[Pages H3110-H3161]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2014

General Leave

Mr. CARTER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and
include extraneous material on the consideration of H.R. 2217 and that
I may include tabular material on the same.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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 consideration of the bill, H.R. 2217.
The Chair appoints the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Roe) to preside
over the Committee of the Whole.

{time} 1245

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 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 Mr. Roe of Tennessee in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the
first time.
The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Carter) and the gentleman from North
Carolina (Mr. Price) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. CARTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
It was 69 years ago this Thursday that more than 9,000 Allied
soldiers were killed or wounded during the D-day invasion in Normandy,
France. That courageous operation, as well as the sacrifice of so many
brave individuals, serves as a sobering reminder that freedom and
security are, in fact, not free.
It is with this solemn commitment to both freedom and security that I
respectfully present to the people's House the fiscal year 2014
appropriations bill for the Department of Homeland Security. Similar to
our subcommittee's work over the past 3 fiscal years, this bill
demonstrates how we can fund vital security programs and enforce the
law while also reducing discretionary spending overall. So this bill is
about our security and fiscal priorities and getting them right.
The President's fiscal year 2014 budget proposal for DHS presents a
harmful budget for our frontline homeland security agencies,
diminishing their operational workforces and undermining mission
capabilities. The end result of the President's budget proposal would,
undoubtedly, be a less capable DHS. That's why our subcommittee, on a
bipartisan basis, strove to significantly improve the flawed budget
request through this bill before the House today.
First, this bill targets the very programs and systems displayed
during and after the recent horrific attack at the Boston Marathon. It
does this by a nearly 20 percent increase above the request for FEMA's
first responder grants; substantial increases above the request and
last year's level for CBP's targeting, TSA's Secure Flight, and ICE's
visa enforcement programs, including the phase-in of 1,600 additional
CBP officers; doubling the Department's Bombing Prevention program,
substantially increasing counter-IED training and applying the lessons
learned from our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; and a nearly 40 percent
increase in the program If You See Something, Say Something.
In addition, the bill restores virtually all of the unjustified
proposed cuts to DHS' operational programs, to include restoring the
cuts to ICE's mandated 34,000 detention beds and vital investigative
programs; restoring cuts to the Coast Guard's operational expenses,
including aviation and flight hours, as well as restoring the
President's truly harmful cuts to recapitalization and acquisitions of
cutter and aviation assets; restoring the proposed cuts to CBP air and
marine operating hours and procurement, as well as mission support
functions; restoring the proposed long-term cuts to Secret

[[Page H3111]]

Service staffing and financial crime investigations; and providing
these restorations while also strongly supporting the Department's
disaster relief, cybersecurity and research programs, including the
full-year construction increment for the National Agro-and Bio-Defense
facility in Kansas.

{time} 1250

This bill also considers our Nation's fiscal crisis by invoking real
fiscal discipline and efficiency, including a more than $613 million--
or more than 1.5 percent--reduction below fiscal year 2013 to the
Department's annual budget; a 15 percent cut below the request to DHS
headquarters staffing; a nearly 25 percent cut below the request to
departmental administrative expenses and bureaucratic overhead; denial
of the President's request to increase bureaucracy by creating three
new headquarters offices; termination of funding for ineffectual
offices and programs and substantial oversight requirements, ranging
from withholding funds to statutory mandates to reporting requirements
on everything from major acquisitions to ammunition inventories,
purchases, and usage.
Mr. Chairman, this bill does not represent a false choice between
fiscal responsibility and security. Both are urgent priorities, and
both are vigorously addressed by this bill.
I must note that DHS did a shameful job in complying with statutory
requirements enacted into law FY13. Those failures are certainly
addressed in this bill. We are serious about compelling the Department
to both enforce the law and comply with the law, and we will not
tolerate further failures in this regard, a point I think we make clear
in this bill through 50 percent withholdings to the Department's
executive offices and 50 percent reductions to offices that are
delaying the review and submittal of needed, factual information
requested by Congress.
On a final and regrettably sober note, my staff and I have been
regularly talking with our dear friend and my classmate, Tom Cole, and
doing all that we can to help the good people of his Oklahoma district
get back on their feet from the devastating tornado that hit the town
of Moore and surrounding communities.
So, in addition to the nearly $11 billion that is currently in FEMA
coffers, this bill fully supports the known requirements of $6.2
billion for the disaster relief fund in FY14. These funds, combined
with our continued oversight, will help ensure disaster assistance
rapidly gets to those who've lost so much. Mr. Chairman, we send Tom
and his constituents our sincere condolences and wish them a speedy
recovery.
In closing, let me first thank Ranking Member Price for his
statesmanship and partnership. I sincerely thank him and his dedicated
professional staff for their input and notable contributions to this
bill.
In addition, let me thank the thoughtful Members of this body. We
received program submissions from 222 Members, and their input was
critical to our oversight work over the past few months, as well as the
production of this bill. I know that my staff and I made every effort
to accommodate virtually every Member's submission we received, and
that has only made this a stronger product.
Finally, I must thank the distinguished chairman and ranking member
of the full committee, Chairman Rogers and Mrs. Lowey. Their input and
support for the bill is genuinely appreciated.
I sincerely believe this bill reflects our best effort to address our
Nation's urgent needs: security, enforcement, and fiscal restraint.
I urge my colleagues to support this measure, and I reserve the
balance of my time.

[[Page H3112]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH05JN13.001

[[Page H3113]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH05JN13.002

[[Page H3114]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH05JN13.003

[[Page H3115]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH05JN13.004

[[Page H3116]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH05JN13.005

[[Page H3117]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH05JN13.006

[[Page H3118]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH05JN13.007

[[Page H3119]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH05JN13.008

[[Page H3120]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH05JN13.009

[[Page H3121]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH05JN13.010

[[Page H3122]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH05JN13.011

[[Page H3123]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH05JN13.012

[[Page H3124]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH05JN13.013

[[Page H3125]]

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time
as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the fiscal year 2014 Department of
Homeland Security appropriations bill and am pleased that we're
bringing this bill to the House floor under an open rule. I want to
commend Chairman Carter for the open, collaborative, and bipartisan
process he has led this spring. There's a long history of bipartisan
cooperation on this subcommittee that's critical for allowing us to
focus on the Nation's domestic security needs.
The funding allocation provided to the subcommittee hews closely to
the overall spending figure requested by the President for the
Department of Homeland Security, but I don't believe either number is
fully adequate to provide DHS with the resources it needs to help keep
the Nation safe. We have been able to fill a number of significant
holes in the President's budget request, but that has necessitated
creating some shortfalls in other areas.
I want to make clear, however, that my support of Chairman Carter's
efforts are in no way an endorsement of the overall discretionary
spending caps adopted by the majority in the House budget resolution.
Sequestration was intended to be a mechanism to force the parties to
come together to address our long-term fiscal challenges. It was never
meant, in itself, to be a tool for deficit reduction, and it certainly
was never meant to be the basis for a discretionary spending cap on a
budget resolution.
While not quite sufficient, our allocation is still better than most
of the other domestic appropriations bills, which will struggle to
appropriately fund critical priorities, such as medical and energy
research, law enforcement and the justice system, and investments in
education and infrastructure. Our Homeland Security bill is not the
only bill that deals with our country's strength and security, and the
allocations provided to these other subcommittees by the Ryan budget
will put that strength and security at grave risk.
That being said, and given the low 302(b) allocation this
subcommittee had to work with, I applaud the chairman and the staff for
addressing a number of Democratic priorities, including first responder
and antiterrorism grants, as well as providing increases above the
request for frontline DHS employees so that they can continue to
conduct critical operations along our borders, protect our Nation's
airports, seaports, and land ports of entry, and respond to natural
disasters across the country.
Right before last year's markup, we were reminded of the threats
facing our Nation when the intelligence community thwarted an attempt
to place a nonmetallic improvised explosive device on an aircraft bound
for the United States.
This year, following the terrorist attacks in Boston, we're forced to
confront the tragic reality that these threats remain constant, that
terrorists remain determined to attack the homeland and they will
devise more and more perverse ways to kill and harm innocent people.
This requires DHS and the intelligence community and local first
responders to remain vigilant and to strive continually to optimize
their scarce resources. That's why I'm pleased this bill increases
funding for critical grant programs, while once again rejecting the
administration's insufficiently articulated proposal to reengineer the
grant structure, a proposal that has not been authorized.
Specifically, the bill includes $1.5 billion for FEMA State and local
grants, an increase of $35 million over the FY13 appropriated level,
and it keeps both fire grants and emergency performance grants level
with FY13. The bill also doubles the requested funding for the Office
of Bombing Prevention to accelerate planning, training, and awareness
programs to help detect and respond to IEDs and other explosive
devices.
Equally important, the bill provides a $16.9 million increase in
funding for research and development efforts at the Science and
Technology Directorate. When you combine this funding with what was
included in the final FY13 bill, we've made significant progress since
FY12, providing funding for high-priority research efforts and some new
projects, as well.
The bill also provides substantial funding--$404 million--for
construction of the National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility, a
laboratory that's essential to our ability to help prevent and respond
to animal disease threats.
The bill also increases funding for critical Coast Guard and CBP air
and marine acquisitions to recapitalize aging assets while also
bringing the latest aviation and vessel technologies online to ensure
our frontline personnel can operate more effectively, improving on the
administration's request on each of those fronts.

{time} 1300

I am also pleased that the bill provides funding for an additional
1,600 Customs and Border Protection officers requested by the
administration and for substantially strengthened cybersecurity
protective efforts. These efforts are absolutely necessary to monitor
and detect intrusions to our Federal networks and protect them from
foreign espionage and cyber attacks.
Finally, I commend Chairman Carter for providing the requested
amount, $6.22 billion, for the Disaster Relief Fund, which will ensure
that there are sufficient disaster relief resources moving into the
coming fiscal year. And I echo the chairman's pledge of support for
Representative Tom Cole, for his constituents and the other people of
Oklahoma to fully address their needs.
I also want to remind my colleagues, however, that should emergency
disaster relief funding become necessary beyond what we have budgeted,
Congress must respond immediately and effectively, without distracting
fights over budget policy.
I do have some concerns with the bill, notably, some of the
immigration provisions. The bill once again sets an arbitrary minimum
of 34,000 ICE detention beds, denying ICE the flexibility it needs to
manage its enforcement and removal resources in response to changing
circumstances and to use cheaper, alternative forms of supervision when
appropriate.
The bill also unnecessarily and wastefully continues the 287(g)
program, which was designed to secure local law enforcement
participation in immigration enforcement. In addition to being
seriously flawed, this program has become obsolete with the full
implementation of the Secure Communities program.
I also must note my concern with some of the withholdings in the
bill. I understand the need to give incentives to the Department to
respect reporting deadlines established by the committee, but I hope we
can temper some of these withholdings as we move through the process,
as they have the potential to seriously undermine the Department's
management functions.
The bill also provides no funding for the new DHS headquarters,
despite $105 million in the request. We have been told repeatedly by
the administration that deferring these investments will greatly
increase the project's costs and eventually it's bound to affect
frontline operations, and I believe they're correct on both counts.
I also want to note my strong objection to three general provisions
related to abortion services for detainees that were added to the bill
in full committee. While they have no impact on ICE policies, they
unnecessarily interject a divisive issue into the bill, distracting us
from what should be our focus and straying far outside the lines of the
jurisdiction of the Appropriations Committee.
So while I support the bill as reported to the House by the
Appropriations Committee and believe it represents an improvement over
the budget request, it still falls short of the bill I believe we would
want to craft were we operating under a more adequate allocation.
Let me also express the hope, going into this debate, that this year
we can avoid loading the bill up here on the floor with controversial
and unnecessary policy riders. There will be a time and place to debate
immigration reform, and the Homeland Security appropriations bill
should not be caught up in that process.
In closing, I, too, want to express my appreciation for the
hardworking and dedicated staff on both sides of the aisle. In the
course of just 2 months, they have diligently wrapped up the fiscal
2013 bill, digested and analyzed the President's fiscal 2014 request,
and

[[Page H3126]]

crafted the bipartisan measure before us. Thanks to Ben Nicholson, Kris
Mallard, Corenell Teague, Valerie Baldwin, Pam Williams, and Hilary May
on the majority side, and of course, Darek Newby and Justin Wein on our
side of the aisle.
With that, I urge approval of the bill, and I reserve the balance of
my time.
Mr. CARTER. Mr. Chairman, at this time I yield such time as he may
consume to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), the chairman of
the Appropriations Committee, who is the former founding chairman of
this subcommittee and a former great prosecutor from the State of
Kentucky.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I thank the chairman for yielding me the
time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this bill.
First, I'd like to thank our colleagues for their careful
consideration yesterday of the Military Construction and Veterans
Affairs appropriations bill, which, as you know, passed overwhelmingly
in the House. There were only four Members who voted against that bill,
and I'd like to ask all of the supporters of that bill to continue on
this bill today. It's a very conscientious piece of legislation that I
believe can and should pass this body on a bipartisan basis.
The bill before you, as the chairman and the ranking member have
said, provides $38.9 billion for the Department of Homeland Security.
In such austere budget times, this bill rightly prioritizes spending on
programs that save American lives. Frontline protection, terrorism
prevention and response, disaster recovery, and a strong and secure
border, all of these are paramount to the safety and security of our
homeland.
Mr. Chairman, we are constantly reminded that we can't let our
frontline security efforts lapse. The terrible attack at the Boston
Marathon underscored the need to support key readiness programs,
provide heroic first responders with the funding and equipment they
deserve, and improve intelligence and threat-targeting activities so we
can help avoid terrible attacks like Boston in the future.
With this bill, we are tightening security at our borders with
funding increases for Customs and Border Protection and ICE that
preserve the highest totals of Border Patrol agents and CBP officers
and the highest detention bed capacity in history. We've targeted
funding to combat human trafficking, child exploitation, cyber crime,
and drug smuggling. And we're protecting our shores and access points
with adequate funding for the Coast Guard and TSA.
This bill also fully supports the known requirements from the FEMA
Disaster Relief Fund, which provides assistance to localities
overwhelmed by catastrophic natural disasters like the recent tornadoes
in the Midwest. Our thoughts and prayers continue to be with the
victims of those disasters that have ravaged our Nation, like Oklahoma.
To that end, this bill provides an additional $6.2 billion for that
Disaster Relief Fund. That's for fiscal 2014. Right now, though, as the
chairman has said, combined with the approximately $11 billion kitty
that FEMA has on hand, there is sufficient funding for the immediate
response needs in Oklahoma and other affected areas.
Our committee stands at the ready to reassess any further needs as a
fuller picture of the damage becomes clear. It's our duty as Members of
Congress to provide this critical assistance to communities that are
suffering from such unexpected and devastating natural disasters.
Mr. Chairman, strong national security comes at a price. And as we
all know, tax dollars for these programs are in limited supply these
days, so we can't let any of the funding that we appropriate to the
Department of Homeland Security go to unproven or wasteful programs.
Across the Department, we've made careful reductions that bring total
funding in this bill to $617 million less than the fiscal year 2013
enacted level. We've enforced strict reporting requirements and other
oversight tools to guarantee that DHS is spending its dollars wisely,
and we've prevented funding from being used on risky or controversial
efforts like transferring detainees from Guantanamo Bay or another Fast
and Furious-type program.
Before I conclude, let me extend my appreciation to Chairman Carter
and Ranking Member Price, former chairman of the subcommittee, for
their hard work in crafting this bill. As has been said by both sides,
this is a nonpartisan bill. It always has been that way.

{time} 1310

We've attempted to work from the very beginning of this
subcommittee's existence to work across the aisle, to be sure that the
homeland is adequately protected. That takes cooperation across the
middle aisle, and it's happened over the years, and it's happened this
year. And I want to thank these two gentlemen, especially, for working
together, as they have.
This is John Carter's first bill as a cardinal. He's making his
maiden voyage, and I think the ship is sailing through. He says he
hopes so.
And we want to thank, of course, the staff of the subcommittee for
their tireless hours dedicated towards crafting this bill of great
importance to our national security.
So I'm proud to say, Mr. Chairman, that I stand before you in 100
percent support of this bill. It represents all that makes our country
great and the security that will keep our country great. And I urge our
colleagues to support this bill.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased to yield 3
minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), the
distinguished ranking member of the full committee.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I want to share the very gracious remarks
on the part of the chair of the full committee, the chair of the
subcommittee, the outstanding ranking member, and all the staff for the
important work you did on this bill.
Over the past year, we have experienced the devastation of Hurricane
Sandy, heartbreak in Moore, Oklahoma, tragic acts of terror in Boston.
Disasters, natural or manmade, pose risks to our communities, which
must be matched with the resources of the Federal Government and, in
particular, the Department of Homeland Security.
The bill before us, which is approximately $35 million below the
administration's request, does a good job of meeting these tasks, yet
inadequately funds other programs such as operational accounts, which
face cuts so severe that they cannot realistically be implemented.
I do thank the chairman and ranking member for including several
priorities, providing $1.5 billion for FEMA State and local grants
which were underfunded in the request, prioritizing high-risk areas in
our grant programs, continuing the Securing the Cities program to
prevent radiological or nuclear attacks, making needed investments in
cybersecurity, and including language to help stem sexual assault in
the Coast Guard, which has become a significant and outrageous problem
in the military.
However, the bill before us ignores the dangerous impact of
sequestration, putting off difficult choices that must be made if we
are to enact responsible spending bills for FY14.
With the majority's unworkable 302(a) allocation, which is $92
billion below the President's request, and less than the amounts agreed
to under the Budget Control Act, this is one of the few bills that will
have sufficient funding to garner bipartisan support.
The budget resolution and appropriations process under way harm our
ability to invest in education, medical research, transportation
infrastructure, energy development, all of which we need to grow our
economy and build a competitive workforce for the future.
I was very proud to serve on the Homeland Security Subcommittee and
appreciate, again, the chairman and ranking member's efforts, as well
as the professional staff, in writing this bill. This subcommittee has
a history of working across the aisle; and if we avoid poison pill
riders during this debate, we will likely pass a bipartisan bill to
provide responsible funding levels for the agencies tasked with vital
security functions.
Mr. CARTER. Mr. Chairman, at this time I yield 3 minutes to my
colleague from the great State of Texas, (Mr. McCaul), the chairman of
the full Committee on Homeland Security.
Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Chairman, let me thank my dear friend and colleague

[[Page H3127]]

from Texas, the great State, Judge Carter, and commend him for a fine
job on this legislation.
The recent Boston attacks serve as a stark reminder that the
terrorist threat to America remains constant. Despite the President's
dangerous narrative downplaying the radical jihadist threat to America,
al Qaeda and its affiliates and those they inspire have not given up
their quest to attack us.
In today's challenging fiscal climate, it is more important than ever
that every dollar spent on national security be linked to results. Our
safety depends on the strategic funding of programs and technologies
that provide us with valuable defenses and measurable outcomes. This
bill demands that those criteria be met.
As chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security, I'm pleased to see
that this bill provides appropriate funding for our frontline efforts,
reins in wasteful spending, and ensures that tax dollars are accounted
for by enacting important reporting requirements for the Department.
I will soon introduce a cybersecurity bill defining the Department's
role in ensuring the real-time flow of information to protect our
Nation's critical infrastructure, data, intelligence, and financial
systems. This bill provides the necessary funding needed for DHS to
fulfill its important cybersecurity mission.
I recently introduced H.R. 1417, the Border Security Results Act,
requiring DHS to implement a strategy to gain operational control of
our borders. The appropriations bill presented here today supports a
strong commitment to secure our borders by providing over $350 million
to the Border Technology account and supports the refinement and
adaptation of proven technology needed to monitor the border and
support our boots on the ground.
The bill provides for an additional 800 CBP officers, $387 million
for ICE operations, and funding for ICE's 34,000 detention beds,
despite the administration's plan to reduce that number and release
hundreds of dangerous criminals into our communities.
It also restores cuts to our Coast Guard, which will strengthen our
interdiction efforts in the Western Hemisphere.
And, finally, the bill applies lessons learned from the recent Boston
attacks. For example, the bill rejects the President's proposed 39
percent cut to Bombing Prevention programs, and increases funding for
visa security and overstay enforcement programs by $10 million.
This bill reflects the right priorities and insists on accountability
from DHS. It will help to ensure that America is safe, secure, and
protected; and I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I'm now pleased to yield 3
minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Roybal-Allard), an
outstanding member of our subcommittee.
Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. I thank Chairman Carter and Ranking Member Price
for their bipartisan efforts in the drafting of this bill.
Unfortunately, with the refusal of the House leadership to go to
conference on the budget, this year's appropriations process will be at
the expense of essential funding for critical programs such as
education, research, transportation, and infrastructure.
Nonetheless, this bill will help make our Nation stronger and more
secure. It robustly funds grants to provide our first responders with
the resources they need to protect the public when disaster strikes.
The bill also funds the highly effective Alternatives to Detention
program at $24 million above the President's request. While I believe
ATD should be significantly expanded, I was pleased to see the
increased allocation for this proven program.
In addition, the bill provides a $16.9 million increase in funding
for the Science and Technology Directorate, which will enable DHS to
develop new tools to detect and deter terrorists before they attack.
However, there are still aspects of the bill that are of concern. For
example, the bill continues to mandate that every night ICE maintain
34,000 detention beds, even when they are not needed. This needless
quota restricts ICE's flexibility in using the smartest, most cost-
effective means of enforcing our immigration laws by limiting ICE's
ability to base detention decisions on whether or not an individual
poses a threat to our country.

{time} 1320

The bill also increases funding for the ineffective and unnecessary
287(g) program, which encourages racial profiling and undermines
confidence in law enforcement in our minority and immigrant
communities. These scarce resources could be better spent addressing
serious threats like cyber warfare and cyber crime. Instead, the bill
underfunds this critical national priority by more than $24 million
below the President's request.
In spite of these weaknesses and given the limited resources
allocated to the subcommittee, I do believe Chairman Carter and Ranking
Member Price have done their best to enable DHS to protect the American
people in an increasingly dangerous world. For that reason, I support
the bill in its current form. However, I understand some Members will
try to pass anti-immigrant amendments, which would make it impossible
for me to support this bill. These efforts are contrary to the
bipartisan spirit in which this bill was written and the bipartisan
spirit in which this House has always approached issues of national
security. If introduced, I urge my colleagues to reject these
irresponsible amendments.
Again, I thank Chairman Carter, Ranking Member Price, and the
subcommittee's hardworking staff for putting together this bill.
Mr. CARTER. Mr. Chairman, at this time I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Aderholt), a former chairman of this
subcommittee and currently chairman of the Appropriations Committee's
Subcommittee on Agriculture.
Mr. ADERHOLT. I rise today also in support of the FY 2014
appropriations bill for the Department of Homeland Security. I want to
commend Chairman Carter and also Ranking Member Price for their hard
work in making sure that they set up the right priorities during a very
difficult budget time here in this Nation.
The bill provides the resources that are needed to meet our most
essential obligations, while at the same time maintaining fiscal
responsibility and also greater oversight. It is $617 million below
last year's spending level. As has been mentioned, the bill rejects the
administration's proposed reductions to CBP operations and the Coast
Guard and increases funding for critical programs such as the TSA
Secure Flight Program and the FEMA first responder grants.
The bill maintains the needed number of beds for ICE detention. It
also includes a substantial amount of funding for NBAF. This important
asset provides our Nation with critical capabilities to conduct
research and develop vaccines and other countermeasures in a time when
we would most need it.
Again, I want to congratulate Chairman Carter and Ranking Member
Price for their hard work on this bill. I would urge my colleagues that
this is a good bill and a measure that should have their support.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to
another outstanding subcommittee member, Mr. Cuellar of Texas.
Mr. CUELLAR. I rise in support of this appropriations bill, which
includes the hiring of 1,600 new CBP officers. Those are the men and
women in blue that man our ports of entry. These 1,600 CBP officers
will be a huge and historic step in addressing the congested ports of
entries. And I thank Chairman Carter and Ranking Member Price for their
leadership and a bipartisan approach to this very important issue.
In FY 2012, CBP processed more than 350 million travelers and
facilitated $2.3 trillion worth of trade at ports of entry. America's
ports of entry are vital hubs of economic activity. As high volumes of
goods and persons move through our ports of entry, port security is an
urgent priority. Therefore, this new increase of CBP officers will
achieve the goal of facilitating trade and travel and boost economic
development.
The southern border is one of the fastest-growing regions in North
America. In fact, every day there's $1.2 billion of trade between the
U.S. and Mexico. My hometown of Laredo handles about 45 percent of all
the trade between the U.S. and Mexico. In fact,

[[Page H3128]]

every day about 12,000 commercial trucks cross the bridges in Laredo.
These 1,000 men and women in blue will help facilitate trade and travel
at our ports of entry and will help our economy. Again, I want to thank
both the chairman and ranking member for this effort.
We also have to do some enhancements to infrastructure at our
critical ports. That's also very necessary. If we limit the Federal
funding at our ports of entry, we need to be innovative and think
outside the box. In fact, it's essential that the Federal Government
explore the use of public-private partnerships, which allows the
Federal agencies to partner up with local governments and private
stakeholders to help fund the land port, seaport, or airport
infrastructure projects. These innovative financing mechanisms, with
the proper safeguards that we will add, will adequately staff, supply,
construct, and rehab our ports of entry and, in turn, will make our
ports more secure and more efficient.
I've been working with my colleagues, both the Democrats and
Republicans, to encourage the use of public-private partnerships. In
fact, I reached out to our colleague in the Senate from the Homeland
Security Subcommittee, the chairwoman, Mary Landrieu, and she supports
this particular concept. I look forward to working with my good friend,
the judge from Texas. Both he and I agree that these are not Federal
handouts but they actually allow the local government to partner up
with the Federal Government and allow us to make our ports more
efficient, more effective. I look forward to working with you, Chairman
Carter, and with Ranking Member Price and the staff as we address this
conference committee.
I ask you to support this bill.
Mr. CARTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
member of our subcommittee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent).
Mr. DENT. I rise in support of the 2014 Department of Homeland
Security appropriations bill being debated this afternoon. I certainly
want to applaud the chairman of the full committee, Mr. Rogers, and
certainly the chair of the subcommittee, Mr. Carter, as well as
Ranking Member Price and the ranking member of the full committee, Mrs.
Lowey, for carefully piecing together a bill that appropriately
addresses the evolving threats that face our Nation. This bill strikes
a proper balance of fiscal responsibility while fulfilling the mission
of vital security programs and providing the resources to enforce
current law.

Regarding fiscal restraint, we're considering a bill today that
provides for a reduction in the Department's annual budget by $613
million, eliminating ineffectual programs. Yet the legislation was
crafted in such a way that agencies and programs will receive the
resources and flexibility they need to meet the security needs facing
communities across the country day in and day out.
For example, in the wake of the Boston bombings this spring, the bill
before us restores DHS' Bombing Prevention program and increases
counter-IED training. The Disaster Relief Fund, or the DRF, is robustly
funded and will meet the disaster needs of Oklahoma, as well as those
who were affected by the hurricanes in the Northeast, such as Hurricane
Sandy.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Hultgren). The time of the gentleman has
expired.
Mr. CARTER. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
Mr. DENT. The FEMA first responder grants, including fire grants,
will receive a 20 percent increase. Further, these SAFER grants will
continue to provide additional flexibility to allow communities to use
grants to retain or rehire firefighters facing layoffs. As an aside, I
want to thank again Ranking Member Price as well as Chairman Rogers for
working with me on this critical issue once again.
The bottom line is this is a smart, responsible bill that practices
fiscal restraint while addressing our most pressing needs in securing
our homeland. I urge support of the underlying bill.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to the
remaining time?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from North Carolina has 12 minutes
remaining. The gentleman from Texas has 10 minutes remaining.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. At this time I have no further requests
for time, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CARTER. At this time I yield 2 minutes to a very distinguished
member of our subcommittee from the great of State of Tennessee (Mr.
Fleischmann).
Mr. FLEISCHMANN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the fiscal 2014
Homeland Security appropriations bill.
First, I would like to thank Chairman Carter and the subcommittee
staff for all the work that they have done in preparation for this
legislation.

