[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 6]
[House]
[Pages 8072-8129]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




        DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2014

  The SPEAKER. Pursuant to House Resolution 243 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. 
2217.
  Will the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) kindly assume 
the chair.

                              {time}  1731


                     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. 2217) making appropriations for the Department of 
Homeland Security for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2014, and 
for other purposes, with Ms. Ros-Lehtinen (Acting Chair) in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The Acting CHAIR. When the Committee of the Whole rose earlier today, 
an amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Garcia) had 
been disposed of, and the bill had been read through page 41, line 2.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Deutch

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Deutch) 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. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, this will be a 
2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 190, 
noes 232, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 198]

                               AYES--190

     Amash
     Andrews
     Bachus
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera (CA)
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Enyart
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garcia
     Gibson
     Grayson
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     Horsford
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lummis
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney, Sean
     Marino
     Massie
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Negrete McLeod
     Nolan
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanford
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Valadao
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--232

     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Amodei
     Bachmann
     Barber
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barrow (GA)
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Connolly
     Cook
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Daines
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garamendi
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kirkpatrick
     Kline
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Lankford
     Latham
     Latta
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Marchant
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Petri
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Radel
     Rahall
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Scalise
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sinema
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stockman
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Campbell
     Engel
     Green, Al
     Holt
     Jackson Lee
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Markey
     McCarthy (NY)
     McKeon
     Pittenger
     Stutzman
     Watt

                              {time}  1736

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                          personal explanation

  Mr. HOLT. Madam Chair, I was attending the funeral of our late Senate 
colleague Frank Lautenberg earlier today in New York City. I missed 
several rollcall votes on amendments to this bill. Had I been present, 
I would have voted ``yes'' on the Moore amendment (rollcall No. 194), 
``yes'' on the Polis amendment (rollcall No. 195), ``yes'' on the Heck 
amendment (rollcall No. 196), ``yes'' on the Garcia amendment (rollcall 
No. 197), and ``yes'' on the Deutch amendment (rollcall No. 198).


                          PERSONAL EXPLANATION

  Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Madam Chair, today I was unavoidably detained 
and missed the following votes. I ask for unanimous consent to have the 
following inserted into the Record:
  1. Moore Amendment to H.R. 2217--Department of Homeland Security 
Appropriations Act. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes'' on 
this bill.
  2. Polis/Chu/Cardenas Amendment to H.R. 2217--Department of Homeland 
Security Appropriations Act. Had I been present, I would have voted 
``yes'' on this bill.
  3. Heck/Horsford Amendment to H.R. 2217--Department of Homeland 
Security Appropriations Act. Had I been present, I would have voted 
``no'' on this bill.
  4. Garcia Amendment to H.R. 2217--Department of Homeland Security 
Appropriations Act. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes'' on 
this bill.
  5. Deutch/Foster Amendment to H.R. 2217--Department of Homeland 
Security Appropriations Act. Had I been present, I would have voted 
``yes'' on this bill.

                              {time}  1740

  Ms. DUCKWORTH. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word for the 
purpose of a colloquy.

[[Page 8073]]

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Illinois is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. DUCKWORTH. A few days ago, a new report by the Department of 
Homeland Security Inspector General made recommendations that could 
save taxpayers $126 million and improve border security.
  The Department of Homeland Security uses 62 H-60 helicopters, 
operated by the Coast Guard and the Customs and Border Protection 
agencies, for mission support, primarily for law enforcement and search 
and rescue missions. These aircraft are being converted to add 15 years 
of additional operational life.
  The report found that while the Coast Guard properly managed its 
conversion program, a similar conversion program at Customs and Border 
Protection led to significant cost overruns and delays that could 
ground as many as nine of the helicopters beginning in 2014. The IG 
made what I think is a very good recommendation--have the Coast Guard 
Aviation Logistics Center conduct the remaining Customs and Border 
Protection H-60 conversions. According to the IG, the Coast Guard could 
convert the remaining helicopters much faster and at a lower price tag 
than CBP. This could save the Department of Homeland Security about 
$126 million and speed up the time that the aircraft would be 
operational and patrolling our borders by 7 years.
  I was disappointed to hear that rather than implementing this 
commonsense taxpayer-dollar-saving recommendation in this time of 
scarce resources, the Department of Homeland Security is choosing 
instead to conduct a cost-benefit analysis. I think this delay is 
unnecessary. At a time when the Department of Homeland Security law 
enforcement personnel are facing furloughs, this is a missed 
opportunity to save precious funds and to meet the critical goal of 
improving our border security.
  Mr. DENT. Will the gentlelady yield?
  Ms. DUCKWORTH. I yield to the chairman.
  Mr. DENT. I appreciate the gentlelady bringing the IG report to our 
attention. As Ranking Member Price can attest, the committee has a 
long, bipartisan history supporting robust funding for the H-60 
conversions. In fact, the bill includes funds sufficient to completely 
recap two H-60 helicopters. Though I am aware CBP has some reservations 
about conclusions in the IG report, I am a proponent of not paying top 
dollar when it is not necessary. Consequently, I would like to have an 
opportunity to dig into these claims before drawing any particular 
conclusions.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Will the gentlelady yield?
  Ms. DUCKWORTH. I yield to the ranking member.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I would like to express my agreement 
with what Mr. Dent just said. These aircraft are absolutely vital for 
mission success for Border Patrol agents and air and marine personnel. 
If there are better, faster, cheaper ways to make these conversions, we 
need to know about them.
  Mr. DENT. Will the gentlelady yield?
  Ms. DUCKWORTH. I yield to our chairman.
  Mr. DENT. Again, I thank the gentlelady for raising this issue. 
Clearly she has some personal experience flying these aircraft, and I'm 
grateful for her service.
  Ms. DUCKWORTH. I thank the chairman and the ranking member for your 
attention to this matter, and I hope that we can work together to 
ensure that management of this program is improved.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from North Carolina is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Madam Chair, let me first begin by thanking the 
chairman of the subcommittee and the ranking member for their 
leadership on this committee. I've watched you over the years, and the 
two of you work together so well, and I thank you so very much.
  Over the years, I have led an effort here in the House to recognize a 
group of Americans who served our country during World War II. We refer 
to them as the merchant marines. They have not been properly recognized 
for their service, and I'm very sad about that. We are quickly running 
out of time to recognize the few remaining Americans that stood up for 
our country by serving as merchant marines when our country needed them 
the most during World War II.
  Without weapons or formal training, many risked their lives; and, 
tragically, too many gave their lives in defense of our great Nation 
during the Second World War. For those who are still living, we must 
not let their efforts go unrecognized while we still have a chance.
  The recent passing of Senator Lautenberg earlier this week, the last 
remaining World War II veteran in the Senate, is a strong reminder that 
our time is running out to recognize those who are lesser known but 
still contributed significantly to the World War II effort. Few have 
given more to this country than Senator Lautenberg, and I pray that his 
family has peace in the weeks and months to come. He will be missed.
  Because I believe that it is only fair to recognize merchant marines 
who served during this war, I reintroduced H.R. 1288, the WW II 
Merchant Mariner Service Act. To date, I have been joined by 81 of my 
colleagues from both sides of the aisle in support of this bill, and I 
encourage all of my colleagues to cosponsor this legislation that costs 
nearly nothing.
  This bill would award veteran status and limited benefits to a 
segment of the World War II merchant marines that has gone 
unrecognized. These men and women operated tug boats and barges in the 
territorial seas of the United States transporting raw materials, 
weapons, and troops that sustained the war effort. Though most of these 
individuals operated domestically, their duties were not without risk.
  A tugboat, the Menominee, was sunk by a German U-boat on March 31, 
1942, about 9 miles off the coast of Virginia, causing the death of 16 
of the 18 mariners that served aboard.
  I acknowledge that a point of order would be raised if I were to 
offer this legislation as an amendment today. However, the legislation 
before us does address funding that is utilized in the support of our 
Coast Guard and merchant marines, and I could not forgo the opportunity 
to address the dire need to rightly recognize the efforts of these 
individuals before it's too late.
  I thank you and my colleagues for allowing me time to speak on this 
very important issue. I strongly encourage my colleagues to join me in 
cosponsoring H.R. 1288 and in passing the legislation so these 
remaining Americans can gain the recognition they deserve.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HUDSON. I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from North Carolina is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  Mr. HUDSON. Madam Chair, I rise to bring attention to an issue of 
critical importance regarding our national security. Our cyber and 
information warfare doctrines do not pay enough attention to the 
likelihood that adversaries seeking to cripple United States critical 
infrastructure could quickly turn to an EMP, electromagnetic pulse, 
attack.
  This Nation's electrical grid is incredibly vulnerable and could be 
crippled by such an attack. The resulting blackout and EMP damage would 
quickly move beyond the electric grid. Other systems could collapse, 
leading to a failure of other critical infrastructures, such as 
communications, transportation, banking and finance, as well as the 
transportation of food and water. As I have traveled around my 
district, I have heard from several constituents and experts that see 
this threat as ever-present.
  While technology has made society more efficient, it has also made us 
more vulnerable by permeating nearly every aspect of our culture that 
sustains modern civilization and the lives of millions.

[[Page 8074]]

  The assessment that the U.S. is vulnerable to an EMP attack is based 
on the work of the Congressional EMP Commission that analyzed this 
threat for nearly a decade from 2001 to 2008. The Congressional 
Strategic Posture Commission and several other U.S. Government studies 
arrived at similar conclusions and collectively represent a scientific 
and strategic consensus that nuclear EMP attacks upon the United States 
are a very real threat.
  I applaud Chairman Rogers and the Appropriations Committee for 
finding ways to prioritize spending so that the National Protection and 
Programs Directorate, along with similar programs, are able to continue 
their necessary work. I hope they will continue to engage with academic 
institutions and private organizations to find better, more cost-
effective solutions to protecting this Nation's critical infrastructure 
and our way of life.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PASCRELL. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. PASCRELL. Madam Chair, I rise to express my support for the Urban 
Area Security Initiative Nonprofit Security Grant Program. The 
Nonprofit Security Grant Program, administered by the Federal Emergency 
Management Agency, provides critical support to nonprofit organizations 
at high risk of terrorist attack.
  This is not a theoretical threat. This is a real threat.
  For example, a string of anti-Semitic hate crimes took place just 2 
years ago targeting synagogues in Bergen County, New Jersey, which I 
represent. These heinous acts culminated in arson when a fire bomb was 
thrown through the window of an Orthodox Jewish temple, the residence 
of a rabbi, his wife, his five children, and his father. Thankfully, 
the rabbi and his family escaped serious injury in this attack, and 
local authorities have arrested the suspects and are in the process of 
bringing them to justice.

                              {time}  1750

  Other events across the country have shown the continuing need for 
these grants as well. Last year, a gunman killed six and wounded four 
in a mass shooting at a Sikh temple in Oak Creek, Wisconsin.
  A security guard was tragically killed several years ago at the 
Holocaust Museum here in Washington by a Holocaust denier and White 
supremacist. Crimes are not being investigated by White supremacists in 
this country, just as an aside thought.
  These are just a handful of the examples showing the vulnerability of 
nonprofit organizations to attack.
  The Nonprofit Security Grant Program was designed precisely to allow 
at-risk, nonprofit organizations such as houses of worship and 
community centers to protect themselves from these types of tragedies 
by acquiring and installing equipment to ensure against potential 
attacks. These capital improvements include upgrading security 
measures, such as installing alarms, barriers, cameras, or controlled 
entry systems.
  In fiscal year 2011, the year during which these terrible events took 
place in Bergen County, the Nonprofit Security Grant Program was 
allocated $19 million. For the past 2 years this amount has been 
reduced by nearly half, to $10 million, despite the ongoing need for 
this assistance.
  If we can't protect our houses of worship, what can we protect?
  The program is funded out of the Department of Homeland Security's 
State and Local Programs account, and allows the Secretary discretion 
to allocate this funding as she sees fit, or he sees fit, who's ever 
there.
  I call upon the Secretary to allocate at least $15 million to the 
Nonprofit Security Grant Program as a step towards restoring adequate 
funding to this vital program. Although I hope that we can bring this 
funding back to the 2011 level and beyond, $15 million should be the 
baseline level of funding these vital programs.
  I also believe that the Nonprofit Security Grant Program should 
receive its own dedicated funding, rather than competing with other 
important initiatives for a small share of the Department's State and 
Local Programs' dollars.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Nonprofit Security Grant Program 
in order to ensure that these nonprofit organizations, which serve as 
the heart of our communities, receive the protection they need.
  Madam Chair, let me just add one other thing, and that is, it reduces 
a tremendous amount of anxiety at these houses of worship--and I 
mentioned a few religions here just now, but I can cite others--reduces 
the anxiety of being safe even where you sleep or even where you 
worship.
  Now, we had the right idea. This was a bipartisan idea in 2010, 2011, 
and before that. Why can't we do the right thing?
  It's not that much money. It will help a lot of institutions to 
protect themselves, especially when you put in a camera or the other 
things that I mentioned. It makes people feel a lot more relaxed and it 
reduces anxiety.
  I hope that we can do this. I know, Madam Chair, and I'm sorry if I'm 
appealing to you directly, which I am. Madam Chair, you understand this 
program very, very well. I would solicit your support for this. And I 
think it's very important because it's going to stop terrorism in this 
form.
  I mean, this gentleman was sleeping with his family, the rabbi, and 
the bomb came in through the window. It was thrown up to the second 
floor and exploded. I mean, can you imagine the trauma for those 
children?
  I apologize for directing my attention to you because you know about 
these things, and I'm asking you to be helpful to me.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                emergency management performance grants

       For emergency management performance grants, as authorized 
     by the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4001 
     et seq.), the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and 
     Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.), the 
     Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977 (42 U.S.C. 7701 et 
     seq.), and Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App.), 
     $350,000,000.

              radiological emergency preparedness program

       The aggregate charges assessed during fiscal year 2014, as 
     authorized in title III of the Departments of Veterans 
     Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and Independent 
     Agencies Appropriations Act, 1999 (42 U.S.C. 5196e), shall 
     not be less than 100 percent of the amounts anticipated by 
     the Department of Homeland Security necessary for its 
     radiological emergency preparedness program for the next 
     fiscal year:  Provided, That the methodology for assessment 
     and collection of fees shall be fair and equitable and shall 
     reflect costs of providing such services, including 
     administrative costs of collecting such fees:  Provided 
     further, That fees received under this heading shall be 
     deposited in this account as offsetting collections and will 
     become available for authorized purposes on October 1, 2014, 
     and remain available until September 30, 2016.

                   united states fire administration

       For necessary expenses of the United States Fire 
     Administration and for other purposes, as authorized by the 
     Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act of 1974 (15 U.S.C. 
     2201 et seq.) and the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 
     101 et seq.), $42,162,000.

                          disaster relief fund

                     (including transfer of funds)

        For necessary expenses in carrying out the Robert T. 
     Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 
     U.S.C. 5121 et seq.), $6,220,908,000, to remain available 
     until expended, of which $24,000,000 shall be transferred to 
     the Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector 
     General for audits and investigations related to disasters: 
     Provided, That the Administrator of the Federal Emergency 
     Management Agency shall submit an expenditure plan to the 
     Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives 
     and the Senate detailing the use of the funds made available 
     in this or any other Act for disaster readiness and support 
     not later than 60 days after the date of enactment of this 
     Act: Provided further, That the Administrator shall submit to 
     such Committees a quarterly report detailing obligations 
     against the expenditure plan and a justification for any 
     changes from the initial plan: Provided further, That the 
     Administrator shall submit to such Committees the following 
     reports, including a specific description of the methodology 
     and the source data used in developing such reports:
       (1) An estimate of the following amounts shall be submitted 
     for the budget year at the

[[Page 8075]]

     time that the President's budget proposal for fiscal year 
     2015 is submitted pursuant to section 1105(a) of title 31, 
     United States Code:
       (A) The unobligated balance of funds to be carried over 
     from the prior fiscal year to the budget year.
       (B) The unobligated balance of funds to be carried over 
     from the budget year to the budget year plus 1.
       (C) The amount of obligations for non-catastrophic events 
     for the budget year.
       (D) The amount of obligations for the budget year for 
     catastrophic events delineated by event and by State.
       (E) The total amount that has been previously obligated or 
     will be required for catastrophic events delineated by event 
     and by State for all prior years, the current year, the 
     budget year, the budget year plus 1, the budget year plus 2, 
     and the budget year plus 3 and beyond.
       (F) The amount of previously obligated funds that will be 
     recovered for the budget year.
       (G) The amount that will be required for obligations for 
     emergencies, as described in section 102(1) of the Robert T. 
     Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 
     U.S.C. 5122(1)), major disasters, as described in section 
     102(2) of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and 
     Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5122(2)), fire management 
     assistance grants, as described in section 420 of the Robert 
     T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 
     U.S.C. 5187), surge activities, and disaster readiness and 
     support activities.
       (H) The amount required for activities not covered under 
     section 251(b)(2)(D)(iii) of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.
       (2) An estimate or actual amounts, if available, of the 
     following for the current fiscal year shall be submitted not 
     later than the fifth day of each month, and shall be 
     published by the Administrator on the Agency's website not 
     later than the eleventh day of each month:
       (A) A summary of the amount of appropriations made 
     available by source, the transfers executed, the previously 
     allocated funds recovered, and the commitments, allocations, 
     and obligations made.
       (B) A table of disaster relief activity delineated by 
     month, including--
       (i) the beginning and ending balances;
       (ii) the total obligations to include amounts obligated for 
     fire assistance, emergencies, surge, and disaster support 
     activities;
       (iii) the obligations for catastrophic events delineated by 
     event and by State; and
       (iv) the amount of previously obligated funds that are 
     recovered.
       (C) A summary of allocations, obligations, and expenditures 
     for catastrophic events delineated by event.
       (D) In addition, for a disaster declaration related to 
     Hurricane Sandy, the cost of the following categories of 
     spending: public assistance, individual assistance, 
     mitigation, administrative, operations, and any other 
     relevant category (including emergency measures and disaster 
     resources).
       (E) The date on which funds appropriated will be exhausted.
      Provided further, That the Administrator shall publish on 
     the Agency's website not later than 24 hours after an award 
     of a public assistance grant under section 406 of the Robert 
     T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 
     U.S.C. 5172) the specifics of the grant award: Provided 
     further, That for any mission assignment or mission 
     assignment task order to another Federal department or agency 
     regarding a major disaster, not later than 24 hours after the 
     issuance of the mission assignment or task order, the 
     Administrator shall publish on the Agency's website the 
     following: the name of the impacted State and the disaster 
     declaration for such State, the assigned agency, the 
     assistance requested, a description of the disaster, the 
     total cost estimate, and the amount obligated: Provided 
     further, That not later than 10 days after the last day of 
     each month until the mission assignment or task order is 
     completed and closed out, the Administrator shall update any 
     changes to the total cost estimate and the amount obligated: 
     Provided further, That of the amount provided under this 
     heading, $5,626,386,000 is for major disasters declared 
     pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and 
     Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.): Provided 
     further, That the amount in the preceding proviso is 
     designated by the Congress as being for disaster relief 
     pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(D) of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.

             flood hazard mapping and risk analysis program

       For necessary expenses, including administrative costs, 
     under section 1360 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 
     1968 (42 U.S.C. 4101) and under sections 100215, 100216, 
     100226, 100230, and 100246 of the Biggert-Waters Flood 
     Insurance Reform Act of 2012 (Public Law 112-141, 126 Stat. 
     917), $95,202,000, and such additional sums as may be 
     provided by State and local governments or other political 
     subdivisions for cost-shared mapping activities under section 
     1360(f)(2) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 4101(f)(2)), to remain 
     available until expended.

                     national flood insurance fund

       For activities under the National Flood Insurance Act of 
     1968 (42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.), the Flood Disaster Protection 
     Act of 1973 (42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.), and the Biggert-Waters 
     Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2012 (Public Law 112-141, 126 
     Stat. 916), $176,300,000, which shall be derived from 
     offsetting amounts collected under section 1308(d) of the 
     National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4015(d)); of 
     which not to exceed $22,000,000 shall be available for 
     salaries and expenses associated with flood mitigation and 
     flood insurance operations; and not less than $154,300,000 
     shall be available for flood plain management and flood 
     mapping, to remain available until September 30, 2015:  
     Provided, That any additional fees collected pursuant to 
     section 1308(d) of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 
     (42 U.S.C. 4015(d)) shall be credited as an offsetting 
     collection to this account, to be available for flood plain 
     management and flood mapping:  Provided further, That in 
     fiscal year 2014, no funds shall be available from the 
     National Flood Insurance Fund under section 1310 of that Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 4017) in excess of:
       (1) $132,000,000 for operating expenses;
       (2) $1,152,000,000 for commissions and taxes of agents;
       (3) such sums as are necessary for interest on Treasury 
     borrowings; and
       (4) $100,000,000, which shall remain available until 
     expended, for flood mitigation actions under section 1366 of 
     the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4104c):  
     Provided further, That the amounts collected under section 
     102 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 (42 U.S.C. 
     4012a) and section 1366(e) of the National Flood Insurance 
     Act of 1968 shall be deposited in the National Flood 
     Insurance Fund to supplement other amounts specified as 
     available for section 1366 of the National Flood Insurance 
     Act of 1968, notwithstanding subsection (f)(8) of such 
     section 102 (42 U.S.C. 4012a(f)(8)) and subsection 1366(e) 
     and paragraphs (2) and (3) of section 1367(b) of the National 
     Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4104c(e), 4104d(b)(2)-
     (3)):  Provided further, That total administrative costs 
     shall not exceed 4 percent of the total appropriation.

                  national predisaster mitigation fund

       For the predisaster mitigation grant program under section 
     203 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency 
     Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5133), $22,500,000 to remain 
     available until expended.

                       emergency food and shelter

       To carry out the emergency food and shelter program 
     pursuant to title III of the McKinney-Vento Homeless 
     Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11331 et seq.), $120,000,000, to 
     remain available until expended:  Provided, That total 
     administrative costs shall not exceed 3.5 percent of the 
     total amount made available under this heading.

                                TITLE IV

            RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, TRAINING, AND SERVICES

           United States Citizenship and Immigration Services

       For necessary expenses for citizenship and immigration 
     services, $114,213,000 for the E-Verify Program, as described 
     in section 403(a) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and 
     Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1324a note), 
     to assist United States employers with maintaining a legal 
     workforce:  Provided, That notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, funds otherwise made available to United 
     States Citizenship and Immigration Services may be used to 
     acquire, operate, equip, and dispose of up to 5 vehicles, for 
     replacement only, for areas where the Administrator of 
     General Services does not provide vehicles for lease:  
     Provided further, That the Director of United States 
     Citizenship and Immigration Services may authorize employees 
     who are assigned to those areas to use such vehicles to 
     travel between the employees' residences and places of 
     employment.

                Federal Law Enforcement Training Center

                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Federal Law Enforcement 
     Training Center, including materials and support costs of 
     Federal law enforcement basic training; the purchase of not 
     to exceed 117 vehicles for police-type use and hire of 
     passenger motor vehicles; expenses for student athletic and 
     related activities; the conduct of and participation in 
     firearms matches and presentation of awards; public awareness 
     and enhancement of community support of law enforcement 
     training; room and board for student interns; a flat monthly 
     reimbursement to employees authorized to use personal mobile 
     phones for official duties; and services as authorized by 
     section 3109 of title 5, United States Code; $227,845,000; of 
     which $300,000 shall remain available until expended to be 
     distributed to Federal law enforcement agencies for expenses 
     incurred participating in training accreditation; and of 
     which not to exceed $9,180 shall be for official reception 
     and representation expenses:  Provided, That the Center is 
     authorized to obligate funds in anticipation of 
     reimbursements from agencies receiving training sponsored by 
     the Center, except that total obligations at the end of the 
     fiscal year shall not exceed total budgetary resources 
     available at the end of the fiscal

[[Page 8076]]

     year:  Provided further, That section 1202(a) of Public Law 
     107-206 (42 U.S.C. 3771 note), as amended under this heading 
     in division D of Public Law 113-6 is further amended by 
     striking ``December 31, 2015'' and inserting ``December 31, 
     2016'':  Provided further, That the Director of the Federal 
     Law Enforcement Training Center shall schedule basic or 
     advanced law enforcement training, or both, at all four 
     training facilities under the control of the Federal Law 
     Enforcement Training Center to ensure that such training 
     facilities are operated at the highest capacity throughout 
     the fiscal year:  Provided further, That the Federal Law 
     Enforcement Training Accreditation Board, including 
     representatives from the Federal law enforcement community 
     and non-Federal accreditation experts involved in law 
     enforcement training, shall lead the Federal law enforcement 
     training accreditation process to continue the implementation 
     of measuring and assessing the quality and effectiveness of 
     Federal law enforcement training programs, facilities, and 
     instructors.

  Mr. DENT (during the reading). Madam Chair, I ask unanimous consent 
that the remainder of the bill through page 52, line 19, be considered 
as read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any point.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. Are there any amendments to that section?
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

     acquisitions, construction, improvements, and related expenses

       For acquisition of necessary additional real property and 
     facilities, construction, and ongoing maintenance, facility 
     improvements, and related expenses of the Federal Law 
     Enforcement Training Center, $30,885,000, to remain available 
     until September 30, 2018:  Provided, That the Center is 
     authorized to accept reimbursement to this appropriation from 
     government agencies requesting the construction of special 
     use facilities.

                         Science and Technology

                     management and administration

       For salaries and expenses of the Office of the Under 
     Secretary for Science and Technology and for management and 
     administration of programs and activities as authorized by 
     title III of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 181 
     et seq.), $129,000,000:  Provided, That not to exceed $7,650 
     shall be for official reception and representation expenses: 
     Provided further, That the Secretary of Homeland Security 
     shall submit to the Committees on Appropriations of the 
     Senate and the House of Representatives, at the time that the 
     President's budget proposal for fiscal year 2015 is submitted 
     pursuant to section 1105(a) of title 31, United States Code, 
     a report outlining reforms to research and development 
     programs, as specified in the accompanying report.

           research, development, acquisition, and operations

       For necessary expenses for science and technology research, 
     including advanced research projects, development, test and 
     evaluation, acquisition, and operations as authorized by 
     title III of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 181 
     et seq.), and the purchase or lease of not to exceed 5 
     vehicles, $1,096,488,000; of which $548,703,000 shall remain 
     available until September 30, 2016; and of which $547,785,000 
     shall remain available until September 30, 2018, solely for 
     operation and construction of laboratory facilities: 
     Provided, That of the funds provided for the operation and 
     construction of laboratory facilities under this heading, 
     $404,000,000 shall be for construction of the National Bio- 
     and Agro-defense Facility.


              Amendment Offered by Mr. Bishop of New York

  Mr. BISHOP of New York. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Page 54, line 3, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced 
     by $404,000,000)''.
       Page 54, line 9, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced 
     by $404,000,000)''.
       Page 93, line 9, after the dollar amount insert 
     ``(increased by $404,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. BISHOP of New York. Madam Chair, my amendment is very simple. It 
strikes the $404 million included for the National Bio- and Agro-
Defense Facility, known as NBAF, planned for Manhattan, Kansas, and 
uses those funds to reduce the deficit.
  I continue to voice two vitally important concerns with NBAF: safety 
and cost. As many have noted in the past, putting a laboratory that 
will study the most virulent and harmful animal diseases known in the 
heart of cattle country, and in an area that is the frequent victim of 
violent tornados, is a needless risk to an $80 billion a year industry, 
especially when the safety of that lab is still in question.
  While supporters of this project will testify to NBAF's safety, this 
claim is not supported by the two risk evaluations conducted by the 
National Academy of Science's research arm, the National Research 
Council. These risk evaluations studied site-specific assessments 
conducted by the Department of Homeland Security.
  In its review of DHS' first study, the NRC found that the risk of 
foot-and-mouth disease released in the Nation's heartland was 70 
percent, 70 percent over a 50-year period. Furthermore, the cost of a 
release of foot-and-mouth disease is estimated at between $9 billion 
and $50 billion.
  In June 2012, the NRC found that the Department's second risk 
assessment relied on ``questionable and inappropriate assumptions'' in 
calculating risk to determine that NBAF posed near non-existent safety 
risks to surrounding areas. The same report could not verify DHS' 
results due to the ``methods and data being unevenly or poorly 
presented.''
  If the Department's own safety assessments throw into question the 
safety and security of this new facility, how can we be certain that a 
billion-dollar project will not pose significant security threats to 
Americans living nearby? The NRC findings are not a resounding 
endorsement, by any stretch.
  In addition to these significant safety concerns, NBAF's cost is 
alarming. Initially, $451 million was budgeted for its construction. 
Today the pricetag is a staggering $1 billion.
  It can hardly be considered fiscally responsible to spend more than 
double the initial amount to build a massive research facility only to 
duplicate research activities currently performed by other existing 
facilities. More cost-effective solutions must be considered to meet 
the Nation's agro-defense research needs, including the expansion of 
existing facilities around the country.
  Alternative options to NBAF do exist. A July 2012 NRC study looked at 
three separate futures for the Nation's biosecurity needs and clearly 
demonstrates that, even without NBAF as currently designed, those needs 
can be adequately filled by existing facilities.
  Specifically, one option includes continuing the exemplary work 
already being conducted at the Plum Island Animal Disease Center, while 
leveraging out the BSL-4 functions to other existing facilities.

                              {time}  1800

  This option would represent a significant savings, while ensuring 
that current research needs are met. The NRC's studies reaffirmed my 
concerns, as well as the concerns of many in the agricultural 
community, that the unknowns are too many, the risks are too great, and 
the pricetag too high to justify going forward with construction at 
this time.
  Let me close with this. This NBAF project is a boondoggle. We don't 
even have a shovel in the ground yet and already the cost has gone up 
by 250 percent. It is not needed. A very reputable organization, that 
is to say, the NRC, has asserted a perfectly reasonable and vastly less 
expensive alternative exists. We have scores and scores of 
infrastructure needs much, much more urgent that we are not addressing.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this amendment, support my 
amendment, and reduce our deficit by $404 million.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DENT. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. DENT. Madam Chairman, I do rise in opposition to this amendment. 
I'm certainly sympathetic with the predicament of the gentleman from 
New York--and he's doing his best to represent his district--but this 
amendment would cut funding for the National Bio- and Agro-Defense 
Facility, or the NBAF, in Manhattan, Kansas, an

[[Page 8077]]

essential research center for human and animal pathogens, by $404 
million and increase funding for research, development, and innovation 
by an equivalent amount.
  The bill has already cut funding by $310 million from the President's 
request of $714 million. The amount provided in the bill--$404 
million--is the amount needed in order to obtain the Kansas cost share 
and begin construction. I believe Kansas is prepared to offer $202 
million in support of this project.
  Again, while I understand the gentleman's local district concern--and 
he's a strong advocate for his district--this amendment is in fact 
shortsighted. This horse is already out of the barn, so to speak. We 
have an immediate need to build up our capacity for research into 
pathogens that afflict animals in our food chain and, by extension, 
human beings. The Under Secretary for DHS Science and Technology 
herself has testified the threat of biological attack through our large 
and vulnerable food chain is a top priority. She has confirmed that 
NBAF is required to meet this threat. She's also testified that Plum 
Island, which is in the gentleman's district, of course, cannot meet 
this need. Yet this amendment would freeze this effort. The amendment 
would stall a program needed to address a serious, known risk.
  I urge opposition to the amendment. We need to get this facility up 
and running in Kansas.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the 
last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I rise in opposition to the amendment 
offered by my friend from New York that would eliminate funding in the 
bill for constructing the National Bio- and Agro-Defense Facility, or 
NBAF. I supported a similar amendment offered by the gentleman last 
year, but the circumstances, I believe, have changed decisively.
  Last year, the administration did not request funding for NBAF for 
fiscal 2013. We were still waiting on the results of a National Academy 
of Sciences review of options for meeting the Nation's animal disease 
research needs and on the result of a separate NAS review of the 
Department's updated risk assessments for NBAF.
  Last June, NAS released a report on DHS' updated risk assessment 
concluding that the Department had made substantial improvements 
compared to its first risk assessment and that the so-called 65 percent 
design phase plans for the facility itself appear to be sound and 
conform with international standards.
  Further, last July, a separate National Academy of Sciences report 
made clear that the existing animal disease research facility on Plum 
Island is not an option for meeting the Nation's needs and that a new 
facility with a BSL-4 laboratory is required. This is precisely the 
capability that the new NBAF facility will provide.
  The two studies also made clear that critical work must continue. 
Notably, the National Academy of Sciences' review determined that the 
Department had likely underestimated some types of risk while 
overestimating others. The Department disputes some of these 
assessments. But even acknowledging that DHS must continue to improve 
its risk methodology and response planning before the NBAF facility 
becomes fully operational, we should not wait any longer to begin 
constructing the new facility, which we know now is securely and safely 
designed. The longer we wait, the more costly its construction will be 
and the more costly it will be to continue to maintain the Plum Island 
facility. We also must consider the cost of further delaying the 
availability of a Biosafety Level 4 facility, which the NAS, DHS, and 
other stakeholders are fully convinced we need.
  So I believe the funding provided in the appropriations bill is 
timely and needed, and I urge Members to oppose the amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. JENKINS. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Kansas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. JENKINS. After an exhaustive review, the Department of Homeland 
Security chose Manhattan, Kansas, as the site for the new BSL-4 
National Bio- and Agro-Defense Facility. This will be the only such 
facility capable of researching large animals in the United States. The 
construction of this cutting-edge facility must move forward quickly so 
we can safely conduct critical research to develop vaccines and 
countermeasures in order to protect the public and our livestock from 
the threats of devastating diseases.
  Not only will the NBAF accelerate America's ability to protect 
ourselves, our food supply, and the agriculture economy from biological 
threats, it will also be the world's premier animal health research 
facility and further solidify our Nation's place as the international 
leader in animal health. The NBAF is needed to replace the obsolete and 
increasingly expensive Plum Island Animal Disease Center. This lab was 
built in the 1950s and has reached the end of its life. The facility 
does not contain the necessary biosafety level to meet the NBAF 
research requirements--and it never will. Any attempts to upgrade Plum 
Island would cost more than building the NBAF.
  Currently, we don't have the ability to research the effects of 
disease on large animals, such as foot-and-mouth disease, African swine 
fever, and Rift Valley fever, at any facility in the United States, nor 
can we rely on international partners for our own security needs. The 
NBAF project has a history of broad-based support. DHS, under both the 
Bush and Obama administrations, and the House Appropriations Committee, 
under both Democrat and Republican leadership, have made it clear time 
and time again that our country needs the NBAF. And the best place is 
in Manhattan, Kansas.
  The President's budget includes $714 million, which would complete 
construction. And while I prefer that this bill include that figure, 
Chairman Carter has responsibly included sufficient funding for this 
fiscal year of $404 million. Construction on this facility has already 
begun, and Congress has already appropriated $127.5 million and the 
State of Kansas and the city of Manhattan have already committed more 
than $200 million towards the project. These dollars show a strong 
commitment at both the Federal, State, and local levels.
  Our Nation's food supply cannot sustain another delay. We need to 
protect our food and our families from danger. We need to stay on the 
cutting edge of this research field. Our security is at risk. Delaying 
this project any further is not an option. We need NBAF.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against this destructive amendment, and 
I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HUELSKAMP. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Kansas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. HUELSKAMP. I appreciate the opportunity to speak on the topic of 
NBAF. As has been mentioned by my colleague from Kansas, currently in 
the United States there is not a single research facility that is able 
to conduct research at Biosafety Level 4.
  The NBAF facility being discussed here today and that would be funded 
in this particular bill will provide critical research in areas, again, 
that are not able to be researched currently in this country--things 
such as African swine fever, Rift Valley fever, the Nipah virus, and 
the Hendra virus.

                              {time}  1810

  I repeat. We currently, as a country, without this facility, are 
required to outsource this particular research to other countries.
  As a Kansas farmer and rancher, I recognize the critical damage that 
would be done to our livestock industries if we do not proceed forth 
with construction of NBAF.
  Indeed, shovels are being turned in Manhattan, Kansas, today. The 
central utility plant that is related to this, construction is 
proceeding underway. The State of Kansas has agreed to pay a 
substantial sum to assist for the cost of construction of this 
facility.

[[Page 8078]]

  And, as was indicated earlier, the current facility that served for 
over 50 years is aging at Plum Island and needs to be replaced. The 
Manhattan, Kansas, site was selected by a panel of more than 25 
scientists. DHS and USDA experts agree this is the best place to build 
NBAF and provide the critical research that is necessary not just to 
protect the outbreak of foreign animal diseases that might be 
accidental, but to protect America and our livestock industries from 
mass destruction from terrorism and numerous other attacks that could 
use these particular foreign animal diseases and other things.
  One other connection I will note: these are diseases that in many 
cases not only impact the livestock industries, but are zoonotic and 
can impact humans. This research needs to be done. We need to continue 
with construction in order to protect our livestock and our human 
health in this country.
  I yield back the balance of my time, Madam Chair.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. BISHOP of New York. Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York 
will be postponed.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                   Domestic Nuclear Detection Office

                     management and administration

       For salaries and expenses of the Domestic Nuclear Detection 
     Office, as authorized by title XIX of the Homeland Security 
     Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 591 et seq.), for management and 
     administration of programs and activities, $37,353,000:  
     Provided, That not to exceed $2,250 shall be for official 
     reception and representation expenses:  Provided further, 
     That not later than 60 days after the date of enactment of 
     this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall submit to 
     the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the House 
     of Representatives a strategic plan of investments necessary 
     to implement the Department of Homeland Security's 
     responsibilities under the domestic component of the global 
     nuclear detection architecture that shall:
       (1) define the role and responsibilities of each 
     Departmental component in support of the domestic detection 
     architecture, including any existing or planned programs to 
     pre-screen cargo or conveyances overseas;
       (2) identify and describe the specific investments being 
     made by each Departmental component in fiscal year 2014 and 
     planned for fiscal year 2015 to support the domestic 
     architecture and the security of sea, land, and air pathways 
     into the United States;
       (3) describe the investments necessary to close known 
     vulnerabilities and gaps, including associated costs and 
     timeframes, and estimates of feasibility and cost 
     effectiveness; and
       (4) explain how the Department's research and development 
     funding is furthering the implementation of the domestic 
     nuclear detection architecture, including specific 
     investments planned for each of fiscal years 2014 and 2015.

                 research, development, and operations

       For necessary expenses for radiological and nuclear 
     research, development, testing, evaluation, and operations, 
     $211,210,000, to remain available until September 30, 2015.

                          systems acquisition

       For expenses for the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office 
     acquisition and deployment of radiological detection systems 
     in accordance with the global nuclear detection architecture, 
     $42,600,000, to remain available until September 30, 2016.

