Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the Transportation Security Administration should delay implementation of changes to the Prohibited Items List that do not enhance the protection of passengers, and for other purposes.

Will the gentlelady yield?

I would like to express my agreement with what Mr. Dent just said. These aircraft are absolutely vital for mission success for Border Patrol agents and air and marine personnel. If there are better, faster, cheaper ways to make these conversions, we need to know about them.

Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by my friend from New York that would eliminate funding in the bill for constructing the National Bio- and Agro-Defense Facility, or NBAF. I supported a similar amendment offered by the gentleman last year, but the circumstances, I believe, have changed decisively.

Last year, the administration did not request funding for NBAF for fiscal 2013. We were still waiting on the results of a National Academy of Sciences review of options for meeting the Nation's animal disease research needs and on the result of a separate NAS review of the Department's updated risk assessments for NBAF.

Last June, NAS released a report on DHS' updated risk assessment concluding that the Department had made substantial improvements compared to its first risk assessment and that the so-called 65 percent design phase plans for the facility itself appear to be sound and conform with international standards.

Further, last July, a separate National Academy of Sciences report made clear that the existing animal disease research facility on Plum Island is not an option for meeting the Nation's needs and that a new facility with a BSL-4 laboratory is required. This is precisely the capability that the new NBAF facility will provide.

The two studies also made clear that critical work must continue. Notably, the National Academy of Sciences' review determined that the Department had likely underestimated some types of risk while overestimating others. The Department disputes some of these assessments. But even acknowledging that DHS must continue to improve its risk methodology and response planning before the NBAF facility becomes fully operational, we should not wait any longer to begin constructing the new facility, which we know now is securely and safely designed. The longer we wait, the more costly its construction will be and the more costly it will be to continue to maintain the Plum Island facility. We also must consider the cost of further delaying the availability of a Biosafety Level 4 facility, which the NAS, DHS, and other stakeholders are fully convinced we need.

So I believe the funding provided in the appropriations bill is timely and needed, and I urge Members to oppose the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I rise in support of my colleague, Mr. Moran's amendment. The fact is that section 533 of this bill, which his amendment amends, has no place in this Homeland Security bill in the first place. If it belongs in any bill, it would be the Commerce-Justice bill. But as a political gesture, for years now, we've had this amendment or something very much like it added to a number of appropriations bills.

What Mr. Moran has done tonight, though, is interesting. He has not proposed that this section be removed. He has simply amended it, and in a sensible way. He would limit the prohibition of the transfer of detainees to those demonstrably dangerous people who were placed in Guantanamo after 2005. That should remove most of the objections people have made to the elimination of this prohibition entirely.

It seems that the colleagues who have pushed this amendment, year after year and bill after bill, don't apparently have very strong concerns about indefinite detention and the kind of stain that this represents on this country. They also seem to think that if and when detainees are going to be brought to trial, the way to try them is with military commissions at Guantanamo. They seem to think that's the only possible way to bring these detainees to justice.

The reality is that military commissions have a very spotty record at best, while our criminal courts have a long and successful record of prosecuting terrorists. Why would we want to eliminate that option? Why would we want to deny that option to the President?

The reasoning of the proponents of this provision both denigrates our judicial system and actually exalts these detainees to a status they don't deserve in the eyes of the world. If I had my way, this section would not be in the bill in the first place. But since it is, I think Mr. Moran has made a very sensible proposal that we should consider very favorably, and I hope that my colleagues will do just that.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I want to add my thanks to my colleague from Oregon for what he has said here tonight.

This area of disaster relief funding is one that has challenged us for a long time, getting accurate predictions and estimates of the needs from Democratic and Republican administrations and dealing with this under budget pressures here in this body.

But the baseline for any of this has got to be honest budgeting, realistic assessments, and we need to work on this going forward. So I'm interested in what the gentleman from Oregon says about the ideas that he has that might help us strengthen this, both the accurate accounting of expenditures for past disasters and also a better understanding of the mitigation potential.

I think both of those are important areas for exploration, and I certainly

will work with the chairman and with him in exploring this going forward.

I just want to echo the chairman on this point. We will work together and with you and with Administrator Fugate to ensure that FEMA meets its coordination responsibilities with regard to the National Capital Region.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I want to join the chairman in opposing this amendment. This amendment would prohibit any funding from being utilized by our mobile Visible Intermodal Protection and Response teams, the VIPR teams.

These teams provide the ability for TSA to randomly screen passengers on mass transit and in our airports. They also work in concert with State and local law enforcement agencies. They provide a surge capacity beyond the local capability in order to be able to respond to intelligence information and special situations.

It's also important that exercises be conducted on a regular basis in order to test the concept of operations and develop the essential working relationship with local authorities.

