives 
of U.S. citizens to come to the U.S. illegally. All an illegal 
individual needs to do is apply for a provisional waiver from the 3-
year or 10-year ban and then apply for a green card.
  What's even worse is if the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
denies an application for a provisional waiver, ICE will not prosecute 
that illegal for being in the U.S. unlawfully. In fact, ICE announced 
in August 2011 that it would seek to dismiss the prosecution of cases 
of illegals who have applied for a green card.
  My amendment is going to block this proposed rule, known as the 
Provisional Unlawful Presence Waiver. I think it's going to send a 
strong message to illegals that are in our country unlawfully, you're 
not going to receive any form of benefits or leniency from our 
government.
  My amendment also sends a message to this administration to start 
enforcing our current immigration laws, to support all efforts to 
control and defend our borders, and to stop giving breaks to those who 
have come to this country illegally.
  I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. I would be happy to accept the gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. I reserve 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 negate the recent rule that would grant 
certain immediate relatives of U.S. citizens to apply for a provisional 
unlawful presence waiver while still in the U.S.
  Applications for the unlawful presence waiver can take months or even 
years to adjudicate. This change in processing, this new rule, would 
permit U.S. citizens to remain united with their loved ones and ensure 
that the U.S. citizen is not subjected to the very harm--that is, 
prolonged separation--that the waiver, if granted, was meant to 
prevent.
  To be clear, a pending or approved provisional waiver will not 
provide the interim benefits, such as employment authorization, it will 
not provide lawful status, it will not stop the accrual of unlawful 
presence, it will not provide protection from removal.
  What it would do is eliminate the catch-22 faced by many American 
families who want to do the right thing by having family members 
already eligible for the waiver come forward to adjust to legal status. 
Under the current process, they're penalized if they come forward, 
penalized by long-term separation from U.S. citizens who are immediate 
relatives and who depend on them for emotional and financial support.
  By allowing the processing of waiver applications in the United 
States, the proposed rule would improve the efficiency of the process 
and would save taxpayer money. It's a much needed change. It's a good 
rule. This change in processing is vitally needed. I see no reason to 
approve an amendment here tonight that would cancel out this beneficial 
change, and I urge the amendment's defeat.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Chairman, it has come to my attention 
that my amendment has a typo in it. It reads 2102 as the date. I ask 
unanimous consent that that be changed to 2012.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection?
  Without objection, the amendment is modified.
  There was no objection.
  The text of the amendment, as modified, is as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to finalize, implement, administer, or enforce the 
     rule entitled ``Provisional Unlawful Presence Waivers of 
     Inadmissibility for Certain Immediate Relatives'' published 
     by the Department of Homeland Security on April 2, 2012 (77 
     Fed. Reg. 19902).

  Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Chairman, with that, I would urge my 
colleagues to support the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment, as modified, 
offered by the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Graves).
  The amendment, as modified, was agreed to.


                 Amendment Offered by Mr. Ryan of Ohio

  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

         At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert 
     the following:
         Sec. ___.  None of the funds made available by this Act 
     may be used to issue an immigrant or nonimmigrant visa to a 
     citizen, subject, national, or resident of Brazil until the 
     President of the United States determines and certifies to 
     the Congress that the Government of Brazil has amended its 
     laws to remove the prohibition on extradition of nationals of 
     Brazil to other countries, except that the President may 
     waive the application of this section on a case-by-case basis 
     if the President determines and certifies to the Congress 
     that it is in the national interests of the United States to 
     do so.

  Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. A point of order is reserved.

[[Page 8673]]

  Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Ryan) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I have a heart-wrenching story to 
share with the Congress and the American people, of which I would like 
this amendment to help take some action: the egregious 2007 case of a 
decorated airman's murder in my congressional district, the State of 
Ohio v. Claudia C. Hoerig.

                              {time}  1740

  According to the affidavit, Mrs. Hoerig, wife of the deceased, 
purchased a Smith & Wesson .357, learned how to use it, practiced in 
Warren, in Trumbull County, Ohio, and days later, on March 12, 2007, 
she allegedly shot her husband, Major Karl Hoerig, twice in the back of 
the neck and once in the back of the head.
  After being charged with aggravated murder by the Court of Common 
Pleas of Trumbull County, Ohio, Mrs. Hoerig fled to her native Brazil, 
where she has found sanctuary for 5 years.
  The issue here, Mr. Chairman, is that I have a family in my district 
that has not seen justice served. She went to Brazil, in which we have 
an extradition treaty, but the Brazilian Constitution says that 
Brazilian citizens can't come back to the United States. But the issue 
here is that in 1999 Mrs. Hoerig renounced her citizenship in Brazil, 
became a citizen of the United States of America. So we have every 
right to ask the Brazilians to send her back to the United States.
  She needs to have justice served. The Hoerig family needs justice 
served, and Karl Hoerig deserves that as he rests in peace.
  The Brazilian Government has, on numerous occasions, pledged to 
internally investigate this matter and investigate the possible 
renunciation of Mrs. Hoerig's citizenship on the following grounds: in 
that, in her sworn, signed affidavit, Mrs. Hoerig renounced her 
Brazilian citizenship on the occasion of her U.S. naturalization in 
1999, and that the Brazilian Government has stated that it may, in 
fact, honor Hoerig's renunciation, given the serious criminal nature.
  So this amendment, because I cannot seem to get the attention of the 
Brazilian officials, after numerous letters, numerous attempts, working 
closely with the State Department, can't get the Brazilians' attention. 
So this amendment is saying that we shall not use money to let 
Brazilians into the United States and allow them visas.
  1.8 million visas are predicted to Brazilians in 2013. And I hope 
that some of us on both sides of the aisle can say that this man served 
our country. We have a woman who renounced her Brazilian citizenship, 
came to the United States, killed this airman, and went back to Brazil 
and now is in sanctuary there.
  So I understand there may be some issues with this potential 
amendment here, but I will say, Mr. Chairman, that there are defense 
bills that will come to this floor, and I will attempt in some way to 
get the Brazilians' attention with the defense bills. There is foreign 
ops money, foreign aid that we use with Brazil. I will come to this 
floor as many times as I need to to try to get the attention of the 
Brazilian Government to make sure that Karl Hoerig and his family have 
the justice that they have earned, not just by being citizens of the 
United States, but also by serving this country so nobly for so many 
years.
  I yield back the balance of my time.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
amendment because it proposes to change existing law and it constitutes 
legislation in an appropriation bill and therefore violates clause 2 of 
rule XXI.
  The rule states, in pertinent part:
  ``An amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order 
if changing existing law.''
  The amendment imposes additional duties.
  I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
  The Acting CHAIR. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point 
of order?
  Seeing none, the Chair is prepared to rule.
  The Chair finds that this amendment includes language conferring 
authority. The amendment therefore constitutes legislation in violation 
of clause 2 of rule XXI.
  The point of order is sustained and the amendment is not in order.


                    Amendment Offered by Mrs. Black

  Mrs. BLACK. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to provide funding for the position of Public 
     Advocate within U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Black) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Tennessee.
  Mrs. BLACK. Mr. Chairman, I'm here today to talk about my amendment 
that would prohibit funding for an ill-conceived lobbyist position at 
the Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE.
  The Obama administration announced on February 7 of this year that it 
would begin advocating on behalf of illegal aliens, illegal alien 
advocates and communities that harbor illegals.
  When Congress established the Department of Homeland Security, it 
created an advocate position for immigrants in the legal immigration 
process, but it declined to create one for illegal immigrants. The 
President cannot continue to willfully ignore the laws and the intent 
of Congress.
  Mr. Chairman, there are currently 10 million unauthorized aliens in 
this country, and in the last 3 years, eight States have adopted 
immigration enforcement measures to address the illegal alien 
population in their States. This has come to pass because of the 
Federal Government's failure to secure the borders and enforce our 
immigration laws.
  Nevertheless, the administration has not only used taxpayer dollars 
to sue States for such laws, but now wants to use taxpayer dollars to 
act as a lobbyist for illegal aliens. My amendment would deny the Obama 
administration funding for the illegal alien advocate position at ICE.
  Contrary to what the Obama administration seems to think, the 
Department of Homeland Security was not created to act as a lobbying 
firm for illegal aliens. Using taxpayer dollars to fund a position 
whose primary purpose is to advocate on behalf of individuals who have 
come into our country illegally is ridiculous and certainly a waste of 
precious taxpayer dollars.
  The administration should be using this money instead for its 
intended purpose--to combat illegal immigrants.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. Will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. BLACK. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. We believe this is duplicative, but we will accept the 
gentlelady from Tennessee's amendment. The position would be 
duplicative, but we do accept the gentlelady's amendment.
  Mrs. BLACK. 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 would prohibit any funding for Immigration and 
Customs Enforcement's new Public Advocate, a crucial position formed 
just this past February.
  The public advocate works directly with ICE's Executive Assistant 
Director of Enforcement and Removal Operations to respond to acute and 
pressing concerns from those going through the immigration process, as 
well as family members and advocates. For example,

[[Page 8674]]

the public advocate assists individuals and community members in 
resolving complaints and concerns with agency policies and operations, 
particularly those that are related to the use of ICE enforcement 
involving U.S. citizens. It proposes changes and recommendations to fix 
community-identified immigration problems and concerns. Without the 
public advocate, individuals proceeding through the immigration process 
would not have the same level of access to neutral, unbiased internal 
oversight, fulfilling the role of ombudsman for the public.
  Since its inception on February 7, the public advocate has provided 
effective resolution of serious complaints, assisted in increasing 
public engagement at all levels, and acted as a good steward of the 
public dollar.
  By adopting this amendment, we'd be saving ICE less than $200,000 per 
year, while severely impeding community participation and commonsense 
enforcement strategies.
  I can't imagine why we would want to cancel a position that is so 
effective in helping citizens, helping those who have a stake in all 
this, helping them penetrate the bureaucracy, helping them get a 
resolution of serious complaints, making this agency, in effect, more 
user friendly, more responsive. Why would we want to damage that or 
destroy it? But that's exactly what this amendment would do, and I urge 
its rejection.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Black).
  The amendment was agreed to.

                              {time}  1750


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Crowley

  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  It is the sense of Congress that the Department 
     of Homeland Security should increase coordination with India 
     on efforts to prevent terrorist attacks in the United States 
     and India.

  Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the 
gentleman's amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Alabama reserves a point of 
order.
  Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Crowley) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. CROWLEY. I, along with my colleague Mr. Royce of California, plan 
to offer a bipartisan amendment to the measure, but I understand this 
is subject to a point of order. I appreciate the chair and the ranking 
member for supporting an opportunity to say a few words since I won't 
be asking for a vote on the amendment at this time.
  My amendment is about the importance of cooperation on homeland 
security between the United States and India. I believe that one of the 
most important decisions the United States has made in recent years is 
to strengthen our relationship with the democratic nation of India. 
With that relationship, one of our most important decisions has been to 
cooperate and coordinate on matters dealing with homeland security.
  The fact is that both the United States and India face threats of 
terrorist attacks. The people of India will never forget the tragedy of 
9/11. After all, many of those who were killed were of Indian origin. 
The people of the United States looked on in horror as terrorists 
carried out the brutal Mumbai attacks. In those attacks, terrorists 
killed not only Indians but Americans as well. 9/11 and Mumbai remind 
us of why it is important that we work together with India, and the 
people of our two countries remind us of why we must sustain and deepen 
that cooperation even further.
  So I want to urge the Department of Homeland Security to continue the 
important work that it is doing with regard to India to help ensure 
that both of our countries are safe from terrorist attack.
  I also want to thank my colleague Mr. Royce, who had planned to offer 
this amendment along with me. Support in this area is bipartisan, and 
we will continue to work in a bipartisan way.
  Mr. Chairman, at this time, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my 
amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection?
  Seeing none, the amendment is withdrawn.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Flores

  Mr. FLORES. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), add the 
     following new section:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to enforce section 526 of the Energy Independence and 
     Security Act of 2007 (Public Law 110-140; 42 U.S.C. 17142).

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Flores) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. FLORES. Mr. Chair, I rise today to offer an amendment which 
addresses another misguided and restrictive Federal regulation.
  Section 526 of the Energy Independence and Security Act prevents 
Federal agencies from entering into contracts for the procurement of a 
fuel unless its life cycle greenhouse gas emissions are less than or 
equal to emissions from an equivalent conventional fuel produced from 
conventional petroleum sources. In summary, my amendment would stop the 
government from enforcing this ban on all Federal agencies funded by 
the Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill.
  The initial purpose of section 526 was to stop the Defense 
Department's plans to buy and develop coal-based or coal-to-liquids jet 
fuel. This restriction was based on the opinion of some 
environmentalists that coal-based jet fuel might produce more 
greenhouse gas emissions than jet fuel from traditional petroleum. We 
must ensure that our military has adequate fuel resources and that it 
can rely on domestic and more stable sources of fuel.
  Unfortunately, section 526's ban on fuel choice now affects all 
Federal agencies, not just the Defense Department, which is why I am 
offering this amendment again today to the Homeland Security 
appropriations bill. Federal agencies should not be burdened with 
wasting their time studying fuel restrictions when there is a simple 
fix: to not restrict our fuel choices based on extreme environmental 
views, policies, and misguided regulations like those in section 526.
  With increasing competition for energy and fuel resources and with 
the continued volatility and instability in the Middle East, it is now 
more important than ever for our country to become more energy 
independent and to further develop all of our domestic energy 
resources, including alternative fuels.
  Placing limits on Federal agencies' fuel choices is an unacceptable 
precedent to set in regard to America's policy independence and our 
national security. Mr. Chair, section 526 makes our Nation more 
dependent on Middle Eastern oil. Stopping the impact of section 526 
will help us to promote American energy, improve the American economy, 
and create American jobs.
  Now, in some circles, there is a misconception that my amendment will 
somehow prevent the Federal Government and our military from being able 
to produce and use alternative fuels. Mr. Chair, this viewpoint is 
categorically false. All my amendment does is to allow the Federal 
Government purchasers of these fuels to acquire the fuels that best and 
most efficiently meet their needs.
  I offered a similar amendment to the CJS appropriations bill, and it 
passed with bipartisan support. My similar amendments to the MilCon-VA 
and to

[[Page 8675]]

the Energy and Water appropriations bills also passed by voice votes. 
My friend Mr. Conaway also had language added to the Defense 
authorization bill to exempt the Defense Department from this 
burdensome regulation.
  Let's remember the following facts about section 526: It increases 
our reliance on Middle Eastern oil. It hurts our military readiness, 
our national security and our energy security. It also prevents a 
potential increased use of some sources of safe, clean and efficient 
American oil and gas. It also increases the cost of American food and 
energy. It hurts American jobs and the American economy. Last but 
certainly not least, it costs our taxpayers more of their hard-earned 
dollars.
  I urge my colleagues to support the passage of this commonsense 
amendment.
  At this time, I yield to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Aderholt).
  Mr. ADERHOLT. Yes, I would be happy to accept your amendment, and I 
look forward to working with you as we move forward in the process.
  Mr. FLORES. I reserve 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 
the gentleman's amendment.
  I think it's fair to say, if we are talking about common sense, that 
the balance of common sense lies against this amendment and with 
section 526 of the Energy Independence and Security Act.
  It's quite a straightforward provision intended simply to ensure that 
the environmental costs from the use of alternative fuels, whatever 
they may be, are at least no worse than the fuels in use today. Why 
shouldn't that burden of proof be placed on the use of alternative 
fuels? It requires that the Federal Government do no more harm when it 
comes to global climate change than it is already doing through the use 
of unconventional fuels.
  So this is a commonsense provision. It escapes me as to why we would 
want to violate this or bypass it in this Homeland Security bill, so I 
urge the rejection of the amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FLORES. Mr. Chair, how much time do I have remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas has 1 minute remaining.
  Mr. FLORES. I appreciate the gentleman's remarks, but I do want to 
say this:
  Again, my amendment does nothing to restrict the fuel choices of any 
Federal agency, in particular, those of the U.S. military. What it does 
do, for instance, is to allow the agencies to procure fuel that is 
refined from oil from Canada oil sands once the Keystone pipeline is 
built and once those fuels are refined. Today, theoretically, section 
526 would restrict the use of those energy resources from our friendly 
neighbor--I think that is inappropriate--and it also causes our 
taxpayer funds to be spent less wisely.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Flores).
  The amendment was agreed to.

                              {time}  1800


                 Amendment Offered by Mr. King of Iowa

  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to enforce Executive Order 13166 (August 16, 2000; 65 
     Fed. Reg. 50121).

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Iowa.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, my amendment addresses Executive 
Order 13166. That was an executive order that was issued in August of 
2000 that directed our Federal agencies to provide foreign-language 
services to anyone who might seek to engage with the American 
Government. When I say the American Government, I do mean, Mr. 
Chairman, not just the Federal Government, but also local government.
  The order directs Federal fund recipients--meaning local government--
to pay for the enormous cost of providing translation and interpreter 
services from their own funds. There is no Federal reimbursement for 
this executive order. Many of us support English as the official 
language. We understand that there are billions that are spent in an 
effort to facilitate access to government to people who do not have the 
language skills, but also understand it is impossible to meet all of 
those demands.
  As we watch the proliferation in this government, I would look at 
what recently Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano released, 
a memorandum detailing a DHS language access plan, which expands 
Executive Order 13166.
  In summary, Mr. Chairman, this amendment simply says that no funds 
available under this act may be utilized to enforce Executive Order 
13166.
  With that, I yield to the chairman of the subcommittee from Alabama.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. I rise in support of the gentleman's amendment from 
Iowa, and we think this is a good idea.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Reclaiming my time, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to 
the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Gingrey of Georgia). The gentleman is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. This is an amendment that it seems very 
clear would actually hamper DHS operations and make us less safe.
  Every component of DHS has to communicate effectively in their daily 
operations in order to accomplish the mission of the Department. How 
can ICE enforce our immigration laws without being able to communicate 
meaningfully with foreign-born persons with limited English 
proficiency? This is a critical executive order. It was a top priority 
in the Bush administration.
  There was a memorandum issued during the Bush administration to the 
heads of all Federal agencies that helped facilitate the development of 
limited English-language proficiency plans.
  To elaborate on that further, I yield to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Chu), a leading member on the Judiciary Committee.
  Ms. CHU. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose this amendment.
  If this amendment passed, it would have a negative effect on many 
immigrants, many of whom work hard and play by the rules and are here 
legally, but may not have the ability to speak English well.
  If this amendment passed, innocent people could be harmed. Foreign-
born naturalized citizens would be at risk of erroneous detention and 
deportation by ICE. Not only that, detainees with serious, possibly 
life-threatening, medical needs would be placed in great peril due to 
the inability to make medical requests and communicate effectively with 
medical service providers.
  If this amendment passed, lives could be lost because DHS and FEMA 
would have difficulty issuing danger warnings and evacuation 
instructions, as well as other critical notices in other languages 
during times of national emergency or catastrophe.
  If this amendment passed, it would be harder for people to become 
citizens. That is because DHS would be prevented from providing 
foreign-language assistance to the elderly and disabled immigrants and 
refugees seeking to naturalize and become U.S. citizens.
  We want immigrants to be fully assimilated in American society. This 
amendment would stop this process and, in fact, potentially cause great 
harm to many who do not deserve it.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance 
of my time.

[[Page 8676]]


  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, just quickly in closing, I would 
point out that we got along fine without this executive order up until 
the year 2000, and we'll get along fine without this executive order 
after the year 2012.
  The assimilation component of this doesn't take place if you 
facilitate foreign-language speaking within government. Eighty-seven 
percent of Americans support this policy, the policy of English as the 
official language. This is a component of it. There's nothing that 
prevents justice, health, or emergency services from utilizing multiple 
languages to take care of the people.
  So I urge its adoption, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Washington is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield to my good friend from California 
(Ms. Zoe Lofgren).
  Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Thank you, Mr. Dicks. I will be brief.
  I just want to point out that the executive order itself indicates 
that only actions that would not be unduly burdensome should be engaged 
in. And the true scope of this amendment is really quite broad and 
adverse to the enforcement of the law.
  If you are ICE and you have people in custody, those people in 
custody may not be speaking English, and you may need to be able to 
communicate with them in a language other than English. The broad scope 
of this amendment could interfere with that.
  I would like to note, also, as to the FEMA issue that my colleague 
from California referred to, we think of DHS as immigration. My 
colleague from Iowa has mentioned that frequently in our committee. But 
the Department of Homeland Security is very broad. This could be the 
Coast Guard dealing with sailors in the Caribbean Sea, either people 
they believe are out to do mischief or people who are in distress who 
may not speak English. This could be storm warnings, as has been 
mentioned. There are parts of Florida where Spanish is spoken. 
Certainly in Puerto Rico, Spanish is spoken and hurricanes come. You 
want to alert the entire population in a way that they can understand 
that danger is on its way.
  I think this repeal of this executive order, which goes back almost 
12 years and through many administrations, is ill-advised. It will make 
the country less safe, and certainly it is an amendment that we should 
not support.
  With that, I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).
  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 Iowa will be 
postponed.