                                TITLE V

                           GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 501.  No part of any appropriation contained in this 
     Act shall remain available for obligation beyond the current 
     fiscal year unless expressly so provided herein.
       Sec. 502.  Subject to the requirements of section 503 of 
     this Act, the unexpended balances of prior appropriations 
     provided for activities in this Act may be transferred to 
     appropriation accounts for such activities established 
     pursuant to this Act, may be merged with funds in the 
     applicable established accounts, and thereafter may be 
     accounted for as one fund for the same time period as 
     originally enacted.
       Sec. 503. (a) None of the funds provided by this Act, 
     provided by previous appropriations Acts to the agencies in 
     or transferred to the Department of Homeland Security that 
     remain available for obligation or expenditure in fiscal year 
     2014, or provided from any accounts in the Treasury of the 
     United States derived by the collection of fees available to 
     the agencies funded by this Act, shall be available for 
     obligation or expenditure through a reprogramming of funds 
     that:
       (1) creates a new program, project, or activity;
       (2) eliminates a program, project, office, or activity;
       (3) increases funds for any program, project, or activity 
     for which funds have been denied or restricted by the 
     Congress;
       (4) proposes to use funds directed for a specific activity 
     by either of the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate 
     or the House of Representatives for a different purpose; or
       (5) contracts out any function or activity for which 
     funding levels were requested for Federal full-time 
     equivalents in the object classification tables contained in 
     the fiscal year 2014 Budget Appendix for the Department of 
     Homeland Security, as modified by the report accompanying 
     this Act, unless the Committees on Appropriations of the 
     Senate and the House of Representatives are notified 15 days 
     in advance of such reprogramming of funds.
       (b) None of the funds provided by this Act, provided by 
     previous appropriations Acts to the agencies in or 
     transferred to the Department of Homeland Security that 
     remain available for obligation or expenditure in fiscal year 
     2014, or provided from any accounts in the Treasury of the 
     United States derived by the collection of fees or proceeds 
     available to the agencies funded by this Act, shall be 
     available for obligation or expenditure for programs, 
     projects, or activities through a reprogramming of funds in 
     excess of $5,000,000 or 10 percent, whichever is less, that:
       (1) augments existing programs, projects, or activities;
       (2) reduces by 10 percent funding for any existing program, 
     project, or activity;
       (3) reduces by 10 percent the numbers of personnel approved 
     by the Congress; or
       (4) results from any general savings from a reduction in 
     personnel that would result in a change in existing programs, 
     projects, or activities as approved by the Congress, unless 
     the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the House 
     of Representatives are notified 15 days in advance of such 
     reprogramming of funds.
       (c) Not to exceed 5 percent of any appropriation made 
     available for the current fiscal year for the Department of 
     Homeland Security by this Act or provided by previous 
     appropriations Acts may be transferred between such 
     appropriations, but no such appropriation, except as 
     otherwise specifically provided, shall be increased by more 
     than 10 percent by such transfers:  Provided, That any 
     transfer under this section shall be treated as a 
     reprogramming of funds under subsection (b) and shall not be 
     available for obligation unless the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the Senate and the House of Representatives 
     are notified 15 days in advance of such transfer.
       (d) Notwithstanding subsections (a), (b), and (c) of this 
     section, no funds shall be reprogrammed within or transferred 
     between appropriations after June 30, except in extraordinary 
     circumstances that imminently threaten the safety of human 
     life or the protection of property.
       (e) The notification thresholds and procedures set forth in 
     this section shall apply to any use of deobligated balances 
     of funds provided in previous Department of Homeland Security 
     Appropriations Acts.
       Sec. 504. (a) The Department of Homeland Security Working 
     Capital Fund, established pursuant to section 403 of Public 
     Law 103-356 (31 U.S.C. 501 note), shall continue operations 
     as a permanent working capital fund for fiscal year 2014:  
     Provided, That none of the funds appropriated or otherwise 
     made available to the Department of Homeland Security may be 
     used to make payments to the Working Capital Fund, except for 
     the activities and amounts allowed in the President's fiscal 
     year 2014 budget:  Provided further, That funds provided to 
     the Working Capital Fund shall be available for obligation 
     until expended to carry out the purposes of the Working 
     Capital Fund:  Provided further, That all departmental 
     components shall be charged only for direct usage of each 
     Working Capital Fund service:  Provided further, That funds 
     provided to the Working Capital Fund shall be used only for 
     purposes consistent with the contributing component:  
     Provided further, That the Working Capital Fund shall be paid 
     in advance or reimbursed at rates which will return the full 
     cost of each service:  Provided further, That the Working 
     Capital Fund shall be subject to the requirements of section 
     503 of this Act.
       (b) The amounts appropriated in this Act are hereby reduced 
     by $250,000,000 to reflect cash balance and rate 
     stabilization adjustments in the Working Capital Fund.
       Sec. 505.  Except as otherwise specifically provided by 
     law, not to exceed 50 percent of unobligated balances 
     remaining available at the end of fiscal year 2014 from 
     appropriations for salaries and expenses for fiscal year 2014 
     in this Act shall remain available through September 30, 
     2015, in the account and for the purposes for which the 
     appropriations were provided:  Provided, That prior to the 
     obligation of such funds, a request shall be submitted to the 
     Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the House of

[[Page 8079]]

     Representatives for approval in accordance with section 503 
     of this Act.
       Sec. 506.  Funds made available by this Act for 
     intelligence activities are deemed to be specifically 
     authorized by the Congress for purposes of section 504 of the 
     National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 414) during fiscal 
     year 2014 until the enactment of an Act authorizing 
     intelligence activities for fiscal year 2014.
       Sec. 507. (a) Except as provided in subsections (b) and 
     (c), none of the funds made available by this Act may be used 
     to--
       (1) make or award a grant allocation, grant, contract, 
     other transaction agreement, or task or delivery order on a 
     Department of Homeland Security multiple award contract, or 
     to issue a letter of intent totaling in excess of $1,000,000;
       (2) award a task or delivery order requiring an obligation 
     of funds in an amount greater than $10,000,000 from multi-
     year Department of Homeland Security funds or a task or 
     delivery order that would cause cumulative obligations of 
     multi-year funds in a single account to exceed 50 percent of 
     the total amount appropriated;
       (3) make a sole-source grant award; or
       (4) announce publicly the intention to make or award items 
     under paragraph (1), (2), or (3) including a contract covered 
     by the Federal Acquisition Regulation.
       (b) The Secretary of Homeland Security may waive the 
     prohibition under subsection (a) if the Secretary notifies 
     the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the House 
     of Representatives at least 3 full business days in advance 
     of making an award or issuing a letter as described in that 
     subsection.
       (c) If the Secretary of Homeland Security determines that 
     compliance with this section would pose a substantial risk to 
     human life, health, or safety, an award may be made without 
     notification, and the Secretary shall notify the Committees 
     on Appropriations of the Senate and the House of 
     Representatives not later than 5 full business days after 
     such an award is made or letter issued.
       (d) A notification under this section--
       (1) may not involve funds that are not available for 
     obligation; and
       (2) shall include the amount of the award; the fiscal year 
     for which the funds for the award were appropriated; the type 
     of contract; and the account and each program, project, and 
     activity from which the funds are being drawn.
       (e) The Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management 
     Agency shall brief the Committees on Appropriations of the 
     Senate and the House of Representatives 5 full business days 
     in advance of announcing publicly the intention of making an 
     award under ``State and Local Programs''.
       Sec. 508.  Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no 
     agency shall purchase, construct, or lease any additional 
     facilities, except within or contiguous to existing 
     locations, to be used for the purpose of conducting Federal 
     law enforcement training without the advance approval of the 
     Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the House of 
     Representatives, except that the Federal Law Enforcement 
     Training Center is authorized to obtain the temporary use of 
     additional facilities by lease, contract, or other agreement 
     for training that cannot be accommodated in existing Center 
     facilities.
       Sec. 509.  None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act may be used for expenses for any 
     construction, repair, alteration, or acquisition project for 
     which a prospectus otherwise required under chapter 33 of 
     title 40, United States Code, has not been approved, except 
     that necessary funds may be expended for each project for 
     required expenses for the development of a proposed 
     prospectus.
       Sec. 510. (a) Sections 520, 522, and 530 of the Department 
     of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2008 (division E of 
     Public Law 110-161; 121 Stat. 2073 and 2074) shall apply with 
     respect to funds made available in this Act in the same 
     manner as such sections applied to funds made available in 
     that Act.
       (b) The third proviso of section 537 of the Department of 
     Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2006 (6 U.S.C. 114), 
     shall not apply with respect to funds made available in this 
     Act.
       Sec. 511.  None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used in contravention of the applicable provisions of the 
     Buy American Act. For purposes of the preceding sentence, the 
     term ``Buy American Act'' means chapter 83 of title 41, 
     United States Code.
       Sec. 512.  None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used by any person other than the Privacy Officer 
     appointed under subsection (a) of section 222 of the Homeland 
     Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 142(a)) to alter, direct that 
     changes be made to, delay, or prohibit the transmission to 
     Congress of any report prepared under paragraph (6) of such 
     subsection.
       Sec. 513.  None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to amend the oath of allegiance required by section 
     337 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1448).
       Sec. 514.  Within 45 days after the end of each month, the 
     Chief Financial Officer of the Department of Homeland 
     Security shall submit to the Committees on Appropriations of 
     the Senate and the House of Representatives a monthly budget 
     and staffing report for that month that includes total 
     obligations, on-board versus funded full-time equivalent 
     staffing levels, and the number of contract employees for 
     each office of the Department.
       Sec. 515.  Except as provided in section 44945 of title 49, 
     United States Code, funds appropriated or transferred to 
     Transportation Security Administration ``Aviation Security'', 
     ``Administration'', and ``Transportation Security Support'' 
     for fiscal years 2004 and 2005 that are recovered or 
     deobligated shall be available only for the procurement or 
     installation of explosives detection systems, air cargo, 
     baggage, and checkpoint screening systems, subject to 
     notification:  Provided, That quarterly reports shall be 
     submitted to the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate 
     and the House of Representatives on any funds that are 
     recovered or deobligated.
       Sec. 516.  Any funds appropriated to Coast Guard 
     ``Acquisition, Construction, and Improvements'' for fiscal 
     years 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006 for the 110-123 foot 
     patrol boat conversion that are recovered, collected, or 
     otherwise received as the result of negotiation, mediation, 
     or litigation, shall be available until expended for the Fast 
     Response Cutter program.
       Sec. 517.  Section 532(a) of Public Law 109-295 (120 Stat. 
     1384) is amended by striking ``2013'' and inserting ``2014''.
       Sec. 518.  The functions of the Federal Law Enforcement 
     Training Center instructor staff shall be classified as 
     inherently governmental for the purpose of the Federal 
     Activities Inventory Reform Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 501 note).
       Sec. 519. (a) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall 
     submit a report not later than October 15, 2014, to the 
     Office of Inspector General of the Department of Homeland 
     Security listing all grants and contracts awarded by any 
     means other than full and open competition during fiscal year 
     2014.
       (b) The Inspector General shall review the report required 
     by subsection (a) to assess Departmental compliance with 
     applicable laws and regulations and report the results of 
     that review to the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate 
     and the House of Representatives not later than February 15, 
     2015.
       Sec. 520.  None of the funds provided by this or previous 
     appropriations Acts shall be used to fund any position 
     designated as a Principal Federal Official (or the successor 
     thereto) for any Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and 
     Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.) declared 
     disasters or emergencies unless--
       (1) the responsibilities of the Principal Federal Official 
     do not include operational functions related to incident 
     management, including coordination of operations, and are 
     consistent with the requirements of section 509(c) and 
     sections 503(c)(3) and 503(c)(4)(A) of the Homeland Security 
     Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 319(c) and 313(c)(3) and 313(c)(4)(A)) 
     and section 302 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and 
     Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5143);
       (2) not later than 10 business days after the latter of the 
     date on which the Secretary of Homeland Security appoints the 
     Principal Federal Official and the date on which the 
     President issues a declaration under section 401 or section 
     501 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency 
     Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5170 and 5191, respectively), the 
     Secretary of Homeland Security shall submit a notification of 
     the appointment of the Principal Federal Official and a 
     description of the responsibilities of such Official and how 
     such responsibilities are consistent with paragraph (1) to 
     the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the House 
     of Representatives, the Transportation and Infrastructure 
     Committee of the House of Representatives, and the Homeland 
     Security and Governmental Affairs Committee of the Senate; 
     and
       (3) not later than 60 days after the date of enactment of 
     this Act, the Secretary shall provide a report specifying 
     timeframes and milestones regarding the update of operations, 
     planning and policy documents, and training and exercise 
     protocols, to ensure consistency with paragraph (1) of this 
     section.
       Sec. 521.  None of the funds provided or otherwise made 
     available in this Act shall be available to carry out section 
     872 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 452).
       Sec. 522.  None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used by United States Citizenship and Immigration Services 
     to grant an immigration benefit unless the results of 
     background checks required by law to be completed prior to 
     the granting of the benefit have been received by United 
     States Citizenship and Immigration Services, and the results 
     do not preclude the granting of the benefit.
       Sec. 523.  Section 831 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 
     (6 U.S.C. 391) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by striking ``Until September 30, 
     2013,'' and inserting ``Until September 30, 2014,'';
       (2) in subsection (c)(1), by striking ``September 30, 
     2013,'' and inserting ``September 30, 2014,''.
       Sec. 524.  The Secretary of Homeland Security shall require 
     that all contracts of the Department of Homeland Security 
     that provide award fees link such fees to successful

[[Page 8080]]

     acquisition outcomes (which outcomes shall be specified in 
     terms of cost, schedule, and performance).
       Sec. 525.  None of the funds made available to the Office 
     of the Secretary and Executive Management under this Act may 
     be expended for any new hires by the Department of Homeland 
     Security that are not verified through the E-Verify Program 
     as described in section 403(a) of the Illegal Immigration 
     Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 
     1324a note).
       Sec. 526.  None of the funds made available in this Act for 
     U.S. Customs and Border Protection may be used to prevent an 
     individual not in the business of importing a prescription 
     drug (within the meaning of section 801(g) of the Federal 
     Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act) from importing a prescription 
     drug from Canada that complies with the Federal Food, Drug, 
     and Cosmetic Act:  Provided, That this section shall apply 
     only to individuals transporting on their person a personal-
     use quantity of the prescription drug, not to exceed a 90-day 
     supply:  Provided further, That the prescription drug may not 
     be--
       (1) a controlled substance, as defined in section 102 of 
     the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802); or
       (2) a biological product, as defined in section 351 of the 
     Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 262).
       Sec. 527.  The Secretary of Homeland Security, in 
     consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury, shall notify 
     the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the House 
     of Representatives of any proposed transfers of funds 
     available under section 9703(g)(4)(B) of title 31, United 
     States Code (as added by Section 638 of Public Law 102-393) 
     from the Department of the Treasury Forfeiture Fund to any 
     agency within the Department of Homeland Security:  Provided, 
     That none of the funds identified for such a transfer may be 
     obligated until the Committees on Appropriations of the 
     Senate and the House of Representatives approve the proposed 
     transfers.
       Sec. 528.  None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used for planning, testing, piloting, or developing a 
     national identification card.
       Sec. 529.  If the Administrator of the Transportation 
     Security Administration determines that an airport does not 
     need to participate in the E-Verify Program as described in 
     section 403(a) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and 
     Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1324a note), 
     the Administrator shall certify to the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the Senate and the House of Representatives 
     that no security risks will result from such non-
     participation.

  Mr. DENT (during the reading). Madam Chair, I ask unanimous consent 
that the bill through page 71, line 14, be considered as read, printed 
in the Record, and open to amendment at any point.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. Are there any amendments to that section?
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Sec. 530. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
     Act, except as provided in subsection (b), and 30 days after 
     the date on which the President determines whether to declare 
     a major disaster because of an event and any appeal is 
     completed, the Administrator shall publish on the Web site of 
     the Federal Emergency Management Agency a report regarding 
     that decision that shall summarize damage assessment 
     information used to determine whether to declare a major 
     disaster.
       (b) The Administrator may redact from a report under 
     subsection (a) any data that the Administrator determines 
     would compromise national security.
       (c) In this section--
       (1) the term ``Administrator'' means the Administrator of 
     the Federal Emergency Management Agency; and
       (2) the term ``major disaster'' has the meaning given that 
     term in section 102 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief 
     and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5122).
       Sec. 531.  Any official that is required by this Act to 
     report or to certify to the Committees on Appropriations of 
     the Senate and the House of Representatives may not delegate 
     such authority to perform that act unless specifically 
     authorized herein.
       Sec. 532.  Section 550(b) of the Department of Homeland 
     Security Appropriations Act, 2007 (Public Law 109-295; 6 
     U.S.C. 121 note), as amended by section 537 of the Department 
     of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2013 (Public Law 
     113-6), is further amended by striking ``on October 4, 2013'' 
     and inserting ``on October 4, 2014''.
       Sec. 533.  None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available in this or any other Act may be used to transfer, 
     release, or assist in the transfer or release to or within 
     the United States, its territories, or possessions Khalid 
     Sheikh Mohammed or any other detainee who--
       (1) is not a United States citizen or a member of the Armed 
     Forces of the United States; and
       (2) is or was held on or after June 24, 2009, at the United 
     States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, by the Department 
     of Defense.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Moran

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

       In section 533, amend paragraph (2) to read as follows:
       (2) was transferred to the United States Naval Station, 
     Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, by the Department of Defense, after 
     December 31, 2005.

  Mr. DENT. Madam Chair, I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. A point of order is reserved.
  The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. MORAN. Madam Chairwoman, section 533 would prohibit any funds 
being used for the transport, release, or assistance in the transfer or 
release of any Guantanamo detainee housed in Cuba on or after June of 
2009. My amendment would change that date to December 31, 2005.
  Now, in 2006, people who were truly the worst of the worst, those 
detainees who were housed in CIA black sites were transferred to 
Guantanamo. Now, prior to 2006, Guantanamo was populated with detainees 
who were simply not as deserving of indefinite detention, as this 
latter group, in my view, is. Eighty-six percent of the people of the 
first group, prior to 2005, were arrested in exchange for a bounty. The 
vast majority never committed an act of violence against the United 
States or any of its allies. About 5 percent may have been affiliated 
with al Qaeda.
  Now, Madam Chairwoman, it seems to me that it's time that we clarify 
the definition of who is at Guantanamo. I listened very closely to my 
good friends yesterday, including Mr. Wolf, who cited Khalid Sheikh 
Mohammed in defining who was at Guantanamo. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is 
one of those worst of the worst. I don't care what you do with Khalid 
Sheikh Mohammed. As far as I'm concerned, from everything I know, he 
deserves whatever happens to him. But we're not talking about him if 
this amendment were to pass. We're talking about people who were 
brought there initially, more than half were already released, of the 
779, by the Bush administration. Eighty-six more have been already 
cleared for release.
  Now, Madam Chairwoman, the fact is we're spending $150 million a year 
to house these folks. About 150 of them are people that were brought 
there before 2005. We've authorized up to half a billion dollars to be 
spent to further modernize the facilities so that we can keep them 
indefinitely. It's expensive. We're spending $1 million per detainee 
now, and then we would be talking, if we spent that 500, many more for 
indefinite detention.
  The problem with that, in addition to the money, is the national 
security issue, because Guantanamo is a recruiting tool and a rallying 
cry for the enemy. It's not the only thing they cite, but, invariably, 
it's one of the principal things they cite and why the United States is 
not the country that it truly is.
  They suggest that we are not good to our word, that we don't believe 
in the very principles of our jurisprudence system, that people are 
innocent until they've been proven guilty, that they ought to be 
charged with crimes. We don't believe in indefinite detention. That's 
what other countries do. We don't do that. We give people a fair trial. 
But the reason we have Guantanamo is that this was set up to be above 
the law. It's extrajudicial. The rules don't apply. The rest of the 
world looks at this and it undermines our credibility and our security 
as a Nation. That, Madam Chairwoman, is exactly why we should 
distinguish.
  The worst of the worst, keep them there, keep them in some kind of 
isolated structure, but you sure don't have to spend half a billion 
dollars for 12 to 15 people. Those other 150, of whom many of them are 
now on a hunger strike, a majority are on a hunger

[[Page 8081]]

strike because they believe there's no hope, there's nothing to live 
for, they're going to be there forever. In fact, more than 30 of them--
37, to be exact--are being forcibly tube fed. If this was in another 
nation, we'd be on the floor--Mr. Wolf would be on the floor objecting 
to this.
  That's why this amendment should pass, Madam Chairwoman.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DENT. Madam Chair, I withdraw my point of order and rise in 
opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The reservation is withdrawn, and the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. DENT. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment simply 
because I don't know the impact on security of this amendment. Who 
would be released? Where would these prisoners be relocated? And who 
would they be released to? to Yemen? to the United States? I simply 
don't know by reading this amendment.

                              {time}  1820

  It's clear that if these individuals were released to Yemen, they 
would not likely remain in custody for very long and likely rejoin the 
fight.
  At the outset of the President's first term, an executive order 
declared the intention to close Guantanamo Bay and bring the detainees 
to the United States. That proposal was rejected by this Congress, and 
prohibitions on transferring detainees to the U.S. were enacted by 
overwhelming bipartisan majorities.
  As my colleague and friend Mr. Wolf just discussed yesterday during 
consideration of the MilCon bill, this amendment could result in very 
dangerous outcomes. 779 people were detained in the first few years, 
and at this time it is unknown how many could potentially be released 
as an effect of this amendment.
  As you know, several men who have been released from Guantanamo have 
gone back into the battlefield and killed Americans. We also know that 
having these dangerous individuals detained and tried in the United 
States dramatically impacts the facilities and localities where they're 
located. You must remember the violent nature of some of these 
individuals and the social impact on having these people in our 
neighborhoods.
  I simply cannot support this amendment. It has high monetary and 
social costs and could potentially endanger our communities. In fact, a 
few years ago, it was discussed about releasing some of these 
detainees--five up into New York City--and that was rejected very, very 
strongly by both Republicans and Democrats. Any proposal that results 
in these detainees being sent to the United States is simply the wrong 
policy.
  I urge my colleagues to reject the gentleman's amendment, and I yield 
back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the 
last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of my 
colleague, Mr. Moran's amendment. The fact is that section 533 of this 
bill, which his amendment amends, has no place in this Homeland 
Security bill in the first place. If it belongs in any bill, it would 
be the Commerce-Justice bill. But as a political gesture, for years 
now, we've had this amendment or something very much like it added to a 
number of appropriations bills.
  What Mr. Moran has done tonight, though, is interesting. He has not 
proposed that this section be removed. He has simply amended it, and in 
a sensible way. He would limit the prohibition of the transfer of 
detainees to those demonstrably dangerous people who were placed in 
Guantanamo after 2005. That should remove most of the objections people 
have made to the elimination of this prohibition entirely.
  It seems that the colleagues who have pushed this amendment, year 
after year and bill after bill, don't apparently have very strong 
concerns about indefinite detention and the kind of stain that this 
represents on this country. They also seem to think that if and when 
detainees are going to be brought to trial, the way to try them is with 
military commissions at Guantanamo. They seem to think that's the only 
possible way to bring these detainees to justice.
  The reality is that military commissions have a very spotty record at 
best, while our criminal courts have a long and successful record of 
prosecuting terrorists. Why would we want to eliminate that option? Why 
would we want to deny that option to the President?
  The reasoning of the proponents of this provision both denigrates our 
judicial system and actually exalts these detainees to a status they 
don't deserve in the eyes of the world. If I had my way, this section 
would not be in the bill in the first place. But since it is, I think 
Mr. Moran has made a very sensible proposal that we should consider 
very favorably, and I hope that my colleagues will do just that.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOLF. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. WOLF. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. I 
want, again, to begin: I don't believe it's fair to say that had we 
closed down Guantanamo Bay bin Laden would not have done what he had 
done. Bin Laden was active and al Qaeda was active in a 1993 bombing of 
the World Trade Center that was before the Guantanamo Bay. They were 
involved in the bombing of the American Embassy in Tanzania and Nairobi 
that was before. And I don't believe that al Qaeda and al-Shabaab and 
all these are waiting to see, Well, when President Obama closes down 
Guantanamo Bay, we're going to kind of get off the field and it's going 
to be over. I just don't think that has any impact.
  Secondly, the transferees--according to a political article, FBI 
Director Robert Mueller stated:

       To transfer detainees to local jails could affect or infect 
     other prisoners or have the capability of affecting events 
     outside the prison system.

  I agree with Director Mueller. I think Director Mueller has done a 
great job.
  On the Moussaoui case--if the gentleman remembers, Moussaoui was in 
Alexandria for 4 years, and it tied up Alexandria. And to bring some of 
these people and to try them here creates a lot of problems.
  The other issue, though, is 15 percent, at least--and this is an old 
figure. It could be higher, it could be a little bit lower, but at 
least 15 percent of the terrorist recidivism rate of released detainees 
that were released back to Yemen and places like that, it is not 
unheard of to have, as you release some--and some were released under 
the Bush administration--went back on the field and killed our men and 
women.
  And so to release these, certainly you would never do this in an 
appropriations bill. You would have extensive hearings in and out. You 
would call the FBI to ask them what are the ramifications. You would 
call the CIA to ask them what are the ramifications. You would call 
Homeland Security to ask them what are the ramifications.
  So for all these issues--and I won't take up any more time because we 
covered it last night--I think this is a bad amendment, and I urge its 
defeat.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONNOLLY. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. CONNOLLY. Madam Chairman, I think this is a very important 
debate.
  I remind my colleague from Virginia that I was on the board of 
supervisors in Fairfax County during the Karzai trial, and most 
certainly it was a difficult time, but we handled, professionally, that 
trial. He was tried fairly, convicted, and executed in the Commonwealth 
of Virginia. It is not beyond our reach to be able to handle these 
difficult cases.
  Madam Chairman, I believe that this is a very important debate. I 
believe

[[Page 8082]]

the author needs to be heard in the exposition of this argument, and 
I'm pleased now to yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).
  Mr. MORAN. Madam Chairman, I thank my very good friend from Virginia. 
I would like to address a few points that my other very good friend 
from Virginia made.
  First of all, the case that my good friend from Virginia referred to 
is actually a case in point. As Mr. Connolly pointed out, the American 
jurisprudence system worked. He was tried and he was convicted and he 
was executed. And, in fact, no convictions have been achieved with 
these military commissions. Two guilty verdicts, but they were 
overturned.
  Mr. WOLF. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CONNOLLY. I yield to my friend from Virginia.
  Mr. WOLF. Moussaoui was picked up here in the United States. He was 
not picked up in the battlefield in Afghanistan or someplace like that. 
So they were totally separate-type issues.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. MORAN. I would say to the gentleman, if they were totally 
separate, then I don't know why he brought that issue into this debate. 
The fact is there is a lesson, and I want to explain what that lesson 
is, because our American jurisprudence system worked. He was convicted 
in a U.S. court.

                              {time}  1830

  In fact, before he was executed, there was a description of this 
person--I don't want to call him a ``gentleman.'' He was crying 
uncontrollably, and apparently the reason was that all of the 
conceptions that he had had proved to be misconceptions. He had been 
screaming about how bad the United States was, how unfair the trial 
was, and then he realized he was wrong.
  It's too late for him to realize that now, but the American 
jurisprudence system worked. In fact, we have tried more than 1,000 
terrorists in the United States. We are currently holding 373 people 
convicted of terrorism in 98 facilities across the country. There are 
six Department of Defense facilities in which detainees could be held 
in the United States, and they are only at 48 percent capacity. There 
are 98 Justice Department facilities, as the gentleman well knows, and 
there is one in Alexandria where Guantanamo detainees could be held in 
the United States.
  I just want to show the rest of the world that our justice system 
works. That is what defines us as a Nation and as a people. Guantanamo 
doesn't define us. It's just the opposite of what we believe in, what 
we profess to believe in. That's the problem. Nobody suggested that 9/
11 happened because of Guantanamo. We know our history. We know when 
Guantanamo was established. The fact is that we could cite any number 
of situations in which our enemy cites Guantanamo as a reason for these 
young, impressionable men joining the forces of al Qaeda--because they 
just want to suggest that we really are not who we say we are.
  This amendment would let us be who we are. Let the President close 
this facility that never should have been established in the first 
place. The Bush administration recognized that when it released more 
than half of the detainees--779 of them turned in for bounties in 
Afghanistan and Pakistan. That's not the way we arrest people. They 
released them. The majority of the people at Guantanamo today have been 
cleared for release. They ought to be released, or they ought to be 
tried. As far as the worst of the worst, do what you want with them, 
but you don't have to spend $500 million to upgrade the facilities at 
Guantanamo so that you house people indefinitely. That's not who we 
are. That's why this amendment should pass.
  Mr. CONNOLLY. Madam Chair, I have collaborated with the Chairman and 
Ranking Member on this statement and I am pleased to submit it into the 
Record with their concurrence. I appreciate the Committee's efforts to 
ensure the Department has the necessary cybersecurity resources to 
safeguard our Nation's digital infrastructure. In recent years, 
prominent intelligence, defense, and homeland security officials have 
expressed alarm over the rapidly increasing cyber threat and our 
inadequate cyber defenses, and we ignore those warnings at our own 
peril. Former Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta recently noted the 
potential of escalating cyber threats to culminate in a new ``cyber 
Pearl Harbor; an attack that would cause physical destruction and the 
loss of life'' and ``paralyze and shock the nation and create a new, 
profound sense of vulnerability.''
  America's critical infrastructure remains a prime target for cyber 
attacks that are rapidly escalating in terms of scale and 
sophistication. Failure to secure the sensitive networks that underpin 
our financial institutions, utilities, and government leaves our 
country vulnerable to attacks that could cripple our economy or 
endanger our national security. Enhancing our cybersecurity 
capabilities should be a top homeland security priority, and it is 
absolutely vital that we cultivate a robust cyber workforce to carry 
out that mission.
  I share the Committee's ``serious concerns'' that our current cyber 
workforce training and recruitment efforts are inadequate to meet the 
scale of the threat. A recent SANS Institute report card found DHS is 
failing to utilize its full authorities to effectively recruit and 
retain cybersecurity personnel and neglecting to develop advanced in-
house cyber skills. If our Nation is to have robust cybersecurity 
capabilities, we must cultivate a talented and well-trained cyber 
workforce capable of managing the protection of our government's 
networks and lead by example. That means we have to start educating 
people about the training and career opportunities in cybersecurity 
starting in our secondary schools and ramping up college recruitment.
  When I consulted the Chairman on this matter, he said shared my view 
and that the Committee believes there has been too little strategic 
planning and too few resources focused on development of the current 
workforce and developing a future workforce pipeline. That is why the 
Committee directs DHS to leverage its existing network of 12 Centers of 
Excellence around the country to address workforce needs. The bill also 
directs the Secretary to work with her counterparts at the Departments 
of Veterans Affairs, Defense, and Labor to develop a veteran's 
cybersecurity workforce program targeting those veterans who are 
unemployed. Further it directs the undersecretary for the National 
Protection and Programs Directorate to look across other agencies to 
see where DHS could leverage existing cyber capabilities. The Chairman 
further acknowledged that this will continue to be a challenge and 
focus area across all Federal agencies and the Committee.
  Even in my district, which is home to the one of the largest 
concentrations of technology firms in the country, rivaling that of 
Silicon Valley, we have a shortage of skilled cyber warriors. In a 
wired 21st Century, the Federal Government must have the necessary 
tools to recruit, retain, and develop a first-class cybersecurity 
workforce. I look forward to working with the Committee moving forward 
to achieve that mission.
  Ms. LEE of California. Madam Chair, yesterday I inadvertently voted 
NO on the Moran amendment (roll call 200) to H.R. 2217. I support the 
Moran amendment that would strike section (2) and insert ``was 
transferred to the United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, 
by the Department of Defense, after December 31, 2005.'' I am a strong 
supporter of President Obama's commitment to close the prison camp at 
Guantanamo and halt all pending military commission trials. The 
infamous Guantanamo prison facility has made a mockery of America's 
commitment to the rule of law, due process, and the rejection of 
torture as an acceptable interrogation technique. I will continue to 
work with my colleagues to repeal unnecessary restrictions on detainees 
and remove congressionally mandated bans which have made the facility 
harder to close. Closing Guantanamo would send an important message 
around the world that the days of detaining persons indefinitely 
without charge or due process are over. I look forward to the day when 
we can finally shut the doors on this prison. I support the Moran 
amendment (roll call 200) and stand ready to support efforts to close 
Guantanamo.
  Mr. CONNOLLY. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. MORAN. Madam 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 Virginia 
will be postponed.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Sec. 534.  None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used for first-class travel

[[Page 8083]]

     by the employees of agencies funded by this Act in 
     contravention of sections 301-10.122 through 301.10-124 of 
     title 41, Code of Federal Regulations.
       Sec. 535.  None of the funds made available in this or any 
     other Act for fiscal year 2014 and thereafter may be used to 
     propose or effect a disciplinary or adverse action, with 
     respect to any Department of Homeland Security employee who 
     engages regularly with the public in the performance of his 
     or her official duties solely because that employee elects to 
     utilize protective equipment or measures, including but not 
     limited to surgical masks, N95 respirators, gloves, or hand-
     sanitizers, where use of such equipment or measures is in 
     accord with Department of Homeland Security policy and 
     Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Office of 
     Personnel Management guidance.
       Sec. 536.  None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to employ workers described in section 274A(h)(3) of 
     the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1324a(h)(3)).
       Sec. 537. (a) Any company that collects or retains personal 
     information directly from any individual who participates in 
     the Registered Traveler or successor program of the 
     Transportation Security Administration shall safeguard and 
     dispose of such information in accordance with the 
     requirements in--
       (1) the National Institute for Standards and Technology 
     Special Publication 800-30, entitled ``Risk Management Guide 
     for Information Technology Systems'';
       (2) the National Institute for Standards and Technology 
     Special Publication 800-53, Revision 3, entitled 
     ``Recommended Security Controls for Federal Information 
     Systems and Organizations''; and
       (3) any supplemental standards established by the 
     Administrator of the Transportation Security Administration 
     (referred to in this section as the ``Administrator'').
       (b) The airport authority or air carrier operator that 
     sponsors the company under the Registered Traveler program 
     shall be known as the ``Sponsoring Entity''.
       (c) The Administrator shall require any company covered by 
     subsection (a) to provide, not later than 30 days after the 
     date of enactment of this Act, to the Sponsoring Entity 
     written certification that the procedures used by the company 
     to safeguard and dispose of information are in compliance 
     with the requirements under subsection (a). Such 
     certification shall include a description of the procedures 
     used by the company to comply with such requirements.
       Sec. 538.  Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, 
     none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by 
     this Act may be used to pay award or incentive fees for 
     contractor performance that has been judged to be below 
     satisfactory performance or performance that does not meet 
     the basic requirements of a contract.
       Sec. 539. (a) Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the 
     Transportation Security Administration shall submit to the 
     Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the House of 
     Representatives, a report that either--
       (1) certifies that the requirement for screening all air 
     cargo on passenger aircraft by the deadline under section 
     44901(g) of title 49, United States Code, has been met; or
       (2) includes a strategy to comply with the requirements 
     under title 44901(g) of title 49, United States Code, 
     including--
       (A) a plan to meet the requirement under section 44901(g) 
     of title 49, United States Code, to screen 100 percent of air 
     cargo transported on passenger aircraft arriving in the 
     United States in foreign air transportation (as that term is 
     defined in section 40102 of that title); and
       (B) specification of--
       (i) the percentage of such air cargo that is being 
     screened; and
       (ii) the schedule for achieving screening of 100 percent of 
     such air cargo.
       (b) The Administrator shall continue to submit reports 
     described in subsection (a)(2) every 180 days thereafter 
     until the Administrator certifies that the Transportation 
     Security Administration has achieved screening of 100 percent 
     of such air cargo.
       Sec. 540.  In developing any process to screen aviation 
     passengers and crews for transportation or national security 
     purposes, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall ensure 
     that all such processes take into consideration such 
     passengers' and crews' privacy and civil liberties consistent 
     with applicable laws, regulations, and guidance.
       Sec. 541. (a) Notwithstanding section 1356(n) of title 8, 
     United States Code, of the funds deposited into the 
     Immigration Examinations Fee Account, $10,000,000 may be 
     allocated by United States Citizenship and Immigration 
     Services in fiscal year 2014 for the purpose of providing an 
     immigrant integration grants program.
       (b) None of the funds made available to United States 
     Citizenship and Immigration Services for grants for immigrant 
     integration may be used to provide services to aliens who 
     have not been lawfully admitted for permanent residence.
       Sec. 542.  None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act may be used by the Department of 
     Homeland Security to enter into any Federal contract unless 
     such contract is entered into in accordance with the 
     requirements of subtitle I of title 41, United States Code or 
     chapter 137 of title 10, United States Code, and the Federal 
     Acquisition Regulation, unless such contract is otherwise 
     authorized by statute to be entered into without regard to 
     the above referenced statutes.
       Sec. 543. (a) For an additional amount for data center 
     migration, $34,200,000.
       (b) Funds made available in subsection (a) for data center 
     migration may be transferred by the Secretary of Homeland 
     Security between appropriations for the same purpose, 
     notwithstanding section 503 of this Act.
       (c) No transfer described in subsection (b) shall occur 
     until 15 days after the Committees on Appropriations of the 
     Senate and the House of Representatives are notified of such 
     transfer.
       Sec. 544.  Notwithstanding any other provision of law, if 
     the Secretary of Homeland Security determines that specific 
     U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Service Processing 
     Centers or other U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement 
     owned detention facilities no longer meet the mission need, 
     the Secretary is authorized to dispose of individual Service 
     Processing Centers or other U.S. Immigration and Customs 
     Enforcement owned detention facilities by directing the 
     Administrator of General Services to sell all real and 
     related personal property which support Service Processing 
     Centers or other U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement 
     owned detention facilities, subject to such terms and 
     conditions as necessary to protect Government interests and 
     meet program requirements:  Provided, That the proceeds, net 
     of the costs of sale incurred by the General Services 
     Administration and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, 
     shall be deposited as offsetting collections into a separate 
     account that shall be available, subject to appropriation, 
     until expended for other real property capital asset needs of 
     existing U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement assets, 
     excluding daily operations and maintenance costs, as the 
     Secretary deems appropriate:  Provided further, That any sale 
     or collocation of federally owned detention facilities shall 
     not result in the maintenance of fewer than 34,000 detention 
     beds:  Provided further, That the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the Senate and the House of Representatives 
     shall be notified 15 days prior to the announcement of any 
     proposed sale or collocation.
       Sec. 545.  None of the funds made available under this Act 
     or any prior appropriations Act may be provided to the 
     Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now 
     (ACORN), or any of its affiliates, subsidiaries, or allied 
     organizations.
       Sec. 546.  The Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border 
     Protection and the Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security 
     for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement shall, with 
     respect to fiscal years 2014, 2015, 2016, and 2017, submit to 
     the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the House 
     of Representatives, at the time that the President's budget 
     proposal for fiscal year 2015 is submitted pursuant to the 
     requirements of section 1105(a) of title 31, United States 
     Code, the information required in the multi-year investment 
     and management plans required, respectively, under the 
     headings U.S. Customs and Border Protection, ``Salaries and 
     Expenses'' under title II of division D of the Consolidated 
     Appropriations Act, 2012 (Public Law 112-74), and U.S. 
     Customs and Border Protection, ``Border Security Fencing, 
     Infrastructure, and Technology'' under such title, and 
     section 568 of such Act.
       Sec. 547.  The Secretary of Homeland Security shall ensure 
     enforcement of immigration laws (as defined in section 
     101(a)(17) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 
     1101(a)(17))).
       Sec. 548.  The Secretary of Homeland Security shall submit 
     to the Committees on Appropriations of the House of 
     Representatives and the Senate, at the time that the 
     President's budget proposal for fiscal year 2015 is submitted 
     pursuant to section 1105(a) of title 31, United States Code, 
     a report detailing the fiscal policy that prescribes Coast 
     Guard budgetary policies, procedures, and technical direction 
     necessary to comply with subsection (a) of section 557 of 
     division D of Public Law 113-6 (as required to be developed 
     under subsection (b) of such section).
       Sec. 549. (a) Of the amounts made available by this Act for 
     National Protection and Programs Directorate, 
     ``Infrastructure Protection and Information Security'', 
     $199,725,000 for the ``Federal Network Security'' program, 
     project, and activity shall be used to deploy on Federal 
     systems technology to improve the information security of 
     agency information systems covered by section 3543(a) of 
     title 44, United States Code:  Provided, That funds made 
     available under this section shall be used to assist and 
     support Government-wide and agency-specific efforts to 
     provide adequate, risk-based, and cost-effective 
     cybersecurity to address escalating and rapidly evolving 
     threats to information security, including the acquisition 
     and operation of a continuous monitoring and diagnostics 
     program, in collaboration with departments and agencies, that 
     includes equipment, software, and Department of Homeland 
     Security supplied services:  Provided further, That not

[[Page 8084]]

     later than April 1, 2014, and quarterly thereafter, the Under 
     Secretary of Homeland Security of the National Protection and 
     Programs Directorate shall submit to the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the Senate and House of Representatives a 
     report on the obligation and expenditure of funds made 
     available under this section:  Provided further, That 
     continuous monitoring and diagnostics software procured by 
     the funds made available by this section shall not transmit 
     to the Department of Homeland Security any personally 
     identifiable information or content of network communications 
     of other agencies' users:  Provided further, That such 
     software shall be installed, maintained, and operated in 
     accordance with all applicable privacy laws and agency-
     specific policies regarding network content.
       (b) Funds made available under this section may not be used 
     to supplant funds provided for any such system within an 
     agency budget.
       (c) Not later than July 1, 2014, the heads of all Federal 
     agencies shall submit to the Committees on Appropriations of 
     the Senate and House of Representatives expenditure plans for 
     necessary cybersecurity improvements to address known 
     vulnerabilities to information systems described in 
     subsection (a).
       (d) Not later than October 1, 2014, and quarterly 
     thereafter, the head of each Federal agency shall submit to 
     the Director of the Office of Management and Budget a report 
     on the execution of the expenditure plan for that agency 
     required by subsection (c):  Provided, That the Director of 
     the Office of Management and Budget shall summarize such 
     execution reports and annually submit such summaries to 
     Congress in conjunction with the annual progress report on 
     implementation of the E-Government Act of 2002 (Public Law 
     107-347), as required by section 3606 of title 44, United 
     States Code.
       (e) This section shall not apply to the legislative and 
     judicial branches of the Federal Government and shall apply 
     to all Federal agencies within the executive branch except 
     for the Department of Defense, the Central Intelligence 
     Agency, and the Office of the Director of National 
     Intelligence.
       Sec. 550. (a) None of the funds made available in this Act 
     may be used to maintain or establish a computer network 
     unless such network blocks the viewing, downloading, and 
     exchanging of pornography.
       (b) Nothing in subsection (a) shall limit the use of funds 
     necessary for any Federal, State, tribal, or local law 
     enforcement agency or any other entity carrying out criminal 
     investigations, prosecution, or adjudication activities.
       Sec. 551.  None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used by a Federal law enforcement officer to facilitate 
     the transfer of an operable firearm to an individual if the 
     Federal law enforcement officer knows or suspects that the 
     individual is an agent of a drug cartel unless law 
     enforcement personnel of the United States continuously 
     monitor or control the firearm at all times.
       Sec. 552.  Fifty percent of each of the appropriations 
     provided in this Act for the ``Office of the Secretary and 
     Executive Management'', the ``Office of the Under Secretary 
     for Management'', and the ``Office of the Chief Financial 
     Officer'' shall be withheld from obligation until the reports 
     and plans required in this Act to be submitted on or before 
     March 14, 2014, are received by the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the Senate and the House of 
     Representatives.
       Sec. 553.  None of the funds provided in this or any other 
     Act may be obligated to implement the National Preparedness 
     Grant Program or any other successor grant programs unless 
     explicitly authorized by Congress.
       Sec. 554.  None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to provide funding for the position of Public 
     Advocate, or a successor position, within U.S. Immigration 
     and Customs Enforcement.
       Sec. 555.  None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to pay for the travel to or attendance of more than 
     50 employees of a single component of the Department of 
     Homeland Security, who are stationed in the United States, at 
     a single international conference unless the Secretary of 
     Homeland Security determines that such attendance is in the 
     national interest and notifies the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the Senate and the House of Representatives 
     within at least 10 days of that determination and the basis 
     for that determination:  Provided, That for purposes of this 
     section the term ``international conference'' shall mean a 
     conference occurring outside of the United States attended by 
     representatives of the United States Government and of 
     foreign governments, international organizations, or 
     nongovernmental organizations.
       Sec. 556.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to enter into a contract, memorandum of 
     understanding, or cooperative agreement with, make a grant 
     to, or provide a loan or loan guarantee to any corporation 
     that was convicted (or had an officer or agent of such 
     corporation acting on behalf of the corporation convicted) of 
     a felony criminal violation under any Federal or State law 
     within the preceding 24 months, where the awarding agency is 
     aware of the conviction, unless the agency has considered 
     suspension or debarment of the corporation, or such officer 
     or agent, and made a determination that this further action 
     is not necessary to protect the interests of the Government.
       Sec. 557.  None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to enter into a contract, memorandum of 
     understanding, or cooperative agreement with, make a grant 
     to, or provide a loan or loan guarantee to, any corporation 
     for which any unpaid Federal tax liability that has been 
     assessed, for which all judicial and administrative remedies 
     have been exhausted or have lapsed, and that is not being 
     paid in a timely manner pursuant to an agreement with the 
     authority responsible for collecting the tax liability, where 
     the awarding agency is aware of the unpaid tax liability, 
     unless the agency has considered suspension or debarment of 
     the corporation and made a determination that this further 
     action is not necessary to protect the interests of the 
     Government.
       Sec. 558. (a) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall 
     submit quarterly reports to the Inspector General of the 
     Department of Homeland Security regarding the costs and 
     contracting procedures related to each conference or ceremony 
     (including commissionings and changes of command) held by any 
     departmental component or office in fiscal year 2014 for 
     which the cost to the United States Government was more than 
     $20,000.
       (b) Each report submitted shall include, for each 
     conference or ceremony in subsection (a) held during the 
     applicable quarter ---
       (1) a description of its purpose;
       (2) the number of participants attending;
       (3) a detailed statement of the costs to the United States 
     Government, including ---
       (A) the cost of any food or beverages;
       (B) the cost of any audio-visual services;
       (C) the cost of travel to and from the conference or 
     ceremony;
       (D) a discussion of the methodology used to determine which 
     costs relate to the conference or ceremony; and
       (4) a description of the contracting procedures used 
     including ---
       (A) whether contracts were awarded on a competitive basis; 
     and
       (B) a discussion of any cost comparison conducted by the 
     departmental component or office in evaluating potential 
     contractors for the conference or ceremony.
       (c) A grant or contract funded by amounts appropriated by 
     this Act may not be used for the purpose of defraying the 
     costs of a conference or ceremony described in subsection (a) 
     that is not directly and programmatically related to the 
     purpose for which the grant or contract was awarded, such as 
     a conference or ceremony held in connection with planning, 
     training, assessment, review, or other routine purposes 
     related to a project funded by the grant or contract.
       (d) None of the funds made available in the Act may be used 
     for travel and conference activities that are not in 
     compliance with Office of Management and Budget Memorandum M-
     12-12 dated May 11, 2012.
       Sec. 559.  None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used for pre-clearance operations in new locations unless 
     the required conditions relative to these operations and 
     contained in the accompanying report are met.
       Sec. 560.  In making grants under the heading ``Firefighter 
     Assistance Grants'', the Secretary shall grant waivers from 
     the requirements in subsections (a)(1)(A), (a)(1)(B), 
     (a)(1)(E), (c)(1), (c)(2), and (c)(4) of section 34 of the 
     Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act of 1974 (15 U.S.C. 
     2229a).