As the chairman indicated, in our assessments after the attacks in Madrid and London, it became clear that we lacked the capability, lacked the ability to rapidly respond to threats quickly and to react with a show of force against potential threats. That's precisely the purpose of these VIPR teams.

The concept was authorized specifically by section 1303 of the 9/11 Act, a bill that passed this House with 371 votes.

We will address these problems, as the chairman has indicated, problems that the gentleman has identified, problems that deserve to be addressed. We will address the issues that you raise.

You, obviously, have legitimate concerns. But none of what the gentleman has said is an argument for eliminating the funding and for removing an important deterrent capability.

I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Reclaiming my time, with all due respect, I believe the gentleman is exaggerating the kind of situation that ordinary travelers encounter. I also understand, and hope he does, that these VIPR teams, if there's going to be the search capacity, if they're going to be there to respond to specific intelligence information, then they're going to have to remain in operation. It's certainly warranted for random collection and checking situations that may be problematic. I'm not saying there would never be abuses, never be intrusive behavior. But we need to correct that, not to come in with a meat ax and eliminate the funding.

So I simply reiterate my opposition to the amendment and ask our colleagues to vote against it.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I, too, commend the gentleman for his amendment and urge its adoption.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I am also not going to object to this amendment given TSA's decision of this afternoon, the decision that has, I believe, made the amendment largely irrelevant. I do want to express my appreciation for the concerns addressed here tonight by the sponsors of this amendment and the stakeholders that many of us have heard from.

I want to take just a second, though, to underscore that TSA did not propose these changes haphazardly. The proposal that is being attacked here tonight and that has been reversed here today by the agency, that proposal was the result of a risk-based approach to TSA's security requirements.

I also remind the House that the current TSA administrator, Mr. Pistole, is a 26-year veteran at the FBI. I've been impressed by his willingness to stand by the data, stand by what objective analysis dictates, whether that means reconsidering a regulation or insisting that it remain in place.

Since the International Civil Aviation Organization changed its standards to prevent passengers from carrying small pocketknives in 2010, more than 5 billion commercial airline passengers on a flight originating outside the United States have traveled without incident.

And I do think it's ironic, Mr. Chairman, that after all these years of Members complaining about long wait times and passengers having to take off their shoes and their coats and their belts, they have to take out those laptops, take out those liquids, that TSA now does something to speed up security lines and suddenly Members want to reverse that decision on the floor of this House. I hope we are not going to get into the habit of overturning risk-based decisions, threat-based decisions on the floor of this House.

But as I say, the amendment before us is now largely irrelevant, so I have no objection to its adoption, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I'm happy to urge my colleagues to vote for the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I simply want to express my agreement with the chairman on this matter.

I appreciate the amendment being offered by my friend from North Carolina, but I believe it would introduce an element of rigidity and an arbitrary element into the purchasing process. The chairman has looked into this very carefully. We have provisions in the bill that should get to the bottom of any allegations that have been made about the matter, but in the meantime, it seems the amendment almost presupposes a negative or a suspicious outcome of the study. Maybe not. In any case, I see no reason for layering on a requirement forbidding the purchase of ammunition while we conduct this study.

So I urge the defeat of the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the chairman for yielding.

I am happy to also offer my support. I hope my colleagues will support this en bloc amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, as has been read, this doesn't allow petitions for relatives, fiances, or workers coming from Brazil.

And I first want to say thank you to Judge Carter--Chairman Carter-- and Mr. Price. We passed a very similar amendment out of the Appropriations Committee that was dinged here a little bit earlier. This is a narrowly tailored version of that.

I rise today not because I want to. Many of us come here because we want to offer amendments. I don't necessarily want to offer this amendment. But I'm offering this amendment on behalf of Major Karl Hoerig. And I would like to tell the House of Representatives a brief story about Karl, who flew 200 missions for our country in Iraq and Afghanistan.

On March 10 of 2007, Major Karl Hoerig's wife went out and bought a .357 Magnum and went to a shooting range. She purchased ammo and asked, ``what ammo can I buy here that best kills.'' Two days later, Claudia Hoerig shot Major Karl Hoerig in my congressional district.

She fled to Brazil, where she was from. She could not be extradited, so we were told, because we don't have a treaty with Brazil in order to extradite their citizens, which would make sense. But later throughout the investigation, we found out that in August of 1999 Claudia Hoerig renounced her Brazilian citizenship and said she was a citizen of the United States, which gives us every right to have her come back and extradited back to the United States.

Now, this woman shot a war hero. She renounced her Brazilian citizenship, and she now is drinking Rum Runners in Rio de Janeiro, walking around freely in Brazil while Carl Hoerig's family is sitting in Newton Falls, Ohio--his brother, his parents--wondering why we can't bring this woman back into the United States for justice.