                 Amendment Offered by Mr. King of Iowa

  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I have a King amendment at the desk, 
322.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __. (a) None of the funds made available in this Act 
     may be used to finalize, implement, administer, or enforce 
     the ``Morton Memos'' described in subsection (b).
       (b) For purposes of this section, the term ``Morton Memos'' 
     refers to the following documents:
       (1) Policy Number 10072.1, published on March 2, 2011.
       (2) Policy Number 10075.1, published on June 17, 2011.
       (3) Policy Number 10076.1, published on June 17, 2011.

  Mr. KING of Iowa (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 Iowa?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Iowa.

                              {time}  1810

  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, this amendment, this second King 
amendment, addresses the Morton memos, and he would be the director of 
ICE, and he is quite well known for the memos that unfolded that are 
known as the Morton memos. There are three of them. These memos, 
compiled together, bring about the effect of administrative amnesty. 
We'll remember that the President issued a policy sometime probably 
less than a year ago when he essentially announced that they were going 
to look for ways that they didn't have to deport people that are 
already adjudicated for deportation.
  At the time there were 300,000 people here in the United States here 
illegally who had been adjudicated for deportation. They were awaiting 
a final deportation order.
  The President's policy, as echoed through Department of Homeland 
Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, and acted on by ICE Director 
Morton, issued three memos that gave administrative amnesty this way.
  Memo number one was the most significant, and it said this: that 
aliens who pose a danger to national security or are a risk to public 
safety, they might be deported. Illegal aliens who have recently 
entered the U.S., they might be deported if you catch them at the 
border, so to speak, Mr. Chairman. The third component of that memo 
number one was aliens who are fugitives or otherwise obstruct 
immigration controls might be deported. It really means the rest of 
them we're not going to pay much attention to. That's the 
administrative amnesty component.
  Memo number two discouraged ICE agents from enforcing immigration 
laws against aliens, many who would qualify if the DREAM Act had been 
enacted--which is a pretty outrageous policy when you consider that it 
has multiple times been voted down in Congress.
  Number three discouraged ICE agents from enforcing immigration laws 
against aliens who were victims or witnesses of crimes.
  Those are the Morton memos. This amendment prohibits the dollars from 
being used in this budget to enforce the Morton memos.

                                      U.S. Immigration and Customs


                                                  Enforcement,

                                                    March 2, 2011.
     Memorandum for: All ICE Employees
     From: John Morton, Director
     Subject: Civil Immigration Enforcement: Priorities for the 
     Apprehension, Detention, and Removal of Aliens


                                Purpose

       This memorandum outlines the civil immigration enforcement 
     priorities of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) 
     as they relate to the apprehension, detention, and removal of 
     aliens. These priorities shall apply across all ICE programs 
     and shall inform enforcement activity, detention decisions, 
     budget requests and execution, and strategic planning.
     A. Priorities for the apprehension, detention, and removal of 
         aliens
       In addition to our important criminal investigative 
     responsibilities, ICE is charged with enforcing the nation's 
     civil immigration laws. This is a critical mission and one 
     with direct significance for our national security, public 
     safety, and the integrity of our border and immigration 
     controls. ICE, however, only has resources to remove 
     approximately 400,000 aliens per year, less than 4 percent of 
     the estimated illegal alien population in the United States. 
     In light of the large number of administrative violations the 
     agency is charged with addressing and the limited enforcement 
     resources the agency has available, ICE must prioritize the 
     use of its enforcement personnel, detention space, and 
     removal resources to ensure that the removals the agency does 
     conduct promote the agency's highest enforcement priorities, 
     namely national security, public safety, and border security.
       To that end, the following shall constitute ICE's civil 
     enforcement priorities, with the first being the highest 
     priority and the second and third constituting equal, but 
     lower, priorities.
       Priority 1. Aliens who pose a danger to national security 
           or a risk to public safety
       The removal of aliens who pose a danger to national 
     security or a risk to public safety

[[Page 8677]]

     shall be ICE's highest immigration enforcement priority. 
     These aliens include, but are not limited to:
       aliens engaged in or suspected of terrorism or espionage, 
     or who otherwise pose a danger to national security;
       aliens convicted of crimes, with a particular emphasis on 
     violent criminals, felons, and repeat offenders;
       aliens not younger than 16 years of age who participated in 
     organized criminal gangs;
       aliens subject to outstanding criminal warrants; and
       aliens who otherwise pose a serious risk to public safety.
       For purposes of prioritizing the removal of aliens 
     convicted of crimes, ICE personnel should refer to the 
     following new offense levels defined by the Secure 
     Communities Program, with Level 1 and Level 2 offenders 
     receiving principal attention. These new Secure Communities 
     levels are given in rank order and shall replace the existing 
     Secure Communities levels of offenses.
       Level 1 offenders: aliens convicted of ``aggravated 
     felonies,'' as defined in Sec.  101(a)(43) of the Immigration 
     and Nationality Act, or two or more climes each punishable by 
     more than one year, commonly referred to as ``felonies'';
       Level 2 offenders: aliens convicted of any felony or three 
     or more crimes each punishable by less than one year, 
     commonly referred to as ``misdemeanors''; and
       Level 3 offenders: aliens convicted of crimes punishable by 
     less than one year.
       Priority 2. Recent illegal entrants
       In order to maintain control at the border and at ports of 
     entry, and to avoid a return to the prior practice commonly 
     and historically referred to as ``catch and release,'' the 
     removal of aliens who have recently violated immigration 
     controls at the border, at ports of entry, or through the 
     knowing abuse of the visa and visa waiver programs shall be a 
     priority.
       Priority 3. Aliens who are fugitives or otherwise obstruct 
           immigration controls
       In order to ensure the integrity of the removal and 
     immigration adjudication processes, the removal of aliens who 
     are subject to a final order of removal and abscond, fail to 
     depart, or intentionally obstruct immigration controls, shall 
     be a priority. These aliens include:
       fugitive aliens, in descending priority as follows:
       fugitive aliens who pose a danger to national security;
       fugitives aliens convicted of violent crimes or who 
     otherwise pose a threat to the community;
       fugitive aliens with criminal convictions other than a 
     violent crime;
       fugitive aliens who have not been convicted of a crime;
       aliens who reenter the country illegally after removal, in 
     descending priority as follows:
       previously removed aliens who pose a danger to national 
     security;
       previously removed aliens convicted of violent crimes or 
     who otherwise pose a threat to the community;
       previously removed aliens with criminal convictions other 
     than a violent crime;
       previously removed aliens who have not been convicted of a 
     crime; and
       aliens who obtain admission or status by visa, 
     identification, or immigration benefit fraud.
       The guidance to the National Fugitive Operations Program: 
     Priorities, Goals and Expectations, issued on December 8, 
     2009, remains in effect and shall continue to apply for all 
     purposes, including how Fugitive Operation Teams allocate 
     resources among fugitive aliens, previously removed aliens, 
     and criminal aliens.
     B. Apprehension, detention, and removal of other aliens 
         unlawfully in the United States
       Nothing in this memorandum should be construed to prohibit 
     or discourage the apprehension, detention, or removal of 
     other aliens unlawfully in the United States. ICE special 
     agents, officers, and attorneys may pursue the removal of any 
     alien unlawfully in the United States, although attention to 
     these aliens should not displace or disrupt the resources 
     needed to remove aliens who are a higher priority. Resources 
     should be committed primarily to advancing the priorities set 
     forth above in order to best protect national security and 
     public safety and to secure the border.
     C. Detention
       As a general rule, ICE detention resources should be used 
     to support the enforcement priorities noted above or for 
     aliens subject to mandatory detention by law. Absent 
     extraordinary circumstances or the requirements of mandatory 
     detention, field office directors should not expend detention 
     resources on aliens who are known to be suffering from 
     serious physical or mental illness, or who are disabled, 
     elderly, pregnant, or nursing, or demonstrate that they are 
     primary caretakers of children or an infirm, person. or whose 
     detention is otherwise not in the public interest. To detain 
     aliens in those categories who are not subject to mandatory 
     detention, ICE officers or special agents must obtain 
     approval from the field office director. If an alien falls 
     within the above categories and is subject to mandatory 
     detention, field office directors are encouraged to contact 
     their local Office of Chief Counsel for guidance.
     D. Prosecutorial discretion
       The rapidly increasing number of criminal aliens who may 
     come to ICE's attention heightens the need for ICE employees 
     to exercise sound judgment and discretion consistent with 
     these priorities when conducting enforcement operations, 
     making detention decisions, making decisions about release on 
     supervision pursuant to the Alternatives to Detention 
     Program, and litigating cases. Particular care should be 
     given when dealing with lawful permanent residents, 
     juveniles, and the immediate family members of U.S. citizens. 
     Additional guidance on prosecutorial discretion is 
     forthcoming. In the meantime, ICE officers and attorneys 
     should continue to be guided by the November 17, 2000 
     prosecutorial discretion memorandum from then-INS 
     Commissioner Doris Meissner; the October 24, 2005 Memorandum 
     from Principal Legal Advisor William Howard; and the November 
     7, 2007 Memorandum from then Assistant Secretary Julie Myers.
     E. Implementation
       ICE personnel shall follow the priorities set forth in this 
     memorandum immediately. Further, ICE programs shall develop 
     appropriate measures and methods for recording and evaluating 
     their effectiveness in implementing the priorities. As this 
     may require updates to data tracking systems and methods, ICE 
     will ensure that reporting capabilities for these priorities 
     allow for such reporting as soon as practicable, but not 
     later than October 1, 2010.
     F. No Private Right Statement
       These guidelines and priorities are not intended to, do 
     not, and may not be relied upon to create any right or 
     benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law by any 
     party in any administrative, civil, or criminal matter.
                                  ____

                                      U.S. Immigration and Customs


                                                  Enforcement,

                                                    June 17, 2011.
     Memorandum for: All Field Office Directors, All Special 
         Agents in Charge, All Chief Counsel
     From: John Morton, Director
     Subject: Exercising Prosecutorial Discretion Consistent with 
         the Civil Immigration Enforcement Priorities of the 
         Agency for the Apprehension, Detention, and Removal of 
         Aliens


                                Purpose

       This memorandum provides U.S. Immigration and Customs 
     Enforcement (ICE) personnel guidance on the exercise of 
     prosecutorial discretion to ensure that the agency's 
     immigration enforcement resources are focused on the agency's 
     enforcement priorities. The memorandum also serves to make 
     clear which agency employees may exercise prosecutorial 
     discretion and what factors should be considered.
       This memorandum builds on several existing memoranda 
     related to prosecutorial discretion with special emphasis on 
     the following:
       Sam Bernsen, Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) 
     General Counsel, Legal Opinion Regarding Service Exercise of 
     Prosecutorial Discretion (July 15, 1976);
       Bo Cooper, INS General Counsel, INS Exercise of 
     Prosecutorial Discretion (July 11, 2000);
       Doris Meissner, INS Commissioner, Exercising Prosecutorial 
     Discretion (November 17, 2000);
       Bo Cooper, INS General Counsel, Motions to Reopen for 
     Considerations of Adjustment of Status (May 17, 2001);
       William J. Howard, Principal Legal Advisor, Prosecutorial 
     Discretion (October 24, 2005);
       Julie L. Myers, Assistant Secretary, Prosecutorial and 
     Custody Discretion (November 7, 2007);
       John Morton, Director, Civil Immigration Enforcement 
     Priorities for the Apprehension, Detention, and Removal of 
     Aliens (March 2, 2011); and
       John Morton, Director, Prosecutorial Discretion: Certain 
     Victims, Witnesses, and Plaintiffs (June 17, 2011).
       The following memoranda related to prosecutorial discretion 
     are rescinded:
       Johnny N. Williams, Executive Associate Commissioner (EAC) 
     for Field Operations, Supplemental Guidance Regarding 
     Discretionary Referrals for Special Registration (October 31, 
     2002); and
       Johnny N. Williams, EAC for Field Operations, Supplemental 
     NSEERS Guidance for Call-In Registrants (January 8, 2003).


                               Background

       One of ICE's central responsibilities is to enforce the 
     nation's civil immigration laws in coordination with U.S. 
     Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and U.S. Citizenship and 
     Immigration Services (USCIS). ICE, however, has limited 
     resources to remove those illegally in the United States. ICE 
     must prioritize the use of its enforcement personnel, 
     detention space, and removal assets to ensure that the aliens 
     it removes represent, as much as reasonably possible, the 
     agency's enforcement priorities, namely the promotion of 
     national security, border security, public safety, and the 
     integrity of the

[[Page 8678]]

     immigration system. These priorities are outlined in the ICE 
     Civil Immigration Enforcement Priorities memorandum of March 
     2, 2011, which this memorandum is intended to support.
       Because the agency is confronted with more administrative 
     violations than its resources can address, the agency must 
     regularly exercise ``prosecutorial discretion'' if it is to 
     prioritize its efforts. In basic terms, prosecutorial 
     discretion is the authority of an agency charged with 
     enforcing a law to decide to what degree to enforce the law 
     against a particular individual. ICE, like any other law 
     enforcement agency, has prosecutorial discretion and may 
     exercise it in the ordinary course of enforcement. When ICE 
     favorably exercises prosecutorial discretion, it essentially 
     decides not to assert the full scope of the enforcement 
     authority available to the agency in a given case.
       In the civil immigration enforcement context, the term 
     ``prosecutorial discretion'' applies to a broad range of 
     discretionary enforcement decisions, including but not 
     limited to the following:
       deciding to issue or cancel a notice of detainer;
       deciding to issue, reissue, serve, file, or cancel a Notice 
     to Appear (NTA);
       focusing enforcement resources on particular administrative 
     violations or conduct;
       deciding whom to stop, question, or arrest for an 
     administrative violation;
       deciding whom to detain or to release on bond, supervision, 
     personal recognizance, or other condition;
       seeking expedited removal or other forms of removal by 
     means other than a formal removal proceeding in immigration 
     court;
       settling or dismissing a proceeding;
       granting deferred action, granting parole, or staying a 
     final order of removal;
       agreeing to voluntary departure, the withdrawal of an 
     application for admission, or other action in lieu of 
     obtaining a formal order of removal;
       pursuing an appeal;
       executing a removal order; and
       responding to or joining in a motion to reopen removal 
     proceedings and to consider joining in a motion to grant 
     relief or a benefit.


                        Authorized ICE Personnel

       Prosecutorial discretion in civil immigration enforcement 
     matters is held by the Director and may be exercised, with 
     appropriate supervisory oversight, by the following ICE 
     employees according to their specific responsibilities and 
     authorities:
       officers, agents, and their respective supervisors within 
     Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) who have authority 
     to institute immigration removal proceedings or to otherwise 
     engage in civil immigration enforcement;
       officers, special agents, and their respective supervisors 
     within Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) who have 
     authority to institute immigration removal proceedings or to 
     otherwise engage in civil immigration enforcement;
       attorneys and their respective supervisors within the 
     Office of the Principal Legal Advisor (OPLA) who have 
     authority to represent ICE in immigration removal proceedings 
     before the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR); 
     and
       the Director, the Deputy Director, and their senior staff.
       ICE attorneys may exercise prosecutorial discretion in any 
     immigration removal proceeding before EOIR, on referral of 
     the case from EOIR to the Attorney General, or during the 
     pendency of an appeal to the federal courts, including a 
     proceeding proposed or initiated by CBP or USCIS. If an ICE 
     attorney decides to exercise prosecutorial discretion to 
     dismiss, suspend, or close a particular case or matter, the 
     attorney should notify the relevant ERO, HSI, CBP, or USCIS 
     charging official about the decision. In the event there is a 
     dispute between the charging official and the ICE attorney 
     regarding the attorney's decision to exercise prosecutorial 
     discretion, the ICE Chief Counsel should attempt to resolve 
     the dispute with the local supervisors of the charging 
     official. If local resolution is not possible, the matter 
     should be elevated to the Deputy Director of ICE for 
     resolution.


      Factors to Consider When Exercising Prosecutorial Discretion

       When weighing whether an exercise of prosecutorial 
     discretion may be warranted for a given alien, ICE officers, 
     agents, and attorneys should consider all relevant factors, 
     including, but not limited to--
       the agency's civil immigration enforcement priorities;
       the person's length of presence in the United States, with 
     particular consideration given to presence while in lawful 
     status;
       the circumstances of the person's arrival in the United 
     States and the manner of his or her entry, particularly if 
     the alien came to the United States as a young child;
       the person's pursuit of education in the United States, 
     with particular consideration given to those who have 
     graduated from a U.S. high school or have successfully 
     pursued or are pursuing a college or advanced degrees at a 
     legitimate institution of higher education in the United 
     States;
       whether the person, or the person's immediate relative, has 
     served in the U.S. military, reserves, or national guard, 
     with particular consideration given to those who served in 
     combat;
       the person's criminal history, including arrests, prior 
     convictions, or outstanding arrest warrants;
       the person's immigration history, including any prior 
     removal, outstanding order of removal, prior denial of 
     status, or evidence of fraud;
       whether the person poses a national security or public 
     safety concern;
       the person's ties and contributions to the community, 
     including family relationships;
       the person's ties to the home country and conditions in the 
     country;
       the person's age, with particular consideration given to 
     minors and the elderly;
       whether the person has a U.S. citizen or permanent resident 
     spouse, child, or parent;
       whether the person is the primary caretaker of a person 
     with a mental or physical disability, minor, or seriously ill 
     relative;
       whether the person or the person's spouse is pregnant or 
     nursing;
       whether the person or the person's spouse suffers from 
     severe mental or physical illness;
       whether the person's nationality renders removal unlikely;
       whether the person is likely to be granted temporary or 
     permanent status or other relief from removal, including as a 
     relative of a U.S. citizen or permanent resident;
       whether the person is likely to be granted temporary or 
     permanent status or other relief from removal, including as 
     an asylum seeker, or a victim of domestic violence, human 
     trafficking, or other crime; and
       whether the person is currently cooperating or has 
     cooperated with federal, state or local law enforcement 
     authorities, such as ICE, the U.S. Attorneys or Department of 
     Justice, the Department of Labor, or National Labor Relations 
     Board, among others.
       This list is not exhaustive and no one factor is 
     determinative. ICE officers, agents, and attorneys should 
     always consider prosecutorial discretion on a case-by-case 
     basis. The decisions should be based on the totality of the 
     circumstances, with the goal of conforming to ICE's 
     enforcement priorities.
       That said, there are certain classes of individuals that 
     warrant particular care. As was stated in the Meissner 
     memorandum on Exercising Prosecutorial Discretion, there are 
     factors that can help ICE officers, agents, and attorneys 
     identify these cases so that they can be reviewed as early as 
     possible in the process.
       The following positive factors should prompt particular 
     care and consideration:
       veterans and members of the U.S. armed forces;
       long-time lawful permanent residents;
       minors and elderly individuals;
       individuals present in the United States since childhood;
       pregnant or nursing women;
       victims of domestic violence, trafficking, or other serious 
     crimes;
       individuals who suffer from a serious mental or physical 
     disability; and
       individuals with serious health conditions.
       In exercising prosecutorial discretion in furtherance of 
     ICE's enforcement priorities, the following negative factors 
     should also prompt particular care and consideration by ICE 
     officers, agents, and attorneys:
       individuals who pose a clear risk to national security;
       serious felons, repeat offenders, or individuals with a 
     lengthy criminal record of any kind;
       known gang members or other individuals who pose a clear 
     danger to public safety; and
       individuals with an egregious record of immigration 
     violations, including those with a record of illegal re-entry 
     and those who have engaged in immigration fraud.