  Mr. DENT (during the reading). Madam Chair, I ask unanimous consent 
that the bill through page 88, line 16 be considered as read, printed 
in the Record, and open to amendment at any point.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. Are there any amendments to that section?
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Sec. 561.  None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to establish, collect, or otherwise impose a border 
     crossing fee for pedestrians or passenger vehicles at land 
     ports of entry along the Southern border or the Northern 
     border, or to conduct any study relating to the imposition of 
     such a fee.
       Sec. 562.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to eliminate or reduce funding for a program, project 
     or activity as proposed in the President's budget request for 
     a fiscal year until such proposed change is subsequently 
     enacted in an appropriation Act, or unless such change is 
     made pursuant to the reprogramming or transfer provisions of 
     this Act.
       Sec. 563.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to approve a classification petition filed for or by 
     a citizen or national of Brazil in order to render such 
     individual eligible to receive an immigrant visa.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Chairman, I make a point of order against 
section 563 of this bill. The section violates clause 2 of rule XXI, 
which prohibits

[[Page 8085]]

legislative language in a general appropriations bill.
  The Acting CHAIR. Does any Member wish to be heard on the gentleman's 
point of order?
  The Chair is prepared to rule.
  The gentleman from Virginia makes a point of order that section 563 
proposes to change existing law in violation of clause 2(b) of rule 
XXI.
  As recorded in Deschler's Precedents, volume 8, chapter 26, section 
52, even though a limitation might refrain from explicitly assigning 
new duties to officers of the government, if it implicitly requires 
them to make judgments and determinations not otherwise required of 
them by law, then it assumes the character of legislation and is 
subject to a point of order under clause 2 of rule XXI.
  The proponent of a provision assumes the burden of establishing that 
any duties imposed by the provision are already required by law.
  The limitation proposed in section 563 declines to fund specified 
classification petitions filed by, or for, citizens or nationals of 
Brazil. In the opinion of the Chair, current law does not require the 
Department of Homeland Security to determine the citizenship or 
nationality of persons for whom classification petitions are filed.
  Compliance with section 563 would require the relevant Federal 
officials receiving funds in this act to make determinations regarding 
nationality or citizenship of certain persons. The proponent of this 
provision has not carried the burden of proving that the relevant 
Federal officials are presently charged with making these 
determinations.
  On these premises, the Chair concludes that the section proposes to 
change existing law.
  Accordingly, the point of order is sustained. Section 563 is stricken 
from the bill.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Oregon is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Chairman, we are debating legislation that is 
critical to the safety of all Americans. One threat that often gets 
underplayed but which has been catapulted into the news recently is 
natural disaster.
  Seventy-five percent of Americans live in areas that are at risk for 
some type of disaster--whether flood, fire, hurricane, tornado, 
landslide, or earthquake. In the past 2 years, the United States 
experienced 25 severe, extreme weather events that caused over 1,100 
fatalities, $188 billion in damages--far more than all of the domestic 
acts of terror in the last decade.
  This legislation spends $6.2 billion on disaster relief, $5.6 billion 
of which is emergency spending not subject to discretionary caps.
  I strongly support the role of the Federal Government in disaster 
response, recovery, and prevention; but the costs of disaster relief 
are staggering, and they are growing--whether due to stronger and more 
frequent storms, climate change, increased development in harm's way, 
or an increase in disaster declarations.
  To put these costs into perspective, Congress started in 2013 by 
passing the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, which generated $600 
billion over 10 years in new revenue. Two weeks later, we passed the 
Superstorm Sandy supplemental, totaling $60 billion--in total, all of 
that first year's revenue under that proposal.
  In times of budget austerity, Congress should have a full 
understanding of how much money taxpayers are spending on disaster 
relief, recovery, and mitigation. Unfortunately, these expenditures are 
far from transparent. There are wildly varying estimates of what these 
costs may be. The OMB recently estimated that the Federal Government 
spent an average of $11.5 billion per year from 2001 to 2011, but it 
included only funding specifically related to the Stafford Act and 
excluded the highest and lowest spending years, including $37 billion 
for Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.

                              {time}  1840

  Another analysis found we spent $136 billion from fiscal year 2011 to 
2013 on disaster relief, about $45 billion a year and nearly $400 per 
household per year on average. A 2005 study referenced the cost of $1 
billion per week from emergency response, public and private property 
damages, and business disruption. This calculation was made before 
Hurricane Katrina.
  An accurate and comprehensive accounting of Federal disaster 
spending, as well as an estimate of future needs, will enable this 
Congress and future Congresses to make better decisions about how much 
to budget for these events and how to prioritize scarce Federal 
dollars.
  Accurate information would also inform the ongoing conversation about 
ways to reduce this spending in the first place. Spending more money up 
front on mitigation and community resilience can reduce the need for 
disaster relief expenditures. The Multihazard Mitigation Council, in a 
congressionally mandated study, documented that $1 spent on mitigation 
saved society an average of $4 in avoided disaster costs.
  I appreciate language in this legislation requiring FEMA to submit an 
expenditure plan detailing the use of funds for disaster readiness and 
support. I think it's an important step forward. But, frankly, I think 
the reporting requirement may be too narrow.
  I would request that the chairman and ranking member would work with 
me as this legislation moves to conference to expand the scope of the 
reporting requirement. We need FEMA to look comprehensively at Federal 
spending on disaster recovery, preparedness, and, yes, possibly 
prevention, and look at spending on all Federal programs, agencies and 
departments responding to and preparing for storms, flooding, fires, 
earthquake, drought and other disasters. FEMA should examine the 
reasons behind the rising costs and provide recommendations that may 
mitigate them going forward.
  The inherent unpredictability of natural disasters makes exact 
congressional budgeting in this area very difficult, and my heart goes 
out to the committee and your staff. But it's clear disaster relief 
will continue to strain Federal budgets, particularly if the recent 
bout of extreme weather continues.
  The first step towards finding savings will be to have an accurate 
accounting of these expenditures. We should take that step now in this 
legislation, and I would look forward to working with the committee if 
you're so inclined.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CARTER. I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. CARTER. I want to thank the gentleman for his comments, and I 
appreciate your concern and agree with you this is a topic of high 
concern to everyone. As you saw, our bill contains numerous oversight 
requirements to address these issues.
  I look forward to working with the gentleman as the bill moves 
through the process to ensure that Congress has the most comprehensive 
information possible on the costs associated with natural disasters. 
And I agree that if there is a way to mitigate, we should look into 
that.
  I look forward to working with you.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CARTER. I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and 
I want to add my thanks to my colleague from Oregon for what he has 
said here tonight.
  This area of disaster relief funding is one that has challenged us 
for a long time, getting accurate predictions and estimates of the 
needs from Democratic and Republican administrations and dealing with 
this under budget pressures here in this body.
  But the baseline for any of this has got to be honest budgeting, 
realistic assessments, and we need to work on this going forward. So 
I'm interested in what the gentleman from Oregon says about the ideas 
that he has that might help us strengthen this, both the accurate 
accounting of expenditures for

[[Page 8086]]

past disasters and also a better understanding of the mitigation 
potential.
  I think both of those are important areas for exploration, and I 
certainly will work with the chairman and with him in exploring this 
going forward.
  Mr. CARTER. Reclaiming my time, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Sec. 564.  None of the funds appropriated by this Act for 
     U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement shall be available 
     to pay for an abortion, except where the life of the mother 
     would be endangered if the fetus were carried to term, or in 
     the case of rape or incest: Provided, That should this 
     prohibition be declared unconstitutional by a court of 
     competent jurisdiction, this section shall be null and void.
       Sec. 565.  None of the funds appropriated by this Act for 
     U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement shall be used to 
     require any person to perform, or facilitate in any way the 
     performance of, any abortion.
       Sec. 566.  Nothing in the preceding section shall remove 
     the obligation of the Assistant Secretary of Homeland 
     Security for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to 
     provide escort services necessary for a female detainee to 
     receive such service outside the detention facility: 
     Provided, That nothing in this section in any way diminishes 
     the effect of section 565 intended to address the 
     philosophical beliefs of individual employees of U.S. 
     Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
       Sec. 567. (a) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall 
     submit to Congress, at the time that the President's budget 
     proposal for fiscal year 2015 is submitted pursuant to 
     section 1105(a) of title 31, United States Code, a 
     comprehensive report on purchase and usage of ammunition by 
     the Department of Homeland Security, that includes--
       (1) mission requirements pertaining to ammunition, 
     including certification, qualification, training, and 
     inventory requirements for each relevant Department component 
     or agency and a comparison of such requirements to the 
     requirements of Federal law enforcement agencies of the 
     Department of Justice and the military components of the 
     Department of Defense; and
       (2) details on all contracting practices applied by the 
     Department of Homeland Security to procure ammunition, 
     including comparative details regarding other contracting 
     options with respect to cost and availability.
       (b) Beginning on April 15, 2014, and quarterly thereafter, 
     the Secretary of Homeland Security shall submit a report to 
     Congress that includes --
       (1) the quantity of ammunition in inventory in the 
     Department of Homeland Security at the end of the preceding 
     calendar quarter, subdivided by ammunition type, and how such 
     quantity aligns to mission requirements of each relevant 
     Department of Homeland Security component or agency;
       (2) the quantity of ammunition used by the Department of 
     Homeland Security during the preceding calendar quarter, 
     subdivided by ammunition type, the purpose of such usage, the 
     average number of rounds used per agent or officer subdivided 
     by ammunition type, and how such usage aligns to mission 
     requirements, including certification, qualification, and 
     training requirements, for each relevant Department of 
     Homeland Security component or agency; and
       (3) the quantity of ammunition purchased by the Department 
     of Homeland Security during the preceding calendar quarter, 
     subdivided by ammunition type, and the associated contract 
     details of such purchase, for each relevant Department of 
     Homeland Security component or agency.

                             (rescissions)

       Sec. 568.  Of the funds appropriated to the Department of 
     Homeland Security, the following funds are hereby rescinded 
     from the following accounts and programs in the specified 
     amounts:  Provided, That no amounts may be rescinded from 
     amounts that were designated by the Congress as an emergency 
     requirement pursuant to a concurrent resolution on the budget 
     or the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 
     1985 (Public Law 99-177), as amended:
       (1) $14,500,000 from Public Law 111-83 under the heading 
     Coast Guard ``Acquisition, Construction, and Improvements'';
       (2) $21,612,000 from Public Law 112-10 under the heading 
     Coast Guard ``Acquisition, Construction, and Improvements'';
       (3) $41,000,000 from Public Law 112-74 under the heading 
     Coast Guard ``Acquisition, Construction, and Improvements'';
       (4) $32,479,000 from Public Law 113-6 under the heading 
     Coast Guard ``Acquisition, Construction, and Improvements''.

                              (rescission)

       Sec. 569.  From the unobligated balances made available in 
     the Department of the Treasury Forfeiture Fund established by 
     section 9703 of title 31, United States Code, (added by 
     section 638 of Public Law 102-393) $100,000,000 shall be 
     permanently rescinded.

                       spending reduction account

       Sec. 570.  The amount by which the applicable allocation of 
     new budget authority made by the Committee on Appropriations 
     of the House of Representatives under section 302(b) of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974 exceeds the amount of 
     proposed new budget authority is $0.

  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Madam Chair, I'd like to thank Chairman Carter and 
Ranking Member Price on behalf of the residents of our region: New 
York, New Jersey, Connecticut, and the east coast.
  Mention was made of disasters, and I want to thank the chair and all 
the committee members, and certainly the big chair, Chairman Rogers, 
but particularly the Homeland Security Appropriations Committee for 
their working with us on behalf of our residents who continue to 
suffer. I just want to take this opportunity to thank you and show our 
appreciation.
  There were some tough decisions that had to be made, and we are 
especially grateful to the staff of both sides of the aisle that worked 
with us to make life a little more bearable for our residents. And 
since this is the first appropriations bill since Hurricane Sandy, I 
just want to express my appreciation.
  Also, Madam Chairman, I come from a 9/11 State. This committee is 
very important to urban areas. In this bill are greater protections for 
the residents of major cities and metropolitan areas. I'd also like to 
express my appreciation to Chairman Carter and Mr. Price for making 
sure that different grants are there for first responders. If there are 
manmade disasters or any type of disasters, the funds are there.
  I appreciate this opportunity, and I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. CONNOLLY. Madam Speaker, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. CONNOLLY. I rise to invite the distinguished chairman of the 
committee and the ranking member to engage in a colloquy.
  As a Member that represents a large technology community in northern 
Virginia, I share Chairman Carter and Ranking Member Price's urgency 
for cultivating a robust cyber workforce, and I appreciate the 
committee's thoughtful report language identifying this as a Homeland 
Security priority, with specific actions for the Department to pursue 
so that they can lead by example. I look forward to working with them 
and their staffs on this vital initiative.
  With that, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of our colloquy 
be entered into the Record at this point.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman may not enter a colloquy into the 
Record.
  Mr. CARTER. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. CARTER. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Virginia and 
assure him that we will continue to work together on this issue.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONNOLLY. Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to strike the 
last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from Virginia?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. CONNOLLY. Madam Speaker, I rise to invite Chairman Carter to 
engage in a colloquy.
  Chairman Carter and Ranking Member Price have done a lot of good work 
to craft this bill in a bipartisan fashion that strengthens our ability 
to provide for the safety and security of our constituents' 
communities.

                              {time}  1850

  As you know, this is a shared responsibility with local and State 
governments. I'm pleased to see this year's bill makes a significant 
investment in supporting the public safety activities of those 
partners. I rise to call attention to the elimination of the Office of

[[Page 8087]]

National Capital Region Coordination and ask the committee's assistance 
in ensuring the department not only maintain, but demonstrably improve 
its collaboration with our local and State partners in the absence of 
this stand-alone office.
  I share the committee's concerns with the performance of the Regional 
Coordination Office, which according to multiple GAO reports, has 
fallen considerably short of its goals. Two natural disasters of 2011--
a record snowstorm and an earthquake--showed that gaps in regional 
communication and coordination unfortunately still exist in the 
National Capital Region.
  During my tenure on the Fairfax Country Board of Supervisors, I was a 
founding member of the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments' 
Emergency Preparedness Council. The attack on the Pentagon on 9/11 
revealed gaping holes in even basic communication between the Federal 
Government and regional partners. For example, following the attack, 
the Federal Government allowed early release of all of its workforce 
with zero coordination with local governments, thus creating some of 
the worst gridlock in the history of Washington, D.C. Thankfully, a 
proposal to also close Metro that day was rejected or the situation 
would have been even worse.
  This is not just any region of the country. This is the Nation's 
capital, and the number of Federal assets throughout the region demands 
that the Federal Government play an active role in coordinating 
preparedness and response efforts with our local and State partners. In 
fact, section 882 of the National Security Act of 2002 specifies that 
the department help assess, advocate for, and assist our State and 
local partners.
  I would ask the chairman of the committee if it is the committee's 
intent to hold the department responsible for fulfilling those 
functions without this standalone office?
  Mr. CARTER. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CONNOLLY. I yield to the chairman.
  Mr. CARTER. Madam Chair, I appreciate the gentleman's question. The 
committee has long expressed concerns with the operation of the 
National Capital Region Coordination Office, and numerous GAO audits 
have confirmed our concerns that the office has been underperforming 
its potential to improve regional preparedness coordination. I share 
the gentleman's desire to improve collaboration across the National 
Capital Region with the Federal Government, and I know Administrator 
Fugate is committed to doing just that. I am confident that the 
coordination responsibility outlined in section 882 can be fulfilled 
within this reorganization under the Office of the Administrator.
  Ranking Member Price and I are committed to making sure FEMA acts on 
the recommendations of the GAO to better meet with the requirements, 
and we will work to include you and other members of the National 
Capital Region delegation in that effort.
  Mr. CONNOLLY. I thank the distinguished chairman.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CONNOLLY. I yield to the ranking member.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I just want to echo the chairman on this 
point. We will work together and with you and with Administrator Fugate 
to ensure that FEMA meets its coordination responsibilities with regard 
to the National Capital Region.
  Mr. CONNOLLY. I thank the distinguished chairman and the 
distinguished ranking member and their staffs, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word in order to 
enter into a colloquy with Chairman Carter.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The gentleman from 
Oklahoma is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. COLE. As many people in this Chamber and around the country know, 
Oklahoma has had a particularly devastating period of time, and I want 
to begin by just thanking my colleagues on both sides of the aisle and, 
through them, their constituents for their prayers and their sympathy 
and their help because we certainly have received an extraordinary 
amount of help from the American people, from the administration, and 
from my colleagues here in this Chamber.
  While most people have focused on the damage in my hometown of Moore, 
we actually had, Mr. Chairman, three tornadic events. On May 19, the 
towns of Shawnee and the small communities of Carney and Little Axe 
were hit. Two people died, hundreds of homes were destroyed, and there 
was extensive damage. The second one was the next day, the second 
episode, hitting the towns of Newcastle and Oklahoma City, in addition 
to my hometown of Moore, and that one cost the lives of 24 people, and 
I'll talk about that in just a second.
  And then we had a third outbreak on May 31 that hit El Reno, 
Oklahoma, and parts of Oklahoma City that are in my district. This area 
actually spreads across several congressional districts. The first 
episode was largely in Mr. Lankford's district, the second largely in 
mine, and the third actually hit Mr. Lucas's district, Mr. Lankford's 
district, and my district.
  The single greatest loss of life, of course, was in my hometown of 
Moore. And so my colleagues understand the extent of the disaster, we 
not only had 24 dead, including 10 children, we had 33,000 people 
displaced in a town of 55,000; that is, they literally are not sleeping 
tonight where they were sleeping on the night of May 19. In addition, 
we lost two elementary schools, a school administration building, 
extensive damage to three other schools, the hospital, the U.S. Post 
Office, and hundreds and hundreds of businesses. So the employment base 
of the community was devastated as well.
  The full extent of the physical damage in this area alone is not yet 
known. The initial estimates by the Oklahoma insurance commissioner are 
somewhere between $2 billion and $4 billion, but it will take awhile to 
actually get through this.
  I have spent a lot of the last few days visiting with the people in 
the communities involved, particularly in Moore, but also in Little Axe 
and Newcastle and Oklahoma City, the other areas. Without the tireless 
efforts of the first responders from all of these communities and the 
surrounding area, we simply wouldn't have gotten through the horror of 
the experience.
  The communities in question are extraordinarily close-knit and, 
sadly, are quite experienced in this kind of activity. My hometown of 
Moore has actually been hit by six tornadoes in 15 years, including two 
F5s, the highest category. One of the tornadoes in question, this 
latest incident, was actually the largest ever recorded, 2.5 miles 
across, with wind funnel speeds of up to 295 miles an hour. So it is 
extraordinary to behold.
  As I understand it right now, as best we can estimate, there are no 
current needs for additional disaster funding; but the possibility, 
obviously, of other disasters and hurricanes, fires, earthquakes, what 
have you, the rest of the fiscal year always raises the possibility 
that the resources that are available will be strained, and I want to 
make it very apparent that if that were to happen, I will certainly be 
looking forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle to ensure that should similar misfortune befall other areas, that 
they, too, have the help that they need.
  If I may, I yield at this time to my friend, the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Carter), the chairman of the Homeland Security Subcommittee on 
Appropriations.
  Mr. CARTER. I thank my good friend, Mr. Cole, for yielding.
  The bill before us today builds on our actions of last year and 
includes robust funding for FEMA in the disaster relief category, 
funding that will most definitely assist those who lost so much in 
Oklahoma over the last few weeks.
  As of this morning, the Disaster Relief Fund currently has a balance 
of approximately $11 billion, which is sufficient to address the needs 
of Oklahoma and other recent disasters.
  As Oklahoma begins the road to recovery, I will continue to work with

[[Page 8088]]

the gentleman to ensure we are doing everything that we can to help the 
devastated communities. Our hearts go out to those folks.
  Mr. COLE. I want to thank my friend from Texas whom I had the 
opportunity to confer with during recent days for his kind support and 
assurances. I know my friend would appreciate this. We sort of think of 
ourselves as Scotland to your England. And in football season, I always 
remind people that the Red River was an international border for 42 
years, and every October it is again. But the reality is, when you're 
in a tough situation, you don't have any better neighbors in the world 
than our friends from Texas. And not just on this floor, but the 
outpouring particularly from our neighboring State in terms of 
volunteers and contributions, and, honestly, from all across America, 
has been extraordinary.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCHNEIDER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. SCHNEIDER. I rise to lend my support to the underlying bill we 
are debating today. The Homeland Security appropriations measures make 
key investments in technology for our first responders, disaster relief 
funding for our communities, and critical grant funding for our local 
fire departments.

                              {time}  1900

  It is the centerpiece for how we invest, not only in our national 
security, but also in the security of our local communities.
  Earlier this year, the district I represent was severely affected by 
regional flooding that damaged hundreds of homes and businesses. The 
impacts on families is a human one. Many lost their homes. Many lost 
their business and may not be able to reopen. This terrible situation 
highlights the tremendous need for disaster relief that is 
comprehensive and far-reaching.
  FEMA helped many in my district to recover a small piece of their 
lives after the storms; and, consequently, I am happy to see that the 
committee included $6.2 billion in disaster relief funding. This 
funding will be critical as we, in Illinois, continue the effort to 
rebuild our communities affected by the flooding, as well as for those 
in Oklahoma, New Jersey, and other areas as they rebuild after natural 
disasters.
  I also applaud efforts by the committee to support $1.5 billion 
allocated for FEMA State and local grant programs. Specifically, I 
would like to highlight a program that addresses the distinctive 
security needs of nonprofit groups, helping at the local level to 
safeguard human life and property against credible threats to the 
safety of our communities.
  The Urban Area Security Initiative provides a funding source for 
targeted nonprofit groups to invest in their own security. These 
grants, typically utilized by churches, synagogues and community 
centers, are designed to acquire and install equipment that can help 
prevent and mitigate terrorist attacks in our communities.
  Organizers use these grants to make capital improvements, such as 
installing security cameras, physical barriers, or controlled-entry 
systems, safeguards that can make a difference in deterring threats.
  Recent incidents in Boston, New York, Wisconsin, and New Jersey 
highlight that credible threats to these pillars of our communities 
exist. The need for these grants is clear, and the impact in our 
communities can be profound.
  I would like to thank the committee for its support of these critical 
programs that can be utilized by States and local groups to address 
emerging threats and security concerns specific to their circumstance. 
I appreciate the bipartisan work done on this important bill.
  I yield back the balance of my time.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Garrett

  Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Chair, 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 by the Transportation Security Administration or a 
     Visible Intermodal Protection and Response (VIPR) team to 
     conduct a security screening other than pursuant to section 
     44901 of title 49, United States Code.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Chairman, the TSA is not just for airports anymore. 
For years the TSA has deployed Visible Intermodal Prevention and 
Response, or VIPR teams, to conduct literally thousands upon thousands 
of unannounced, random sweeps of mass transit locations, ferry 
terminals, and highways across the country.
  And while VIPR teams can show up virtually anywhere at any time, 
these random searches are typically not in response to any specific 
threat whatsoever.
  And if you look into some of their team actions, they demonstrate 
this is really not security; this is just security theater.
  For example, back in 2011, VIPR teams searched passengers at an 
Amtrak station in Georgia after the people had gotten off the trains 
and, obviously, they served absolutely no purpose with regard to 
security whatsoever.
  And if you think that you can escape the TSA and keep some of your 
integrity intact by simply not going to the airport anymore, by taking 
a bus, a train, driving your car, well, you're sorely mistaken. VIPR 
teams now randomly are pulling cars and trucks off the road. They did 
it down on Tennessee highways where they did a search, costing the 
drivers there countless hours and fuel as well.
  And VIPR teams conducted a similar operation to search vehicles 
leaving a port down in Brownsville, Texas.
  You see, the reach of the Transportation Security Administration, the 
TSA, has now expanded to such other areas and has even moved beyond 
transportation and has moved into sports stadiums as well.
  How do we know that?
  There was an article in, if no place else, the Huffington Post, where 
they reported back in January that the TSA was patrolling the Metrodome 
in Minnesota following a Vikings/Packers game. And you have to ask 
yourself, to what end?
  A Los Angeles Times article revealed, despite conducting thousands 
upon thousands of operations:

       TSA officials say there is absolutely no proof that these 
     roving VIPR teams have foiled any terrorist plots or thwarted 
     any major threat to public safety.

  You see, Mr. Chairman, we cannot afford to continue to fund a program 
that, by its very own admission, has absolutely no record whatsoever of 
preventing a threat to public safety. And that is why I'm offering this 
amendment, to prevent funds from being made available to the VIPR teams 
to conduct searches outside of an airport.
  As we come to the floor, always as good stewards of American 
taxpayers, Congress should not fund the expansion of TSA 
responsibility, especially when we know these operations are more 
appropriately handled by local law enforcement agencies at the various 
levels of government.
  This, I think, is truly a commonsense approach. This is a commonsense 
amendment, and it helps the TSA do its core function more efficiently 
and protect American air travelers.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CARTER. I rise in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. CARTER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to work with 
the gentleman on this issue, but I cannot accept this amendment.
  Following the 2004 Madrid train bombing and the 2005 London bombings 
that targeted civilians using public transportation, Visible Intermodal 
Prevention and Response, or VIPR teams, were developed to allow TSA to 
utilize Federal, State, and local law enforcement to protect our 
Nation's transportation system, including securing our surface 
transportation systems from the threat of terrorism.
  TSA's Surface Transportation Security is responsible for assessing 
the

[[Page 8089]]

risk of terrorist attacks for all non-aviation transportation modes. 
And the VIPR teams, which are specifically authorized in the 9/11 Act, 
play an important role in protecting our Nation's surface 
transportation systems.
  Simply put, the presence of these teams is intended to promote 
confidence in our Nation's transport system by preventing terrorism to 
any mode of transportation, including surface transportation. Now is 
not the time to eliminate this important program which serves to secure 
our surface transportation systems from acts of terrorism.
  Mr. GARRETT. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CARTER. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. GARRETT. So I agree with the gentleman that we should add 
confidence to our travelers; but I would ask the gentleman from Texas 
what confidence can we have in a program that, by its own admission, 
says they have not foiled a singular terrorist plot; by its own 
admission says that they are screening people after they got off the 
train instead of before they get on; by its own admission says that 
these programs are not mandatory, and that means that when you go to a 
rail station, and you see them there, if you were a true terrorist then 
you would say, I'm not going to get in that line, I'm going to go over 
in that line.
  Mr. CARTER. Reclaiming my time, let me say that I listened to what 
you said before, and you don't need to be repetitive. I understand your 
concerns. And quite honestly, they're valid concerns; and I will, as 
chairman of this committee, with the assistance of Mr. Price, look into 
these arguments that you have made.
  But at this time I cannot accept your amendment. And I don't need to 
hear the arguments a second time to accept your amendment. So I'm 
opposed to this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I want to join the 
chairman in opposing this amendment. This amendment would prohibit any 
funding from being utilized by our mobile Visible Intermodal Protection 
and Response teams, the VIPR teams.
  These teams provide the ability for TSA to randomly screen passengers 
on mass transit and in our airports. They also work in concert with 
State and local law enforcement agencies. They provide a surge capacity 
beyond the local capability in order to be able to respond to 
intelligence information and special situations.
  It's also important that exercises be conducted on a regular basis in 
order to test the concept of operations and develop the essential 
working relationship with local authorities.
  As the chairman indicated, in our assessments after the attacks in 
Madrid and London, it became clear that we lacked the capability, 
lacked the ability to rapidly respond to threats quickly and to react 
with a show of force against potential threats. That's precisely the 
purpose of these VIPR teams.
  The concept was authorized specifically by section 1303 of the 9/11 
Act, a bill that passed this House with 371 votes.
  We will address these problems, as the chairman has indicated, 
problems that the gentleman has identified, problems that deserve to be 
addressed. We will address the issues that you raise.

                              {time}  1910

  You, obviously, have legitimate concerns. But none of what the 
gentleman has said is an argument for eliminating the funding and for 
removing an important deterrent capability.
  I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. GARRETT. I appreciate the fact that you would take a look at 
this. Would that this be the first time that I brought this bill to the 
floor and raised the egregious examples by the TSA in the past, I would 
hold some more weight to that, the fact that you would look at it. But 
this has been going on for years now.
  To your point saying that we need them when there are specific 
threats, what TSA has told us is they're not doing this when there are 
specific threats. They're doing them random. They're going into sports 
stadiums for no particular reasons. They're going along highways for no 
particular reasons. They're stopping trucks for no particular reasons. 
Not because of a specific threat, but just because of random 
applications of it.
  If this was a situation where we said we know there was a known 
attack coming or something of that sort and you want to apply it there, 
that would be one thing. But that's not what TSA does.
  At this point in time, we are living in a country where, if you want 
to travel, you can go to the airport and they can say, you can't travel 
unless you go through TSA. But if I want to visit my mom in Florida, 
they can go to the train station and tell me I can't get on a train 
without going through TSA. And I can go to a bus station, and they can 
say I can't go on a bus without going through TSA. And I can get into 
my car and they can tell me that I cannot go in a car without going 
through TSA.
  We have come to a point I cannot travel in this country without some 
Federal agency actually stopping me.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Reclaiming my time, with all due 
respect, I believe the gentleman is exaggerating the kind of situation 
that ordinary travelers encounter. I also understand, and hope he does, 
that these VIPR teams, if there's going to be the search capacity, if 
they're going to be there to respond to specific intelligence 
information, then they're going to have to remain in operation. It's 
certainly warranted for random collection and checking situations that 
may be problematic. I'm not saying there would never be abuses, never 
be intrusive behavior. But we need to correct that, not to come in with 
a meat ax and eliminate the funding.
  So I simply reiterate my opposition to the amendment and ask our 
colleagues to vote against it.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey 
will be postponed.


               Amendment No. 12 Offered by Mr. Pierluisi

  Mr. PIERLUISI. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  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, with respect to the use of 
     amounts made available by this Act for the ``Salaries and 
     Expenses'' and ``Air and Marine Operations'' accounts of U.S. 
     Customs and Border Protection 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 the Puerto 
     Rico Trust Fund pursuant to such provisions of law.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Puerto Rico is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. PIERLUISI. Mr. Chairman, I offered this amendment last year, and 
it was adopted by voice vote. However, it was not included in the final 
Consolidated Appropriations Act enacted in March.
  The homicide rate in Puerto Rico is about three times higher than any 
State, and most of these murders are linked to the international drug 
trade.

[[Page 8090]]

Appropriately, the Federal Government is allocating substantial 
resources to combat drug trafficking organizations operating in the 
Central American corridor and along the Southwest border. However, 
those organizations are adapting, returning to smuggling routes through 
the Caribbean region that were heavily utilized in the 1980s and 1990s. 
As a result, the Coast Guard seized or disrupted over 17,000 pounds of 
drugs in the vicinity of Puerto Rico in 2012, a 600 percent increase 
over the previous year.
  DEA seizures rose nearly 100 percent. CBP seizures were up nearly 40 
percent. And in 2012, CBP seized more drugs in Puerto Rico than it did 
along the 180-mile border between Mexico and New Mexico. Meanwhile, the 
street price of drugs in Puerto Rico has decreased. This is a security 
problem of national scope, given that 80 percent of the drugs that 
enter Puerto Rico are subsequently transported to the U.S. mainland, 
where they destroy communities and lives.
  Through various bills and accompanying reports, the House 
Appropriations Committee has expressed a view that DHS and DOJ should 
prioritize counterdrug efforts in the U.S. Caribbean to respond to the 
current crisis. As a case in point, the report for the 2013 DHS 
appropriations bill stated that the public safety and security issues 
of the U.S. territories in the Caribbean must be a priority, and that 
the committee expects the Secretary of Homeland Security to allocate 
resources, assets, and personnel to these jurisdictions accordingly.
  U.S. Customs and Border Protection is on the front lines of the 
counterdrug fight. The agency has hundreds of personnel stationed in 
Puerto Rico. My amendment is designed to address a problem that arose 
in fiscal year 2011, one that continues to compromise the ability of 
CBP to carry out its vital counterdrug 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 
in Puerto Rico, including the maritime operations of CBP's Office of 
Air and Marine.
  For many years, this arrangement worked well enough. However, because 
of a shortfall in the Puerto Rico Trust Fund of $1.7 million due to 
reduced customs collections in fiscal year 2011, CBP closed a critical 
boat unit in San Juan that in 2010 seized over 7,000 pounds of illegal 
drugs. CBP took this drastic action because it 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.
  The amendment would simply give CBP the authority to supplement any 
funding from the Trust Fund with general appropriations made in this 
bill. This would make it easier for CBP to avoid any further reductions 
to its operations in Puerto Rico and, ideally, enable the agency to 
enhance those operations. The need for this amendment is underscored by 
the fact that the President's fiscal year 2014 budget predicts Trust 
Fund receipts of $98 million, which is $8.1 million less, or nearly 8 
percent below Trust Fund receipts in fiscal year 2012.
  I look forward to working with the chairman and the ranking member to 
ensure that this amendment, if adopted, remains in the final bill this 
year and to continuing to work with them to ensure the Department of 
Homeland Security, including CBP, has the resources it needs to 
adequately address the border protection challenges and drug-related 
violence in Puerto Rico.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CARTER. I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. CARTER. Mr. Chairman, I accept this amendment, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I, too, commend the gentleman for his 
amendment and urge its adoption.
  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. Grimm

  Mr. GRIMM. 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 implement any change in the list of sharp objects 
     prohibited under section 1540.111 of title 49, Code of 
     Federal Regulations, from being carried by passengers as 
     accessible property or on their person through passenger 
     screening checkpoints or into airport sterile areas and the 
     cabins of a passenger aircraft, as published in the Federal 
     Register on August 31, 2005 (70 Fed. Reg. 51679).

  Mr. GRIMM (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent 
the amendment be considered as read.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from New York?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. GRIMM. I rise today in support of my amendment that would 
prohibit any funds made available by this act from being used by TSA to 
implement changes to the current list of prohibited carry-on items for 
air travel.

                              {time}  1920

  Specifically, this amendment would stop TSA from allowing knives back 
on planes for the first time since the terrorist attacks of September 
11, 2001.
  Today, following months of outrage from nearly every corner of the 
aviation community, and with our amendment looming tonight to block the 
policy, TSA abandoned its proposal to allow knives back on planes. I do 
commend TSA for reversing its irresponsible decision for one that is 
smart and prudent. However, we still need to pass this amendment 
tonight to make sure this is the law of the land and ensure that there 
will not be another reversal in the TSA's position regarding knives on 
planes.
  We live in a post-9/11 world, and there is no excuse to take 
liberties when it comes to public safety. As a former Federal law 
enforcement agent, I know firsthand that even a two-inch knife can 
cause very serious harm when used by a trained individual. There's 
simply no place for a knife in an airplane cabin; and if one must 
travel with a knife, then they can check it in a bag.
  Over the last 2 months, my colleagues and I have heard from flight 
attendants, air marshals, pilots, TSA screeners, and a whole host of 
airlines who are all 100 percent in agreement that allowing knives to 
be brought into the cabin of passenger planes is dangerous, it's 
unnecessary, and it's irresponsible.
  Further, we've heard a chorus of objections to TSA's misguided 
proposal from groups such as the Coalition of Flight Attendants Union, 
Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, Coalition of Airline 
Pilots Association, and American Federation of Government Employees, 
along with American Airlines, Delta Airlines, United Airlines, U.S. 
Airways and, most importantly, the American people. Their opposition 
makes it clear that permitting knives on planes creates unnecessary 
risk for airline passengers and those serving them at 30,000 feet.
  In advocating for this change, TSA Administrator Pistole has stated: 
``There have been no attempts by terrorists to use a knife to commit a 
terrorist act aboard an aircraft since
9/11.'' Well, the way I see it, this should be a great indicator that 
the current policy is working and needs to be kept in place and not 
repealed. Simply stating that there haven't been any terrorist attacks 
with knives on planes since 9/11 does not mean that the terrorists 
won't carry them out in the future.