Now, many people would say, Well, why are you offering an amendment? Why are you trying to defund visas? It's because I've been working on this since 2007. I've got a stack of letters here that go back to Alberto Gonzales--now, many Members of this Congress don't even know who he was--then Condoleezza Rice, then Secretary Clinton, on and on and on to try to get the attention of people, and it takes an amendment in the Appropriations Committee to say we're not going to be able to fund visas anymore.

I don't have any problem with Brazil--we've got a good relationship with them--but they have a woman who killed one of our airmen who flew 200 missions to Iraq and Afghanistan. If you want to talk about a safe haven: if the kids from the Boston massacre a few weeks back instead of going to the 7-Eleven had got on a flight and had gone to Brazil, they'd be sitting in Brazil right now, and we wouldn't be able to get them back here.

I recognize that these are extraordinary actions, but there is a long process ahead before this bill becomes law. We've gotten the Brazilians' attention, and now it's time for us not to take the pressure off, but to allow this process to continue until Claudia Hoerig is back in the United States and getting prosecuted in Trumbull County, Ohio.

It should be known, too, to this House that al Qaeda is setting up shop in Brazil--planning attacks, training people in Brazil right now-- and we have no mechanism. If someone were to commit a terrorist act here in the United States and flee to Brazil, we would not be able to get him back.

I think this amendment sends a signal to the Brazilians, hopefully in the long term, to renegotiate treaties and to talk of extradition, but also in the short term to get Claudia Hoerig back into the United States. I would just like to end, Mr. Chairman, with a quote from Carl Hoerig's dad, Ed Hoerig.

He said:

Our government is supposed to be the most powerful country

in the world, and they are turning their back on a 25-year

veteran. It's wrong. When you say the Pledge of Allegiance,

the last sentence is `` . . . and justice for all.'' They are

turning their back on my son's justice.

Let's right this wrong, Mr. Chairman, and pass this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Al Qaeda in Brazil?

(By Jaime Daremblum)

The Brazilian magazine Veja is reporting that al Qaeda

members have established an active presence in South

America's largest country, as have militants associated with

Hezbollah, Hamas, and other terrorist groups. They are

apparently engaged in fundraising, recruitment, and strategic

planning. Earlier this week, Aldo Donzis, a leading figure in

the Argentine Jewish community, spoke to the JTA news agency

and voiced alarm about the revelations.

``We have high concern about fundamentalist movements in

Latin America and about recruitment activities of

fundamentalist movements,'' Donzis said. ``We shared this

information with Latin American parliamentarians last July

and they agreed with our information. But the situation is

getting worse. In Argentina, we have seen graffiti written in

Arabic calling for jihad which coincided with the visit of

Iranians here. Also, this graffiti was seen in Bolivia. We

understand that Brazil needs to feel worried and act.''

Terrorists have long found haven in South America's so-

called Triple Frontier, which encompasses the intersection of

Brazil, Argentina, and Paraguay. This area is known for being

a Wild West of lawlessness, drug trafficking, and organized

crime. Argentina is especially sensitive to increased

terrorist activity in the region. During the 1990s, it

suffered two deadly bombings orchestrated by Hezbollah and

Iran. The first (in 1992) destroyed the Israeli embassy in

Buenos Aires; the second (in 1994) demolished a Jewish

community center in the same city.

Speaking of Iran, the head of U.S. Southern Command,

General Douglas Fraser, testified before the Senate Armed

Services Committee on Tuesday and declared that ``Iran

continues expanding regional ties to support its own

diplomatic goal of reducing the impact of international

sanctions connected with its nuclear program. While much of

Iran's engagement in the region has been with Venezuela and

Bolivia, it has nearly doubled the number of embassies in the

region in the past decade and hosted three regional heads of

state in 2010.''

General Fraser expressed concern that ``there are flights

between Iran and Venezuela on a weekly basis, and visas are

not required for entrance into Venezuela or Bolivia or

Nicaragua.'' He also confirmed that ``members of violent

extremist organizations from the Middle East remain active in

Latin America and the Caribbean and constitute a potential

threat. Hezbollah supporters continue to raise funds within

the region to finance their worldwide activities. Several

entities affiliated with Islamic extremism are increasing

efforts to recruit adherents in the region, and we continue

to monitor this situation closely.''

Yet another reason for the Obama administration to rethink

its passive approach to Latin America.

[From the Telegraph, 3 Apr. 2011]

Brazil Latest Base for Islamic Extremists

(By Robin Yapp)

With preparations for the 2014 World Cup in Brazil and the

2016 Olympic Games in Rio de Janeiro well under way, security

experts have expressed fears that terrorists are ``taking

advantage'' of weaknesses in the country's laws.