{time} 1330

This bill is a perfect example of what happens when real time and
thought is put into how taxpayer dollars will be spent.
As I have often said, budgeting is about prioritization, and this is
exactly what this bill does. The legislation before us today exercises
fiscal discipline. As a whole, we will reduce discretionary spending,
while ensuring that programs vital to our national security are
properly supported.
This bill also recalibrates the President's pernicious budget
proposals for the Department of Homeland Security to ensure that we are
getting the most out of every taxpayer dollar. We must ensure the
protection of Americans by strengthening security at and within our
borders.
By streamlining select programs within DHS and implementing stringent
oversight, Chairman Carter and committee staff, with help from Ranking
Member Price, have produced a bill that adequately funds our highest
security priorities and eliminates waste, fraud, and abuse.
Again, I thank the subcommittee for their diligence in crafting this
legislation that pays equal heed to the protections of our taxpayer
dollars and the security of our citizens.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. CARTER. Mr. Chairman, at this time I'd like to yield 2 minutes to
the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), who is the chairman of the
Coast Guard and Maritime Subcommittee of the full committee.
Mr. HUNTER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
As the chairman of the Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime
Transportation, it is my pleasure to rise today in very strong support
of H.R. 2217.
Earlier this year, the President released a fiscal year 2014 budget
that would cut funding for the Coast Guard by nearly 10 percent below
current levels. This is the second year in a row that this President
has asked the Coast Guard to sacrifice mission readiness and success to
pay for his questionable spending at other agencies.
The President's budget would slash the service's acquisitions budget
by 42 percent below current levels and would severely undermine efforts
to recapitalize the service's aging and failing legacy assets, increase
acquisition costs for taxpayers, and seriously degrade mission
effectiveness. The President's proposed budget points to a future in
which a downsized Coast Guard would fail to be able to accomplish even
its most basic missions, and the cost could be measured in lives.
Fortunately, the bill Chairman Carter has put before us totally rejects
the massive cuts proposed by the President and ensures the Coast Guard
is provided with the resources needed to carry out its very critical
missions.
I want to thank Chairman Carter, Ranking Member Price, and staff for
their tremendous efforts and for their commitment to the men and women
of the Coast Guard and the safety of the maritime community.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, at this time I'd like to
yield 3 minutes to our distinguished colleague from Florida (Ms.
Wasserman Schultz).
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you, Ranking Member Price.
First, let me commend both Chairman Carter and Ranking Member Price
on a strong, bipartisan bill. But let me especially recognize their
leadership for adding language to this legislation to protect our most
vulnerable constituents--our children.
This language that I refer to will effectively fence off $20 million
in funds for child exploitation investigations

[[Page H3129]]

and forensics within Immigration and Customs Enforcement's Child
Exploitation Investigations Unit at the Department of Homeland
Security.
Mr. Chair, there is no question that our children need our support
now more than ever. With the proliferation of the Internet and wireless
technology, the spread of child pornography online must be addressed
now. We don't have a moment or an opportunity to waste.
The Department of Justice estimates that at any moment there are more
than 1 million pornographic images of children on the Internet--think
about that, 1 million--with an additional 200 images being posted every
day, and more than one-third of the world's pedophiles involved in
organized pornography rings worldwide live in the United States.
The Internet allows these images to be disseminated indefinitely,
victimizing that child again and again with each click of the mouse.
Because let's not forget that these aren't just heinous images, they
are crime scene photos. Every face in those photographs is the face of
a child who needs our support in order to escape a living hell of
constant abuse and exploitation.
Since the 1970s, before we even had a Federal child pornography
statute, ICE--which was then called the U.S. Customs Service--was a
leader in the fight to protect our children. That is still true today.
Last year, there were more than 1,600 criminal arrests relating to
child exploitation, and 2,600 worldwide investigations were launched,
setting new records for Homeland Security investigations. Already this
year, there have been 1,382 criminal arrests relating to child
exploitation. Their efforts are second to none, and I know they will
continue to put these resources to good use.
But for every child rescued, hundreds more remain trapped in a
current of abuse, the horrors of which none of us can truly imagine. We
need the absolute best personnel going into the fight to rescue these
children. That's why it's my hope that some of these funds will be used
to employ our wounded warriors, in addition to the experienced agents
already fighting these battles. And I thank the chairman and ranking
member for adding report language in the bill to encourage the hiring
of these valued veterans.
Our armed services have already protected us abroad, so naturally our
veterans are a perfect choice to protect our most precious resources at
home. In fact, retired Army Master Sergeant Rich Robertson is already
fighting child exploitation at the ICE field office in Tennessee. In
his words, ``Who better to hunt child predators than someone who's
already hunted men?''

I am enthusiastic about this initiative because I know of the immense
skills and motivation of our returning servicemen and -women, and the
skills that they possess could be the key to our most successful
affront on child exploitation yet. Child predators won't stand a
chance.
By harnessing the abilities of our wounded warriors, we not only
ensure that their skills, dedication, and drive are put to good use
back at home, we give them the most dignifying thank-you of all: a job
that truly makes a difference.
Mr. Chair, let me be clear: with the inclusion of this language, we
are putting predators on notice. Their reign of terror is coming to an
end--you can bet on it.
I thank my colleagues on the committee for committing to fight until
every American child can live free from terror and exploitation.
Mr. CARTER. Mr. Chairman, at this time I would like to yield 2
minutes to the distinguished gentleman from the State of Pennsylvania
(Mr. Barletta). He is the chairman of the committee that authorizes
FEMA.
Mr. BARLETTA. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Chairman Rogers and
Chairman Carter for putting together a bill that supports communities'
ability to prepare for natural disasters in this very difficult fiscal
environment.
As chairman of the subcommittee with jurisdiction over FEMA, I want
to thank them for including all three of my committee recommendations
in the bill:
Thank you for continuing the Pre-Disaster Mitigation program, which
saves money in future disaster assistance;
Thank you for preserving the FEMA administrator's authority for
directing Federal disaster response by limiting the role of the
principal Federal official;
Finally, thank you for funding the Emergency Management Performance
Grants, or EMPG. With a 50 percent match requirement, EMPG grants
leverage twice as many preparedness dollars as any other Federal
program. For 60 years, EMPG has been focused on building local and
State emergency management capability. There are plenty of programs
that buy equipment and other things, but they won't do much good in a
major disaster without qualified local emergency managers.
We have all seen the photos of evacuation buses flooded and useless
in New Orleans because they didn't have a good hurricane evacuation
plan. Emergency managers develop the plans to get people out of harm's
way and to bring help from outside to the disaster area. The EMPG
program helps buy that capability, and FEMA needs to keep the EMPG
grant guidance focused on building local government emergency
management capacity.
Again, let me thank Chairman Rogers and Chairman Carter for a good
bill, and I urge my colleagues to support it.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance
of my time.
Mr. CARTER. I yield back the balance of my time.

=========================== NOTE ===========================

June 5, 2013, on Page H3129, the following appeared: H.R. 2217,
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2014

The online version has been deleted.

========================= END NOTE =========================

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of very important report
language included in the Homeland Security Appropriations bill, which
will sustain inland Border Patrol stations in states along our nation's
southern border.
In 2012, the U.S. Border Patrol proposed to close nine interior
Border Patrol stations as part of a cost-savings proposal. Six of the
nine proposed closures are located in Texas, including one located in
my district in the city of Amarillo. The U.S. Border Patrol made this
announcement without first ensuring that local law enforcement agencies
will have the necessary resources to deal with the serious illegal
immigration problems in our area. The inland stations proposed for
closure apprehend hundreds of illegal aliens every year. If these
closures are allowed, several hundred illegal aliens would have to be
let go due to the lack of federal presence.
Since the proposal was unveiled last year, I have repeatedly heard
from numerous local law enforcement officials who have serious concerns
about the detrimental effect this would have on our local communities.
They also believe this impact could reverberate throughout the country.
You do not have to be on--or even near--the border to see and feel
the effects of illegal immigration on our local communities, and that
is something we want to make sure the folks in Washington understand.
Enforcement of our immigration laws does not stop at the border.
Interior enforcement is essential as well. The Supreme Court has
confirmed that it is the federal government's job to enforce these
laws.
The Border Patrol cited ``cost-saving measures'' as a reason for this
proposal, but it is simply penny-wise and pound-foolish. Although the
agency anticipates closing these nine stations could save $1.3 million,
they admit it will cost $2.47 million to transfer all the agents to
other stations.
When I first brought these concerns to the U.S. Border Patrol, I was
told time and time again that the agency was working with Immigration
and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to develop a transition plan to ensure
that someone from the federal government will be there to pick up the
phone when local law enforcement needs their help. To date, I have seen
no evidence of a viable plan. There appears to be no draft plan or even
an outline of a plan. There are simply too many unanswered questions to
allow these inland border patrol station closures to proceed.
Any country must be able to control who and what comes across its
borders. A government that cannot or will not do so fails in one of its
most basic responsibilities.
I would like to thank the Appropriations Committee and Subcommittee
Chairman Carter for including this important language. I look forward
to continuing to work together to ensure that our country is not left
with a gaping hole in the enforcement of our immigration laws.

=========================== NOTE ===========================

June 5, 2013, on Page H3129, the following appeared: I would
like to thank the Appropriations Committee . . . our immigration
laws.

The online version has been corrected to read: I would like to
thank the Appropriations Committee . . . our immigration laws. Mr.
GARCIA. Mr. Chair, I rise today to express my disappointment that
the DHS Appropriations bill provides $68 million in funding for
287 (g)--a redundant, controversial immigration enforcement
program.

========================= END NOTE =========================

Mr. GARCIA. Mr. Chair, I rise today to express my disappointment that
the DHS Appropriations bill provides $68 million in funding for
287(g)--a redundant, controversial immigration enforcement program.

[[Page H3130]]

I will be offering an amendment later today to cut $10 million from
this unnecessary program and use those funds to increase CBP staffing
at our nation's airports.
I would like to express my frustration that the legislation we are
considering today, the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations
Act, provides $68 million for the 287(g)--a superfluous and
controversial program that allows local police to act like federal
agents.
It does not make any sense to waste $68 million on a program that
will not help us fix our immigration system nor secure our country.
Because of this, today, I will be proposing an amendment that will
cut $10 million from this program and use that money to increase the
number of customs agents in our airports.
This would reduce long lines and unacceptable delays, promoting
commerce and tourism and furthering our economic recovery.
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of this bill, though not in
support of the process that brought it to the House floor.
I am pleased that the overall committee process that produced this
bill was bipartisan. For the first time in several years, this bill
actually provides slightly more money for the State and Local Grant
program, which funds such critical community grant programs like SAFER,
AFG, and the Nonprofit Security Grant Program. Specifically, the bill
provides $1.5 billion for State and Local Grants, which is $456.8
million above the request and $35.4 million above the FY2013 enacted
level. This is still far less than what our firefighters, EMS and other
first responders need to replace aging equipment and hire needed
additional personnel, but it is nonetheless movement in the right
direction.
Unfortunately, that positive development is offset by the failure of
this bill to reverse the effects of sequester. TSA is addressing its
sequestration-related funding shortfalls in part with a reduction in
overtime and a freeze on hiring of new transportation security
officers, which will lead to longer checkpoint lines at airports during
peak summer travel season. CBP reduced overtime for CBP Officers,
leading to significant increases in wait times at air, land, and sea
ports of entry for citizens and international commerce. Coast Guard
drug and migrant interdiction efforts have been reduced substantially,
increasing the flow of narcotics into the United States. Sequestration
cut $928 million from FEMA's Disaster Relief Fund (DRF), threatening to
reduce funds available to help future victims of hurricanes, tornadoes,
and other natural disasters recover and rebuild. This is no way to run
a government, and I again urge the House majority to bring a bill to
the floor that permanently overturns sequester. The American people
want it, they need it, and we should do it today.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chair, before us is H.R. 2217, the Department of
Homeland Security Appropriations Act for FY 2014. Although this
legislation is far from perfect, I rise in reluctant support of the
bill because ensuring that our first responders and those who work on
the frontline protecting our borders have adequate resources to protect
our homeland and keep our citizens safe.
I strongly disapprove of the method employed by the House Republican
to discharge the House's fundamental responsibility to reach a budget
agreement with the Senate establishing the framework governing the
appropriations process. The Republican majority brought to the floor
and passed a rule that ``deems'' adopted the draconian spending limits
imposed by the Ryan Budget resolution rather than a resolution that
realistic and responsible limits that is to be negotiated and agreed to
by House and Senate budget conferees.
Indeed, the Republican House leadership has refused for months to
appoint conferees empowered to reach a budget agreement that is fair,
balanced and would end sequestration.
I agree with President Obama that prior to consideration of
appropriations bills the House and Senate should first reach agreement
on an appropriate framework for all appropriations bills and one does
not harm our economy or require draconian cuts to middle-class
priorities.
Without such an agreement, House Republican appropriation bills will
result in: hundreds of thousands of low-income children losing access
to Head Start programs, tens of thousands of children with disabilities
losing federal funding for their special education teachers and aides,
thousands of federal agents who will not be able to secure the border,
enforce drug laws, combat violent crime or apprehend fugitives; and
thousands of scientists without medical grants to conduct research to
find new treatments and cures for diseases like breast cancer and
Alzheimer's.
The Ryan Budget that the House majority deemed adopted and
incorporated in the rule governing consideration of this legislation
assumes that the draconian funding levels established under
sequestration will remain in place for the next several years.
Sequestration has been an unmitigated disaster for the American
people, especially for Texas and the people I represent in Houston. Let
me identify just a few of the ways my constituents are being adversely
affected by sequestration:
Teachers and Schools: Texas will lose approximately $67.8 million for
primary and secondary education, putting around 930 teacher and aide
jobs at risk. In addition about 172,000 fewer students would be served
and approximately 280 fewer schools would receive funding.
Education for Children with Disabilities: Texas will lose
approximately $51 million for about 620 teachers, aides, and staff who
help children with disabilities.
Head Start: Head Start and Early Head Start services would be
eliminated for approximately 4,800 children in Texas, reducing access
to critical early education.
Military Readiness: In Texas, approximately 52,000 civilian
Department of Defense employees would be furloughed, reducing gross pay
by around $274.8 million in total.
Law Enforcement and Public Safety Funds: Texas will lose about
$1,103,000 in Justice Assistance Grants that support law enforcement,
prosecution and courts, crime prevention and education, corrections and
community corrections, drug treatment and enforcement, and crime victim
and witness initiatives.
Job Search Assistance: Around 83,750 fewer Texans will get the help
and skills they need to find employment as Texas will lose about
$2,263,000 for job search assistance, referral, and placement, meaning.
Child Care: Up to 2,300 disadvantaged and vulnerable children could
lose access to child care, which is also essential for working parents
to hold down a job.
Vaccines for Children: In Texas around 9,730 fewer children will
receive vaccines for diseases such as measles, mumps, rubella, tetanus,
whooping cough, influenza, and Hepatitis B due to reduced funding for
vaccinations.
Violence Against Women Grants: Texas could lose up to $543,000 to
provide services to victims of domestic violence, resulting in up to
2,100 fewer victims being served.
Public Health: Texas will lose approximately $2,402,000 to help
upgrade its ability to respond to public health threats including
infectious diseases, natural disasters, and biological, chemical,
nuclear, and radiological events. In addition, Texas will lose about
$6,750,000 in grants to help prevent and treat substance abuse,
resulting in around 2,800 fewer admissions to substance abuse programs.
And the Texas State Department of Public Health will lose about
$1,146,000 resulting in around 28,600 fewer HIV tests.
Regarding the merits of the legislation before us, let me say that
there is much in the bill that should command bipartisan support. For
example, the bill includes $1.5 billion for FEMA State and Local
Grants, which is $35.4 million above the FY 2013 enacted level. These
grants fund critical programs such as the Homeland Security Grant
Program, which primarily fund first responders, and the Urban Area
Security Initiative.
The bill also provides $10.6 billion for Customs and Border
Protection and includes funding for the additional 1,600 Customs and
Border Protection Officers requested by the President.
The bill also makes needed investments in cybersecurity, providing
$786 million to help protect federal networks from foreign espionage
and cyber attacks. The bill also provides a total of $6.2 billion for
disaster relief, as requested by the President.
A major improvement to the bill was the adoption by the House of the
Jackson Lee-Markey-Grimm-Reed Amendment which prohibits the
Transportation Security Agency from changing its Prohibited Items List
(PIL) to permit knives on planes. Adoption of my amendment enhances the
security of air travel and protects TSA workers, flight attendants,
pilots, and federal air marshals.
I am also pleased that H.R. 2217 incorporates several program funding
recommendations I made to the Committee, especially the funding
provided for the Assistance to Firefighters Grant and the Staffing for
Adequate Emergency Response Grant (SAFER) programs. The tragic loss of
four firefighters last week in Houston reminds us again of the dangers
faced daily by first responders and the necessity of providing them the
resources and support required to keep them safe. Specifically, the
bill funds in full or substantial part the following programmatic
requests I submitted to the Appropriations Committee:
1. $337,500,000, which is 100% of the amount requested, for the
Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program. This program is critical to
ensuring that our nation's first responders are adequately trained and
equipped to safely and effectively respond to emergencies in their
communities.
2. $337,000,000 for the SAFER Program, which is 100% of the amount
requested. The SAFER Grant Program provides much-needed funding for
career and volunteer fire departments to hire new firefighters and
recruit and

[[Page H3131]]

retain volunteer firefighters. This program is critical to the
thousands of fire stations across the country that are currently
operating short of staff and to those seeking to retain current first
responders in the face of the economic downturn and recovery.

=========================== NOTE ===========================

June 5, 2013, on Page H3131, the following appeared: safely and
effectively respond to emergencies in their communities. 2.
$337,000,000 for the SAFER Program, which is 100% of the amount
requested. The SAFER Grant Program provides much-needed funding
for career and volunteer fire departments to hire new firefighters
and recruit and

The online version has been deleted.

========================= END NOTE =========================

3. $11,002,000, 91 percent of my request, for the Citizenship and
Integration Grant Program, which awards funding to organizations that
help legal immigrants prepare for citizenship. Since the current
immigration system does not always meet the comprehensive needs of
immigrants, integration grants provide culturally sensitive and
intentional services to uplift AAPI immigrants. Integration grants are
critical as they prevent integration barriers, such as precluding
applicants from registering to vote or to secure jobs that require U.S.
citizenship.
4. $111,590,000, 86.4 percent of my request, for Alternatives to
Detention. These programs provide alternate detention options for low-
priority AAPIs where detention is neither mandated nor appropriate.
While some immigrants need to be detained because they pose a public
safety or flight risk, many immigrants do not need to be jailed and
should be placed in less costly supervision programs. A recent report
reveals that 40% of individuals held in detention in October 2011 had
no criminal history.
It is critical that this legislation continue to undergo further
improvement and refinement before it is presented to the President for
signature. As Ranking Member of the Homeland Security Border and
Maritime Security Subcommittee, I will continue working with my
colleagues across the aisle and in the Senate to ensure that our
firefighters and other first responders have the resources needed to
keep the American people safe.
Mr. HONDA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my concern about the
proposal in the President's budget request, which is included in this
bill, to shift the responsibility for exit lane staffing from TSA to
airport operators across this country.
Since November 2001, TSA has assumed responsibility for staffing exit
lanes under the authority of Aviation and Transportation Security Act.
Citing budget constraints, in the Fiscal Year 2014 Budget Request, TSA
has sought to shift the responsibility and costs for exit lane staffing
to airport operators.
This move raises a number of concerns ably described by the Committee
in the report accompanying this bill. Particularly troubling is TSA's
intention to continue to collect money for performing this function
through the Aviation Security Infrastructure Fee while passing the buck
along to airports.
Like many of my colleagues, I have heard from my local airport--
Norman Y. Mineta San Jose International Airport--about the devastating
impact this unfunded mandate would have on airport operators. Mineta
airport is already paying $200,000 per year to staff one exit lane
because TSA decided it was not ``co-located'' with the checkpoint
screening area, and it cannot absorb the additional costs for more exit
lane staffing--over the last few years, the airport has already reduced
staff by more than 50 percent due to budget constraints.
At the end my statement is the text of a letter I received from the
City of San Jose, CA's director of aviation on behalf of Mineta San
Jose Airport outlining these concerns in greater detail.
Chairman Carter and Ranking Member Price, I know that you were faced
with a challenging task, working within the allocation given and trying
to fill holes left by the budget request. And I know from the language
you included in the report that you regret being unable to fill this
hole in the budget.
I thank you for including language in the report directing TSA to
work with airport operators to assess the impact of this change and
consider delaying or at least phasing in this shift of responsibility
until TSA can certify effective technology solutions that would reduce
the cost for airport operators.
I hope that as we move this bill to the Senate and into conference,
we will have a more favorable allocation to work with that will allow
us to reject this ill-conceived proposal and protect already strapped
airports from an unfunded mandate to perform duties that they have
never had the responsibility for and which TSA is receiving fees to
carry out.

May 30, 2013.
Hon. Mike Honda,
Longworth House Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman Honda: I am writing to express my strong
concern over the Transportation Security Administration's
(TSA) plan to shift responsibility--without funding--for
monitoring passenger exit lanes onto airport operators. While
all levels of government face tough budget decisions in the
current economic environment, we need your help to prevent
TSA from shifting this unfunded mandate onto our airport. TSA
should also explain to the Congressional appropriators why
shifting its security function to airports and airlines is
not an abdication of its Federal responsibility under current
law.
It is unconscionable that a Federal agency that is
responsible for national security make a unilateral decision
to shift a security responsibility and the associated costs
to airport operators, particularly as there currently exists
no regulation or other requirement which specifically assigns
the responsibility for monitoring sterile area exit lanes to
airport operators. Notably, this regulatory option does not
``take into account benefits and costs, both quantitative and
qualitative,'' as stipulated by Presidential Executive Order
13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review.
Congress, through the Aviation and Transportation Security
Act (ATSA), delegated the responsibility for passenger and
baggage screening to the TSA following the tragic events of
September 11. It was decided by Congress that aviation
security was a matter of national security and should be
provided by the federal government.
Through the Aviation Security Infrastructure Fee (ASIF),
based on the airlines' calendar year 2000 costs for passenger
and property screening, TSA collects money from airlines to
offset the cost of monitoring exit lanes. In fact, TSA
provided to air carriers for use in determining their ASIF
fee amount, ``Calendar Year 2000 Costs for Passenger and
Property Screening'' (Appendix A to 49 Code of Federal
Regulations Part 1511), which specifically includes, at line
item ``2'', the air carrier's costs for ``Exit Lane
Monitors''.
The TSA, with no Congressional review or legislation, has
decided to impose the responsibility for exit lane monitoring
on airports. Although the agency proposes to do this through
an amendment to airports' Airport Security Programs, which
the TSA unilaterally controls, industry will be afforded the
opportunity to submit comments. However, TSA is neither
required to consider those comments nor make any changes
based on industry input.
It is time to take a close look at ATSA to see if its
provisions are still appropriate or need some modifications
or enhancements. This review should be done in a very
thoughtful and deliberate way by the appropriate
Congressional Committees, not by an agency that can make
unilateral and arbitrary decisions. At minimum, TSA needs to
issue a notice of proposed rulemaking and seek legislative
changes to promulgate a requirement for airport operators to
assume responsibility for monitoring exit lanes.
The cost implications of exit lane monitoring are
significant for all airports, and in many cases, these costs
will be passed on to airlines. Based on reports from some
airport operators, the cost would range from approximately
$160,000 per year for a smaller airport to as much as $2.5
million for a larger airport to monitor exit lanes in
accordance with the way the TSA performs the function today.
At Mineta San Jose the cost to take on the exit lane
responsibility is now estimated at $180,000 to $200,000 a
year. The Airport cannot absorb these costs through further
reductions in staff and services. (Through the Great
Recession of the past 4-5 years, the Airport has gone from a
staff of 400 in 2008 to just 187 staff members today.)
Accordingly, this additional cost would have to be passed on
to the airlines through the Airport's rates and charges
structure and ultimately be paid by passengers, who are
already paying a fee to the airlines as part of their ticket,
for security-related costs.
We ask that your office take action to put a stop to this
unfunded mandate and require TSA to explain why shifting a
security function and the associated costs to airports and
airlines is not an abdication of its Federal responsibility
under current legislation.
Members of my staff will be in touch with your office
shortly to arrange for an opportunity to discuss this issue
with you or your staff in more detail. In the meantime,
please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any
questions.
Sincerely,
William F. Sherry, A.A.E.,
Director of Aviation.

The Acting CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment
under the 5-minute rule.
During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chair may accord
priority in recognition to a Member offering an amendment who has
caused it to be printed in the designated place in the Congressional
Record. Those amendments will be considered read.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

h.r. 2217

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the
following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the
Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the Department of
Homeland Security for the fiscal year ending September 30,
2014, and for other purposes, namely:

=========================== NOTE ===========================

June 5, 2013, on Page H3131, the following appeared: H.R. 2217 .
. . for other purposes, namely:

The online version has been corrected to read: H.R. 2217 . . .
for other purposes, namely: TITLE I DEPARTMENTAL MANAGEMENT AND
OPERATIONS DEPARTMENTAL OPERATIONS OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY AND
EXECUTIVE MANAGEMENT For necessary expenses of the Office of the
Secretary of Homeland Security, as authorized by section 102 of
the Homeland Security

========================= END NOTE =========================

TITLE I

DEPARTMENTAL MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONS

Departmental Operations

Office of the Secretary and Executive Management

For necessary expenses of the Office of the Secretary of
Homeland Security, as authorized by section 102 of the
Homeland Security

[[Page H3132]]

Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 112), and executive management of the
Department of Homeland Security, as authorized by law,
$103,246,000: Provided, That not to exceed $45,000 shall be
for official reception and representation expenses: Provided
further, That all official costs associated with the use of
government aircraft by Department of Homeland Security
personnel to support official travel of the Secretary and the
Deputy Secretary shall be paid from amounts made available
for the Immediate Office of the Secretary and the Immediate
Office of the Deputy Secretary: Provided further, That the
Secretary shall submit to the Committees on Appropriations of
the Senate and the House of Representatives, with the
President's budget proposal for fiscal year 2015 submitted
pursuant to section 1105(a) of title 31, United States Code,
expenditure plans for the Office of Policy, the Office for
Intergovernmental Affairs, the Office for Civil Rights and
Civil Liberties, the Citizenship and Immigration Services
Ombudsman, and the Privacy Officer.

Amendment Offered by Ms. Moore

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

Page 2, line 17, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $3,346,000)''
Page 9, line 17, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $4,000,000)''.