[[Page 8091]]

  I want to thank my cosponsors of this amendment--Representatives 
Markey, Cook, Swalwell, Reed, Ros-Lehtinen and Wasserman Schultz--who 
have stood in strong opposition to TSA's decision to jeopardize 
America's security.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SWALWELL of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SWALWELL of California. Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman from New 
York pointed out, over the last 11 years we have had zero attacks on 
our airlines where a knife was involved. Zero attacks. That number 
cannot get better. However, as we saw on September 11, that number--
tragically--can get much worse.
  So I rise in support of the Grimm-Markey-Cook-Swalwell-Reed-Jackson 
Lee amendment, which would prevent the Transportation Security 
Administration from changing its prohibitive item list--also known as 
the PIL--and allowing small knives on airplanes. I want to thank the 
amendment's cosponsors for their hard work on this issue.
  I also want to thank TSA Administrator John Pistole. Administrator 
Pistole announced today that the TSA will not allow knives on 
airplanes. I think this is a strong step forward. And after listening 
to the stakeholders, his position is now that these knives should not 
be on airplanes.
  Like many Americans in our country, I was deeply concerned and 
confounded when the administrator announced that they would consider 
allowing knives on airplanes. We saw after September 11 that, as my 
friend from New York mentioned, zero attacks occurred in our country.
  We do now have new threats. The threat from liquids or IEDs could 
seriously jeopardize the safety of airlines and the passengers who ride 
on them. However, just because we have new threats that are posed 
against our airline safety does not mean that we should no longer 
consider old threats. The TSA must learn how to walk and chew gum at 
the same time.
  So I was proud to work with my friend from New York to organize a 
letter, along with Congressman Thompson, as our ranking member on 
Homeland Security, and objected to that policy--in particular, the 
failure of the TSA to consult with the key stakeholders who would be 
most affected by this change, such as flight attendants, passenger 
safety groups, and transportation screening officers as well. The 
letter had a total of 133 Members signing on to it. Congressmen Grimm 
and Markey also organized a subsequent letter with a similar number of 
Members who signed on to it.
  Just like my friend from New York, I also worked in law enforcement 
prior to coming to Congress. I worked as a local deputy district 
attorney in the district attorney's office in Alameda County. I also 
served under this Capitol dome as an intern when September 11 happened. 
I know what terrorists can do if they have a mission to hurt 
passengers. I also know, as a prosecutor, what a knife can do in a 
close, confined area. It's not difficult then to understand why so many 
Members chose to sign on to our letter.
  TSA's mission, I want to remind the people of this body, is not only 
to protect the airline passengers from a terrorist attack; it's also to 
protect passenger safety in general.
  TSA justified its decision by saying that it would allow the TSOs to 
move more quickly. However, when you put a limit now on what length of 
knife would be allowed, what the TSOs effectively become are NFL 
referees measuring first downs. You can imagine the scene. You have a 
knife coming through. The TSO can't determine how big it is, so he's 
got to take out the measuring tape, holding up a long line, preventing 
him from looking at liquids or other explosives and whether they could 
bring down an airline. And then he's got to declare if it's allowed or 
not, all the while bags are still moving through to be screened. This 
would actually make it harder to detect liquids than make it easier, as 
the TSA had announced.
  Had the TSA meaningfully consulted with the stakeholders before 
announcing its proposal, these issues would have been addressed. But I 
do appreciate Administrator Pistole and his decision to put the policy 
on hold to give more time for input. And I appreciate his decision 
today stating that he no longer will allow knives on board.
  Our amendment reaffirms the current ban of knives on planes. It would 
prohibit the TSA from making the change it had proposed and now has 
backed away from.
  Our amendment is supported by a number of groups, including the 
Coalition of Flight Attendants Union, International Association of 
Machinists and Aerospace Workers, International Brotherhood of 
Teamsters, Coalition of Airline Pilots Association, and American 
Federation of Government Employees.
  It's important that we pass this amendment today to show that the 
House stands with these groups and the flying public in rejecting 
knives on airplanes.
  I again want to thank my colleagues who are cosponsors of this 
amendment--Mr. Grimm from New York, Mr. Markey, Mr. Cook, Ms. Jackson 
Lee and Mr. Reed. I appreciate their efforts.
  I encourage all Members to support our amendment, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. To the managers of this important legislation, to 
Judge Carter and to Mr. Price, thank you for working on what is an 
enormously important message and mission of our Nation, and that is to 
secure America.
  I'm grateful to have the opportunity to work with the authorizers, 
Chairman McCaul and Ranking Member Thompson, and to work with the 
ranking member and chairperson of the Subcommittee on Transportation 
Security, Mr. Hudson and Mr. Richmond.
  Having just flown in from a memorial, and as Members often do, and as 
we interact with our constituents, we know a lot about flying. So it is 
very important that this amendment be taken as it has been offered.
  I congratulate my cosponsors--Mr. Grimm, Mr. Markey, Mr. Reed, Mr. 
Swalwell and Mr. Cook--all of whom we have worked together with.
  For it is interesting that this has come to a point where today we 
can thank Administrator Pistole for his thoughtfulness in this process 
and the deliberations that took place, that the announcement comes that 
he too understands that allowing knives on planes is not the right 
decision.
  But in addition to the important statement of knives, we now know 
that other accessories, such as baseball bats and billiard cues and ski 
poles and hockey sticks and lacrosse sticks, among others, and golf 
clubs, likewise have been included in his statement.
  This amendment deals with knives. The reason why this is very 
important is because we should reaffirm the fact, as a member of the 
Homeland Security Committee--and for many of us who started on this 
committee after the heinous tragedy of 9/11, many of us who went to 
Ground Zero during the recovery period because of the horrific tragedy, 
smoke was still billowing from those terrible tragic issues--we too 
know what homeland security is. It is a promise to America to do 
everything we can to ensure the security of the homeland.

                              {time}  1930

  And so it is important to take note of Administrator Pistole's very 
thoughtful concern, and that concern, of course, was the idea of 
security. This amendment will give comfort to the issue of security.
  We know there are issues of safety. We want to make sure that 
seatbelts are on, and we want to make sure that seats work and bathroom 
doors work on a plane in flight. We want to make sure that passengers 
remain in seats during difficult weather.
  But security is an important question. And today, this amendment 
takes a stand for security. I am glad that after 9/11 we did have 
reinforced doors for the cockpit, we did have the ability

[[Page 8092]]

of pilots to be trained and to be able to have weapons on board behind 
that cockpit--all in the name of security. Well, let me tell you, that 
a knife that has been measured by the eye, that then is allowed to get 
on the plane, it can be a weapon against security.
  And today, we are saying that we need to codify in law the idea that 
knives will never be allowed to be on planes. Human beings are in the 
cockpit, our very able pilots. And flight attendants and passengers, 
grandmas and family vacationers and college students and business 
persons and our warriors, both wounded and not, and many others travel 
on airplanes, going home to loved ones, traveling to funerals, and 
going to joyful occasions.
  It is very clear that a knife can be a threat to security. It can be 
a threat to security because, in fact, even as our valiant flight 
attendants who have been given required flight attendant training, 
which we are continuing to work on, they will be the first to stand up 
against an individual attempting to take a plane or to be able to 
threaten all of the passengers, to create an insecure atmosphere. And 
who knows what pilots will be thinking of, will be required to do? Who 
knows what an unmanned, un-air marshaled plane, or even one with an air 
marshal, will do when there are a number of those who are on the flight 
with knives.
  So I ask my colleagues to vote for security and vote for the Grimm-
Markey-Jackson Lee-Reed-Swalwell-Cook amendment to keep knives off of 
planes.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chair, I want to thank Congressman Markey, Grimm, Wasserman 
Schultz, Ros-Lehtinen, Reed, Swalwell, and Cook, my co-sponsors on this 
important and bipartisan amendment.
  This simple, commonsense amendment, which will keep knives off 
commercial airplanes, will save lives and increase air transportation 
security by making it the law of the land.
  Mr. Chair, this amendment is needed because on March 5, 2013, the 
Transportation Security Administration publicly announced its intention 
to permit passengers, effective April 25, 2013, to bring previously 
banned items in their carry-on baggage when boarding flights.
  Under the new policy proposed by TSA, prohibited items that would be 
permitted effective that date include items that are potentially 
dangerous, even lethal, to passengers, flight attendants, pilots, and 
Federal air marshals, including hockey sticks, lacrosse sticks, golf 
clubs, and, alarmingly, some knives.
  Those of us who were in the Capitol that day remembered with shock 
and horror how the terrorists who attacked the United States of America 
on September 11, 2001, used box cutters, small knives, and razor blades 
to threaten and overpower crew members and pilots on commercial 
airplanes in order to gain access to the cockpits.
  After learning of the action contemplated by TSA, me and more that 
135 of my House colleagues wrote the TSA Administrator and urged him 
unsuccessfully to reconsider changing the PIL to permit knives on 
planes.
  In light of this unhelpful response, I introduced H. Res. 156, a 
bipartisan resolution with my colleague, Congressman Grimm of New York, 
which expresses the House's disapproval of the Transportation Security 
Administration's decision to modify the prohibited items list, set to 
take effect on April 25, 2013, that would allow passengers to bring 
small knives in their carry-on baggage.
  More importantly, the resolution strongly expressed the sense of the 
House that TSA delay any changes to the Prohibited Items List 
indefinitely and should conduct a formal engagement process involving 
all of the affected stakeholders and has meaningful consultations with 
affected air travel industry stakeholders, including flight attendants.
  After engaging in the process called for in my resolution, TSA today 
announced that it was abandoning its efforts to change the PIL to 
permit knives on planes.
  Mr. Chair, allowing passengers to carry knives on planes could be 
fatal to flight attendants.
  Beyond the terrorist threat posed by knives on planes, knives can 
become deadly threats in the hands of unruly passengers.
  Changing TSA policy to allow knives on planes is not efficient.
  Instead of the simple rule of ``No Knives,'' TSA screeners will be 
required to check for all of the parameters set by the TSA as 
acceptable. This will increase waiting times, not shorten them.
  Mr. Chair, on April 9, 2013, the nation was reminded of the terrible 
harm that small knives can inflict on victims when a mass stabbing 
occurred on the campus of Lone Star College in Houston, Texas, which is 
in my congressional district, during which the suspect used a razor 
utility knife and severely injured 14 people.
  The American public, air travel industry stakeholders, and Federal 
air marshals strongly disapprove of allowing knives on planes because 
it puts their lives at risk.
  This amendment enhances security and will save lives. That is why it 
is necessary and supported by:
  Coalition of Flight Attendants Unions
  Association of Professional Flight Attendants
  Association of Flight Attendants-CWA
  IAMAW (Machinists and Aerospace Workers)
  Transport Workers Union Local 556, International Brotherhood of 
Teamsters
  Coalition of Airline Pilots Association
  American Federation of Government Employees.
  I urge all Members to join us in supporting this amendment.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of the 
Grimm amendment to the FY 2014 Department of Homeland Security 
Appropriations Bill. I'm proud to be a cosponsor of this amendment 
which would prohibit the Transportation Security Administration from 
moving forward with a policy to allow knives to be carried on to 
airplanes.
  While I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, I commend the 
TSA for their announcement today that they will no longer pursue a 
policy to allow knives in carry-on luggage on planes. TSA is putting 
public safety first with this decision. They are listening to the 
serious concerns raised by flight attendants, pilots, TSA screeners, 
air marshals, airlines, and the American public.
  It is our job to ensure that government takes commonsense measures to 
increase the safety of our commercial air transportation system. While 
we can never ensure complete safety, prohibiting passengers from 
bringing knives onto planes is a reasonable post-9/11 measure that 
should be kept in place.
  Safety should always be our number one priority when evaluating 
changes to airline policy. I commend TSA for their commitment to 
keeping our skies and the American public as safe as possible.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Grimm amendment.
  Mr. CARTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. CARTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I am also not going to 
object to this amendment given TSA's decision of this afternoon, the 
decision that has, I believe, made the amendment largely irrelevant. I 
do want to express my appreciation for the concerns addressed here 
tonight by the sponsors of this amendment and the stakeholders that 
many of us have heard from.
  I want to take just a second, though, to underscore that TSA did not 
propose these changes haphazardly. The proposal that is being attacked 
here tonight and that has been reversed here today by the agency, that 
proposal was the result of a risk-based approach to TSA's security 
requirements.
  I also remind the House that the current TSA administrator, Mr. 
Pistole, is a 26-year veteran at the FBI. I've been impressed by his 
willingness to stand by the data, stand by what objective analysis 
dictates, whether that means reconsidering a regulation or insisting 
that it remain in place.
  Since the International Civil Aviation Organization changed its 
standards to prevent passengers from carrying small pocketknives in 
2010, more than 5 billion commercial airline passengers on a flight 
originating outside the United States have traveled without incident.
  And I do think it's ironic, Mr. Chairman, that after all these years 
of Members complaining about long wait times and passengers having to 
take off their shoes and their coats and their belts, they have to take 
out those laptops, take out those liquids, that TSA now does something 
to speed up security

[[Page 8093]]

lines and suddenly Members want to reverse that decision on the floor 
of this House. I hope we are not going to get into the habit of 
overturning risk-based decisions, threat-based decisions on the floor 
of this House.
  But as I say, the amendment before us is now largely irrelevant, so I 
have no objection to its adoption, and I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Grimm).
  The amendment 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 pay the salary of any officer or employee of the 
     Department of Homeland Security who approves any of the 
     following petitions:
       (1) A Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and 
     Immigration Services, Form I-130, Petition for Alien 
     Relative, in a case in which Brazil is the beneficiary's 
     place of birth (as provided on such form).
       (2) A Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and 
     Immigration Services, Form I-129F, Petition for Alien 
     Fiance(e), in a case in which Brazil is the alien fiance(e)'s 
     country of citizenship (as provided on such form).
       (3) A Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and 
     Immigration Services, Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for 
     Alien Worker, in a case in which Brazil is the country of 
     citizenship or country of nationality (as provided on such 
     form) of the alien for whom the petition is being filed.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, as has been read, this doesn't allow 
petitions for relatives, fiances, or workers coming from Brazil.
  And I first want to say thank you to Judge Carter--Chairman Carter--
and Mr. Price. We passed a very similar amendment out of the 
Appropriations Committee that was dinged here a little bit earlier. 
This is a narrowly tailored version of that.
  I rise today not because I want to. Many of us come here because we 
want to offer amendments. I don't necessarily want to offer this 
amendment. But I'm offering this amendment on behalf of Major Karl 
Hoerig. And I would like to tell the House of Representatives a brief 
story about Karl, who flew 200 missions for our country in Iraq and 
Afghanistan.
  On March 10 of 2007, Major Karl Hoerig's wife went out and bought a 
.357 Magnum and went to a shooting range. She purchased ammo and asked, 
``what ammo can I buy here that best kills.'' Two days later, Claudia 
Hoerig shot Major Karl Hoerig in my congressional district.
  She fled to Brazil, where she was from. She could not be extradited, 
so we were told, because we don't have a treaty with Brazil in order to 
extradite their citizens, which would make sense. But later throughout 
the investigation, we found out that in August of 1999 Claudia Hoerig 
renounced her Brazilian citizenship and said she was a citizen of the 
United States, which gives us every right to have her come back and 
extradited back to the United States.

                              {time}  1940

  Now, this woman shot a war hero. She renounced her Brazilian 
citizenship, and she now is drinking Rum Runners in Rio de Janeiro, 
walking around freely in Brazil while Carl Hoerig's family is sitting 
in Newton Falls, Ohio--his brother, his parents--wondering why we can't 
bring this woman back into the United States for justice.
  Now, many people would say, Well, why are you offering an amendment? 
Why are you trying to defund visas? It's because I've been working on 
this since 2007. I've got a stack of letters here that go back to 
Alberto Gonzales--now, many Members of this Congress don't even know 
who he was--then Condoleezza Rice, then Secretary Clinton, on and on 
and on to try to get the attention of people, and it takes an amendment 
in the Appropriations Committee to say we're not going to be able to 
fund visas anymore.
  I don't have any problem with Brazil--we've got a good relationship 
with them--but they have a woman who killed one of our airmen who flew 
200 missions to Iraq and Afghanistan. If you want to talk about a safe 
haven: if the kids from the Boston massacre a few weeks back instead of 
going to the 7-Eleven had got on a flight and had gone to Brazil, 
they'd be sitting in Brazil right now, and we wouldn't be able to get 
them back here.
  I recognize that these are extraordinary actions, but there is a long 
process ahead before this bill becomes law. We've gotten the 
Brazilians' attention, and now it's time for us not to take the 
pressure off, but to allow this process to continue until Claudia 
Hoerig is back in the United States and getting prosecuted in Trumbull 
County, Ohio.
  It should be known, too, to this House that al Qaeda is setting up 
shop in Brazil--planning attacks, training people in Brazil right now--
and we have no mechanism. If someone were to commit a terrorist act 
here in the United States and flee to Brazil, we would not be able to 
get him back.
  I think this amendment sends a signal to the Brazilians, hopefully in 
the long term, to renegotiate treaties and to talk of extradition, but 
also in the short term to get Claudia Hoerig back into the United 
States. I would just like to end, Mr. Chairman, with a quote from Carl 
Hoerig's dad, Ed Hoerig.
  He said:

       Our government is supposed to be the most powerful country 
     in the world, and they are turning their back on a 25-year 
     veteran. It's wrong. When you say the Pledge of Allegiance, 
     the last sentence is `` . . . and justice for all.'' They are 
     turning their back on my son's justice.

  Let's right this wrong, Mr. Chairman, and pass this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.

                [From the Weekly Standard, Apr. 7, 2011]

                          Al Qaeda in Brazil?

                          (By Jaime Daremblum)

       The Brazilian magazine Veja is reporting that al Qaeda 
     members have established an active presence in South 
     America's largest country, as have militants associated with 
     Hezbollah, Hamas, and other terrorist groups. They are 
     apparently engaged in fundraising, recruitment, and strategic 
     planning. Earlier this week, Aldo Donzis, a leading figure in 
     the Argentine Jewish community, spoke to the JTA news agency 
     and voiced alarm about the revelations.
       ``We have high concern about fundamentalist movements in 
     Latin America and about recruitment activities of 
     fundamentalist movements,'' Donzis said. ``We shared this 
     information with Latin American parliamentarians last July 
     and they agreed with our information. But the situation is 
     getting worse. In Argentina, we have seen graffiti written in 
     Arabic calling for jihad which coincided with the visit of 
     Iranians here. Also, this graffiti was seen in Bolivia. We 
     understand that Brazil needs to feel worried and act.''
       Terrorists have long found haven in South America's so-
     called Triple Frontier, which encompasses the intersection of 
     Brazil, Argentina, and Paraguay. This area is known for being 
     a Wild West of lawlessness, drug trafficking, and organized 
     crime. Argentina is especially sensitive to increased 
     terrorist activity in the region. During the 1990s, it 
     suffered two deadly bombings orchestrated by Hezbollah and 
     Iran. The first (in 1992) destroyed the Israeli embassy in 
     Buenos Aires; the second (in 1994) demolished a Jewish 
     community center in the same city.
       Speaking of Iran, the head of U.S. Southern Command, 
     General Douglas Fraser, testified before the Senate Armed 
     Services Committee on Tuesday and declared that ``Iran 
     continues expanding regional ties to support its own 
     diplomatic goal of reducing the impact of international 
     sanctions connected with its nuclear program. While much of 
     Iran's engagement in the region has been with Venezuela and 
     Bolivia, it has nearly doubled the number of embassies in the 
     region in the past decade and hosted three regional heads of 
     state in 2010.''
       General Fraser expressed concern that ``there are flights 
     between Iran and Venezuela on a weekly basis, and visas are 
     not required for entrance into Venezuela or Bolivia or 
     Nicaragua.'' He also confirmed that ``members of violent 
     extremist organizations from the Middle East remain active in 
     Latin America and the Caribbean and constitute a potential 
     threat. Hezbollah supporters continue to raise funds within 
     the region to finance their worldwide activities. Several 
     entities affiliated with Islamic extremism are increasing 
     efforts to recruit adherents in the region, and we continue 
     to monitor this situation closely.''
       Yet another reason for the Obama administration to rethink 
     its passive approach to Latin America.


[[Page 8094]]

                   [From the Telegraph, Apr. 3, 2011]

               Brazil Latest Base for Islamic Extremists

                            (By Robin Yapp)

       With preparations for the 2014 World Cup in Brazil and the 
     2016 Olympic Games in Rio de Janeiro well under way, security 
     experts have expressed fears that terrorists are ``taking 
     advantage'' of weaknesses in the country's laws.
       Brazil has not passed any specific anti-terrorism 
     legislation, does not recognize Hezbollah or Hamas as 
     terrorist groups and disbanded the Federal Police's anti-
     terrorism service in 2009.
       Now, Veja, a weekly news magazine, has had access to 
     reports compiled by the service as well as documents about 
     the terrorist threat sent to Brazil by the FBI, CIA, Interpol 
     and the US Treasury.
       It says the papers show 21 men linked to Islamic extremist 
     groups including al-Qaeda, have been using Brazil for various 
     purposes including controlling inflows of money and planning 
     attacks.
       They include Khaled Hussein Ali, who was born in Lebanon 
     but now lives in Sao Paulo, Brazil's biggest city, from where 
     he runs an internet cafe.
       However, according to Veja he is also in control of an 
     online communications arm of al-Qaeda called Jihad Media 
     Battalion, which has a presence in 17 countries around the 
     world and spreads communications from al-Qaeda leaders as 
     well as publicising attacks.
       Another of those named is Mohsen Rabbani, an Iranian wanted 
     by Interpol as the suspected architect of bombings on Jewish 
     targets in Buenos Aires in the 1990s that killed 114 people.
       According to the documents, he frequently slips in and out 
     of Brazil on a false passport and has recruited at least 24 
     youngsters in three Brazilian states to attend ``religious 
     formation'' classes in Tehran. ``Without anybody noticing, a 
     generation of Islamic extremists is appearing in Brazil,'' 
     said Alexandre Camanho de Assis, who co-ordinates Brazil's 
     network of public prosecutors across 13 states.
       The papers also show that the US Treasury described the 
     poorly policed Tri-border area, where Brazil, Argentina and 
     Paraguay meet, as a ``financial artery'' for Hizbollah. 
     Daniel Lorenz, a former head of the Federal Police's 
     intelligence department and now Security Secretary for the 
     Federal District, that includes the capital Brasilia, warned 
     that Brazil risks being caught out. ``The terrorists are 
     taking advantage of the fragility of Brazilian legislation,'' 
     he said.

  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. I must reluctantly oppose this amendment. I 
do not want to minimize in the least the unacceptable nature of the 
present state of affairs, and I do not want to minimize in the least 
the brute fact that a murderer is presently escaping justice. I also do 
not want to minimize the service that this man gave to our country. As 
a chaplain in the Air Force and as a pastor for over 11 years, it has 
been, unfortunately, my duty on many occasions to have to deliver news 
of one who has either been killed in action or of one who has died 
tragically. With that, my heart bleeds and my heart hurts for this 
family. In this situation, I commend my friend from across the aisle 
for his dedication to bringing this person to justice; and right now 
there is the inescapable fact of a problem going on.
  However, the remedy proposed by the author of this amendment raises 
issues of such magnitude that they need to be resolved through regular 
order, through the Judiciary Committee's hearing and markup process.
  I, personally, pledge to work with Mr. Ryan to examine in the 
Judiciary Committee the issues of foreign nations' compliance with 
extradition requests. On behalf of Chairman Goodlatte, I pledge to 
examine the possibility of withdrawing the right of nationals of non-
cooperating countries to enter the U.S. Certainly, our Crime 
Subcommittee has the expertise on the extradition issue and the 
Immigration and Border Security Subcommittee has the expertise on 
immigration.
  This is not the first time we have faced such troubling issues. For 
instance, it is very often the case that foreign nations refuse to 
accept the return of their citizens who have been ordered deported to 
the U.S. The DHS' Office of Inspector General reported:

       As of June 2004, more than 133,662 illegal aliens with or 
     pending final orders of removal had been apprehended and 
     released into the United States . . . unlikely to ever be 
     repatriated if ordered removed because of the unwillingness 
     of their countries of origin to provide the documents 
     necessary for repatriation.

  Some of those aliens, from countries such as China, have gone on to 
kill Americans once released.
  Last Congress, the Judiciary Committee considered legislation by Mr. 
Poe that would have withheld temporary visas from nationals of 
countries that would not accept back their deported citizens. It is 
important to note that the legislation would not have just impacted a 
single foreign country, but would have penalized all bad actors on an 
equal basis.
  I do need to mention that there are also humanitarian concerns with 
implementing this amendment. In 2012, over 11,000 Brazilians received 
green cards--immigrant visas. Among these Brazilians were 8,000 
``immediate relatives'' of U.S. citizens--the spouses, minor children 
and parents of U.S. citizens. So we just have to keep in mind that by 
enacting this amendment we would be preventing thousands of U.S. 
citizens from reuniting with their Brazilian spouses, children, and 
parents.
  Again, it is with a hurt heart that I have to rise in opposition to 
this amendment, but the good intentions of the gentleman from across 
the aisle do not override the larger concerns when dealing with this 
proposition in the issue of your amendment. So with that and for these 
reasons I have set out, I must oppose this amendment, but I do look 
forward to working to resolve this distressing situation with the 
author.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. RICHMOND. I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Louisiana is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. RICHMOND. I stand in support of my colleague from Ohio.
  Part of being a legislator and part of having the responsibility of 
being elected to this body and representing people back home is you 
have the use of the tools that are in front of you to accomplish the 
goals that you need to accomplish. As we stress regular order and as we 
talk about the Judiciary Committee, right now, today--right here on the 
floor of this House--we have the ability as Congressmen to make a 
difference for a family whose hero was killed. We know who the 
perpetrator is, and nothing is being done about it.
  So I share in my colleague's frustration, and I yield to the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan).
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I thank the gentleman, and I am going to be brief.
  Again, I want to thank Chairman Carter, and I want to thank Mr. Price 
and just say that I believe this is a homeland security issue. This is 
an appropriate venue for that. As the gentleman from Louisiana said, 
there is a level of frustration here because we have been working on 
this, pursuing regular order now since 2007, and we have gotten 
nowhere. As I said, this woman is walking around in Brazil as a free 
woman when Carl Hoerig, who flew almost 200 missions for our country, 
is dead.
  This process has a long way to go. We're not anywhere close to this 
bill's becoming law. We've got a lot of time between today and that 
day. So let's work today to try to increase the pressure to try to get 
justice for Carl Hoerig and to try to make this situation right.
  Again, I thank everyone. I don't want to be here offering this 
amendment, because of the situation; but I promised this family I would 
do everything in my power to get justice for their son and to get this 
woman. So help me God, I'm going to do everything I can to get this 
woman back here whether it's this bill or bills in the future. So I ask 
the Members of this House to please, please, please support this 
amendment on behalf of Carl Hoerig in his service to our country.
  Mr. RICHMOND. I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SALMON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Arizona is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. SALMON. I would like to commend the gentleman from Ohio for

[[Page 8095]]

standing so strong for an American patriot. I believe his motives are 
extremely noble and good, but I don't believe this is the right way to 
handle it.
  I am the chairman of the Western Hemisphere Subcommittee on Foreign 
Affairs. Brazil comes under my purview. While we have points of trouble 
with all of our bilateral relationships, we don't necessarily throw the 
baby out with the bath water.

                              {time}  1950

  This is an extreme measure. It would punish a lot of very innocent 
people who my colleague spoke of right before me, innocent people that 
are trying to immigrate or come work or study in the United States from 
Brazil.
  I want to commit to the gentleman from Ohio that, as the chairman of 
the Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere, I will do everything within 
my power to work with him, if it requires hearings, whatever it takes. 
I want to help you bring justice. I do not believe that this is the 
right way to do it. In fact, I think it would be very counterproductive 
in our relationship with Brazil.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. 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 Ohio will be 
postponed.


                 Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Cassidy

  Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  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. 5__.  None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to implement, carry out, administer, or enforce 
     section 1308(h) of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 
     (42 U.S.C. 4015(h)).

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Louisiana is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. Chairman, the Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform 
Act was passed in order to make the flood insurance program both 
actuarially sound and functionally sound. And we hope that it is on 
track to make it actuarially sound, but it is not functionally sound, 
so this attempts to address this.
  What this bill would do is that section 207--and only 207--would not 
allow it to be implemented for 1 year. After that, it would begin to be 
implemented.
  Let me first say that the CBO has scored this as zero, and it has no 
impact upon the Federal Treasury.
  The reason to do this, though, is that FEMA does not yet have the 
methodology by which to implement this program. Indeed, there was a GAO 
report from 2008 which shows that FEMA's rate-setting process warrants 
attention. As it turns out, they haven't updated it since 2008. So 
their over 20-year methodology still does not apply.
  As it turns out, families are being terribly affected. There's one 
family in Louisiana which has never flooded and yet has a 6,000 percent 
increase in their premium. Clearly, this has grave implications for 
this family, but, as it turns out, it has turned their whole real 
estate market upside down. People can't build and people can't sell. 
There is an uncertainty there created by the implementation of this 
particular section.
  Let me emphasize that this is only section 207. All other sections 
continue, and the CBO score is zero.
  Knowing that others would like to comment upon this, I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. RICHMOND. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Louisiana is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. RICHMOND. Back home, I've talked to thousands of my constituents 
and had thousands of my constituents talk back to me, scream back to 
me, and cry in my arms because of the impact of this legislation. Right 
now what they're facing is a double whammy when it comes to flood 
insurance. They face the likelihood of higher rates and incorrect flood 
maps.
  FEMA has drafted new maps that completely ignore the facts on the 
ground. The maps disregard nonstructural features, like marshland and 
forest and our investment into restoring our coast. It also ignores the 
investment and sacrifices by locals to build their own levees. These 
communities are investing in their own safety, in their own security, 
and FEMA should recognize that.
  In many of these communities, like the west side of St. Charles 
Parish, the levees are more than 100 years old, and many of these 
communities have not flooded in 100 years. If that's not 100-year flood 
protection, I don't know what is.
  You see, for too long, the National Flood Insurance Program wasn't on 
stable footing. Since the last long-term authorization expired in 2008, 
we had to pass nine short-term extensions. During that time, the 
program lapsed five times. The last time, in June of 2010, 
approximately 47,000 home sales were delayed or canceled.
  Due to the leadership of my colleague, Representative Waters, last 
July we passed the Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act. The bill 
put the program on stable footing for 5 years, but the rate increases 
FEMA has quoted are astronomical and unintended. Homeowners who played 
by the rules and built their homes according to the guidelines in place 
are being told that their insurance is going to go up hundreds of 
percent. What is even more shocking is that many of these homes have 
never flooded.
  For instance, a homeowner in St. Charles Parish, Louisiana, who was 
paying $338 per year for flood insurance will now have to pay $23,000 
per year with new maps. Another homeowner in the same town will go from 
$365 to $28,000 per year.
  If this stands, people will be forced to give up their homes, 
burdening the banks and killing the real estate markets. We cannot, in 
good conscience, stand here and let this law force people to give up 
their homes, to give up on the American Dream and destroy hardworking, 
taxpaying citizens. these taxpayers depended on and followed the rules 
and lost. We cannot turn our backs on them.
  I have a bill that will fix much of this without a score, and I'm 
proud that Representative Waters and the entire Louisiana delegation 
have signed on. The homebuilders and the Realtors support this 
amendment and my bill.
  This amendment would give homeowners immediate relief. Therefore, I 
urge you to join me in supporting this amendment so that we can fix 
these issues while keeping the National Flood Insurance Program on sure 
footing and make sure that we don't leave hardworking families across 
the Nation on their own. Because, as we come here and do things in 
theory, a lot of times we miss what happens in reality and what's on 
the ground; and if the we don't change this law, reality is going to 
set in and people are going to lose their homes. They won't be able to 
sell them, and we will create another disaster of national proportion 
with unintended consequences that we never tried to do.
  I ask that we support my colleague in this amendment, and I yield 
back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Chairman, this kind of reminds me of a story 
about a World War I Navy veteran that went back home to Ware County 
where he loved to coon hunt. And this gentleman, after having being 
injured, got a wooden peg leg. One day, he took his boys out. They were 
all around the campfire. It was kind of cool that night. They were 
waiting for the dogs to tree one. So he got a little bit close to the 
fire, and it burned about 8 inches off of his wooden peg. So all of a 
sudden, the hounds start baying, and he

[[Page 8096]]

gets up and starts running. He ran about 20 yards and turned around and 
said, ``Watch out, boys. There's a hole every other step.''
  There's some holes in what this amendment is trying to do. First of 
all, you've got to remember that this bill was just passed a year ago, 
and it was the Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform bill, where we're 
trying to reform the flood insurance program. Let me remind people that 
406 Members voted in favor of this, and every Member that I see down 
here that is talking to try to relieve this voted for the bill. 
Everybody in the Louisiana delegation, everybody in the Mississippi 
delegation, everybody in the New York delegation--with the exception of 
one--and everybody in the New Jersey delegation voted for it.
  This bill was passed by a unanimous vote, bipartisan, because 
everybody realized, especially after the effects of Katrina and others, 
where, in 2005, before Katrina, they had a credit card limit of $1.5 
billion, after Katrina, we raised that credit card limit to $20 
billion. After Sandy, we raised the credit limit another $10 billion. 
So right now we've got $30 billion on our credit card. And you know 
what? In 2017, that has to go back to $1 billion.
  If you look at the amount of money that we've had to borrow to pay 
for this--and I voted for the $9.7 billion because it's an obligation 
that I think that we had to the people that had flood insurance. That 
was an obligation that we have.
  But the way most insurance works is that if you are at a higher risk, 
you pay a higher premium. If, for some reason, my car keeps running 
into things accidentally, my car insurance is probably going to go up. 
And anybody that has extenuating circumstances, whether you're in a 
fire zone or whatever it is, your insurance rates are based on that.

                              {time}  2000

  The difference is, unfortunately, that the government fashioned, the 
government-run flood insurance program does not require homeowners in 
flood-prone areas to pay for their fair share. In fact, premiums in 
flood-prone areas are so low that FEMA has needed a bailout, as I 
mentioned, three times in the last 8 years.
  Due to FEMA's failures last year, Congress passed a bipartisan 
Biggert-Waters bill of insurance reform. It was supported, as I 
mentioned, by these delegations. This landmark 5-year authorization is 
something that even people here said, We need to do this. In fact, I 
will quote:
  It is imperative that Congress act as quickly as possible to pass a 
5-year extension of flood insurance so that policyholders can have some 
assurance moving forward.
  This is by one of the authors of the amendment.
  Section 207 does something that no other flood bill has done before. 
It says that homeowners in flood zones must pay an amount that 
accurately reflects their risk of flooding. Notably, Congress 
recognized this section may place a burden on some homeowners in flood-
prone areas. So, to address this concern, section 207 specifically 
stated that the rate increase must be phased in over 5 years, not to 
exceed a 20 percent increase each year. The outcome is commonsense 
reforms that are supported by Republicans and Democrats, alike, that 
balance concerns of homeowners and taxpayers.
  Now, I'm no supporter of the government-mandated flood insurance, but 
these are bipartisan reforms that you don't often see passed in 
Washington. Let's don't back up. Let's keep going forward. The Biggert-
Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act was designed to get FEMA out of this 
constant bailout, but to be fair to people who experienced frequent 
flooding. Importantly, these bipartisan reforms were enacted less than 
a year ago in the Financial Services Committee. We have not even held a 
hearing on the implementation. This does not need to be in an 
appropriations bill. It needs to go back to Financial Services and let 
us look at it.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment offered 
by the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Cassidy). I am pleased to say that 
my colleagues, Mr. Cassidy and Mr. Richmond, and I have worked to 
address this important issue in an ongoing, bipartisan way.
  The National Flood Insurance Program was created in 1968 after record 
flooding led the private sector to abandon the flood insurance market 
and stop writing flood insurance policies. The program is a key 
component of the Federal Government's efforts to minimize the damage 
and financial impact of floods. It is the only source of insurance 
against flood damage for most residents and provides much-needed 
coverage for 5.5 million homeowners and their families.
  This is why I worked across the aisle with my colleague, 
Representative Judy Biggert, to reauthorize this program. Before this 
reauthorization, the flood insurance program was plagued by repeated 
lapses in authority, placing many local communities at risk. During 
those lapses, FEMA was not able to write new policies, renew expiring 
policies, or increase coverage limits, causing great uncertainty for 
millions of homeowners who depend on the program's existence.
  The Biggert-Waters bill was instrumental in stabilizing the flood 
insurance program. It provided a 5-year reauthorization and made 
critical improvements to the program. The reforms in Biggert-Waters 
gave communities more input into flood maps and strengthened the 
financial position of the flood insurance program.
  In drafting this bill with then-Chairwoman Judy Biggert, I sought to 
strike the right balance between protecting homeowners and 
strengthening the flood insurance program. This law was intended to 
reauthorize the flood insurance program in a sustainable way. The 
intent was not to impose punitive or unaffordable rate hikes that could 
make it difficult for some to remain in their homes. You heard the 
testimony from Mr. Richmond about the incredible increases in the 
premium costs. This is why I am extremely concerned about reports that 
homeowners in certain areas are facing high and unsustainable flood 
insurance rates.
  I have committed to work with FEMA and with my colleagues here in 
Congress to address this unintended consequence of this otherwise 
helpful legislation, so I am supporting the gentleman's amendment 
today. This would prohibit FEMA from using funds made available in this 
act to implement one provision from Biggert-Waters that has raised an 
unintended consequence and requires further study before being 
implemented.
  While the gentleman's amendment is a positive first step in 
addressing this issue, more needs to be done.
  Last month, my friend from Louisiana, Mr. Richmond, and I introduced 
H.R. 2199, the Flood Insurance Implementation Reform Act of 2013, a 
bill on which Mr. Cassidy is an original cosponsor, that would take 
additional steps to provide meaningful relief and address the issue of 
affordability. The bill would delay implementation of changes to 
grandfathered rates, the subject of Mr. Cassidy's amendment, for 3 
years instead of 1 year. It would also delay implementation of the rate 
changes that FEMA is currently rolling out.
  I look forward to continuing to work with my friends on both sides of 
the aisle to ensure that the Biggert-Waters Act is implemented in a 
balanced way to ensure the flood insurance program's stability and 
affordability. FEMA's current implementation schedule would upset that 
delicate balance and unintentionally impact families and local 
communities.
  For these reasons, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to 
support H.R. 2199 and to also vote ``aye'' on this amendment.
  Let me just say to those who would represent that we all voted for 
it: so since we voted for it and we worked together, we worked across 
the aisle, Democrats and Republicans working together, that somehow we 
can't make amends or changes that are desperately

[[Page 8097]]

needed, working together. I think it is extremely important when you 
have Mr. Cassidy over there and you have Waters over here, one of the 
original authors of the bill, who are talking about something has 
happened, unintended consequences that have taken place that will cause 
homeowners to lose their homes.
  Now, it's easy if this does not happen in your communities or in your 
districts. But, ladies and gentlemen, I want you to know that this is 
an interdependent business that we're in, and to the degree we 
recognize other people's problems and we're willing to stand up and 
give support, particularly when it talks about homeownership, when it 
talks about that which is so important to all of us, that we should 
work together, and I would urge an ``aye'' vote.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. MULVANEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from South Carolina is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  Mr. MULVANEY. I rise today to speak against the amendment. And I 
think there's one thing that has been overlooked in this debate so far, 
Mr. Chairman, which is not only was this provision in the bill 
originally in order to bring sustainability to the flood program, it 
was also designed to bring fairness to the flood program.
  What do I mean by that?
  Yes, the original bill was designed to raise flood rates on some 
people. It was also designed to lower them on other people. You heard 
the gentleman from Louisiana properly state that this amendment would 
have no score, have no impact. The CBO scored it at zero. No impact on 
the deficit; no impact on spending. Absolutely true.
  The underlying language in the bill was scored the exact same way. 
When we passed this bill last year, that provision scored out at zero 
because the CBO assumed, on its own--it's not required by statute to do 
this, but it did this on its own. The CBO assumed that when rates went 
up on some people, they would go down on others. That seems to make a 
lot of sense; doesn't it? That we would have an insurance program that 
would actually charge folks more who are in riskier areas, but also 
seek to charge people less who are in less risky areas. I think that's 
important. I think it bears stating that if this amendment passes, yes, 
folks who live in high-risk areas will see lower premiums, but the 
folks who live in low-risk areas will see higher premiums.
  We have a chance here to bring some sanity to something in a 
government program. We have a chance to bring reason and rational 
thought to this government program by saying people who are in riskier 
areas should pay more. Are there protections there? Yes. Are they 
necessary? Absolutely. But at the end of the day, this program was 
designed to bring some sanity to this flood program, which is why so 
many people, myself included, voted for this originally.
  I absolutely think this is well-intentioned. I disagree with the 
impression that these are unintended consequences. These are the exact 
intended consequences of the underlying bill, that we would simply 
charge folks who are in risky areas more.

                              {time}  2010

  If you live 7 feet below sea level in New Orleans, your rates 
probably should go up. If you live 600 feet above someplace else, your 
rates possibly should go down.
  I think it's important to know that, yes, there are people in my 
State who will pay more because of this law. There are also people in 
my district who will pay less, and that will be turned on its ear if 
this amendment passes.
  So I would encourage us to consider that what we did last year was 
accurate and correct and brought some much-needed sanity to this 
program.
  With that, I yield the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman, to the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland).
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  And let me just say that, you know, FEMA--this does not go into 
effect this year. In fact, the Louisiana FEMA has been told not to give 
out these rates because they don't know, they've been trying to do a 
flood map for 30 years.
  Now, if we think a 1-year extension is going to help them, we're 
misleading ourselves. And, in fact, from my legislative experience, 
when you extend it for 1 year, then you're asked to extend it again. 
Look at the student loans. We extended it for 1 year, now they want to 
extend it for 2 more. It's a constant extension.
  My experience has been most court cases are settled on the courthouse 
steps when the pressure is put on both people to settle.
  I think that this is bringing to a head the fact that FEMA needs to 
get their act together, along with the Corps, and get these flood maps 
done. By us giving them another year extension, it's not going to do 
anything but delay us getting these updated maps for another year. I 
promise you, that's the way government works.
  So we need to understand that, on the one hand, we're saying, well, 
FEMA has given out all these new rates. It's going to go to 20,000 
bucks or whatever it is.
  But on the same hand we're saying hey, they don't have the capability 
of doing a flood map. You can't have it both ways. You know, either 
FEMA can do it or they can't do it.
  But we need to do this through the Financial Services Committee, 
where the ranking member, the gentlelady from California, was a big 
part of what we did in the Biggert-Waters bill. And so why don't we 
take it and go back through Financial Services, where this bill came 
from, rather than trying to do it through an appropriations bill?
  That's the reason this process is so messed up here that we try to do 
things like this.
  So, my concern is that this is the wrong place to try to amend this 
bill. We need to have hearings. We need to have oversight of FEMA and 
find out how the implementation of this bill is going, and put the 
pressure on FEMA and the Corps to finally get these maps straightened 
out.
  But for somebody to have a home that's 7 feet below flood level and 
pay $329 a year in a premium doesn't make sense.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRIMM. I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. GRIMM. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the amendment 
offered by my friend and colleague, Mr. Cassidy. I'd also like to thank 
my colleagues across the aisle, Ms. Waters and Mr. Richmond, for their 
support.
  I do want to clarify one thing, because I think that the statement 
was made that it's not an unintended consequence for premiums to go up 
and go down, and that is true. But the unintended consequence that 
we're speaking about is the consequence that many of those that have 
lived in these areas for 40 or 50 years are suddenly going to lose 
their homes because of an extreme rise in premiums upwards of $15,000 
and more. So that's the unintended consequence. I just wanted to make 
sure that that was clear.
  And I know this, not because I, myself, live on the coast in a flood 
area, but because Superstorm Sandy left a trail of utter destruction in 
New York City, particularly in Staten Island and parts of Brooklyn, a 
destruction that was absolutely unprecedented in the city's history.
  Tens of thousands, tens of thousands of my constituents found 
themselves homeless. Their lives were turned upside down, and they're 
wondering how they're ever going to rebuild or ever move forward. Quite 
simply, many of my constituents lost everything to Superstorm Sandy, 
and it will be years before their lives return to any sense of what I 
would consider normal.
  So to ask these victims of a natural disaster who find themselves in 
this horrible position, through no fault of their own, to pay upwards 
of $15,000 a year in a flood insurance premium so soon after this 
disaster took everything from them amounts to nothing more than them 
being victimized yet again.