Brazil has not passed any specific anti-terrorism

legislation, does not recognize Hezbollah or Hamas as

terrorist groups and disbanded the Federal Police's anti-

terrorism service in 2009.

Now, Veja, a weekly news magazine, has had access to

reports compiled by the service as well as documents about

the terrorist threat sent to Brazil by the FBI, CIA, Interpol

and the US Treasury.

It says the papers show 21 men linked to Islamic extremist

groups including al-Qaeda, have been using Brazil for various

purposes including controlling inflows of money and planning

attacks.

They include Khaled Hussein Ali, who was born in Lebanon

but now lives in Sao Paulo, Brazil's biggest city, from where

he runs an internet cafe.

However, according to Veja he is also in control of an

online communications arm of al-Qaeda called Jihad Media

Battalion, which has a presence in 17 countries around the

world and spreads communications from al-Qaeda leaders as

well as publicising attacks.

Another of those named is Mohsen Rabbani, an Iranian wanted

by Interpol as the suspected architect of bombings on Jewish

targets in Buenos Aires in the 1990s that killed 114 people.

According to the documents, he frequently slips in and out

of Brazil on a false passport and has recruited at least 24

youngsters in three Brazilian states to attend ``religious

formation'' classes in Tehran. ``Without anybody noticing, a

generation of Islamic extremists is appearing in Brazil,''

said Alexandre Camanho de Assis, who co-ordinates Brazil's

network of public prosecutors across 13 states.

The papers also show that the US Treasury described the

poorly policed Tri-border area, where Brazil, Argentina and

Paraguay meet, as a ``financial artery'' for Hizbollah.

Daniel Lorenz, a former head of the Federal Police's

intelligence department and now Security Secretary for the

Federal District, that includes the capital Brasilia, warned

that Brazil risks being caught out. ``The terrorists are

taking advantage of the fragility of Brazilian legislation,''

he said.

I thank the gentleman, and I am going to be brief.

Again, I want to thank Chairman Carter, and I want to thank Mr. Price and just say that I believe this is a homeland security issue. This is an appropriate venue for that. As the gentleman from Louisiana said, there is a level of frustration here because we have been working on this, pursuing regular order now since 2007, and we have gotten nowhere. As I said, this woman is walking around in Brazil as a free woman when Carl Hoerig, who flew almost 200 missions for our country, is dead.

This process has a long way to go. We're not anywhere close to this bill's becoming law. We've got a lot of time between today and that day. So let's work today to try to increase the pressure to try to get justice for Carl Hoerig and to try to make this situation right.

Again, I thank everyone. I don't want to be here offering this amendment, because of the situation; but I promised this family I would do everything in my power to get justice for their son and to get this woman. So help me God, I'm going to do everything I can to get this woman back here whether it's this bill or bills in the future. So I ask the Members of this House to please, please, please support this amendment on behalf of Carl Hoerig in his service to our country.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, this kind of reminds me of a story about a World War I Navy veteran that went back home to Ware County where he loved to coon hunt. And this gentleman, after having being injured, got a wooden peg leg. One day, he took his boys out. They were all around the campfire. It was kind of cool that night. They were waiting for the dogs to tree one. So he got a little bit close to the fire, and it burned about 8 inches off of his wooden peg. So all of a sudden, the hounds start baying, and he gets up and starts running. He ran about 20 yards and turned around and said, ``Watch out, boys. There's a hole every other step.''

There's some holes in what this amendment is trying to do. First of all, you've got to remember that this bill was just passed a year ago, and it was the Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform bill, where we're trying to reform the flood insurance program. Let me remind people that 406 Members voted in favor of this, and every Member that I see down here that is talking to try to relieve this voted for the bill. Everybody in the Louisiana delegation, everybody in the Mississippi delegation, everybody in the New York delegation--with the exception of one--and everybody in the New Jersey delegation voted for it.

This bill was passed by a unanimous vote, bipartisan, because everybody realized, especially after the effects of Katrina and others, where, in 2005, before Katrina, they had a credit card limit of $1.5 billion, after Katrina, we raised that credit card limit to $20 billion. After Sandy, we raised the credit limit another $10 billion. So right now we've got $30 billion on our credit card. And you know what? In 2017, that has to go back to $1 billion.

If you look at the amount of money that we've had to borrow to pay for this--and I voted for the $9.7 billion because it's an obligation that I think that we had to the people that had flood insurance. That was an obligation that we have.

But the way most insurance works is that if you are at a higher risk, you pay a higher premium. If, for some reason, my car keeps running into things accidentally, my car insurance is probably going to go up. And anybody that has extenuating circumstances, whether you're in a fire zone or whatever it is, your insurance rates are based on that.