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

{time} 1340

Ms. MOORE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment to the
Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill for fiscal year
2014. My amendment is intended to restore the Office of Civil Rights
and Civil Liberties to fiscal year '13 levels by transferring
$3,346,000 into the Office of the Secretary and Executive Management.
The amendment is wholly offset. It is budget-neutral.
Mr. Chairman, as you know, the Office of Civil Rights and Civil
Liberties is an integral part of ensuring that our rights and values
are carried out through the Department of Homeland Security. Today, it
is even more important than ever to ensure that this Office is
adequately funded.
While this body continues to increase funding for immigration
enforcement--and we expect even more funding and personnel to be added
in any comprehensive immigration reform bill that we adopt--it is
essential that we maintain adequate safeguards to protect our rights
and liberties.
I offered a similar amendment last year that sought to provide the
office funding that it requested to adequately review 287(g) and Secure
Communities programs, and I thank the chairman and the ranking member
for directing $2.39 million to be used for review of these 287(g)
programs.
As I mentioned last year, I remain gravely concerned about any 287(g)
programs that have been found to facilitate racial profiling in our
communities or enforcement programs that make it harder for immigrants,
especially women victims, to get help from the police.
If my colleagues on the other side of the aisle continue to insist on
fully funding 287(g) programs, as they do here in this bill--$44
million above the President's budget request and cited as one of the
reasons for a White House veto--at the very least, we should have
rigorous safeguards and oversight. And I'll tell you, I must question
whether or not we're on a path that recognizes that oversight is
paramount as we continue to allow local police to act as Federal
immigration officers. The bill increases these programs for review of
287(g)s, but I question whether or not we really get it.
I am here today because I disagree with the approach of the bill.
Specifically, the bill would cut the Office of Civil Rights and Civil
Liberties by 15.5 percent and then direct the office to pay for this
increase of reviews for the 287(g) and Secure Communities programs by
making further internal cuts to other essential areas of their mission.
In addition to oversight of 287(g) and Secure Community programs, the
Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties provides Homeland Security
officials with advice on the full range of civil rights and civil
liberties issues.
The office engages with communities that are disproportionately
impacted by Homeland Security policies and activities. In 2005, the
Office had regular roundtables with Arab Americans, Sikhs, Muslims, and
other ethnic minorities. Today, they work in 13 core centers around the
country.
The office investigates detention facility violations through site
visits to ICE detention facilities to investigate civil rights
violations.
Complaints from the public, oversight of intelligence collection,
and, as I mentioned, comprehensive immigration reform has a chance of
becoming a reality. And we know there's going to be a vast increase of
enforcement funding and personnel for this Department, but we can't
continue to balance essential rights with the security of our country
if we play these zero-sum games. It is essential that we adequately
fund the Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties to implement
changes to our immigration law in a way that respects our values that
the country was founded upon.
Again, my amendment is budget-neutral, Mr. Chairman. It only
transfers a very small amount, which is vital funding, to this $21.6
million office.
I urge my colleagues to support this important amendment, and I yield
back the balance of my time.
Mr. CARTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. CARTER. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is unnecessary since the
bill already includes ample funding for necessary oversight of ICE's
287(g) program. In fact, on page 11 of the bill's accompanying report,
it states:

Included within the amount recommended for the Office of
Civil Rights and Civil Liberties is a total of $2,394,000 for
reviews of 287(g) agreements and ICE's Secure Communities.
These funds are in addition to the ongoing work of ICE's
Office of Professional Responsibility and the DHS Office of
Inspector General, who reviews 287(g) agreements for
compliance.

So, while I certainly support robust oversight and also demand ICE's
compliance with all applicable laws and standards therein pertaining to
civil liberties and civil rights, I cannot support additional
bureaucracy.
Furthermore, the offset to this amendment will cut CBP's Automation
Modernization account--a cut that will impede CBP's processing of trade
and result in longer wait times at our ports of entry, which are
detrimental impacts to our economy which none of us can afford to
accept.
Finally, I think I need to remind Members that the President's budget
request decimated operational staffing and enforcement programs. This
bill reversed that flawed approach and is holding DHS headquarters'
resources in check. Therefore, I cannot support an amendment that
increases headquarters staffing beyond what is necessary or what can be
afforded, and does so at the expense of our economy.
Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge my colleagues to support fiscal
discipline, support economic growth, and vote ``no'' on this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I want to express my
support of this amendment by our colleague from Wisconsin to restore
funding for the Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties.
The bill before us provides $18.3 million for the Office of Civil
Rights and Civil Liberties, which is $3.4 million below the budget
request and $3.3 million below current year funding. The amendment
would simply restore funding for the Office to the fiscal 2013 enacted
level.
Now, I want to commend Chairman Carter for fully funding the much-
needed oversight activities related to the troubled 287(g) program and
to the Secure Communities program. Oversight of these programs is
probably the highest priority for this office. But with just a little
more funding, as provided in this amendment, we can go further to
ensure the protection of civil rights and civil liberties across the
Department's many functions, programs, and activities.
The Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties is the key mechanism
at the Department of Homeland Security for ensuring that the proper
balance is maintained between measures to protect the country and the
personal freedoms that we cherish. So I thank the

[[Page H3133]]

gentlewoman for offering the amendment. It's a good amendment, a
reasonable amendment, and I urge my colleagues to support it.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Ms. MOORE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that,
I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Wisconsin
will be postponed.
The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Reichert

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

Page 2, line 17, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $2,838,000)''.
Page 42, line 8, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $1,838,000)''.

The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Washington is recognized for 5
minutes.

{time} 1350

Mr. REICHERT. I rise to offer an amendment to H.R. 2217, and I thank
the chairman and Mr. Delaney.
As a former law enforcement officer, I know very well the needs of
first responders. That is why I am proposing that we increase funding
for the United States Fire Administration by $1.8 million.
This would restore total funding for the administration to the fiscal
year 2013 level of $44 million. My amendment is offset by cutting $2.8
million from the Secretary of Homeland Security's departmental
operation and administrative account. According to the CBO, the
amendment would reduce net budget authority by $1 million and will have
no impact on fiscal year 2014 outlays.
Continued funding for the brave men and women who protect American
citizens by fighting fires is extremely critical, as we all know. The
fire death rate in the United States is one of the highest in the
industrialized world. We can prevent deaths by ensuring that the USFA
has better resources. Data collection, public education, research, and
training are all ways the USFA works to reduce the Nation's fire death
rate.
Last year, my district experienced record devastation from forest
fires, fires that quickly burned out of control and threatened both
homes and entire communities. Tens of thousands of acres were
destroyed, and it took over 1,000 firefighters and volunteers to get
them under control. Hundreds of families lost their homes, and it was
only due to the valiant efforts of our fire personnel that more were
not lost.
One of the key roles of the USFA is to work to prepare and prevent
those types of fires from happening. They do this by working directly
with the local communities and stakeholders. They work to promote the
adoption of local codes, protection plans, preventative measures, and
much more. They are also a key component of the National Wildfire
Coordinating Group, which coordinated wildland fire prevention,
preparedness, mitigation, and response programs of various Federal
agencies. They do all of this, not just to fight a common natural
menace, but to protect lives.
I urge my colleagues to support this important amendment, which is
endorsed by the International Association of Firefighters, the
International Association of Fire Chiefs, and the Congressional Fire
Services Institute. Together, we can ensure the safety of our first
responders and the American people they serve.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. DELANEY. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Maryland is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. DELANEY. I rise in support of this amendment, and I thank Mr.
Reichert for his work on this amendment and for his care on this issue.
This is a bipartisan and commonsense amendment. It ensures that we
fully fund the USFA so that our firefighters receive world-class
training.
Fires are not limited to Republican districts or to Democratic
districts. Fires do not discriminate against rural or urban districts.
Fires do not choose between districts on the coast or in our
heartland--and, thankfully, neither do our firefighters. Firefighters
serve us all. Across the Nation, when crisis strikes and when the
flames begin, our brave firefighters rush in. They risk their lives to
save ours. We should do everything we can to make sure that
firefighters are trained well. That investment will directly result in
more saved lives and fewer tragedies.
Mr. Reichert has spoken very eloquently and with great care about the
benefits of this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to add that one of the keystones of our
firefighter education system is the National Fire Academy, located at
the National Emergency Training Center in Emmitsburg, Maryland. This
training center in Emmitsburg is a world-class facility and is one of
the most important assets in our public safety infrastructure. This is
the only Federal facility of its kind. This facility is a tremendous
public safety asset for our country. Thousands are trained in
Emmitsburg each year. In western Maryland, we are proud to train
heroes--heroes who save lives from Maine to Washington State, from
Minnesota to Texas.
This amendment restores funding for our critical training facilities
to pre-sequester levels at no cost to the taxpayer. I truly thank my
colleague for his work on this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I want to applaud Chairman Carter for
funding the Fire Administration at a level higher than the
administration's request, but the bill before us still provides a
slight decrease in funding when compared to the current year. I believe
this increase is warranted. The Fire Administration, as we all know,
plays a critical role in training our first responders, in enhancing
the security of our infrastructure, and in better preparing the
response capabilities of our communities.
I do want to register a concern, Mr. Chairman, about the offset for
this amendment in that the money is taken from the Office of the Under
Secretary for Management, and this is at a time when departmental
management funding is already in this bill--$302 million below the
request and $147 million below the fiscal 2013 pre-sequestration level.
In dealing with this on the way to conference, we are going to have
to pay attention to that offset. However, this is an important
amendment, as the Fire Administration is important to all of us, and I
urge the adoption of 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. Mr. Chairman, at this time, I want to congratulate Mr.
Reichert for his amendment. I think it is necessary, and I approve of
it.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Reichert).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Polis

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

Page 2, line 17, under ``Departmental Management and
Operations_Departmental Operations_Office of the Secretary
and Executive Management'', after the first dollar amount
insert ``(increased by $4,359,200)''.
Under ``U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement_Salaries
and Expenses''--
(1) after the first dollar amount insert ``(reduced by
$43,592,000)''; and
(2) after the sixth dollar amount, insert ``(reduced by
$5,400,000)''.

The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, the 287(g) program has become increasingly
controversial and increasingly recognized as a costly failure.

[[Page H3134]]

By allowing local police officers to effectively act as Federal
agents and immigration officials, it not only increases crime by taking
local cops off the beat and not only costs taxpayers money at a time
when we have an over $600 billion deficit, but it also creates fear in
Latino communities and in other immigrant communities. 287(g)
exacerbates tensions and interferes with community policing and the
efforts of law enforcement to gain the trust of people in the
communities that they need in order to be able to do their jobs well.
In effect, it has trained local law enforcement officials to use racial
profiling, asking community members where they are born or if they are
in this country legally.
Now, the 287(g) program has become infamous because of the
implementation in Maricopa County under Sheriff Joe Arpaio and his
racial profiling. The practices sanctioned under 287(g) have led to an
unprecedented civil rights investigation by the Department of Justice
and an independent civil suit. Even Sheriff Arpaio has acknowledged
that the Department of Homeland Security directed him and his officers
to use racial profiling as part of their policing practices in
identifying individuals for deportation.
You know that, if Sheriff Arpaio is citing a Federal expenditure as
the justification for his actions, there must be a problem with that
Federal expenditure--and in fact there is.
In the fiscal year 2014 bill, the House Appropriations Committee has
funded 287(g) at $44 million above the White House request. The White
House has even threatened to veto the Department of Homeland Security
appropriations bill, listing as one of its concerns that, in fact, the
287(g) program has been largely replaced by other enforcement
mechanisms, like Secure Communities. Now, we don't all agree on Secure
Communities, but there is increasing consensus on all sides of the
aisle that 287(g) has no place in our communities or in our budget. It
doesn't help combat illegal immigration. In fact, it makes it worse,
and it increases crime in our communities.

{time} 1400

This amendment will allocate 10 percent of that funding to the Office
for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties and 90 percent toward deficit
reduction. By seeking to cut the funding for a program that relies on
racial profiling and increases crime, we're sending a clear message
that we won't tolerate any more Arpaios, we care about the budget
deficit, and we want to cut wasteful government spending.
Programs like 287(g) have created mistrust between Latinos and other
immigrant communities throughout this country and local law enforcement
and interfered with community policing. Eliminating 287(g) once and for
all will begin to repair the trust that's been lost over the last
decade. It will help local law enforcement fight crime, instead of
trying to implement failed Federal laws, and will be a step forward in
the ultimate goal of this Congress of fixing our broken immigration
system and restoring the rule of law so that we can grow our economy
and decrease crime.
This amendment is very simple. It would save $44 million from a
wasteful government spending program, allocate just over $4 million of
that to address some of the cuts that have been made to the Office for
Civil Rights and Civil Liberties and use the bulk of that for the
deficit reduction account.
Let's come together, Democrats and Republicans, to go after wasteful
government spending and counterproductive government spending, as it is
in this case.
With that, I strongly encourage my colleagues on both sides of the
aisle to support this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CARTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. CARTER. Robust enforcement of our immigration laws is critical to
our national security. Clearly, the 287(g) program supports that goal.
Under the 287(g) program, ICE enters into a partnership with State
and local enforcement agencies and authorizes them to remove criminal
aliens who are a threat to local communities. In effect, the program
acts as a force multiplier and ensures more resources to enforce
immigration laws and policy. In fact, since January of 2006, the 287(g)
program is credited with identifying more than 279,311 potentially
removable aliens, mostly at local jails.
ICE's cross-designation of more than 1,500 State and local patrol
officers, detectives, investigators, and correctional officers allows
them to pursue a wide range of investigations, such as human smuggling,
gang/organized crime activity, and money laundering. In addition,
participating entities are eligible for increased resources and support
in more remote geographic locations.
Currently, ICE has 287(g) agreements with 75 law enforcement agencies
in 24 States. Utilizing these funds as an offset takes resources from
local sheriffs, police officers, and other first responders and puts it
in the hands of a bureaucrat at DHS headquarters.
And while I appreciate the gentleman's suggestion that the deficit is
too high, I reject his choice of balancing the budget by jeopardizing
public safety and law enforcement.
To his point that the deficit must be reduced, let me point my
colleagues to other provisions in the bill that instill fiscal
discipline by cutting departmental administrative expenses and
bureaucratic overhead by nearly 25 percent and by denying the
President's request to create three new offices.
For these reasons, I oppose the amendment, urge Members to join me in
opposition, 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 rise in support of the
gentleman from Colorado's amendment.
The gentleman's amendment eliminates increased funding in the bill
for the critically flawed 287(g) program, and it increases funding for
the Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties. I want to support the
gentleman on both of these fronts.
As our colleague has noted, the 287(g) program designed to facilitate
cooperation between Federal and local authorities and immigration
enforcement, is, in fact, prone to serious abuse. It's fundamentally
flawed in the way it blurs the line between Federal and local roles in
immigration enforcement.
Moreover, it simply wastes money. It is very costly. The cost to the
taxpayer per removal in the task force model of 287(g) is especially
outrageous: $32,789 per removal. Compare that to only $1,500 per
removal under the more workable and more appropriate Secure Communities
program. So not only is 287(g) flawed and prone to abuse, it's also
simply a waste of taxpayer dollars, and it's increasingly redundant as
the Secure Communities program takes effect.
The gentleman is redirecting money, I think, in a useful way to the
Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties. The most important
activity of that office is to oversee this problematic 287(g) program,
as well as secure communities. And the funding level in the bill is
short of the request; it's short of the current year's funding. So with
a little more funding, we can enable the Office for Civil Rights and
Civil Liberties to do its job in a much better way.
Ideally, Mr. Chairman, this amendment would address other seriously
shortchanged areas of the bill. For example, cybersecurity, Coast Guard
acquisitions, human trafficking, Secret Service. We can think of a lot.
I would like to see some of those things addressed, as well as the
deficit reduction item. But I believe this amendment greatly improves
this bill both in the money it saves and in the money it redirects.
With that, I urge its adoption and yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. CHU. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. CHU. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Polis-Chu-
Cardenas amendment to strike Federal funding for the 287(g) program.
287(g) is a misguided program. While it claims to help enforce our
immigration laws, it actually diverts critical law enforcement
resources and makes our communities less safe. By encouraging the
police to do the Federal Government's job, 287(g) breeds mistrust in

[[Page H3135]]

local law enforcement. Immigrants worry that they will be punished or
deported if they talk to the police. This means that victims will
choose to suffer in silence. This means fewer witnesses will come
forward to help solve crimes.
And this isn't just about undocumented immigrants being scared to
come forward. Citizens and legal residents are holding back too. That's
because the 287(g) program is a tool that too often relies on racial
profiling. Take the case of Sheriff Arpaio in Maricopa County, Arizona.
Just a few weeks ago, a Federal judge ruled that he and his deputies
violated the constitutional rights of Latinos by targeting them during
raids and traffic stops. It's no wonder that 44 percent of Latinos
surveyed across the country said they were less likely now to contact
police if they were victims of a crime. That's why 10 percent of the
funding for 287(g) in this bill will be transferred to the Office for
Civil Rights and Civil Liberties that investigates allegations of
racial profiling against immigrant communities.
Law enforcement officials from across the country oppose 287(g)
because it's getting in the way of their real job: stopping crime and
keeping people safe. The 287(g) program takes cops away from going
after violent criminals to focus instead on civil violations. According
to FBI and census data, 61 percent of 287(g) localities had violent and
property crime indices lower than the national average. Former LA
Police Chief Bill Bratton decided not to participate in the 287(g)
program because his officers ``can't prevent or solve crimes if victims
or witnesses are unwilling to talk to us. Criminals are the biggest
beneficiaries when immigrants fear the police.''
As if that weren't bad enough, the Department of Homeland Security's
own inspector general couldn't tell if the 287(g) money was being used
for its intended purpose. In the same 2010 program, the IG cited
insufficient oversight and supervision of the 287(g) program by ICE, an
ineffective complaint system for abuse, and a lack of focus on their
local partners' civil rights issues.
To keep our neighborhoods safe, we need the entire community to come
together to solve crimes. Without it, the LAPD would never have solved
the murder of Juan Garcia, a 53-year-old homeless man who was brutally
killed in an alley just west of downtown Los Angeles in 2009.

{time} 1410

At first, the police were stumped. There were no known witnesses and
few clues. Then a 43-year-old undocumented immigrant who witnessed the
crime came forward and told the homicide detectives what he saw.
Because of his help, a suspect was identified and arrested a few days
later while hiding on skid row. Because the witnesses were not afraid
to contact the police, an accused murderer was taken off the streets,
and we are all a little bit safer. We need to end this program today
and ensure that no murder, no theft, no assault goes unsolved because
of misguided policies like 287(g).
I urge you to vote in favor of the Polis-Chu-Cardenas amendment and
end funding for 287(g). It's time to let police fight crime, not
illegal immigration.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado
will be postponed.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

Office of the Under Secretary for Management

For necessary expenses of the Office of the Under Secretary
for Management, as authorized by sections 701 through 705 of
the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 341 through 345),
$171,173,000, of which not to exceed $2,250 shall be for
official reception and representation expenses: Provided,
That of the total amount made available under this heading,
$4,020,000 shall remain available until September 30, 2015,
solely for the alteration and improvement of facilities,
tenant improvements, and relocation costs to consolidate
Department headquarters operations at the Nebraska Avenue
Complex; and $7,815,000 shall remain available until
September 30, 2015, for the Human Resources Information
Technology program: Provided further, That the Under
Secretary for Management shall, pursuant to the requirements
contained in House Report 112-331, submit to the Committees
on Appropriations of the Senate and the House of
Representatives at the time the President's budget proposal
for fiscal year 2015 is submitted pursuant to section 1105(a)
of title 31, United States Code, a Comprehensive Acquisition
Status Report, which shall include the information required
under the heading ``Office of the Under Secretary for
Management'' under title I of division D of the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2012 (Public Law 112-74), and quarterly
updates to such report not later than 45 days after the
completion of each quarter.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Poe of Texas

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

Page 3, line 13, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $10,000,000)''.
Page 10, line 4, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $10,000,000)''.

The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank you, and I want to thank
Judge Carter as well.
This amendment is relatively simple. It started back in March of
2010. On March 27, 2010, a rancher by the name of Rob Krentz was on his
own property about 20 miles north of the Arizona-Mexico border, and he
was murdered. Even now 3 years later, the killer or killers have not
been captured. When he was found by the people who lived there, his
wife, Sue, was convinced one of the reasons he was murdered was he was
in a certain area of his ranch that's a dead zone. Dead zones, Mr.
Chairman, exist along the Arizona-Mexico border, the Texas-Mexico
border, and are areas where there is no cell phone service. Ranchers
rely many times on short-wave radios to communicate with each other and
law enforcement. Basically, Rob Krentz could not call for help before
he was murdered.
This legislation first started when Gabby Giffords was here in
Congress. She proposed in 2010 that we fix that problem by taking about
$10 million from the Office of the Under Secretary of Management of DHS
and move it to the Border Security, Fencing, Infrastructure and
Technology account with the purpose of allowing the ranchers to have
access to cell phone service so they can call for help when they're in
trouble. The legislation has passed twice, but has not passed the
Senate and become law.
So this legislation is being brought to the House again for the third
time. I appreciate the support from my friend, Henry Cuellar from
Laredo, Texas. It's commonsense legislation. There are portions of the
border that are not secure, and those portions, those dead zones, let's
help the ranchers so they can call for help when they are in trouble.
That's what this legislation does.
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 am happy to accept this amendment from my
colleague and friend, Judge Poe, which provides $10 million for CBP to
procure additional equipment for surveillance and detection at both the
southern and northern borders.
Some of the technological solutions CBP procures for border security
include integrated fixed towers, tactical communication, and tethered
aerostat radar systems. All these systems increase situational
awareness and assist law enforcement personnel as they identify and
resolve illegal activity. In effect, they become a workforce
multiplier, freeing agents to focus on other vital tasks like
identifying, tracking, interdicting, and resolving events along the
border.

=========================== NOTE ===========================

June 5, 2013, on Page H3135, the following appeared: Some of the
technological solutions . . . along the border.

The online version has been corrected to read: Some of the
technological solutions . . . along the border. For these reasons,
I accept the gentleman}s 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. POE). The Amendment was
agreed to. AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. HECK OF NEVADA Mr. HECK of
Nevada. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk. The Acting
CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.The Clerk read as
follows:

========================= END NOTE =========================

For these reasons, I accept the gentleman's 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. Poe).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Heck of Nevada

Mr. HECK of Nevada. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.

=========================== NOTE ===========================

June 5, 2013, on Page H3136, the following appeared: The Clerk
read as follows:

The online version has been deleted.

========================= END NOTE =========================

[[Page H3136]]

Page 3, line 13, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced
by $5,000,000)''.
Page 4, line 14, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced
by $10,000,000)''.
Page 8, line 6, after the first dollar amount insert
``(reduced by $2,000,000)''.
Page 35, line 25, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced
by $5,000,000)''.
Page 37, line 7, after the dollar amount insert
``(increased by $22,000,000)''.

The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. HECK of Nevada. Mr. Chairman, I have come to the floor today,
along with my colleague, Mr. Horsford, to offer a very simple amendment
because we must do everything we can to protect our cities, towns, and
communities.
The Urban Area Security Initiative, according to the Department of
Homeland Security, dedicates funds to:

Address the unique planning, organization, equipment,
training and exercise needs of high-threat, high-density
urban areas, and assists them in building an enhanced and
sustainable capacity to prevent, protect against, mitigate,
respond to, and recover from acts of terrorism.

However, due to a recent change in qualification criteria, a number
of major metropolitan areas will be going without UASI funds despite
being qualified for such funds last year. Those areas that will be
without funds to prevent and respond to threats include Riverside,
California; Portland, Oregon; Orlando, Florida; Indianapolis, Indiana;
New Orleans, Louisiana; San Antonio, Texas; Kansas City, Missouri; and
Las Vegas, Nevada. Now, if those sound like high-threat, high-density
locations to you, you'd be correct. They are. Yet despite recent
events, they are not going to be receiving UASI funds this year.
Now, I cannot speak for all of these areas, Mr. Chairman, but I can
tell you that Las Vegas, which holds more high-profile, highly attended
events than any city in the country, is worthy of UASI funding.
In Las Vegas, law enforcement has to not only defend the Las Vegas
metro area, which includes the fabulous Las Vegas Strip with more
densely packed hotel rooms than any other city in our country, but also
has high-threat areas outside the city, like the Las Vegas Motor
Speedway, which holds 140,000 people, and the Hoover Dam, which is not
only a popular tourist attraction, but a source of electrical power for
more than 1 million people across the southwestern United States.
So today, I have a very simple amendment to the bill. The amendment
decreases funding under four different accounts as outlined previously
and redirects those amounts to the Urban Area Security Initiative for
the purpose of funding the program to the top 35 eligible metropolitan
areas.
Now I recognize that as our debt continues to increase, we must work
to rein in wasteful spending, and I recognize that all of the funding
in the world isn't going to prevent every attack. But in this case,
don't we think the safety and well-being of our cities and communities,
our families and our children, are a worthy expense? Don't we believe
they deserve our support?
My amendment goes to the very heart of the core functions of our
democratic government, Mr. Chairman. Our Constitution states that our
Federal Government must ``insure domestic tranquility'' and ``provide
for the common defense.'' That is the issue at hand with my amendment.
As someone who has worked on the front lines of homeland security as
a SWAT physician and emergency preparedness consultant, as well as
someone who has worn the uniform in the U.S. Army Reserve, I believe
that overlooking the risks faced by the top 35 cities would be a
mistake, and we should provide them the funding they need. I urge my
colleagues to support this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HORSFORD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Nevada is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. HORSFORD. Mr. Chairman, this bipartisan amendment that I am
offering along with Congressman Heck would help address some of our
concerns about the calculations in the Urban Area Security Initiative
funding formula. UASI provides critical funding to cities that are at
risk for a terrorist attack.

{time} 1420

As a member of the authorizing committee for the Department of
Homeland Security, I want to work with the appropriators on this
concern.
I have become deeply concerned about how the formula currently being
used by the Department of Homeland Security will determine eligibility
for this funding. The formula sometimes counts multiple buildings as a
single site, something that shortchanges the Las Vegas Strip. It also
punishes cities for successfully implementing anti-terror programs.
Well, we should not be the victims of our own success.
As it stands now, critical anti-terror programs for major tourist
destinations around the country are being defunded, including for Las
Vegas, New Orleans, and Orlando, to name a few. That's the Las Vegas
Strip, the site of Mardi Gras, and Disney World.
This is not an issue of budget cuts. It's an issue of prioritization.
It's an issue of a faulty policy that completely ignores some major
international tourist destinations and the threat posed to them.
During a recent House Homeland Security Committee hearing, I asked
Boston Police Commissioner Edward Davis about the value of the UASI
program in responding to the tragic events of the Boston Marathon
attack.
Commissioner Davis told the committee that if it were not for UASI
``there would have been more people who would have died in these
attacks. It is critical that we maintain that funding to urban areas.''
He stressed that this is not a frivolous expenditure. It's something
that works. It's something that our sheriff is asking for, it's
something that our mayor of Las Vegas is asking for, and it's something
the people on the ground, the first responders, desperately need.
I visited the Southern Nevada Counter-Terrorism Center recently. They
do incredible work in keeping the 2 million residents and the 40
million tourists who come to southern Nevada safe.
In studies on terrorist targets, however, the RAND Corporation has
stated that Las Vegas ``stands out in having a high proportion of high-
likelihood targets compared to the Nation as a whole.''
The same study also reports that the unique composition of hotels,
casinos, and skyscrapers ``increases the overall attack probability in
Las Vegas relative to other cities in the same likelihood tier.''
Yet, in my home State of Nevada, Mr. Chairman, we face reduced UASI
funding because of flaws in the Relative Risk Profile model that has
inappropriately dropped Las Vegas' ranking as a likely terrorist
target.
We need a serious reevaluation of the funding formula for UASI. It is
wrong that Las Vegas has dropped in ranking, and it is wrong that we
will face reduced funds because of faulty calculations.
I urge adoption of this amendment, and I look forward to continuing
to work with the appropriators on addressing this very important
concern to the safety of our domestic homefront.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CARTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. CARTER. The bill before us today was born out of a need for
reform. It consolidates disparate grant programs, provides discretion
to the Secretary while balancing fiscal discipline.
In total, this bill provides for $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 our funding. The consolidation in this bill
forces the Secretary to examine the intelligence and risk and put
scarce dollars where they are needed most, whether it is port, rail,
surveillance, or access and hardening 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.
This does not mean lower-risk cities will lose all funding. It means
the funds will come from other programs,

[[Page H3137]]

such as State homeland grants that are risk-and formula-based.
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. 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 well-intentioned amendment.
The amendment would cannibalize various administrative accounts
throughout the bill, the Office of the Secretary for Executive
Management, the Chief Financial Officer, the CBP Salaries and Expenses,
FEMA Salaries and Expenses, somewhat obscure accounts, you might say;
but, nonetheless, accounts that are vital to the Department's
functioning. It would cannibalize these accounts and put $22 million
more in grants, presumably for urban grants, UASI.
Now, the grant programs can always use more money. I've championed
those programs for years, especially the risk-based UASI program. But
we need to think carefully what this amendment is really about.
This is a risky path for this body to go down. It really seems to be
about adding cities to UASI, adding cities.
Now, UASI-eligible cities, and there are 25 of them, are picked on a
risk basis. There's a formula involving threat and vulnerability and
consequence. The estimates are updated every year. This is probably the
most strictly risk-based assessment that DHS undertakes.
Do we really want to substitute that for picking these cities on the
House floor?
I'm afraid that's what this amendment is all about, or at least it's
the path that it could put us on. And so, therefore, 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 Nevada (Mr. Heck).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. HECK of Nevada. 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 Nevada will
be postponed.