[[Page 8098]]

  So if these premiums were to go into effect, the reality is simple. 
For many of my constituents, they're going to find themselves unable to 
pay both their mortgage and their flood premiums. And their property, 
in the best case scenario, will lose considerable value. But in the 
worst case it will become completely worthless. This, to me, is 
unacceptable.
  And this is why I support delaying the implementation of section 207 
of the Biggert-Waters Act, so that Congress will have the time to 
reexamine and look at these rate increases and consider ways to ensure 
the future viability of the flood insurance program while, at the same 
time, ensuring that flood insurance remains affordable to those that 
need it most.
  So I ask my colleagues to consider all that these individuals have 
been through, all that they have lost, and bring some understanding to 
the unintended consequence of not only losing everything they've ever 
owned, but now, because of flood premiums, possibly losing the entire 
value of their home.
  So I ask for their support on this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. MURPHY of Florida. I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. MURPHY of Florida. I yield my time to Ranking Member Maxine 
Waters.
  Ms. WATERS. Thank you very much.
  I would like to thank Mr. Grimm for his eloquent description of 
precisely what can happen and what is happening, and his plea to all of 
us to ensure that we don't place people in the position of losing their 
homes because they cannot afford these extraordinary increases in 
premiums.
  I met with residents from Plaquemines Parish who came to the Congress 
of the United States. All the elected officials and community leaders 
came together, and they came here to make a plea to us to understand 
that, with this increase in premiums, they certainly can't afford it, 
and they can't afford to sell it because nobody is going to buy it.
  So Mr. Grimm talked about victimization and the fact that we would be 
victimizing people who are victims of natural disasters twice, and 
that's precisely what it's all about. And I think that we are more 
caring than that.
  I think that we understand that there's still a lot of things to be 
worked out. The flood maps have not been completed. The pricing has not 
been really dealt with, and so I think we need time. We need time in 
order to answer these questions, to deal with the complexities of what 
we're trying to do.
  I think we can stabilize flood insurance. I think that is possible. 
But I, as one of the authors of this bill, I'm also making a plea to 
say that we did everything that we could to try and have a bill that's 
sustainable, that's viable, that makes good sense.
  But as we review what is going on and the risk and the harm that 
people are now confronted with, we're saying, let's take a step 
backwards for a short period of time and let's give these victims, and 
other victims in other areas of this country, an opportunity to at 
least hold on to their homes and not have them literally taken away 
from them because we didn't realize these unintended consequences.
  Mr. MURPHY of Florida. I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCALISE. I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Louisiana is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of Congressman 
Cassidy's amendment. I want to touch on a few things. First of all, 
when we talk about the need for reforms to the National Flood Insurance 
Program, there were many things that needed reform. In fact, the 
program had expired, lapsed, in some cases for a few hours, for a few 
days, multiple times over the last few years.
  That's an inconsistency that I don't think any of us want to see in 
our economy when it literally meant home sales would have to be 
canceled. Realtors that were preparing to have a house sold, somebody 
that was buying a house, selling a house, couldn't even do that because 
banks require, in many cases, that flood insurance be attached to the 
mortgage.

                              {time}  2020

  And if there was no program for flood insurance, that means somebody 
couldn't even buy or sell a house. So it had an incredible disruption 
in our economy. But there's also the importance of making sure that the 
program is sustainable. When you look at what is flawed in the 
interpretation of FEMA, as we stand right now, a year after passage of 
the law, FEMA has admitted themselves they're not ready to implement 
the changes in the law.
  I want to mention a few communities in particular because it 
highlights the problems that have maybe been misrepresented or maybe 
just not even understood by some people when they wonder about this 
program.
  I'll use some examples of communities in my district in coastal 
Louisiana. Houma Terrebonne, for example. The Houma Terrebonne flood 
protection system was a system that was built by the people in those 
communities. It wasn't a Corps of Engineers project. That community did 
not flood in Hurricane Katrina, did not flood in Hurricane Rita. It 
didn't flood in Hurricane Isaac. And yet if you look at what FEMA has 
done with a community like that, they don't even recognize that that 
flood protection exists. They decertified that levee; and so everybody 
in that community who never flooded, they never filed a claim.
  There's this perception out there that these are people who flooded 
multiple times. These people in this community never flooded, even 
during Katrina, Rita, and Isaac; and yet FEMA has decertified their 
levee and said, basically, they don't have a levee. So somebody who's 
behind the levee protection system that worked for Katrina, FEMA has 
said that levee system doesn't exist. That person now is being faced 
with currently maybe a $500 premium that FEMA is telling them is going 
to go up to $15,000 a year.
  Does anybody really think that a family making maybe $40,000, who has 
a home that never flooded, they never filed a claim, and now FEMA is 
going to tell them you have to pay $15,000 a year just for your flood 
insurance? I think one of the reasons CBO said there's no score on this 
is they recognize that person can't pay that $15,000 premium. You've 
literally made that home worthless--a home that never flooded and 
that's behind the flood protection system.
  The irony is let's look at the Corps of Engineers certified flood 
system. Go look at New Orleans. The New Orleans flood protection system 
that failed during Katrina, flooded thousands of households, caused 
tremendous devastation and loss of life, that's a certified levee. That 
system failed to certify. The Houma Terrebonne system that never 
failed, that never flooded, is decertified by FEMA. You're going to 
tell those people they have to pay $15,000 or $20,000 a year for flood 
insurance when they never flooded? And their system works.
  The same thing with the Larose to Golden Meadow Hurricane Protection 
System. FEMA, under their interpretation of that law, is saying that 
levee doesn't even exist. Let me show you a picture. This is during a 
storm recently. You can see the floodwaters here; and yet behind that 
levee system the Larose to Golden Meadow Hurricane Protection System, 
these people didn't flood. All you see is green grass here. There's no 
water because they didn't flood. FEMA has said this flood protection 
system doesn't exist.
  So these people who never flooded, who haven't filed a claim, they're 
not a burden to the system. They're paying premiums to the system right 
now. They're actually helping to try to get it back into the black. 
FEMA is saying this levee system doesn't even exist, so now these 
people have to pay maybe $20,000 a year in flood insurance. Again, they 
can't pay $20,000 a year in flood insurance. Nobody that's not a 
millionaire can do that. And so they'll walk away from that home. The 
bank will

[[Page 8099]]

have to absorb that mortgage. And so their homes are basically going to 
be deemed worthless, even though their flood protection system works 
today. They never flooded.
  By the way, this one, the same like Houma Terrebonne, the Larose to 
Golden Meadow Hurricane Protection System didn't flood in Hurricane 
Katrina, Hurricane Rita, or Hurricane Isaac. They didn't file a claim, 
and yet their system is decertified.
  This is a flawed and broken system. It's the reason CBO says there's 
no score to this. Because the way it's being implemented is unworkable. 
And even FEMA is admitting this isn't ready for prime time. So this 
amendment is needed to say let's go back and actually make a system 
that works. Fix the problems with the system. But you don't go and 
punish the people that played by all the rules and never even filed a 
claim.
  So I support the amendment, urge my colleagues to do so as well, and 
I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PALAZZO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Mississippi is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. PALAZZO. I rise today to ask my colleagues to support this 
bipartisan amendment to the Homeland Security Appropriations act. I 
want to thank Representative Cassidy, Representative Waters, 
Representative Scalise, Representative Richmond, and the many others 
who support this amendment.
  This amendment would provide relief for many homeowners across the 
Nation facing significant increases in their flood insurance premiums 
because of the Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2012. Many 
facing these steep increases are still recovering from devastating 
storms in recent years, such as Hurricanes Katrina, Isaac, and Sandy. 
And some can see increases as steep as 25 percent per year.
  While I believe it is imperative that the NFIP program remain solvent 
so that flood insurance remains available to those who need it the 
most, changes can be implemented in a more compassionate and gradual 
way. The severe way in which these rates are increased under current 
law will place a heavy financial strain on families, small businesses, 
and new home buyers. The fact is we need more time to study how these 
rate changes will affect Americans.
  This amendment to the Homeland Security Appropriations bill gives 
FEMA more time to complete an affordability study and to review the 
impact that these rate increases would have on homeowners. It keeps 
NFIP solvent while implementing changes in a compassionate manner that 
keeps flood insurance available.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I yield 
to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Cassidy).
  Mr. CASSIDY. I thank you for yielding the time, and I'll be very 
short.
  Let me say to my colleagues who oppose this bill that this does not 
repeal the entire law. This just repeals that portion which is not 
actuarially sound. We did vote for an insurance program, but we voted 
for one that was functional and, again, actuarially sound.
  I'll make it clear: this does not repeal section 205. Those that 
built below code or in flood zones, knowingly violating local code, 
will still pay the penalty. This is for 207 for folks who have never 
flooded, who've done it right, who've built behind flood protection, to 
code, and yet in some cases, because of actuarially flawed methodology, 
they will be paying up to $20,000.
  By the way, I did vote for this bill, but not to force an inaccurate, 
dysfunctional system which the GAO has criticized homeowners that are 
trying to live their life. There should be sanity and fairness. But 
that sanity and fairness should be addressed to having something which 
is actuarially sound.
  One of my colleagues said, Wait a second, some will pay less and some 
will pay more. Actually, some may pay less, next year pay more, and 
then pay less again. Because they're being judged by systems which, 
again, are not sound.
  We speak so often here of bringing certainty to business. Let's allow 
business to know what is going on. Why not have that same principle 
with homeowners? Let's get the actuarial process in which we judge 
their risk sound and then we can tell them their premium is high, their 
premium is low. Right now we're telling them it's going to fluctuate up 
and down because the method by which we judge them is so poorly 
designed.
  So I do urge passage of this amendment, both for the sake of proving 
we can have functional government, as well as for the sake of these 
homeowners who are going to be terribly affected if we do not do so.
  Mr. PALAZZO. I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Westmoreland).
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. I do appreciate the gentleman yielding.
  FEMA has already stated that their staff in Louisiana were wrong to 
provide these estimates based on inaccurate and incomplete information. 
They have already said that. In reality, no one knows--not FEMA, not 
any of my colleagues--how much folks in those flood zones will pay for 
premiums under section 207. It's still being evaluated. Flood maps 
change after every flood, and they're going to continue to do it 
because of development and more impervious surface and other things 
that cause flooding to create in different areas.
  There is an appeal process that you can go through; but the best 
place to do this is where it originated, which is in the Financial 
Services Committee, not as an amendment on an appropriations bill.
  How many hearings have been held on this amendment? None. We're 
always talking about regular order. That's our cry, Regular order. Why 
don't we go through the regular process, go through the same committee 
that this bill originated out of and see if there's not some oversight 
that we can offer to FEMA to make sure that these people are not hit 
with these high premiums and that everybody gets on the same page and 
we understand that if these improvements have been made by cities and 
counties or homeowners, that they need to be taken into consideration. 
But this is not the way to do it.

                              {time}  2030

  We talk about unintended consequences. I think this bill was 75 pages 
long. I can read section 207 if you want me to, but it's pretty plain 
in what it says. There are no unintended consequences to this. This is 
exactly what it said.
  If you want to talk about revisiting unintended consequences, let's 
look at the 2,800-page Affordable Care Act. We can look at some 
unintended consequences then. But this is plain and simple. This isn't 
asking to create another agency or board or commission; this is trying 
to make FEMA and the Corps do their job on this mapping. This is the 
wrong place, it's the wrong time, it's the wrong bill to do this.
  I would work in a joint effort with these people to try to bring some 
resolution to this problem. But you've got to remember that these fees 
do not come into effect this year, and nobody knows what they're going 
to be.
  You know, the Congress is either at stop or knee-jerk reaction. This 
is something that needs to be carefully thought out. It needs to go 
through the subcommittee, the committee process.
  The chairman has promised that he is going to review this and look at 
the implementation of it. If we believe in regular order, let's give 
the system time to work, and let's put it in the committee where the 
work was originally done.
  With that, I just hope that it will be a ``no'' vote on this, that it 
can go back to the committee that Ms. Waters and others have put in a 
bill. Let's go back, let's review it, let's look at it, let's bring 
FEMA in, and let's do some oversight--which is our responsibility in

[[Page 8100]]

the Financial Services Committee, not the Appropriations Committee.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Chairman, I speak in favor of the amendment. And I 
yield to my colleague, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Richmond).
  Mr. RICHMOND. Mr. Chairman, we've heard talk about if we believe in 
regular order. Some of us believe in regular order--most of us believe 
in regular order--but I think everybody in this body believes in 
homeownership, and the fact that it's your biggest, safest investment; 
you pass it down generation to generation. And those people who work, 
sacrifice, save money to buy a home--we ought not change the rules in 
the middle of the game with a system that's dysfunctional, it doesn't 
work. But at the same time, we say that we value the sanctity of 
homeownership and the American Dream.
  So what we're asking here today is that we just back up a little bit. 
Because part of what leadership does is that sometimes you make a 
decision that has consequences that weren't foreseen or that are not 
ready to be implemented. But the true sign of leadership is that you 
back up and say, let's get it right, not let's do it just for the sake 
of doing it because we were already going down that road--when it's the 
wrong road.
  The biggest question is: What message are we going to send to those 
people in New York, Louisiana, and all of those red dots on the map 
that Representative Cassidy had, what message are we sending to them? 
Yes, you saved to buy a home. Yes, you pay your insurance. But now 
we're going to raise your insurance so high you can't afford that home 
anymore. What are they to do, walk away from the home? Now it's on the 
banks, now it's on the community. We have more blighted property. 
That's not what we should do as a body representing the people, 
representing our constituents.
  I would just say that it's not wrong, it's not unusual, and it's a 
strong sign of leadership to say, hey, we may have gotten this one 
wrong. Let's review it. Let's make sure we're being fair. And let's 
make sure that we protect the American Dream as Congress people. So 
that's all I'm asking.
  With that, Mr. Chairman, I would just re-urge my colleagues to 
support the amendment.
  Mr. GRAYSON. I reclaim my time, and I yield to the gentlelady from 
California (Ms. Waters).
  Ms. WATERS. The gentleman from Georgia talked about there are no 
unintended consequences, and he attempted to speak for me, one of the 
authors of the bill. I just think that he does not understand that we 
put in a lot of work on this bill. We worked in a bipartisan way. And 
if one of the authors of the bill tells you there are unintended 
consequences, then I think the gentleman from Georgia cannot dispute 
that.
  Let me just say that I talked with FEMA about mapping, and I talked 
with FEMA about these decertified levees. They admitted that they had 
decertified some and they're going to recertify them because they 
didn't quite know what they were doing.
  They also told me that the maps certainly need a lot of work, that 
they are not complete. What I'm saying is this: all of those homeowners 
who can't sleep at night, who can't plan their futures, don't know 
whether or not they're going to be able to send their children to 
college, all of those homeowners who are in limbo, who don't understand 
whether or not they're going to be able--certainly they're not going to 
be able to pay increased premiums. They won't be able to sell the 
house. Why would we be a party to causing that kind of consternation to 
fellow human beings? I don't think we want to do that.
  We have the power here today to support Mr. Cassidy's bill and to buy 
some time and tell FEMA to get it right, to work on it, because these 
are unintended consequences.
  So I just wanted the gentleman from Georgia to know that I certainly 
appreciate your concern. But you certainly don't understand the work 
that was put into it and how I know unintended consequences when I see 
them because of the way that I worked on the bill, and I know it was 
not intended to do what it is now doing.
  If you had spent some time with the people who traveled to 
Washington, D.C.--elected officials and community leaders alike--who 
took up the whole room, making an appeal to us to not put them in a 
position where they would lose their homes, where communities would be 
destroyed because FEMA was not ready, not prepared--not equipped 
maybe--to do what they needed to do to carry out the bill even. And 
that some of those increases that were being talked about, that were 
being projected, were increases that were almost made up; they were not 
actuarially sound.
  So I would ask you to please vote for this bill. Change your mind. 
Give some leadership and ask your colleagues to vote for the bill.
  Mr. GRAYSON. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Cassidy).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. 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 Louisiana 
will be postponed.
  Mr. BARTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. BARTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word for the 
purpose of entering into a colloquy with the esteemed chairman of the 
Homeland Security Appropriation Subcommittee to discuss a matter of 
importance to our Nation.
  The United States Army is electing to reduce the number of Lakota 
light utility helicopters, which are made in my congressional district, 
that they had intended to purchase over the next 2 fiscal years. These 
helicopters are cheaper to acquire, maintain and operate than other 
rotary wing aircraft which the Army has recently contracted for.
  I respect the Army's wishes to control costs and not purchase 
additional aircraft that they do not need. But I am hopeful that you, 
Mr. Chairman, and the chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, 
Texan Michael McCaul, will work with me to have a study conducted to 
see if there is not some way to enhance our homeland security through a 
cost-effective manner by utilizing Lakota helicopters in operations 
that could protect the American people and secure our borders.
  I yield to the chairman.
  Mr. CARTER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I want to say that I 
will be happy to work with you, Mr. Barton, as we move forward in the 
appropriations process.
  Mr. BARTON. I want to thank the chairman for his willingness to work 
with me.
  Before I yield back, I just want to let the country know that when 
Texas is working, we get our job done a lot quicker than when Louisiana 
is arguing.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.


                    Amendment Offered by Mrs. Bustos

  Mrs. BUSTOS. 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 enter into a contract with an offeror for the 
     purchase of an American flag if, as required by the Federal 
     Acquisition Regulation, the flag is certified as a foreign 
     end product.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Illinois is recognized for 5 
minutes.

                              {time}  2040

  Mrs. BUSTOS. Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this amendment is simple. 
It

[[Page 8101]]

would ensure that American flags purchased with funds from this bill 
are actually made in America. Pretty simple, straightforward, common 
sense.
  Currently, here is what's happening: the Department of Defense, the 
Department of Veterans Affairs, the Department of Homeland Security, 
and even the U.S. Capitol are free to buy American flags that are only 
50 percent made in the United States of America. I find this 
astonishing.
  There are companies in America that manufacture American flags. 
Pretty logical. And there have been legislative efforts in the past to 
make sure that American flags purchased by the Federal Government are 
actually made in America.
  Last Congress, Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio was able to secure 
passage of the All-American Flag Act through the U.S. Senate by 
unanimous consent. Unfortunately, the House was unable to consider the 
measure prior to adjourning the last session of Congress.
  According to the most recent numbers from the U.S. Census Bureau, the 
value of American flags imported to the United States last year alone 
was $3.8 million; $3.6 million worth came from China alone. A ``Made in 
China'' tag should never be sewn into an American flag, let alone 
American flags purchased by our Federal Government.
  My amendment today is an attempt to address the growing practice of 
importing American flags not actually made in America. The idea for 
this came about just last week when I was home listening to veterans 
all over our district. I was in Rockford, Peoria, the Quad Cities, and 
Galesburg, Illinois. I listened to veterans from the gulf war, from the 
Vietnam war, from World War II, and had gentlemen stand up so 
disheartened by the fact that they had flown flags, they had seen flags 
that had a ``Made in China'' tag sewn into them.
  So it is my hope that this Congress will engage further on this 
issue; but until that time, I feel it necessary to offer this 
amendment. We must send a clear message as to what our expectations 
are.
  With that in mind, and using existing law as a guide, this amendment 
would ban purchases of any flag declared as a foreign end product in 
Buy American Act certifications required by all Federal contracts. This 
amendment is just the first step in what I hope is a larger effort to 
require that all American flags purchased by the Federal Government are 
actually made in America.
  I hope my colleagues here today will support me in this endeavor and 
work with me in moving forward on future, similar efforts.
  With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CARTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. CARTER. Mr. Chairman, we will support the lady's amendment. And I 
will be happy to yield to my colleague, Mr. Price, so that he can also 
support this amendment.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding.
  I'm happy to urge my colleagues to vote for the amendment.
  Mr. CARTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Bustos).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Meadows

  Mr. MEADOWS. 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 funds made available by this Act may be 
     used for entering into a new contract for the purposes of 
     purchasing ammunition before the date the report required by 
     section 567(a) is submitted to Congress.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from North Carolina is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Chairman, this is a simple amendment which will 
ensure the Department of Homeland Security is being accountable to 
Congress--and more importantly, the American people.
  Earlier this year, it was reported that DHS solicited bids for some 
1.1 billion rounds of ammunition. This was more than 10 times the 
amount that the Department purchased in fiscal year 2012.
  Given this large purchase, the American people and Members of 
Congress rightfully had concerns and questions. The Appropriations 
Committee has recognized these concerns by including language in this 
bill to address the ammunitions purchased by requiring DHS to report 
the cost and the need to Congress. This initial report is required to 
be submitted at the time of the President's budget.
  I commend the Appropriations Committee for their work in this area, 
and my amendment would complement their efforts and prohibit any new 
purchases of ammunition until the required report is submitted to 
Congress. It does not prevent existing contracts for procurement from 
being carried out. This is a responsible amendment which ensures that 
Congress and the American people are aware of the necessity and the 
cost of ammunition prior to entering into new contracts for 
procurement.
  On April 15, 2013, DHS had an inventory of almost 250,000 rounds of 
ammunition. In fiscal year 2012, DHS purchased 103,178,200 rounds. This 
is less than half the inventory that they have on hand. As of February 
22, 2013, there were 62,618 employees at DHS trained and certified in 
firearms. Given our current inventory, each individual has nearly 4,000 
rounds before our inventory would be exhausted.
  With these facts in mind, it is important that we are responsible in 
entering into contracts for ammunition purchases. My amendment will 
ensure that this is the case.
  I urge my colleagues to support my amendment and yield back the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. CARTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. CARTER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to say to my colleague, I'm on 
the same wavelength as him, and I have had both my personal office and 
my staff here at the committee look into in detail the allegations that 
he has raised by his amendment. He is quite accurate that the amount of 
ammunition that presently seems to be in the hands of DHS and the 
amount of purchases that have taken place over the last 3 years from a 
gun owner standpoint, if you take a good hard look at it, it looks like 
they're shooting an awful lot of rounds as practice. I have the same 
concerns he has about that.
  That's why I put into this bill at my request this review of the 
training exercises: How many rounds are issued for training? How many 
rounds are issued for firing in harm's way? A complete report to the 
Congress of the United States was issued because the American people 
are very concerned about this issue.
  I will assure my colleague we're going to look at this report in 
detail. We're going to have hearings and discuss this with the members 
of DHS, and all the gun-toting DHS folks, to get an accurate assessment 
of how much shooting they do and how much they need to shoot.
  By my own personal inquiry, by talking to ICE last Friday--in 
addition, I talked to the Border Patrol personally, and they shoot four 
times a year to qualify--quite honestly, they acknowledged that they 
don't need as many rounds as people think they do.
  But we want to get this study done. And if we can, have patience to 
do the study and not try to restrict contracting until we know. And I 
honestly am not encouraged to allow DHS to have huge stockpiles of 
ammunition around the country. We want to have an efficient utilization 
of the purchasing power.
  As to the contracting power that they have for that billion-plus 
rounds, that's a process that I learned through my questions that is 
used to keep the lowest possible price, and there's no intent to make 
that----
  Mr. MEADOWS. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CARTER. I will in just a moment.

[[Page 8102]]

  There's no intent to make that type of purchase by DHS in any form or 
fashion. It's just a way that contracting is done on ammunition to 
utilize the cheapest price.
  I will also say--and then I will yield--we checked with every 
ammunition manufacturer in the country, and they assured me that the 
shortage of ammunition on the shelves for the American hunter and 
shooter is not because of purchases by DHS or the military or anybody 
else. Quite honestly, it's because the American people are buying 
rounds as fast as they come on the shelf, and they're competing with 
their fellow Americans.
  I will be glad to yield to my friend.

                              {time}  2050

  Mr. MEADOWS. I appreciate the chairman for yielding and I appreciate 
his comments.
  This amendment would not stop the current bids that are out there, 
the current process that we have in place. It would just stop 
additional processes. We are looking at some 6 months before this 
report would be due, and the inventory, Mr. Chairman, that we have in 
place currently is more than enough to handle the target requirements, 
the requirements that we have currently for those. We've had hearings 
already, and a number of committees have addressed that, and the 
background that we have and the inventory that we have is more than 
enough to handle this while we wait for this report.
  Mr. CARTER. In reclaiming my time, I understand the gentleman's 
argument. I think it is in the best interest for us to go forward with 
this study. We are going to keep a close eye, which is why we've got 
this issue in this bill, but I am not prepared at this time to restrict 
contracting, so I have to oppose the amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I simply want to express 
my agreement with the chairman on this matter.
  I appreciate the amendment being offered by my friend from North 
Carolina, but I believe it would introduce an element of rigidity and 
an arbitrary element into the purchasing process. The chairman has 
looked into this very carefully. We have provisions in the bill that 
should get to the bottom of any allegations that have been made about 
the matter, but in the meantime, it seems the amendment almost 
presupposes a negative or a suspicious outcome of the study. Maybe not. 
In any case, I see no reason for layering on a requirement forbidding 
the purchase of ammunition while we conduct this study.
  So I urge the defeat of the amendment, and I yield back the balance 
of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Meadows).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. MEADOWS. 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 North 
Carolina will be postponed.


                   Amendments Offered by Mr. Grayson

  Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Chairman, I have three amendments at the desk. These 
are Grayson Nos. 1, 3, and 4. In view of the late hour, I ask unanimous 
consent that they be considered en bloc.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendments.
  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 enter into a contract with any offeror or any of 
     its principals if the offeror certifies, as required by 
     Federal Acquisition Regulation, that the offeror or any of 
     its principals:
       (A) within a three-year period preceding this offer has 
     been convicted of or had a civil judgment rendered against it 
     for: commission of fraud or a criminal offense in connection 
     with obtaining, attempting to obtain, or performing a public 
     (Federal, State, or local) contract or subcontract; violation 
     of Federal or State antitrust statutes relating to the 
     submission of offers; or commission of embezzlement, theft, 
     forgery, bribery, falsification of destruction of records, 
     making false statements, tax evasion, violating Federal 
     criminal tax laws, or receiving stolen property; or
       (B) are presently indicted for, or otherwise criminally or 
     civilly charged by a governmental entity with, commission of 
     any of the offenses enumerated above in subsection (A); or
       (C) within a three-year period preceding this offer, has 
     been notified of any delinquent Federal taxes in an amount 
     that exceeds $3,000 for which the liability remains 
     unsatisfied.

  Mr. GRAYSON (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that we move on to the reading of the next amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the reading of the first 
amendment is suspended.
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the second and third 
amendments.
  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 in contravention of the First, Second, or Fourth 
     Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.
                                  ____

       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 for the purchase, operation, or maintenance of armed 
     unmanned aerial vehicles.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Chairman, with regard to the first amendment, this 
amendment is identical to language that was inserted into the Military 
Construction-VA bill yesterday by a voice vote. It expands the list of 
parties with whom the Department of Homeland Security and other 
relevant entities are prohibited from contracting. This includes 
contractors who have been convicted of fraud, theft, forgery, bribery, 
et cetera, according to the terms of the amendment and otherwise.
  With regard to Grayson No. 3, the next amendment, this amendment is a 
simple one.
  It reads:

       None of the funds made available by this Act may be used in 
     contravention of the First, Second or Fourth Amendments to 
     the Constitution of the United States.

  As you will notice, the same sentiment and relevant language appears 
in my colleague Mr. Ellison's amendment addressing racial 
discrimination and other matters. I gladly support his efforts, which 
passed unanimously by voice vote last Congress, and hope the same will 
be possible of my amendment in this Congress.
  With regard to the last Grayson amendment, I regret that my colleague 
Representative Holt could not be here to offer this amendment himself. 
He is in New Jersey today, remembering Senator Lautenberg. The 
amendment that I call up is actually the Holt-Grayson amendment, the 
last amendment. It's an amendment that Mr. Holt attached to the bill in 
the last Congress as an en bloc amendment offered by Representative 
Aderholt, which passed unanimously. The text of the amendment is the 
same word for word, and it reads as follows:

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

  This is an important amendment and one that I am proud to offer here 
today on behalf of Representative Holt. In no instance should DHS have 
access to or use weaponized drones. The bill before us today is the 
appropriations bill for the Department of Homeland Security, not the 
Department of Defense. That appropriations bill will come to the floor 
later this month, we hope.
  As our wars abroad come to a close and as excess militarized drones 
become available for purchase and use potentially by DHS, I feel that 
it's important to lay down this marker here

[[Page 8103]]

today that says, no, DHS may not have access to that military 
equipment. DHS will continue to have access to surveillance drones, and 
if the committee report is correct, DHS will increase its supply of 
drones and possibly even build a new airfield to support them.
  In his previous amendment, Congressman Holt shared his thoughts on 
the ways in which these drones should not be used, so I will close with 
this: Chairman Carter and Ranking Member Price, let's be clear with 
DHS--no armed drones in the United States.
  I ask for the support of this amendment, and I yield back the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. CARTER. I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. CARTER. These three amendments en bloc that we've got here, I 
want to address them as they were raised.
  I support the first amendment with the reservations that I don't 
understand some of the language in section B, but I'm not here today to 
act in the judicial interpretation of what is already in law. I have 
some questions about the ``civilly charged,'' but I'm not going to go 
into that, so I will accept that amendment.
  On the second amendment, which concerns the three sections of the 
Constitution, I certainly will accept that. In fact, I would not like 
for anything within this bill to be in contravention of any section of 
the United States Constitution, so I certainly have no problem with 
that.
  Thirdly, the Department has no intention of having armed drones, and 
we will certainly accept the third amendment. I am willing to accept 
all three.
  I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price).
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I thank the chairman for yielding.
  I am happy to also offer my support. I hope my colleagues will 
support this en bloc amendment.
  Mr. CARTER. I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Chair, I rise to describe the intent of Congress 
with regard to H. AMDT. 124 to H.R. 2217, the ``Department of Homeland 
Security Appropriations Act, 2014''. My amendment reads as follows:
  ``None of the funds made available by this Act may be used in 
contravention of the First, Second, or Fourth Amendments to the 
Constitution of the United States.''
  The intent of Congress is to prohibit the U.S. Department of Homeland 
Security (DHS) from contravening First, Second, or Fourth Amendment 
constitutional rights. Congress intends to prohibit DHS from 
cooperating with any public or private entity, organization, or agency 
of any kind to violate those constitutional rights, including, but not 
limited to, those agencies that are within the DHS structure: U.S. 
Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Citizen and Immigration Services, 
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Coast Guard, Federal 
Emergency Management Agency, U.S. Secret Service, Transportation 
Security Administration, Federal Protective Service; in addition, those 
agencies that are signatory partners of the National Response Plan: 
Department of Agriculture, Department of Commerce, Department of 
Defense, Department of Education, Department of Energy, Department of 
Health and Human Services, Department of Homeland Security, Department 
of Housing and Urban Development, Department of the Interior, 
Department of Justice, Department of Labor, Department of State, 
Department of Transportation, Department of the Treasury, Department of 
Veterans Affairs, Central Intelligence Agency, Environmental Protection 
Agency, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Federal Communications 
Commission, General Services Administration, National Aeronautic and 
Space Administration, National Transportation Safety Board, Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission, Office of Personnel Management, Small Business 
Administration, Social Security Administration, Tennessee Valley 
Authority, U.S. Agency for International Development, U.S. Postal 
Service, American Red Cross, Corporation for National and Community 
Service, and National Voluntary Organizations Active in Disaster. In 
addition, Congress intends to include the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation and the National Security Agency in this non-exclusive 
list of prohibited agencies.
  Congress intends there be a cognizable informational privacy 
interest, derived from, but not limited to, the Fourth and First 
Amendments and Due Process rights, held by individuals in data that 
records, observes, catalogs and/or monitors persons' lawful acts, 
transactions, associations, beliefs and/or communications.
  Congress intends that racial, religious, gender, language, and 
national origin profiling be deemed unconstitutional.
  Congress intends that the collection of multiple individual points of 
data about a person, as well as the aggregation and storage of such 
data, creates an intimate mosaic about a person's actions and 
psychology of such a significantly intrusive nature as to violate 
fundamental privacy interests. The intent of this legislation is to 
prevent the Department of Homeland Security from collecting, storing, 
procuring, or using any information generated by a citizen of the 
United States while located in the United States, including telephone 
records, internet records, and physical location information, without 
probable cause of a terrorism or other criminal offense related to 
action or conduct by that citizen, or without the consent of that 
citizen.
  The intent of Congress is to protect the interest in informational 
privacy. This interest is especially significant where information and 
data collected by the government relates to First Amendment protected 
activities. The contravention of these rights and interests creates an 
injury of constitutional and other dimensions and also threatens the 
underpinnings of a constitutional democracy.
  The intent of Congress with this legislation is to place an absolute 
prohibition on any DHS involvement of any type or to any degree with 
any surveillance of Americans without specificity or without probable 
cause, such as the National Security Agency's recently revealed 
surveillance program. This prohibition includes any communication, 
cooperation, funding, assistance, or other association with another 
organization, agency, company, or other entity of any kind that has any 
involvement of any kind with such programs. The intent of Congress is 
for any private company engaged in surveillance or data collection on 
Americans, or serving in a role supportive of such efforts in any 
manner or to any degree, to be ineligible for any contracts or other 
payment from DHS. For example, due to its role in the NSA spying on 
Americans, Booz Allen Hamilton is ineligible.
  Congress intends to prohibit the ``Threat Management Division'' of 
the DHS, or any other department, office, or any other entity within 
DHS, from including reports on ``Peaceful Activist Demonstrations,'' or 
reports on any other constitutionally-protected speech activities. 
Congress recognizes that monitoring and documenting constitutionally 
protected speech activity by law enforcement and intelligence agencies 
including DHS result in a chilling effect on speech and a violation of 
fundamental privacy interests, and should be prohibited under all 
circumstances. The intent of Congress with this bill is to reinforce 
the nation's proud history of petition and protest, and Congress 
intends to encourage this essential form of democratic participation, 
by eliminating any surveillance or documentation of such legal activity 
by DHS or other law enforcement agencies.
  This prohibition is urgently needed, as redacted documents released 
pursuant to a FOIA request by the Partnership for Civil Justice Fund 
(PCJF) show that the DHS ``Threat Management Division'' directed 
Regional Intelligence Analysts to provide a ``Daily Intelligence 
Briefing'' which includes a category of reporting on ``Peaceful 
Activist Demonstrations,'' alongside their reports on ``Domestic 
Terrorist Activity.'' The documents also showed involvement of the DHS 
National Operations Center (NOC) in monitoring peaceful, lawful protest 
activities. The NOC is, according to the DHS, ``the primary national-
level hub for domestic situational awareness, common operational 
pictures, information fusion, information sharing, communications, and 
coordination pertaining to the prevention of terrorist attacks and 
domestic incident management. The NOC is the primary conduit for the 
White House Situation Room and DHS Leadership for domestic situational 
awareness and facilitates information sharing and operational 
coordination with other federal, state, local, tribal, non-governmental 
operation centers and the private sector.'' DHS improperly and 
unconstitutionally conducted surveillance of peaceful, 
constitutionally-protected protests in cities that include, among 
others: Asheville, Atlanta, Boston, Buffalo, Chicago, Dallas, Detroit, 
Denver, El Paso, Fort Lauderdale, Houston, Jacksonville, Jersey City, 
Kansas City, Lansing, Lincoln, Los Angeles, Miami, Minneapolis, Niagara 
Falls, New York City, Oakland, Philadelphia, Phoenix, Portland, OR, and 
Salt Lake City, San Diego, Seattle, Tampa, Washington, D.C.
  The intent of Congress with the DHS appropriations bill is to 
prohibit the Department of

[[Page 8104]]

Homeland Security from using the designation of an event as one of 
``national significance'' or as a ``National Special Security Event'' 
(NSSE) to infringe on the constitutional right to protest peacefully 
and engage in nonviolent civil disobedience on the nearest publicly-
owned, publicly-accessible, or private land (where the owner has not 
formally requested that protesters be removed) surrounding such an 
event.
  The intent of Congress with this legislation is strictly to prohibit 
the Department of Homeland Security, or any other agency or entity with 
which the DHS is directly or indirectly cooperating, including the 
Secret Service, or that DHS is directly or indirectly funding, from 
using an NSSE designation as a basis to require protesters to be in a 
location that is not within view of those individuals or entities that 
are the target of the public expression and efforts at redress, or to 
place persons inside a penned-in area or ``protest pit,'' as such a 
location deprives the people of the United States of their ability and 
right to communicate a message to their intended audience, and also 
deprives persons of their associational rights to interact with 
demonstrations and join them without obstruction. Further, it could 
contribute to a larger divide between the political and economic 
establishment and the general public that is antithetical to the proper 
functioning of a democratic system. Even if an event is not designated 
as an NSSE, the intent of Congress is for the principles expressed 
above to be applicable to any constitutionally-protected protest or 
other expressive activity.
  In the past, these events have included not only presidential 
inaugurations and meetings of foreign dignitaries, but also the Super 
Bowl, the funerals of Ronald Reagan and Gerald Ford, most State of the 
Union addresses and the 2008 Democratic and Republican National 
Conventions, among many other events not traditionally deemed to be 
requiring such a major precautionary designation.
  The intent of Congress is to mandate that the DHS be authorized only 
to conduct searches, including searches of electronics on citizen or 
non-citizen travelers entering or exiting the United States, under a 
reasonable suspicion standard articulated by courts under the Fourth 
Amendment.
  Congress also strongly intends to reject and condemn DHS assertions 
that ``intuition and hunch'' are a sufficient basis for its agents to 
conduct searches of electronics at U.S. borders or ports of entry. 
Congress specifically intends to reject a February 2013 DHS report 
concluding that ``imposing a requirement that officers have reasonable 
suspicion in order to conduct a border search of an electronic device 
would be operationally harmful without concomitant civil rights/civil 
liberties benefits.'' Congress intends to express its condemnation of 
any search that is the result of a mere ``intuition'' or ``hunch,'' of 
the 6,500 persons that DHS data indicate had their electronic devices 
searched along the U.S. border between 2008 and 2010. Furthermore, 
Congress finds that the use of ``intuition and hunch'' as a basis for 
searches is a violation of the Fourth Amendment, and therefore that 
appropriated funds under this bill are prohibited from being used in 
this manner.
  With this bill, the intent of Congress is to demand the modernization 
of standards relating to Americans entering the U.S. with computers, 
thumb drives, smartphones, cameras and other electronic devices, as 
these devices hold vast amounts of information regarding owners about 
who they are and how they conduct business. Much of the law on searches 
along the border was established before these technological advances 
dramatically altered the amount of personal information one could be 
carrying on himself or herself as he or she enters the U.S., and 
Congress intends for this amendment to modernize these standards to 
reflect current realities and expectations of privacy. Until these 
standards are modernized, Congress intends for border enforcement to 
search these devices only upon a reasonable suspicion that the holder 
of such a device is directly and personally bearing evidence of 
terrorism or other criminal activity.


                            Organized Labor

  The intent of Congress with this bill is to place an absolute 
prohibition on any DHS involvement related to all legally-protected 
activities of organized labor. This includes any communication, 
cooperation, funding, assistance, or other association with another 
organization for the purpose of targeting legally-protected union 
activity, or acting as a provider of surveillance and intelligence 
information to corporate entities that may be the target of lawful 
labor grievance and labor protest activity.
  Examples of what Congress has hereby prohibited can be seen in 
documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, which show 
that the DHS communicated with the Pentagon's Northern Command 
regarding November 2, 2011 port protests involving ILWU workers. 
Another document obtained from the Federal Bureau of Investigation 
(FBI) by the PCJF shows that the Domestic Security Alliance Council 
(DSAC), described by the federal government as ``a strategic 
partnership between the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security and 
the private sector,'' discussed the protests at the West Coast ports to 
``raise awareness concerning this type of criminal [sic] activity.'' 
The document contains a ``handling notice'' that the information is 
``meant for use primarily within the corporate security community. Such 
messages shall not be released in either written or oral form to the 
media, the general public or other personnel . . .''