The difference is, unfortunately, that the government fashioned, the government-run flood insurance program does not require homeowners in flood-prone areas to pay for their fair share. In fact, premiums in flood-prone areas are so low that FEMA has needed a bailout, as I mentioned, three times in the last 8 years.

Due to FEMA's failures last year, Congress passed a bipartisan Biggert-Waters bill of insurance reform. It was supported, as I mentioned, by these delegations. This landmark 5-year authorization is something that even people here said, We need to do this. In fact, I will quote:

It is imperative that Congress act as quickly as possible to pass a 5-year extension of flood insurance so that policyholders can have some assurance moving forward.

This is by one of the authors of the amendment.

Section 207 does something that no other flood bill has done before. It says that homeowners in flood zones must pay an amount that accurately reflects their risk of flooding. Notably, Congress recognized this section may place a burden on some homeowners in flood- prone areas. So, to address this concern, section 207 specifically stated that the rate increase must be phased in over 5 years, not to exceed a 20 percent increase each year. The outcome is commonsense reforms that are supported by Republicans and Democrats, alike, that balance concerns of homeowners and taxpayers.

Now, I'm no supporter of the government-mandated flood insurance, but these are bipartisan reforms that you don't often see passed in Washington. Let's don't back up. Let's keep going forward. The Biggert- Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act was designed to get FEMA out of this constant bailout, but to be fair to people who experienced frequent flooding. Importantly, these bipartisan reforms were enacted less than a year ago in the Financial Services Committee. We have not even held a hearing on the implementation. This does not need to be in an appropriations bill. It needs to go back to Financial Services and let us look at it.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

And let me just say that, you know, FEMA--this does not go into effect this year. In fact, the Louisiana FEMA has been told not to give out these rates because they don't know, they've been trying to do a flood map for 30 years.

Now, if we think a 1-year extension is going to help them, we're misleading ourselves. And, in fact, from my legislative experience, when you extend it for 1 year, then you're asked to extend it again. Look at the student loans. We extended it for 1 year, now they want to extend it for 2 more. It's a constant extension.

My experience has been most court cases are settled on the courthouse steps when the pressure is put on both people to settle.

I think that this is bringing to a head the fact that FEMA needs to get their act together, along with the Corps, and get these flood maps done. By us giving them another year extension, it's not going to do anything but delay us getting these updated maps for another

year. I promise you, that's the way government works.

So we need to understand that, on the one hand, we're saying, well, FEMA has given out all these new rates. It's going to go to 20,000 bucks or whatever it is.

But on the same hand we're saying hey, they don't have the capability of doing a flood map. You can't have it both ways. You know, either FEMA can do it or they can't do it.

But we need to do this through the Financial Services Committee, where the ranking member, the gentlelady from California, was a big part of what we did in the Biggert-Waters bill. And so why don't we take it and go back through Financial Services, where this bill came from, rather than trying to do it through an appropriations bill?

That's the reason this process is so messed up here that we try to do things like this.

So, my concern is that this is the wrong place to try to amend this bill. We need to have hearings. We need to have oversight of FEMA and find out how the implementation of this bill is going, and put the pressure on FEMA and the Corps to finally get these maps straightened out.

But for somebody to have a home that's 7 feet below flood level and pay $329 a year in a premium doesn't make sense.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I do appreciate the gentleman yielding.

FEMA has already stated that their staff in Louisiana were wrong to provide these estimates based on inaccurate and incomplete information. They have already said that. In reality, no one knows--not FEMA, not any of my colleagues--how much folks in those flood zones will pay for premiums under section 207. It's still being evaluated. Flood maps change after every flood, and they're going to continue to do it because of development and more impervious surface and other things

that cause flooding to create in different areas.

There is an appeal process that you can go through; but the best place to do this is where it originated, which is in the Financial Services Committee, not as an amendment on an appropriations bill.

How many hearings have been held on this amendment? None. We're always talking about regular order. That's our cry, Regular order. Why don't we go through the regular process, go through the same committee that this bill originated out of and see if there's not some oversight that we can offer to FEMA to make sure that these people are not hit with these high premiums and that everybody gets on the same page and we understand that if these improvements have been made by cities and counties or homeowners, that they need to be taken into consideration. But this is not the way to do it.

We talk about unintended consequences. I think this bill was 75 pages long. I can read section 207 if you want me to, but it's pretty plain in what it says. There are no unintended consequences to this. This is exactly what it said.

If you want to talk about revisiting unintended consequences, let's look at the 2,800-page Affordable Care Act. We can look at some unintended consequences then. But this is plain and simple. This isn't asking to create another agency or board or commission; this is trying to make FEMA and the Corps do their job on this mapping. This is the wrong place, it's the wrong time, it's the wrong bill to do this.