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:

Page 3, line 13, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $5,000,000)''.
Page 40, line 23, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $5,000,000)''.
Page 40, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $2,500,000)''.
Page 41, line 1, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $2,500,000)''.

The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. RUNYAN. Mr. Chair, my budget-neutral amendment, authored with my
colleague from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), who was going to be here on
the floor today but is attending Senator Lautenberg's memorial service
this afternoon, supports our Nation's firefighters in two critical
ways.
The FIRE and SAFER grant programs are two need-based, Department of
Homeland Security-administered programs that go directly to local fire
departments throughout the country. This amendment supports volunteer
and career firefighters by giving them resources to purchase highly
specialized equipment necessary to carry out their mission.
Mr. Chair, we all recognize the budget pressures facing our Federal
Government and the need to prioritize where our tax dollars are spent.
FIRE and SAFER grants are a very important partnership with local fire
departments and invest in our communities and increase the safety of
our constituents.
For that reason, I strongly urge my colleagues to support this
amendment, which helps to ensure firefighters have the resources they
need.
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 simply to express
support of the amendment.
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 accept the gentleman's amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I stand to urge my colleagues to support
this amendment to provide $5 million in additional funding for
Firefighter Assistance Grants. This funding would be equally divided
between the Assistance to Firefighters Grant (AFG) and Staffing for
Adequate Fire and Emergency Response (SAFER) programs, which provide
equipment and staffing assistance for local fire departments.
In my work to develop the AFG and SAFER programs, I envisioned them
as ways to fill needs that local budgets sometimes can't. As we all
know, in today's tough budget environment, many states and towns are
strapped for cash and have asked their first responders to make
sacrifices. These are the times when AFG and SAFER are most important.
These programs put more firefighters on our streets and provide
better equipment to keep them safe. For example, in New Jersey's Ninth
Congressional District, the towns of Garfield and North Arlington have
recently received hundreds of thousands of dollars in AFG assistance
for the purchase of electronic accountability systems and Self
Contained Breathing Apparatuses. These firefighters are risking their
lives to protect our lives and property, and we owe it to them to
ensure that they are protected with the best possible equipment.
Earlier this year, my hometown of Paterson received a SAFER grant of
almost $7 million to prevent the layoff of 40 firefighters and allow
the city to hire 9 new firefighters to replace retirees. This funding
goes directly to job creation in our local communities while helping
our departments to maintain adequate staffing levels for public safety.
I am relieved that President Obama signed into law reauthorizations
for AFG and SAFER this January after the program authorizations had
been allowed to lapse. Now we must continue to provide adequate
funding. Working together in a bipartisan manner, we have been able to
restore over $800 million in proposed cuts to AFG and SAFER over the
past 3 years. I am proud that the Fire Caucus gathered the signatures
of over 140 on a bipartisan letter to the Appropriations Committee
opposing any cuts to these critical programs in FY 2014.
I would like to thank Mr. Runyan for his work on this amendment and
this issue, as well as Chairman Carter and Ranking Member Price for
their work on this bill and for allowing this amendment. Our
firefighters are on the front lines of our homeland security. I urge my
colleagues to support their local firefighters by supporting this
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Runyan).
The amendment was agreed to.

{time} 1430

Amendment Offered by Mr. Grimm

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

Page 3, line 13, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced
by $7,667,000)''.
Page 35, line 25, after the dollar amount insert
``(increased by $7,667,000)''.
Page 36, line 21, after the dollar amount insert
``(increased by $7,667,000)''.

The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. GRIMM. I rise today in support of my amendment that would fund
the National Urban Search and Rescue Response System at $35.18 million,
which is level funding compared to FY 2013 but still reflects a
reduction of roughly $6 million from fiscal year 2012.
The National Urban Search and Rescue Response System, or US&R,
provides a significant national resource for search and rescue
assistance in the wake of major disasters and structural collapse. A
typical US&R task force will conduct physical search and rescue
operations, provide emergency medical

[[Page H3138]]

care to trapped victims, assess and control hazards such as ruptured
gas and electric lines, and evaluate and stabilize damaged structures.
Due to the critical lifesaving nature of their mission, US&R task
forces must be prepared to deploy within 6 hours of notification and
must be self-sufficient for the first 72 hours.
These teams have been deployed in responses to the Oklahoma
tornadoes, Superstorm Sandy, the Japanese tsunami, the Haiti
earthquake, Hurricane Katrina, 9/11 attacks, and many, many other
disasters. Current Federal funding for the Nation's US&R teams only
provides a fraction of the funds necessary to maintain each task force.
It's important to note the recent devastation left in the wake of the
Oklahoma tornadoes, as well as Superstorm Sandy, and the subsequent
response underscore the importance of the national search and rescue
capacity. Providing proper funding for the Urban Search and Rescue
Response System will help ensure these highly skilled teams are
available to respond to major emergencies without jeopardizing the
budget priorities of our local first responders.
I'd also like to thank my colleague and friend from Virginia (Mr.
Connolly), who's the lead cosponsor of this amendment and a strong,
strong advocate for the Urban Search and Rescue program.
Therefore, I urge you to vote ``yes'' on this amendment and properly
fund this critical program, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5
minutes
Mr. CONNOLLY. I am pleased to join my colleague once again in
sponsoring this important amendment to restore funding to our Nation's
elite Urban Search and Rescue teams.
Our modest, simple, straightforward amendment, which has the support
of the International Association of Firefighters, would provide level
funding, as my colleague just indicated, for the Department to continue
supporting the 28 national teams currently spread across 19 States,
including our respective home States of New York and Virginia.
When people are trapped in the unstable rubble of a collapsed
building, the window of survivability can be measured in hours. Without
highly trained responders, rescue attempts can actually imperil victims
and rescuers alike. Thankfully, because of this training, we have made
strategic investments in specialized research and search and rescue
teams. These elite firefighters and emergency medical technicians are
not just first responders, though they are that. For people awaiting
rescue, they are often the last hope.
As my colleagues are aware, federally supported search and rescue
responders were on the scene recently in Oklahoma after the tornadoes
there and in New Jersey and New York after Superstorm Sandy last year.
Prior to coming to Congress, Mr. Chairman, I served for 14 years in
local government in Fairfax County, Virginia. For 9 of those years, I
shared an office with the fire department. I saw daily the selfless
dedication of men and women who put their lives at risk in service to
others. Fairfax County is home to one of the most elite US&R teams in
the country--in fact, in the world. In partnership with the U.S.
Department of Homeland Security, the U.S. Agency for International
Development, FEMA, and Fairfax County government, the team serves
American interests both here at home and abroad.
The team is comprised of highly skilled career and volunteer fire and
rescue personnel whose daily duties are to serve the community by
responding to local fire and medical emergencies. But when called into
service, that team, designated as Virginia Task Force One, is mobilized
for quick response to domestic disasters, natural or manmade, with
special expertise in collapsed building rescue.
Our team was deployed in Oklahoma City in the wake of the terrorist
bombing in 1995 and was among the first on the scene at the Pentagon on
9/11. It was also dispatched to Mississippi and Louisiana in response
to Hurricane Katrina in 2005. It has answered the call for help in
multiple States, including California, North Carolina, Texas, Florida,
Kansas, Georgia, Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, Puerto Rico, and
the Virgin Islands, to name a few.
When disaster strikes, whether natural or manmade, domestically or
internationally, the US&R teams have rushed to the scene, saving
countless lives and preserving and protecting property. Their heroic
efforts have shown this to be a wise investment that absolutely must be
maintained.
I urge my colleagues to support the Grimm-Connolly amendment to
ensure that this successful partnership with our local partners and
first responders is sustained, 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 accept this good amendment, and I yield
back the balance of my time.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I, too, rise in qualified
support of this amendment. When disasters strike, these Urban Search
and Rescue Teams stand ready for FEMA deployment, complete with unique
tools and equipment and training.
I do want to register another concern about the cannibalizing of
management accounts that this amendment, along with other amendments,
is undertaking to do. We're already $302 million below the request and
$147 million below our fiscal 2013, pre-sequestration, in this
departmental management funding, so we've got to pay attention to this
as we take this amendment to conference. We've got to have a better
offset.
Having said that, I do think this is a meritorious amendment, well
justified. I urge its adoption, and I yield back the balance of my
time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Grimm).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 11 Offered by Mr. Lynch

Mr. LYNCH. 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:

Page 19, line 1, after the dollar amount insert
``(increased by $15,676,000)''.
Page 3, line 13, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced
by $15,676,000)''.

The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized for
5 minutes.
Mr. LYNCH. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, my amendment increases surface transportation security
funding by about $15.6 million, bringing it to the enacted FY 2013
level of $124.3 million. This would be offset by a reduction in a
similar amount to the Office of the Under Secretary for Management.
Last April, the United States received a chilling reminder that it
remains a target for attacks by terrorists and their sympathizers when
two men detonated bombs in my home city at the finish line of the
Boston Marathon. Just 1 week later, authorities foiled a plot to attack
a passenger train running between Canada and the U.S.
After the September 11, 2001, attacks, we, as a Nation, undertook--
and rightly so--a massive effort to strengthen aviation security. We
invested significant resources into making our skies safer. I strongly
supported those efforts but would also caution that we cannot forget
that other forms of transportation remain vulnerable to attack.
Since fiscal year 2002, $69.3 billion in funding has been dedicated
to aviation security. However, during that same period, surface
transportation security has been funded at about $3.3 billion. Less
than 5 percent of our transportation security funding has gone to our
transit systems--our rails and buses.
Now it is sometimes said that our military planners are guilty of
fighting the last war. I believe that in the war on terror, my fear is
that it may be the case here.

{time} 1440

Over the last number of years, we have seen buses and passenger rail
systems targeted throughout Europe and Asia. I'll just mention a few.

[[Page H3139]]

As I mentioned, in April of 2013, there was an al Qaeda-linked plot
to attack a passenger train running between New York and Toronto. In
July 2006, seven bomb blasts over 11 minutes took place in a suburban
railway in Mumbai; 209 were killed and over 700 injured.
In March 2004, coordinated bombings on the Madrid commuter rail
system resulted in 191 killed and 1,800 injured. In February 2004, two
suicide bombers attacked the Moscow metro stations; at least 40 were
killed and over 100 injured. As well in Israel, France and Japan, they
have suffered similar attacks on their bus and railway systems.
Many people don't realize that U.S. passenger rail systems carry
about five times as many people as do airlines. For a potential
terrorist looking to cause as much damage and panic as possible, we
cannot ignore the fact that our rails and buses are a target. This
amendment is one step to better secure our surface transportation
systems that move millions of Americans each and every day.
I urge my colleagues to support both this amendment and the main
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 am prepared to accept the amendment. I,
too, have concerns about surface rail.
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 commend the
gentleman on his attention to the very real vulnerabilities of surface
rail, his attention to this, and I urge acceptance 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 Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch).
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

Office of the Chief Financial Officer

For necessary expenses of the Office of the Chief Financial
Officer, as authorized by section 103 of the Homeland
Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 113), $41,242,000, of which
$4,000,000 shall remain available until September 30, 2015,
for financial systems modernization efforts: Provided, 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, the Future
Years Homeland Security Program and a comprehensive report
compiled in conjunction with the Government Accountability
Office that details updated missions, goals, strategies,
priorities, along with performance metrics that are
measurable, repeatable, and directly linked to requests for
funding, as described in the accompanying report.

Office of the Chief Information Officer

For necessary expenses of the Office of the Chief
Information Officer, as authorized by section 103 of the
Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 113), and Department-
wide technology investments, $210,735,000; of which
$99,397,000 shall be available for salaries and expenses; and
of which $111,338,000, to remain available until September
30, 2015, shall be available for development and acquisition
of information technology equipment, software, services, and
related activities for the Department of Homeland Security:
Provided, That the Department of Homeland Security Chief
Information Officer 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 multi-year
investment and management plan, to include each of fiscal
years 2014 through 2017, for all information technology
acquisition projects funded under this heading or funded by
multiple components of the Department of Homeland Security
through reimbursable agreements, that includes--
(1) the proposed appropriations included for each project
and activity tied to mission requirements, program management
capabilities, performance levels, and specific capabilities
and services to be delivered;
(2) the total estimated cost and projected timeline of
completion for all multi-year enhancements, modernizations,
and new capabilities that are proposed in such budget or
underway;
(3) a detailed accounting of operations and maintenance and
contractor services costs; and
(4) a current acquisition program baseline for each
project, that--
(A) notes and explains any deviations in cost, performance
parameters, schedule, or estimated date of completion from
the original acquisition program baseline;
(B) aligns the acquisition programs covered by the baseline
to mission requirements by defining existing capabilities,
identifying known capability gaps between such existing
capabilities and stated mission requirements, and explaining
how each increment will address such known capability gaps;
and
(C) defines life-cycle costs for such programs.

Analysis and Operations

For necessary expenses for intelligence analysis and
operations coordination activities, as authorized by title II
of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 121 et seq.),
$291,623,000; of which not to exceed $3,825 shall be for
official reception and representation expenses; and of which
$89,334,000 shall remain available until September 30, 2015.

Office of Inspector General

For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General
in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector General Act
of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App.), $113,903,000, of which not to exceed
$300,000 may be used for certain confidential operational
expenses, including the payment of informants, to be expended
at the direction of the Inspector General.

TITLE II

SECURITY, ENFORCEMENT, AND INVESTIGATIONS

U.S. Customs and Border Protection

salaries and expenses

For necessary expenses for enforcement of laws relating to
border security, immigration, customs, agricultural
inspections and regulatory activities related to plant and
animal imports, and transportation of unaccompanied minor
aliens; purchase and lease of up to 7,500 (6,500 for
replacement only) police-type vehicles; and contracting with
individuals for personal services abroad; $8,275,983,000; of
which $3,274,000 shall be derived from the Harbor Maintenance
Trust Fund for administrative expenses related to the
collection of the Harbor Maintenance Fee pursuant to section
9505(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (26 U.S.C.
9505(c)(3)) and notwithstanding section 1511(e)(1) of the
Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 551(e)(1)); of which
not to exceed $34,425 shall be for official reception and
representation expenses; of which such sums as become
available in the Customs User Fee Account, except sums
subject to section 13031(f)(3) of the Consolidated Omnibus
Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (19 U.S.C. 58c(f)(3)),
shall be derived from that account; of which not to exceed
$150,000 shall be available for payment for rental space in
connection with preclearance operations; and of which not to
exceed $1,000,000 shall be for awards of compensation to
informants, to be accounted for solely under the certificate
of the Secretary of Homeland Security: Provided, That for
fiscal year 2014, the overtime limitation prescribed in
section 5(c)(1) of the Act of February 13, 1911 (19 U.S.C.
267(c)(1)) shall be $35,000; and notwithstanding any other
provision of law, none of the funds appropriated by this Act
shall be available to compensate any employee of U.S. Customs
and Border Protection for overtime, from whatever source, in
an amount that exceeds such limitation, except in individual
cases determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security, or
the designee of the Secretary, to be necessary for national
security purposes, to prevent excessive costs, or in cases of
immigration emergencies: Provided further, That the Border
Patrol shall maintain an active duty presence of not less
than 21,370 full-time equivalent agents protecting the
borders of the United States in the fiscal year.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Garcia

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

Page 8, line 6, after the first dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $10,000,000)''.
Page 12, line 12, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $10,000,000)''.
Page 12, line 23, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $3,000,000)''.

The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. GARCIA. Mr. Chairman, my amendment seeks to increase by $10
million the funding for Customs and Border Protection staffing and to
decrease by $10 million the funding for the controversial 287(g)
immigration enforcement program.
At a time when our economy is just starting to pick up steam, this
amendment is intended to promote trade, travel, tourism, and investment
through our Nation's airports and ultimately support our economic
recovery.
As the busiest airport in the United States for international flights
and the Gateway to the Americas, Miami International Airport is a vital
economic engine for south Florida and our country. Unfortunately, MIA
has been among the worst hit with inadequate

[[Page H3140]]

Customs and Border Patrol staffing levels. On the worst peak travel
days, we have over 3\1/2\ hours of waiting time, and sometimes up to
800 missed connections.
If we want to continue being the top destination for foreign
investors, for immigrants, for tourists, for visitors, and for business
people, we need to ensure we have adequate CBP staffing to handle our
growing number of visitors.
While these personnel shortages are especially acute at MIA, these
delays are prevalent at international hubs throughout the country,
impeding the trade, travel, tourism, and investment that we need to
fuel our economic recovery and create jobs.
This amendment seeks to reduce the funding of the section 287(g)
program to enable the increase of funding for CBP staffing. This
immigration enforcement program has been controversial and criticized
for many years and has been made increasingly redundant by the
development and expansion of other questionable programs, like Secure
Communities.
While this appropriations bill provides $68 million in funding for
287(g), that amount exceeds the request from the Department of Homeland
Security by $44 million, that is, a $44 million increase over the
request.
Both the Major Cities Chiefs Associations and the International
Association of Chiefs of Police have expressed strong concerns about
section 287(g)'s program, which undermine's public safety and diverts
limited law enforcement resources, and exacerbates fear and distrust in
our communities. And if that wasn't enough, other immigration
enforcement programs like Secure Communities have replaced the need for
287(g), and yet we are continuing to fund a practically defunct
program. I believe these funds are better spent in promoting American
commerce at our Nation's airports and invigorating our economy.
I urge my colleagues to support what I think is a very sensible and
important amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CARTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. CARTER. Not only do I oppose the increase of $10 million for
additional CBP officers; I oppose the offset suggested to pay for the
increase.
As drafted, the bill provides for $105 million for hiring 1,600
officers over a 2-year period. In fact, we provide funds sufficient to
cover the costs of no less than 21,186 CBP officers, which sets a
historical precedent.
The reason we took this incremental approach into hiring 1,600 new
officers is because CBP's staffing and deployment plan was not linked
to its goals for border security. To address these concerns, the report
includes language directing CBP to provide a more complete 5-year
staffing and deployment plan.
Furthermore, an internal audit revealed systemic failures within
CBP's budget formulation for salaries and benefits of its operational
workforce. And though I believe taking a go-slow approach to hiring
just makes sense, I oppose the offset, which decreases funds for the
287(g) program.
Under the 287(g) program, ICE enters into partnerships with State and
local law enforcement agencies and authorizes them to remove criminal
aliens who are a threat to local communities. In effect, the program
acts as a force multiplier to ensure more resources to enforce
immigration laws and policies. In fact, since 2006, the 287 program has
been credited with identifying more than 279,311 potentially removable
aliens, mostly from local jails.
So I oppose this 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 rise in support of this
amendment. I think it's a positive contribution to the bill. It
improves the balance in the bill, both in what it proposes--
positively--and also what it cuts. I think we can use the additional
funds in CBP for additional officers. And as has been said many times
on this floor today, the 287(g) is flawed and wasteful and can well
afford this kind of cut.
So I commend the gentleman on both fronts--adding to the right
things, cutting the right things--and I urge adoption of his amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Garcia).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. GARCIA. 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 Florida will
be postponed.

{time} 1450

The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

automation modernization

For necessary expenses for U.S. Customs and Border
Protection for operation and improvement of automated
systems, including salaries and expenses, $707,897,000; of
which $325,526,000 shall remain available until September 30,
2016; and of which not less than $140,762,000 shall be for
the development of the Automated Commercial Environment.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Tipton

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

Page 9, line 17, after the dollar amount, insert
``(decreased by $7,655,000)''.
Page 49, line 19, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $7,655,000)''.

The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. TIPTON. Mr. Chairman, as I stand here, wildfires are burning in
my district and in the State of Colorado. The bark beetle epidemic,
rampant drought, intense weather occurrences, and deteriorating forest
health have increased the propensity for devastating wildfires
throughout the Western United States.
According to the National Interagency Fire Center, last year, more
than 9.3 million acres of land burned. That is an area that is
approximately the size of Rhode Island, Delaware, the District of
Columbia, and Massachusetts combined. These fires tragically claimed 13
lives, destroyed more than 2,000 homes, and led to hundreds of millions
of dollars in damages. Nearly 400,000 acres burned in Colorado, alone,
with the tragic loss of six lives.
The status quo of addressing a problem when it's too late is no
longer good enough. The status quo has given us decades of declining
forest health. The status quo has given us years of increasingly
catastrophic wildfires. The status quo has put people, communities, and
ecosystems at risk. We must do more.
Forests are vital for the Western United States. They provide
limitless environmental and economic benefits when healthy. It's our
responsibility to be able to preserve this incredible natural resource
and do all that we can to be able to restore forest health. And we also
need to be able to prevent future loss of life and property to
catastrophic wildfire.
I urge this body to be able to join with me and my colleague,
Congressman Polis of Colorado, in taking a step to be able to prevent
these tragedies. For far too long we've been working to stop fires once
they start and mitigate damage once it has already occurred. As the old
saying goes, ``an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.'' That
is what this amendment is about: getting ahead of this problem by
investing greater resources toward prevention so that we can take a
more proactive approach to restoring our forests to a healthy, natural
state.
Representative Polis and I have introduced this amendment to direct
$7,655,000 to FEMA's National Pre-Disaster Mitigation Fund, a program
uniquely suited to be able to assist in our effort to be able to reduce
the occurrence of wildfire, as it would provide funds aimed at
mitigating conditions that lead to these fires.
Despite the need for proactive programs such as this in the wake of
increased occurrences of extreme weather events, including wildfire,
the National Pre-Disaster Mitigation Fund is facing a reduction of
nearly $2.5 million this year. Considering the value of this program
and the term saving it generates through prevention of destructive
fires, I believe there are more

[[Page H3141]]

appropriate areas within the Federal Government where it can realize
budget savings.
Our amendment is offset by decreasing the same amount of funding in
the Automation Modernization account of the Department of Homeland
Security, which received an increase of $7,655,000 this year for its IT
modernization, despite concerns with transparency of spending within
the agency. I share the concerns expressed there.
Senator Coburn's Wastebook provided some troubling findings about
wasteful spending within DHS, including the fact that this agency has
spent over $35 billion of taxpayers' money in the last 10 years. In
fiscal year '10, DHS spent $6.5 billion on IT spending alone. In 2013,
DHS planned to spend $4 billion on 68 major IT programs. A third of
these programs cost about $1 billion and were identified by the
Government Accountability Office as containing waste and not meeting
specified commitments.
Besides being replete with wasteful government spending, many
programs at DHS have been found to be overlapping, unnecessary, or
lacking in transparency. Until these concerns are addressed, I do not
believe we should be providing additional resources for these programs
at DHS. Instead, we could better use that $7,655,000 to take steps
towards proactively reducing the occurrence of devastating wildfires by
redirecting those funds to the National Pre-Disaster Mitigation Fund.
I urge my colleagues to support this important amendment and
safeguard our forests.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to join my colleague, Mr.
Tipton, in bringing forward this important amendment.
Here, in the first year of June, there are already two wildfires that
have erupted in my district. Mr. Tipton and I share northern and
western Colorado. Just this last Monday, a wildfire ignited near
Evergreen, Colorado. We had an evacuation of several thousand people.
These are just the early season fires, and this year's wildfire season
could very well be longer and more extreme than ever before. Already,
the National Interagency Fire Center has predicted that this summer
will bring an increased fire threat to communities in multiple States
across the United States.
Unfortunately, last year was a devastating year for fires in my home
State. We had two of our most destructive fires in history. In 2012,
wildfires destroyed 650 structures, six Coloradans lost their life in
wildfires, 384,000 acres of land were burnt and caused over half a
billion dollars in property damage.
In addition to wildfires, our country and our State have experienced
natural disasters, like droughts and tornadoes. The impacts of these
are reminders of how costly and destructive extreme weather can be and
how important it is to be prepared and to reduce risks where we can. In
total, 11 extreme weather events last year across the country,
including hurricanes, tornadoes, and fires, cost taxpayers $96 billion.
Extreme weather events have a real impact, a human impact, and a cost.
We have an opportunity in this amendment to reduce and minimize the
damage and costs of extreme weather events, like wildfires, by
mitigating the threat prior to an event. That is why I join
Representative Tipton in directing $7.6 million to the National Pre-
Disaster Mitigation Fund. We can spend a penny now to save a dollar
later. The National Pre-Disaster Mitigation Fund is one of the only
FEMA programs that reduces fire danger before a fire starts. By
increasing funding to mitigate extreme weather events, we can allocate
more resources to preventing the impact of these devastating fires,
saving lives and saving money.
Unfortunately, the Pre-Disaster Mitigation Fund, absent this
amendment, is only funded at $22.5 million, which is actually a
reduction of $2.475 million, even though events were occurring at
higher rates last year and we have no reason to believe that this year
will be different.
The Pre-Disaster Mitigation Fund, very simply, is a good investment,
Mr. Chairman. The Pre-Disaster Mitigation Fund investments have already
led to significant savings to taxpayers by reducing risks and damages
caused by extreme weather.
The amendment is completely offset by reducing the same amount of
funding in the Automation Modernization account. In fact, our amendment
actually decreases costs in the first year by $4 million. The
Automation Modernization account has already been noted by the
committee of lacking transparency regarding how the funds are managed.
And of course, while I support the DHS modernizing its technology
systems, I cannot support increasing that account in this time of
fiscal constraint, especially when the result of these disasters could
very well cost more than an ounce of prevention now.

So this bill increases the account by $7.655 million that we're
directing to the National Pre-Disaster Mitigation Fund to proactively
reduce the threat of wildfires and save taxpayer money. Now, we can't
stop wildfires, but we can take measures to reduce their impacts on our
communities and to save taxpayer money.
That is why I am proud to join Representative Tipton, and I've
offered this commonsense amendment that would allocate $7.655 million
in additional resources to the Pre-Disaster Mitigation Fund.
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. I would like to accept this 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. I, too, urge adoption of this amendment.
I want to commend the chairman, though, while I have a moment, for
putting in $22.5 million for pre-disaster mitigation into this bill. He
did that at my request. We had a proposal for the President, which was
quite inadequate in this respect, and so the chairman has put this
money in. This is an amendment that would add more to that, and it is
money we can quite well use.

{time} 1500

I don't believe the offset is ideal. The offset would slow down the
IT initiatives at Customs and Border Protection, which are designed to
modernize customs processes and risk-based targeting efforts. I don't
necessarily think it's the best process for us on the House floor to be
establishing carveouts in the Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program. We need
an all-hazards approach. We don't necessarily want to rank the threat
of fire higher than the threat of hurricanes and so forth.
Having said that, though, I think this bipartisan pair of cosponsors
has made a very compelling case today for the threat that their areas
face, and I urge my colleagues to support them.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tipton).
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

border security fencing, infrastructure, and technology

For expenses for border security fencing, infrastructure,
and technology, $351,454,000, to remain available until
September 30, 2016.

air and marine operations

For necessary expenses for the operations, maintenance, and
procurement of marine vessels, aircraft, unmanned aircraft
systems, and other related equipment of the air and marine
program, including salaries and expenses and operational
training and mission-related travel, the operations of which
include the following: the interdiction of narcotics and
other goods; the provision of support to Federal, State, and
local agencies in the enforcement or administration of laws
enforced by the Department of Homeland Security; and, at the
discretion of the Secretary of Homeland Security, the
provision of assistance to Federal, State, and local agencies
in other law enforcement and emergency humanitarian efforts;
$802,741,000; of which $292,791,000 shall be available for
salaries and expenses; and of which $509,950,000 shall remain
available until September 30, 2016: Provided, That no
aircraft or other related equipment, with the exception of
aircraft that are one of a kind and have been

[[Page H3142]]

identified as excess to U.S. Customs and Border Protection
requirements and aircraft that have been damaged beyond
repair, shall be transferred to any other Federal agency,
department, or office outside of the Department of Homeland
Security during fiscal year 2014 without prior notice to the
Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the House of
Representatives: Provided further, That the Secretary of
Homeland Security shall report to the Committees on
Appropriations of the Senate and the House of
Representatives, not later than 90 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, on any changes to the 5-year strategic
plan for the air and marine program required under this
heading in Public Law 112-74.

construction and facilities management

For necessary expenses to plan, acquire, construct,
renovate, equip, furnish, operate, manage, and maintain
buildings, facilities, and related infrastructure necessary
for the administration and enforcement of the laws relating
to customs, immigration, and border security, $471,278,000,
to remain available until September 30, 2018: Provided, That
the Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection shall
submit to the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and
the House of Representatives, at the time that the
President's budget proposal for fiscal year 2015 pursuant to
section 1105(a) of title 31, United States Code, an inventory
of the real property of U.S. Customs and Border Protection
and a plan for each activity and project proposed for funding
under this heading that includes the full cost by fiscal year
of each activity and project proposed and underway in fiscal
year 2015.