                                 Timing

       While ICE may exercise prosecutorial discretion at any 
     stage of an enforcement proceeding, it is generally 
     preferable to exercise such discretion as early in the case 
     or proceeding as possible in order to preserve government 
     resources that would otherwise be expended in pursuing the 
     enforcement proceeding. As was more extensively elaborated on 
     in the Howard Memorandum on Prosecutorial Discretion, the 
     universe of opportunities to exercise prosecutorial 
     discretion is large. It may be exercised at any stage of the 
     proceedings. It is also preferable for ICE officers, agents, 
     and attorneys to consider prosecutorial discretion in cases 
     without waiting for an alien or alien's advocate or counsel 
     to request a favorable exercise of discretion. Although 
     affirmative requests from an alien or his or her 
     representative may prompt an evaluation of whether a 
     favorable exercise of discretion is appropriate in a given 
     case, ICE officers, agents, and attorneys should examine each 
     such case independently to determine whether a favorable 
     exercise of discretion may be appropriate.
       In cases where, based upon an officer's, agent's, or 
     attorney's initial examination, an exercise of prosecutorial 
     discretion may be warranted but additional information would 
     assist in reaching a final decision, additional information 
     may be requested from the alien or his or her representative. 
     Such requests should be made in conformity with ethics rules 
     governing communication with represented individuals \3\ and 
     should always emphasize that, while ICE may be considering

[[Page 8679]]

     whether to exercise discretion in the case, there is no 
     guarantee that the agency will ultimately exercise discretion 
     favorably. Responsive information from the alien or his or 
     her representative need not take any particular form and can 
     range from a simple letter or e-mail message to a memorandum 
     with supporting attachments.


                               Disclaimer

       As there is no right to the favorable exercise of 
     discretion by the agency, nothing in this memorandum should 
     be construed to prohibit the apprehension, detention, or 
     removal of any alien unlawfully in the United States or to 
     limit the legal authority of ICE or any of its personnel to 
     enforce federal immigration law. Similarly, this memorandum, 
     which may be modified, superseded, or rescinded at any time 
     without notice, is not intended to, does not, and may not be 
     relied upon to create any right or benefit, substantive or 
     procedural, enforceable at law by any party in any 
     administrative, civil, or criminal matter.
                                  ____

                                      U.S. Immigration and Customs


                                                  Enforcement,

                                                    June 17, 2011.
     Memorandum for: All Field Office Directors, All Special 
         Agents in Charge, All Chief Counsel
     From: John Morton Director,
     Subject: Prosecutorial Discretion: Certain Victims, 
         Witnesses, and Plaintiffs


                                Purpose

       This memorandum sets forth agency policy regarding the 
     exercise of prosecutorial discretion in removal cases 
     involving the victims and witnesses of crime, including 
     domestic violence, and individuals involved in non-frivolous 
     efforts related to the protection of their civil rights and 
     liberties. In these cases, ICE officers, special agents, and 
     attorneys should exercise all appropriate prosecutorial 
     discretion to minimize any effect that immigration 
     enforcement may have on the willingness and ability of 
     victims, witnesses, and plaintiffs to call police and pursue 
     justice. This memorandum builds on prior guidance on the 
     handling of cases involving T and U visas and the exercise of 
     prosecutorial discretion.


                               Discussion

       Absent special circumstances or aggravating factors, it is 
     against ICE policy to initiate removal proceedings against an 
     individual known to be the immediate victim or witness to a 
     crime. In practice, the vast majority of state and local law 
     enforcement agencies do not generally arrest victims or 
     witnesses of crime as part of an investigation. However, ICE 
     regularly hears concerns that in some instances a state or 
     local law enforcement officer may arrest and book multiple 
     people at the scene of alleged domestic violence. In these 
     cases, an arrested victim or witness of domestic violence may 
     be booked and fingerprinted and, through the operation of the 
     Secure Communities program or another ICE enforcement 
     program, may come to the attention of ICE. Absent special 
     circumstances, it is similarly against ICE policy to remove 
     individuals in the midst of a legitimate effort to protect 
     their civil rights or civil liberties.
       To avoid deterring individuals from reporting crimes and 
     from pursuing actions to protect their civil rights, ICE 
     officers, special agents, and attorneys are reminded to 
     exercise all appropriate discretion on a case-by-case basis 
     when making detention and enforcement decisions in the cases 
     of victims of crime, witnesses to crime, and individuals 
     pursuing legitimate civil rights complaints. Particular 
     attention should be paid to:
       victims of domestic violence, human trafficking, or other 
     serious crimes;
       witnesses involved in pending criminal investigations or 
     prosecutions;
       plaintiffs in non-frivolous lawsuits regarding civil rights 
     or liberties violations; and
       individuals engaging in a protected activity related to 
     civil or other rights (for example, union organizing or 
     complaining to authorities about employment discrimination or 
     housing conditions) who may be in a non-frivolous dispute 
     with an employer, landlord, or contractor.
       In deciding whether or not to exercise discretion, ICE 
     officers, agents, and attorneys should consider all serious 
     adverse factors. Those factors include national security 
     concerns or evidence the alien has a serious criminal 
     history, is involved in a serious crime, or poses a threat to 
     public safety. Other adverse factors include evidence the 
     alien is a human rights violator or has engaged in 
     significant immigration fraud. In the absence of these or 
     other serious adverse factors, exercising favorable 
     discretion, such as release from detention and deferral or a 
     stay of removal generally, will be appropriate. Discretion 
     may also take different forms and extend to decisions to 
     place or withdraw a detainer, to issue a Notice to Appear, to 
     detain or release an alien, to grant a stay or deferral of 
     removal, to seek termination of proceedings, or to join a 
     motion to administratively close a case.
       In addition to exercising prosecutorial discretion on a 
     case-by-case basis in these scenarios, ICE officers, agents, 
     and attorneys are reminded of the existing provisions of the 
     Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA), its subsequent 
     reauthorization, and the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). 
     These provide several protections for the victims of crime 
     and include specific provisions for victims of domestic 
     violence, victims of certain other crimes, and victims of 
     human trafficking.
       Victims of domestic violence who are the child, parent, or 
     current/former spouse of a U.S. citizen or permanent resident 
     may be able to self-petition for permanent residency. A U 
     nonimmigrant visa provides legal status for the victims of 
     substantial mental or physical abuse as a result of domestic 
     violence, sexual assault, trafficking, and other certain 
     crimes. A T nonimmigrant visa provides legal status to 
     victims of severe forms of trafficking who assist law 
     enforcement in the investigation and/or prosecution of human 
     trafficking cases. ICE has important existing guidance 
     regarding the exercise of discretion in these cases that 
     remains in effect. Please review it and apply as appropriate.
       Please also be advised that a flag now exists in the 
     Central Index System (CIS) to identify those victims of 
     domestic violence, trafficking, or other crimes who already 
     have filed for, or have been granted, victim-based 
     immigration relief. These cases are reflected with a Class of 
     Admission Code ``384.'' When officers or agents see this 
     flag, they are encouraged to contact the local ICE Office of 
     Chief Counsel, especially in light of the confidentiality 
     provisions set forth at 8 U.S.C. Sec.  1367.


                       No Private Right of Action

       These guidelines and priorities are not intended to, do 
     not, and may not be relied upon to create any right or 
     benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law by any 
     party in any administrative, civil, or criminal matter.

  I would then at this point urge its adoption and yield to the acting 
subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, the committee strongly supports the 
gentleman's amendment. It is entirely important and vitally important 
that the Congress defund the administration's unilateral attempt to 
bypass the laws of the United States and implement an amnesty program 
by Executive order. It's unacceptable. It violates the law.
  As all of us in Texas know--I had brought with me tonight for this 
debate, because it's so important to remember, that the first image on 
the first coin of the Republic of Mexico states, liberty and law. There 
is a wonderful image of the liberty cap over the scales of Justice. It 
points out quite correctly, the Republic of Mexico's, the first coin 
they ever minted, that there can be no liberty without law enforcement.
  We strongly support the gentleman's amendment. How vitally important 
it is that we restore law and order to the border, that we enforce the 
immigration laws in this country in a way that is evenhanded and fair 
and just, because only when the border is secure, only when the 
immigration laws are enforced, will we be able to actually have a 
healthy commerce with Mexico, will we be able to actually have a guest 
worker program with Mexico and allow people to come here legally to 
work so we can actually restore the back and forth trade that has made 
Texas and all the border States so prosperous.
  We strongly support the gentleman's amendment and urge its adoption.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I would point out 
that the Morton memos, in effect, provide administrative amnesty 
potentially for millions.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to 
the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would 
prohibit the use of funds to enforce memos, internal ICE memos, on 
civil immigration enforcement priorities and on prosecutorial 
discretion.
  Now, our friend from Texas rightly talks about the importance of law 
enforcement, and I would just ask colleagues, is there any law 
enforcement agency in the land that does not set priorities?
  Every law enforcement agency set priorities. They have to make the 
most effective use of limited resources.
  No law enforcement agency can go after every violation 
indiscriminately. Every law enforcement agency has to prioritize its 
resources to decide what's most important, what's most protective of 
the public safety and go after

[[Page 8680]]

the perpetrators that would do us the most harm. That's about as basic 
as it gets.
  In a world with limited resources, it's dangerous and irresponsible 
not to prioritize the detention and deportation of people who pose a 
threat to public safety and national security.
  Why would we want ICE to spend as much time and energy going after 
innocent kids in college who were brought to this country by their 
parents as it spends going after known, dangerous criminals? Why would 
we want ICE to focus on the detention and deportation of the spouses of 
U.S. citizens serving in our military, rather than on people who pose a 
threat to national security?
  The answer is, we would not want them to do such reckless and 
indiscriminate things. We want them to set priorities, and that's 
exactly what the Morton memos are about.
  I yield to the ranking member of the Immigration Subcommittee of the 
Judiciary Committee, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Zoe Lofgren).
  Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. It is true that every law enforcement 
agency in the land makes priorities for enforcement. You're going to go 
after the dangerous gang member before you go after somebody who is 
double-parked or who is jaywalking. That's what police do all over the 
United States.
  What these memos do is to put some order into who we're going after 
first. It's important to note that in all of the memos there is a 
statement that this does not create any right for a person who is here 
without their proper papers. It is merely a set of priorities.
  I would note also that these memos are not new. The prosecutorial 
discretion memos have been in effect since 1996. I recall in 1999 I was 
a member of the Judiciary Committee. Then-Chairman Henry Hyde, along 
with now Chairman Lamar Smith, asked the Department of Homeland 
Security, actually, the immigration service at the time, to set 
priorities, and here's what they said.
  The letter expressed concern about cases of apparent extreme 
hardship, such as removal proceedings against legal permanent residents 
who came to the United States when they were very young, many years 
ago, maybe committed a single criminal crime at the lower end of the 
spectrum, who have always been law abiding, and said to the INS that 
they should exercise discretion more regularly. That was done by the 
Clinton administration, the Bush administration, and now the Obama 
administration.
  To suggest that deportations are not occurring is extremely 
misleading because, in fact, there have been more deportations during 
the Obama administration per year than at any time in the Nation's 
history. DHS has removed over 779,000 individuals in deportation 
proceedings, an 18 percent increase.
  However, there is a limit to the number who can be deported per year. 
Surely, we would all agree that going after criminals and terrorists is 
a higher priority than going after grandma or little kids.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time I 
have remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman has 1 minute remaining.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I would just make the point that I 
listened to a lot of discussion about something that we well know 
around here is prosecutorial discretion. We don't have the resources to 
prosecute every law breaker and we know that law enforcement has to use 
that discretion on those resources.
  This, though, is the President's policy. This is the President's 
policy of administrative amnesty that's implemented through the White 
House, through Janet Napolitano down through Director Morton and his 
Morton memos, which are amnesty.
  They said, we don't want to enforce the law. We want to have 
comprehensive immigration reform, which we know are code words for 
amnesty, and they are bringing it about through an executive 
administrative amnesty in the same way as they are trying to implement 
cap and trade rules through EPA rules and regulations.

                              {time}  1820

  I would add also they have a responsibility to enforce the law. It 
says in article II of the Constitution:

       He shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed.

  This Constitution doesn't give an exemption. It doesn't say you're 
going to enforce the ones you like and not the ones you don't like. We 
have to adopt this amendment so that we do direct the law.
  I would 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 Iowa (Mr. King).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. 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 Iowa will be 
postponed.
  Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. CULBERSON. I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Bilbray).
  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, we've all heard the words from law 
enforcement: I don't make the laws; I just enforce it. The trouble is 
the administration is now saying: I don't like the laws. I won't 
enforce them in this category. It would be equivalent to an officer 
saying, I'm not going to enforce any drug laws because I don't agree 
with them. I want to wait until I may see a bank robber.
  The fact is the executive branch is trying to legislate from the 
White House and violate the separations clause by using what is 
basically a pocket veto after the time limit that is described by law. 
That pocket veto is not only wrong; it's unconstitutional.
  I would ask that the Judiciary Committee hold a hearing and ask the 
ICE agents about the fact that they've been directed, even when they 
raid a place where they have a warrant for somebody's arrest, even if 
they know other individuals are committing a crime at the time that 
they're in those situations, they're not allowed to arrest those 
they're witnessing in the commission of a crime under direction of the 
executive branch, which is trying to legislate from the White House.
  We need to send a clear signal. It is for the White House and the 
executive branch to execute the laws of this country, not to change 
them, not to erase them, and not to try to legislate from a branch that 
is constitutionally not supposed to be making those decisions.
  Mr. CULBERSON. I yield back the balance of my time.


                  Amendment Offered by Mrs. Blackburn

  Mrs. BLACKBURN. I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title) insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to provide to a Transportation Security Officer, 
     Behavior Detection Officer, or other employee of the 
     Transportation Security Administration
       (1) a badge or shield; or
       (2) a uniform with epaulets or a badge tab.

  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. A point of order is reserved.
  Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the gentlewoman from 
Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Tennessee.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  We all know that the TSA is out of control and Congress does have an 
institutional role to rein them back in. In 2005, the TSA 
administratively reclassified airport security screeners' title to 
Transportation Security Officers, or, as they are called, TSOs; and

[[Page 8681]]

subsequently they changed their uniforms to resemble that of a Federal 
law enforcement officer. In 2008, a metal badge was added to this 
uniform. This title and the uniform, the changes that were made, Mr. 
Chairman, were simply made to give the TSOs an authoritative 
appearance.
  Despite the new title and appearance, the TSOs and the BDOs, or 
Behavioral Detection Officers, do not receive any Federal law 
enforcement training, they're not eligible for Federal law enforcement 
benefits, and the TSOs and the BDOs are in name only, I remind you. The 
problem is they were set in place as airport security screeners; and 
administratively, since 2005, they have moved through all of these 
changes.
  As of November 2009, the TSA had spent $1,027,560.10 on TSO badges. 
The current amount is unknown because TSA will not release the figure.
  When Congress created the TSA, their presence at our Nation's 
security checkpoints at the airports was supposed to be in the capacity 
of airport security screeners, not transportation security officers or 
law enforcement officers. Almost every day of the week you can turn on 
the news and you see story after story where a TSO in uniform has been 
arrested or has acted inappropriately with a passenger. I believe many 
of these problems stem from the fact that the TSA does not consistently 
conduct what we would call routine preemployment or ongoing background 
checks of new and existing employees. Yet after inconsistent use of 
background checks and only 80 hours of classroom training, we are 
giving TSOs a badge and a uniform.
  Meanwhile, if you were interested in joining most of our police 
departments, you would spend up to 6 months in an academy, where you 
would receive law enforcement training. This would come after you met 
certain application requirements and were accepted to that academy. And 
then, after you pass a test and complete that training, you would be 
given the right to wear a uniform and be called Officer. Here in D.C., 
the TSA has advertised for Washington Reagan International Airport TSOs 
on pizza boxes and on pumps at discount gas stations.
  TSOs are abusing their uniforms and badges. Just days before 
Thanksgiving, a Virginia woman was raped after a TSO from Washington 
Dulles approached her wearing a TSA-issued uniform and flashed his 
badge. This past March, the TSO supervisor at Washington Dulles was 
arrested for allegedly running a prostitution ring. However, it's been 
reported that the individual pled guilty to a second degree assault in 
1999. Why didn't TSA catch that while performing that background check 
before they gave him a badge and a uniform?
  TSOs are abusing this limited authority. I just released a report 
this week that details 50 arrests involving the TSOs. These are reasons 
enough that we need to take them out of the uniforms, disallow the 
uniforms, and put them back to their job title of airport security 
screener.
  I urge my colleagues to join the American Alliance of Airport Police 
Officers, which represents rank-and-file airport police officers in 
Dallas, L.A., and New York, who are tired of the TSA's mission creep 
and to adopt and support this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to 
the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is aimed at 
the people who protect us in our airports. It disparages their service, 
devalues their contribution, undermines our efforts to make this a more 
professional and competent force. Why would we do this? What an 
unnecessary and damaging amendment.
  This amendment would prevent the Transportation Security 
Administration non-law enforcement personnel from wearing a metal badge 
or wearing a uniform that resembles the uniform of law enforcement. 
What an insult to these people. We count on these people to protect us. 
We put them in our aviation system as critical protection against 
terrorism and against others who could do us harm. How 
counterproductive is this to our efforts to develop a competent 
professional force?

                              {time}  1830

  TSA's current title and uniform policies are consistent with the 
skilled and professional nature of TSA's frontline workforce. These 
policies are aligned with policies for other security professional 
positions within the Department of Homeland Security.
  So how gratuitous is it to disparage this workforce? These are 
skilled professionals. We want to make them more so. We want to boost 
their morale and show appreciation for their efforts. This amendment 
would be a backward step and, I think, a fairly petty backward step. It 
would hinder our efforts to develop a risk-based, intelligence-driven 
organization to secure our airports.
  With that, I yield to our colleague from the authorizing committee, 
the gentlelady from Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank you very much.
  Mr. Price is absolutely right, I serve as the ranking member on the 
Transportation Security Committee on Homeland Security, and a risk-
based, well-trained professional team is what we have been working 
toward and what we are achieving.
  I ask my colleagues to remember America pre-9/11 without a 
professional workforce. And I'd also like to say that in spite of the 
citations of inappropriate behavior, which none of us condone, there 
are thousands and thousands of untold stories of TSO officers doing 
their job, providing the safety lines for the safety of this Nation and 
providing assistance to the traveling public.
  How do I know? Because I make it a habit of visiting airports and 
seeing our TSO officers work and interacting with them and asking them 
how long they have served. Many of them came in after 9/11 because they 
could not sit idly by while the Nation had been attacked. Many of them 
are former law enforcement officers, former military personnel who 
believed that they were serving their Nation.
  What is a badge? It is a dignity that is allowed to those who are on 
the front lines of the Nation's security.
  What is a uniform? It is a consistent statement that you are 
authorized to do your duty.
  And I would simply say in the mistakes that occur in any body, 
whatever body it might be, local law enforcement, the United States 
military, do we strip them of their gear because of incidental or 
arbitrary incidents that individuals perpetrate? In this instance, we 
have a majority of heroic, first-line individuals who want to do 
better.
  Can we do better? Absolutely. But it is not done through the removal 
of the badge or the removal of the uniform. I would just say to my 
colleagues that we have been blessed since the tragedy of 9/11, but I 
am reminded of the tragedy of 9/11, and I'm reminded of the heroic 
souls who lost their lives, families who still mourn. And I'm reminded 
of the effort of this Congress and the administration at that time, 
President George Bush, to answer the call. The TSA was part of 
answering that call. It is our duty, I believe, to ensure that 
professional service, to allow them to serve, and to ensure that they 
are serving the American public.
  With that, I ask my colleagues to oppose the gentlelady from 
Tennessee's amendment.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, 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 yield to the gentlelady from Tennessee.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. I thank the gentleman for yielding. One point where I 
think we all agree is that there are many good people that work with 
the TSA. I have some good friends that work with the TSA. But to my 
colleagues here on the floor, I would remind you, those that are our 
airport screeners and now called transportation security officers, they 
cannot

[[Page 8682]]

detain anyone. If they find someone they want to detain, they have to 
call the airport police.
  I would also remind you, in the legislation that was passed in this 
House, they are designated as an airport security screener to assist 
the traveling public. I will also remind you that these TSOs receive 80 
hours of training--80 hours--and then 3 to 5 weeks of on-the-job 
training. Our air marshals, our policemen, those law enforcement 
officers are receiving much more training. And despite TSA's growing 
presence, more than 25,000 security breaches have occurred at U.S. 
airports in the last decade, and they are dealt with by the airport 
police.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, I rise regrettably to oppose the 
amendment. I think this amendment is very well-intentioned; but the 
amendment, unfortunately, would force the TSA to wear civilian gear and 
this could possibly confuse the public as to whether the screeners have 
the authorized duty to carry out their lawful inspection of screening. 
It would also require the TSA to discard millions of dollars' worth of 
current uniforms, and the bill does not fund any new uniforms.
  I do think that there are some things we need to address, and I 
appreciate the gentlelady from Tennessee bringing it to my attention 
here, and I would be happy to work with her. Again, I have to oppose 
the amendment, but like I said, I would be happy to work with her and 
see if we can't come to some accommodation on this.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Washington has reserved a point 
of order. Does the gentleman insist on his point of order?
  Mr. DICKS. I withdraw my point of order.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman withdraws his point of order.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from 
Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. 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 Tennessee 
will be postponed.