            Intent of Congress regarding ``Fusion Centers''

  Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Chair, according to the Constitution Project, there 
are at least 77 fusion centers active in the United States today. 
Fusion centers are essentially information-sharing hubs designed to 
pool the knowledge and expertise of state, local and federal law 
enforcement and intelligence agencies, and, in some instances, other 
government agencies, military officials and private sector entities. 
They operate primarily on state funding, though they generally receive 
federal funds and work closely with federal agencies such as the 
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Department of Justice 
(DOJ). As a general matter, fusion centers are not established pursuant 
to specific state legislation or state executive orders, but rather 
derive their authority from general statutes creating state police 
agencies or memoranda of understanding among partner agencies. Many 
fusion centers simply represent extensions of existing intelligence 
units in state law enforcement agencies.
  Congress shares the serious constitutional concerns that have been 
raised after several fusion centers issued bulletins that characterize 
a wide variety of peaceful religious and political groups as threats to 
national security. In some instances, state law enforcement agencies 
that funnel information to fusion centers have improperly monitored and 
infiltrated anti-war and environmental organizations. Moreover, the 
manner in which fusion centers amass and distribute personal 
information raises the concern that they are keeping files--perhaps 
containing information that is sensitive or concerns constitutionally 
protected activities--on American citizens in the United States without 
proper justification. With the interconnected system employed by fusion 
centers, even those with the best civil liberties practices can 
inadvertently perpetuate or exacerbate the problematic activities of 
other fusion centers or law enforcement agencies. The breadth of the 
fusion center network also means that inaccurate or problematic 
information can be distributed widely across government databases, and 
perhaps even to private businesses, with potentially disastrous 
consequences for the constitutional rights of individuals. Finally, 
without proper safeguards, links between fusion centers in different 
states might allow ``forum-shopping'' law enforcement officials to 
evade the privacy and domestic surveillance restrictions of their own 
states by accessing information obtained by fusion centers in other 
jurisdictions. All of these risks are potentially compounded by the 
limited transparency and accountability of these institutions.
  Recent reports from across the country bear testament to the 
potential for constitutionally problematic profiling at fusion centers, 
particularly regarding bulletins and intelligence reports circulated by 
fusion centers. These are a few examples:
  The February 2009 ``Prevention Awareness Bulletin,'' circulated by a 
Texas fusion center, described apparently peaceful Muslim lobbying 
groups as ``providing an environment for terrorist organizations to 
flourish'' and warned that ``the threats to Texas are significant.'' 
The bulletin called on law enforcement officers to report activities 
such as Muslim ``hip hop fashion boutiques, hip hop bands, use of 
online social networks, video sharing networks, chat forums and 
blogs.''
  A Missouri-based fusion center issued a February 2009 report 
describing peaceful support for the presidential campaigns of Ron Paul 
or third party candidates, possession of the iconic ``Don't Tread on 
Me'' flag, and anti-abortion activism as signs of membership in 
domestic terrorist groups.
  The Tennessee Fusion Center listed a letter from the American Civil 
Liberties Union (ACLU) to public schools on its online map of 
``Terrorism Events and Other Suspicious Activity.'' The letter had 
lawfully advised schools that holiday celebrations focused exclusively 
on Christmas were an unconstitutional government endorsement of 
religion.
  The Virginia Fusion Center's 2009 Terrorism Risk Assessment Report 
described peaceful

[[Page 8105]]

student groups at Virginia's historically black colleges as potential 
breeding grounds for terrorism and characterized the ``diversity'' 
surrounding a military base as a possible threat.
  Additional allegations of monitoring of constitutionally-protected 
speech, including by DHS Megacenters, were revealed by FOIA requests 
made by the PCJF. Just a few of many examples are included below:
  An October 5, 2011 document reflects that the DHS Philadelphia 
Megacenter was monitoring the OWS demonstration in New York, titled 
``Demonstration-Peaceful/Planned,'' and reporting on assembly and 
movements ``peacefully protesting union solidarity issues.''
  An October 30, 2011 document shows DHS' Battle Creek Megacenter also 
reporting that a ``peaceful/unplanned'' ``Occupy Wall Street 
demonstration [was] taking place in Ilus W. Davis Park in Kansas City, 
MO.''
  The Boston Regional Intelligence Center (BRIC), a fusion center, 
focused resources on monitoring and reporting on peaceful protest 
activity in Boston during 2011.
  The intent of Congress with this legislation is to place strict 
limitations on DHS involvement with and funding of ``Fusion Centers,'' 
due to these serious reports that they may be violating the 
constitutional rights of citizens. To avoid the grave risk that this 
poses or could pose to the exercise of the free speech rights that are 
fundamental to our democracy, in addition to threats to constitutional 
protections against unreasonable invasions of privacy, Congress intends 
to prohibit any DHS cooperation with, or funding of, any ``Fusion 
Centers'' or similar entities (e.g. ``Megacenters'') that have not 
established and strictly adhered to the following best civil liberties 
practices, drawn from the proposals made by an esteemed bipartisan team 
of leading constitutional law experts (arranged by specific topic):


                     Profiling and Data Collection

  1. Fusion centers shall establish guidelines that clearly prohibit 
their personnel from engaging in racial and religious profiling. In 
determining when to collect and share information, the guidelines shall 
focus on behaviors that raise a reasonable suspicion of criminal 
activity or evidence of wrongdoing. Race, national origin, ethnicity 
and religious belief may not be considered as factors that create 
suspicion, and may only be used as factors in alerts if they are 
included as part of a specific suspect's description. The guidelines 
shall also specify that political association and the peaceful exercise 
of constitutionally protected rights may not be relied upon as factors 
that create suspicion of wrongdoing.
  2. Fusion centers shall ensure that their personnel are properly 
trained on the constitutional rights of free expression, assembly, 
religion and equal protection.
  3. Fusion centers shall ensure that individuals who instruct their 
personnel on intelligence analysis and terrorist threats are competent 
and well-qualified, and have themselves been trained in the 
constitutional rights discussed above.


                     Suspicious Activity Reporting

  Fusion centers shall carefully analyze suspicious activity reports to 
determine whether there is a likely connection to criminal or terrorist 
activity, and may only retain and disseminate suspicious activity 
reports if they demonstrate reasonable suspicion of such activity.


                           Data Minimization

  1. Fusion centers shall periodically review the information in their 
files to determine whether that information is accurate and of 
continuing relevance. The frequency of this review shall be made public 
by each fusion center or similar entity. Data retained by fusion 
centers shall be purged no later than five years after its collection 
unless its continued relevance can be demonstrated.
  2. Fusion centers may collect and retain only the minimum amount of 
personally identifiable information necessary to serve their law 
enforcement purposes. Fusion centers may only use this personally 
identifiable information for the law enforcement purpose for which the 
information was collected.


                               Audit Logs

  1. Fusion centers shall ensure that immutable audit logs track all 
database activity.
  2. Independent auditors shall review fusion center audit logs every 
two years and publish reports describing the use of fusion center 
databases and any abuses or unauthorized access.


                              Data Mining

  As set forth in The Constitution Project's report Principles for 
Government Data Mining, fusion centers shall act carefully to ensure 
that constitutional rights and values are respected if they engage in 
data mining or if the information in their databases is used for data 
mining by other government entities.


                      Private Sector Partnerships

  1. Fusion centers shall carefully limit the information that they 
disseminate to private sector entities. Personally identifiable 
information may be shared with private sector entities only to the 
extent necessary to carry out legitimate law enforcement or national 
security functions. Any data sharing with private entities beyond these 
prescribed limits must be specifically elaborated in a public statement 
or document, that is easily accessible by the general public, and 
specifies in detail the type of information being transferred and which 
private entities are involved.
  2. Fusion centers may not collect information from private sector 
sources that they would otherwise be restricted by law from obtaining, 
nor can they obtain information produced American citizens without a 
warrant, probable cause that the conduct of that American is directly 
connected to terrorism or other criminal activity, or obtained written 
consent from that American to the Fusion Center.


                           Mission Statement

  Fusion centers shall develop clear mission statements that express 
their purpose and the criteria upon which their performance can be 
evaluated. This should be completed within 3 months of the passage of 
this legislation.


                        Transparency and Redress

  1. Fusion centers shall engage local communities by publicly 
explaining their mission, budget and staffing, and that information 
should be easily accessible to the general public.
  2. Fusion centers shall publicize their privacy policies and the 
results of their compliance audits.
  3. Fusion centers shall be equipped with effective redress processes 
by which individuals can, if necessary, review and correct or challenge 
information possessed by a fusion center.
  4. Redress processes shall provide for the availability for review of 
complaints by an independent, security-cleared arbiter, with a right of 
appeal to a higher-level independent state or local authority.
  5. Redress processes shall be well-publicized.
  6. Redress processes shall ensure that corrections are disseminated 
across DHS databases.


                       DHS and Medical Marijuana

  It is the intent of Congress that full Fourth Amendment protection 
extends to medical marijuana users, regardless of the status of 
marijuana under federal law. Specifically, DHS's legitimate efforts to 
prevent illegal immigration and drug smuggling do not justify 
relaxation of Fourth Amendment protections for medical marijuana users, 
even in border areas.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendments offered by the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Grayson).
  The amendments were agreed to.
  Mr. MICA. I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. MICA. I rise briefly to engage the gentleman from Texas in a 
colloquy.
  First of all, I would like to compliment Chairman Carter and Ranking 
Member Price. Thank you for your work on this bill under some very 
difficult fiscal constraints. I believe the committee, under your 
leadership, has successfully found areas where taxpayers can really 
realize savings and implement reforms to strengthen our national 
security.
  As I have discussed with the chairman before and other colleagues in 
the past, I am a strong believer in the effectiveness of modeling and 
simulation for training. In the past, the Department of Homeland 
Security has purchased large and costly quantities of live ammunition. 
Live fire testing and training is expensive, detrimental to the 
environment, and is really unnecessary for most training of almost all 
DHS personnel.

                              {time}  2100

  I believe that the Department of Homeland Security would be well 
served by increasing its efforts to better integrate and utilize 
modeling and simulation in the training of law enforcement and security 
personnel under their jurisdiction.
  For years now, our military and our Armed Forces, who daily face 
intense combat, utilize effective and modern simulation technology in 
training and preparing our soldiers.
  These simulation technologies provide powerful planning and training 
tools capable of exposing all of our personnel to the complexities and 
uncertainties before ever stepping into

[[Page 8106]]

harm's way. There's no reason DHS can't do the same thing. The use of 
simulation training has yielded better trained, more capable and more 
confident personnel, again, without live ammunition. Unfortunately, DHS 
just doesn't get it.
  Simulation training is a cost-effective means by which law 
enforcement and security personnel can improve readiness, tactical 
decision-making skills, and ultimately save lives and save millions of 
dollars in taxpayer money.
  Mr. CARTER. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MICA. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. CARTER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Chairman Mica makes very good points. FLETC and DHS should review 
their training regimen and determine where simulation equipment makes 
sense. I appreciate the gentleman bringing this opportunity to my 
attention and look forward to working with him.
  Mr. MICA. And I look forward to working with the chairman, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.


            Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Murphy of Florida

  Mr. MURPHY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Reed). 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. 571.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used for the Agricultural Quarantine Inspection program.

  Mr. MURPHY of Florida (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask 
unanimous consent to dispense with the reading.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. MURPHY of Florida. Mr. Chair, I rise today to offer an amendment 
to the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act that would 
cut over $300 million from a program that is supposed to cost taxpayers 
nothing. If you, like me, are wondering how we got to this point of 
paying for a cost-free program, keep listening.
  Customs and Border Patrol, along with the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture, conducts agricultural quarantine inspections on incoming 
vessels and passengers. This is an essential service that protects our 
Nation's agriculture and wildlife.
  CBP and USDA have claimed that the cost of this program is covered by 
imposing fees on incoming vessels and travelers--a sensible approach. 
However, when the Government Accountability Office last examined the 
program in 2011, the fees covered only 60 percent of the program's 
cost. As a result, the taxpayers had to cover a $325 million shortfall.
  I recently introduced the bipartisan SAVE Act with the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Joyce), which would implement recommendations by the GAO to 
push Customs and Border Patrol, along with the USDA, to adjust its fee 
structure and administration to fully cover the cost of this program.
  My amendment would prevent Customs and Border Patrol from continuing 
to use taxpayer dollars to subsidize incoming vessels and travelers and 
make the program truly fee-supported.
  My amendment would free up remaining CBP funds to do what they should 
be doing: securing the homeland and facilitating travel, tourism, and 
trade. More tourism and more trade mean more American jobs.
  Mr. Chair, I think we can all agree that this is a commonsense 
amendment that saves taxpayers dollars and improves the environment for 
greater job growth. I urge my colleagues on both sides to support this 
cost-saving amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CARTER. I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. CARTER. I oppose this amendment because it would make it 
impossible for CBP to carry out its mandated mission to inspect and 
clear agricultural products that enter the United States from a foreign 
country.
  A mixture of fees and discretionary funds pay for CBP officers that 
inspect and clear foreign ag products. When fees run out, discretionary 
funds pay for the officers' work.
  If we do not provide these funds, as the amendment proposes, 
agricultural imports to the United States would effectively halt and 
halt trade.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CARTER. I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the chairman 
yielding, and I also want to oppose this amendment.
  I want to say to my colleague that I very clearly understand the 
purpose of this amendment. I think it's a worthy purpose. I think we 
should pay for these inspections through fee revenue, and the fees need 
to be adequate to the task.
  So the gentleman, as I understand it, is trying to apply some 
pressure in that situation so that that gets done. That's a worthy 
purpose. But the risk is simply too great with a blanket prohibition of 
discretionary funds to be used for inspections. The risk is simply too 
great that the vital inspections that really can't lapse would not go 
on.
  So I have to reluctantly urge defeat of the amendment, although I 
agree with and understand its underlying purpose.
  Mr. CARTER. Reclaiming my time, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Murphy).
  The amendment was rejected.


           Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Collins of Georgia

  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the 
desk.
  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 in contravention of section 236(c) of the Immigration 
     and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1226(c)).

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. I offer this amendment to ensure that none of 
the funds in this bill may be used in violation of section 236(c) of 
the Immigration and Nationality Act.
  This amendment prohibits the United States Immigration and Customs 
Enforcement from using taxpayer dollars to process the release of or to 
administer alternate forms of detention to illegal immigrants who 
committed a crime that mandates their incarceration under section 
236(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
  Section 236(c) requires the Federal Government to detain illegal 
aliens who committed any one of the serious crimes detailed in that 
section until that illegal alien is deported to their home country.
  In my home State of Georgia, ICE has processed the release of 
criminal aliens under the guise of sequestration. Along with the fellow 
members of the Georgia delegation, I have written to DHS and ICE on two 
separate occasions requesting more information about the releases.
  To date, DHS and ICE have failed to provide basic information 
regarding the criminal aliens released in Georgia. We don't know how 
many criminal aliens were released and to where. We don't know what 
crimes they committed prior to detention, and we don't know what forms 
of alternatives to detention ICE is using to ensure they don't commit 
additional crimes.
  Mr. Chairman, this is unacceptable.
  Our Nation was founded on the rule of law, and I do not believe 
taxpayer dollars should ever be used to circumvent the law.
  I appreciate the men and women who work for ICE and have great 
respect for the work they do and the sacrifices they make.

[[Page 8107]]

  This amendment ensures that political agendas won't interfere with 
the need to protect innocent citizens from criminal illegal aliens.
  The Federal Government should enforce immigration law, particularly 
section 236(c), that mandates the detention of dangerous criminal 
illegal aliens.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment to prohibit taxpayer 
funds from being used in violation of section 236(c), and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. CARTER. I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. CARTER. Though in principle I believe there are times when 
alternatives to detention make sense, utilizing them to release 
convicted criminals is never appropriate. Therefore, I appreciate 
Congressman Collins calling attention to the importance of ICE 
maintaining a robust capability to detain and maintain custody of 
illegal aliens, especially those convicted of violent and serious 
crimes and felonies like drug trafficking, prostitution and conspiracy.
  Included in this bill is no less than $2.8 billion for enforcement 
and removal operations, which include $148 million to fully support the 
statutory requirements to maintain at least 34,000 beds, which is 
critical if we're going to ensure that convicted criminals and repeat 
offenders do not endanger public safety. Therefore, I'm happy to accept 
the gentleman's amendment, and I reiterate my appreciation for 
Congressman Collins for offering it. And as to the fact that he didn't 
get information from ICE or from DHS, I've had the same experience and 
I was just as upset as you are.
  I support the Congressman's amendment, and I yield back the balance 
of my time.

                              {time}  2110

  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins).
  The amendment was agreed to.


         Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Thompson of Mississippi

  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. I have an amendment at the desk.
  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), add the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used by the Transportation Security Administration for the 
     Behavior Detection Officer program

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, my amendment does one 
simple thing: it stops TSA from continuing to waste taxpayer dollars on 
a program the agency has not scientifically validated or shown to be 
cost effective.
  Since 2007, TSA has spent approximately $1 billion on its behavioral 
detection program, the screening of passengers by observation 
techniques, commonly referred to as the SPOT program.
  Under this program, on an annual basis, TSA spends about $200 million 
to deploy 2,800 behavior detection officers, or BDOs, at airports 
around the country to observe passenger behaviors for signs that they 
present a terrorism risk to aviation. While the goal of this program--
preventing terrorists from boarding flights--is laudable, the program 
is, by any measure, fatally flawed.
  Chief among those flaws is that TSA has not scientifically validated 
that BDOs can identify terrorists by observing behaviors. Indeed, the 
Government Accountability Office has found that ``known or suspected 
terrorists'' have moved through screening on 23 different occasions in 
airports where BDOs were deployed. In fact, BDOs have never identified, 
apprehended, referred to law enforcement, or prevented a terrorist from 
boarding an aircraft. This is not surprising considering that there is 
no scientific basis for suggesting that they should or would be able to 
do so.
  As if it were not bad enough that TSA has spent almost $1 billion on 
a program without scientific validation, yesterday The New York Times 
reported that the DHS inspector general has found that TSA cannot 
ensure passengers at U.S. airports are screened objectively under the 
SPOT program, show that the program is cost effective, or reasonably 
justify the program's expansion.
  Indeed, the IG found that the program does not have a strategic plan, 
a financial plan, or even a comprehensive and uniform training program. 
In light of the sequester and the resulting budget cuts, I, for one, 
see no justification for spending another dollar on a program that is 
wasteful and ineffective.
  Mr. Chair, the time has come to stop TSA from squandering additional 
funds on this misguided effort. I was surprised in these austere times 
the Appropriations Committee provided funding for the program, 
especially when, in the report accompanying H.R. 2217, the committee 
questioned the fundamentals for the program when it said that there are 
outstanding questions remaining over the value of the program.
  We have an opportunity today to ensure we fund programs that are 
merit-worthy and effective, not programs whose value and effectiveness 
have not been established. Further, we have the opportunity to ensure 
that $200 million saved by defunding this program is put to far better 
uses, such as expanding TSA's Pre Check program so more individuals can 
receive expedited screening, reducing wait times at screening 
checkpoints, and bolstering surface transportation security.
  Earlier today, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee stated 
that we cannot afford to fund unproven and wasteful programs. I cannot 
agree more. That is why I am offering this amendment to cut off funding 
for TSA's unproven and wasteful SPOT program.
  With that, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support my 
amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CARTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. CARTER. Mr. Chairman, I share some of the concerns of the 
gentleman from Mississippi, and I believe that the outstanding question 
still remains over the actual value of the Behavior Detection Officer, 
BDO program, which has yet to be sufficiently validated by TSA. In 
addition, it is my understanding that a recent OIG report may validate 
the concerns Mr. Thompson has raised about the program. In the report 
accompanying this bill, this committee also articulated some of the 
same concerns of Mr. Thompson, including whether passengers are 
screened in an objective and cost-effective manner.
  However, I cannot accept this amendment at this time to zero out the 
program. I remain hopeful that TSA will correct these issues. And my 
colleague, Chairman McCaul, has also said he is hopeful that we can 
correct these programs. I will be willing to work with Mr. Thompson and 
Mr. McCaul and anyone else who has concerns about this to make sure 
that this program is effectively administered and effectively worked. 
So at this time, I oppose the amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant 
opposition to the amendment as well. I do this because I have great 
respect for the gentleman from Mississippi and for the good work that 
he does on the authorizing committee. And I also know that the concerns 
he has expressed here tonight are legitimate ones. But I believe 
striking this funding in an appropriations bill is not the preferred 
way to deal with it.
  The Behavior Detection Officers program utilizes specially trained 
individuals to identify potentially high-risk passengers. This program 
is specifically designed to detect individuals exhibiting behaviors 
that indicate they

[[Page 8108]]

may be a threat to our security. And these behaviors, by the way, are 
not just randomly chosen. These individuals are trained in 
psychologically grounded theories as to what kind of behaviors they're 
looking for and what those behaviors may indicate. It's one element of 
a layered approach to ensuring the security of our commercial airlines 
and airports.
  Now, I'm aware that the inspector general will soon issue a report 
that faults TSA for not being able to accurately assess the 
effectiveness of the program and for not having a finalized strategic 
plan that identifies the mission, the goals, and the objectives needed 
to develop performance measures. My understanding, however, is that TSA 
has agreed with all of these recommendations made by the inspector 
general to improve the program and plans to address them right away. I 
also understand that TSA has already drafted a strategic plan for the 
program.
  Ending a program at the Department of Homeland Security just because 
the inspector general has found that it needs to improve its strategy 
and its performance measures just doesn't make sense to me. The 
inspector general certainly has not recommended that the program be 
ended.
  The use of behavior detection is not a new or novel idea. As I say, 
in fact, it has a validated foundation in psychology. It's been a 
cornerstone in the Israeli Government's aviation security for years. I 
commend Administrator Pistole for his understanding of the 
possibilities and limitations of behavior detection and his attempts to 
use it effectively. We don't need to end this program; we need to work 
with TSA and push it to quickly implement the IG's recommendations. So 
I urge defeat of the amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. 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 Mississippi 
will be postponed.

                              {time}  2120


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Salmon

  Mr. SALMON. 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. The gentleman from Arizona is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. SALMON. Mr. Chairman, I might add that this amendment was one 
that was offered by my colleague David Schweikert from Arizona last 
year, and it passed on a voice vote.
  Department of Homeland Security, DHS, has long viewed State and local 
governments as valuable partners that can help serve a helpful role in 
assisting DHS in fulfilling its responsibility with respect to 
immigration enforcement, and it continues to welcome that 
participation.
  In order to avoid complying with their obligation to share 
information with DHS, local governments have taken on a ``don't ask, 
don't tell'' policy known as ``sanctuary policies.'' With the 
implementation of sanctuary policies, State and local law enforcement 
officers are barred from asking people about their immigration status 
or reporting them to Federal immigration authorities.
  Sanctuary policies are bad public policy because States or cities 
that institute sanctuary policies become magnets for illegal 
immigration. Illegal immigration results in higher costs of living; 
reduced job availability; lower wages; higher crime rates; fiscal 
hardship on hospitals and substandard quality of care for residents; 
burdens on public services, increasing their costs and diminishing 
their availability; and a reduction of the overall quality of life.
  Sanctuary policies are expensive and shift the cost of illegal 
immigration onto citizens and legal immigrants. Because of the 
difficulty States have in collecting taxes from persons who are not 
lawfully present, many are utilizing State and local benefits and 
resources without contributing their fair share.
  Sanctuary policies serve as a perverse incentive for illegal alien 
families to move to those States or cities who institute such policies. 
Accommodating those who violate our immigration law encourages others 
to follow the same path and gives prospective immigrants little 
incentive to pursue the legal path of immigration when they can 
sidestep the process and gain the same benefits.
  Sanctuary policies also insult those legal immigrants who patiently 
waited for months and years for the U.S. State Department and DHS to 
approve their application and paid thousands of dollars in travel, 
legal, and medical fees to abide by the entry, employment, health, and 
processing laws and regulations.
  Sanctuary policies conflict with Federal law. Recognizing the 
adoption of sanctuary policies as a growing impediment to combating the 
wave of illegal aliens residing in the country, Congress adopted the 
Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigration Responsibility Act of 1996 
that barred State and local governments from prohibiting employees from 
providing, receiving, and sharing information on those here illegally 
with Federal Government immigration officials.
  Sanctuary policy denies U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement 
critical assistance to enable it to accomplish its statutorily mandated 
mission to identify and ultimately remove those here illegally who are 
currently in State or local custody.
  Sanctuary policies undermine national security efforts and create an 
environment in which terrorists and individuals of national security 
concern go unnoticed and uninterrupted.
  Sanctuary cities tell those who are here illegally that the laws of 
our country don't matter. Sanctuary city policies encourage illegal 
immigration and weaken our Nation's ability to secure our borders. They 
contribute to a flood of illegal immigrants in this country today.
  During the immigration reform debate, sanctuary cities should not be 
overlooked. This policy is creating an even bigger illegal immigration 
problem.
  With money so tight these days, cities which are purposely skirting 
Federal law should not benefit from Federal law enforcement funding. 
The funds should be used for those cities who are actively enforcing 
the law.
  So, in a nutshell, what this amendment would do is disallow any funds 
from this particular legislation to go to sanctuary cities.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CARTER. I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. CARTER. We will accept this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. I'm not sure of the full intent of the gentleman's 
amendment, but I will say that I'm concerned if we are going to deny 
funding to cities that have established rules that may be determined 
that they are sanctuary cities and, in fact, they are not.
  Many cities have a process in their own jurisdiction where law 
enforcement wants to ensure that, in the enforcement of their local 
laws, that all communities be considered engaged in the law enforcement 
process.
  I don't know whether the gentleman determines that that is a 
sanctuary city, where chiefs of police wish to hear from communities 
that are bilingual

[[Page 8109]]

and, therefore, do not want to have a structure that intimidates them 
and, therefore, inhibits the prosecution of laws or inhibits the 
elimination of crime.
  So I would only make the argument that I know that the Association of 
Chiefs of Police have argued that it is important to ensure that 
immigrant communities feel free enough to communicate with their law 
enforcement officers.
  I don't know if that is the interpretation of the gentleman's 
sanctuary cities. I know that he is going under the law. But I 
certainly hope those cities will not be biased or discriminated against 
with respect to Federal funding on homeland security.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SALMON. I was just going to say, my interpretation of the law is 
exactly as it's stated in the law that we passed in 1996 and nothing 
more, nothing less.
  Mr. SCHWEIKERT. I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Arizona is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Mr. Chairman, being someone who worked on this 
amendment last year--and I appreciate my next-door neighbor and my old 
friend, Matt Salmon, for bringing it up--for those of us from Arizona, 
we actually have some very intimate experience with sort of dealing 
with these mechanics.
  For almost all of us in this body, we run for office telling everyone 
that immigration is a Federal issue. You know, we need to set Federal 
policy, and that's how we mechanically will come up with our 
commonality of enforcement.
  But what happens when, all of a sudden, we have a municipality that's 
still taking those Federal dollars and yet is not playing under the 
same rules as their next-door neighbor municipalities?
  The beauty of this amendment is very, very simple. It says, if you're 
going to take these resources, you need to play by the rule book that 
we in Congress set on an issue that we're supposed to be dominant on.
  And the reality of it is, when you have a municipality that, through 
stated policy, flaunts what we're trying to do, particularly in 
immigration policy, it ends up creating this sort of balkanization in 
our communities, and it sets off those very fights that I believe our 
last speaker was touching on.
  And having been the county treasurer of Maricopa County, I've seen 
the edges of this, when one municipality was looking very, very 
differently at our Federal laws compared to another one and, literally, 
the movements that would happen with populations and the fights that 
would start and also the chaos it would actually create when you were 
trying to have a community of also equal law enforcement.
  So, Mr. Chairman, that's one of the reasons I stand here and support 
the Salmon amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in the 
hopes of engaging in a colloquy with the chairman.
  Mr. Chairman, thank you for the work that you have done on this bill, 
along with our ranking member.
  I had intended to offer an amendment in the hopes that we could move 
forward with modernizing our pedestrian access at our land ports of 
entry, but I was held up in the NDAA markup, which is ongoing still.
  My amendment would have been simple. It would have set aside $5 
million within the Construction and Facilities Management account in 
title 2 of this bill to begin construction on shovel-ready projects at 
our land ports of entry, the pedestrian access points.
  Mr. Chairman, our land ports are out of date and in need of massive 
repair.

                              {time}  2130

  This is the first step in addressing the massive wait times for 
pedestrians across our country.
  I was recently in Calexico, California, where I saw elderly people 
waiting in 102-degree heat just to come and shop in the United States. 
We hinder our economy when we hinder the lifeline of trade into our 
country. Mr. Chairman, this is happening every day at our border 
communities throughout this country. And as a Member of Congress from a 
border State, you understand that all too well.
  So I want to ask the chairman for his support in working with me 
during the conference to ensure pedestrian access points at land points 
of entry have the funds that they need to be improved so that we can 
increase our trade at our land ports.
  Mr. CARTER. Will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. I yield to the gentleman from 
Texas.
  Mr. CARTER. I thank the gentlewoman from California for engaging me 
in this colloquy.
  As she had just stated, wait times at our ports of entry, both 
vehicle and pedestrian, have increased in recent years. I would have 
supported the gentlewoman's amendment, but will vow to work with her in 
ensuring that the proper funds are given to the pedestrians to reduce 
wait times at land ports of entry. I'll be glad to work with you on 
this issue.
  Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for that 
clarification and for your strong support in improving pedestrian 
access points at our land points of entry, and I yield back the balance 
of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Salmon).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Runyan

  Mr. RUNYAN. Mr. Chair, 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 new section:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to carry out the amendments made by section 100207 of 
     the Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2012 (title 
     II of division F of Public Law 112-141) with respect to any 
     property located in the State of New Jersey or the State of 
     New York.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. RUNYAN. My amendment is actually very similar to what 
Representative Cassidy had on the floor about an hour ago. My amendment 
would delay the increase in National Flood Insurance Program premiums 
in New Jersey and New York until the end of FY 2014. It does so through 
prohibiting funding for the implementation of section 207 of the 
Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act with regards to the States of 
New York and New Jersey.
  New Jersey and New York suffered unprecedented damages during 
Hurricane Sandy. Many of these coastal residents in New Jersey and New 
York are still struggling to rebuild and now are staring down huge 
increases in flood insurance premiums due to the provisions of the 
Biggert-Waters Act. The people of New Jersey and New York have suffered 
enough and cannot afford to pay skyrocketing premiums in the middle of 
the rebuilding process. The least we can do is give them a reprieve, a 
little peace of mind, until the end of the 2014 fiscal year.
  I would like to thank Mr. King and Mr. LoBiondo for working with me 
on this amendment, and I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CARTER. I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. CARTER. The authorizers have indicated that they oppose this 
amendment that's being proposed by my friend from New Jersey. I'm 
reluctant to oppose it. So I just wanted to make the statement that the 
authorizing committee is opposed to this. We've had a debate almost ad 
nauseam on the State of Louisiana, with exactly the same amendment. I 
think everything that's been said about this flood program has been 
said, so I'm not going to continue that debate. I just wanted to make a 
note that although I'm not

[[Page 8110]]

going to officially oppose it, I will state that the authorizers were 
supposed to be here to oppose.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. O'ROURKE. I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. O'ROURKE. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chair and the ranking 
member of this subcommittee for their work on this bill. It's certainly 
one that I'm very happy to support.
  Given the importance of trade at both our northern and southern land 
ports of entry, I am particularly pleased that the bill includes 1,600 
new CBP officers to expedite trade at our ports. I planned to offer an 
amendment that would have helped to target these new officers to the 
busiest ports of entry. It would have required the Department of 
Homeland Security to submit a report detailing the average crossing 
times at the busiest land ports and what the staffing needs are to 
ensure that we can reduce those wait times to 20 minutes or less. I 
understand my amendment would be subject to a point of order, but I 
look forward to working with the chair and ranking member to address 
this issue as the process moves forward.
  Very quickly, wait times right now at our ports of entry are 
unpredictable and they are inconsistent. People can wait as few as 20 
minutes or they can wait as long as 2 or 3 hours to enter the United 
States at a pedestrian bridge, as a commuter by vehicle. Or, most 
important, for our economy, trade can wait hours at a time to enter the 
United States.
  The economy that I represent in El Paso, Texas, has 100,000 jobs at 
stake that depend on this cross-border trade. There is over $90 billion 
in U.S.-Mexico trade that is crossing at those ports every single year. 
More than 6 million jobs in this country depend on that U.S.-Mexico 
trade that is crossing at our southern ports of entry alone. In the 
State of Texas, we have more than 400,000 jobs. In the State of North 
Carolina, we have over 100,000 jobs. That's why I think it's so 
important to understand the wait times and to be able to fix them and 
to move people and CBP officers where they are most needed. So, again, 
I look forward to working with the chairman and ranking member to 
address this issue going forward.
  Mr. CARTER. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. O'ROURKE. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. CARTER. I would like to comment to my colleague from Brownsville 
that we in Texas are very proud of our ports of entry on the border. 
They do an exceptional job in a difficult environment. We do need to 
reduce the wait times. And I'm looking forward to working with you and 
looking forward to coming to Brownsville and visiting down that way. 
I've been to Laredo a lot of times lately, but I haven't been to 
Brownsville. And I will get down that way.
  I intend to work with you and our friends from California and Arizona 
to do the best we can to move these wait times down to something that's 
manageable. So I just want to comment I'd be glad to work with you.
  Mr. O'ROURKE. I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. I'd like to address Mr. Runyan's amendment with the 
flood insurance. We've had great discussion on this tonight about the 
flood insurance and how appropriate it is to come through an 
appropriations bill rather than going through regular order and going 
through the committee of origination, which is the Financial Services 
Committee. So I don't want to take up any more time. We have been 
through this and through this and through this.
  With all respect to the gentleman from New Jersey, I just don't know 
that it's proper to do something specific for just two States when 
there's 5.5 million people in other States that have flood insurance 
that are involved in this. We can give the committee of authority the 
ability to address the FEMA situation.
  With that, I ask for a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of 
my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Runyan).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. RUNYAN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey 
will be postponed.


                  Amendment Offered by Ms. Jackson Lee

  Ms. JACKSON LEE. 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 section 44917 of title 49, United 
     States Code.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes.

                              {time}  2140

  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, let me again thank the committee for 
its leadership and acknowledge to my friends that this amendment was 
adopted in the last appropriations for Homeland Security. I believe 
it's an important amendment to continue to keep before this committee, 
but also to continue to provide codification of it.
  I have served on the Homeland Security Committee for a very honorable 
period of time. When I say that, it is a time that I have enjoyed being 
able to address the questions of homeland security or domestic security 
under the Homeland Security Department. Through that time, I have had 
the privilege on one of my committees to have oversight over the U.S. 
air marshals.
  I would offer to say to my colleagues that often U.S. Air Marshals 
don't get the thanks and appreciation that they deserve. It is not an 
easy task, even as they are on domestic flights. International flights 
are quite difficult in terms of the time, but also the intensity of the 
work because their astuteness and awareness of what's going on in a 
small compact area is very important to the safety of those passengers.
  So my amendment, Mr. Chairman, is very simple. What it does is it 
asks that no funds be used to limit the discretion of the Secretary of 
Homeland Security to enhance the use of Federal air marshals on inbound 
international flights considered to be high risk by the Department of 
Homeland Security.
  There's little that I need to say to my colleagues that we live in a 
different atmosphere and certainly a different neighborhood. We're all 
well aware of our eyes being focused on the Christmas Day bomber just a 
few years ago, or the fact of the shoe bomber that was headed to 
Boston, or the fact of the various training that is going on with 
individuals even from the United States in Yemen. We're also aware that 
one of the Boston Marathon bombers flew from the United States overseas 
and back. So we realize that individuals are using the international 
air skies, if you will, to travel back and forth to the United States.
  My amendment ensures that the Federal air marshals are effectively 
using their funds to deploy personnel on inbound flights that are 
considered high risk by the Department of Homeland Security and that 
there is no limitation to that ability.
  I believe the Federal air marshals are the last line of defense in 
many instances in defending the cockpit and aircraft cabin against 
terrorist attacks, those who have obviously been able to transcend 
other barriers and getting on planes in international ports.
  As a former chair and a member of the Homeland Security 
Transportation Security Committee, I worked over the years and 
sponsored legislation to ensure that we have enough air marshals and 
that they receive all the requisite training to effectively secure the 
aircraft. Again, many times their work goes unnoticed, but it is vital 
work to

[[Page 8111]]

best protect our Nation from terroristic threat. It is of extreme 
importance that we use the necessary funds to support the use of 
Federal air marshals on inbound international flights.
  Make no mistake, the threat to our aviation system from aircraft 
inbound to the United States from foreign airports continues to be a 
serious and dangerous threat. It is often recited by those who are 
engaged in intelligence matters that aviation assets still are the 
asset of choice for many of these franchise terrorists. To best protect 
our Nation from terroristic threat, it is important that we take note 
of our international flights.
  Following the capture and killing of Osama bin Laden, intelligence 
was gathered that suggested al Qaeda still has an interest in attacking 
the United States, likely through transportation modes, whether it is 
to airplanes, trains, and other modes. This fact, coupled with the 
numerous suspicious activities even on domestic aircraft where 
passengers are attempting to open cabin doors in flight or otherwise 
disrupt, is of concern. Certainly, our air marshals play a very 
important role.
  While my amendment deals with the threat of inbound aircraft to the 
United States, its ultimate impact would be to ensure that air marshals 
are assigned to the highest risk flights. It simply prohibits funds 
from being used to limit the discretion of the Secretary of Homeland 
Security to enhance air marshal coverage on inbound, high-risk flights. 
And it reinforces the importance of the job that air marshals do, but 
also the importance of assessing this high-risk threat in many 
instances, which is the aviation vehicle.
  The terroristic threats are ever-changing. We must allow the 
Secretary of Homeland Security to make the necessary adjustments to 
protect the American people. This is not a funding issue or a people 
issue, rather, a security issue.
  This amendment is budget neutral, and I would ask my colleagues to 
support this amendment that really speaks to the idea of security for 
the American people.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Thank you for this opportunity to explain my amendment, which simply 
prohibits any funds in the Homeland Appropriations Act from being used 
to limit the discretion of the Secretary of Homeland Security to 
enhance the use of Federal air marshals on inbound international 
flights considered to be high risk by the Department of Homeland 
Security.
  My amendment ensures that the Federal Air Marshals are effectively 
using their funds to deploy personnel on inbound flights that are 
considered high risk by the Department of Homeland Security and that 
there is no limitation on that ability.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe that Federal Air Marshals are the last line 
of defense in defending the cockpit and aircraft cabin against 
terrorist attack.
  As the former Chair and a current member of Homeland Security 
Transportation Security Subcommittee, I have worked over the years and 
sponsored legislation to ensure that we have enough air marshals and 
that they receive all the requisite training to effectively secure 
aircraft.
  To best protect our Nation from terroristic threat it is of extreme 
importance that we use the necessary funds to support the use of 
Federal Air Marshalls on inbound international flights.
  Make no mistake--the threat to our aviation system from aircraft 
inbound to the United States from foreign airports is serious and 
dangerous.
  Following the capture and killing of Osama Bin Laden, intelligence 
was gathered that suggests that Al Qaeda still has an interest in 
attacking the U.S., likely through transportation modes. This fact, 
coupled with the numerous suspicious activities even on domestic 
aircraft where passengers were attempting to open cabin doors in flight 
or otherwise disrupt flights, is of concern.
  While my amendment deals with the threat on inbound aircraft to the 
U.S., its ultimate impact will be to ensure that air marshals are 
assigned to the highest-risk flights.
  It simply prohibits funds from being used to limit the discretion 
Secretary of Homeland Security to enhance air marshal coverage on 
inbound high-risk flights in accordance with the Department's risk 
model.
  The terroristic threats are ever changing and we must allow the 
Secretary of Homeland Security to make the necessary adjustments to 
protect the American people.
  This is not a funding issue or people issue, rather a security issue 
and this amendment is budget neutral.
  Let me thank those under Homeland Security for their service, 
including my friends at the Transportation Security Administration. Let 
me thank the Federal Air Marshals as well for their service.
  Mr. Chair, I ask my colleagues to support amendment 153 to the 
Homeland Security Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2014.
  Mr. CARTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. CARTER. Mr. Chairman, I do not oppose this gentlelady's 
amendment. It is my understanding that it's a restatement of current 
law.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  The amendment was agreed to.


              Amendment Offered by Mr. Gingrey of Georgia

  Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the 
desk.
  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 in contravention of section 287(g) of the Immigration 
     and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1357(g)).

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer a 
commonsense amendment to H.R. 2217.
  The 287(g) program has been an integral component of immigration 
enforcement efforts, yet the Obama administration has been 
systematically weakening the integrity of the program by slashing 
funding and discontinuing numerous agreements. Our colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle have tried to do the same throughout this open 
amendment process.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to commend my friend, Homeland Security 
Appropriation Subcommittee Chairman Judge John Carter, for recognizing 
the importance of the program and ensuring that the underlying bill 
provides $43.5 million to restore it. My amendment simply adds an 
additional layer of protection for the program by stating that none of 
the funds made available under this act may be used in contravention of 
section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
  The 287(g) program enables State and local law enforcement to enter 
into agreements with Immigration and Customs Enforcement, ICE, to act 
in place of or in tandem with ICE agents by processing illegal aliens 
who are incarcerated for crimes for removal.
  287(g) agreements have a proven track record, Mr. Chairman. Since 
2006, over 309,000 potentially removable illegal aliens have been 
identified under this enforcement program. I emphasize ``potentially 
removable'' because the final decision remains with ICE. Additionally, 
with less than 6,000 ICE agents, 287(g) agreements serve as a critical 
force multiplier by allowing State and local enforcement to assist in 
enforcing Federal immigration laws.
  In my district, the 11th Congressional District of Georgia, the Cobb 
County Sheriff's Department has successfully participated in a 287(g) 
program since 2007. I know that the Cobb Sheriff's Department wants to 
continue its participation in this program, and I am sure countless 
other law enforcement agencies do as well.
  However, the Obama administration continues to weaken our immigration 
laws by reducing options available to enforce those laws. The 
administration has gone so far as discontinuing existing agreements, 
suspending pending agreements, and seeking to slash the 287(g) program 
by 25 percent. We cannot let this continue.
  Mr. Chairman, the administration and my colleagues on the other side 
of the aisle tout Secure Communities as an alternative to 287(g). While 
Secure Communities is an important part of immigration enforcement, it 
focuses

[[Page 8112]]

primarily on removing aliens that the administration deems a priority, 
namely, criminal aliens. While removal of these types of aliens is 
important, the administration must stop picking and choosing aspects of 
existing immigration law it chooses to enforce.
  State and local enforcement officers go through extensive training to 
participate in 287(g) agreements. This training allows them to 
participate in enforcing immigration law while carrying out their other 
duties.