I would work in a joint effort with these people to try to bring some resolution to this problem. But you've got to remember that these fees do not come into effect this year, and nobody knows what they're going to be.

You know, the Congress is either at stop or knee-jerk reaction. This is something that needs to be carefully thought out. It needs to go through the subcommittee, the committee process.

The chairman has promised that he is going to review this and look at the implementation of it. If we believe in regular order, let's give the system time to work, and let's put it in the committee where the work was originally done.

With that, I just hope that it will be a ``no'' vote on this, that it can go back to the committee that Ms. Waters and others have put in a bill. Let's go back, let's review it, let's look at it, let's bring FEMA in, and let's do some oversight--which is our responsibility in the Financial Services Committee, not the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

I move to strike the last word.

I want to thank the gentleman for his comments, and I appreciate your concern and agree with you this is a topic of high concern to everyone. As you saw, our bill contains numerous oversight requirements to address these issues.

I look forward to working with the gentleman as the bill moves through the process to ensure that Congress has the most comprehensive information possible on the costs associated with natural disasters. And I agree that if there is a way to mitigate, we should look into that.

I look forward to working with you.

I yield to the gentleman.

Reclaiming my time, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Virginia and assure him that we will continue to work together on this issue.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

Madam Chair, I appreciate the gentleman's question. The committee has long expressed concerns with the operation of the National Capital Region Coordination Office, and numerous GAO audits have confirmed our concerns that the office has been underperforming its potential to improve regional preparedness coordination. I share the gentleman's desire to improve collaboration across the National Capital Region with the Federal Government, and I know Administrator Fugate is committed to doing just that. I am confident that the coordination responsibility outlined in section 882 can be fulfilled within this reorganization under the Office of the Administrator.

Ranking Member Price and I are committed to making sure FEMA acts on the recommendations of the GAO to better meet with the requirements, and we will work to include you and other members of the National Capital Region delegation in that effort.

I thank my good friend, Mr. Cole, for yielding.

The bill before us today builds on our actions of last year and includes robust funding for FEMA in the disaster relief category, funding that will most definitely assist those who lost so much in Oklahoma over the last few weeks.

As of this morning, the Disaster Relief Fund currently has a balance of approximately $11 billion, which is sufficient to address the needs of Oklahoma and other recent disasters.

As Oklahoma begins the road to recovery, I will continue to work with the gentleman to ensure we are doing everything that we can to help the devastated communities. Our hearts go out to those folks.

I rise in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to work with the gentleman on this issue, but I cannot accept this amendment.

Following the 2004 Madrid train bombing and the 2005 London bombings that targeted civilians using public transportation, Visible Intermodal Prevention and Response, or VIPR teams, were developed to allow TSA to utilize Federal, State, and local law enforcement to protect our Nation's transportation system, including securing our surface transportation systems from the threat of terrorism.

TSA's Surface Transportation Security is responsible for assessing the risk of terrorist attacks for all non-aviation transportation modes. And the VIPR teams, which are specifically authorized in the 9/ 11 Act, play an important role in protecting our Nation's surface transportation systems.

Simply put, the presence of these teams is intended to promote confidence in our Nation's transport system by preventing terrorism to any mode of transportation, including surface transportation. Now is not the time to eliminate this important program which serves to secure our surface transportation systems from acts of terrorism.

I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Reclaiming my time, let me say that I listened to what you said before, and you don't need to be repetitive. I understand your concerns. And quite honestly, they're valid concerns; and I will, as chairman of this committee, with the assistance of Mr. Price, look into these arguments that you have made.

But at this time I cannot accept your amendment. And I don't need to hear the arguments a second time to accept your amendment. So I'm opposed to this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I accept this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman for yielding. I want to say that I will be happy to work with you, Mr. Barton, as we move forward in the appropriations process.

Mr. Chairman, we will support the lady's amendment. And I will be happy to yield to my colleague, Mr. Price, so that he can also support this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to say to my colleague, I'm on the same wavelength as him, and I have had both my personal office and my staff here at the committee look into

in detail the allegations that he has raised by his amendment. He is quite accurate that the amount of ammunition that presently seems to be in the hands of DHS and the amount of purchases that have taken place over the last 3 years from a gun owner standpoint, if you take a good hard look at it, it looks like they're shooting an awful lot of rounds as practice. I have the same concerns he has about that.

That's why I put into this bill at my request this review of the training exercises: How many rounds are issued for training? How many rounds are issued for firing in harm's way? A complete report to the Congress of the United States was issued because the American people are very concerned about this issue.