                  Amendment Offered by Mrs. Blackburn

  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title) insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used for Transportation Security Administration 
     Transportation Security Officers or Behavior Detection 
     Officers outside an airport.

  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, we do not have an accurate copy of the 
amendment, and we feel like we're at a disadvantage. This thing has 
been rewritten, and we don't have the final draft.
  The Acting CHAIR. A copy of the amendment will be distributed.
  Mr. DICKS. Thank you.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn) and a Member opposed each 
will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Tennessee.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, that is the correct amendment, and I 
want to thank the committee for working with us to make certain that we 
get it right. One of the things that I have learned through my 
legislative career is that many times leg counsel will advise something 
is done one way and parliamentarians another way. And whether it was at 
the State level or the Federal level, it is good to say let's get it 
right and let's do it right the first time. You have less cleanup. If 
we did more of that in this House, we would be coming back to this 
floor to correct wrongs that have been done. Certainly our plate is 
full of them this year.

                              {time}  1840

  There are some great aspects in the DHS bill, but there is one I have 
a lot of concern on, and it is the funding that is there for these DHS 
VIPR teams.
  Now, this is what has happened since 2005. The VIPR teams have begun 
conducting random searches and screenings at train stations, subways, 
bus terminals, ferry terminals, and other mass transit locations around 
the country.
  The objective of VIPR deployments is to augment capabilities that 
disrupt and deter potential terrorist activity. However, to date, we 
have not received any report of a VIPR team successfully preventing a 
single terrorist activity, despite the fact that during this timeframe 
the FBI, the CIA, and police officers have been highly successful at 
discovering and apprehending terrorists here in the U.S.
  Last year alone, VIPR teams ran more than 9,300 unannounced 
checkpoints and other search operations. This comes at a rate of 
approximately 170 to 190 deployments each week. This past October, 
Tennessee became the first State to conduct a statewide VIPR team 
operation with TSA transportation security officers. The VIPR team 
randomly inspected truck drivers on the side of Tennessee's highways. 
And I remind you, these are individuals that have no law enforcement 
training.
  Recently, we even saw TSA TSOs at the Capitol South Metro station a 
few weeks ago randomly inspecting----
  Mr. DICKS. Will the gentlewoman yield?
  Just very briefly, we're confused again because the gentlelady is 
referring to section 1 of her previous amendment, which is now taken 
out.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Tennessee controls the time.
  Does the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. No, I do not yield. And I'm going to finish my 
statement and discuss the activity of these teams that are working 
outside of an airport.
  What we have to remember is that TSOs were previously called airport 
security agents. Now they have become transportation security officers, 
and now they are working outside of the airport.
  I want you to keep in mind this about what transpired at the Capitol 
South Metro. Passengers had their bags randomly inspected. Keep in mind 
that these TSOs did not inspect every bag that came in front of them. 
They entered the station looking through some random selections, and 
they ignored everybody that was leaving that station. They only took 
people going in, not people coming out. That should really give 
everybody concern right now. If there was some reason for actionable 
intelligence, you would have been searching everybody just a few steps 
away from this Capitol.
  Funding for almost 200 VIPR deployments each week that are random and 
are not based on and driven by intelligence is not an effective 
national security policy, nor does it serve the American taxpayer well. 
Catching terrorists isn't a secret; it needs to be driven by 
intelligence, which is why the FBI, our Nation's law enforcement, and 
the Capitol Police have been successful at it.
  I encourage my colleagues to support the amendment, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to 
the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I first want to express some puzzlement 
though, and perhaps the sponsor of this amendment can clarify this as 
she closes.
  One of the early scribbled versions of this amendment did indeed 
refer to VIPR teams, and about two-thirds of her statement was about 
VIPR teams, but my understanding is that the copy of the amendment we 
now have has had that portion scratched out. So the amendment no longer 
pertains to VIPR teams.
  Could I, just for a moment, get some clarification on that.
  And I yield to the gentlewoman from Tennessee.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  And yes, all of these TSOs that are working outside of our Nation's 
airports, as I said, they were originally

[[Page 8683]]

put in place as airport security officers. As the gentleman well 
knows----
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Reclaiming my time, I asked a very 
direct question: Does the amendment include or not include VIPR teams?
  I yield to the gentlewoman.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. At this point, the amendment is addressing those that 
are working outside of our Nation's airports. This is an overreach; it 
is a stretch. They are not put in place to do that, and I think the 
gentleman from North Carolina understands that very well.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I thank the gentlewoman for clarifying 
that.
  There is a lot of confusion about this amendment. The VIPR teams 
aside, let me just say that to put in this bill a blanket prohibition 
against TSA officers operating outside of an airport is overly broad 
and really would be damaging with respect to the things our screeners 
often are asked to do. Some screeners do assist in passenger screening 
at transit facilities, for example, and sometimes they are asked to 
help in screening at national security events. I am told there may be a 
role at the national conventions or events of that sort where a surge 
capacity is called for.
  Now, some discretion, some good judgment is called for in the use of 
these personnel, but it escapes me why, in an appropriations bill, we 
would want to write in a blanket prohibition of this sort when there 
are demonstrable uses for these personnel outside the airport that are 
very valuable and contribute to our security.
  So I urge defeat of the amendment, and 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. At this time, I would like to yield to the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).
  Mr. GARRETT. I thank the gentleman. I'll be brief.
  If you've ever travelled in an airport for the last 10 years, you're 
familiar with the TSAs and their invasive conduct in certain 
circumstances, whether it's the full body scans or the pat downs, what 
have you. One thing that most Americans thought is that, if you didn't 
want to go through that, you could still always travel simply by 
driving your own car, driving your own truck, and not have to go 
through such an examination. That is not the case anymore.
  The TSA is not just for airports anymore, as the gentlelady has 
explained. They now go beyond the airports. They go onto the Nation's 
highways and they go onto the rest stops and they go onto the truck 
stops and the rest. And they are doing so in a manner that is not from 
the original intent of the Homeland Security bill that created the 
TSAs. They are going out there where no identifiable public security 
threat has been posed and they're doing so in the most absurd manner.
  Down in Savannah, Georgia, they went last year and they checked on 
the Amtrak trains. That sounds like a good idea. But you know when they 
did it? They did it when the people were getting off of the train as 
opposed to getting onto the train.
  They went over to Texas a little while ago, in Brownsville, Texas, 
and they checked the cars there, private cars--your car, my car, trucks 
and what have you. And they did it over at a port, not when the people 
are going into the port when there might be a risk or a threat to the 
port; they did it when cars were leaving the port. And again, there was 
no identifiable risk or threat posed at that period of time.
  There is support for the TSA in general, but let's focus it back at 
the airport again and let Americans know that you can still travel in 
this country, you can get in your own car and not be worried that there 
is going to be a TSA agent out there with no conceivable threat 
whatsoever and engaging in basically what really is security theater.
  Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ADERHOLT. I yield to the gentlewoman.
  Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. I would just like to make a brief 
comment, because I actually share the concern that's been expressed 
about TSA agents randomly going out. I had an incident such as that in 
the city of San Jose, and I find it improper and highly objectionable.
  However, the concern I have in this amendment is, as Mr. Price has 
said, you could not utilize this workforce and say, Okay, we're having 
the Republican convention; we need an all hands on deck to do security. 
If this amendment passes, that would be off limits. If you had an 
actual articulable threat where you needed expertise, you couldn't use 
them.
  So I think that is a mistake, even though I want to say I think the 
issue you've raised is a solid one and I agree with you. It's just I 
think the amendment goes way beyond the issue that we agree on.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding.

                              {time}  1850

  Mr. ADERHOLT. I thank the gentlelady, and reclaim my time.
  I appreciate the gentlelady from Tennessee working with us on this as 
we are trying to reword the amendment with the proposed changes. So 
with the proposed changes that have been given to the Clerk and handed 
out to the minority, we would accept the changes and accept the 
amendment.
  Mr. DICKS. I move to strike the requisite number of words.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Washington is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. DICKS. It just seems to me that, we shouldn't be doing an 
amendment here on the floor when we really don't have all the 
information before us. Your side is in charge of Homeland Security. 
Peter King is the very able chairman of the Homeland Security 
Committee. There ought to be hearings on this issue if, in fact, TSA 
people are overstepping their bounds.
  But to come here on the floor and try to cut off all funding, when we 
have no idea--the gentlelady had to rewrite her amendment several 
times, for God knows what reason. I mean, this is hardly the way to 
legislate.
  So I urge the defeat of this scratchy little amendment, and let's go 
to Peter King and Bennie Thompson and ask them to hold hearings on 
this. Do this responsibly.
  This amendment will be dropped. It isn't going anywhere, frankly, so 
you might as well face the fact that when we get to conference this is 
gone. The Senate will never agree to it. The administration would never 
agree to it, and they shouldn't.
  If you want to do something that's constructive, go to the Homeland 
Security Committee and let them deal with it.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. 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 Tennessee 
will be postponed.


               Amendment No. 16 Offered by Mr. Pierluisi

  Mr. PIERLUISI. I have an amendment at the desk that was printed in 
the Congressional Record as Amendment No. 16.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to implement, administer, or enforce section 1301(a) 
     of title 31, United States Code (31 U.S.C. 1301(a)), with 
     respect to the use of amounts made available by this Act for 
     ``Customs and Border Protection--Salaries and Expenses'' for 
     the expenses authorized to be paid in section 9 of the Jones 
     Act (48 U.S.C. 795) and for the collection of duties and 
     taxes authorized to be levied, collected, and paid in Puerto 
     Rico, as authorized in section 4 of the Foraker Act (48 
     U.S.C. 740), in addition to the more specific amounts 
     available for such purposes in

[[Page 8684]]

     the Puerto Rico Trust Fund pursuant to such provisions of 
     law.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Puerto Rico (Mr. Pierluisi) and a Member opposed each 
will control 5 minutes.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the 
gentleman's amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. A point of order is reserved.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Puerto Rico.
  Mr. PIERLUISI. Mr. Chairman, violent crime in Puerto Rico and the 
neighboring U.S. Virgin Islands has been on the rise since 2000, even 
though violent crime nationwide has decreased substantially during that 
same time period.
  Puerto Rico's homicide rate is about six times the national average. 
Although there are a number of reasons for this alarming spike in 
violence, one of the most important factors is that the U.S. government 
has, to its credit, substantially increased resources along the 
Southwest border with Mexico in an effort to stem the flow of drugs 
into our Nation through the Central American land corridor and to 
reduce violence in U.S. border States.
  As a result, drug trafficking organizations have adapted, 
increasingly utilizing air and maritime routes through the Caribbean in 
order to supply the U.S. market, just as they did back in the 1980s and 
1990s. In 2011, Puerto Rico, with a population of 3.7 million, had 
nearly as many homicides as Texas, with a population of 25 million. 
According to estimates, 75 percent of these homicides were linked to 
the international drug trade.
  Through various bills and accompanying committee reports, the 
Appropriations Committee has taken clear notice of this issue and 
directed Federal law enforcement agencies to prioritize counter-drug 
efforts in the U.S. Caribbean. Indeed, in the report accompanying the 
bill before us, the committee states:

       The public safety and security issues of the U.S. 
     territories in the Caribbean must be a priority. The 
     committee expects that the Secretary will allocate the 
     resources, assets and personnel to these jurisdictions in a 
     manner and to a degree consistent with that principle.

  I want to thank the chairman and the ranking member for including 
this important language.
  U.S. Customs and Border Protection is on the front lines of the 
counter-drug fight. The agency has hundreds of personnel stationed in 
Puerto Rico. These men and women work for the various offices under the 
agency's umbrella.
  My amendment is designed to address a problem that has recently 
arisen, one that compromises the ability of CBP to carry out its vital 
counter-drug mission in Puerto Rico. For over a century, Federal law 
has provided that the collection of certain duties and taxes in Puerto 
Rico by CBP or its predecessor agencies will be deposited in something 
called the Puerto Rico trust fund.
  Pursuant to the law and an implementing agreement between the Puerto 
Rico government and the Federal Government, a significant portion of 
that money is also used to fund certain Federal operations, including 
the maritime operations of CBP's office of Air and Marine in Puerto 
Rico.
  For many years this arrangement worked well enough. However, 
recently, because of a shortfall in the Puerto Rico trust fund of about 
$1.7 million due to reduced customs collections, CBP closed a critical 
boat unit in San Juan that, in 2010, seized over 7,000 pounds of 
illegal drugs. This is because CBP has interpreted current Federal law 
to require that it use either the trust fund or general congressional 
appropriations to fund its operations, but not both.
  My amendment would simply give CBP the authority to supplement any 
funding from the trust fund with general appropriations made in this 
bill, so that we will avoid a repeat of what happened in the case of 
the San Juan boat unit.
  My amendment does not require CBP to spend a single additional dollar 
in Puerto Rico, or to prioritize Puerto Rico over other jurisdictions 
in any way, and the CBO has indicated the amendment has no budgetary 
impact. The amendment merely gives the agency the flexibility and 
discretion to draw upon general appropriations in the event there is a 
shortfall in the trust fund in order to fulfill its responsibilities in 
Puerto Rico.
  Adoption of the amendment will ensure that the CBP's counter-drug 
mission in Puerto Rico is not unduly harmed. This, in turn, will 
promote the broader national security interest of the United States, 
since 80 percent of the drugs that enter Puerto Rico are ultimately 
transported to the U.S. mainland.
  I want to thank the chairman and the ranking member for including 
language in the committee report on this subject, and I look forward to 
continuing to work with them to ensure that the Department of Homeland 
Security, including CBP, has the resources it needs to adequately 
address the drug-related violence crisis in Puerto Rico.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, we withdraw our point of order, and we 
accept the amendment.
  Mr. PIERLUISI. I thank the majority, and I yield back the balance of 
my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Puerto Rico (Mr. Pierluisi).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Sullivan

  Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. ___.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to terminate an agreement governing a delegation of 
     authority under section 287(g) of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1357(g)) that is in existence on 
     the date of the enactment of this Act.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Sullivan) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oklahoma.
  Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. Chairman, it is no secret that the Obama 
administration wants to phase out the 287(g) program. This program has 
successfully teamed up local law enforcement with Federal agents to 
pursue a wide range of investigations such as human smuggling, gang, 
and other organized crime activity and money laundering.

                              {time}  1900

  The President thinks this program is ineffective.
  In order to phase out the 287(g), President Obama's FY2013 budget 
request struck $17 million from the program by terminating agreements 
and by stopping any further agreements from being signed. Thankfully, 
the underlying bill restores funding to the 287(g).
  The 287(g) program provides State and local law enforcement with the 
training to identify, process, and detain possible immigration 
offenders. This program extends the Federal Government's ability to 
enforce our immigration laws without the additional overhead.
  This program has been highly successful at not only apprehending 
immigration offenders but in facilitating the incarceration of 
dangerous criminals, and it has contributed to overall public safety. 
Nationwide, more than 1,500 officers have been trained and certified to 
enforce immigration laws, and there are 68 active memoranda of 
agreements in 24 States. Altogether, since the program's inception, 
287(g) has identified over 186,000 aliens for removal.
  Mr. Chairman, let me tell you about some local 287(g) success stories 
from my district. In February of this year, the Tulsa County Sheriff's 
Office was able to bust a sex slave ring in Tulsa and rescue the female 
victims from having up to 22 men forced on them per day. This was 
possible because of the 287(g) partnership.
  Because of this partnership, the Tulsa County Sheriff's Office 
conducted investigations into known large

[[Page 8685]]

shipments of amphetamine, opium and powdered testosterone, resulting in 
successful prosecution and asset forfeiture. Because of 287(g), the 
Tulsa County Sheriff's Office assisted with an arrest of nine illegal 
immigrants, one of whom was a child, being smuggled inhumanely in the 
bed of a Chevy Avalanche. Since the inception of the program in Tulsa, 
the Tulsa County Sheriff's Office has identified, processed, and 
entered into immigration proceedings on over 14,000 aliens, 
representing those with dangerous criminal backgrounds.
  Sex trafficking, drugs, and human smuggling are all part of what the 
287(g) program helps to stop. These stories are from Tulsa, but every 
locality that participates in this program has similar and equally 
laudable results.
  While full funding has been restored to 287(g) in H.R. 5855, the 
program needs further protection. In order to further insulate these 
successful agreements and protect them from being terminated for cost-
saving purposes or political reasons, my amendment simply prevents the 
termination of standing 287(g) agreements. We cannot allow the Obama 
administration any loophole to phase out or terminate this important 
program and place more undue pressure on our communities already 
burdened by criminal illegal immigration. Simply put, until the Federal 
Government steps up and starts doing its job, local law enforcement 
will continue to pick up the slack and enforce our laws.
  I encourage the adoption of my commonsense amendment by my colleagues 
today, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to 
the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would 
prohibit any funds from being used to terminate 287(g) agreements.
  The 287(g) program, as many people know, is a well-intentioned effort 
to allow State and local law enforcement entities to enter into a 
partnership with Immigration and Customs Enforcement. It is well 
intentioned, but it has turned out seriously flawed in the practice. 
Nine years after the 287(g) program was first initiated, there has been 
a thorough documentation of abuses and of the poor management of the 
program. There have been three audits by the DHS Inspector General that 
have raised serious concerns about the program.
  As a result, ICE has had to reform the 287(g) program to ensure 
consistency in immigration enforcement actions across the country. The 
agencies have also had to terminate some 287(g) task forces, notably in 
Maricopa County, Arizona, after the Justice Department clearly 
documented racial profiling and other program abuses. Two other 
counties were also terminated for cause. There are also questions about 
cost-effectiveness, in fact, very serious questions about cost-
effectiveness. Under the 287(g) task force model, it costs $13,322 to 
apprehend one alien and $19,941 to remove that alien.
  Because of these costs, as well as other concerns I've already 
mentioned, Assistant Secretary Morton began notifying communities this 
spring that ICE would no longer be considering any 287(g) task force 
model request from State and local jurisdictions. It, instead, will 
devote resources to the expansion of other ICE programs and to the 
continued deployment of Secure Communities. For comparison purposes, 
under Secure Communities, it costs ICE $649 to apprehend one alien, and 
$1,321 to remove the alien. That's 10 times less than the 287(g) task 
force model.
  Many communities across the country are agreeing with the 
transitioning away from the 287(g) program to Secure Communities. For 
example, the sheriff of Davidson County, Tennessee, questioned whether 
the 287(g) program was necessary given its low level of apprehensions 
and the fact that only 68 communities participated across the country. 
With Secure Communities being fully implemented nationwide in over 
3,000 communities by the spring of 2013, I, frankly, see little need to 
continue the 287(g) program. Now, if this amendment is adopted, it's 
going to force ICE to fund this cost-prohibitive and questionable 
immigration enforcement activity in order to keep on doing what we know 
isn't working and wasting Federal taxpayer funds.
  This is a time of fiscal restraint. This is a time when we should be 
applying cost-benefit standards, effectiveness standards. So Members 
need to oppose this amendment and allow the Assistant Secretary to 
prioritize funding decisions based on the most pressing immigration 
needs of this country and on reasonable standards of cost-
effectiveness.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DICKS. I move to strike the requisite number of words.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Washington is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. DICKS. I yield to the distinguished gentlelady from California 
(Ms. Lofgren).
  Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. I would just like to note that there 
is a difference--and obviously the gentleman has a right to refine his 
amendment--between the original version of the amendment that we saw, 
which had a provision that allowed for the termination in certain 
cases. For example, when the Inspector General determined that a term 
of the agreement was violated, the amendment before us no longer has 
that provision. I think it's an important distinction.
  In addition to the very high costs of over $33,000 to find and remove 
an alien under this program, there are complicated agreements that are 
engaged in between the localities and the Federal Government. If they 
aren't adhered to, there needs to be an enforcement action, and that 
would not be the case under this amendment.
  I would note also that, if localities no longer think it's worth it--
because, really, they're entering into agreements that cost them, too--
it's time that might be better spent doing something else. If they say 
that this is not working out--we want to terminate it--I don't think, 
under this amendment, they would be able to do it because the Federal 
Government would need to respond to their requests and terminate.
  Finally, as Mr. Price has indicated, this is a program that, although 
I think had good intentions, didn't work out the way people thought. 
That sometimes happens in law, and it often happens in immigration law. 
It's expensive. It's in fewer than 100 localities in the United States, 
and many of them are rethinking it. The terms and conditions have 
frequently not been adhered to. In some notorious cases, there have 
been flagrant violations of civil rights, and the Department has had to 
go in and yank contracts. Even in the cases where there haven't been 
really outrageous civil rights violations, there have been problems.
  I think there are likely better and more cost-effective ways to 
enforce the immigration laws, which is why the Department has notified 
us that it is its intention to begin notifying communities just this 
spring that it's not going to be considering any further requests from 
State and local jurisdictions.
  That current policy would be permitted under this amendment, and they 
don't have to accept any more, so we would be stuck with the 68 that we 
have--no more, no less. I don't think that's a sensible way to proceed 
on the enforcement of the immigration law; and I think the amendment, 
although I'm sure well-intentioned, would not enhance the enforcement 
of law.