                              {time}  2150

  Rather than turning a blind eye to someone here illegally, officers 
are able to identify and take action when they encounter an illegal 
alien who has been incarcerated for committing a crime. They're not 
patrolling the streets. The Obama administration's continued attack on 
the 287(g) program ignores the program's success and the officers' 
training--assuming that they can't multitask--and instead forces those 
who are charged with upholding the law to just simply ignore it.
  Mr. Chairman, it is time we start enforcing our immigration laws. It 
is time we uphold the rule of law. For these reasons, I urge all of my 
colleagues, please support my amendment to this bill, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. CARTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. CARTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Gingrey amendment, 
and 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 am mainly baffled by 
this amendment. What on Earth could it mean to contravene 287(g)? 
Nobody wants to contravene any Federal statute. That's what this 
amendment says.
  If the offering of his amendment is an occasion to gloss over the 
problems with 287(g) and tout its virtues, I will simply very briefly 
go back to the debate earlier today when I think this was pretty 
thoroughly discussed. We have in 287(g) an effort to bring local 
officials into the business of immigration enforcement.
  In some communities that has worked reasonably well. And I must say, 
in my experience where it has worked reasonably well is where those 
local authorities focused on the jails and on the prison population and 
the people who, in fact, had committed serious crimes. And in that 
sense, it is a parallel effort with the Secure Communities effort.
  I know of other instances, though--and I think the Department has 
verified that there are other instances--where that line between 
Federal and local authority has gotten very seriously blurred, where 
there have been instances of profiling and other abuses. In fact, there 
have been so many abuses that I concluded some time ago that 287(g) was 
prone to abuse, that there were too many problems with the way that 
program was set up for it to really be our long-term effort to involve 
local officials in immigration matters.
  I believe it's very important that 287(g) be phased into the Secure 
Communities effort. The Secure Communities effort is now taking off 
around the country, and I think can in time supersede this flawed 
287(g) concept.
  And then, finally, there's also the matter of expense. We discussed 
earlier today $32,000 per removal for that task force model 287(g) 
program versus something like $1,500 under secure communities. It's a 
waste of money.
  Therefore, I thought the administration did the right thing in 
reducing the funding for 287(g) and continuing the phase-in of Secure 
Communities. I regret that the committee put that money back, but I 
certainly feel that this current amendment--I don't understand what it 
means--but I certainly don't want to let the occasion pass without 
saying to my colleagues, I think this 287(g) program is one that we 
need to oversee very, very carefully. I remain convinced that it can 
and should be superseded by a better program.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FLORES. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FLORES. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to Mr. 
Gingrey from Georgia.
  Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman from 
Texas yielding me time. I would just say to my colleague from North 
Carolina that--as I pointed out in describing this amendment--the 
287(g) program superseded some of these State laws that were enacted 
west of the Mississippi, not east of the Mississippi, and obviously 
there were some problems. But in this situation that I'm describing--
and the reason the chairman of the subcommittee wants so strongly to 
fund this program--is communities like Cobb County, Georgia, in the 
heart of the 11th Congressional District, my district. Sheriff Neil 
Warren has been utilizing this program since 2007, Mr. Chairman, and as 
I pointed out, it is a force multiplier. The deputy sheriffs in Cobb 
County are not patrolling the streets profiling, looking for certain 
individuals to ask them for their papers or anything of that sort.
  This program is just simply when someone is incarcerated for 
committing a crime in our community. And it doesn't matter their 
ethnicity. Anybody in that jail with the training of these officers 
under the 287(g) Federal program, federally trained, they have the 
ability, the knowledge, the wherewithal, to find out, to check the 
databases, the Homeland Security information, Social Security, to find 
out whether or not these individuals are in this country legally.
  Now, if they're not in the country legally, we make note of that--
they make note of that--under the 287(g) program. They serve their time 
for the crime they committed in our community, whether that's running a 
red light or driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol or a minor 
fender-bender, whatever it is, they serve their time.
  ICE is then simply given this information, and they can make a 
decision whatever they want to do in regard to whether they deport 
these illegal immigrants. The Secure Communities program, of course, 
gives them the ability to decide not to deport them. Well, the local 
community, the local sheriff's department, is out of it at that point. 
So nothing can be better than a program like 287(g). And it's well 
worth the dollars spent, and as I point out, a force multiplier.
  I commend the chairman of the subcommittee, and I say to my 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle, let's get the job done and 
support this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I was intending on offering an 
amendment dealing with Border Security Centers of Excellence. I will 
not offer that amendment, and I would like to just indicate that I look 
forward to working with the ranking member and the chairman.
  As we move to a comprehensive immigration reform, Border Security 
Centers of Excellence are universities that look to the highest 
technology of how we can secure America. They undertake research and 
education initiatives designed to meet the needs of the Department of 
Homeland Security, border security, and immigration in a global 
context. They develop and use cutting-edge research methodologies 
focused on unique science and technology policy issues, and they 
develop educational programs in order to educate current and future 
practitioners, which is really crucial, and researchers in the relevant 
disciplines.
  If we want to secure America, we need the technology and the 
expertise. As a ranking member on the Border and Maritime Security 
Subcommittee, I can assure you that as we look to the new metrics of 
border security in the northern and southern border, we need personnel. 
And my amendment was going to ensure that we allow Congress to gather 
the information needed by

[[Page 8113]]

Congress to establish more universities, or opportunities for more 
universities and colleges to participate as Border Security Centers of 
Excellence.
  In my own community, Houston Community College, Texas Southern 
University, University of Houston, a number of campuses could be 
engaged as Border Security Centers of Excellence. Texas Southern 
University, for example, received from my initiative a Transportation 
Security Center of Excellence that was established under that 
particular legislation, the Transportation Security Administration 
legislation.

                              {time}  2200

  So I would like to make sure that we look forward to doing that.
  I do want to indicate, as we pass the amendment dealing with no 
knives on planes, that I had introduced legislation with Mr. Grimm that 
allowed Administrator Pistole an indefinite amount of time to consult 
with stakeholders. I, frankly, believe that legislation helped turn the 
corner for the thoughtful position that Mr. Pistole has now taken. I 
think the amendment that we passed today was by voice and was common 
sense and makes a good, important statement.
  I also think the idea of emphasizing the importance of U.S. air 
marshals in my previous amendment that was accepted is important and to 
reemphasize the importance of the responsibility of the U.S. Department 
of Homeland Security for the traveling public in order to ensure that 
it assesses high-risk places of departure so that air marshals can be 
used effectively, efficiently, and with funding.
  With all of that, I believe the amendments that have been put upon 
the floor today and that I have discussed and offered contribute 
positively to the ultimate direction of security in this country. As I 
conclude, I hope that we will be able to have more Border Security 
Centers of Excellence, and I look forward to working with this 
committee and the authorizing committee to ensure that in comprehensive 
immigration reform we have the technology, the personnel, the training, 
the research, and the education to make it work as it should.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Madam Chair, thank you for this opportunity to explain my proposed 
amendment, which simply gives the Secretary of Homeland Security the 
flexibility to conduct the study on the feasibility of expanding the 
membership of university-based Homeland Security Centers of Excellence.
  The mission of the Department of Homeland Security Centers of 
Excellence is to:
  Undertake research and education initiatives designed to meet the 
needs of the Department of Homeland Security, border security and 
immigration in a global context.
  Develop and use cutting-edge research methodologies focused on the 
unique science, technology, and policy issues within this domain.
  Develop educational programs in order to educate current and/or 
future practitioners and researchers in the relevant disciplines, and 
to help define emerging education areas.
  Under current law composition of membership of Homeland Security 
Centers, the number of centers is limited by law and can only be 
enlarged by Congress.
  This amendment allows the Secretary of Homeland Security to conduct a 
study to gather information needed by Congress in determining 
eligibility of more universities.
  In my congressional district, 18th Congressional District of Houston, 
TX, there are a number of institutions that have the expertise in 
research and staffing that would be in addition to this consortium 
involved in the Border Security Center of Excellence, such as the 
University of Houston and Texas Southern University.
  My amendment would just simply allow the United States to benefit 
from the expertise from new Homeland Security Centers of Excellence. I 
look forward to working toward adding more Border Security Centers of 
Excellence.
  The Acting CHAIR (Ms. Foxx). The question is on the amendment offered 
by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                    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:
  Amendment by Mr. Bishop of New York.
  Amendment by Mr. Moran of Virginia.
  Amendment by Mr. Garrett of New Jersey.
  Amendment by Mr. Ryan of Ohio.
  Amendment No. 1 by Mr. Cassidy of Louisiana.
  Amendment by Mr. Meadows of North Carolina.
  Amendment No. 4 by Mr. Thompson of Mississippi.
  Amendment by Mr. Runyan of New Jersey.
  The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.


              Amendment Offered by Mr. Bishop of New York

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Bishop) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 80, 
noes 345, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 199]

                                AYES--80

     Amash
     Andrews
     Bass
     Bentivolio
     Bishop (NY)
     Bonamici
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Burgess
     Capps
     Carney
     Cartwright
     Clyburn
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Courtney
     Crowley
     DeFazio
     Doyle
     Duncan (TN)
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Esty
     Farr
     Garamendi
     Gohmert
     Green, Gene
     Grimm
     Gutierrez
     Higgins
     Himes
     Holt
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jeffries
     Kelly (IL)
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Maffei
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Massie
     Matheson
     McGovern
     Meeks
     Meng
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Murphy (PA)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Pallone
     Perlmutter
     Polis
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Rice (SC)
     Richmond
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Thompson (CA)
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Welch
     Yoho

                               NOES--345

     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Amodei
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barber
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barrow (GA)
     Barton
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Benishek
     Bera (CA)
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Bonner
     Boustany
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Broun (GA)
     Brownley (CA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Coble
     Coffman
     Cohen
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cooper
     Costa
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Daines
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     Davis, Rodney
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Deutch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Duckworth
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Ellmers
     Enyart
     Eshoo
     Farenthold
     Fattah
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foster
     Foxx
     Frankel (FL)
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garcia
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Guthrie
     Hahn
     Hall
     Hanabusa
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Heck (WA)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hinojosa
     Holding
     Honda
     Horsford
     Hoyer
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jackson Lee
     Jenkins
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (PA)
     Kennedy
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kirkpatrick
     Kline
     Kuster
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Lankford
     Larsen (WA)
     Latham
     Latta
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Long
     Lowenthal

[[Page 8114]]


     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lummis
     Lynch
     Maloney, Sean
     Marchant
     Marino
     Matsui
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moore
     Moran
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (FL)
     Neal
     Negrete McLeod
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nolan
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     O'Rourke
     Olson
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Paulsen
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Perry
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pingree (ME)
     Pitts
     Pocan
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Radel
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ruiz
     Runyan
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanford
     Sarbanes
     Scalise
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, Austin
     Scott, David
     Sessions
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sinema
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stockman
     Stutzman
     Takano
     Terry
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Tipton
     Titus
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Visclosky
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Walz
     Waxman
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (FL)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yarmuth
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Campbell
     Grijalva
     Langevin
     Markey
     McCarthy (NY)
     McHenry
     Pittenger
     Sires
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  2228

  Messrs. HANNA, BEN RAY LUJAN of New Mexico, HASTINGS of Florida, Ms. 
MATSUI, Messrs. CAPUANO, DAVID SCOTT of Georgia, DANNY K. DAVIS of 
Illinois, Mrs. BACHMANN, Messrs. FATTAH, CARDENAS, CHABOT, KELLY of 
Pennsylvania, CICILLINE, PASTOR of Arizona, BLUMENAUER, Ms. FUDGE, Ms. 
CLARKE, Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas, Messrs. PAYNE, SCOTT of 
Virginia, RUSH, HONDA, and LEWIS changed their vote from ``aye'' to 
``no.''
  Messrs. SENSENBRENNER, GOHMERT, YOHO, RAHALL, and THOMPSON of 
California 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. LANGEVIN. Madam Chair, on rollcall vote No. 199, I was 
unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Moran

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia 
(Mr. Moran) 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 165, 
noes 261, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 200]

                               AYES--165

     Amash
     Andrews
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Enyart
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Garamendi
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Honda
     Horsford
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Levin
     Lewis
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Maloney, Carolyn
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     Meeks
     Meng
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Negrete McLeod
     Nolan
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peters (CA)
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--261

     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Amodei
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barber
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barrow (GA)
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bera (CA)
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Daines
     Davis, Danny
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Eshoo
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foster
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallego
     Garcia
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kirkpatrick
     Kline
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Lankford
     Latham
     Latta
     Lee (CA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney, Sean
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (FL)
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perlmutter
     Perry
     Peters (MI)
     Petri
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Radel
     Rahall
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Ruiz
     Runyan
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schiff
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shea-Porter
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sinema
     Slaughter
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stockman
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Titus
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Vela
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Campbell
     Grijalva
     Markey
     McCarthy (NY)
     McHenry
     Pittenger
     Sires
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  2234

  Ms. SHEA-PORTER and Mr. SCHIFF changed their vote from ``aye'' to 
``no.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Garrett

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded

[[Page 8115]]

vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Garrett) 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 180, 
noes 247, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 201]

                               AYES--180

     Alexander
     Amash
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Boustany
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Butterfield
     Camp
     Cantor
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coffman
     Collins (GA)
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Daines
     Davis, Danny
     Davis, Rodney
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Franks (AZ)
     Garamendi
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Gene
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Guthrie
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Holding
     Holt
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Jones
     Jordan
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Kline
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Lankford
     Latta
     Lofgren
     Long
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Maffei
     Marchant
     Massie
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meadows
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, George
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Nadler
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nolan
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Perry
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Polis
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Radel
     Rahall
     Reichert
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Shuster
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Stockman
     Stutzman
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Tipton
     Upton
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walorski
     Walz
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)

                               NOES--247

     Aderholt
     Amodei
     Andrews
     Barber
     Barletta
     Barrow (GA)
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera (CA)
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Calvert
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Carter
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cohen
     Cole
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cook
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Denham
     Dent
     Deutch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Enyart
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fitzpatrick
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foster
     Foxx
     Frankel (FL)
     Frelinghuysen
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garcia
     Gerlach
     Granger
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Grijalva
     Grimm
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hall
     Hanabusa
     Hanna
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     Horsford
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Joyce
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kelly (PA)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Marino
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McNerney
     Meehan
     Meeks
     Meng
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (FL)
     Murphy (PA)
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Negrete McLeod
     O'Rourke
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Reed
     Renacci
     Richmond
     Rigell
     Roby
     Rogers (KY)
     Roskam
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Runyan
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Simpson
     Sinema
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stivers
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Turner
     Valadao
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weber (TX)
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Yarmuth
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Campbell
     Markey
     McCarthy (NY)
     McHenry
     Pittenger
     Sires
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  2239

  Mr. OLSON changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                 Amendment Offered by Mr. Ryan of Ohio

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Ryan) 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 50, 
noes 373, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 202]

                                AYES--50

     Beatty
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Capps
     Cardenas
     Chabot
     Clarke
     Courtney
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Culberson
     Doyle
     Franks (AZ)
     Fudge
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Granger
     Green, Gene
     Griffith (VA)
     Honda
     Hunter
     Israel
     Johnson (OH)
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kaptur
     Kingston
     Larson (CT)
     Latta
     Mulvaney
     Owens
     Pascrell
     Pingree (ME)
     Poe (TX)
     Renacci
     Richmond
     Rogers (MI)
     Rooney
     Ryan (OH)
     Schrader
     Schweikert
     Shuster
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Tiberi
     Visclosky
     Welch
     Westmoreland
     Wolf
     Yoder

                               NOES--373

     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei
     Andrews
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barber
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barrow (GA)
     Barton
     Bass
     Becerra
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bera (CA)
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Bonner
     Boustany
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Braley (IA)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bucshon
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capuano
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Carter
     Cartwright
     Cassidy
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chaffetz
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coffman
     Cohen
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cook
     Cooper
     Costa
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Daines
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     Davis, Rodney
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Deutch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Duckworth
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Ellmers
     Engel
     Enyart
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farenthold
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foster
     Foxx
     Frankel (FL)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia
     Gardner
     Gerlach
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Griffin (AR)
     Grijalva
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hall
     Hanabusa
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)

[[Page 8116]]


     Heck (NV)
     Heck (WA)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Holding
     Holt
     Horsford
     Hoyer
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huffman
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Jenkins
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kelly (PA)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kirkpatrick
     Kline
     Kuster
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Langevin
     Lankford
     Larsen (WA)
     Latham
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Long
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lummis
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Meeks
     Meng
     Messer
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Mullin
     Murphy (FL)
     Murphy (PA)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Negrete McLeod
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nolan
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     O'Rourke
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Pallone
     Pastor (AZ)
     Paulsen
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Perry
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pitts
     Pocan
     Polis
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Radel
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reichert
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ruiz
     Runyan
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanford
     Sarbanes
     Scalise
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schock
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, Austin
     Scott, David
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Simpson
     Sinema
     Slaughter
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Southerland
     Speier
     Stewart
     Stockman
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tierney
     Tipton
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (FL)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yarmuth
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
     McCollum
       

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Campbell
     Cleaver
     Garrett
     Markey
     McCarthy (NY)
     McHenry
     Pittenger
     Ruppersberger
     Sires
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  2242

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                 Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Cassidy

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Louisiana 
(Mr. Cassidy) 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 281, 
noes 146, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 203]

                               AYES--281

     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Amodei
     Andrews
     Bachus
     Barber
     Barletta
     Barrow (GA)
     Barton
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera (CA)
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonamici
     Bonner
     Boustany
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brooks (IN)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Buchanan
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Calvert
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Cassidy
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coffman
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cook
     Costa
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     Davis, Rodney
     DeFazio
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Denham
     Dent
     Deutch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Ellmers
     Engel
     Enyart
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farenthold
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleming
     Forbes
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Frelinghuysen
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garcia
     Gerlach
     Gibson
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffin (AR)
     Grijalva
     Grimm
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hall
     Hanabusa
     Harper
     Harris
     Hastings (FL)
     Heck (WA)
     Herrera Beutler
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Honda
     Horsford
     Hoyer
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kirkpatrick
     Kline
     Kuster
     LaMalfa
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     Latta
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lummis
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McNerney
     Meehan
     Meeks
     Meng
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moore
     Moran
     Mullin
     Murphy (FL)
     Murphy (PA)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Negrete McLeod
     Nolan
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     O'Rourke
     Olson
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters (MI)
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Pitts
     Pocan
     Posey
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Rice (SC)
     Richmond
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Runyan
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanford
     Sarbanes
     Scalise
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Simpson
     Sinema
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Southerland
     Speier
     Stockman
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Valadao
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden
     Walorski
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Whitfield
     Wilson (FL)
     Wolf
     Womack
     Yarmuth
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                               NOES--146

     Amash
     Bachmann
     Barr
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bishop (UT)
     Blumenauer
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Broun (GA)
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Camp
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Cohen
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Cooper
     Cotton
     Culberson
     Daines
     DeGette
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Fincher
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Garamendi
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith (VA)
     Guthrie
     Hanna
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huffman
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Jenkins
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kelly (PA)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Lankford
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meadows
     Messer
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, George
     Mulvaney
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peters (CA)
     Petri
     Poe (TX)
     Polis
     Pompeo
     Price (GA)
     Radel
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rogers (MI)
     Rokita
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shuster
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walz
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Campbell
     Markey
     McCarthy (NY)
     McHenry
     Pittenger
     Sires
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  2247

  Mrs. CAPITO and Mr. WITTMAN changed their vote from ``aye'' to 
``no.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

[[Page 8117]]




                      Amendment Offered by Meadows

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from North 
Carolina (Mr. Meadows) 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 234, 
noes 192, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 204]

                               AYES--234

     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (IN)
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cantor
     Capito
     Cardenas
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Coble
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Daines
     Davis, Rodney
     DeFazio
     Denham
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foster
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Gabbard
     Garamendi
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Higgins
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kelly (PA)
     Kilmer
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Lankford
     Latham
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Maffei
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Polis
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Radel
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stockman
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Vargas
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                               NOES--192

     Andrews
     Barber
     Barrow (GA)
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera (CA)
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Black
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brooks (AL)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Carter
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chaffetz
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Dent
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Enyart
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Frankel (FL)
     Frelinghuysen
     Fudge
     Gallego
     Garcia
     Gerlach
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Heck (WA)
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Honda
     Horsford
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Negrete McLeod
     Nolan
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Richmond
     Rogers (KY)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Runyan
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Valadao
     Van Hollen
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Becerra
     Campbell
     Markey
     McCarthy (NY)
     McHenry
     Pittenger
     Sires
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  2251

  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


         Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Thompson of Mississippi

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Mississippi (Mr. Thompson) 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 146, 
noes 280, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 205]

                               AYES--146

     Alexander
     Amash
     Bass
     Beatty
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bera (CA)
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boustany
     Brady (PA)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Butterfield
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Cooper
     Cummings
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DelBene
     Deutch
     Doyle
     Duckworth
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Esty
     Farenthold
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fleming
     Foster
     Franks (AZ)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Goodlatte
     Gowdy
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffith (VA)
     Grijalva
     Hastings (FL)
     Higgins
     Holt
     Honda
     Horsford
     Huelskamp
     Huffman
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kaptur
     Kelly (IL)
     Kildee
     Kingston
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Lamborn
     Langevin
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Lewis
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Massie
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McGovern
     Meadows
     Meeks
     Messer
     Mica
     Michaud
     Moore
     Mulvaney
     Neal
     Negrete McLeod
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     O'Rourke
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Poe (TX)
     Polis
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanford
     Schakowsky
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sinema
     Slaughter
     Speier
     Stutzman
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (MS)
     Tipton
     Tonko
     Vargas
     Velazquez
     Waters
     Watt
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--280

     Aderholt
     Amodei
     Andrews
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barber
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barrow (GA)
     Barton
     Becerra
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (NY)
     Black
     Bonner
     Brady (TX)
     Braley (IA)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Bustos
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Carney
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Castor (FL)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble

[[Page 8118]]


     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cook
     Costa
     Cotton
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Daines
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Rodney
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Duffy
     Ellmers
     Engel
     Enyart
     Eshoo
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Frankel (FL)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Gosar
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Hahn
     Hall
     Hanabusa
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Heck (WA)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Holding
     Hoyer
     Hudson
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson Lee
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Joyce
     Keating
     Kelly (PA)
     Kennedy
     Kilmer
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lance
     Lankford
     Larsen (WA)
     Latham
     Latta
     Levin
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Long
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lummis
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Marchant
     Marino
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McDermott
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     Meehan
     Meng
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Moran
     Mullin
     Murphy (FL)
     Murphy (PA)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Nolan
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Perlmutter
     Perry
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Petri
     Pitts
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Radel
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Ruiz
     Runyan
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sarbanes
     Scalise
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schock
     Schwartz
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stockman
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tsongas
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Van Hollen
     Veasey
     Vela
     Visclosky
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waxman
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Campbell
     Gutierrez
     Markey
     McCarthy (NY)
     McHenry
     Pittenger
     Sires
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  2255

  Mr. YOUNG of Indiana changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Runyan

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey 
(Mr. Runyan) 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 148, 
noes 278, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 206]

                               AYES--148

     Andrews
     Barber
     Barletta
     Barrow (GA)
     Bass
     Bera (CA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Buchanan
     Butterfield
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Collins (NY)
     Connolly
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     Davis, Rodney
     Delaney
     Denham
     Dent
     Dingell
     Ellmers
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fitzpatrick
     Frelinghuysen
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garcia
     Gerlach
     Gibson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grimm
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Horsford
     Hoyer
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kelly (PA)
     Kennedy
     Kilmer
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kuster
     Lance
     Latham
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     LoBiondo
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Marino
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKeon
     Meehan
     Meeks
     Meng
     Mica
     Moore
     Mullin
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nunes
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peters (MI)
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Reed
     Richmond
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Runyan
     Ruppersberger
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Sewell (AL)
     Simpson
     Sinema
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Thompson (CA)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Valadao
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Visclosky
     Walden
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth
     Young (AK)

                               NOES--278

     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barr
     Barton
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Bonner
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Braley (IA)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Broun (GA)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Bustos
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Carter
     Cartwright
     Cassidy
     Castor (FL)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coffman
     Cohen
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Conaway
     Conyers
     Cook
     Cooper
     Costa
     Cotton
     Courtney
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Daines
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Deutch
     Diaz-Balart
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duckworth
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Enyart
     Esty
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foster
     Foxx
     Frankel (FL)
     Franks (AZ)
     Garamendi
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Grayson
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grijalva
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Himes
     Holding
     Honda
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huffman
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kildee
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Kirkpatrick
     Kline
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Langevin
     Lankford
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latta
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Long
     Lowenthal
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Marchant
     Massie
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McIntyre
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     Meadows
     Messer
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Moran
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (FL)
     Murphy (PA)
     Napolitano
     Negrete McLeod
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nolan
     Nugent
     Nunnelee
     O'Rourke
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perlmutter
     Perry
     Peters (CA)
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pingree (ME)
     Pitts
     Pocan
     Poe (TX)
     Polis
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Radel
     Rahall
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanford
     Sarbanes
     Scalise
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Scott, David
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stockman
     Stutzman
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Terry
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walorski
     Walz
     Watt
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Campbell
     Markey
     McCarthy (NY)
     McHenry
     Pittenger
     Sires
     Waters
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  2300

  Mr. SCHIFF changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment was rejected.

[[Page 8119]]

  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Flores

  Mr. FLORES. Madam 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 section 526 of the Energy Independence and 
     Security Act of 2007 (Public Law 110-140; 42 U.S.C. 17142).

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FLORES. Madam Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment which 
addresses another restrictive and misguided Federal regulation.
  Section 526 of the Energy Independence and Security Act prohibits 
Federal agencies from entering into contracts for the procurement of an 
alternative fuel unless its lifecycle 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 stifle the Defense 
Department's plan to buy and develop coal-based or coal-to-liquids jet 
fuels. This restriction was based on the opinion of environmentalists 
that coal-based jet fuel produces more greenhouse gas emissions than 
traditional petroleum.
  We must ensure that our military has adequate fuel resources and can 
efficiently rely on domestic and more stable sources of fuel. But 
section 526's ban on fuel choice now affects all Federal agencies, not 
just the Defense Department. This is why I'm offering this amendment 
today to the DHS appropriations bill.
  Federal agencies should not be burdened with wasting their time 
studying fuel emissions when there is a simple fix, and that fix is to 
not restrict Federal Government fuel choices based on extreme 
environmental views, unsound policies, and misguided regulations like 
those in section 526.
  With increasing competition for energy and fuel resources, and the 
continued volatility and instability in the Middle East, it is now more 
important than ever for our country to become more energy secure and to 
further develop and produce our domestic energy resources. Placing 
limits on Federal agencies' fuel choices is an unacceptable precedent 
to set in regard to America's energy policy and independence.
  Madam Chair, section 526 makes our Nation more dependent on Middle 
East oil. Stopping the impact of section 526 will help us promote 
American energy, improve the American economy, and create American 
jobs.
  Madam Chairman, it is also important to note that this amendment does 
not prevent and does not restrict the ability of the Federal Government 
to purchase any alternative fuels, including biodiesel, ethanol, or 
other fuels from renewable resources. It places no restrictions 
whatsoever on that.
  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 prevents the 
increased use of safe, clean, and efficient North American oil and gas, 
it increases the cost of American food and energy, it hurts American 
jobs and the American economy, and last--but certainly not least--it 
costs our taxpayers more of their hard-earned dollars.
  I offered this amendment to appropriation bills during the 112th 
Congress and they all passed on the floor of the House with strong 
bipartisan support. My friend, Mr. Conaway, also added similar language 
to the Defense authorization bill today to exempt the Defense 
Department from this burdensome regulation.
  I urge my colleagues to support passage of this commonsense 
amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CARTER. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. CARTER. Madam Chairman, we accept the gentleman's amendment, and 
I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the 
last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to 
the gentleman's amendment. Section 526 of the Energy Independence and 
Security Act of 2007 is intended to ensure that the environmental costs 
from the use of alternative fuels are at least no worse than the fuels 
in use today. It requires the Federal Government do no more harm when 
it comes to harmful emissions and climate change than it does today 
through the use of unconventional fuels.
  Section 526 precludes the use of fuels such as coal-to-liquids, as 
well as unconventional petroleum fuels such as tar sands and oil shale, 
unless advanced technologies such as carbon sequestration are used to 
mitigate their greenhouse gas emissions. This is a provision in law 
that I think affords important environmental protections, important 
conditions on the adoption of alternative fuels, so I think it would be 
a mistake for this body to prohibit in any way the enforcement of 
section 526. Therefore, I oppose the amendment and ask my colleagues to 
do likewise.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support of 
the Flores amendment to H.R. 2217 that will prevent funds in this 
legislation from being used to carry out section 526 of the Energy 
Independence and Security Act of 2007. Section 526 prohibits all 
Federal agencies from contracting for alternative fuels that emit 
higher levels of greenhouse gas emissions than conventional petroleum 
sources.

                              {time}  2310

  This means that, if a Federal agency, particularly the Department of 
Defense and Homeland Security, has the ability of utilizing an 
alternative fuel that even has one scintilla more of carbon emissions 
than conventional fuels, it cannot be used. Some of you may not know 
what a ``scintilla'' is, but the professor from Duke does. It's a very, 
very, very small amount. As a result, section 526 severely limits 
innovation from Homeland Security at Customs and Border Patrol to 
improve clean carbon capture technologies for alternative fuels, 
thereby increasing our dependence on foreign oil, and will only further 
increase fuel costs.
  The amendment intends to remove the handcuffs placed on the agencies 
under this bill by section 526. This means that Homeland Security, the 
Department of Defense, particularly the Air Force, will still be able 
to purchase Canadian fuels with just traces--scintillas--of oil sands 
that may create more of a carbon footprint than completely conventional 
fuel.
  Madam Chairman, I support a full repeal of section 526 because the 
cost of refined product for DOD has increased by over 500 percent in 
the last 10 years when volume has only increased by 30 percent. The 
Flores amendment takes a very important step in achieving this goal by 
prohibiting funding to carry out section 526 for the upcoming fiscal 
year at Homeland Security.
  With that in mind, I appreciate the opportunity to work with my 
colleague from Texas (Mr. Flores) on this important issue. I urge this 
body to support this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Flores).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. BEN RAY LUJAN of New Mexico. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the 
last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. BEN RAY LUJAN of New Mexico. Madam Chairman, I rise to engage

[[Page 8120]]

Chairman Carter in a colloquy on the Science and Technology Directorate 
within the Department of Homeland Security.
  Mr. Chairman, as you know, the enabling act that created the Homeland 
Security Department provided the new Department with special access to 
the Department of Energy's national laboratories. The intent was for 
DHS to utilize the unique capabilities at the national laboratories so 
that DHS would not build up the duplicative capabilities within the 
Department.
  Building duplicative capabilities at different agencies is a poor use 
of taxpayer dollars, and there is no need to do so given the 
Department's access to the existing national labs. At a time when our 
government has dramatically reduced its ability to conduct cutting-edge 
research into new technologies, we must ensure that the Department of 
Homeland Security is using its resources in the most cost-effective 
methods possible.
  Instead of reinventing the wheel and developing new capabilities, the 
DHS should be utilizing our DOE national labs whenever practicable as 
they conduct research, development, testing or evaluate activities. The 
national labs have first-rate capabilities in many areas relevant to 
Homeland Security, ranging from explosive detection technologies to 
advanced cybersecurity techniques. Mr. Chairman, I urge us to work with 
the Department to ensure that their research and development funds are 
effectively spent and not used to create redundant capabilities.
  I yield to the gentleman from Texas, Chairman Carter.
  Mr. CARTER. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I appreciate the 
gentleman from New Mexico for raising this issue.
  As he has pointed out, the Department has the ability to utilize the 
incredible scientific resources of our national laboratories. I look 
forward to working with him on this important issue.
  As our Nation continues to face a tight fiscal situation, it is vital 
that DHS work to ensure that its Science and Technology Directorates 
make good use of our government's existing capabilities.
  Mr. BEN RAY LUJAN of New Mexico. I thank the chairman and the ranking 
member for their work on this.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Meehan

  Mr. MEEHAN. Madam 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 for U.S. Customs and Border Protection preclearance 
     operations at Abu Dhabi International Airport in the United 
     Arab Emirates. The limitation described in this section shall 
     not apply in the case of the administration of a tax or 
     tariff.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Madam Chairman, I rise today in support of the Meehan-
DeFazio-Miller amendment. This amendment deals with the Department of 
Homeland Security, which has entered into an agreement to establish a 
Customs and Border Protection pre-clearance facility at the Abu Dhabi 
International Airport in the United Arab Emirates. There are currently 
other pre-clearance facilities in some countries around the world, and 
the purpose behind these is really to facilitate the travel for many 
who go through this at a facility away from the United States. We have 
huge backlogs at some of our critical airports, particularly in places 
like New York.
  However, the ranking member on the Homeland Security subcommittee, on 
which I serve, along with the other members and some 150 Members of 
Congress, have joined me in a letter because we are concerned about the 
intent of what is done with this. The effect of it is really going to 
be to dramatically disadvantage American airlines.
  You see, what's happening in Abu Dhabi is there is no American 
airline that flies from Abu Dhabi to the United States. This is solely 
being done for the benefit of an airline which is solely supported by 
the United Arab Emirates, and it is going to have a disparate impact on 
the ability for our American airlines to be competitive for the very 
simple reason that what will happen is many people will say, Well, I'm 
going to get to New York, and I've got a 3- or 4-hour wait in order to 
get through that line. I'm going to go to Abu Dhabi, and I'm going to 
fly through there on the foreign carrier.
  All the jobs associated with our American airlines begin to be 
influenced by supporting a foreign-based airline that will then 
increase its market share into the United States. It also starts to 
shift some of the favor of the placement of these facilities towards 
third parties' countries that will enter an agreement like is happening 
in Abu Dhabi where they are underwriting 80 percent of the cost. I 
don't want to see our Customs and Border Patrol to be for sale to the 
highest bidder, and that seems to be what one of the concerns is here.
  The reality as well is that, the extent to which we think we are 
having an impact on terrorism, anybody is going to know: don't go 
through Abu Dhabi. Go through any of the other places that will still 
get you into the country without a pre-clearance that would be a check 
on a foreign area.
  The last thing is that this is going to be partially funded with 
United States taxpayer dollars. Twenty percent of the cost is going to 
be associated with us, so why would American taxpayers be paying money 
to support what will actually be to the benefit of a foreign-based 
airline?
  So along with 150 of my other colleagues, I hope that our amendment 
will ensure that taxpayer dollars do not go to subsidize the pre-
clearance facility and the foreign government-owned airlines, and I 
urge Members of both parties to support it.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CARTER. I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. CARTER. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. I 
think it's a good amendment, and I have the same concerns that are 
expressed by the author.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to 
the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. The Customs and Border Protection pre-
clearance program, Madam Chairman, serves a critical national security 
function by stationing CBP officers abroad at the cost of the host 
nation. This allows CBP officers to screen and make admissibility 
decisions on individuals, goods and baggage long before they ever leave 
a foreign port or could possibly become a threat to the homeland.
  I myself have been screened as a part of pre-clearance operations in 
Canada and Ireland. Apparently, these operations offer not only a 
convenience for travelers but also an effective and efficient way of 
carrying out security operations.

                              {time}  2320

  In fiscal year 2012 alone, CBP officers and agriculture specialists 
pre-cleared more than 1.5 million travelers destined to the United 
States. To outright prohibit the expansion of this program to an area 
of the world where we know terrorists are actively traveling and 
training and seeking to carry out missions of harm against the homeland 
simply makes no sense whatsoever.
  I understand many domestic airlines have expressed concern that this 
deal would somehow give UAE-based airlines an upper hand, but there are 
some facts that aren't disputed and we simply should consider.
  For one, CBP has stated numerous times that access to Abu Dhabi for 
American carriers would be a precondition of implementing preclearance 
there.
  Secondly, our bill provides statutory language that prohibits 
preclearance operations at new locations until three conditions are 
met: the foreign and national security rationales have been

[[Page 8121]]

provided to the Congress; a full cost analysis has been provided to the 
Congress; and an economic impact analysis of any new location on U.S. 
airline carriers has been conducted and provided to the Congress.
  That's good language. That will be good oversight on our part, and I 
commend the chairman for including that language in our bill.
  So given this language, given the known benefits for traveler 
convenience, for this country's security, the known benefits that this 
program provides, I simply can't support the gentleman's agreement 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 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Meehan).
  The amendment was agreed to.


          Amendment Offered by Mr. Ben Ray Lujan of New Mexico

  Mr. BEN RAY LUJAN of New Mexico. 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. __.  For ``Department of Homeland Security--Federal 
     Emergency Management Agency--State and Local Programs'' for 
     the State Homeland Security Grant Program under section 2004 
     of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 605), as 
     authorized by subsection (f)(2) of such section, there is 
     hereby appropriated, and the amount otherwise provided by 
     this Act for ``Department of Homeland Security--Office of the 
     Chief Financial Officer'' is hereby reduced by, $10,000,000.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. BEN RAY LUJAN of New Mexico. Madam Chair, in what has been one of 
the worst drought years in the recorded history of my home State of New 
Mexico, we're already feeling the effects of another severe fire 
season. Already, more than 18,000 acres of forest have burned as a 
result of two fires caused by downed power lines, and those numbers are 
growing as we speak. Hundreds of homes have been threatened and 
families have been evacuated. In 2011, during the Las Conchas fire, we 
lost 150,000 acres of forest to wildfire, again caused by a downed 
power line.
  The importance of disaster preparedness is key to saving human lives 
and property. My amendment today would make available an additional $10 
million for State and local grant programs to ensure local towns and 
communities can be prepared for catastrophic wildfires before they hit. 
This amendment is cost neutral.
  While there may be concerns by some of my colleagues and even 
opposition, I would ask, Madam Chair, that we work together to 
understand that when there are communities burning that we reach out 
and we try to do what we can to help these innocent individuals.
  My amendment would also allow local utilities to take preventive 
measures for the causes and impacts of wildfires. We must do all we can 
to ensure that communities have the resources they need to address the 
dangers and damages of wildfire before and after catastrophic events 
occur.
  I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.
  Madam Chair, before I yield back, I would like to take a moment to 
thank all of the firefighters for their brave service battling the Tres 
Lagunas and Thompson Ridge fires in northern New Mexico. Time and 
again, those on the frontline, as well as those on the command teams, 
have acted admirably while putting their lives at risk. To all of those 
who have volunteered, donated resources and lent a helping hand to the 
firefighters and our displaced friends and neighbors, God bless you and 
thank you for your hard work.
  Again, Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to consider supporting my 
amendment that will help our communities prepare for wildfires. And 
with that, Madam Chair, I thank the chairman and the ranking member for 
their work in this important area, and I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. CARTER. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. CARTER. In total, this bill provides $2.5 billion for Homeland 
Security first responder grants. This is $400 million above the 
President's request for fiscal year 2014 and $35 million above fiscal 
year 2013.
  This bill prioritizes funding. The consolidation in this bill forces 
the Secretary to examine the intelligence and risk and puts scarce 
dollars where they are needed most--whether it's a port, rail, 
surveillance or access in hardened projects, or whether it is to high-
risk urban areas or to States, as opposed to reverse-engineering 
projects to fill the amount designated for one of many programs.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to support fiscal discipline and vote 
``no'' on this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last 
word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I have no objection to this amendment. 
In fact, I want to commend the gentleman for offering it.
  He's in a tight spot with limited possibilities for offsetting the 
addition he wants to apply to the situation in his area that he 
describes. The offset is not ideal, but I'm certainly willing to work 
with him going forward to get more money directed to these vital 
emergency needs.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Lujan).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. CARTER. Madam 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 New Mexico 
will be postponed.
  Mr. GOSAR. Madam Chairwoman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Arizona is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. GOSAR. Madam Chairwoman, I rise today to engage in a colloquy 
with the subcommittee chairman, Congressman Carter, regarding Operation 
Stonegarden, which is a facet of our Homeland Security operations and 
which is provided for in the Department of Homeland Security 
Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2014.
  By way of background, Operation Stonegarden is a Department of 
Homeland Security grant program that is intended to provide a great 
deal of cooperation and coordination among Federal, State, local, 
municipal and tribal law enforcement agencies in a joint mission to 
secure the United States borders, including travel corridors in States 
that border Canada and Mexico, as well as States and territories with 
international water borders. The grants are made available to local 
units of government. They're made based on risk analysis and 
feasibility of the proposed investments demonstrated by the applicants.
  I speak on behalf of local law enforcement entities in Arizona when I 
say that this program actually works. It serves to bolster resources 
available to law enforcement and border States as they do their best to 
tackle overwhelming problems of illegal immigration, in addition to 
illegal trafficking of drugs, persons, weapons and money. I hear 
nothing but praise for the program, and I know that the people of 
Arizona and other border States reap the benefits of this program 
whether they know the program by name or not. When people are involved 
in the process, you see certain programs and initiatives take off 
because everyone's input is respected, considered and valued.
  In fact, the program works so well and is needed so badly that in 
2009, Secretary Napolitano decided to extend an additional $30 million 
to be divided amongst the States which needed the resources most. 
Though I may not agree with Arizona's former Governor on many issues, 
this is a decision I applauded.
  The problem of illegal immigration is one that I think will remain 
for sometime, which is why we are debating immigration reform in 
Congress today.