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement

salaries and expenses

For necessary expenses for enforcement of immigration and
customs laws, detention and removals, and investigations,
including overseas vetted units operations; and purchase and
lease of up to 3,790 (2,350 for replacement only) police-type
vehicles; $5,344,461,000; of which not to exceed $10,000,000
shall be available until expended for conducting special
operations under section 3131 of the Customs Enforcement Act
of 1986 (19 U.S.C. 2081); of which not to exceed $11,475
shall be for official reception and representation expenses;
of which not to exceed $2,000,000 shall be for awards of
compensation to informants, to be accounted for solely under
the certificate of the Secretary of Homeland Security; of
which not less than $305,000 shall be for promotion of public
awareness of the child pornography tipline and activities to
counter child exploitation; of which not less than $5,400,000
shall be used to facilitate agreements consistent with
section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8
U.S.C. 1357(g)); and of which not to exceed $11,216,000 shall
be available to fund or reimburse other Federal agencies for
the costs associated with the care, maintenance, and
repatriation of smuggled aliens unlawfully present in the
United States: Provided, That none of the funds made
available under this heading shall be available to compensate
any employee for overtime in an annual amount in excess of
$35,000, except that the Secretary of Homeland Security, or
the designee of the Secretary, may waive that amount as
necessary for national security purposes and in cases of
immigration emergencies: Provided further, That of the total
amount provided, $15,770,000 shall be for activities to
enforce laws against forced child labor, of which not to
exceed $6,000,000 shall remain available until expended:
Provided further, That of the total amount available, not
less than $1,600,000,000 shall be available to identify
aliens convicted of a crime who may be deportable, and to
remove them from the United States once they are judged
deportable: Provided further, That the Secretary of Homeland
Security shall prioritize the identification and removal of
aliens convicted of a crime by the severity of that crime:
Provided further, That funding made available under this
heading shall maintain a level of not less than 34,000
detention beds through September 30, 2014: Provided further,
That of the total amount provided, not less than
$2,835,581,000 is for detention and removal operations,
including transportation of unaccompanied minor aliens:
Provided further, That of the total amount provided,
$31,541,000 shall remain available until September 30, 2015,
for the Visa Security Program: Provided further, That not
less than $10,000,000 shall be available for investigation of
intellectual property rights violations, including operation
of the National Intellectual Property Rights Coordination
Center: Provided further, That none of the funds provided
under this heading may be used to continue a delegation of
law enforcement authority authorized under section 287(g) of
the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1357(g)) if the
Department of Homeland Security Inspector General determines
that the terms of the agreement governing the delegation of
authority have been violated: Provided further, That none of
the funds provided under this heading may be used to continue
any contract for the provision of detention services if the
two most recent overall performance evaluations received by
the contracted facility are less than ``adequate'' or the
equivalent median score in any subsequent performance
evaluation system: Provided further, That nothing under this
heading shall prevent U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement from exercising those authorities provided under
immigration laws (as defined in section 101(a)(17) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(17)))
during priority operations pertaining to aliens convicted of
a crime.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Deutch

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

Page 13, beginning on line 22, strike ``Provided further,
That funding made available under this heading shall maintain
a level of not less than 34,000 detention beds through
September 30, 2014:''.

The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. DEUTCH. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would strike the provision
in H.R. 2217, which states:

Funding made available under this heading shall maintain a
level of not less than 34,000 detention beds through
September 30, 2014.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement has interpreted this provision,
which has been in past appropriations bills, to require the maintenance
of a daily detention population of 34,000 people. This detention bed
mandate ties the hands of ICE and restricts its discretion to make
detention decisions even when release could be appropriate. Indeed,
this is an unprecedented mandate for law enforcement as no other law
enforcement agencies have a quota for the number of people that they
must keep in jail.
This detention bed mandate is a drain on ICE's limited resources. On
March 19 of this year, I participated in a Judiciary Committee
oversight hearing with ICE Director John Morton that addressed this
issue. Director Morton explained that ICE had interpreted language in
the previous continuing resolution as requiring the agency to keep ``a
yearly average daily population of approximately 34,000 individuals.''
Accordingly, ICE has been maintaining an average daily detention
population well over 34,000 people with the numbers fluctuating between
35,000 and 37,000 people. Due to this fiscally unsustainable mandate,
ICE released more than 2,000 individuals earlier this year to avoid
burning through its detention funds.
Detention is extremely costly, and it strains ICE's limited budget in
an era of fiscal restraint. Mandating ICE to keep 34,000 detainees in
custody each day forces ICE to forgo alternatives to detention that
would save taxpayer money. In fact, a single detention bed is
approximately $122 per day; and with additional administrative costs,
it can rise to $164 a day. Meanwhile, alternatives such as ankle
bracelets, parole, telephonic, and in-person reporting, curfews, and
home visits can run from 30 cents to $14 per day.
By untying ICE's hands by striking this minimum detention population
requirement, we can allow ICE to pursue effective alternatives and make
budgetary savings. ICE agents could use these savings when focusing on
their many additional responsibilities, such as cracking down on drug
smuggling, human trafficking and child pornography--all priorities
which are shared by Republicans and Democrats alike.
I would like to thank my friend, Congressman Bill Foster, for his
dedication to this issue.
Detention takes an enormous toll on our communities, and mandating
ICE detain 34,000 individuals a day does not secure our borders or make
us safer. The Deutch-Foster amendment would strike this arbitrary
provision from the bill, and I urge its adoption.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to my friend, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Foster).
Mr. FOSTER. I rise today in support of this amendment, and I would
like to thank my colleague from Florida (Mr. Deutch) for joining me in
the fight on this important issue.
Our amendment would end the costly and inhumane practice of imposing
arbitrary immigrant detention requirements by striking the language in
this bill which mandates that the Immigration and Customs Enforcement,
otherwise known as ICE, maintain 34,000 immigrants in detention every
single day.
Mandatory detention comes at a high cost both for taxpayers and
immigrant families who are needlessly torn apart. Immigration detention
costs the United States $2 billion a year. That's $5.4 million a day or
$164 per day per detainee. Despite the availability of

[[Page H3143]]

other proven cheaper methods, including ankle bracelets and supervised
release that cost the Federal Government anywhere from 30 cents a day
to $14 a day, we continue to use detention as the primary method for
immigrants facing deportation. Not only is this quota fiscally
irresponsible, but it makes it impossible for DHS to make rational
decisions about detention based on enforcement priorities and needs.
There is also a high human cost. Most immigrants in detention are
held in county jails or facilities run by private prison corporations
often hundreds of miles from anyone they know. Human rights abuses have
been well documented in facilities across the country. Many immigrants
in the system have strong ties to their communities and no criminal
records; yet they must fight their cases from a distant jail all
because of this arbitrary quota. No other law enforcement agencies in
our government have such quotas. Rather than a per-day bed quota, ICE's
use of bed space should be based on actual need, which is the approach
used in every other law enforcement context.
In his letter from the Birmingham jail, Martin Luther King, Jr.,
said:

Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.

Mandatory detention quotas distort our system of justice and are a
threat to freedom and justice in our country. Mr. Chairman, I rise to
end this costly and needless injustice, and I urge my colleagues to
support our amendment.
Mr. DEUTCH. Mr. Chairman, I have a letter of support for this
amendment that is signed by 66 local, national and State groups, which
I submit for the Record.

June 5, 2013.
Re H.R. 2217--Support Rep. Deutch's Amendment to Eliminate
the Immigration Detention Bed Mandate

Hon. John Boehner,
Speaker, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
Minority Leader, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Speaker Boehner and Minority Leader Pelosi: As
organizations that work to protect and advance the rights of
individuals in immigration detention, we write to encourage
bipartisan support of Rep. Deutch's amendment (co-sponsored
by Rep. Foster) to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
Appropriations Act, H.R. 2217, that would eliminate the
immigration detention bed mandate.
Congress has mandated through appropriations that DHS
maintain a daily immigration detention level of 34,000
individuals, a micro-managing approach that does not exist in
any other law enforcement context. DHS already uses a Risk
Assessment Tool to help determine whether an individual
presents a risk of flight or a risk to public safety and
whether that person should be detained. Yet the bed
``mandate'' precludes the agency from making decisions about
detention based on its enforcement priorities, policies, and
need. It also makes increased efficiencies, effective
alternatives to detention, and other cost-savings efforts for
taxpayers impossible--an irresponsible approach for the
federal government to take when Washington seeks to reduce
federal spending. Alternatives to detention have received
bipartisan support for its cost-savings from groups such as
the Council on Foreign Relations' Independent Task Force on
U.S. Immigration Policy, the Heritage Foundation, the
Pretrial Justice Institute, the Texas Public Policy
Foundation (home to Right on Crime), the International
Association of Chiefs of Police, and the National Conference
of Chief Justices.
Today, taxpayers pay upward of $2 billion a year to fund
immigration detention, approximately $5.5 million each day.
Decades ago, criminal justice and correctional experts
observed that holding all individuals subject to
incarceration in jails or prisons was unsustainable,
unnecessary, and a wasteful use of resources. It is common in
the criminal justice system to use an array of less costly
custody options, such as electronic monitoring and house
arrest, to meet pre-trial and post-sentencing needs. The
federal sentencing guidelines expressly allow substitution of
a prison sentence with alternatives to incarceration. The
immigration detention system should follow suit and conform
to established best practices.
We urge you to support this important amendment, which will
eliminate this arbitrary immigration detention quota and save
critical taxpayer dollars. Please feel free to contact Royce
Murray with any questions.
Sincerely,

National Organizations

Adrian Dominican Sisters.
All of Us or None.
American Civil Liberties Union.
American Friends Service Committee.
American Immigration Lawyers Association.
Americans for Immigrant Justice, formerly Florida Immigrant
Advocacy Center.
America's Voice.
Arab American Institute.
Congregation of St. Joseph.
Detention Watch Network.
Human Rights First.
Immigration Equality Action Fund.
Japanese American Citizens League.
Justice for Immigrants.
Justice Strategies.
League of United Latin American Citizens.
Lutheran Immigration Refugee Service.
NAFSA: Association of International Educators.
National Center for Transgender Equality.
National Council of La Raza (NCLR).
National Immigrant Justice Center.
National Immigration Forum.
National Immigration Law Center.
Physicians for Human Rights.
Service Employees International Union (SEIU).
Sisters of St. Francis, Sylvania, OH.
Sisters of St. Joseph, TOSF.
Sisters of the Most Precious Blood, O'Fallon, MO.
Sisters, Home Visitors of Mary.
South Asian Americans Leading Together (SAALT).
Southeast Asia Resource Action Center (SEARAC).
Southern Poverty Law Center.
The Advocates for Human Rights.
The Center for APA Women.
UC Davis Immigration Law Clinic.
Women's Refugee Commission.

State Organizations

Advocates for Survivors of Torture and Trauma.
California Immigrant Policy Center.
Florence Immigrant & Refugee Rights Project.
Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights.
Legal Services for Prisoners with Children.
Maria Baldini-Potermin & Associates, PC.
Massachusetts Immigrant and Refugee Advocacy Coalition.
New York Immigration Coalition.
Northwest Immigrant Rights Project.
OneAmerica.
Pax Christi Florida.
Political Asylum Immigration Representation Project.
Scott D. Pollock & Associates, P.C.
Sisters of Mercy West Midwest Justice Team.
Vermont Immigration and Asylum Advocates.
Voces de la Frontera.

Local Organizations

Capital Area Immigrants' Rights Coalition.
Dominican Sisters of Houston.
Gesu Immigration Study Group.
Good Shepherd Immigration Study Group.
Gospel Justice Committee Sisters of the Most Precious Blood
of O'Fallon, MO.
Immigration Taskforce, SWPA Synod, Evangelical Lutheran
Church in America.
Justice and Peace Committee/Sisters of St Joseph/West
Hartford, CT.
Justice for Immigrants, District 4 & 5.
Milwaukee New Sanctuary Movement.
PCUN, Oregon's Farmworker Union.
Reformed Church of Highland Park, NJ.
Sisters of St. Joseph of Rochester.
University of Miami School of Law Immigration Clinic.

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. I rise in opposition to this amendment, which strikes the
legal requirement for 34,000 detention beds.
The simple fact is that sovereign countries control their borders and
have an immigration system with integrity that adheres to the rule of
law.
This last Friday, I visited the ICE facility in Houston, Texas. I
find it interesting the numbers that they explained to me that were
going on today in the Houston-Corpus Christi region, which takes in the
entire gulf coast of Texas along with what we call the lower Rio Grande
Valley of Texas. They informed me that we are having a massive
encroachment into our country from across the border right now of
approximately 100 OTMs a day in addition to the Mexicans who are coming
across the border. It's interesting that we talk as to the alternatives
to incarceration. In the Houston office alone, 64,000-plus are on
alternatives to incarceration, which is almost double the number of
detention beds for the entire United States in one office. So I think,
with this, we get a better picture of what this invasion is all about.
The attacks of 9/11 taught us that immigration enforcement matters.
It matters to our security. The Boston Marathon attacks underscored
this sobering lesson. Each year, more than 1 million aliens attempt to
illegally enter the United States without proper documentation, or they
enter legally but overstay and violate their visas.
Though reasonable people can disagree, I believe detention beds are a

[[Page H3144]]

critical component in enforcing U.S. immigration laws with the
detention and eventual removal of those aliens who enter this country
illegally. Therefore, the bill recommends $2.8 billion to fully fund
ICE's obligation to maintain no fewer than 34,000 beds.

{time} 1510

In contrast, the President's request provided funds sufficient to
support 31,800 beds, justifying the request by saying there's no need
to support 34,000 detention beds, even though, as I speak today, those
in detention are at 38,000 beds. So it looks like we've got overage,
not shortage.
The facts, however, refute this completely.
First, as of last Friday, more than 38,000 illegal immigrants are
being held in ICE custody, many of whom meet the mandatory detention
requirements.
Second, by the administration's own estimate, there's at least 1.9
million removable criminal aliens in the United States.
There is general acknowledgement of an illegal alien population of
approximately 11 million. That estimate goes up to as high as 20
million in some quarters.
Clearly, detention beds are necessary. This bed mandate is needed.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support
of the Deutch-Foster amendment, and I commend my colleagues for
addressing one of the major problems in this bill.
Once again, this bill sets an arbitrary minimum of 34,000 ICE
detention beds, whether or not ICE needs them, whether or not the
population it is managing on a given day warrants detention.
This detention bed mandate denies ICE the flexibility it needs to
manage its enforcement and removal resources in response to changing
circumstances. It prevents ICE from making full use of cheaper
alternative forms of supervision when it's appropriate.
The specific number of beds is not the main issue here. The problem
is attempting to micromanage detention operations from the floor of
this House and doing it, by the way, in a way that wastes money and
reduces flexibility. I've never understood why we would want to do
that, and yet this keeps appearing in the bill produced by our majority
colleagues.
Once again, we need to remove this provision, and I commend Mr.
Deutch and Mr. Foster for focusing attention on this so effectively.
I urge adoption of their amendment, and I yield back the balance of
my time.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chair, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Illinois is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of Mr. Deutch
and Mr. Foster's amendment.
I think it is absolutely astonishing. We can have a conversation
about different people who are here undocumented and whether or not
they ought to be in detention and whether or not they have a criminal
record and whether they're a danger to our country, but to say that
34,000 beds have to be filled no matter what is so un-American. It's so
un-American to say we're going to build X number of prison cells and
then, no matter what the law says, we're going to fill them. We start
with the need to fill the cell?
What the Deutch-Foster amendment would do would be to strike that
mandate. It doesn't strike the idea that some people are going to be
detained. It just strikes the idea that we have to fill what Janet
Napolitano, who is the Homeland Security Secretary, just said is
arbitrary. These mandated levels effectively mean that ICE, our
immigration system, can't make detention decisions based on risk to our
country, to our people, the various agency priorities. Its officers
have to focus instead on filling daily quotas. And as a result, growing
numbers of immigrants are held in detention. In fiscal year 2011 alone,
ICE detained 429,000 people.
Let's talk about those people. Some of them are dangerous criminals,
but most are not. Over half of the immigrants detained in 2009 and 2010
had zero criminal history. Of those who did, about 20 percent had only
traffic violations. Only 11 percent of the detainees with felony
convictions had committed violent crimes.
Included among those detained are victims of trafficking, families
with small children, elderly individuals, individuals with serious
medical and mental health conditions. Many of those detained have U.S.
citizen children or spouses and deep ties to their American families
and their communities. Many have potential claims for lawful status,
but still are detained for months or even years. Some are even
survivors of torture seeking asylum in the United States.
In my district, the Heartland Alliance Marjorie Kovler Center works
with survivors of torture and emphasizes that placing these individuals
in detention can be particularly traumatic, even replicating the
feeling of vulnerability that they experienced during their torture.
And the irony is this: detaining large numbers of immigrants who have
no criminal convictions, except immigration charges, does not make us
safer. It's not necessary to enforce immigration law--we don't need it
to enforce the immigration law--and it represents a major waste of
taxpayer dollars. Each detainee costs the government around $164 a day
to hold. I understand why the prison industry, the private prisons in
particular, would love to see $164 and set this goal of detaining all
these people every day.
So we should detain people because they pose a threat to our
communities, not to meet congressionally mandated quotas. The criminal
justice system does use a range of cheaper and effective custody
options: electronic monitoring, house arrest. Alternatives to detention
cost between 30 cents and $14 per individual per day, far less than our
current spending on detention.
We're making real progress toward immigration reform. The Senate is
considering language that would allow undocumented immigrants to come
out of the shadows and earn the chance to pursue their American Dream.
Let me tell you, as a first-generation American, I find this policy
so offensive to me, and my district is one of the most diverse in the
country. To say we have to fill prison beds with these people, whether
or not they're criminals, whether or not they pose harm to our country,
this is not who we are as Americans. These provisions don't make us
safer and they don't solve the immigration challenges we face. They are
a waste of taxpayer money.
I urge support of the Deutch-Foster amendment in promoting real
immigration reform and yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Gingrey of Georgia). The gentleman from
Colorado is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chair, I agree strongly with the impassioned plea by
my colleague from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky), and I'm very grateful for
this amendment to be brought forward by Mr. Deutch and Mr. Foster.
This really is an outrage. It's an outrage to our values as
Americans, and frankly it's an outrage to taxpayers. The cost of
holding an immigrant overnight is $120. We have viable and proven
alternatives to detention that we should be using for noncriminal
aliens.
Again, what we're talking about here are different folks. When we're
talking about criminal aliens, I don't think there's any dispute to the
extent that we have criminal aliens. At any given time, this can be
approximately 40 percent of the people in detention. When I visited the
ICE facility in Aurora, they keep them separate, they wear different
colored jumpsuits. They're criminal aliens, and they are--however many
we have that have been apprehended for a crime--subject to deportation
orders. It's perfectly fair to keep them in some form of detention.
But the majority, 60 percent, are noncriminal aliens. They were in
the wrong place at the wrong time. It could have been a tail light out.
They could have been going 10 miles over the speed limit. Yet, we as
taxpayers are removing noncriminal aliens from their homes, from being
the breadwinner for their family, from supporting their kids and being
an asset to our country

[[Page H3145]]

and instead turning them into a liability for taxpayers to the tune of
$120 a day. Again, I don't see how this makes fiscal sense at all.
We're paying for free rooms, free board, food, medical services. All of
these are being provided at taxpayer cost for folks.

{time} 1520

How is this a good deal for Americans? It just doesn't make any sense
to me when we have at one-tenth the cost alternatives to detention that
include call-ins and ankle bracelets. There's a comprehensive program
for noncriminal aliens that can do it at a much less expensive cost.
And in detention, many of them remain for a period of months. I've even
talked to folks, noncriminal aliens, who'd been in limbo for over a
year, some approaching 2 years.
So yes, anybody who opposes this amendment is saying U.S. taxpayers
should foot the bill for food and board and health care for someone who
is here illegally for 2 years. Why do people want to subsidize our
illegal population? It's absolutely absurd.
This is a commonsense measure. However many beds we need for criminal
aliens, let's have. However many we need for noncriminal aliens in
terms of alternatives to detention, let's do. Obviously, what we really
need is comprehensive immigration reform to address this issue. There's
no way I don't think people on either side of the aisle think that we
should pay for 12 million people to be detained at the cost $120 a day.
I can't even add that up in my own mind, but I can tell you, it'd be a
deficit buster right there.
So let's start here. Let's address our deficit. Let's make sure that
we keep families together. Don't take parents away from kids. Don't
force taxpayers to buy medical care and lodging and food for people who
aren't even here in this country illegally. We can do that right here,
right now by passing the Deutch amendment. I call upon my colleagues to
join me in doing so.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this important
amendment, the Deutch-Foster amendment. First of all, this is the right
thing to do, but to bring the conversation back to what my colleagues
on the other side of the aisle pivot to in almost every policy
discussion we have in this body--cutting spending.
In a budget age where many in this body celebrate the draconian and
harmful cuts of the sequester, it seems we've come to accept as the
norm indiscriminate, across-the-board cuts that in many cases fall on
the backs of the most vulnerable among us. Cutting spending in this
Congress no longer equates to targeted cuts to inefficient or
duplicative government programs to root out waste. Cutting spending in
this budget climate is simply about the bottom line. But it doesn't
have to be that way.
This amendment is the perfect example of how we can cut spending in a
smart and efficient way while defending those most vulnerable. By
ending the arbitrary 34,000-bed mandate for immigration detention, we
can cut spending and do the right thing.
How's this for a bottom line: alternatives to immigration detention
save money. We're spending more than $5 million a day to detain
immigrants, 45 percent of which have no criminal record, according to
Human Rights Watch. That equates to roughly $164 per day per detainee
for detention and roughly $2 billion per year.
On the other hand, alternatives to detention only cost between 30
cents and $14 per day per detainee, and they have proven to be safe and
effective. According to Julie Myers Wood, who ran ICE under President
Bush, 96 percent of individuals enrolled in alternatives to detention
show up for their final hearing and 84 percent comply with removal
orders.
So what's stopping us from putting in place these effective, cost-
saving policies? Another harmful appropriations policy rider, mandating
a daily detention level of 34,000 immigrants. In no other law
enforcement context do we impose such a ridiculous quota. You wouldn't
tell a county jail or a State prison that you have to keep ``X'' number
of prisoners in that facility.
Mandating such a high level of detention makes absolutely no sense.
By doing so, ICE is effectively prohibited from making decisions about
detention based on enforcement policies, efficiency, and need.
All-too-often in this body, we look for someone else to blame. But in
this case, we have no one to blame for this wasteful policy but
ourselves. We have the power to change a policy that does nothing but
waste the taxpayers' money and cause undue hardship to immigrant
families across the country. I urge my colleagues to vote for increased
efficiency and compassion, and urge a ``yes'' vote on this amendment.
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. I have listened to the arguments from my colleagues on
the other side of the aisle, and I find it interesting. First, those
who cross into our country without and contrary to the laws of this
great Nation have committed an illegal act. Calling them not illegal
doesn't make them not illegal.
I really would like to point out that we have a curious way to
discuss this as a policy; that is, no one here stands responsible for
the decision. You know, the alternatives to incarceration were created
by judges, and the judicial system stands in a little different
situation than the Members of Congress. When one of these people who's
let out under alternatives to incarceration in fact commits another
criminal act--and believe me, it happens--nothing more than just DWI,
when you run over a little kid--the judge, who puts him on that
particular forum, is held responsible. And he is now going to read his
name in the newspaper that he put that person out that should have been
in jail, out on an alternative to incarceration. Or if the person
commits another criminal act even more severe--murder, rape, robbery--
if it happens when the judge puts him out on alternatives, the judge
has to take the heat.
But as we have this great policy debate in Congress, no one who is
arguing to release all these people on alternatives is taking any heat
at all on what the accomplishments in the criminal realm will be of
those we release.

I approve of alternatives to incarceration. I just told you that
64,000 people alone in the city of Houston's jurisdiction, which is the
valley all of the way up to Beaumont, were out on alternatives. But
detention beds are also full and overflowing. When I visited the ICE
unit there, the red uniforms were the majority, and the red uniforms
are criminal aliens. They have committed crimes in this country.
And so I think we are being a little bit safe to make these arguments
as we stand here in these hallowed Halls. Never is our name going to
appear in any newspaper when one of these people commits an act that
causes damage to our fellow citizens. And yet we make this argument
very passionately. I just want to remind everybody that we are
responsible for those criminal aliens that we release, and criminal
aliens are right now being released. And, in fact, Ms. Napolitano,
after I asked her specifically, Are you releasing anyone from
detention, she looked me right in the eye and said, No. And 2 days
later, she released 2,300. And of those 2,300, the top two categories
were both represented in that release--the most serious and the second-
most serious categories of crimes we hold people for.
So this is a policy. This administration continues to have a policy
of not enforcing the law, and, quite frankly, we need this availability
of beds so we can enforce the law.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutch).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. DEUTCH. 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 Florida will
be postponed.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

[[Page H3146]]

automation modernization

For expenses of immigration and customs enforcement
automated systems, $34,900,000, to remain available until
September 30, 2016.

construction

For necessary expenses to plan, construct, renovate, equip,
and maintain buildings and facilities necessary for the
administration and enforcement of the laws relating to
customs and immigration, $5,000,000, to remain available
until September 30, 2017.