                              {time}  1910

  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I reclaim my time.
  ICE itself has raised concerns about the cost effectiveness of the 
287(g) program. With all due respect, this sounds like a program that 
both sides think isn't working that well. We ought to get rid of it. We 
could put this up on your wall as one of the things you've killed.
  For example, under the 287(g) task force model, it costs $13,322 to 
apprehend one alien and $19,941 to remove

[[Page 8686]]

them. If you compare that, as the distinguished ranking member did, 
with the Secure Communities program, it costs ICE $649 to apprehend one 
alien and $1,321 to remove them. That is more than 10 times less than 
the 287(g) task force model.
  I would be glad to yield to my distinguished friend from Oklahoma to 
answer why you would want to keep the more expensive program if the 
Secure Communities program is working.
  Mr. SULLIVAN. I believe the 287(g) program has been a huge success, 
and I disagree with my colleagues on the other side that it's not.
  What we're trying to do is get rid of criminal illegal immigrants in 
our country that are raping people, involved in drug trafficking, that 
are murdering people, that are dangerous criminals. I think the program 
is a huge success, and I can just tell you stories in my area about sex 
slaves and human trafficking.
  Mr. DICKS. Reclaiming my time, again, I would just ask the gentleman 
to contemplate that if we have a Secure Communities program that is 
dealing with this same issue and doing it at 10 times less for the 
taxpayers and this 287(g) program has had the inspector general all 
over it, why wouldn't we get rid of it if it is that expensive to do 
and use Secure Communities? This is just a commonsense thought here.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SULLIVAN. This program actually cuts costs. It's a program that 
is very efficient. It's one that has to be implemented at the local 
levels because the Federal Government has failed to do its job.
  The Federal Government doesn't do anything in immigration policy at 
all in this country, and it has been thrust upon local communities like 
my local sheriff's office. My local sheriff, Stanley Glanz, has 
instituted this 287(g) program in our community, and it's kept us safe 
and secure. We've taken it into our own hands to get people off our 
streets that are criminal illegal immigrants. It costs money to do 
that, but I think it's done in a very efficient way that cuts costs. 
It's done in a very efficient manner. These people are wreaking havoc 
on our communities, and there is a lot of cost involved in that that's 
not being talked about to the tune of millions and millions of dollars 
across this country.
  I think for us, we would be abdicating our responsibility. 
Congressman Dicks, we would be abdicating our responsibility if we do 
not fund this 287(g) program. This is something we should embrace on 
both sides of the aisle. It's so important. Because of our location to 
other countries, we have people coming through our country every day 
smuggling people and drugs all the time. We have identity theft in our 
community, and it needs to be addressed. This is the only way we can do 
it until we have comprehensive immigration policy in this country.
  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 would like to add that we strongly support 287(g). As 
a matter of fact, we have increased 287(g) by 25 percent in this bill. 
We reject the administration's cuts to 287(g), and we agree with the 
amendment from the gentleman from Oklahoma.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Sullivan).
  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 Oklahoma 
will be postponed.
  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 yield to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Loebsack).
  Mr. LOEBSACK. I thank the chairman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, my home State is still recovering from billions of 
dollars in damage after the floods of 2008, which were the worst 
disaster in our State's history and one of the worst disasters in our 
Nation's history.
  Unfortunately, today we have communities that have been awarded funds 
through the FEMA Public Assistance program that are afraid that over a 
year after the funds were awarded to replace buildings, and local funds 
have been spent, FEMA may be required to take back that funding at no 
fault of the community. That's what those folks are afraid of.
  We shouldn't leave our local communities holding the bag on a failed 
project, destroyed and decaying buildings, and a loss of local taxpayer 
funds.
  I don't believe that FEMA should come into one of our communities and 
take back disaster recovery funding over a year after it's already been 
awarded and after our communities have already spent a large amount of 
their taxpayers' money with the understanding that the project was 
moving forward.
  Communities recovering from disasters right now, as I know the 
chairman's has, are also struggling in the worst recession since the 
Great Depression. The last thing they need is to have even more 
uncertainty thrown at them by losing disaster recovery assistance.
  Disaster recovery must be a collaboration. Our local communities 
should not have the rug pulled out from under them, after years of 
struggling to recover, because the Federal Government committed support 
for rebuilding a community and then later took back that support. We 
need to maintain a partnership with States and communities, which means 
confidence that the Federal Government's promise of recovery funding 
means something.
  Mr. Chairman, I just hope that we can work together with FEMA to 
ensure that taxpayer dollars are protected, that we can work together 
at all levels to rebuild communities and economies destroyed by 
disasters all over this great Nation, and that a local community's 
recovery can continue to move forward while we address any issues 
outside the community's ongoing recovery process.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. I want to thank the gentleman for raising these issues 
and bringing it to our attention.
  Just this past year, the district I represent was devastated by 
tornados. So the people of the district that I represent know firsthand 
what it is to work with FEMA and the recovery from a horrific disaster.
  I understand my colleague's concerns and agree that we need to be 
cognizant of the burden on local communities if they've been awarded 
recovery funds and then have those funds taken back through no fault of 
their own.
  My colleague certainly raises some commonsense points and issues that 
we should look at to address and to make sure that communities across 
the country aren't expending local funds for no reason, so that 
taxpayer dollars are protected at both the local and at the Federal 
level, so there is a better and more cooperative partnership between 
the Federal Government and these recovering communities.
  It is important that the State and the Federal partnership on 
disaster recovery is maintained in a collaborative and productive 
fashion, and I agree with my colleague from Iowa and hope that the 
issues like this don't disrupt the partnership that lead to communities 
doubting the sincerity or the ability of their government to come to 
their aid in such a time as needed.
  I know that everyone wants favorable outcomes and for our communities 
to recover as quickly as possible and agree that communities shouldn't 
shoulder the burden of an agency's mistake.
  As recovery continues in the district of my colleague from Iowa, I 
pledge to work with him and FEMA to address these issues and look 
forward to recovery in a timely manner.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

[[Page 8687]]



                              {time}  1920


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Barletta

  Mr. BARLETTA. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title) insert the 
     following:
       Sec. ___.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used in contravention of section 642(a) of the Illegal 
     Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 
     (8 U.S.C. 1373(a)).

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Barletta) and a Member opposed each 
will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. BARLETTA. Mr. Speaker, every day we're in session, we create new 
laws. Some affect spending, some protect our citizens and country, some 
honor those who have fallen. All are important, all carry the same 
weight, and all are Federal laws. But there are some elected officials 
in the United States who believe that they can pick and choose the laws 
they follow.
  In 1996, Congress passed and the President signed the bipartisan 
Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act. This law 
says very clearly that no local government entity or official may 
prohibit or in any way restrict any government entity or official from 
sending to or receiving from Immigration and Customs Enforcement 
information regarding the citizenship or immigration status of any 
individual.
  Every day in cities across America, elected officials break that law 
and millions of illegal aliens benefit from the lack of enforcement. 
They benefit by taking jobs from American citizens and legal 
immigrants. They benefit by using taxpayer-funded benefits.
  Some of our communities not only ignore the law, but many communities 
across our Nation willfully violate Federal law by encouraging illegal 
aliens to live in their cities, saying that they will be safe from 
Federal Government's reach.
  Mind you, the Federal Government is not asking these cities to do 
anything extraordinary. The government is not asking cities to 
implement a radical new law. The Federal Government is merely asking 
these cities to obey the law, a law that has been on the books for 16 
years. This is what the American people want.
  According to a recent poll, an overwhelming majority of Americans 
want the Department of Justice to uphold the law and take legal action 
against cities that break existing Federal immigration law. But, once 
again, in the area of illegal immigration control, the Federal 
Government fails to act.
  Instead, we send billions of tax dollars to these communities. That's 
why my colleagues and I rise to offer this amendment this evening. This 
amendment will prevent Federal funds from being given to cities and 
towns that do not follow Federal immigration law. This amendment will 
uphold existing Federal law. It will discourage the creation of a 
confusing national patchwork where some cities uphold the law and other 
cities willfully ignore it.
  This amendment makes sense. It will keep us safe, and it cuts down on 
waste, fraud and abuse. I strongly encourage my colleagues to vote 
``yes'' on this amendment.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to 
the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is merely a 
restatement of existing law. It doesn't need to be in this bill. 
Moreover, there's no evidence that any State or local government has 
violated Federal law in this area.
  In 2007, in fact, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, a 
Republican, as we all know, testified that he wasn't aware of any city 
that interferes with the Department's ability to enforce the law. It's 
a largely fabricated problem, I believe, and the amendment itself would 
simply restate existing law.
  I yield to Ms. Lofgren, the ranking member of our Immigration Policy 
and Enforcement Committee.
  Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I would, in joining my opposition to the amendment, note that the 
amendment before us actually does not prevent highway funds and other 
funds from going to so-called sanctuary cities at all.
  Further, I would note, as Mr. Price has done, that these so-called 
sanctuary laws really very rarely, if at all, from the record, have to 
do with communicating between the locality and the Federal Government. 
They have to do with what the locality is doing and their own citizens.
  In many urban parts of the country, police chiefs have made a 
decision that they need to trust their communities to be witnesses to 
crime, to come forward, to cooperate with the police, and that they do 
not want to play the role of immigration police. They want to be the 
real police. That is a decision that localities can make, provided that 
they do not run afoul of the 1996 act that prohibits the restrictions 
on sending and receiving information.
  Here's the deal: you can say we're not going to disrupt this 
community because of our need to get the trust of the community, but 
you can't prohibit the communication with the Federal Government.
  I think that this amendment will not achieve anything. The law is 
already clear. It passed in 1996.
  I would further note that there is a case, it had to do with gun 
control. It's called the Prince case, and what it says is that the 
Federal Government cannot commandeer local and State governments to 
enforce the Federal law.
  If that's really what the intent is here, it would violate the 
Supreme Court decision saying that you can't use the power of the 
Federal Government to force cities to enforce gun control laws. I would 
say you couldn't do that to force cities to enforce immigration laws 
either. That would be the Prince case.
  This amendment doesn't matter, really, whether the amendment is 
approved or not because, as I indicated and Mr. Price has indicated, 
this has been part of our law since 1996.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. 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. I would simply like to rise in support of the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania's amendment and say that we agree with his amendment 
that he has brought forth tonight.
  I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Culberson).
  Mr. CULBERSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This amendment is common 
sense. The city of San Francisco, for example, officially declared 
itself an illegal alien sanctuary city by the Board of Supervisors in 
1989, and now lawmakers are taking that a huge step further by actually 
creating legislation to grant illegal aliens official city 
identification cards.
  The head of the Public Information Office of the National Association 
of Chiefs of Police reports that in California, illegal aliens in San 
Francisco are being assured through costly Spanish language advertising 
campaigns that they will never be reported to Federal law enforcement 
agents such as ICE, Immigrations and Customs Enforcement, or Homeland 
Security investigation, or the U.S. Border Patrol, or any other Federal 
agency that could initiate the deportation process. That's a direct 
violation of the Federal law that the gentleman from Pennsylvania just 
read.
  I'm proud to coauthor this amendment with my friend from Pennsylvania 
because he's exactly right. This amendment will save lives.
  If a local law enforcement agency refuses to follow Federal law, they 
should not expect to be rewarded with Federal grant money, and that's 
what this amendment would do--cut off Federal grant money to sanctuary 
cities across America. I suspect you'll see them repeal their sanctuary 
city policy

[[Page 8688]]

very rapidly when they discover they don't have access to Federal 
money.
  Most recently, in the city of San Francisco, a renowned gang member, 
a member of the MS-13 gang, was just convicted for three first-degree 
murders in 2008. A father and two sons were murdered by this illegal 
alien who had multiple run-ins with law enforcement authorities in San 
Francisco. But because of the sanctuary city policy in San Francisco, 
he was not deported.

                              {time}  1930

  I urge the Members of the House to support the gentleman's amendment. 
This amendment will save lives.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. Reclaiming my time, I yield to the gentleman from 
Arizona.
  Mr. SCHWEIKERT. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  This is one of the moments where you get to stand up behind the 
microphone, and being from Arizona, embrace the irony.
  Think of this. This Federal Government sues my State for actually 
enforcing the Federal immigration law. But yet in this particular case, 
in this amendment, as my friend here was just pointing out, we hand 
money to communities that are walking away from enforcing the very law. 
Does anyone see the irony of: You sue us for doing it, but yet we 
reward municipalities for becoming a sanctuary city and not living up 
to their obligations.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. Reclaiming my time, I yield to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania.
  Mr. BARLETTA. Thank you.
  Again, to sum this up, I was a mayor of a small town in Pennsylvania, 
and when the problem of illegal immigration hit my city, I came here to 
ask for help because our small budget couldn't help defend the people 
in my community. And when I came here and I talked to many experts, 
when I left here what I got was a nice coffee mug, a lapel pin, a pat 
on the back, and a Good luck, Mayor.
  I finally decided after a 29-year-old city man was shot between the 
eyes by an illegal alien who had been arrested eight times before he 
came to my city, I said enough was enough. I had to protect the people 
in my community. And what happened was I was sued, and I was told that, 
We will bankrupt your city if you continue to fight.
  But yet we have mayors across the country who are going to pick and 
choose what laws they want to defend. We're not asking for some crazy 
new law. We're asking mayors to defend the laws that they took an oath 
of office that they would defend. And that's what this bill would do. 
We should not reward those who are openly defying Federal laws that 
this Congress had passed.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. Reclaiming my time, I would just like to say I support 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania's amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Washington is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. DICKS. I yield to the distinguished gentleman from Colorado.
  Mr. POLIS. I thank the gentleman from Washington.
  I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  I think this amendment is an opportunity for us to examine why this 
issue is being discussed. The fact that there is such a large illegal 
population in our cities, in our counties, in our States, is not their 
fault. It's not a mayor's fault. It's not a county commissioner's 
fault. It's not a Governor's fault. It is our fault. It is Congress's 
fault. It is the failure of our Federal policies' fault.
  Many of our communities have large illegal populations, including 
many of the communities I represent. And they try to get by. They try 
to engage in community policing to keep their community safe and earn 
the trust of their immigrant populations. They try to ensure that their 
immigrant populations are well cared for. They're doing as best they 
can. But until we fix that policy here and replace our broken 
immigration laws with a system that works for this country and works 
for the private sector and is in touch with reality, it's 
counterproductive to prevent experimentation at the State and local 
level.
  If the State of Utah wants to experiment with work permits because of 
the lack of Federal action, let's find a way to let them do it. If our 
cities and towns find a way to get by a little bit better with the 
burden that we in this body have placed on them by refusing to take up 
immigration reform, then let them do it. Let them try to get by a 
little better. And until this body actually has the courage to address 
fixing our broken immigration system, we should not consider measures 
that continue to symbolically or really continue to handcuff our State 
and local officials in dealing with the problems associated with 
illegal immigration.
  Mr. DICKS. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Barletta).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Alabama is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. At this time I would like to yield to the gentleman 
from Rhode Island to talk about an important cyber workforce issue.
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I'd first like to thank Chairman Aderholt for his hard work. His 
efforts to support and strengthen cybersecurity activities within the 
Department of Homeland Security have been commendable, and I want to 
thank him and his staff, as well as Mr. Price and his staff, for 
crafting this important piece of legislation.
  There can be no doubt of the importance of ensuring DHS has the 
resources it needs to execute its role in protecting against 
cyberthreats, and key to this is attracting and retaining a robust and 
skilled cyber workforce.
  DHS has been delegated numerous critical responsibilities in securing 
Federal networks through Federal statute and OMB memorandum. These 
include operating the United States Computer Emergency Readiness Team, 
or US-CERT, and overseeing the Trusted Internet Connection initiative. 
DHS also has prime responsibility within the executive branch for the 
operational aspects of Federal agency cybersecurity with respect to the 
information systems that fall under the Federal Information Security 
Management Act.
  While I applaud the chairman for delivering on the need to strengthen 
America's homeland security efforts in the face of reduced Federal 
spending, I would ask him if he gave consideration to the hiring, 
development, and retention of our top-tier cybersecurity talent charged 
with performing the aforementioned critical duties. An organization 
such as the Department of Homeland Security absolutely must be able to 
attract and keep these highly skilled and highly valued individuals in 
order to defend Federal networks and inform better policy.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. I thank the gentleman for his continued leadership on 
cybersecurity matters and welcome the opportunity to engage him in this 
colloquy. Ensuring that the Department of Homeland Security has the 
resources needed to execute cybersecurity responsibilities entrusted to 
it is extremely important to both the short-term and the long-term 
success of its critical cybersecurity roles.
  I assure the gentleman that we will continue to examine how to best 
proceed to make sure the Department has adequately and effectively 
resourced to deter and defend against cybersecurity threats.
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ADERHOLT. I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. LANGEVIN. I thank the gentleman. In that spirit, I would like to 
encourage the gentleman to work together with Mr. Price on efforts to 
determine and address potential DHS cyber workforce challenges. 
Specifically, I believe it would be a great value to have DHS study a 
report on its

[[Page 8689]]

efforts, challenges, and recommendations to address cyber workforce 
requirements at the agency.
  Given their critically important roles with regard to Federal 
cybersecurity, I believe we absolutely must make sure that DHS can 
attract and, equally as important, retain the best and the brightest to 
defend our networks.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. I appreciate the gentleman's views and I look forward 
to working closely with him in examining these issues as we move 
forward. I'll make every effort to address the workforce concern as we 
move toward conference on this bill.
  Mr. LANGEVIN. I thank the chairman. I certainly look forward to 
working with my good friend to ensure that our Federal Government is 
properly addressing these critically important cybersecurity and 
cyberworkforce challenges. It's a very important issue, and I thank the 
chairman for all of his hard work and also thank Ranking Member Price 
for his outstanding work on this important bill.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. I yield back the balance of my time.


               En Bloc Amendment Offered by Mr. Aderholt

  Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment en bloc at the desk, 
and I would ask unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as 
read.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from Alabama?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.

       The text of the amendment is as follows:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used by the Department of Homeland Security any other 
     Federal agency to lease or purchase new light duty vehicles, 
     for any executive fleet, or for an agency's fleet inventory, 
     except in accordance with Presidential Memorandum-Federal 
     Fleet Performance, dated May 24, 2011.
                                  ____

       Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used for the purchase, operation, or maintenance of armed 
     unmanned aerial vehicles.
                                  ____

       Sec. __. None of the funds made available under this Act 
     may be used in contravention of immigration laws (as defined 
     in session 101(a)(17) of the Immigration and Nationality Act 
     (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(17))).

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Aderholt) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Alabama.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, this amendment combines three separate 
amendments which were outlined in our unanimous consent agreement 
earlier. The first, from Mr. Engel, has a limitation on funds for the 
lease or purchase of new light-duty vehicles that are not in accordance 
with the President's fleet efficiency standards.

                              {time}  1940

  The second amendment is from Mr. Holt. It is a limitation on funds 
for the use of armored, unmanned aerial systems. And the third is from 
Mr. Price of Georgia. It's a limitation on funds being used in 
contravention of the Nation's immigration laws.
  I would urge my colleagues to support the adoption of this en bloc 
amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Washington is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. DICKS. If I can ask the chairman a question on this, it says none 
of the funds made available by this act may be used for the purchase, 
operation, or maintenance of armed unmanned aerial vehicles; is this 
from Homeland Security? Is this prohibition on Homeland Security?
  Mr. ADERHOLT. That is correct.
  Mr. DICKS. Has there ever been any plan to buy armed drones by 
Homeland Security?
  Mr. ADERHOLT. No.
  Mr. DICKS. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the en bloc amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Aderholt).
  The en bloc amendment was agreed to.