[[Page 8122]]



                              {time}  2330

  As I have said before, trust is a series of promises kept. Current 
and previous administrations held by both parties have failed to keep 
that promise, and so we are here today. Border security and interior 
enforcement are of utmost concern when considering immigration and the 
protection of our homeland, and this program is a prime example of the 
teamwork that is needed to deliver on the promises made to the people 
of this great Republic.
  This investment in our Nation's homeland security is one that pays 
off over and over again, and it is my hope that future legislation will 
continue to provide robust resources for this program.
  It is our collective duty as a deliberative body to ensure that we 
both support the Federal programs and initiatives that actually work, 
while simultaneously reducing or sunsetting those that do not. I am 
pleased that the House has begun such a process in the past two 
Congresses, and I am proud to be part of it.
  The people of Arizona and I thank the chairman for increasing the 
resources available to Operation Stonegarden relative to previous 
appropriations.
  And with that, I yield to the chairman of the Appropriations 
Committee.
  Mr. CARTER. I thank my friend for highlighting this important 
program. As a fellow border State Member, I am especially aware of the 
issues we face with illegal immigration and criminal trafficking across 
our borders, particularly our southern border. Operation Stonegarden 
provides valuable resources to local and tribal governments for 
coordination with their Federal counterparts and to assist them in 
furthering our Nation's border security. I look forward to working with 
my friend from Arizona and others as we move forward to ensure 
continued support for this worthy and valuable program.
  Mr. GOSAR. I thank the gentleman, and I yield back the balance of my 
time.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Engel

  Mr. ENGEL. Madam Chair, 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 by the Department of Homeland Security 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.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. ENGEL. Madam Chair, on May 24, 2011, President Obama issued a 
memorandum on Federal fleet performance that requires all new light 
duty vehicles in the Federal fleet to be alternate fuel vehicles, such 
as hybrid, electric, natural gas, or biofuel, by September 31, 2015.
  My amendment echoes the Presidential memorandum by prohibiting funds 
in the Homeland Security Appropriations Act from being used to lease or 
purchase new light duty vehicles except in accord with the President's 
memorandum.
  I have introduced a similar amendment to nine different 
appropriations bill in the past 2 years, and each time it was accepted 
and passed by voice vote.
  Our transportation sector is by far the biggest reason we send $600 
billion per year to hostile nations to pay for oil at ever-increasing 
costs. But America does not need to be dependent on foreign sources of 
oil for transportation fuel. Alternative technologies exist today that 
will allow any alternative fuel to be used in America's automotive 
fleet.
  The Federal Government operates the largest fleet of light duty 
vehicles in America. According to the GSA, there are over 660,000 
vehicles in the Federal fleet, with almost 55,000 being used by the 
Department of Homeland Security.
  By supporting a diverse array of vehicle technologies in our Federal 
fleet, we will encourage development of domestic energy resources--
including biomass, natural gas, agricultural waste, hydrogen and 
renewable electricity. Expanding the role these energy sources play in 
our transportation economy will help break the leverage over Americans 
held by foreign government-controlled oil companies, will increase our 
Nation's domestic security, protect consumers from price spikes and 
shortages in the world oil markets.
  I ask that my colleagues support the Engel amendment.
  On a similar note, I will soon be introducing the Open Fuels Act, 
which is similar to this, with our colleague, the gentlewoman from 
Florida, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen. Our bill would require 30 percent of new 
automobiles in 2015 and 50 percent in 2016 and every subsequent year to 
be able to be operated on nonpetroleum fuels in addition to or instead 
of petroleum-based fuels. And it would cost $100 or less per car 
manufactured in America to do this.
  Possibilities include the full array of existing technologies--
including flex fuel, natural gas, hydrogen, biodiesel, plug-in electric 
drive, fuel cell, ethanol and methanol, and a catchall for new 
technologies. I remember driving and going into a gasoline station in 
Brazil. I believe the chairwoman was with me at the time. And we 
noticed that there were all kinds of alternatives available to 
Brazilian consumers that were not available to American consumers, and 
it just seems to me that we ought to not only catch up but pull ahead 
and have that same kind of technology available to Americans.
  So I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment and the Open 
Fuels Act as we work towards breaking our dependence on foreign oil, 
and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CARTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. CARTER. Madam Chair, we support this amendment, and I yield to my 
colleague, Mr. Price.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I thank the chairman for yielding, and 
simply want to also express my support for the amendment, and hope my 
colleagues will support it.
  Mr. CARTER. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment Offered by Mr. King of Iowa

  Mr. KING of Iowa. Madam Chair, 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) None of the funds made available in this Act 
     may be used to finalize, implement, administer, or enforce 
     the documents described in subsection (b).
       (b) For purposes of this section, the documents described 
     in this subsection are the following:
       (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.
       (4) The Memorandum of November 17, 2011, from the Principal 
     Legal Advisor of United States Immigration and Customs 
     Enforcement pertaining to ``Case-by-Case Review of Incoming 
     and Certain Pending Cases''.
       (5) The Memorandum of June 15, 2012, from the Secretary of 
     Homeland Security pertaining to ``Exercising Prosecutorial 
     Discretion with Respect to Individuals Who Came to the United 
     States as Children''.
       (6) The Memorandum of December 21, 2012, from the Director 
     of United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement 
     pertaining to ``Civil Immigration Enforcement: Guidance on 
     the Use of Detainers in the Federal, State, Local, and Tribal 
     Criminal Justice Systems''.

  Mr. KING of Iowa (during the reading). Madam Chair, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Chair, I object. I think we want 
to hear this entire amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Objection is heard.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk continued to read.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.

[[Page 8123]]


  Mr. KING of Iowa. Madam Chair, this is an amendment that I offered 
last year that succeeded here on the floor by a vote of 238-175 in a 
bipartisan fashion. It's the amendment that simply says none of the 
funds made available in this act may be used to finalize, implement, 
administer, or enforce the documents described, which are known as the 
Morton memos.
  The Morton memos are essentially executive edicts that have flowed 
from the White House, that have flowed also from the Secretary of 
Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano, down through John Morton, who is 
the Director of ICE; and they seek to implement an administrative 
amnesty policy. There are six of these memos, and the one we're most 
familiar with is the memo that grants what is known, generally 
speaking, as Dream Act Lite, which gives I'll say a legal status, if 
you accept the authority of the President to suspend immigration law, 
to those who fit four different classes of people.
  Four classes of people granted administrative amnesty if they claim 
to have come to the United States under the age of 16; if they've been 
here over 5 years; if they have received a high school or a GED degree; 
or been honorably discharged from the military.

                              {time}  2340

  And in the memo, particularly the one who is the Dream Act Light 
memo, dated June 15 of 2012, seven times they mention that 
prosecutorial discretion on an individual basis.
  Well, this sets up four classes of people. It has been the subject of 
litigation. The litigation that's gone to a Federal court in Texas is 
the case of Crane v. Napolitano. Chris Crane is the President of the 
ICE union. They made 10 points to the unconstitutionality of these 
memos which direct ICE sometimes to break the very immigration law that 
they've pledged to uphold.
  And so I have in my hand the decision that came down from that 
district in Texas, and it's a northern district of Texas. And of the 10 
points made in this case, the judge upheld 9 of them in the favor of 
the Constitution and the rule of law. The 10th one he sent back to them 
and said, the government hasn't given us a clear enough argument; 
rewrite that and I'll give you another decision on it. I expect that 
all 10 are likely to be found in the favor of the Constitution and the 
rule of law.
  The point here is, Madam Chair, the President does not have the 
authority to waive immigration law, nor does he have the authority to 
create it out of thin air, and he's done both with these Morton memos 
in this respect.
  They do have prosecutorial discretion, I concede that point. But the 
President nor do any of his agents through the executive branch of 
government have the authority to create classes of people and waive the 
enforcement of immigration law for classes of people and then, on top 
of that, create a work permit out of thin air.
  That's just a couple of these memos, of these six memos that are 
there all together. And we should remember that the memo dated November 
17, 2011, includes 475,000 people who had already been adjudicated for 
deportation. And the President, through his agents in the executive 
branch, has ordered that the people that have been adjudicated for 
deportation on those lists should have the law waived and they should 
stay in the United States even though the law that requires that 
they've already been adjudicated for deportation--300,000 of the 
475,000 have already been granted an administrative legal presence.
  This Congress has the full authority to establish immigration law. 
The President takes an oath of office to take care that the laws be 
faithfully executed. And every single document that provides lawful 
presence in the United States of America, aside from a naturally born 
American citizen, is a product of this Congress, not a product of the 
pen of the President or the people whom he appoints.
  And so this is an amendment that prohibits the resources from being 
used to enforce the Morton memos, and it conforms with the Founding 
Fathers' vision, and it conforms with the Constitution in that the 
President cannot defy his own oath of office. He can't defy the 
Constitution. The President can't take on Article I authority and 
legislate by executive order or edict or press conference. That's the 
job of this Congress. That's why we are Article I. He is Article II.
  And whatever people think of the impending immigration policy here in 
the United States, we cannot allow the executive branch to usurp the 
legislative authority of the United States Congress. If we allow that 
to happen in immigration, it could happen to anything.
  So I urge the adoption of my amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to 
the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Chairman, I rise with great 
disappointment, and I think ``sadness'' is the right word. This is an 
amendment that I very much hoped would not be offered tonight. I know 
that many in this Chamber hoped it would not be offered tonight.
  It's a ``poison pill'' amendment. That's a term I've not used 
tonight, and it's a term I don't use lightly. I very much hoped this 
amendment would not be offered, and I hope now that it's been offered 
that it is not fated to pass.
  We've worked for months cooperatively on this Homeland Security 
appropriations bill. As I said in announcing bipartisan support for 
this bill at the beginning of today's debate, I commended the chairman 
heartily and the staff and Members who have worked so hard on this in a 
bipartisan fashion, trying to come together. We gave a little, we took 
a little, but we did understand that it was important for this 
institution and for our Nation's security to come together on a 
Homeland Security bill that most Members of this Chamber could support. 
And for that reason, most divisive issues, most extraneous issues that 
have the capacity to divide us, and, in fact, to destroy that 
bipartisan support, most of those have been conscientiously avoided. 
And that has included, until this moment, the offering of amendments on 
this floor.
  The gentleman describes this as an amendment he offered last year. 
Yes, it's an amendment that he offered last year, and it's an amendment 
that blew up bipartisan support for this bill last year.
  And it's an amendment, by the way, with one very toxic addition from 
last year--twisting the knife, so to speak--adding the Dream Act 
children to the bill's provisions. Unbelievable that that would be 
added in this version of the bill.
  Let me just say that what the King amendment would prohibit is what 
every law enforcement agency in this country must do and does with 
regularity: making the most effective use of limited resources.
  No law enforcement agency in the land can go after every violation. 
Each law enforcement agency must prioritize the resources and go after 
the ones who would do us the most harm. Can we imagine that the 
Department of Homeland Security would not do that? In fact, we would 
rightly condemn them if they did not do that.
  One of the documents that the King amendment would require 
Immigration and Customs Enforcement to ignore states, and I'm quoting:

       Aliens who pose a danger to national security or a risk to 
     public safety are priority one for removal.

  That's what the gentleman wants the agency to ignore. In a world with 
limited resources, it's dangerous, it's irresponsible, it's totally 
unrealistic not to prioritize the detention and the deportation of 
people who pose a threat to public safety and national security. And to 
do it in a demagogic fashion, saying, if you prioritize criminals, if 
your priority is dangerous people, then, well, you must be giving 
amnesty to everyone else, it's absurd. It's absurd. It may have a 
certain appeal on the talk shows, but it is unworthy of this body.
  Why would we want ICE to spend as much time and energy going after 
innocent kids in college who were

[[Page 8124]]

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 the deportation 
of the spouses of U.S. citizens serving in our military rather than on 
people who pose a threat to national security?
  Colleagues know there is no answer to these questions that doesn't 
point in the direction of a resounding rejection of this extreme and 
destructive amendment. And I beg my colleagues to vote ``no.''
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. I have a number of good friends on the floor, Madam 
Chair. My good friend, Mr. King, serves with me on the Judiciary 
Committee, good friend, Mr. Price, who is the ranking member, has just 
given an eloquent expose of the contents of Mr. King's amendment. And 
I've worked with Judge Carter, Congressman Carter, Chairman Carter, as 
we look to ensuring the security of the border and protecting the 
homeland.
  I think it is important, first of all, that we should thank ICE 
officers across America because most ICE officers, in spite of the 
judicial decision that Mr. King offers, have followed the executive 
order or the directions of their Director, Mr. Morton, who is an 
established public servant and law enforcement officer.

                              {time}  2350

  His credentials are without question. The Judiciary Committee has 
heard from Mr. Morton on several occasions to articulate the premise of 
the provisions that are being attacked in this amendment. Each time he 
has been able to document the value of what this prosecutorial 
discretion series of orders represents. In fact, Mr. Morton went out on 
the road. He came to Houston, Texas, and met at our immigration 
services office to explain to an array of community service persons 
what this actually meant.
  There was no offering of amnesty. There was no utilization of that 
language. There was no suggestion that this would be an open-door 
policy. This was a suggestion that thoughtful ICE agents, law 
enforcement officers, entrusted to uphold the law, would have the 
authority to use prosecutorial discretion so that, as my colleague from 
North Carolina said, we would go after the terrorists, go after those 
who are here to do us harm, but allow hardworking families to stay 
together.
  In the remarks of my good friend from Iowa, he does not make mention 
of the fact that the Obama administration has deported more individuals 
than any administration preceding it. Many of us have advocated against 
that. But what we did advocate for is a fair assessment of how you make 
that determination.
  Now, maybe my good friend and the friends on the floor are not aware 
that we're under sequester, that we're operating under a budget line 
that is not even a trillion dollars. It's $970-plus billion. That's way 
below what I'd like to see to fund this government that we have. If 
that is the question, then why would my good friend, Mr. King, suggest 
that we are not doing our job?
  So we want to split up hardworking families and fathers who are 
supporting their families because it may be an overstay or they came in 
undocumented? But most of all, the pains of the eons and eons of young 
people that have come into my office that are in the academic 
institutions of Houston, or Texas, who want to stay here and contribute 
to America's dream--the Dream children--and we're now telling them, 
after receiving a prosecutorial deferral, using prosecutorial 
discretion, a case-by-case determination that there's no credible 
criminal background, nothing they have done wrong, and by that 
decision, that simple, evenhanded decision, that nothing has been done 
wrong by them and they're allowed to stay.
  I just want to know if my friend will support me on comprehensive 
immigration reform. Then we'll be able to get it fixed. And maybe he 
will answer that. But I will ask my colleagues to please look at this 
as a law enforcement tool. This is not willy-nilly. This has been a 
thoughtful process that ICE has articulated for its agents throughout 
the country for them to thoughtfully look at those individuals that 
would pose a danger. Deport them. But to those families who need to be 
united that are surviving and working and supporting four and five 
children and going to work and going to houses of worship, or those 
children that are in the sophomore year or third year or graduating or 
graduate school, or the mother who came and fell on the ground in my 
office prostrate and crying when it was acknowledged that her graduate 
school daughter could stay here and finish her degree. It was through 
no fault of her own. She had come here to the United States not knowing 
that she did not have status.
  So I'm hoping, like Mr. Price, that we will not have a divisive 
amendment. And I'm praying that my good friend will join me on 
comprehensive immigration reform, Madam Chair, and that he will 
withdraw this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BARLETTA. I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. BARLETTA. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).
  Mr. KING of Iowa. I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for 
yielding.
  I appreciate the opportunity to respond to some of the statements 
that were made here, Madam Chair. I'll just go through some of the 
things that I heard from the gentleman: that this amendment is a poison 
pill; that it's very toxic; that it's twisting the knife; that it's 
unbelievable; that it's a demagogic fashion; that it's talk show 
appeal.
  I would point out to the body that none of that has any substance. 
And the real substance of this is that we all stood here on the floor 
of this House of Representatives and raised our hand and took an oath 
to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America. We saw that 
happen today with the new Member right down here.
  I take that seriously. I bring my Bible in and I swear on that Bible. 
And I carry a Constitution in my jacket pocket every single day, and I 
read it many of those days. But I adhere to that, as we all take the 
oath to do so. And if we have Members of this Congress that don't know 
the difference between article I and article II, or Members of this 
Congress that conflate article I and article II, or Members of this 
Congress that can somehow excuse a President who has crossed a line 
that he has himself drawn not just with his oath of office that I 
referenced earlier, but with a statement to the high school not very 
far outside of where we are right now on March 28, 2011, when he said:

       I know you want me to pass the DREAM Act by executive 
     order, but I don't have the authority to do that. That's 
     Congress' authority. I am the President. Congress writes the 
     laws, the executive branch enforces the laws, and the 
     Judiciary Branch rules on the language and the 
     constitutionality of it.

  The President was right. He's a former adjunct professor of 
constitutional law at the University of Chicago. And even though I 
disagree with him quite often, that time he was right. But about a year 
later, he issued this order that his DREAM Act Light, that is an 
executive act that defied his own definition of the limitations of 
article II, the executive branch, and he assumed the powers and the 
authority of article I, the legislative branch.
  Now, how can we take an oath to uphold this Constitution and excuse 
that kind of behavior? Because whether or not we approve of the policy, 
let's have the debate on the policy here, where it belongs. Let's not 
hand this over to a President who has usurped constitutional authority.
  Our Founding Fathers envisioned this tension, this conflict, but they 
never envisioned that a United States Congress, House or Senate, would 
allow the President to usurp our constitutional authority. They 
envisioned that each body would aggressively defend the authority that 
we have within the Constitution.
  This amendment that I have simply says we're not going to use 
taxpayers'

[[Page 8125]]

dollars to defend this unconstitutional act on the part of the 
President of the United States. I've taken all the due diligence I can. 
I called a meeting. We initiated the litigation. We're moving it 
through the court system. But we can never catch up through the 
litigation process the things that the President has usurped that are 
the legislative authority that we have. That's the question that is 
here.
  Whatever your position is on the DREAM Act Light and the Morton memos 
and all of the things that seem to be coming out of the Gangs of 8 in 
the House or Senate, we have an oath to uphold the Constitution. That's 
the vote here, Madam Chair.
  Mr. BARLETTA. I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. MARKEY. Madam Chair, I rise today in strong opposition to 
Representative King's amendment offered last week to the Homeland 
Security Appropriations Act of 2014, H.R. 2217. This amendment would 
restrict the use of funds to finalize, implement, enforce or administer 
the Memo authorizing Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or Dream 
Act-eligible youth.
  This amendment punishes young individuals who are Americans in every 
way but on a piece of paper. Brought to this country through no fault 
of their own, these students are striving to educate themselves and 
contribute to the country that they know as home. Targeting them with 
limited immigration enforcement funding is unwise, thoughtless and just 
plain wrong.
  Just two months after the Marathon bombings, we should have voted 
last week on a straightforward bill that funded the department of 
Homeland Security, a bill that assisted the agencies that performed so 
bravely on that tragic day. It is an important bill. It keeps us safe. 
The legislation also included my bipartisan amendment to prevent knives 
from being brought onto planes for the first time since September 11, 
2001.
  However, by passing this amendment targeted at the DREAMers of our 
country, Republicans attacked everything our country stands for as a 
beacon of hope for a better life. That is why I voted against this 
amendment. This language should be stripped from the final version of 
the bill.
  We need to move forward on comprehensive immigration reform. That is 
why I will keep up that fight for a better life for immigrants and for 
all Americans.
  Mr. GUTIERREZ. I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. GUTIERREZ. First of all, this has nothing to do with the 
Constitution of the United States. The fact is that the Congress of the 
United States has passed laws granting the President of the United 
States this executive authority. He has it by statute and by law. As a 
matter of fact, many of you might remember that in 1999, Congressman 
Lamar Smith and others wrote to then-President Clinton asking him to 
use his discretionary power more often.
  In other words, I'm sorry to say to the gentleman, Mr. King, but I 
think the gentleman from Texas is an authority on this issue, as he has 
chaired the Judiciary Committee, and the gentleman from Texas knows 
best. He signed that letter. And it was bipartisan. So this has nothing 
to do with the Constitution of the United States, not to kid ourselves.
  Now, if we want to deal fundamentally with if this is good or bad, we 
can deal with that also. The fact is that this House passed the DREAM 
Act 216-208--that is a fact--in the fall of 2010, and 55 Senators stood 
up for the DREAM Act in the Senate.

                              {time}  0000

  The fact is that a majority of Senators have already voted in favor 
of it, and a majority of the Members of this House.
  Now, what I don't find in the Constitution is where it says that a 
majority of Senators shouldn't prevail. We all know that. It should be 
just simply 51 out of 100, but that's not the way the Senate works. But 
that's not in the Constitution of the United States.
  So what the President is really doing in his executive order is 
allowing. And I just want people to understand that we're also here for 
justice and for fairness. It is only fair and just that young men and 
women--who are no different than my daughters, than your daughters. 
They are just as American as they are. They speak this language. This 
is the country that they love. It is the only country that they know. 
And we're waiting for the paperwork to catch up to those Americans--
that's what they are.
  They came out by the hundreds of thousands. In Chicago, there were 
12,000 in line. They came up with their moms and their dads and they 
were crying for joy because they had an opportunity to go to school, to 
become educated, and to contribute back to this Nation--children. We 
should not hold children responsible for the actions of adults and of 
their parents. We should give them an opportunity, and that is what 
this executive order has done.
  They go to school with your children. They sit down in the same 
churches with you and pray on Sunday. They play on the same playground. 
They're an integral part of the communities in which we live. In 
America, when they hear them speak, they hear the voices of young 
Americans. And one day we will pass the DREAM Act, and we will not need 
an executive order.
  Things are getting better, Mr. King, here. November 6, everybody said 
stop picking winners and losers; let's fix this immigration issue. And 
Republicans and Democrats are working together to find a solution. Now 
is not the time to divide this House and the Senate when it is looking.
  We can't talk decently about Benghazi or the IRS or anything--
ObamaCare or the budget or guns. But there is one thing. I mean, when 
you have a Vice Presidential candidate, our colleague, Paul Ryan, come 
to Chicago and speak, when you have Congressman Carter come to San 
Antonio with me and speak, things are changing. Let's respect that. 
Let's respect the love and the intensity of caring about fixing our 
broken immigration system that has been expressed.
  I was so delighted, I want to say to the gentleman from Iowa, when 
your majority leader, Mr. Cantor, gave a speech and said I'm not only 
for the DREAM Act, I'm for a pathway to citizenship for the dreamer. I 
said great. I didn't question his motives. I said great. How can I help 
you?
  Let's help him, the majority leader, and others--Democrats and 
Republicans alike--who have said, you know what, let's fix our broken 
immigration system. We're tired of it dividing families.
  I want to say I've had them come into my office, American citizen 
soldiers--going and fighting on the frontline so that you have the 
right to speak here and protect it--and they have their wives being 
deported. We should have this discretion so their wives aren't 
deported. That's only fair and right.
  Four million American citizen children--Mr. King, 4 million American 
citizen children have undocumented parents. We should not separate 
them. We should have discretion to keep those families together.
  Let's defeat this motion. It has no place in the House of 
Representatives.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BEN RAY LUJAN of New Mexico. Madam Chair, I move to strike the 
last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. BEN RAY LUJAN of New Mexico. Madam Chair, I know everyone's 
tired. I just finished getting off the floor, offering an amendment, 
and a colloquy with my colleague, the dear chairman, Mr. Carter, as 
well. I went back to my small place to make a sandwich, and I saw this 
amendment come on the floor. And I had to hurry back.
  Everybody's tired because it's so late, Madam Chair. Here we are, 
it's midnight. Under the dark of night, here we have an amendment that 
I hope the talk shows are paying attention and watching tonight, and I 
hope that dreamers across America are watching their televisions. 
Because, if not, they're going to be reading about this in the morning.
  At a time when, as Congressman Gutierrez described, we're coming 
together as a Congress and as a Nation to try to get comprehensive 
immigration reform adopted; at a time when we should be concentrating 
our efforts on

[[Page 8126]]

going after those criminals that are doing bad, bad things; when the 
Chamber of Commerce of the United States and faith-based organizations, 
churches across America on Sundays and Saturdays and even at Bible 
study on Wednesdays are talking about the importance of respecting our 
friends and our neighbors, especially those young people, these 
dreamers--these young men and women who serve in our military who are 
undocumented here in the United States, to look after them and to pray 
for them and encourage the Congress to come together, this amendment is 
a slap in their face, Madam Chair.
  The King amendment would make communities less safe by discouraging 
crime victims from coming forward to police. The Morton memo on victims 
and witnesses encourages the agency not to initiate removal proceedings 
against an immediate victim or witness to a crime. This is needed to 
ensure that victims of domestic violence and other crimes come forward 
to seek protection. It is needed to help effective prosecutions of 
criminals.
  The memo supports the U visa and the Violence Against Women Act's 
self-petition process that came under fire during the recent Violence 
Against Women debate, notwithstanding the strong law enforcement 
support for both these protections.
  Let me see if I can make that simpler. An undocumented woman who is 
here in the United States who is a victim of rape, who comes forward to 
say who raped her, goes before the law enforcement without the memos in 
place and these protections, potentially, she is to be detained and 
deported because she was raped and she came forward with the courage to 
be able to try to get that individual who perpetrated that crime.
  It's sad, Madam Chair, that here we are yet again at a time when 
Democrats and Republicans have come together to be able to advocate for 
the importance of taking care of our dreamers, when this passed this 
House and so many of our Senators came forward, when the leaders of our 
respective parties in this very House of Representatives that we're 
honored to be a part of have come together and advocated for this 
change. We're having this debate after midnight here in Washington, 
D.C., tonight. It's sad.
  And the Morton memos are hardly new. Prosecutorial discretion memos 
in the immigration context have existed since 1976. Congressman 
Gutierrez eloquently described the letters that were sent by 
Congressman Hyde and Congressman Lamar Smith asking for the Executive 
to use its discretionary authority.
  Madam Chair, it's a sad, sad day that we're here tonight--under the 
dark of night--where I hope dreamers across America are paying 
attention. Because we need them tomorrow to light up those phones and 
make sure that they're talking to their friends, their families, to 
their deacons, to their priests, to their faith-based leaders and ask 
them to please stand up and encourage Members of Congress, when this 
comes up for a vote tomorrow morning, to call Members of Congress and 
tell them to reject this amendment.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ELLISON. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Minnesota is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. ELLISON. Madam Chair, I would just like to point out that I do 
specifically challenge the gentleman from Iowa's claim that the 
President's deferred action program is unconstitutional.
  The Supreme Court did rule in Arizona v. United States that the 
Federal Government, under the supremacy clause, does have the authority 
to set immigration policy over and above that of any State. Inherent in 
the authority to enforce the immigration laws is the right to be able 
to prioritize how that policy will be prioritized and how that policy 
will be executed.
  Now, the fact is that the executive branch has the authority, has the 
right to decide that they will take action on some cases and will take 
action on others in a prioritized fashion. That is the very heart and 
soul of what DACA represents.
  So for the gentleman to argue that there is some constitutional 
infirmity with deferred action is wrong. He's wrong on the law. He's 
wrong on his constitutional argument.
  The fact is that it's important for the people of the United States 
to hear that these specious, weak arguments about lack of 
constitutionality are incorrect.
  I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

                              {time}  0010

  Mr. GUTIERREZ. Madam Chair, I just want to make clear something about 
DACA. I filled out many applications, as I know my colleague from 
Minnesota has. They pay a fee. They go through an extensive background 
check. They have to give up their fingerprints and go through an 
extensive background check if they find they're denied DACA. So don't 
think it's just show up.
  Now they're given a work permit for 2 years, and they get to work 
with that work permit. They don't have any right to health care or to 
any means-tested program, nothing but the right to work and not to be 
deported from the United States of America, and they're contributing to 
this country already.
  So I just want to make that clear. Why would we want to spend the 
money of the Federal Government chasing down and hunting down and 
deporting people who came here as children who do not even know the 
country that they came from? Again, I want to reiterate: they are 
American in everything but a piece of paper. And the Congress of the 
United States should be working to try to see how it is we bring them 
in and integrate them more fully.
  I want to express to the gentleman from Iowa something very, very 
clearly. I want to use every dollar and every resource to go after 
every gang-banger, every drug dealer, every person that is a criminal 
doing harm in the United States. But these are children who are doing 
no one harm. They came as children, they are innocent, and should be 
treated as such.
  We want to prioritize our enforcement. We want to prioritize our 
enforcement so that we go after people who will do American citizens 
ill. They don't. They're children. They're wonderful, young people. And 
I would suggest to everybody here, meet one, talk to one. And what 
you're going to see is, the same values that you inculcate in your own 
children are the values that have been invested in these young men and 
women. We should give them a chance.
  Many of them are being denied as they go through the process. But it 
is a process that says we should use prosecutorial discretion. It is 
law. Everybody in this body knows, and you don't have to be a student 
of the Constitution of the United States to know, that the President 
has plenary powers to pardon anybody at any time for any reason. Just 
ask Gerald Ford about Richard Nixon. That is a fact.
  The President of the United States in this case is taking innocent 
young men and women who have been thoroughly checked in their 
background and said, Do you know what? I want to go after the mean, 
ugly people who want to do us harm, and I want to set aside these young 
men and women. We voted for it--216 to 208--and it was a proud day in 
the Congress of the United States.
  And I just want to say one more time to the gentleman from Iowa, 
there are Members of your side of the aisle who I know----
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GUTIERREZ. No, I won't.
  Who are going to continue to work with us in this Congress of the 
United States to get this finished. Please let us do that work.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PETERS of Michigan. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2217, 
the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 
2014. I remain firmly committed to the security of the United States 
and the Department's mission of ensuring our communities are safe and 
secure from terrorism and

[[Page 8127]]

other threats. However, I have serious concerns about a provision of 
this bill that cause me to be unable to support it.
  I am disappointed that the House adopted the controversial King 
amendment. This amendment offered by Representative Steve King will 
prohibit the administration from implementing the Deferred Action for 
Childhood Arrivals program. Children who were brought to the United 
States at a young age should not be penalized for the actions of their 
parents. These individuals, commonly referred to as DREAMers, may only 
know the United States and speak English. Deporting them to a country 
they may know nothing of, where they may not speak the language or know 
any relatives, is counterproductive to the principles that define our 
nation. I believe we need comprehensive immigration reform which 
addresses the issue of DREAM Act eligible youth and develops a 
framework for ensuring they can maintain a legal status in the United 
States. That is why, as a member of Congress who voted for the DREAM 
Act, I cannot support the King Amendment.
  While I agree with the necessity of providing adequate resources to 
the Department of Homeland Security, due to the inclusion of this 
unnecessary and controversial ban on the Deferred Action for Childhood 
Arrivals program, I am unable to support the bill.
  Ms. CLARKE. Madam Chair, I rise today disappointed in last week's 
adoption of the Steve King Amendment to H.R. 2217, the Department of 
Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2014. This amendment would bar 
implementation of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrival, DACA, for 
DREAMers, prevent them from acquiring work permits, and eliminate the 
exercise of discretion to protect victims of trafficking and crime 
victims.
  Prosecutorial discretion and deferred action are done on a case-by-
case basis and do not provide relief or legal status en masse. Instead, 
these practices ensure fair and just outcomes, and prompt law 
enforcement officials to closely consider compelling circumstances such 
as disability, age, or military service.
  This blatant attempt to undermine the Presidents' action to address 
certain aspects of our broken immigration system and to restrict 
certain benefits of deferred action shocks the conscience. There are 
thousands of young Americans without legal status who want to attend 
school, find jobs, and start families--to participate in the American 
Dream.
  The promise of deferred action and work authorization was affirmed by 
millions of Americans in November 2012. If we break this promise, we 
will have failed in our duty to a nation of immigrants from every part 
of world.
  As the only New York City Member of Congress on the House Homeland 
Security Committee, I understand the need to fund programs that keep us 
safe against the threat of both physical and cyber attacks. However, to 
hold DACA recipients hostage for politics is unconscionable. I 
represent one of the largest immigrant districts in the country, with 
many who are currently benefitting from DACA; I could not and did not 
support the King Amendment, nor did I vote for the underlying bill.
  The Acting CHAIR. Members are reminded to direct their remarks to the 
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 noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Madam 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. Ellison

  Mr. ELLISON. Madam 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).
  Mr. ELLISON (during the reading). Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent to have the amendment considered as read.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from Minnesota?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Minnesota is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. ELLISON. Madam Speaker, before the body is a simple amendment of 
leaders of four separate caucuses, Members of this body--the 
Congressional Progressive Caucus, the Congressional Black Caucus, the 
Congressional Spanish Caucus, and the Congressional Asian Pacific 
Islander Caucus--who join together to support a simple amendment to 
this important legislation.
  Now, Madam Speaker, it is important to point out that the hardworking 
staff employees of DHS deserve respect and honor. They keep our country 
safe. We appreciate that. We appreciate all law enforcement, especially 
when they put their lives on the line for our safety. No one questions 
the public service and the professionalism demonstrated by security 
officials every day.
  However, occasionally reports of racial and ethnic and religious 
profiling do occur. We see them in the news and we hear about them from 
civil liberties organizations. Too many Americans who are simply going 
about their business have been discriminated against solely because of 
race, color, ethnicity. This is wrong, and it is well-rooted in our 
society that this is not an acceptable value or practice, and it's not 
what America is all about.
  This amendment we are offering today would simply help to put an end 
to it. Our amendment--straightforward--simply cites the Constitution 
and existing antidiscrimination laws to affirm that no funds made 
available by this law can be used to engage in racial, ethnic, or 
religious profiling. This is not a controversial amendment, nor is it 
partisan. In fact, it was a former Bush administration official who 
said that religious, ethic, and racial stereotyping is not good 
policing.
  Now, we simply ask that this amendment receive the support of the 
body and that we, again, affirm our Nation believes in equality under 
the law, and that it is behavior that should inform law enforcement 
decisions, not simply identity.
  I ask for a ``yes'' vote, and yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CARTER. I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. CARTER. Madam Chairman, we accept this amendment, and I yield the 
balance of my time to my colleague, Mr. Price.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman 
for yielding, and I also urge acceptance of the amendment.
  Mr. CARTER. 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 Mrs. Blackburn

  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Madam 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 for any activity by Transportation Security 
     Administration Transportation Security Officers outside an 
     airport as defined in section 47102 of title 49, United 
     States Code.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Tennessee is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Madam Chairman, as I have stated earlier during the 
floor debate, TSA transportation security officers are not Federal law 
enforcement officers. They do not have any Federal law enforcement 
training, nor are they eligible to receive Federal law enforcement 
benefits.
  When Congress created the TSA in 2001, we defined TSA screeners in 
law as Federal security screeners. Their role as defined by the 
Aviation and Transportation Security Act is to screen passengers and 
luggage at airports across the country.

[[Page 8128]]

  However, beginning in 2005, TSA administratively reclassified TSA 
security screeners as transportation security officers and began to 
upgrade their uniforms to reflect those of Federal law enforcement 
officers with metal officer badges.

                              {time}  0020

  Time magazine contributor Amanda Ripley succinctly summed up the 
transition by stating that TSA was ``outfitting frontline employees 
with new gold badges and royal blue shirts as part of a broader effort 
to improve their image and make people, to put it bluntly, hate them 
less.''
  The problem is that TSA officers do not have any Federal law 
enforcement training to reflect their officer title or appearance.
  Law enforcement personnel for air transportation security are clearly 
defined in section 44903 of title 49, U.S. Code. U.S. Code states that 
``law enforcement'' means individuals who are authorized to carry and 
use firearms, vested with the power of arrest, and are identifiable by 
distinctive marks of authority.
  TSA officers do not meet these basic requirements of our law. Their 
training consists of 2 weeks in a classroom to learn how to screen 
passengers and bags, followed by 2 to 4 weeks of on-the-job training.
  That is why it is troubling to me and many of my constituents that 
TSA is allowing their officers to take part in DHS VIPR team operations 
outside our airports. These operations are currently taking place on 
our Nation's highways, in our rail stations, ferry terminals, bus 
stations, and other mass transit facilities across the country. 
Adopting this amendment would end this practice.
  The American public should be outraged that our national security 
strategy to prevent a horrific attack at a mass transit facility 
includes randomly sending people with no Federal law enforcement 
authority to randomly select and search citizens without any actionable 
intelligence. I strongly believe that Congress has an obligation to 
ensure that the title and appearance of Federal employees properly 
reflect their training and background.
  There are already enough well-documented concerns questioning whether 
these individuals can even carry out the basic functions of their jobs 
within our airports. Here is an example:
  Last year, a TSA officer whistleblower in Nashville produced 
documents showing that TSA officers in charge of screening a 
passenger's bags were receiving failing grades at being able to 
identify potential threats and were not receiving remedial training.
  Another example is a GAO report, which I have with me right here, 
published in January, which shows that the TSA is failing to deploy 
passenger-screening canine teams to airports and terminals with the 
highest risk as determined by the agency's high-risk list. Furthermore, 
the report lays out concerns that the current protocols in place ``are 
not appropriate for a suicide bombing attempt requiring an immediate 
law enforcement response.''
  If that's not concerning enough, there is a DHS Office of the 
Inspector General report released just last month on TSA's Behavior 
Detection Officers--and Mr. Thompson of Mississippi referenced this 
earlier--which only consists of TSA's Transportation Security Officers, 
and it raised concerns about their performance:

       TSA senior airport officials at airports contacted raised 
     concerns regarding the selection, allocation and performance 
     of the BDOs.
       TSA does not use an evaluation period to determine whether 
     new BDOs can effectively perform behavior detection.

  For these reasons, we should end this program and restrict them to 
the airports.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CARTER. I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. CARTER. I rise in opposition, reluctantly, to the gentlewoman's 
amendment.
  This is very similar to the amendment that was raised earlier this 
evening. I expressed my opinion then, and I don't change my opinion. I 
have a great deal of concern about the issues that have been raised by 
my good friend from Tennessee--in fact, from Williamson County, 
Tennessee, and I'm from Williamson County, Texas.
  I am going to recommend to my ranking member that we look into these 
allegations of misuse of law enforcement, or of the presumption of law 
enforcement. We are going to talk to Mr. Pistole to try to get to the 
bottom of this stuff, but I don't think what the gentlelady is trying 
to accomplish with this amendment is appropriate at this time without 
our holding hearings and discussing some of these issues and trying to 
examine the statutes and make sure that they are operating within the 
statutes.
  So for that reason, I think this is not the time, and I am going to 
have to oppose this amendment.
  I yield to my colleague, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. 
Price).
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I thank the chairman for yielding.
  I would echo his sentiments on this amendment. I understand that it's 
well-intentioned and that there may very well be some specific issues 
that demand attention, but this is largely the same amendment that we 
debated earlier this evening, which was voted down by a considerable 
margin, and I believe we should do that again.
  Mr. CARTER. 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. Madam 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 Mr. Barletta

  Mr. BARLETTA. Madam Chair, 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 under the 
     heading ``Departmental Management and Operations--
     Departmental Operations--Office of the Secretary and 
     Executive Management'' may be used for official reception and 
     representational expenses until the Secretary of Homeland 
     Security complies with section 7208 of the Intelligence 
     Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (8 U.S.C. 1365b).

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. BARLETTA. My amendment is simple.
  The amendment would say that none of the funds from the Office of the 
Secretary may be used for official reception expenses until the 
Secretary of Homeland Security fully implements the biometric entry and 
exit data system.
  A biometric exit system is already required by law. In 2004, Congress 
mandated the establishment of this system to track foreigners leaving 
our country. The 9/11 Commission recommended creating a biometric exit 
system as well. The creation of an effective exit system would keep our 
country safe because we would have a more effective way of tracking 
people who may pose a risk to our national security.
  Oftentimes, people speak of the illegal immigration issue as 
involving the northern, southern, and coastal borders; but as Boston 
showed us plainly, it involves much more than that. Nearly half of the 
illegal immigrants currently in the United States did not cross a 
traditional border. Rather, they arrived here on a legitimate visa, saw 
the visa expire, and never returned home. The truth is, if your State 
is home to an international airport, you effectively live in a border 
State. We know that 40 percent of illegal immigrants are visa 
overstays; but since we do not have an effective way of tracking who 
leaves our country, that number may be different. This amendment would 
withhold funds from the Secretary's reception expenses until the

[[Page 8129]]

biometric exit system is fully implemented.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CARTER. I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. CARTER. We will accept this amendment, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Barletta).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. CARTER. Before I make a motion, Madam Chairman, I would like to 
thank all of the employees of the House for being willing to extend the 
time tonight so that we could get those Members who have been waiting 
for 4 or 5 hours finished. I want to apologize for the inconvenience, 
but we appreciate the efficiency that it allowed us.
  Madam Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Barletta) having assumed the chair, Ms. Foxx, 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. 2217) 
making appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security for the 
fiscal year ending September 30, 2014, and for other purposes, had come 
to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________