Transportation Security Administration

aviation security

For necessary expenses of the Transportation Security
Administration related to providing civil aviation security
services pursuant to the Aviation and Transportation Security
Act (Public Law 107-71; 115 Stat. 597; 49 U.S.C. 40101 note),
$4,872,739,000, to remain available until September 30, 2015,
of which not to exceed $7,650 shall be for official reception
and representation expenses: Provided, That of the total
amount made available under this heading, not to exceed
$3,824,625,000 shall be for screening operations and not to
exceed $1,048,114,000 shall be for aviation security
direction and enforcement: Provided further, That of the
amount made available in the preceding proviso for screening
operations, $2,972,715,000, to remain available until
September 30, 2014, shall be available for Screener
Compensation and Benefits; $163,190,000 shall be available
for the Screening Partnership Program; $382,354,000 shall be
available for explosives detection systems, of which
$83,845,000 shall be available for the purchase and
installation of these systems; and $103,309,000 shall be for
checkpoint support: Provided further, That any award to
deploy explosives detection systems shall be based on risk,
the airport's current reliance on other screening solutions,
lobby congestion resulting in increased security concerns,
high injury rates, airport readiness, and increased cost
effectiveness: Provided further, That security service fees
authorized under section 44940 of title 49, United States
Code, shall be credited to this appropriation as offsetting
collections and shall be available only for aviation
security: Provided further, That the sum appropriated under
this heading from the general fund shall be reduced on a
dollar-for-dollar basis as such offsetting collections are
received during fiscal year 2014 so as to result in a final
fiscal year appropriation from the general fund estimated at
not more than $2,752,739,000: Provided further, That any
security service fees collected in excess of the amount made
available under this heading shall become available during
fiscal year 2015: Provided further, That notwithstanding
section 44923 of title 49, United States Code, for fiscal
year 2014, any funds in the Aviation Security Capital Fund
established by section 44923(h) of title 49, United States
Code, may be used for the procurement and installation of
explosives detection systems or for the issuance of other
transaction agreements for the purpose of funding projects
described in section 44923(a) of such title: Provided
further, That none of the funds made available in this Act
may be used for any recruiting or hiring of personnel into
the Transportation Security Administration that would cause
the agency to exceed a staffing level of 46,000 full-time
equivalent screeners: Provided further, That the preceding
proviso shall not apply to personnel hired as part-time
employees: Provided further, That not later than 90 days
after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of
Homeland Security shall submit to the Committees on
Appropriations of the Senate and the House of Representatives
a detailed report on--
(1) the Department of Homeland Security efforts and
resources being devoted to develop more advanced integrated
passenger screening technologies for the most effective
security of passengers and baggage at the lowest possible
operating and acquisition costs;
(2) how the Transportation Security Administration is
deploying its existing passenger and baggage screener
workforce in the most cost effective manner; and
(3) labor savings from the deployment of improved
technologies for passenger and baggage screening and how
those savings are being used to offset security costs or
reinvested to address security vulnerabilities:

Provided further, That Members of the Senate and House of
Representatives, including the leadership; the heads of
Federal agencies and commissions, including the Secretary,
Deputy Secretary, Under Secretaries, and Assistant
Secretaries of the Department of Homeland Security; the
Attorney General, Deputy Attorney General, Assistant
Attorneys General, and the United States Attorneys; and
senior members of the Executive Office of the President,
including the Director of the Office of Management and
Budget, shall not be exempt from Federal passenger and
baggage screening.

{time} 1530

Amendment Offered by Mr. Broun of Georgia

Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk,
and I ask unanimous consent to dispense with the reading of the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the Clerk will designate the
amendment.
There was no objection.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Page 15, line 20, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced
by $4,872,739,000)''.
Page 15, line 21, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced
by $7,650)''.
Page 15, line 24, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced
by $3,824,625,000)''.
Page 15, line 25, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced
by $1,048,114,000)''.
Page 16, line 4, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced
by $2,972,715,000)''.
Page 16, line 6, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced
by $163,190,000)''.
Page 16, line 7, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced
by $382,354,000)''.
Page 16, line 8, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced
by $83,845,000)''.
Page 16, line 10, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced
by $103,309,000)''.
Page 16, line 25, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced
by $2,752,739,000)''.
Page 93, line 9, after the dollar amount insert
``(increased by $4,872,739,000)''.

The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would completely
eliminate funding for the Transportation Security Administration, TSA,
and transfer that money to the spending reduction account, saving
taxpayers nearly $5 billion.
Congress intended for TSA to be an efficient, cutting-edge,
intelligence-based agency responsible for protecting our airports and
keeping our passengers safe and secure, but today it has grown into one
of the largest bureaucracies in the Federal Government. They've had a
400 percent increase in staff since they were created. A good portion
of those are headquarters employees making six-figure incomes, on the
average.
What's worse is that the American passengers aren't getting a good
return on the more than $60 billion investment that they've spent on
TSA. Reports indicate that more than 25,000--repeat, 25,000--security
breaches have occurred in U.S. airports since 2001.
Plus, we have evidence today that terrorists on the no-fly list still
have been able to board U.S. aircraft--terrorists boarding U.S.
aircraft, in spite of TSA.
Furthermore, we've seen report after report on TSA employees
displaying a lack of professionalism, being inadequately trained, and
even engaging in theft and other illegal activities.
Just about the only thing that the TSA is consistently good at is
using its extensive power to violate American travelers' civil
liberties. Veterans, the disabled, the elderly, and even small children
have been the victims of overly invasive searches by TSA officers. This
is all evidence that the TSA has veered dangerously off course.
I've repeatedly asked that we use our resources to focus on
intelligence and technologies that could be more effective when it
comes to catching terrorists. I've called for the privatization of TSA,
and so have many other of my colleagues. But we still have yet to see
the necessary changes made to the TSA personnel or to its procedures
that will ensure the safety and security of our airports and
passengers.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment to zero out funding for the TSA forces
Congress and the Department of Homeland Security to start from scratch
on a leaner, more effective, and more focused and more productive
system for protecting our U.S. citizens. I urge my colleagues to
support my 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. Mr. Chairman, the simple fact is this amendment is
unnecessary and harmful to national security, in my opinion.
Now, am I happy with TSA? No. I have criticism of TSA also. Most
people who travel have some criticism of TSA. But zeroing out TSA and
leaving our airports unsecured is not the solution to the problem.
If the gentleman's argument is that we're being fiscally responsible
to do away with the TSA part of this budget, I would argue the
contrary. This bill, quite frankly, has made cuts, and, in fact, for 4
years now we have reduced spending in this bill. That's not a good
argument.
It's easy to get mad at somebody that interferes with your life every
time you travel, especially when you travel every week, but the reality
is, this would be a mistake to national security. This would be a
mistake to our country.

[[Page H3147]]

And even though we have criticism of TSA, our job is to fix TSA, not
abolish TSA. And I know there's plenty of folks that think that
abolishing it is a good idea, but, quite honestly, it would be a real
tragedy to leave our airports undefended. We need to make them better.
And I think one of the things we're doing is the oversight that we've
provided in this bill so that we can take a hard look at DHS across the
board and come up with solutions where things need to be fixed; and, of
course, if TSA's on the radar screen, they ought to be fixed.
But I think this is a mistake. I think it's bad policy. I think it's
good grandstanding but bad policy, and I oppose the gentleman's
amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I join the subcommittee
chairman in strong opposition to this amendment. The gentleman's
amendment would eliminate entirely the TSA aviation security account
from this bill, more than $4.8 million.
Now, I oppose this dangerous amendment on numerous grounds, but I'm
most appalled by the fact that it includes no language on who, if not
TSA, would be securing our Nation's airports and under what authority,
what guidelines.
If this amendment were to pass, not only would the public not worry
about bringing knives on planes, but terrorists would be able to bring
guns and explosives on planes. So surely the sponsor can't be
suggesting that as an acceptable outcome of this amendment.
I just have to say, the job of this subcommittee and of this bill is
to provide for the defense of our homeland. That's our bottom-line
obligation, and this amendment is in direct contradiction to that
obligation. So I urge the resounding defeat of this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Broun).
The amendment was rejected.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Tipton

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

Page 15, line 20, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $3,000,000)''.
Page 15, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $3,000,000)''.
Page 16, line 10, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $3,000,000)''.
Page 19, line 15, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $4,000,000)''.

The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. TIPTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise today with an amendment that cuts $4
million from the Transportation Security Administration and provides
these resources for small and rural airports, airports that have had
important passenger screening devices removed as a result of the
Federal Aviation Administration Modernization Act.
Passengers in rural airports in my district, including Yampa Valley,
Montrose, Gunnison, Durango, they've all been impacted by unnecessary
delays and intrusions because of the removal of security screening
devices that were sent to larger airports.
In the interest of protecting passenger privacy, the FAA
Modernization Reform Act of 2012 required the use of Automated Target
Recognition scanners, or ``Gumby scanners,'' at all airports by June 1
of 2012. While the intent of Congress was admirable and protecting the
privacy of passengers should be a priority, TSA's interpretation and
implementation of the law has caused numerous problems for passengers
traveling from small and rural airports throughout the country.
One of TSA's manufacturers who provided equipment for passenger
screening could not comply with the changes in the law and provide new
equipment. As a result, TSA decided to remove 174 of these noncompliant
machines throughout the country. Rather than waiting for funding for
new machines or finding alternative ways to be able to fix this
problem, TSA made the arbitrary decision of taking compliant scanners
from small and rural airports throughout the country and giving them to
larger airports that lost their noncompliant scanners.

{time} 1540

One alternative could have been the cost-effective private-Federal
alternative screening model that was put forth by then-House
Transportation Chairman John Mica that would have saved billions of
dollars and not compromised security at small and rural airports.
TSA's implication that security checkpoints at small and rural
airports are somehow less critical is inaccurate. Once passengers clear
screening at small and rural airports, they typically do not receive
additional screening for connecting flights at any other potentially
larger airports.
The amendment will assist with reducing unnecessary delay for
passengers at small and rural airports by providing funding to be able
to speed up the replacement of security equipment removed by the TSA.
It is important to note that the funds being redirected from TSA toward
improving passenger screening at small airports come from its
administrative budget and, as such, do not impact passenger security.
There are numerous concerns with transparency and waste in the TSA
budget, including a recent agreement by the TSA to purchase $50 million
worth of new uniforms that are unnecessary, wasting approximately $212
million each year on the inefficient SPOT program and billions on the
Transportation Worker Identification Credential program. I believe that
these resources could be better used to more efficiently screen
passengers at small airports, strengthen security, prevent delays and
unavoidable intrusions.
I encourage my colleagues to join me in support of this commonsense
amendment, 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 share some of these concerns with the
gentleman from Colorado, and I believe that outstanding questions still
remain over the timeline for replacing the AIT scanners. I expect TSA
to sufficiently answer the question posed here today.
I urge TSA to move forward with the replacement of AIT scanners at
the affected airports as soon as possible. I commit to the gentleman
from Colorado that the committee will look into this issue further and
do everything within its power to fix the problem to the extent that it
does not cost the American taxpayers more money. It's my understanding
that this amendment will not result in the need for additional TSA
screeners.
Therefore, I accept the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I, too, would suggest that
for now we accept this amendment and continue to work on the problems
that the amendment highlights. My understanding from TSA is that they
have prior-year funding available to replace detection machines that
were removed due to the FAA Modernization Act. The machines that were
removed didn't meet certain privacy standards and were removed at the
cost of the contractor. TSA is currently testing new machines that
could be used to replace the roughly 250 that were removed from
airports across the country. Clearly, of course, this needs to be done.
So I'll be happy to work with the gentleman to press TSA to move at
an expeditious pace to replace these with more advanced machines, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tipton).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 10 Offered by Mr. Hudson

Mr. HUDSON. 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:

Page 15, line 25, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced
by $12,500,000) (increased by $12,500,000)''.

The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from North Carolina is recognized for
5 minutes.
Mr. HUDSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to encourage my colleagues to
support our amendment which strengthens the Federal Flight Deck Officer
program, or FFDO. Our amendment increases funding for the FFDO

[[Page H3148]]

by $12.5 million, bringing the total authorized for the program to $25
million, with the Congressional Budget Office reporting no budgetary
impact.
Since its creation in 2003, this program has provided training to
pilots who are willing to step up and volunteer to protect their fellow
citizens by defending the airliners that millions of Americans fly on
every year. As part of TSA's risk-based approach to aviation security,
which I've strongly advocated for on the Homeland Security Committee,
the FFDO program plays an integral role in providing an additional
layer of security against a hijacking or terrorist attack.
Since its inception, the FFDOs have protected thousands of flights
each day and over 100,000 flights a month, at a fraction of the cost to
taxpayers compared to the Federal Air Marshal Service. As the first
line of deterrence and the last line of defense, it only makes sense
that we should continue to provide adequate funding to the FFDO
program. While zeroed out in the President's budget, we believe the
FFDO program provides a cost-effective solution in protecting
passengers aboard our airliners.
I applaud Chairman Rogers, Subcommittee Chairman Carter, and the
Appropriations Committee for finding ways to prioritize spending so
this program did not meet its demise. With that said, $12.5 million
represents more than a 50 percent cut from last year's amount. At this
level of funding, the FFDO program would be unable to recertify all the
pilots currently in the program, maintain its current management
structure, or train any additional officers.
We have offered a responsible and fully offset amendment that moves
$12.5 million to the FFDO program to ensure that we are using our
resources wisely and in a manner that directly benefits America's
safety. The House unanimously agreed to a similar amendment offered in
the FY 2013 Homeland Security Appropriations bill, and I hope my
colleagues will join me this year in providing the support that such a
valuable program deserves.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. DeFAZIO. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Oregon is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. DeFAZIO. It's been nearly a decade since, on a bipartisan basis,
against bipartisan opposition, we fought and were successful in
creating the Federal Flight Deck Officer program. Since that time, over
hundreds of thousands of flights have been protected by armed pilots.
There was controversy at the beginning. Could we trust pilots with
guns? Well, we trust them with our lives. We trust them with planes
that were used as weapons of mass destruction by the terrorists in
2011. Of course, we can trust them with guns. But they need proper
training because it's an unusual environment in which to possess and
use a weapon--and use a weapon as the last line of defense--should a
plane be taken over by terrorists.
We've done other things to provide security like Federal air
marshals, armored flight decks. But still, we know that this program is
essential, it's inexpensive, and it is something that pilots want to
do. There were openings last year for a few additional training spots.
Over a thousand people volunteered for those slots. Many, obviously,
were not chosen.
If this program were eliminated, as was proposed in the President's
budget, or even if it's cut in half--and I appreciate the fact that the
committee has labored to find money to restore half the funding--many
officers will not be recertified, new officers will not be allowed to
join, and we will lose this last critical line of defense and one that
is wonderfully random. A terrorist could never, ever know if the pilots
on that plane were armed. It's pretty hard to spot the air marshals,
but it's even impossible to know what the pilot has behind that locked
flight deck door.
So we're recommending an amendment to our colleagues that would take
money out of other parts of the bureaucracy of the TSA at no increase
in debt or deficit and fully fund this program so that thousands of
pilots can continue to participate meaningfully as the last line of
defense against a future terrorist attack.
I think this amendment has tremendous common good sense about it.
It's very cost effective. And I would hope that my colleagues will join
us on a bipartisan basis in supporting it.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 5
minutes.

{time} 1550

Mr. MICA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also want to thank particularly
the committee leadership, Mr. Carter, Mr. Price, and the staff. They've
done an excellent job in trying to put into appropriations language,
and amount of money expended, reforms that are long overdue in TSA.
I'm pleased to join the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hudson)
and my colleague, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), in this
bipartisan amendment to restore the $25 million for the Flight Deck
Officer program.
I can't, for the life of me, understand why the Obama administration
would propose to Congress that we zero out one of the most cost-
effective mechanisms we have to ensure the safety and security of the
flying public.
Now, this program costs $25 million, and that's out of a $5 billion
expenditure for TSA--$25 million. It is probably the most cost-
effective layer of security that we have. Just a few dollars
underwriting, again, the expense of training these pilots who have
asked for the ability to protect their aircraft themselves and their
passengers.
We put this in place--everyone was against it. You heard Mr. DeFazio
tell the story of this. The Senate was against it. The administration
was against it. The airlines were against it. We brought it out here in
a demo project, and the House overwhelmingly voted to support this
program; and it's done it time and time again because it is cost
effective and it's a good layer of security.
Now, let me tell you what these pilots do. These pilots go at their
own expense. They're not paid per diem. They're not paid for the
flight. I went out to visit the program, and I have to admit, whether
it was a Republican administration or a Democratic administration,
everybody tried to do the program. And so they put the training
facility almost on the border of Mexico. I had to take three flights--
one to Denver, one to Albuquerque, and another jumper flight--and then
drive almost 2 hours to the border to get to this flight facility.
That's what these pilots are doing on their own dollar for a weeklong
training program that, again, this is the cost of that training program
but the expense is borne by the pilot. I saw men, I saw women, I saw
pilots for cargo, passenger all going to get this training.
Why would you want to end a program that is so cost effective and
gives us this protection?
So, I don't want to belabor this. Mr. Hudson and Mr. DeFazio have
stated the case well. Thousands and thousands of flights are protected,
and thousands of pilots participate on their own dime.
I urge the passage of this amendment and 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, moments ago, the TSA
Administrator announced that he will reverse his earlier decision to
allow knives back onto airplanes. Knives will now continue to be a part
of the prohibited items list on our aircraft, making our passengers and
our crew more safe. This is positive news.
However, the administration's desire to zero out this FFDO program--
allowing our trained pilots to be armed on the aircraft--puts us in a
position that will put us more at risk, will put passengers and flight
crew more at risk. The TSA not allowing knives on planes, that's just
one step for passenger and crew safety when we need a comprehensive
approach to keep our passengers and crew safe, which would include not
allowing knives on planes, which would include risk-based screening,
which would include, as my friends from the other side have talked
about, increasing funding for intelligence operations to make sure we
know who is getting on these airplanes. But it

[[Page H3149]]

would also mean keeping the Federal Flight Deck Officer program fully
funded.
This is a program I know about because of a personal friend in
Livermore, California, who is a Southwest pilot. I have seen firsthand
over the last 7 years how serious he has trained to be ready for this
program. As my friend and colleague from the other side just mentioned,
they fly down to Texas routinely to train down there, and they are very
diligent. They do this many times on their own dime. And a lot of skill
and effort is put into their training to make sure that if something
dangerous were to happen on that aircraft, they would be prepared. It
is a task they take seriously, and it's a task we want them to continue
to be supported by in the Federal Government.
So, to have comprehensive airline passenger security, we want to
restore the Federal dollars for this, put it back at $25 million. And I
appreciate that this amendment was offered.
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. I accept the amendment and yield back the balance of my
time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hudson).
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. HUDSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word for the
purpose of a colloquy.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from North Carolina is recognized for
5 minutes.
Mr. HUDSON. Mr. Chairman, as chair of the House Transportation
Security Subcommittee, I want to raise my concern about a delay in
finalizing a rule to improve the security of FAA-approved domestic and
foreign repair stations. This rulemaking, mandated by Congress in 2003
and again in 2007, has languished for almost 10 years.
By way of background, TSA signed off on the rule late last year, and
DHS completed consideration early this year. The Office of Management
and Budget is currently reviewing the rule. I hope that OMB will
complete this rulemaking by June 14, 2013, which is the end of the 90-
day clock for their consideration.
At this time, I yield to my colleague from Texas (Mr. Carter).
Mr. CARTER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I share the gentleman from North Carolina's concern on that. The
House Appropriations Committee included report language asking for
final action on this rule. It is well past time to finalize this rule,
whose delay has impeded manufacturers in growing critical markets for
aviation exports.
Mr. HUDSON. I thank my colleague.
At this time I would like to yield to my colleague from North
Carolina (Mr. Price).
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I thank my colleague for yielding, and I
very much appreciate my fellow North Carolinian raising this issue.
I agree with his assessment that OMB needs to finalize this rule as
soon as possible. It's critical to establish this risk-based security
regime for these repair stations. So we do hope for a rapid conclusion
of this protracted episode, and I appreciate his raising the matter.
Mr. HUDSON. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Mica

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk. It's Mica
amendment 8, designated and preprinted.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Page 15, line 25, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $31,810,000)''.
Page 16, line 6, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $31,810,000)''.

The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman and my colleagues, first I want to again thank
Chairman Carter and Ranking Member Price for their excellent work, and
again his staff. They have gone through some of the expenditures for
TSA not only in the dollar amounts, but also in the language that's
contained supporting their appropriations measures, some excellent
provisions.
Now, I do offer this amendment, which is no greater increase in
spending, but does move some money around from TSA administration to
support our private screening partnership program. As you heard earlier
from one of the speakers, this program is very successful, it's cost
effective, and many airports want to avail themselves of it.
TSA has thwarted all the efforts to increase the private screening
under Federal supervision, and they came up with a whole host of
excuses. Also, they have cooked the books as far as the cost of
operating these private screening operations.

{time} 1600

Now, you've got to remember that if you look at this bill, it puts a
limit of 46,000 screeners, I believe, in the past. We've increased that
from 40,000. Mr. Rogers and I did that some time ago. Actually, if you
go online, you'll find 51,000 screeners. We're not sure exactly what
the figure is right now. It may be less than that.
There are a total of 66,000 TSA employees. So that leaves
approximately 15,000--even at our most conservative estimate--of the
number of people in administration.
Right now, there is close to $1.2 billion spent on nonscreener
salaries. That's $1.19 billion, to be exact, in this bill. So this
moves a small amount of money--$20-some million--over to, again, the
private screening account. I think it's justified. I think we're going
to need it.
I have several amendments that I'm going to offer in a minute that I
would like to expand, again, on the size of the bureaucracy and what
TSA is doing to thwart the privatization effort that could bring cost-
effective screening to play and do a better job and save taxpayers
money.
With that, 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 accept this amendment and yield back the
balance of my time.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to
the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's amendment
would provide an additional $32 million for the Screening Partnership
Program. I have no objection to the concept of the Screening
Partnership Program. If a local airport authority applies to
participate in the program and a private company can provide screening
in accordance with TSA standards and costs, then so be it.
In fact, this bill increases funding for the SPP by $15.6 million
over current-year levels and $10 million above the request in
anticipation of the program's vast expansion. But I am unaware of a
surge in demand for participation in the SPP that would warrant a 30-
percent increase in funding for this program. The offset for the
amendment is aviation security direction and enforcement, which the
bill already cuts by $20 million below the request.
Now, Mr. Chairman, should additional demand warrant funding for the
SPP above what is already provided in this bill, we could work with the
TSA to transfer funding to meet that demand. But it simply makes no
sense to provide such a significant increase for the SPP when it is
almost certain that those additional funds are going to go unused.
I urge my colleagues to oppose 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 Florida (Mr. Mica).
The amendment was agreed to.
Ms. TITUS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Nevada is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. TITUS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to voice my objections to the
limits placed on DHS regarding the UASI Grant program. My district is
slated to lose $2 million due to the limit of awards to only 25 UASI
grantees. While I believe that counterterrorism funding should go to
the places

[[Page H3150]]

that need it the most, an arbitrary cap, along with a flawed formula,
is not helping our Nation's efforts to prepare for, and respond to,
natural disasters and potential terrorist attacks. I have voiced these
concerns on a number of occasions over the past few months with DHS
Secretary Janet Napolitano, and I appreciate her willingness to work
with me on this issue.
I want to acknowledge other Members of our Nevada delegation for
joining with me today to work on this issue through a proposed
amendment, but I have a number of reservations about their approach. I
am concerned about reductions in salary accounts for agencies that are
charged with keeping our Nation safe and prepared for all types of
emergencies. Furthermore, their amendment provides additional funding,
but not additional instruction, so there is no guarantee that
additional cities, like Las Vegas, will receive any of this increased
funding in the amendment.
I am proud to represent Las Vegas, one of the premier vacation and
business destinations in the world. Ensuring that my constituents and
millions of visitors who we welcome every year stay safe is a top
priority of our local government and law enforcement. Without UASI
funding to sustain and enhance our regional capabilities, Las Vegas, as
well as our portion of the large FEMA Region IX, will be at a
significant disadvantage in preparedness, response, and recovery
capabilities.
Hundreds of thousands of people gather in large venues in southern
Nevada every day. Fifteen of the world's 25 largest hotels are in my
district on the Las Vegas Strip with a total of over 62,000 rooms. In
2012, some 37.5 million visitors came to Las Vegas and over 21,000
conventions are held each year. On any given day, tens of thousands of
tourists walk along the 4.2 mile Las Vegas Strip, just a few miles from
critical Federal assets, including Nellis Air Force Base and Creech Air
Force Base, as well as the National Nuclear Security Site and Boulder
Dam.
Mr. Chairman, I believe that counterterrorism funding decisions
should be made using forward-looking, risk-based metrics. It is
critical that DHS update their decision-making matrix to reflect these
principles. DHS does not accurately count expected visitors in their
decision-making process. It is important to remember that visitors to
our city would need the most assistance in the event of a natural
disaster or terrorist attack because they are unfamiliar with the area,
as well as with local evacuation and safety plans.
In Las Vegas, we welcomed over 40 million travelers to our city this
year, an increase of 400,000 over last year. We are also expecting our
local population to continue to grow. Yet despite these increases and
increases in other components of our risk profile, Las Vegas actually
slipped in DHS' risk rankings. This fall in ranking caused the city to
fall out of contention for a grant, and it was announced that we will
not receive the funding we need. This is not good planning and should
be remedied immediately.
I pledge to work with my colleagues from districts with other tourist
destinations and with the Secretary to be sure that the formulas are
updated and improved and that the funding goes to where it is truly
needed.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Mica

Mr. MICA. 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:

Page 15, line 25, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $23,334,000)''.
Page 19, line 8, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $23,334,000)''.

The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman and Members of the House, I have this
amendment and I have several others. I'm going to combine my remarks on
this amendment and one of the other amendments to expedite this
process.
I am very pleased that the previous amendment to take money out of
administration--TSA administration--which I believe is extremely
bloated, and putting it into, again, the private Screening Partnership
Program, that successfully passed. With that passing, I had a second
amendment to take a similar amount to put those funds into the
transportation security support and intelligence account.
Ladies and gentlemen, we have created this multi-billion dollar
bureaucracy that has been unable to connect the dots. Here is almost
every terrorist incident. We'll put this in the Record. TSA failed
every single time. They have never connected the dots. We need to be
putting the money not into this huge screening bureaucracy that hassles
veterans and little old ladies and children--and you've seen it all.

{time} 1610

We have created this unbelievable detriment to the American right to
fly and to be a free citizen, and it's so difficult to get this darned
thing under control, but I'm telling you that the money needs to be
going into security.
When Mr. DeFazio and I helped create TSA, the purpose was to connect
the dots, so I would move money out of administration. They have 4,000
to 5,000 people just within a mile or two of here who are doing
nothing, with most of them making, on average, $104,000. Someone told
me who just left there that there were four secretaries in his office
making over $100,000 apiece. Do the math. We only have 457 airports in
the country. That means you've got about 17 people in administration
out there and about nine in Washington in administration overseeing
this program. It's totally out of control.
So the Mica amendment that I'm going to ask to withdraw in just a
second would take money out of administration and put it into
connecting the dots in security. I know that's a dumb idea.
Then the other thing is that the staff has done a great job here.
There is some good report language, but TSA is thwarting the intent of
Congress to allow the honest competition of the private Screening
Partnership Program. We never intended to keep this all bureaucratic.
Only Bulgaria, Romania, and Poland have a similar screening model as
the United States today.
What they've done is they've packed each of the private screening
operations with huge bureaucracies left in place. In San Francisco,
there are somewhere between 60 and 85 TSA administrators who, most of
them, are making in the $100,000 range and don't have a job. How would
you like that position? In Kansas City, there are 51 that they left
there of private screening. They don't need these positions. They leave
them there to jack up the cost to try to make private screening look
more costly.
So, while you have language again in this bill--and it's good
language--we need to hold TSA accountable to stop cooking the books and
to give us honest accounting, and then allow for the natural process of
evolution to private screening under Federal supervision--you don't do
away with TSA--then finally getting TSA and Homeland Security to
concentrate on security and intelligence and on connecting the dots to
stop the terrorists before they ever get to the airport or get to
screening.