              Amendment Offered by Mr. Turner of New York

  Mr. TURNER 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:

         At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert 
     the following:
         Sec. __. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b), of the 
     amounts made available by this Act, not more than $20,000,000 
     may be made available for surface transportation security 
     inspectors.
         (b) The limitation described in subsection (a) shall not 
     apply to the National Explosives Detection Canine Training 
     Program and Visible Intermodal Prevention and Response Teams.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Turner) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. TURNER of New York. Mr. Chairman, my amendment today seeks to 
limit funding for the surface transportation inspection program.
  Mr. Chairman, at a hearing held by the Transportation Security 
Subcommittee of Homeland Security, of which I am a member, industry 
witnesses raised serious concerns about the efficacy of the surface 
transportation inspection program. Here are some of the concerns raised 
at the hearing:
  Most surface inspectors have no surface transportation experience or 
surface security background whatsoever. Many surface inspectors were 
promoted from screening passengers at airports;
  These inspectors report to the Federal security directors at local 
airports who commonly also do not possess any surface transportation 
experience.
  At least one local TSA official indicated he is always looking for 
things for his inspectors to do to occupy their time;
  Most surface inspectors have two things to look for in a typical day: 
whether a transit system is reporting incidents to the TSA and a box is 
checked on their clipboard, and whether there is a security person on 
duty, another box to be checked on a clipboard;
  The work of these inspectors is redundant, performed by employees of 
other agencies, such as the Department of Transportation, OSHA or EPA, 
and on and on. What they do is ultimately slow down commerce on our 
Nation's rails and highways.
  Since 2008, TSA has more than doubled the size of the transportation 
inspection workforce and quadrupled the program's budget. Yet, 
according to the majority of stakeholders we heard from, there has been 
almost no tangible improvement in security as a result of these 
investments.
  Last year, TSA's entire surface transportation security budget was 
$126 million. Of this amount, surface inspectors cost taxpayers $54 
million, which does not even include headquarters, administration, 
oversight, and staff associated with the program. This means that the 
surface transportation inspection program, which has been labeled as 
ineffective by a number of freight, rail, passenger service, bus, and 
mass transit agencies, is consuming more than 40 percent of the entire 
surface transportation security budget.
  Millions of Americans rely on surface transportation every day. More 
than 8 million people use public transportation in New York City alone. 
Despite this need, less than 2 percent of the TSA's nearly $8 billion 
budget goes toward securing our Nation's surface transportation 
systems, and a large portion of that limited budget is being squandered 
on this ineffective inspection program.
  Surface transportation security is too important to our national 
economy and receives too small a portion of homeland security funding 
to waste a single dollar. Opponents of this amendment may argue that it 
will result in Federal inspectors being put out of work. It will not. 
We are transferring

[[Page 8690]]

money to implement more productive security measures within TSA. The 
question is simply: Why should taxpayers, especially those who rely on 
surface transportation every day, have to fund a program that has no 
proven ability to enhance security?
  My amendment today seeks to limit the inspector program budget to $20 
million, which would substantially reduce its size, and allow the saved 
money to be put forward in other more effective surface programs, such 
as canine detection units, particularly at bus and rail stations. This 
amendment strengthens security. It addresses concerns raised by the 
very transit systems the program is designed to protect.
  Today, I ask you to join me in supporting this measure.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to 
the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I confess to some 
puzzlement as to the intent of this amendment. Despite the gentleman's 
explanation, what he's doing here is, in effect, totally restructuring 
the surface transportation security program. He's limiting to $20 
million the funds available for surface transportation security 
inspectors. That's a potential decrease of $70 million from the carve-
out in the bill.
  Now, he also, in the current draft of this amendment, excludes from 
the prohibition, excludes the national explosives canine training 
program and the VIPR teams, in essence shifting--he's not reducing 
funding overall. He's shifting a huge amount of funding to these two 
functions. I just don't understand the rationale for that, particularly 
when you consider the vital functions of the surface transportation 
security inspectors, why would we want to virtually phase them out? The 
mission of these individuals is to assess the risk of terrorist attacks 
for all nonaviation transportation, to issue potential regulations, to 
enforce existing rules and protect our transportation systems.
  This proposed limitation could hinder rail inspections, baseline 
assessments, mass transit assessments, and risk mitigation activities. 
As I read the amendment, all these functions would be drastically 
compromised, and with them, I think the security of the traveling 
public. So I'm baffled by the amendment, but I feel constrained to 
oppose it and urge its defeat.
  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, I rise to reluctantly oppose the 
gentleman's amendment.
  I appreciate that he has brought this to our attention. I just found 
out about the matter today. I would like to work with the gentleman 
from New York. However, I do have concerns about the broadness of this 
amendment.
  The TSA surface transportation security inspectors, or TSI, provide a 
number of security functions agreed on as a result of consultation with 
the State, Federal, local, and private stakeholders. In addition, the 
inspectors provide the subject matter expertise for FEMA to evaluate 
eligibility for surface transportation security grants.
  The amendment that the gentleman brings up tonight would result in 
laying off about 240 inspectors, which is about 60 percent of the 
current workforce. This would be an excessive action to address what 
seems to be a need to better focus on the operations of surface 
inspectors. It would effectively take TSA out of the surface security 
realm at a time when we know terrorists and those interested in 
attacking our mass transit and other surface modes of transportation 
are focused on just that, so I urge my colleagues to reject the 
amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1950

  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Turner).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. TURNER 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.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Polis

  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __. (a) Each amount made available by this Act (other 
     than an amount required to be made available by a provision 
     of law) is hereby reduced by 2 percent.
       (b) The reduction in subsection (a) shall not apply to 
     amounts made available for--
       (1) ``Analysis and Operations'';
       (2) ``United States Secret Service--Salaries and 
     Expenses'';
       (3) accounts in title III; and
       (4) accounts of the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, our Nation continues to struggle under an 
increasing mountain of debt. My constituents sent me to Washington to 
do something about the budget deficit. That's why I was one of the 
handful of Members who voted for the Simpson-Bowles budget--the only 
budget, I might add, of the five budgets considered by the House of 
Representatives that had bipartisan support. Republicans and Democrats 
have voted for it. So, too, I joined my colleagues on the other side of 
the aisle, in some, but not all, of the across-the-board cuts and cuts 
that have been proposed to various agencies in different appropriations 
bills.
  This amendment is simple. It's a straight 2 percent cut across the 
board to this bill, exempting counterterrorism accounts. We shouldn't 
choose between protecting our country and cutting wasteful government 
spending. This was designed to protect the most politically sensitive 
and important accounts in this bill, namely, FEMA and antiterrorism 
activities, which was, of course, the original purpose under which 
President Bush composed the Department of Homeland Security, and it's 
an area that we should not sacrifice.
  My amendment is really about safeguarding the American people without 
continuing to squander taxpayer dollars. The best thing we can do to 
safeguard the American people is balance our budget. The longer we fail 
to take action with regard to making the necessary cuts, the more we 
make ourselves economically beholden to foreign countries such as 
China. During this time of budgetary constraints when our deficit is 
spiraling out of control, we need to take every opportunity to 
eliminate unnecessary government spending.
  Now, cutting government spending is never easy. It might mean jobs in 
different agencies, it might mean missions that we agree or disagree 
on. But I think cutting $640 million from an overall bill of $46 
billion is a reasonable first step.
  Now, in particular, the Department of Homeland Security has 
significant waste and abuse that can be targeted for reduction. It's 
had massive failures; and in these economic times, we shouldn't 
continue to reward failure of an agency.
  There are so many frivolous programs in the Department it's really 
hard to know where to begin. Now, in the 2011 report, the independent 
GAO suggested 11 actions that DHS or Congress could take to reduce the 
cost of government operations; and yet of those 11 actions, only one 
has been fully addressed.
  Take, for example, one example from the report that GAO found is that 
CBP's Arizona Border Surveillance Technology Plan is not accomplishing 
its goal to support Arizona border security. The GAO made three 
recommendations last year to the program, and DHS has not taken them

[[Page 8691]]

into action. This year's GAO report suggests Congress should consider 
limiting future funding to the program until DHS can show that they 
have addressed the flaws and they're able to work in conjunction with 
Arizona border security.
  We can't continue to increase funding for a Department that fails to 
deliver. If this Department succeeded, Mr. Chair, why do we have 10 to 
15 million people in this country illegally? Is this Department making 
a dent in that number? I think not. Will they make less or more of a 
dent with 2 percent less funding? I think not. We can't afford to 
continue to throw money down the toilet trying to build virtual or real 
fences at the border that can't prevent crossing, hurting our own 
stalled economy trying to police our way to restore the integrity of 
our laws.
  Look, this country needs to address our broken immigration system. 
There are 10 to 15 million people in this country illegally. The 
Department of Homeland Security has failed. They have failed. Are we 
going to reward failure by increasing their budget, or are we going to 
penalize failure? Maybe if we finally do a 2 percent cut, they'll get 
the message that they can't just keep telling Congress they need more 
money. Every agency tells Congress, we need more money, give us more 
money. That's why this country is in this mess.
  Look, make no mistake, if my amendment passes, the bill would still 
appropriate tens of billions of dollars to this Department, enough to 
continue all necessary activities and fully continue the funding 
enhancements to our antiterrorist programs. But it's imperative to the 
future of this country that we take real action to achieve fiscal 
sustainability and spur economic growth. We can take that first step 
today--and I've joined my colleagues on the other side of the aisle in 
support of similar amendments in the past with regard to different 
appropriations bills--by reducing government spending in this bill.
  I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote for my 
amendment.
  Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman has 15 seconds remaining.
  Mr. POLIS. I yield the final 15 seconds to the gentleman from 
Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. The only thing I would say to my friend is, if you know 
where all these programs are, you ought to cut the programs and not do 
an across-the-board cut. That is the easy way out.
  Mr. POLIS. Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman. I urge support 
of the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Alabama is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition because the 
amendment would slash critical funding for our Nation's homeland 
security. For the third fiscal year in a row, this bill that we have 
before us accomplishes a dual goal that we have constantly worked on--
fiscal discipline and necessary funding for the homeland security needs 
of this country.
  The bill reduces the departmental management by $191 million, or 17 
percent, below the request and $71 million below last year. It demands 
efficiency from all agencies, including an overall reduction of the TSA 
of $147 million, or 3 percent. It cuts programs that are not performing 
and reduces bureaucratic overhead.
  The Department is an Agency of 230,000 employees with an absolutely 
critical Federal mission. So I would urge my colleagues to join me in 
opposing 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, our colleague from 
Colorado is a persistent critic of the Department of Homeland Security, 
and I think often his criticisms have force--for example, his remarks a 
few moments ago on the unneeded so-called ``sanctuary cities'' 
amendment. This amendment, though, I believe is an overreach, is 
indiscriminate, and I do feel constrained to oppose it. It would reduce 
funding for every frontline agency within the Department of Homeland 
Security by 2 percent.
  The bill already includes a 1 percent reduction for the budget 
request, and it reflects the third year in a row that funding for the 
Department of Homeland Security has decreased. I think this amendment 
would do damage to our security. If this reduction were adopted, 
critical programs such as border security, immigration enforcement and 
transportation security would no longer be shielded from ill-advised 
cuts throughout the bill.
  The reduction would require the Department to lay off crucial staff 
we've hired over the past 3 years, including more Border Patrol Agents, 
CBP officers at the ports of entry--and many of those ports of entry 
are already backed up--ICE investigators along the Southwest border, 
and Coast Guardsman who work on environmental efforts such as oil 
spills.
  This reduction would also mean the Department would need to abandon 
critical research and technology procurements, the science and 
technology program that we're painstakingly building back from 
unacceptably low levels in the current fiscal year. These research 
efforts will better protect our aviation and transit systems, and we 
need to continue cutting-edge research.

                              {time}  2000

  We also need to protect our national security so that we can prevent 
or thwart attempted attacks before they occur. As we saw just last 
month, terrorists remain committed to attacking the United States, our 
citizens, and our allies.
  Finally, with this amendment, front office and management activities 
would also be negatively affected. Already, this bill slashes funding 
by 21 percent below the administration's request.
  I know that's an easy target, Mr. Chairman. There's no constituency 
out there for good management and for necessary administrative 
expenses. But believe me, cutting those front offices, cutting those 
administrative functions does affect front line operations at the end 
of the day.
  The Secretary and her staff have to run the day-to-day operations of 
the Department. They need adequate personnel, adequate staff support. 
The offices are already operating on fumes. This additional cut would 
do great damage.
  So this is an amendment that I believe, despite the offerer of the 
amendments good intentions and his conscientious critique of certain 
departmental operations, I believe the amendment is overly broad, would 
do damage, and should be rejected.
  Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I yield to the gentleman from 
Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. I want to associate myself with the gentleman's comments 
and the chairman's comments on this amendment. We're talking here about 
homeland security, and we have been hit before. And we can't have a 
meat-ax, across-the-board approach. We would certainly oppose it if the 
other side was attempting to do it, and we have to have the same kind 
of discipline on our side.
  I suggest, in good faith, to the gentleman from Colorado, if you've 
got all these reports and all these things about various programs that 
aren't functioning, offer amendments on each of those programs, and 
then we can vote on them and make a discerning decision. But just going 
across the board, I think, is the easy way out, and I urge rejection of 
the gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I thank the ranking member for his 
comments. I agree with them.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis).

[[Page 8692]]

  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. POLIS. 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 Colorado 
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:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title) add the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to enforce section 44920(F) of title 49, United 
     States Code.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Broun) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, my amendment says that no funds 
in the underlying bill may be used to restrict access to the Screening 
Partnership Program, SPP program, of the Transportation Security 
Administration, TSA.
  SPP is a pilot program that the Federal Government is using to test 
privatization at certain airports. Currently, there are 16 airports 
that participate in this program, and a 17th airport has just recently 
been approved. These airports have received overwhelmingly positive 
reports and feedback from passengers as well as security personnel 
alike.
  In fact, last night I was talking with my good friend, Congressman 
Cynthia Lummis from Wyoming, and she was telling me about the success 
of the Jackson Hole Airport in Jackson, Wyoming, which is part of the 
SPP program. Almost three-fourths of all travelers in the State of 
Wyoming fly in and out of Jackson Hole, and Congresswoman Lummis said 
that the screening process there is top of the line. They've not had 
any problems whatsoever.
  You see, airports can still be effective and do their due diligence 
without the Federal Government directing, dictating how their security 
should be set up.
  I understand that the language in the underlying bill attempts to 
make access to SPP easier. However, the purpose of my amendment is to 
ensure that we don't ever use funds to restrict participation in the 
program, and here's an example of why.
  Kansas City Airport is another airport that has been testing out 
privatization. They've been part of SPP for a few years and have 
received stellar customer reviews, with no reported problems.
  Recently, though, the private contractor handling the security 
reapplied for the SPP program, but the administration denied their 
application. Even worse, the administration selected a different bidder 
that has no experience whatsoever in airport security. I don't 
understand this. This makes no sense, and it's a perfect example of how 
the administration will shut out good private contractors in order to 
ensure a lasting place in the Federal Government for the TSA.
  Mr. Chairman, the SPP program will not only spur our economy by 
creating good jobs in the private sector, but it will also relieve some 
of the burdensome costs that the TSA imposes on our Federal budget. I 
urge my colleagues to support this commonsense amendment so that we can 
take privatization of the TSA one step further.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Alabama is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, I rise reluctantly to oppose the 
amendment of my good friend from Georgia.
  I do support privatized screening; however, I'm concerned how the 
amendment that has been proposed by the gentleman would be applied. The 
effect of the amendment would be to prohibit TSA from canceling a 
contract for cause, such as the case where a privatized screening 
airport fails to comply with applicable laws and security requirements.
  The amendment may be intended to restrain TSA from capriciously 
canceling contracts, but it would go too far, and it would tie the 
TSA's hands.
  So again, I reluctantly cannot support my colleague's amendment, and 
I would urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
  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 associate myself 
with the remarks of the chairman.
  I confess to some confusion as to the exact intent of the amendment. 
Like some earlier amendments we were dealing with, it seems to have 
gone through many drafts. I'm not sure if the idea is to say you can't 
terminate an agreement or that somehow you can't restrict access to the 
program. But, in any case, it seems to me the problem with this 
amendment is a tying of the Administrator's hands when some flexibility 
and some judgment is called for.
  I certainly have no objections to the principle of the Screening 
Partnership Program. If a private company can provide screening in 
accordance with TSA standards and a local airport authority wants to 
contract with them, so be it. In fact, this bill increases funding for 
the SPP by $15 million over current year levels.
  But to say that under no circumstances can the TSA exercise 
discretion in granting these contracts or continuing them, I think, 
really goes too far. We need standards. We need qualified professionals 
to screen passengers. We need for the TSA Administrator to have some 
flexibility to protect the flying public. So if a private company fails 
or doesn't meet the standards, then they shouldn't be given this 
contract, and we have to have the flexibility to make sure that they 
don't receive the contract.
  So I associate myself with the position of the chairman, and urge 
rejection of the amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  2010

  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Broun).
  The amendment was rejected.


               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:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used for Behavior Detection Officers or the SPOT program.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Broun) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. My amendment eliminates all funding for the 
behavior detection officers and for the Screening of Passengers by 
Observation Techniques program, better known as the SPOT program.
  The SPOT program trains TSA behavior detection officers to monitor 
regular airline passengers for stress, fear, or deceptive behavior. The 
officers then are supposed to put any passengers who exhibit terrorist-
like behaviors, such as stress, fear, and deceptive behavior, through a 
more rigorous screening process.
  This seems to be reasonable, but actually, Mr. Chairman, it is 
laughable. These agents go through very minimal training, and they are 
hardly qualified to delve into the psychology of a possible terrorist.
  This program was modeled after a very effective one used in Israel, 
but their agents go through a very extensive program of preparation for 
this line of work. Plus, they focus on a handful of airports in Israel 
as opposed to the hundreds that we have to worry

[[Page 8693]]

about here in the United States. Moreover, almost any passenger having 
a bad day could be deemed a terrorist under the list of emotions that 
the agents are supposed to take note of. We've all stood in line and 
have seen the awkward, invasive pat-downs that many innocent passengers 
have to endure. Many of us have seen the crying children or elderly 
grandmas who suffer through these embarrassing protocols as we try to 
get through security. It has got to stop.
  I would also like to point out that the SPOT program costs us a 
quarter of a billion dollars to operate annually, and it will require 
more than $1.2 billion over the next 5 years. We don't have that kind 
of money to spend on a program that just simply does not work. Believe 
me, it doesn't work.
  The Government Accountability Office has found that 17 known 
terrorists, all who are on the No Fly List, have been able to board 
airplanes over 24 different times from eight different SPOT-certified 
airports. There are 17 terrorists on the No Fly List who have boarded 
airplanes at least 24 times at eight different SPOT-certified airports. 
In fact, the GAO also found that not one terrorist--not one--has been 
caught by the SPOT program. The program has not been scientifically 
validated anyway.
  Mr. Chairman, that alone is enough to convince me that the SPOT 
program is a waste of our time, a waste of our money, and is flat out 
not working. So let's get rid of it and, instead, invest our resources 
in intelligence and in technologies that help us catch terrorists 
before they ever step foot inside an airport in the first place.
  I urge 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 gentleman's 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Alabama is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. I do appreciate the gentleman's oversight concerns and 
his suggestions on how we can make this a better program. However, 
behavior detection officers are actually a meaningful layer of our 
Nation's risk-based approach to security.
  While there have been questions about the overall size of the program 
and the science behind it, this committee has continued to address any 
concerns through robust oversight. I would welcome the opportunity to 
work with the gentleman from Georgia on how we might address these 
concerns, but this does not mean that we should completely destroy a 
program that is designed to counter new and evolving tactics being 
developed by terrorists and our adversaries as we speak.
  As recently as last month, after a foiled terrorist plot that 
originated in Yemen, we learned that our enemies are still actively 
plotting to hit our aviation sector. These operatives are devising new 
methods for attacking this Nation, and some of them are more difficult 
to detect using the traditional screening methods that we normally see 
in the airports. This is where the behavior detection officers come 
into play. These officers serve as additional layers, as I mentioned, 
of defense to root out these adversaries who would try to slip through 
our defenses.
  This committee will continue to make sure that the BDO program is 
rightly sized and that the Department validates the science behind it. 
It is something that we have certainly focused on this year and that we 
need to continue to focus on. Again, cutting the entire program would 
be irresponsible and would open up holes in our Nation's security 
posture, particularly in light of the continued attempts to attack our 
Nation's transportation system.
  I would urge my colleagues to 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. I would associate myself with the words 
of the chairman and also oppose this amendment.
  The behavior detection program utilizes specially trained individuals 
to identify potentially high-risk passengers. It's not a new or a novel 
idea. In fact, it has been a cornerstone of the Israeli Government's 
aviation security for many years. Administrator Pistole, a man who has 
spent his entire professional career dedicated to protecting this 
country, does believe in this program. He is also attempting to refine 
it and to utilize it to its fullest potential.
  Our committee has resisted greatly expanding the program. In fact, we 
don't fund the administration's request for an additional 75 officers, 
and we do reduce the funding by $7 million. The program is important. 
It is part of a layered system of security, so it would, I think, not 
be wise to eliminate the program altogether. I think it would be 
unsafe, in fact, so I urge the rejection of the amendment.
  Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I yield to the gentleman from 
Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. In my own State of Washington, we had Ahmed Ressam, the 
millennium bomber. He came across from Victoria on a ferryboat, and as 
he was going through the search procedures, he showed anxiety. Because 
of that, he was sent over for a secondary screening. He got out of his 
car and ran, and he was captured, actually, by former prosecutor Dan 
Clem from Kitsap County, my home county. This is an example. This was a 
guy who was going to go to Los Angeles and blow up Los Angeles' LAX 
Airport. Because of his behavior and the alertness of the officers to 
know that this person was showing signs of anxiety, we were able to 
thwart that.
  So I'm with the chairman and the ranking member here. Let's not do 
something precipitous. Let's defeat, as we always do, the gentleman's 
amendment.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I yield back the balance of my time, Mr. 
Chairman.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Broun).
  The amendment was rejected.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Cravaack

  Mr. CRAVAACK. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. ____.  None of the funds made available by this Act 
     may be used in contravention of section 236(c) of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1226(c)).