I will assure my colleague we're going to look at this report in detail. We're going to have hearings and discuss this with the members of DHS, and all the gun-toting DHS folks, to get an accurate assessment of how much shooting they do and how much they need to shoot.

By my own personal inquiry, by talking to ICE last Friday--in addition, I talked to the Border Patrol personally, and they shoot four times a year to qualify--quite honestly, they acknowledged that they don't need as many rounds as people think they do.

But we want to get this study done. And if we can, have patience to do the study and not try to restrict contracting until we know. And I honestly am not encouraged to allow DHS to have huge stockpiles of ammunition around the country. We want to have an efficient utilization of the purchasing power.

As to the contracting power that they have for that billion-plus rounds, that's a process that I learned through my questions that is used to keep the lowest possible price, and there's no intent to make that----

I will in just a moment.

There's no intent to make that type of purchase by DHS in any form or fashion. It's just a way that contracting is done on ammunition to utilize the cheapest price.

I will also say--and then I will yield--we checked with every ammunition manufacturer in the country, and they assured me that the shortage of ammunition on the shelves for the American hunter and shooter is not because of purchases by DHS or the military or anybody else. Quite honestly, it's because the American people are buying rounds as fast as they come on the shelf, and they're competing with their fellow Americans.

I will be glad to yield to my friend.

In reclaiming my time, I understand the gentleman's argument. I think it is in the best interest for us to go forward with this study. We are going to keep a close eye, which is why we've got this issue in this bill, but I am not prepared at this time to restrict contracting, so I have to oppose the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

These three amendments en bloc that we've got here, I want to address them as they were raised.

I support the first amendment with the reservations that I don't understand some of the language in section B, but I'm not here today to act in the judicial interpretation of what is already in law. I have some questions about the ``civilly charged,'' but I'm not going to go into that, so I will accept that amendment.

On the second amendment, which concerns the three sections of the Constitution, I certainly will accept that. In fact, I would not like for anything within this bill to be in contravention of any section of the United States Constitution, so I certainly have no problem with that.

Thirdly, the Department has no intention of having armed drones, and we will certainly accept the third amendment. I am willing to accept all three.

I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price).

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Chairman Mica makes very good points. FLETC and DHS should review their training regimen and determine where simulation equipment makes sense. I appreciate the gentleman bringing this opportunity to my attention and look forward to working with him.

I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

I oppose this amendment because it would make it impossible for CBP to carry out its mandated mission to inspect and clear agricultural products that enter the United States from a foreign country.

A mixture of fees and discretionary funds pay for CBP officers that inspect and clear foreign ag products. When fees run out, discretionary funds pay for the officers' work.

If we do not provide these funds, as the amendment proposes, agricultural imports to the United States would effectively halt and halt trade.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment offered by the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Cassidy). I am pleased to say that my colleagues, Mr. Cassidy and Mr. Richmond, and I have worked to address this important issue in an ongoing, bipartisan way.

The National Flood Insurance Program was created in 1968 after record flooding led the private sector to abandon the flood insurance market and stop writing flood insurance policies. The program is a key component of the

Federal Government's efforts to minimize the damage and financial impact of floods. It is the only source of insurance against flood damage for most residents and provides much-needed coverage for 5.5 million homeowners and their families.

This is why I worked across the aisle with my colleague, Representative Judy Biggert, to reauthorize this program. Before this reauthorization, the flood insurance program was plagued by repeated lapses in authority, placing many local communities at risk. During those lapses, FEMA was not able to write new policies, renew expiring policies, or increase coverage limits, causing great uncertainty for millions of homeowners who depend on the program's existence.

The Biggert-Waters bill was instrumental in stabilizing the flood insurance program. It provided a 5-year reauthorization and made critical improvements to the program. The reforms in Biggert-Waters gave communities more input into flood maps and strengthened the financial position of the flood insurance program.

In drafting this bill with then-Chairwoman Judy Biggert, I sought to strike the right balance between protecting homeowners and strengthening the flood insurance program. This law was intended to reauthorize the flood insurance program in a sustainable way. The intent was not to impose punitive or unaffordable rate hikes that could make it difficult for some to remain in their homes. You heard the testimony from Mr. Richmond about the incredible increases in the premium costs. This is why I am extremely concerned about reports that homeowners in certain areas are facing high and unsustainable flood insurance rates.

I have committed to work with FEMA and with my colleagues here in Congress to address this unintended consequence of this otherwise helpful legislation, so I am supporting the gentleman's amendment today. This would prohibit FEMA from using funds made available in this act to implement one provision from Biggert-Waters that has raised an unintended consequence and requires further study before being implemented.

While the gentleman's amendment is a positive first step in addressing this issue, more needs to be done.