[[Page H3151]]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date Target Description Arrest location Suspect(s) Nationality Status
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
22-Dec-01.................... American A man was put into custody Paris to Miami.. Richard Colvin British Citizen. Serving a life
Airlines 63. after attempting to detonate a Reid. sentence
shoe bomb. Conspirators without parole
include a British man, Saajid
Badat from Gloucester, England
and a Tunisian man Nizar
Trabelsi, who is in jail in
Belgium in a plot to blow up
two airliners bound for the
United States, using their
shoe bombs.
8-May-02..................... ?............... A man was arrested after Chicago, Jose Padilla.... U.S. National... Sentenced to 17
returning from Pakistan for Illinois. years in prison
allegedly attempting to build [4]
a dirty bomb. Arrested by U.S.
Customs agents at Chicago's
O'Hare International Airport
on May 8, 2002, and held as a
material witness on a warrant
issued in the state of New
York stemming from the
September 11, 2001 attacks.
Sep-02....................... ?............... Reportedly are six naturalized Buffalo, New Lackawanna Six: Yemen........... Each sentenced
American citizens who were York. Mukhtar Al- to 10 years of
friends from childhood in Bakri, Sahim prison or
Yemen; were arrested for Alwan, Faysal less[6]
allegedly providing material Galab, Shafal
support for al-Qaeda and Mosed, Yaseinn
running a terrorist cell in Taher, and
Buffalo, NY. Yahya Goba.
13-Mar-03.................... Brooklyn Bridge. A man was arrested and accused Columbus, Ohio.. Iyman Faris..... Kashmir, entered Sentenced to 20
of giving aid to al-Qaeda and US in 1994, years in Prison
attempting to destroy the became US [8]
Brooklyn Bridge. citizen in 1999.
Jun-03....................... ?............... Eleven members of the Virginia Northern Ali al-Timimi, US Nationals.... --
Jihad Network were arrested Virginia. Ali Asad
and accused of training for Chandia,
holy war around the globe. A Muhammed
federal grand jury indicted 11 Aatique, Hammad
people on conspiracy, firearms Abdur-Raheem,
and other charges, six members Ibrahim Ahmed
have pleaded guilty and Al-Hamdi,
received prison sentences. Two Seifullah
others were acquitted of all Chapman, Khwaja
charges. Ali Al-Tamimi Hasan, Masoud
sentenced to life Khan, Yong
imprisonment, others less than Kwon, Randall
20 years or less. Todd Royer and
Donald Surratt.
Aug-04....................... New York Stock Security in the United States United Kingdom.. Dhiren Barot.... Indian.......... Sentenced to
Exchange, World was put on high alert after a life in prison,
Bank,Internatio plot surfaces to destroy the reduced to 30
nal Monetary New York Stock Exchange and years in 2007.
Fund. other financial institutions
in New Jersey and Washington.
Dhiren Barot converted to
Islam at age 20. Came to the
U.S. on a student visa in
August 2000. Returned to UK in
2001, arrested by UK
authorities in 2004.
28-Aug-04.................... Herald Square Two men were arrested after New York, New Shahawar Matin Pakistani and US Sentenced to 30
subway system. attempting to bomb the New York. Siraj and James National. years in prison
York subway system on the day Elshafay. [14]
before the 2004 Republican
National Convention. Over a
period of several months in
2004 he was recorded by an FBI
informer Osama Eldawoody
plotting to plant a bomb in
the 34th Street Herald Square
station of the New York City
Subway.
Aug-04....................... Pakistani Two leaders of an Albany Albany, New York Yassin Aref and Banglideshi and Both sentenced
diplomat. Mosque, Mohammed M. Hossain Mohammed Kurdish. to 15 years in
and Yassin M. Aref, conspired Hossain. prison
with a man who claimed to have
ties to Islamic terrorists in
laundering $50,000 in payments
for a Chinese missile that he
showed them. In fact, the
contact turned out to be an
undercover informer for the
Federal Bureau of
Investigation, and the RPG-7
missile was a disabled weapon
owned by the federal
government.
Jun-05....................... ?............... In June 2005 Hamid Hayat was Lodi, California Hamid and Umer Pakistani....... Hamid was
arrested and charged with Hayat. sentenced to 24
providing material support to years in prison
terrorists, and of lying about
it to FBI agents. The
prosecution alleged that Hamid
Hayat had spent the better
part of two years at an al-
Qaeda training camp in
Pakistan, returning in 2005
with an intent to attack
civilian targets in the United
States. Umer Hayat was also
arrested and charged with two
counts of making false
statements to the FBI
regarding the investigation of
his son and of certain members
of the Muslim community of
Lodi.
Aug-05....................... Los Angeles-area Indicted on terrorism charges Los Angeles, Kevin James, US Nationals and James sentenced
military bases, related to conspiracy to California. Levar Pakistani. to 16 years in
synagogues and attack military facilities in Washington, prison
other places. the Los Angeles area and of Gregory
attempting to fund their Patterson,
campaign by robbing gas Hammad Samana.
stations in Southern
California.
Dec-05....................... Williams Natural A man was arrested on suspicion Pennsylvania.... Michael Curtis US National..... Sentenced to 30
Gas (Wyoming), that he had plans to destroy Reynolds. years in prison
Transcontinenta several sites. Reynolds was
l Pipeline, formally charged with a
Standard Oil firearms offence for
refinery. possessing a hand grenade,
though a sealed statement from
the FBI also stated that he
intended to blow up multiple
pipelines in the United States
in a bid to help further
terrorist causes.
Feb-06....................... Troops in Iraq, Three men were arrested for Toledo, Ohio.... Mohammad Zaki U.S. National, Amawi was
Toledo, Ohio allegedly planning to build Amawi, Marwan Jordanian. sentenced to 20
citizens. bombs for use by terrorists in Othman El- years in
Iraq and were arrested and Hindi, and prison, the
charged with conspiracy to Wassim Mazloum. others 13 and 8
provide material support to years,
terrorists in Iraq and engage respectively.
in violent jihad in their home
town, as well as making verbal
threats against the President
of the United States. The
investigation was conducted by
the FBI and the Toledo Joint
Terrorism Task Force, with the
cooperation of an informant
called 'The Trainer' who has a
U.S. military background in
security.
Apr-06....................... Washington D.C.- Two men from the U.S. state of Toronto, Ontario Syed Haris Ahmed Pakistani....... Ahmed sentenced
area buildings. Georgia, were arrested after and Ehsanul to 13 years in
videotaping Washington-area Islam Sadequee. prison,
buildings and sending the Sadequee
tapes to a London based sentenced to
jihadist website. Ahmed and 17.[26]
Sadequee were reindicted by a
federal grand jury in
December, 2008. Both men were
again charged with conspiring
to provide material support to
terrorists, including trying
to join Lashkar-e-Taiba in
2005. According to the new
indictment, the videos were
passed to another convicted
British terrorist, Aabid
Hussain Khan, on whose
computer they were found
subsequent to his own arrest.
Jun-06....................... Sears Tower and The charges centered around the Miami, Florida, Narseal Batiste, US National..... Five of the men
FBI offices. group's belief that they were Atlanta, Patrick were convicted.
being offered money by someone Georgia. Abraham, Batiste was
in Yemen to help their mission Stanley Grant sentenced to 13
in Liberty City, provided they Phanor, years in
supported the al-Qaeda jihad. Rotschild prison.
The FBI agents represented Augustine,
themselves as representatives Burson
of al-Qaeda (but who were Augustin,
actually undercover FBI Naudimar
agents), and persuaded Batiste Herrera,
to provide plans for a stated Lyglenson
intention to destroy the Sears Lemorin.
Tower in Chicago, the FBI
field office in Miami, and
other targets.
Jul-06....................... Port Authority Living in Lebanon who was New York, New Assem Hammoud... Lebanon.........
Trans-Hudson charged with plotting a York.
train tunnels. mission to blow up the PATH
train tunnels beneath the
Hudson River between New
Jersey and lower Manhattan,
New York City, United States
with a team of suicide bombers
with backpack explosives. He
was arrested by the Lebanese
Armed Forces, a division of
the Internal Security Forces
(ISF), in the Mouseitbeh area
of west Beirut on April 27,
2006.

[[Page H3152]]

7-May-07..................... Fort Dix........ Six men were arrested after Fort Dix, New Dritan Duka, Duka family Four of the men
attempting an attack on the Jersey. Shain Duka, ethnic received life
Fort Dix military base. The Eljvir Duka, Albanians from sentences, one
men were arrested by the Mohamad Ibrahim Debar, then in man received
Federal Bureau of Shnewer, Serdar Yugoslavia, five years in
Investigation (FBI) on May 8, Tatar and Agron currently the prison and the
2007, and were prosecuted in Abdullahu. Republic of other received
federal court in October 2008. Macedonia. The 33
On December 22, 2008, five Duka family
were found guilty of entered the
conspiracy to commit murder in United States
their intentions to kill U.S. illegally
military personnel; four through Mexico
received life sentences, while in October
one received 33 years in 1984.
prison. The remaining member Palestinian,
was thought to have had a Turkish, and
minor role in the plot and was Albanian.
sentenced to five years in
prison for weapons offenses.
3-Jun-07..................... John F. Kennedy Four men were arrested in New New York, New Abdul Kadir, Guyana, Trinidad
International York after a plot is revealed York. Russell
Airport. to bomb the fuel line of JFK Defreitas,
airport. Defreitas was Kareem Ibrahim,
arrested in Brooklyn, New Abdel Nur.
York. Kadir and Ibrahim were
arrested in Trinidad on June
3, 2007. Nur surrendered to
police two days later in
Trinidad.
20-May-09.................... New York City Four men were arrested In April New York, New James Cromitie, US Nationals.... All serving 25
Synagogues/U.S. 2009, Cromitie and his three York. Onta Williams, year sentences
Military alleged accomplices chose David Williams,
Aircraft. their targets. They allegedly Laguerre Payen.
attempted to both bomb the
Riverdale Temple and nearby
Riverdale Jewish Center in the
Bronx, and, using Stinger
surface-to-air guided
missiles, shoot down military
planes flying out of a nearby
air base. The men placed fake
bombs wired to cell phones in
three separate cars outside
the Riverdale Temple and
nearby Riverdale Jewish
Center, both in the Riverdale
community of Bronx. New York
City Police Department
Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly
said one of the suspects
placed explosives, while the
other three suspects served as
lookouts As the men were
returning to the vehicle, the
signal was given for the
arrest. An 18-wheel New York
City Police Department vehicle
blocked the end of the street.
The FBI informer also served
as the driver of the suspects'
vehicle. Another armored
vehicle arrived, and officers
from the department's
Emergency Service Unit smashed
the blackened windows of the
S.U.V., removed the men from
the vehicle, and handcuffed
them on the ground. None
offered resistance.
19-Sep-09.................... New York Subway Zazi, a native of Afghanistan New York City, Najibullah Zazi, Afghanistan.....
System. who lived in Colorado, was NY. Adis
arrested and convicted of Medunjanin,
plotting to bomb the NYC Zarein
Subway system. He was trained Ahmedzay,
by al-Qaeda in Pakistan. 5 Mohammed Wali
others were also indicted on Zazi, Imam
related charges. On September Ahmad Wais
19, 2009, authorities arrested Afzali and
Zazi, and on September 21 they Naqib Jaji.
charged him in the United
States District Court for the
District of Colorado with
making false statements in a
matter involving international
and domestic terrorism.
24-Sep-09.................... Dallas A 19 year old was arrested on Dallas, Texas... Hosam Maher Jordanian....... On October 20,
skyscraper. charges that he intended to Husein Smadi. 2010, sentenced
bomb a downtown Dallas to 24 years
skyscraper. The device was a imprisonment
dud provided by FBI agents and will be
posing as al-Qaeda members. deported after
Smadi activated a timer serving his
connected to the decoy with a sentence.
cell phone, then rode with an
undercover agent and waited to
watch the explosion. Instead,
the phone rang an FBI number,
and Smadi was arrested.
16-Oct-09.................... Various overseas Colleen LaRose, also known as Philadelphia, PA Colleen LaRose, Americans,
targets. JihadJane and Fatima LaRose, Jamie Paulin- Algerian and
is an American citizen charged Ramirez, Ali Libyan.
with terrorism-related crimes, Charaf Damache,
including conspiracy to commit Abdul Salam al-
murder and providing material Jahani.
support to terrorists. Lars
Vilks was a named target in
response to drawings of the
Prophet Muhammad. LaRose was
arrested on Oct. 16, 2009, at
Philadelphia International
Airport as she returned from
London. She allegedly
confessed her role in the plot
to kill Vilks to FBI agents
shortly after her arrest,
according to two people close
to the investigation.
25-Dec-09.................... Northwest `Underwear Bomber': On Detroit, Abdul Farouk Nigerian........
Airlines Flight Christmas Day 2009, Michigan. Abdulmutallab.
253. Abdulmutallab traveled from
Ghana to Amsterdam, where he
boarded Northwest Airlines
Flight 253 en route to
Detroit. He had a Nigerian
passport and valid U.S.
tourist visa, and purchased
his ticket with cash in Ghana
on December 16.
1-May-10..................... Times Square.... A Pakistani American who New York City, Faisal Shahzad.. Pakistani....... Convicted and
attempted the May 1, 2010, NY. sentenced by a
Times Square car bombing. He federal judge
was arrested approximately 53 in New York
hours after the attempt,[9] at City to life
11:45 p.m. EDT on May 3, 2010, imprisonment
by U.S. Customs and Border without parole
Protection officers after he
had boarded Emirates Flight
202 to Dubai. On June 21,
2010, in Federal District
Court in Manhattan he
confessed to 10 counts arising
from the bombing attempt.
27-Oct-10.................... Arlington A Pakistani-born Virginia man Arlington, VA... Farooque Ahmed.. Pakistani....... Sentenced to 23
Cemetery (WMATA was arrested and accused of years in prison
station). casing Washington-area subway after pleading
stations in what he thought guilty
was an al-Qaeda plot to bomb
and kill commuters.
28-Sep-11.................... The Pentagon, Rezwan Ferdaus is a U.S. Washington, D.C. Rezwan Ferdaus.. Banglideshi.....
United States citizen, born and raised in
Capitol Massachusetts, of Bangladeshi
Building. descent, who was arrested by
the FBI on September 28, 2011,
for allegedly plotting to
attack The Pentagon and United
States Capitol with remote-
controlled model aircraft
packed with explosives. He was
also charged with supporting
al-Qaeda and plotting attacks
on U.S. soldiers abroad, by
making IED detonators.
7-Jan-12..................... Tampa, FL, Sami Osmakac is a man who Tampa, FL....... Sami Osmakac.... Albania.........
various targets. allegedly plotted an attack,
to avenge what he felt were
wrongs done to Muslims, in the
area around Tampa, Florida.
Osmakac, an Albanian from
Kosovo and a naturalized US
citizen, was arrested January
7, 2012, for the alleged
attack plan, which involved
bombing nightclubs, detonating
a car bomb, using an assault
rifle, wearing an explosive
belt in a crowded area, and
taking hostages.
17-Feb-12.................... United States A Moroccan man who was arrested Washington, D.C. Amine El Khalifi Morrocan........
Capitol. by the Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI) for
allegedly plotting to carry
out a suicide bombing on the
United States Capitol. El
Khalifi thought he was working
with al-Qaeda operatives, but
was actually in contact with
undercover FBI agents. He was
sentenced to prison for 30
years in September 2012.

[[Page H3153]]

10-Aug-12.................... Wainwright On the morning of August 10, St. Louis, Mark Anthony ..............
Building. 2012, several St. Louis Missouri. Grady.
television and radio outlets
received an e-mail from a
person who said they were
going to bomb the Wainwright
State Office Building in
downtown St. Louis. The e-
mailer was taken into custody
by ATF and FBI and is
currently charged with attempt
to commit mass-murder and
attempt to commit a terrorist
act.
17-Oct-12.................... New York Federal A Bangladeshi man was charged New York City, Quazi Mohammad Bangladeshi.....
Reserve. with trying to blow up the NY. Rezwanul Ahsan
Federal Reserve building in Nafis.
New York. While Nafis believed
he had the blessing of al-
Qaeda and was acting on behalf
of the terrorist group, he has
no known ties, according to
federal officials.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page H3154]]

With that, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment. I will
work with the committee, and we will finalize better language to get
this done.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
There was no objection.
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Tennessee is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, when Congress created the
Transportation Security Administration in 2001, we defined ``TSA
security 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. However,
beginning in 2005, TSA administratively reclassified ``TSA security
screeners'' as ``transportation security officers'' and proceeded to
upgrade their uniforms to reflect those of Federal law enforcement
officers with metal officer badges.
My concern and those of many of my constituents is that, despite
their appearance, TSA officers do not have any Federal law enforcement
training to reflect their current title and appearance. This can be
confusing to the traveling public as they interact with TSA officers at
airports and now on the highways, at rail stations, ferry terminals,
bus stations, and at other mass transit facilities across the country.
I strongly believe that Congress has an obligation to ensure that the
title and appearance of Federal employees properly reflects their
training and background. Until we are able to pass a legislative fix to
correct TSA's administrative decision, we need to use the power of the
purse to ensure that TSA screeners are not abusing the current
perception that they are trained Federal law enforcement officers.
I would like to commend Chairman Carter and committee staff for their
due diligence and dedication in working with my office to address this
issue. I am pleased that we were able to reduce screener uniforms by
$18 million, a 20 percent decrease, so that we can continue to monitor
this issue.
I look forward to continuing to work with Chairman Carter and his
staff in moving forward on finding a permanent solution.
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. I share the gentlelady's concern of this implication that
these are law enforcement officers. It is something that anyone who has
ever dealt with law enforcement officers should be worried about, so I
thank her for working with us and for explaining to us her concerns. I
don't want anyone to be out there fooling the public, having people
think they're trained law enforcement officers when they're not. I
think that's an important thing at every level of law enforcement.
Representative Blackburn brought this to my attention and to the
attention of the committee last year. We appreciate her staying on top
of these issues. In fact, I asked the staff to look into this matter
earlier this year. As a result, as she has described, this bill cuts
the screeners' uniforms by $18 million, which is about a 20 percent
decrease. In fact, this bill calls for a net decrease of $387.5 million
to TSA, or 8 percent below the FY13 enacted levels.
Finally, the committee has directed TSA to provide a report
describing in detail how TSA is complying with the Buy American Act and
to provide Congress with the total number of uniforms and screener
consumables purchased in fiscal years '12 and '13.
Moving forward, we will continue to work with the gentlewoman from
Tennessee to ensure TSA screeners are not abusing the perception that
they are officers of the law. We credit her for shedding light on this
issue, and I thank her for bringing it to the attention of the
committee. I am willing to work with the gentlewoman in any way she
chooses.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

surface transportation security

For necessary expenses of the Transportation Security
Administration related to surface transportation security
activities, $108,618,000, to remain available until September
30, 2015.

transportation threat assessment and credentialing

For necessary expenses for the development and
implementation of screening programs of the Office of
Transportation Threat Assessment and Credentialing,
$182,617,000, to remain available until September 30, 2015.

transportation security support

For necessary expenses of the Transportation Security
Administration related to transportation security support and
intelligence pursuant to the Aviation and Transportation
Security Act (Public Law 107-0971; 115 Stat. 597; 49 U.S.C.
40101 note), $901,666,000, to remain available until
September 30, 2015: Provided, That of the funds provided
under this heading, $50,000,000 shall be withheld from
obligation for headquarters administration until the
Administrator of the Transportation Security Administration
submits to the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and
the House of Representatives detailed expenditure plans for
air cargo security, checkpoint support, and explosives
detection systems refurbishment, procurement, and
installations on an airport-by-airport basis for fiscal year
2014 and the completion of a security assessment measuring
the effectiveness of using the Transportation Worker
Identification Credential: Provided further, That the
Administrator of the Transportation Security Administration
shall submit to the Committees 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, the
expenditure plans and report detailed in the preceding
proviso.

federal air marshals

For necessary expenses of the Federal Air Marshal Service,
$821,107,000: Provided, That the Director of the Federal Air
Marshal Service shall submit to the Committees on
Appropriations of the Senate and the House of Representatives
not later than 45 days after the date of enactment of this
Act a detailed, classified expenditure and staffing plan for
ensuring optimal coverage of high-risk flights.

Coast Guard

operating expenses

For necessary expenses for the operation and maintenance of
the Coast Guard, not otherwise provided for; purchase or
lease of not to exceed 25 passenger motor vehicles, which
shall be for replacement only; purchase or lease of small
boats for contingent and emergent requirements (at a unit
cost of no more than $700,000) and repairs and service-life
replacements, not to exceed a total of $31,000,000; purchase
or lease of boats necessary for overseas deployments and
activities; minor shore construction projects not exceeding
$1,000,000 in total cost on any location; payments pursuant
to section 156 of Public Law 97-09377 (42 U.S.C. 402 note; 96
Stat. 1920); and recreation and welfare; $6,839,416,000; of
which $340,000,000 shall be for defense-related activities,
of which $24,500,000 shall be derived from the Oil Spill
Liability Trust Fund to carry out the purposes of section
1012(a)(5) of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (33 U.S.C.
2712(a)(5)); and of which not to exceed $15,300 shall be for
official reception and representation expenses: Provided,
That none of the funds made available by this Act shall be
for expenses incurred for recreational vessels under section
12114 of title 46, United States Code, except to the extent
fees are collected from owners of yachts and credited to this
appropriation: Provided further, That of the funds provided
under this heading, $167,683,000 shall be withheld from
obligation for Coast Guard Headquarters Directorates until a
revised future-years capital investment plan for fiscal years
2015 through 2019, as specified under the heading ``Coast
Guard Acquisition, Construction, and Improvements'' of this
Act is submitted to the Committees on Appropriations of the
Senate and the House of Representatives.

environmental compliance and restoration

For necessary expenses to carry out the environmental
compliance and restoration functions of the Coast Guard under
chapter 19 of title 14, United States Code, $13,164,000, to
remain available until September 30, 2018.

reserve training

For necessary expenses of the Coast Guard Reserve, as
authorized by law; operations and maintenance of the Coast
Guard Reserve program; personnel and training costs; and
equipment and services; $112,991,000.

acquisition, construction, and improvements

For necessary expenses of acquisition, construction,
renovation, and improvement of aids to navigation, shore
facilities, vessels, and aircraft, including equipment
related thereto; and maintenance, rehabilitation, lease, and
operation of facilities and equipment; as authorized by law;
$1,222,712,000; of which $20,000,000 shall be derived from
the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund to carry out the purposes
of section 1012(a)(5) of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (33
U.S.C. 2712(a)(5)); and of which the following amounts, to
remain available until September 30, 2018 (except as
subsequently specified), shall be available as follows:
$18,000,000 shall be available for military family housing,
of which not more than $6,828,691 shall be derived

[[Page H3155]]

from the Coast Guard Housing Fund established pursuant to 14
U.S.C. 687; $860,553,000 shall be available to acquire,
effect major repairs to, renovate, or improve vessels, small
boats, and related equipment; $149,710,000 shall be available
to acquire, effect major repairs to, renovate, or improve
aircraft or increase aviation capability; $74,930,000 shall
be available for other acquisition programs; $5,000,000 shall
be available for shore facilities and aids to navigation,
including waterfront facilities at Navy installations used by
the Coast Guard; and $114,519,000, to remain available until
September 30, 2014, shall be available for personnel
compensation and benefits and related costs: Provided, That
the funds provided by this Act shall be immediately available
and allotted to contract for the production of the seventh
National Security Cutter notwithstanding the availability of
funds for post-production costs: Provided further, That the
funds provided by this Act shall be immediately available and
allotted to contract for long lead time materials,
components, and designs for the eighth National Security
Cutter notwithstanding the availability of funds for
production costs or post-production costs: Provided further,
That the Commandant of the Coast Guard 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 future-
years capital investment plan for the Coast Guard that
identifies for each requested capital asset--
(1) the proposed appropriations included in that budget;
(2) the total estimated cost of completion, including and
clearly delineating the costs of associated major acquisition
systems infrastructure and transition to operations;
(3) projected funding levels for each fiscal year for the
next 5 fiscal years or until acquisition program baseline or
project completion, whichever is earlier;
(4) an estimated completion date at the projected funding
levels; and
(5) a current acquisition program baseline for each capital
asset, as applicable, that--
(A) includes the total acquisition cost of each asset,
subdivided by fiscal year and including a detailed
description of the purpose of the proposed funding levels for
each fiscal year, including for each fiscal year funds
requested for design, pre-acquisition activities, production,
structural modifications, missionization, post-delivery, and
transition to operations costs;
(B) includes a detailed project schedule through
completion, subdivided by fiscal year, that details--
(i) quantities planned for each fiscal year; and
(ii) major acquisition and project events, including
development of operational requirements, contracting actions,
design reviews, production, delivery, test and evaluation,
and transition to operations, including necessary training,
shore infrastructure, and logistics;
(C) notes and explains any deviations in cost, performance
parameters, schedule, or estimated date of completion from
the original acquisition program baseline and the most recent
baseline approved by the Department of Homeland Security's
Acquisition Review Board, if applicable;
(D) aligns the acquisition of each asset to mission
requirements by defining existing capabilities of comparable
legacy assets, identifying known capability gaps between such
existing capabilities and stated mission requirements, and
explaining how the acquisition of each asset will address
such known capability gaps;
(E) defines life-cycle costs for each asset and the date of
the estimate on which such costs are based, including all
associated costs of major acquisitions systems infrastructure
and transition to operations, delineated by purpose and
fiscal year for the projected service life of the asset;
(F) includes the earned value management system summary
schedule performance index and cost performance index for
each asset, if applicable; and
(G) includes a phase-out and decommissioning schedule
delineated by fiscal year for each existing legacy asset that
each asset is intended to replace or recapitalize:
Provided further, That the Commandant of the Coast Guard
shall ensure that amounts specified in the future-years
capital investment plan are consistent, to the maximum extent
practicable, with proposed appropriations necessary to
support the programs, projects, and activities of the Coast
Guard in the President's budget proposal for fiscal year 2015
is submitted pursuant to section 1105(a) of title 31, United
States Code, for that fiscal year: Provided further, That
any inconsistencies between the capital investment plan and
proposed appropriations shall be identified and justified:
Provided further, That subsections (a) and (b) of section
6402 of Public Law 110-0928 shall apply with respect to the
amounts made available under this heading.

research, development, test, and evaluation

For necessary expenses for applied scientific research,
development, test, and evaluation; and for maintenance,
rehabilitation, lease, and operation of facilities and
equipment; as authorized by law; $9,928,000, to remain
available until September 30, 2015, of which $500,000 shall
be derived from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund to carry
out the purposes of section 1012(a)(5) of the Oil Pollution
Act of 1990 (33 U.S.C. 2712(a)(5)): Provided, That there may
be credited to and used for the purposes of this
appropriation funds received from State and local
governments, other public authorities, private sources, and
foreign countries for expenses incurred for research,
development, testing, and evaluation.

retired pay

For retired pay, including the payment of obligations
otherwise chargeable to lapsed appropriations for this
purpose, payments under the Retired Serviceman's Family
Protection and Survivor Benefits Plans, payment for career
status bonuses, concurrent receipts and combat-related
special compensation under the National Defense Authorization
Act, and payments for medical care of retired personnel and
their dependents under chapter 55 of title 10, United States
Code, $1,460,000,000, to remain available until expended.