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Cravaack) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota.

                              {time}  2020

  Mr. CRAVAACK. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment to the 
fiscal year 2013 Homeland Security appropriations bill to prohibit 
Immigration and Customs Enforcement, ICE, from using taxpayer dollars 
to process the release or administer alternatives to detention to 
illegal immigrants who commit a crime in violation of section 236(c) of 
the Immigration and Nationality Act.
  Importantly, this section requires the U.S. Government to detain 
illegal aliens who have committed serious crimes until the illegal 
alien is deported to their home country. For example, section 236(c) 
would require ICE to detain an alien that committed murder until the 
alien is deported.
  I think this is a very commonsense provision. In fact, my opinion is 
that criminal illegal aliens shouldn't be in the United States in the 
first place, but that's a debate for another day.
  Make no mistake, I believe that the vast majority of ICE employees 
are great Americans, and I personally appreciate the work they do to 
ensure the Nation remains a nation founded under the rule of law. 
However, ICE does not always operate in accordance with section 236(c). 
For example, ICE has allowed criminal illegal aliens who are

[[Page 8694]]

waiting for a deportation hearing to leave Federal detention facilities 
and reenter the general public if the criminal illegal alien is fitted 
with a GPS tracking device or regularly checks in with an ICE 
supervisor. This is very troubling to me, Mr. Chairman.
  In August 2010, ICE policy for releasing dangerous criminal aliens 
proved deadly. According to a Freedom of Information Act report, 
illegal alien Carlos Montano was sentenced to over a year in jail for a 
second DUI and was released from ICE custody wearing only a GPS 
tracking device. This is in direct violation of section 236(c) and is a 
violation that had tragic consequences. On August 1, Montano got drunk, 
got behind a wheel, and collided head on with a vehicle carrying three 
nuns. The head-on collision killed 66-year-old Sister Jeanette Mosier 
of Virginia.
  To protect innocent citizens from criminal illegal aliens, I firmly 
believe we need to enforce our immigration laws, especially section 
236(c). Mandating the detention of dangerous criminal illegal aliens is 
plain common sense.
  Last year, this amendment overwhelmingly passed the House in a 
bipartisan vote, but the provision was stripped out in conference. So 
I'm offering the amendment again this year.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CRAVAACK. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. I would like to say that we would agree with the 
gentleman from Minnesota's amendment and would support it and think 
it's a good idea.
  Mr. CRAVAACK. I thank the gentleman.
  And I also believe that this is a good use of taxpayer dollars. I do 
not believe in releasing illegal immigrants that commit serious crimes.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to 
the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I have read this amendment 
carefully, and we dealt with it, as colleagues may remember, on the 
floor last year.
  The gentleman offering the amendment says it does nothing but restate 
existing law, but, at a minimum, it sends a strong anti-immigrant 
message.
  The gentleman says the amendment prohibits the use of funds by ICE to 
process the release of illegal immigrants to administer alternative 
forms of detention to immigrants who have committed crimes which 
supposedly mandated incarceration. If we're following the existing law, 
I don't understand the need for this language, the need for this 
amendment.
  Mr. CRAVAACK. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. CRAVAACK. Sir, ICE is not following existing law, and this would 
prohibit the funds to ensure that those funds would not be used to 
allow illegal immigrants that have committed heinous crimes to be 
readmitted back into the public for any reason.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. If ICE is not enforcing existing law, 
then ICE needs to be brought into line. But this amendment, you're 
saying, does not add to existing law.
  Mr. CRAVAACK. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Yes.
  Mr. CRAVAACK. This would prevent illegal aliens from being released 
back into the general public that have committed crimes either on a 
bracelet or by ``checking in'' with their ICE supervisor.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.
  Mr. POLIS. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  This amendment highlights the flip side of this issue in some 
alternate reality university.
  There is a real issue with detention. The issue is not that criminal 
aliens are being released. They are not. The real issue is we're 
continuing to pay for the ongoing and indefinite detention of 
noncriminal aliens at a great cost to taxpayers. We're putting illegal 
immigrants who have committed no crime--may have violated our civil 
code--up at detention facilities to the tune of $120 a night when 
alternatives to detention, proven effective, cost $15 to $20 a night. 
It's like some alternate reality.
  There is a real problem. It's not that criminal aliens are being 
released. They're not. By the way, if they are, then we need to focus 
on detaining criminal aliens. There's no disagreement in this body. But 
why are the noncriminal aliens caught up in this net?
  At our detention facility of ICE in Aurora, which is outsourced to a 
private provider, it's only 40 percent of the detainees that are 
criminal aliens and 60 percent that are not. Why aren't we talking 
about saving money, spending $15 or $20 instead of $120 per night 
putting illegal immigrants up at expensive hotels? Why aren't we 
talking about that? This is like some alternate reality that I simply 
can't understand.
  The amendment doesn't do anything. We're not releasing criminal 
aliens nor should we. Nobody thinks we should.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, that's 
the point. There is no evidence that the gentleman has presented or 
that I've seen that ICE is, in fact, releasing or holding in 
alternatives to detention people who, according to the law, should be 
detained. The law is what it is. This amendment does not add or 
subtract to the law. It clearly insinuates that things are going on 
that we have no evidence that are occurring. For that reason alone, it 
seems redundant on one level, but has a misleading and hostile message 
on the other. I urge its rejection.
  ICE isn't pursuing alternatives to detention in cases where they 
shouldn't be doing so. I see no evidence for that. In fact, I think 
alternatives to detention often are useful and certainly more cost 
effective, and the absconding rate is very low. If we have people who 
should be detained, then of course we should detain them. But the 
notion that ICE is not doing that, that ICE is pursuing these other 
alternatives with people who really shouldn't have access to them, is 
not accurate. For that reason, I urge rejection of this amendment.
  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 yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. CRAVAACK. Mr. Chairman, I don't know what alternate reality 
they're speaking of. I'm speaking of the reality of this world. I'm 
speaking of Mr. Montano, who got drunk and got behind a wheel of a car 
because he is on a GPS tracking device after committing a heinous crime 
and being tracked, supposedly, by ICE.

                              {time}  2030

  I'm talking about illegal aliens that are let into our society, and 
the majority of whom don't come back to their supervisor, but they also 
just disappear into the fabric of the country. That's the reality that 
I'm speaking of to protect the American public from illegal aliens that 
are illegally in the United States that have created a heinous crime 
against Americans. This is the reality that I'm speaking of.
  This law will defund ICE to ensure that illegal aliens that have 
committed heinous crimes that are not deported back into their home 
countries are kept detained until such time as they are deported or 
remain in custody.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Washington is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. DICKS. I yield to my good friend from Colorado. He will tell us 
more about the alternate reality, I think.

[[Page 8695]]


  Mr. POLIS. I thank the gentleman from Washington.
  Look, if criminal aliens are not being detained in accordance with 
the law, simply restating the law won't change that.
  Again, what's happening today is noncriminal aliens are being 
detained. What does that mean? It means that mothers are torn from 
their sons. It means that fathers are torn from their daughters. It 
means that spouses and families are torn apart across our country who 
have not committed any crime.
  Now, criminal aliens represent a significant percentage of the 
illegal immigrants in detention. We all agree that they should be 
detained. We're not talking about paroling, we're not talking about 
alternative detention for criminal aliens.
  Now, how could we address this problem in a real way, in the real 
world, to ensure that we have enough beds to contain criminal aliens? 
The best way to do that is not detain noncriminal aliens. Then we have 
enough beds, we have enough security. We save money, and we can make 
darn sure that criminal aliens aren't exempted from detention.
  Let's talk a little bit about Colorado. At our Aurora detention 
facility, we have about 450 beds. Now, we have more demand than that; 
and like in many States, our county jails are used as detention 
facilities.
  Now, the counties are reimbursed by the Department of Homeland 
Security. By the way, it's another Federal bailout of the prison 
industry. Many of them are private prisons. But, again, our Federal 
Government is paying $120 a night, $150 a night, $100 a night for the 
detention of noncriminal aliens.
  If people are being let go because there is no room for them, it's 
because we're filling the cells with innocent mothers, with innocent 
children, with families being torn apart. That's the only reason I 
could think of why anybody who has committed a crime might be let go.
  Look, if we're serious about making sure that anybody who represents 
a threat to our society is detained until they are deported or 
sentenced, we need to do something about noncriminal aliens and make 
sure that we can fully embrace the successful alternatives to 
detention, which not only allow families to be together, parents to be 
with their kids, parents to participate in school conferences, parents 
who participate in making sure that their kids have food on the table, 
but also save taxpayer money and keep those beds open for criminal 
aliens about whom there is no disagreement whatsoever, who should 
remain safe from society and be kept behind bars.
  This amendment restates something which already is the law and is not 
an actionable change. If we want to make an actionable change, I would 
be happy to work with my friend to do so to make sure these beds aren't 
being taken up by noncriminal aliens and that we could aggressively 
pursue alternative detention for those who have not committed any 
crimes in this country and whose only violation is a civil violation.
  There is a legitimate issue here. We want to make sure that criminal 
aliens are detained and deported. There is no disagreement about that.
  To do so, rather than simply restating something that's obvious and 
already the case, we should move forward in making sure that we target 
our resources. We target our limited resources after criminal aliens 
rather than the vast majority of our illegal population, which is 
engaged in a civil violation but are not threats to society.
  We're talking about people that are important to our economy and 
important to our communities, the fabric of our communities. We're 
talking about the president of the student body in a high school in my 
district who happens to lack documentation. We're talking about 
families that play important economic roles in our district in 
agriculture, in service industries, across various sectors. We're 
talking about consumers in our stores, driving the demand and driving 
support for job creation in the middle class.
  Are there people who are a threat to society? Yes. Some are 
Americans, some are green card holders, some are here illegally. I 
think across the board we agree that those who are a threat to society 
need to be removed from society as expeditiously as possible.
  We can do so more expeditiously and more efficiently if we can reform 
our detention system to make sure that we're not catching all the 
noncriminal aliens up in the system because they happen to be in the 
wrong place at the wrong time.
  Mr. DICKS. Reclaiming my time, do you think they deserve a trial? Do 
these people deserve a trial.
  Mr. POLIS. Absolutely, they deserve a trial.
  Mr. DICKS. I mean, there has to be some kind of legal process.
  Mr. POLIS. That's right. The way that they do this in our Aurora 
detention facility, they have criminal aliens who wear a red jump suit. 
Noncriminal aliens wear a yellow jump suit. So they wear different jump 
suits. They're in different areas of the detention facility, in part 
because we don't want the criminal element, including some gangs, to 
corrupt or taint the noncriminal aliens that are there too. They are 
separated out.
  But we're paying 120 bucks a night for all of them. Why not focus 
that enforcement effort on the criminal element to detain and deport 
them, rather than separating and stripping the mothers of their child?
  I oppose the amendment.
  Mr. DICKS. 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.
  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, at this time I would like 
to yield to our colleague from the authorizing committee, the 
gentlelady from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank the ranking member and the ranking 
member of the full committee and ranking member of the subcommittee for 
their courtesies, and I think clearly over this process that we've had 
an opportunity, as authorizers, to work with our friends on the 
Appropriations Committee.
  I wanted to have the opportunity to share what I think is important 
information, an amendment that I believe and hope that the policy 
aspect of these amendments we can work together in conference to ensure 
we've come to a meeting of the mind.
  I look forward to working with the conferees and working with the 
Senate to make some corrections. Last evening, my amendment to help to 
restore the mission of FAMs was, in essence, an amendment that needs to 
be clarified. I again rise with the policy amendment that would help 
FAMs, the Federal Air Marshals, which I think I could poll any American 
and ask them the question as to whether or not Federal Air Marshals 
are, in fact, a crucial element of our security.
  Today in our hearing, Administrator Pistole, in a direct question 
that I asked of him as to whether a $50 million reduction would reduce 
the mission and the security aspect of the Federal Air Marshals, his 
emphatic answer was, yes, that is what is happening.
  I think that we should streamline and be efficient, but my amendment 
that we were hoping that would be discussed was an amendment to restore 
the $50 million. It should be noted that this was taken from $5 
billion, and many Members thought we were, in essence, drawing 
resources that were taken away from a small pot; but of $5 billion, we 
are simply asking that 50, 51 would be taken out to restore the mission 
of FAMs and to respond to concerns about cabin security.
  Mr. Chair, I rise today to offer my amendment 404 to ``the FAMS 
Appropriation in Fiscal Year (FY) 2013.'' The House Report has 
recommended reducing the FAMS budget by $50 million. It is my sincere 
belief that this is a detrimental mistake. This recommendation ignores 
FAMS' integral part in the homeland security mission. If FAMS loses $50 
million to its

[[Page 8696]]

budget it will result in the virtual shut down of the FAMS program.
  Flight coverage is controlled by two outstanding factors: the number 
of FAMs available and the Mission Travel Budget which includes hotel 
and per diem costs. These constraints directly impact FAMS ability to 
perform optimally. They are outlined in the FAMS risk-based concept of 
operations (CONOPS). International flights are the highest risk 
followed by large plane and long haul flights.
  With the reduction, FAMS will be forced to choose whether domestic or 
international flight coverage will be decreased. If domestic flights 
are maintained, then international flight coverage must be cut by 20 
percent. Keep in mind that as I stated, international flights are the 
highest risk operations. By contrast, if international flights are 
maintained, domestic flight coverage must be cut by as much as 30 
percent. This domestic reduction does not take into account the 10 
percent decrease noted in the President's proposed budget. In total, 
FAMS domestic coverage will face a crippling 40 plus percentage 
reduction that FAMS has not experienced since Christmas Day 2009. I 
mention this date because on Christmas Day in 2009, a failed attack 
forced Congress to increase FAMS' size to cover both domestic and 
international flights. It was clear then that Congress recognized 
flight vulnerabilities that have since been all but forgotten. While we 
believe that we cannot afford the FAMS budget, what we truly cannot 
afford is a successful attack to our security.
  It is important to note that FAMS is exploring alternative cost 
saving efforts. FAMS plans to extend its current hiring freeze into FY 
2013 as mandated by the President's Budget. The reduction combined with 
limited employees would severely undermine FAMS mission. The hiring 
freeze will extend to administrative personnel in FY'13. FAMS will also 
implement a furlough of all FAMS personnel of three to five 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 will undergo a significant decline 
in critical operational programs including travel, information 
technology and logistical support.
  I must stress again that any reduction to the FAMS budget goes beyond 
the reasonable operational abilities of this program. It will severely 
impact our aviation security and impede the good work and progress of 
this program. For these reasons and more I urge my colleagues to 
restore the $50 million to the FAMS budget.


                  Amendment to H.R. 5855, as Reported

                  Offered by Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  The amounts otherwise provided by this Act are 
     revised by increasing the amount made available for 
     ``Security, Enforcement, and Investigations--U.S. Customs and 
     Border Protection--Salaries and Expenses'', by increasing the 
     amount made available for ``Federal Air Marshals'', and by 
     reducing the amount made available for ``Research and 
     Development, Training, and Services--United States 
     Citizenship and Immigration Services'' by $25,000,000, 
     $25,000,000, and $50,000,000, respectively.

  In addition, we have an amendment that I hope the policy of it will 
be moved in conference, the overall look of adding resources to the 
Transportation Security Administration, particularly TSA, in the amount 
of $50 million, that will help restore the reduced mission of the 
Federal Air Marshals, more training, professionalism; but there is no 
doubt we have to close offices, we have to furlough FAMs, and we have 
to be able to try to meet the concerns of, in essence, the question of 
cabin security.

                              {time}  2040

  It is very difficult to not have this $50 million. I am going to work 
with conferees, and I hope to work with the ranking member and the 
chairperson to see the value of providing some restoration to the FAM 
dollars.
  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. Jackson 405 amendment will increase the 
budget for the Transportation Security Administration by $50 million.
  The Transportation Security Administration, which was created in the 
aftermath of 9/11, nothing is more important to me than the safety of 
the traveling public. TSA, informed by the latest intelligence, 
researches and deploys technology and constantly evaluates and updates 
screening procedures in order to stay ahead of the evolving threats to 
aviation security.
  The United States has a complex and inter-connected transportation 
network that has developed primarily over the last 100 years, and is 
what makes our fast-paced lives possible. Our ability to travel 
efficiently from place to place and to transport materials and consumer 
products around the world is essential to our modern lifestyle, and to 
our nation's security and economic health. At the same time, our 
transportation infrastructure (e.g., roads, bridges, bus stations, 
railways and railway stations, airports, inland waterways, seaports and 
pipelines) is vulnerable to damage from both natural and man-made 
disasters.
  The transportation infrastructure in the United States includes: 
Aviation, 5,000 Public Airports; Passenger Rail and Railroads, 120,000 
Miles of Major Railroads; Highways, Trucking, and Busing, 590,000 
Highway Bridges; 4,000,000 of Public Roadways; Pipelines, 2,000,000 
Miles of Pipelines; Maritime, 300 Inland/Coastal Ports; Mass Transit, 
500 Major Urban Public Transportation Operators.
  In the event of a natural disaster or terrorist attack, damage to 
transportation systems can result in injury and loss of life, hamper 
emergency evacuation from the scene of the disaster, and inhibit rescue 
workers' ability to get to the scene to provide aid. Sometimes, as in 
the case of Hurricane Katrina, the existing transportation systems, 
even if undamaged, are insufficient to effectively evacuate a disaster 
area. Recovery from a disaster can take years and be very expensive for 
individuals, private companies and government agencies.
  Focusing on transportation security means that we are doing what we 
can to predict, plan for and prevent, if possible, these catastrophic 
events. This includes developing resilient transportation systems, 
mitigating the effects of a disaster, and planning for recovery.
  I ask my colleagues to join me in increasing the budget for TSA.
  Also, I think it is very important on this question of Buy America, 
and that is legislation that requires the Department of Homeland 
Security funds to, in this time of unemployment, be used for American 
companies only. One might say we already have a Buy America. Well, let 
me just educate my colleagues. In the issue of screening, where there 
is this desire to have a Screening Partnership Program through the FAA 
legislation that was passed in February, the prohibition of using 
foreign companies to screen Americans in United States airports was 
removed. And so foreign companies can now be our screeners. That, of 
course, is a question of jobs. It is particularly a question of Federal 
dollars dealing with security going to foreign-owned companies.
  This amendment is a crucial amendment. I wish my colleagues would 
have allowed it on the floor of the House. But I believe that this 
should be a matter taken up under the security premise as to whether or 
not, even if there is a provision for the Screening Partnership 
Program, which, again, Mr. Pistole indicated that the $15 million that 
was allotted out of our screening program was going to undermine the 
screening program, the federally based screening program, that our 
system should be federally focused. But if there is an SPP, if there is 
a Screening Partnership Program, the idea of having foreign-owned 
companies secure the contracts, take away American jobs, and then be 
screening Americans, is ludicrous at best.
  I would encourage individuals that we can work together. I look 
forward to working together.
  Mr. Chair, I rise today to offer my limitation, amendment 403 to H.R. 
5855, the ``Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act in 
Fiscal Year (FY) 2013.'' Under my amendment, DHS funds will only be 
allocated to companies controlled by U.S. citizens. In the midst of an 
economy that continues to maintain a high unemployment rate, it is 
imperative that we do everything in our power to ensure that American 
tax dollars support American businesses which will in turn support our 
citizens and our families. Private companies that perform security 
screenings at our U.S. airports are no different. Security protection 
laws and private vs. federal screening disagreements aside, we must 
ensure that we hire our own American companies.
  Unlike other aspects of aviation security that are subject to 
multiple hearings before Congressional committees, there have been no 
hearings or findings of fact to establish the security risk of allowing 
foreign owned companies to perform screening at U.S. airports. Prior to 
this year, the Screening Partnership Program (SPP) allowed some U.S. 
airports to opt-out of using federal screeners. In addition, 40 U.S.C. 
Sec.  44920 prohibited TSA from entering into contracts to provide 
private screenings

[[Page 8697]]

of passengers and bags by any company that was not owned and controlled 
by a citizen of the United States. Congress changed this requirement in 
February with the FAA Modernization Act that included a waiver of the 
requirement that private screening contracts only be awarded to U.S. 
owned companies.
  According to the Defense Security Service, a U.S. company is 
considered to be under foreign ownership, control or influence ``when a 
foreign interest has the power, direct or indirect, whether or not 
exercised, to direct or decide matters affecting the management or 
operations of the company in a manner which may result in unauthorized 
access to classified information or may affect adversely the 
performance of classified contracts.''
  By allowing foreign companies to conduct security screenings at our 
airports, we leave ourselves vulnerable to foreign interests taking 
precedence in the safety of our citizens and the security of our 
flights.
  It is no secret that aviation security in the U.S. remains a focus of 
Al Qaeda. In thwarting attacks, it is not enough to merely mitigate a 
hostile, foreign influence. Any access to intelligence, technologies, 
policies or procedures that could be communicated to foreign terrorists 
must be avoided entirely. Concerns about national security have led to 
tighter guidelines for federal government approval of foreign 
acquisitions of U.S. companies by foreign investors and the granting of 
federal contracts to foreign owned companies. But they neglect the 
other important issue at hand--the loss of opportunities for American 
companies.
  The law establishing the opt-out program in 2001 required the head of 
TSA to determine there are private screening companies owned and 
controlled by U.S. citizens to perform screening contracts. There is no 
evidence of any shortage of U.S. owned security companies to perform 
screening when an application is granted.
  We must not allow foreign owned companies to perform screening at any 
U.S. airport. The U.S. should not reopen itself to a risk of lives lost 
and damage to the aviation industry and the U.S. economy by opening the 
door to the risk of another attack by Al Qaeda or any other terrorist 
group outside the U.S. In addition, American tax dollars should support 
our American businesses and our people. For these reasons and more I 
urge my colleagues to include my limitation amendment to the DHS 
appropriations bill.