Last month, my friend from Louisiana, Mr. Richmond, and I introduced H.R. 2199, the Flood Insurance Implementation Reform Act of 2013, a bill on which Mr. Cassidy is an original cosponsor, that would take additional steps to provide meaningful relief and address the issue of affordability. The bill would delay implementation of changes to grandfathered rates, the subject of Mr. Cassidy's amendment, for 3 years instead of 1 year. It would also delay implementation of the rate changes that FEMA is currently rolling out.

I look forward to continuing to work with my friends on both sides of the aisle to ensure that the Biggert-Waters Act is implemented in a balanced way to ensure the flood insurance program's stability and affordability. FEMA's current implementation schedule would upset that delicate balance and unintentionally impact families and local communities.

For these reasons, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support H.R. 2199 and to also vote ``aye'' on this amendment.

Let me just say to those who would represent that we all voted for it: so since we voted for it and we worked together, we worked across the aisle, Democrats and Republicans working together, that somehow we can't make amends or changes that are desperately needed, working together. I think it is extremely important when you have Mr. Cassidy over there and you have Waters over here, one of the original authors of the bill, who are talking about something has happened, unintended consequences that have taken place that will cause homeowners to lose their homes.

Now, it's easy if this does not happen in your communities or in your districts. But, ladies and gentlemen, I want you to know that this is an interdependent business that we're in, and to the degree we recognize other people's problems and we're willing to stand up and give support, particularly when it talks about homeownership, when it talks about that which is so important to all of us, that we should work together, and I would urge an ``aye'' vote.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Thank you very much.

I would like to thank Mr. Grimm for his eloquent description of precisely what can happen and what is happening, and his plea to all of us to ensure that we don't place people in the position of losing their homes because they cannot afford these extraordinary increases in premiums.

I met with residents from Plaquemines Parish who came to the Congress of the United States. All the elected officials and community leaders came together, and they came here to make a plea to us to understand that, with this increase in premiums, they certainly can't afford it, and they can't afford to sell it because nobody is going to buy it.

So Mr. Grimm talked about victimization and the fact that we would be victimizing people who are victims of natural disasters twice, and that's precisely what it's all about. And I think that we are more caring than that.

I think that we understand that there's still a lot of things to be worked out. The flood maps have not been completed. The pricing has not been really dealt with, and so I think we need time. We need time in order to answer these questions, to deal with the complexities of what we're trying to do.

I think we can stabilize flood insurance. I think that is possible. But I, as one of the authors of this bill, I'm also making a plea to say that we did everything that we could to try and have a bill that's sustainable, that's viable, that makes good sense.

But as we review what is going on and the risk and the harm that people are now confronted with, we're saying, let's take a step backwards for a short period of time and let's give these victims, and other victims in other areas of this country, an opportunity to at least hold on to their homes and not have them literally taken away from them because we didn't realize these unintended consequences.

I yield back the balance of my time.

The gentleman from Georgia talked about there are no unintended consequences, and he attempted to speak for me, one of the authors of the bill. I just think that he does not understand that we put in a lot of work on this bill. We worked in a bipartisan way. And if one of the authors of the bill tells you there are unintended consequences, then I think the gentleman from Georgia cannot dispute that.

Let me just say that I talked with FEMA about mapping, and I talked with FEMA about these decertified levees. They admitted that they had decertified some and they're going to recertify them because they didn't quite know what they were doing.

They also told me that the maps certainly need a lot of work, that they are not complete. What I'm saying is this: all of those homeowners who can't sleep at night, who can't plan their futures, don't know whether or not they're going to be able to send their children to college, all of those homeowners who are in limbo, who don't understand whether or not they're going to be able--certainly they're not going to be able to pay increased premiums. They won't be able to sell the house. Why would we be a party to causing that kind of consternation to fellow human beings? I don't think we want to do that.

We have the power here today to support Mr. Cassidy's bill and to buy some time and tell FEMA to get it right, to work on it, because these are unintended consequences.

So I just wanted the gentleman from Georgia to know that I certainly appreciate your concern. But you certainly don't understand the work that was put into it and how I know unintended consequences when I see them because of the way that I worked on the bill, and I know it was not intended to do what it is now doing.

If you had spent some time with the people who traveled to Washington, D.C.--elected officials and community leaders alike--who took up the whole room, making an appeal to us to not put them in a position where they would lose their homes, where communities would be destroyed because FEMA was not ready, not prepared--not equipped maybe--to do what they needed to do to carry out the bill even. And that some of those increases that were being talked about, that were being projected, were increases that were almost made up; they were not actuarially sound.

So I would ask you to please vote for this bill. Change your mind. Give some leadership and ask your colleagues to vote for the bill.