United States Secret Service

salaries and expenses

For necessary expenses of the United States Secret Service,
including purchase of not to exceed 652 vehicles for police-
type use for replacement only; hire of passenger motor
vehicles; purchase of motorcycles made in the United States;
hire of aircraft; services of expert witnesses at such rates
as may be determined by the Director of the Secret Service;
rental of buildings in the District of Columbia, and fencing,
lighting, guard booths, and other facilities on private or
other property not in Government ownership or control, as may
be necessary to perform protective functions; payment of per
diem or subsistence allowances to employees in cases in which
a protective assignment on the actual day or days of the
visit of a protectee requires an employee to work 16 hours
per day or to remain overnight at a post of duty; conduct of
and participation in firearms matches; presentation of
awards; travel of United States Secret Service employees on
protective missions without regard to the limitations on such
expenditures in this or any other Act; research and
development; grants to conduct behavioral research in support
of protective research and operations; and payment in advance
for commercial accommodations as may be necessary to perform
protective functions; $1,534,589,000; of which not to exceed
$19,125 shall be for official reception and representation
expenses; of which not to exceed $100,000 shall be to provide
technical assistance and equipment to foreign law enforcement
organizations in counterfeit investigations; of which
$2,358,000 shall be for forensic and related support of
investigations of missing and exploited children; of which
$6,000,000 shall be for a grant for activities related to
investigations of missing and exploited children and shall
remain available until September 30, 2015; and of which not
less than $8,000,000 shall be for activities related to
training in electronic crimes investigations and forensics:
Provided, That $18,000,000 for protective travel shall remain
available until September 30, 2015: Provided further, That
$4,500,000 for National Special Security Events shall remain
available until September 30, 2015: Provided further, That
the United States Secret Service is authorized to obligate
funds in anticipation of reimbursements from Federal agencies
and entities, as defined in section 105 of title 5, United
States Code, for personnel receiving training sponsored by
the James J. Rowley Training Center, except that total
obligations at the end of the fiscal year shall not exceed
total budgetary resources available under this heading at the
end of the fiscal year: Provided further, That none of the
funds made available under this heading shall be available to
compensate any employee for overtime in an annual amount in
excess of $35,000, except that the Secretary of Homeland
Security, or the designee of the Secretary, may waive that
amount as necessary for national security purposes: Provided
further, That none of the funds made available to the United
States Secret Service by this Act or by previous
appropriations Acts may be made available for the protection
of the head of a Federal agency other than the Secretary of
Homeland Security: Provided further, That the Director of
the Secret Service may enter into an agreement to provide
such protection on a fully reimbursable basis: Provided
further, That none of the funds made available to the United
States Secret Service by this Act or by previous
appropriations Acts may be obligated for the purpose of
opening a new permanent domestic or overseas office or
location unless the Committees on Appropriations of the
Senate and the House of Representatives are notified 15 days
in advance of such obligation: Provided further, That for
purposes of section 503(b) of this Act, $15,000,000 or 10
percent, whichever is less, may be transferred between
``Protection of Persons and Facilities'' and ``Domestic Field
Operations''.

acquisition, construction, improvements, and related expenses

For necessary expenses for acquisition, construction,
repair, alteration, and improvement of physical and
technological infrastructure, $51,775,000; of which
$5,380,000, to remain available until September 30, 2018,
shall be for acquisition, construction, improvement, and
maintenance of facilities; and of which $46,395,000, to
remain available until September 30, 2016, shall be for
information integration and technology transformation
execution: Provided, That the Director of the Secret Service
shall submit to

[[Page H3156]]

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 multi-year
investment and management plan for its Information
Integration and Technology Transformation program that
describes funding for the current fiscal year and the
following 3 fiscal years, with associated plans for systems
acquisition and technology deployment.

TITLE III

PROTECTION, PREPAREDNESS, RESPONSE, AND RECOVERY

National Protection and Programs Directorate

management and administration

For salaries and expenses of the Office of the Under
Secretary and the Offices of the Assistant Secretaries for
the National Protection and Programs Directorate, support for
operations, and information technology, $50,522,000:
Provided, That not to exceed $3,825 shall be for official
reception and representation expenses.

infrastructure protection and information security

For necessary expenses for infrastructure protection and
information security programs and activities, as authorized
by title II of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C.
121 et seq.), $1,176,629,000, of which $200,000,000, shall
remain available until September 30, 2015: Provided, That of
the total amount provided for the ``Infrastructure Security
Compliance'' program, project, and activity, $20,000,000
shall be withheld from obligation until the Under Secretary
for the National Protection and Programs Directorate submits
to the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the
House of Representatives an expenditure plan for the Chemical
Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards program that includes the
number of facilities covered by the program, inspectors on-
board, inspections pending, and inspections projected to be
completed by September 30, 2014.

federal protective service

The revenues and collections of security fees credited to
this account shall be available until expended for necessary
expenses related to the protection of federally owned and
leased buildings and for the operations of the Federal
Protective Service.

office of biometric identity management

For necessary expenses for the Office of Biometric Identity
Management, as authorized by section 7208 of the Intelligence
Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (8 U.S.C. 1365b),
$232,190,000: Provided, That of the total amount made
available under this heading, $113,956,000 shall remain
available until September 30, 2016: Provided further, That
the Secretary of Homeland Security shall submit to the
Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the House of
Representatives, not later than 60 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, an expenditure plan for the Office of
Biometric Identity Management: Provided further, That the
Secretary shall submit to the Committees on Appropriations of
the Senate and the House of Representatives at the time the
President's budget is submitted each year under section
1105(a) of title 31, United States Code, a multi-year
investment and management plan for the Office of Biometric
Identity Management program, to include each fiscal year
starting with the current fiscal year and the 3 subsequent
fiscal years, that provides--
(1) the proposed appropriation for each activity tied to
mission requirements and outcomes, program management
capabilities, performance levels, and specific capabilities
and services to be delivered, noting any deviations in cost
or performance from the prior fiscal years expenditure or
investment and management plan for United States Visitor and
Immigrant Status Indicator Technology;
(2) the total estimated cost, projected funding by fiscal
year, and projected timeline of completion for all
enhancements, modernizations, and new capabilities proposed
in such budget and underway, including and clearly
delineating associated efforts and funds requested by other
agencies within the Department of Homeland Security and in
the Federal Government and detailing any deviations in cost,
performance, schedule, or estimated date of completion
provided in the prior fiscal years expenditure or investment
and management plan for United States Visitor and Immigrant
Status Indicator Technology; and
(3) a detailed accounting of operations and maintenance,
contractor services, and program costs associated with the
management of identity services.

Mr. CARTER (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the remainder of the bill through page 35, line 10, 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 Texas?
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIR. Are there any intervening amendments to that
section?
Hearing none, the Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

Office of Health Affairs

For necessary expenses of the Office of Health Affairs,
$123,425,000; of which $25,072,000 is for salaries and
expenses; and of which $79,534,000 is for BioWatch
operations: Provided, That of the amount made available
under this heading, $18,819,000 shall remain available until
September 30, 2015, for biosurveillance, chemical defense,
medical and health planning and coordination, and workforce
health protection: Provided further, That not to exceed
$2,250 shall be for official reception and representation
expenses.

Federal Emergency Management Agency

salaries and expenses

For necessary expenses of the Federal Emergency Management
Agency, $914,795,000, including activities authorized by the
National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4001 et
seq.), the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency
Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.), the Cerro Grande
Fire Assistance Act of 2000 (division C, title I, 114 Stat.
583), the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977 (42 U.S.C.
7701 et seq.), the Defense Production Act of 1950 (50 U.S.C.
App. 2061 et seq.), sections 107 and 303 of the National
Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 404, 405), Reorganization
Plan No. 3 of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App.), the Homeland Security Act
of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 101 et seq.), the Implementing
Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (Public
Law 110-53), the Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act of
1974 (15 U.S.C. 2201 et seq.), the Post-Katrina Emergency
Management Reform Act of 2006 (Public Law 109-295; 120 Stat.
1394), and the Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act of
2012 (Public Law 112-141, 126 Stat. 916): Provided, That not
to exceed $2,250 shall be for official reception and
representation expenses: Provided further, That of the total
amount made available under this heading, $27,513,000 shall
be for the Urban Search and Rescue Response System, of which
none is available for Federal Emergency Management Agency
administrative costs: Provided further, That of the total
amount made available under this heading, $22,000,000 shall
remain available until September 30, 2015, for capital
improvements and other expenses related to continuity of
operations at the Mount Weather Emergency Operations Center.

state and local programs

For grants contracts, cooperative agreements, and other
activities, $1,500,000,000, which shall be allocated as
follows:
(1) Notwithstanding section 503 of this Act, $1,264,826,000
shall be distributed, according to threat, vulnerability, and
consequence, at the discretion of the Secretary of Homeland
Security based on the following authorities:
(A) The State Homeland Security Grant Program under section
2004 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 605):
Provided, That notwithstanding subsection (c)(4) of such
section 2004, for fiscal year 2014, the Commonwealth of
Puerto Rico shall make available to local and tribal
governments amounts provided to the Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico under this paragraph in accordance with subsection
(c)(1) of such section 2004.
(B) Operation Stonegarden.
(C) The Urban Area Security Initiative under section 2003
of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 604).
(D) Organizations (as described under section 501(c)(3) of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and exempt from tax section
501(a) of such code) determined by the Secretary of Homeland
Security to be at high risk of a terrorist attack.
(E) Public Transportation Security Assistance and Railroad
Security Assistance, under sections 1406 and 1513 of the
Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of
2007 (6 U.S.C. 1135 and 1163), including Amtrak security:
Provided, That such public transportation security assistance
shall be provided directly to public transportation agencies.
(F) Port Security Grants in accordance with 46 U.S.C.
70107.
(G) Over-the-Road Bus Security Assistance under section
1532 of the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11
Commission Act of 2007 (Public Law 110-53; 6 U.S.C. 1182).
(H) The Metropolitan Medical Response System under section
635 of the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of
2006 (6 U.S.C. 723).
(I) The Citizen Corps Program.
(J) The Driver's License Security Grants Program in
accordance with section 204 of the REAL ID Act of 2005 (49
U.S.C. 30301 note).
(K) The Interoperable Emergency Communications Grant
Program under section 1809 of the Homeland Security Act of
2002 (6 U.S.C. 579).
(L) Emergency Operations Centers under section 614 of the
Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance
Act (42 U.S.C. 5196c).
(M) The Buffer Zone Protection Program Grants.
(N) Regional Catastrophic Preparedness Grants.
(2) $235,174,000 shall be to sustain current operations for
training, exercises, technical assistance, and other
programs, of which $157,991,000 shall be for training of
State, local, and tribal emergency response providers:

Provided, That of the amounts provided in paragraph (1)
under this heading, $55,000,000 shall be for operation
Stonegarden; Provided further, That for grants under
paragraph (1), applications for grants shall be made
available to eligible applicants not later than 60

[[Page H3157]]

days after the date of enactment of this Act, that eligible
applicants shall submit applications not later than 80 days
after the grant announcement, and the Administrator of the
Federal Emergency Management Agency shall act within 65 days
after the receipt of an application: Provided further, That
notwithstanding section 2008(a)(11) of the Homeland Security
Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 609(a)(11)), or any other provision of
law, a grantee may not use more than 5 percent of the amount
of a grant made available under this heading for expenses
directly related to administration of the grant: Provided
further, That for grants under paragraphs (1) and (2), the
installation of communications towers is not considered
construction of a building or other physical facility:
Provided further, That grantees shall provide reports on
their use of funds, as determined necessary by the Secretary
of Homeland Security.

Amendment Offered by Ms. Brownley of California

Ms. BROWNLEY of California. I have an amendment at the desk, Mr.
Chair.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Page 37, lines 7 and 10, after each dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $97,500,000)(increased by $97,500,000)''.

The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. BROWNLEY of California. Mr. Chair, I rise today to offer an
amendment to the fiscal year 2014 Homeland Security appropriations bill
that will provide $97.5 million for the Port Security Grant Program. I
offer this amendment in conjunction with my colleague and friend, the
gentlewoman also from California.
I represent Port Hueneme, a critical west coast commercial port and
home of Naval Base Ventura County. The presence of the naval base makes
the port a potential target of those who seek to do our Nation harm. I
believe we must do more to protect Port Hueneme and other ports across
this great Nation from potential threats.

{time} 1620

The Port Security Grant program is a critical component of our
strategy to protect our Nation's critical infrastructure against risks
associated with potential terrorist attacks.
The vast majority of critical U.S. maritime infrastructure is owned
and/or operated by State, local, and private sector maritime industry
partners, which is why this State and local grant program is so
critical.
The funds that the program makes available to non-Federal entities
are intended to improve port-wide maritime security risk management,
enhance awareness, support training and exercises, and support port
recovery capabilities.
Grant recipients must use funds to address vulnerabilities in port
security and support the prevention of, detection of, response to and
recovery from attacks involving improvised explosive devices and other
nonconventional weapons.
My amendment simply ensures that the Port Security Grant program will
be funded at $97.5 million, which is at the same level as the previous
fiscal year.
This program is a critical Homeland Security initiative for Port
Hueneme in Ventura County and ports across our great country.
I urge my colleagues to support the amendment, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
Ms. HAHN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlelady from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. HAHN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to urge support for this amendment
that I'm cosponsoring with my good friend from California,
Congresswoman Brownley.
This straightforward and simple amendment will keep the Port Security
Grant program funded at last year's levels and ensure it's protected
from further cuts.
U.S. ports remain one of our country's most important economic
engines as they link our Nation to the rest of the world and the global
economy. Each day, our ports move both imports and exports totaling
some $3.8 billion worth of goods through all 50 of our States. And
according to the American Association of Port Authorities, the U.S.
port industry supports 13.3 million jobs and accounts for more than
$649 billion in personal income.
That's why I cofounded the bipartisan congressional PORTS Caucus with
my good friend Ted Poe from Texas in order to ensure that Congress
recognizes the vital role ports play in our national economy and the
importance of keeping them competitive and, most importantly, secure.
Despite their growing importance, ports have failed to garner the
attention and the resources that they deserve.
During my very first Homeland Security hearing, I asked Lee Hamilton,
vice chairman of the 9/11 Commission, ``What should Congress be doing
to improve security at our Nation's ports?'' He responded by saying,
``My judgment would be that we have not focused enough on our ports.''
For instance, despite a peak funding level of $400 million as
recently as 2009, Congress has decreased funding for the Port Security
Grant program nearly every year since. This is despite the fact that
ports remain extremely vulnerable to attacks.
According to the Congressional Research Service, a 10-kiloton to 20-
kiloton weapon detonated in a major seaport would kill 50,000 to 1
million people and would result in direct property damage of $50- to
$500 billion and indirect costs of $300 billion to $1.2 trillion due to
trade disruption. And while an attack of this magnitude may seem
unlikely to many Americans, experts agree that a major attack at one of
our Nation's ports is more likely than ever before.
Just last week in a discussion regarding the likelihood of a nuclear
attack at a major seaport, former DHS Under Secretary Jay Cohen stated
that it's not a question of if it's going to happen, ``but rather a
question of where, when, and to what magnitude.''
As someone who can see the Port of Los Angeles from my backyard, this
statement provides a sobering reminder that we must be doing anything
and everything we can to guard against this threat.
The port complex of LA/Long Beach is responsible for approximately 44
percent of all the trade that comes into this country. If an attack
were to ever occur there, it would be economically debilitating not
only for my district, but for the entire country, as well.
This amendment will ensure the Port Security Grant program maintains
last year's funding and will protect the program from any further
budget cuts.
By appropriately funding this program, we'll allow our port operators
to continue to increase our capability to prevent, detect, respond to,
and recover from chemical, biological, nuclear, and other
nonconventional attacks.
And while ideally I would like to see this program returned to its
previous authorized level of $400 million, ensuring this critical
program is protected against further cuts is one of utmost importance
at this time.
Therefore, I urge my colleagues to support this incredibly important
amendment, 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, while I have concerns with carving out
funding amounts for specific grants, I will accept the amendment.
I was born and raised in Houston, Texas. I had something happen to me
many years ago as a young lawyer in a hearing at the Port of Houston.
Back in 1968, I was told by the Coast Guard that every day two ships
pass each other in the Port of Houston, and should those ships collide,
just the mixing of those two cargos would explode and kill every man,
woman, and child on the Texas gulf coast all the way to Corpus Christi.
That's without a nuclear weapon.
We are the largest petrochemical port in the United States. I too am
concerned about our ports. I'm very concerned that they could be a
target of attack that could cause great damage both in structures and
in human life.
So I join my colleagues from California to 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 rise in support of the amendment,
which would simply require a funding floor for the Port Security Grant
program at the current level.

[[Page H3158]]

I very much appreciate the gentlewoman's intent with this amendment.
Our seaports are critically important to our Nation's economy, and,
therefore, have been a primary focus of our security and preparedness
efforts.
Because our bill does not currently allocate State and local program
funding among the major Homeland Security Grant programs, I do have
concerns with carving out funding for one specific program. But the
funding level which our colleague has proposed is equal to the amount
allocated to ports in 2013 and that we anticipate would be available in
2014.
Therefore, I support the gentlewoman's amendment, urge its adoption,
and I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Brownley).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Swalwell of California

Mr. SWALWELL of California. I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Page 37, line 7, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced
by $97,500,000) (increased by $97,500,000)''.

The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. SWALWELL of California. Mr. Chairman, if we learned anything
about the Boston Marathon bombings, it is that real threats exist
against our homeland from outside actors motivated by outside forces
with great access now from readily accessible materials that they can
get on the Internet, and they can become radicalized also on the
Internet and can target us here at home with IED devices.
I rise in support of my amendment, Mr. Chairman, which would require
that at least $97.5 million of the $1.5 billion provided to the Federal
Emergency Management Agency for State and local government Homeland
Security grants would be used for mass transit security programs.
These programs are listed on (1)(E) on page 38 of the bill. The main
FEMA and Department of Homeland Security mass transit security effort
is their Transit Security Grant Program.
I want to start by thanking Homeland Security Appropriations
Subcommittee Chairman Carter and Ranking Member Price for the increase
in funding for the account that funds local grant programs for security
and terrorism readiness.

{time} 1630

I organized a letter, signed by 39 other Members of Congress, asking
for funding that is sufficiently robust for TSGP, the Transit Security
Grant Program, to be able to meet our needs for mass transit security.
Chairman Carter and Ranking Member Price listened to our request, and
more money will be available for this critical security program.
While the FEMA State and local grant account funds a variety of
homeland security initiatives, my amendment addresses the critical, if
often overlooked, element of mass transit security. Mass transit, which
mostly includes bus and rail, is used by millions of Americans every
year. In fact, according to the American Public Transportation
Association, there are over 10.5 billion passenger trips in 2012 alone.
That amounts to over 28 million trips per day.
We're fortunate in the East Bay of California, which I am privileged
to represent, to have an excellent bus system and the world-famous Bay
Area Rapid Transit system, also known as BART. There were over 400,000
BART passenger trips just this past April.
Unfortunately, some of what makes mass transit so great, that it is
easily accessible and carries so many people quickly through critical
urban centers, makes it vulnerable to terrorist attacks. In June 2009,
the Government Accountability Office, GAO, summarized the issues facing
mass transit, writing the following:

According to the Transportation Security Administration
transit officials and transit experts, certain
characteristics of mass transit systems, such as multiple
access points and limited barriers to access, make them
inherently vulnerable to terrorist attack and therefore
difficult to secure. High ridership, expensive
infrastructure, economic importance, and location in large
metropolitan areas or tourist destinations also make them
attractive targets for terrorists because of the potential
for mass casualties and economic damage.

Just 2 months ago in April, a plot to target trains in Canada was
thankfully disrupted before anybody was hurt. And, of course, everyone
remembers the horrible London attacks from 2005, and the Madrid transit
attacks in 2004.
No American, in any part of our country on any of our mass transit
systems, should live in fear of a mass transit attack. And damaging
mass transit in our key urban centers wouldn't only harm that
particular area but could ripple through our Nation's economy. Transit
security means economic security. Everyone has an interest in
protecting our public transit systems, and that's where TSGP comes in.
Through TSGP, local mass transit systems receive grants to protect
and minimize damage from terrorist events. Example of uses include
surveillance training, public awareness campaigns, detection equipment,
security cameras, and the hardening of infrastructure.
The continuing resolution for fiscal year 2013 provided a floor of
$97.5 million for mass transit security, before sequestration, of which
$10 million was reserved for Amtrak. My amendment would use that same
number. And since the bill before us is based on sequestration levels
already, that would amount to an increase in the floor for fiscal year
2014 over fiscal year 2013.
To provide such broad discretion for the Department of Homeland
Security is important. However, I also understand the argument that the
Homeland Security Secretary should be able to distribute money based on
risk and potential harm. I know some Members may feel we shouldn't set
minimum amounts to be spent out of this account.
To provide such discretion is important, but it ignores our
constitutional responsibility to provide clear direction on how the
money is spent. And, it risks certain priorities being ignored.
Moreover, the Transit Security Grant Program is a competitive grant
program, and so within that framework money would only be distributed
based on risk and damage potential.
Last Congress, minimums were included for this account when a
compromise was developed with the Senate, including for transit
security. I hope the same thing will happen again. My amendment gives
this House an opportunity to state now on the record that we value mass
transit security.
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. I'm willing to accept this amendment. Once again, I have
the same concerns as my colleague, Mr. Price, about the carving out of
funding amounts for specific grants, but I will accept this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this
amendment, which would simply require a funding floor for public
transportation security assistance and railroad security assistance at
the current level. I appreciate the gentleman's intent with this
amendment. Public transportation infrastructure is absolutely critical
to the functioning of our economy, and, therefore, is and must be a
primary focus of our security and preparedness efforts.
The same reservation applies to this amendment as to the previous
amendment. We do not currently allocate State and local program funding
among the major homeland security programs. So we have some concerns
with carving out funding for specific programs, but the funding level
proposed here is equal to the amount allocated to transit in 2013 and
that we anticipate would be available in 2014. Therefore, I support the
gentleman's 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 California (Mr. Swalwell).

[[Page H3159]]

The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

firefighter assistance grants

For grants for programs authorized by the Federal Fire
Prevention and Control Act of 1974 (15 U.S.C. 2201 et seq.),
$675,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 2015,
of which $337,500,000 shall be available to carry out section
33 of that Act (15 U.S.C. 2229) and $337,500,000 shall be
available to carry out section 34 of that Act (15 U.S.C.
2229a).

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 Ms. Moore of Wisconsin.
Amendment by Mr. Polis of Colorado.
Amendment by Mr. Heck of Nevada.
Amendment by Mr. Garcia of Florida.
Amendment by Mr. Deutch of Florida.
The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the minimum time for any
electronic vote after the first vote in this series.

Amendment Offered by Ms. Moore

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from
Wisconsin (Ms. Moore) on which further proceedings were postponed and
on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 167,
noes 257, not voting 9, as follows:

[Roll No. 194]

AYES--167

Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu
Cicilline
Clay
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Courtney
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
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
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Michaud
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Negrete McLeod
Nolan
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Pelosi
Peters (MI)
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth

NOES--257

Aderholt
Alexander
Amash
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
Bustos
Calvert
Camp
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clarke
Cleaver
Coble
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Cook
Cooper
Costa
Cotton
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Culberson
Daines
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Enyart
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
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 (IL)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kirkpatrick
Kline
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Lankford
Latham
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Maffei
Marchant
Marino
Massie
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
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
Payne
Pearce
Perlmutter
Perry
Peters (CA)
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
Sanford
Scalise
Schock
Schrader
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shea-Porter
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sinema
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stewart
Stivers
Stockman
Stutzman
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Tsongas
Turner
Upton
Valadao
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--9

Andrews
Campbell
Green, Al
Holt
Jackson Lee
Maloney, Carolyn
Markey
McCarthy (NY)
Pittenger

{time} 1703

Messrs. POE of Texas, SANFORD, CUELLAR, PAYNE, ROONEY, MAFFEI and Ms.
FUDGE changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Messrs. RANGEL, HINOJOSA, CONNOLLY, and Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of
California changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Polis

The Acting CHAIR (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen). The unfinished business is the
demand for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Colorado (Mr. Polis) on which further proceedings were postponed
and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 180,
noes 245, not voting 8, as follows:

[Roll No. 195]

AYES--180

Andrews
Bachmann
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera (CA)
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Enyart
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia
Grayson
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Honda
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin

[[Page H3160]]

Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maffei
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)
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters (CA)
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
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
Sires
Slaughter
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth

NOES--245

Aderholt
Alexander
Amash
Amodei
Bachus
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
Bustos
Calvert
Camp
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Cook
Cooper
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
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Holding
Horsford
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)
Kline
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Lankford
Latham
Latta
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Marchant
Marino
Massie
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
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
Payne
Pearce
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
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schock
Schrader
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Southerland
Stewart
Stivers
Stockman
Stutzman
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Valadao
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--8

Campbell
Green, Al
Holt
Jackson Lee
Maloney, Carolyn
Markey
McCarthy (NY)
Pittenger

{time} 1711

Messrs. ELLISON and SEAN MALONEY of New York changed their votes from
``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Heck

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Nevada
(Mr. Heck) 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

[Roll No. 196]

AYES--156

Amodei
Andrews
Bachmann
Barr
Barrow (GA)
Bass
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Braley (IA)
Brooks (IN)
Brown (FL)
Bucshon
Butterfield
Calvert
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chaffetz
Chu
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coffman
Cohen
Collins (NY)
Conyers
Cook
Cooper
Courtney
Cuellar
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
DelBene
Doggett
Doyle
Duffy
Duncan (TN)
Edwards
Ellison
Ellmers
Enyart
Eshoo
Esty
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Frankel (FL)
Gallego
Gosar
Grijalva
Guthrie
Gutierrez
Hall
Hanabusa
Hartzler
Heck (NV)
Higgins
Himes
Honda
Horsford
Hunter
Jeffries
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, E. B.
Joyce
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kline
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Lewis
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lynch
Maffei
Marchant
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCollum
McGovern
McHenry
McIntyre
McMorris Rodgers
Messer
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (PA)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Negrete McLeod
Nolan
Nugent
Nunes
Paulsen
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson
Petri
Polis
Pompeo
Reichert
Rice (SC)
Richmond
Rigell
Rogers (MI)
Ross
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tsongas
Veasey
Walden
Walorski
Walz
Waters
Watt
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Wilson (FL)
Wittman
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IN)

NOES--268

Aderholt
Alexander
Amash
Bachus
Barber
Barletta
Barton
Beatty
Becerra
Benishek
Bentivolio
Bera (CA)
Bilirakis
Bishop (NY)
Black
Bonner
Boustany
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Broun (GA)
Brownley (CA)
Buchanan
Burgess
Bustos
Camp
Cantor
Capito
Carney
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Cicilline
Clarke
Coble
Cole
Collins (GA)
Conaway
Connolly
Costa
Cotton
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Crowley
Culberson
Cummings
Daines
Davis (CA)
Delaney
DeLauro
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Dingell
Duckworth
Duncan (SC)
Engel
Farenthold
Farr
Fattah
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foster
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gabbard
Garamendi
Garcia
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Grayson
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Hahn
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Heck (WA)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hinojosa
Holding
Hoyer
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huffman
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hurt
Israel
Issa
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Kelly (PA)
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Langevin
Lankford
Larsen (WA)
Latham
Latta
Levin
LoBiondo
Long
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lummis
Maloney, Sean
Marino
Massie
McCaul
McClintock
McDermott
McKeon
McKinley
McNerney
Meadows
Meehan
Meeks
Meng
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (FL)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nunnelee
O'Rourke
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Pearce
Perlmutter
Perry
Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Pingree (ME)
Pitts
Pocan
Poe (TX)
Posey
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Quigley
Radel
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Renacci
Ribble
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Rothfus
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (OH)
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schakowsky
Schneider
Schock
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stewart
Stivers
Stockman

[[Page H3161]]

Stutzman
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Tonko
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Van Hollen
Vargas
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wagner
Walberg
Wasserman Schultz
Waxman
Weber (TX)
Welch
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yarmuth
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--9

Campbell
Davis, Rodney
Green, Al
Holt
Jackson Lee
Maloney, Carolyn
Markey
McCarthy (NY)
Pittenger

{time} 1716

Messrs. CARNEY and CUMMINGS changed their vote from ``aye'' to
``no.''
Mr. DANNY K. DAVIS of Illinois changed his vote from ``no'' to
``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Chair, on rollcall No. 196 I was
unavoidably detained during this five minute vote. Had I been present,
I would have voted ``no.''

Amendment Offered by Mr. Garcia

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Garcia) 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

[Roll No. 197]

AYES--186

Andrews
Barber
Barton
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera (CA)
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Buchanan
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Enyart
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia
Grayson
Griffith (VA)
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Horsford
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
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, 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)
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Radel
Rangel
Richmond
Ros-Lehtinen
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth

NOES--236

Aderholt
Alexander
Amash
Amodei
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barr
Barrow (GA)
Benishek
Bentivolio
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Broun (GA)
Bucshon
Burgess
Calvert
Camp
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Cook
Cooper
Cotton
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Culberson
Daines
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
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
Keating
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
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
McHenry
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
Peters (MI)
Petri
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Rahall
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schock
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Southerland
Stewart
Stivers
Stockman
Stutzman
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tierney
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Valadao
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--11

Campbell
Coffman
Green, Al
Grijalva
Holt
Honda
Jackson Lee
Maloney, Carolyn
Markey
McCarthy (NY)
Pittenger

{time} 1721

Mr. HOYER changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Mr. FINCHER. Madam Chair, I move that the Committee do now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker having assumed the
chair, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, 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.

____________________