                  Amendment to H.R. 5855, as Reported

                  Offered by Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas

       At the end of the bill (before the short title) add the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be obligated for a contract entered into under section 44920 
     of title 49, United States Code, with a private company that 
     is not owned and controlled by a citizen of the United 
     States.

  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I yield back the balance of my time.


                    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:
  First amendment by Mr. King of Iowa.
  Second amendment by Mr. King of Iowa.
  First amendment by Mrs. Blackburn of Tennessee.
  Second amendment by Mrs. Blackburn of Tennessee.
  An amendment by Mr. Sullivan of Oklahoma.
  An amendment by Mr. Turner of New York.
  An amendment by Mr. Polis of Colorado.
  The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.


                 Amendment Offered by Mr. King of Iowa

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the first amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa 
(Mr. King) 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 vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 224, 
noes 189, not voting 18, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 362]

                               AYES--224

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Amash
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Bilbray
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     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
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     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
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Roskam
     Ross (FL)
     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
     Turner (NY)
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--189

     Ackerman
     Amodei
     Andrews
     Baca
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Bono Mack
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dold
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Flake
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heck
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hochul
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reichert
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rivera
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross (AR)
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     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
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tipton
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woodall
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth
     Young (IN)

[[Page 8698]]



                             NOT VOTING--18

     Akin
     Baldwin
     Bass (CA)
     Bilirakis
     Coble
     Conyers
     Filner
     Griffin (AR)
     Kucinich
     Lewis (CA)
     Marino
     Myrick
     Neal
     Paul
     Runyan
     Shuler
     Slaughter
     Towns

                              {time}  2107

  Messrs. ISRAEL, PASCRELL, DAVIS of Illinois, and WOODALL changed 
their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. HARPER, PEARCE, GRIMM, NUGENT, and COFFMAN of Colorado 
changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chair, on rollcall 362, 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. King of Iowa

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the second amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Iowa (Mr. King) 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 is a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 238, 
noes 175, not voting 18, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 363]

                               AYES--238

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Amodei
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     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
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Dold
     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
     Latta
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     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
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Roskam
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     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)
     Walz (MN)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                               NOES--175

     Ackerman
     Amash
     Andrews
     Baca
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     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
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rivera
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross (AR)
     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
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--18

     Akin
     Baldwin
     Bass (CA)
     Bilirakis
     Coble
     Conyers
     Filner
     Kucinich
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Marino
     Myrick
     Neal
     Paul
     Runyan
     Shuler
     Slaughter
     Towns


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

                              {time}  2112

  Mr. COLE changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chair, on rollcall 363, 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 Mrs. Blackburn

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the first amendment offered by the gentlewoman from 
Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn) 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 131, 
noes 282, not voting 18, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 364]

                               AYES--131

     Adams
     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barton (TX)
     Benishek
     Bilbray
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Chabot
     Cravaack
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Landry
     Lankford
     Long
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McClintock
     McHenry

[[Page 8699]]


     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Neugebauer
     Nugent
     Nunnelee
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Rigell
     Roby
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Roskam
     Ross (FL)
     Scalise
     Schmidt
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Smith (NE)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Tipton
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     Westmoreland
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)

                               NOES--282

     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Austria
     Baca
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Bass (NH)
     Becerra
     Berg
     Berkley
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (FL)
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Butterfield
     Calvert
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Castor (FL)
     Chaffetz
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coffman (CO)
     Cohen
     Cole
     Conaway
     Connolly (VA)
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Deutch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dold
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Emerson
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farenthold
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fincher
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Fudge
     Gallegly
     Garamendi
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gonzalez
     Granger
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hall
     Hanabusa
     Hanna
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heinrich
     Herger
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hochul
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly
     Kildee
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kissell
     Lance
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lujan
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCaul
     McCollum
     McCotter
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McNerney
     Meehan
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy (PA)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Noem
     Nunes
     Olson
     Olver
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Platts
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Renacci
     Reyes
     Ribble
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rivera
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross (AR)
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     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)
     Speier
     Stark
     Stivers
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Turner (NY)
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     West
     Whitfield
     Wilson (FL)
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--18

     Akin
     Baldwin
     Bass (CA)
     Bilirakis
     Coble
     Conyers
     Filner
     King (IA)
     Kucinich
     Lewis (CA)
     Marino
     Myrick
     Neal
     Paul
     Runyan
     Shuler
     Slaughter
     Towns


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

                              {time}  2116

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chair, on rollcall 364, 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 Mrs. Blackburn

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the second amendment offered by the gentlewoman from 
Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn) 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 204, 
noes 210, not voting 17, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 365]

                               AYES--204

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boustany
     Braley (IA)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Coffman (CO)
     Conaway
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Culberson
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (KY)
     DeFazio
     DesJarlais
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Eshoo
     Farenthold
     Farr
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith (VA)
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck
     Heinrich
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Himes
     Holt
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     Latta
     Loebsack
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McDermott
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Polis
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Rehberg
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Speier
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Tiberi
     Turner (NY)
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Waters
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                               NOES--210

     Ackerman
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Baca
     Barrow
     Bass (NH)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bilbray
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boren
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Buerkle
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Carter
     Castor (FL)
     Chaffetz
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Cole
     Connolly (VA)
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Crenshaw
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (IL)
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Denham
     Dent
     Deutch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dold
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Fattah
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gerlach
     Gonzalez
     Granger
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffin (AR)
     Grijalva
     Grimm
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hall
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayworth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hochul
     Holden
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kissell
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     LaTourette
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum

[[Page 8700]]


     McCotter
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meehan
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Platts
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rivera
     Rogers (KY)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sires
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tierney
     Tipton
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Turner (OH)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Whitfield
     Wilson (FL)
     Womack
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--17

     Akin
     Baldwin
     Bass (CA)
     Bilirakis
     Coble
     Conyers
     Filner
     Kucinich
     Lewis (CA)
     Marino
     Myrick
     Neal
     Paul
     Runyan
     Shuler
     Slaughter
     Towns


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

                              {time}  2122

  Mr. COLE changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Ms. PELOSI, Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California, Ms. SPEIER, and Mr. 
LOEBSACK changed their 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 365, 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. Sullivan

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma 
(Mr. Sullivan) 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 250, 
noes 164, not voting 17, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 366]

                               AYES--250

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Amash
     Amodei
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     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
     Cooper
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Critz
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     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
     Holden
     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
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     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
     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
     Sutton
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner (NY)
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                               NOES--164

     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baca
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     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
     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
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Olver
     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
     Stark
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--17

     Akin
     Baldwin
     Bass (CA)
     Bilirakis
     Coble
     Conyers
     Filner
     Kucinich
     Lewis (CA)
     Marino
     Myrick
     Neal
     Paul
     Runyan
     Shuler
     Slaughter
     Towns


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

                              {time}  2126

  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 366 I 
inadvertently voted ``no,'' I meant to vote ``aye.'' Had I voted 
correctly, I would have voted ``aye.''
  Stated against:
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chair, on rollcall 366, 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. Turner 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. Turner) 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.

[[Page 8701]]

  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 101, 
noes 314, not voting 16, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 367]

                               AYES--101

     Adams
     Amash
     Bachmann
     Barletta
     Barton (TX)
     Benishek
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Cravaack
     DeFazio
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Flake
     Fleming
     Flores
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Garrett
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith (VA)
     Guinta
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Issa
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lankford
     Latta
     Long
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Mack
     Marchant
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Mulvaney
     Neugebauer
     Nunnelee
     Pence
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Ribble
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Smith (NE)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stutzman
     Turner (NY)
     Walberg
     Walsh (IL)
     West
     Westmoreland
     Wilson (SC)
     Woodall
     Young (AK)

                               NOES--314

     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Amodei
     Andrews
     Austria
     Baca
     Bachus
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Bass (NH)
     Becerra
     Berg
     Berkley
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Black
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boustany
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brooks
     Brown (FL)
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Butterfield
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canseco
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Carter
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coffman (CO)
     Cohen
     Cole
     Conaway
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Deutch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dold
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Fudge
     Gallegly
     Garamendi
     Gardner
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gonzalez
     Granger
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffin (AR)
     Grijalva
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hall
     Hanabusa
     Hanna
     Harper
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Heinrich
     Herger
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hochul
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Jenkins
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kissell
     Kline
     Lance
     Landry
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lujan
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCaul
     McCollum
     McCotter
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy (PA)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Olver
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pingree (ME)
     Platts
     Polis
     Pompeo
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sires
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Stivers
     Sullivan
     Sutton
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Tipton
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Webster
     Welch
     Whitfield
     Wilson (FL)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth
     Yoder
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--16

     Akin
     Baldwin
     Bass (CA)
     Bilirakis
     Coble
     Filner
     Kucinich
     Lewis (CA)
     Marino
     Myrick
     Neal
     Paul
     Runyan
     Shuler
     Slaughter
     Towns


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

                              {time}  2130

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chair, on rollcall 367, 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. Polis

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado 
(Mr. Polis) 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 99, 
noes 316, not voting 16, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 368]

                                AYES--99

     Adams
     Amash
     Barton (TX)
     Becerra
     Benishek
     Black
     Blackburn
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Camp
     Campbell
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Cooper
     Deutch
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Eshoo
     Fincher
     Flake
     Flores
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Garrett
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Graves (GA)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hartzler
     Hastings (FL)
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Jordan
     Kind
     King (IA)
     Labrador
     Lance
     Lankford
     Larsen (WA)
     Lee (CA)
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lummis
     Lynch
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McClintock
     Miller (MI)
     Moran
     Mulvaney
     Napolitano
     Neugebauer
     Nunnelee
     Pastor (AZ)
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Polis
     Pompeo
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Schilling
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Speier
     Stearns
     Stutzman
     Tiberi
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Wilson (SC)
     Woodall

                               NOES--316

     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Amodei
     Andrews
     Austria
     Baca
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Bass (NH)
     Berg
     Berkley
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boustany
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Butterfield
     Calvert
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coffman (CO)
     Cohen
     Cole
     Conaway
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dold
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Engel
     Farenthold
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Fudge
     Gallegly
     Garamendi
     Gardner
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Granger
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffin (AR)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanabusa
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris

[[Page 8702]]


     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Heinrich
     Herrera Beutler
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hochul
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly
     Kildee
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kissell
     Kline
     Lamborn
     Landry
     Langevin
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Long
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lujan
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCaul
     McCollum
     McCotter
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     Meehan
     Meeks
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy (PA)
     Nadler
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Olver
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Platts
     Posey
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Scalise
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Sensenbrenner
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sires
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Southerland
     Stark
     Stivers
     Sullivan
     Sutton
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tierney
     Tipton
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Turner (NY)
     Turner (OH)
     Van Hollen
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Webster
     Welch
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (FL)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--16

     Akin
     Baldwin
     Bass (CA)
     Bilirakis
     Coble
     Filner
     Kucinich
     Lewis (CA)
     Marino
     Myrick
     Neal
     Paul
     Runyan
     Shuler
     Slaughter
     Towns


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

                              {time}  2133

  Messrs. GARRETT and KING of Iowa changed their 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 368, I was away from the Capitol 
due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I 
would have voted ``no.''
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       This Act may be cited as the ``Department of Homeland 
     Security Appropriations Act, 2013''.

  Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise and 
report the bill back to the House with sundry amendments, with the 
recommendation that the amendments be agreed to and that the bill, as 
amended, do pass.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Reed) having assumed the chair, Mr. Gingrey of Georgia, 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, 
directed him to report the bill back to the House with sundry 
amendments adopted in the Committee of the Whole, with the 
recommendation that the amendments be agreed to and that the bill, as 
amended, do pass.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under House Resolution 667, the previous 
question is ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment reported from the 
Committee of the Whole? If not, the Chair will put them en gros.
  The amendments were agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


                           Motion to Recommit

  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. TIERNEY. I am opposed in its current form.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Tierney moves to recommit the bill H.R. 5855 to the 
     Committee on Appropriations with instructions to report the 
     same back to the House forthwith with the following 
     amendment:
       Page 19, line 18, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced 
     by $16,630,000)''.
       Page 32, line 16, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $16,630,000)''.
       Page 39, line 20, strike ``$150,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$490,300,000''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, tonight I rise to offer the final 
amendment. I want to be clear that this is a final amendment to the 
bill. It will not kill the bill, nor will it send it back to committee. 
If it's adopted, the bill will be voted on immediately as amended.
  Let me start by saying that it's unfortunate that the House 
Republicans unilaterally reneged upon the agreed upon discretionary 
caps that were established by the Budget Control Act. Their doing so--
just to finance more tax cuts for people that were already tremendously 
well-off--has resulted in the Appropriations Committee having to absorb 
$19 billion in reductions below the Budget Control Act. So I recognize, 
Mr. Speaker, that subcommittee Chairman Aderholt and Ranking Member 
Price did the very best that they could with this bill given the 
subcommittee's allocation. Nevertheless, I offer this final amendment 
that focuses on two important areas: combating the increasing 
cyberthreat facing this country and protecting our urban areas from 
terrorist threats.
  This week's Washington Post pointed out that in recent years, there 
have been numerous revelations about how the unknown vulnerabilities of 
our networks and cyberinformation were used to break into systems that 
were assumed to be secure.

                              {time}  2140

  One came in 2009 targeting Google, Northrop Grumman, Dow Chemical and 
hundreds of other firms when hackers from China penetrated the targeted 
computer systems. Over several months, the hijackers siphoned off 
oceans of data, including the source code that runs Google systems. 
According to the same article, another attack last year took aim at 
cybersecurity giant RSA, which protects most of the Fortune 500 
companies.
  But it's not only a problem for the largest companies. In fact, 
according to Reuters, 40 percent of all the targeted Internet attacks 
are directed toward more vulnerable companies with fewer than 500 
employees.
  Mr. Speaker, I expect the chairman will defend this bill's 
investments in cybersecurity and, again, I appreciate that. He did what 
he could do, and we should be doing more. While we spend more than 
China, Russia, and the next eight countries combined ensuring that our 
military superiority is intact, we have not taken that same sense of 
purpose to cybersecurity.
  My amendment does precisely that, adding $17 million in new funding 
to the National Protection and Programs Directorate for additional 
cybersecurity personnel, including training and education opportunities 
to grow the future cybersecurity workforce. With repeated and 
increasingly dangerous threats to our Federal and private 
cybernetworks, it's critical that we have staff with the utmost up-to-
date training and skills to address these threats.
  The final amendment also increases the bill's investment in Urban 
Area Security Initiative grants from $150 million to $490.3 million. 
This will not take money away from anybody; it just

[[Page 8703]]

reallocates the distribution. This is the amount Secretary Napolitano 
devoted to the Urban Area Security grants in 2012. As my colleagues 
know, these grants are intended to protect the highest risk and highest 
density urban areas from terrorist threats. These grants have been 
substantially reduced under the Republican majority, and these 
reductions have put our Nation's most populated areas at greater risk.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield to my colleague from New York.
  Mrs. LOWEY. While I appreciate language in the bill set aside for 
high threat areas, I fear that it's simply insufficient to combat the 
threats we know are facing our most populated cities.
  This motion simply raises the floor that must be spent protecting our 
major population levels to be equal to current levels. The amount of 
money dedicated to urban areas has dropped from $887 million in 2010, 
$725 million in 2011, to now under $500 million, yet the threats we 
face have not diminished.
  I thank the gentleman for offering this motion and yielding, and I 
urge my colleagues to vote to protect our critical population and 
economic centers.
  Mr. TIERNEY. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, this final amendment 
improves the underlying bill and hopefully will garner bipartisan 
support. Let's take these additional threats to combat cyberthreats, 
but step up our efforts to protect our urban areas from terrorist 
threats. Please support the motion to recommit.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Alabama is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Speaker, this bill is already robust on 
cybersecurity. It provides a substantial increase in every 
cybersecurity program across the Department.
  Furthermore, this bill already does more for grants to high-risk 
areas than any previous DHS appropriations bill, and we increase grants 
by more than $400 million. Let me repeat that: By more than $400 
million we increase grants.
  In short, this motion is not needed. This bill cuts spending overall, 
but it also fully sustains all frontline and high-risk operation. It is 
a balanced bill. It is a disciplined bill. It is a bill worthy of 
support.
  Mr. Speaker, it's time to vote. It's time to meet our Nation's needs 
for security and fiscal restraint. I urge my colleagues to reject this 
unnecessary motion and to enthusiastically support this bill.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair will reduce to 5 minutes 
the minimum time for the electronic vote on the question of passage.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 165, 
noes 251, not voting 15, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 369]

                               AYES--165

     Ackerman
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Baca
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     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)
     DeFazio
     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)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hochul
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Sires
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--251

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Braley (IA)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carney
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Chandler
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     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
     Heinrich
     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
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lujan
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     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
     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--15

     Akin
     Baldwin
     Bilirakis
     Coble
     Filner
     Kucinich
     Lewis (CA)
     Marino
     Myrick
     Neal
     Paul
     Runyan
     Shuler
     Slaughter
     Towns

                              {time}  2159

  Mr. CARNEY changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall 369, I was away from the Capitol 
due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I 
would have voted ``aye.''

[[Page 8704]]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  Under clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 234, 
nays 182, not voting 15, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 370]

                               YEAS--234

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Amodei
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Berkley
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Chandler
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donnelly (IN)
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     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
     Heinrich
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Keating
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kissell
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCaul
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Owens
     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)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner (NY)
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                               NAYS--182

     Ackerman
     Amash
     Andrews
     Baca
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Burgess
     Butterfield
     Campbell
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     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)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duncan (TN)
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Flake
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hochul
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huelskamp
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Kildee
     Kind
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lummis
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McClintock
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Sires
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Stearns
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walsh (IL)
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--15

     Akin
     Baldwin
     Bilirakis
     Coble
     Filner
     Kucinich
     Lewis (CA)
     Marino
     Myrick
     Neal
     Paul
     Runyan
     Shuler
     Slaughter
     Towns

                              {time}  2207

  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated against:
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall 370, I was away from the Capitol 
due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I 
would have voted ``no.''


                          personal explanation

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and missed 
rollcall vote Nos. 358, 359, 360, 361, 362, 363, 364, 365, 366, 367, 
368, 369, and 370. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on 
rollcall vote Nos. 360, and 369. Had I been present, I would have voted 
``no'' on rollcall vote Nos. 358, 359, 361, 362, 363, 364, 365, 366, 
367, 368, and 370.

                          ____________________