Floor Statements

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, most of us will vote for this bill, but it's not going to fix the damage to our country of a shutdown, nor can it mask what's going on here tonight: another chapter of Republican hostage-taking, threatening to shut down the government, or to refuse to pay the country's bills, if they don't get their way politically.

It's been pretty confusing tonight with all this talk about who's willing to negotiate. Republicans know very well that it is they who have refused to go to conference with the Senate on the budget. They also know that it's their leaders who cut off discussions of a comprehensive budget deal with the President back in December.

What they're doing tonight is the opposite of negotiate--take-it-or- leave-it politics, threatening government collapse and economic ruin in pursuit of a political agenda they could not advance by legitimate means.

We need to get back to the basics: keep the government open, pay the country's bills, and negotiate a real and comprehensive budget plan.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this poorly conceived, politically charged, and economically disastrous Continuing Resolution before us.

With a few hours left for legislative work before the end of the fiscal year, not one of the twelve funding bills required to keep the government open has been enacted into law. In fact, a number of bills have never even been brought before the Appropriations Committee for debate. Even the initial short-term continuing resolution had to be pulled from the floor because of Republican infighting.

My colleagues, the appropriations process--that hallmark of Congress's constitutional authority and wellspring of our power to conduct oversight and set national priorities--is on life support and in danger of total collapse.

Unfortunately, this bill is yet another example of the complete abdication of our Committee's constitutional responsibility, as we have allowed fringe members of this body to craft a bill that stands no chance of becoming law.

Let me repeat that in case there is any confusion--the bill before us now has absolutely no chance of being enacted--zero.

Therefore, the only reasonable conclusion to draw is that the Republican majority is intent on once again taking us to the brink of shutdown--this time because of the zealot-like opposition in their ranks to improving health care access for millions of Americans.

A government shutdown--which this bill invites--will hamper our economic recovery, deny benefits to millions of Americans, and once again compromise this institution and its core functions.

I urge my colleagues to reject this ideologically-driven CR.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert into the Record the story of Nathan, a veteran from Rapid City, South Dakota, a face of hunger in America.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule and the underlying bill.

You may have noticed Fox News is trying to help the Republicans push this mean-spirited legislation by focusing on a California surfer who abuses the SNAP system. Well, it's time for a reality check. This isn't about surfer dudes.

I'll tell you one group it is about: our Nation's veterans, 50,000 of them to be exact. Let me clarify. These veterans, with an average income of $2,500, would lose benefits immediately. As the bill's other provisions kick in, as many as 170,000 veterans could lose their SNAP assistance.

In Cumberland County, North Carolina, home of Fort Bragg and of thousands of veterans, our unemployment rate is nearly 11 percent. This bill requires States to terminate the already minimal food aid available to able-bodied but unemployed individuals living in such high-unemployment areas. By the way, Republicans would also subject these veterans to the added indignity of a drug test.

I urge a ``no'' vote on this rule and the underlying bill. It dishonors our poorest veterans, and it disparages those the Gospel of Matthew calls ``the least of these.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize AmeriCorps on its 20th anniversary.

As a co-Chair of the National Service Caucus, I am proud to recognize the hard work and dedication of the men and women who have served our nation through AmeriCorps.

Since its inception in 1994, more than 820,000 Americans have taken the AmeriCorps pledge, serving over one billion hours with more than 15,000 nonprofits, public agencies and faith-based organizations across America. In my home State of North Carolina, 10,000 people will participate in one of hundreds of AmeriCorps programs this year alone.

Their common goal is to improve the lives of the American people, and they have done so immeasurably. Every day, these dedicated men and women work with community-based organizations to deliver services, address local needs, and deliver aid where it is needed most, and in innovative ways. They support and improve low-performing schools, build and renovate homes for low-income families, fight

poverty, expand access to health services, rebuild communities after disasters, and help veterans transition back to civilian life.

Building on the service of individual AmeriCorps members, the AmeriCorps national program provides benefits far beyond the sum of its parts and multiplies a modest federal investment many times over.

First, AmeriCorps members help tens of thousands of faith-based and community groups expand services, enhance their capacity, raise funds, develop new partnerships, and create innovative, sustainable programs. In fact, AmeriCorps is the most effective multiplier of volunteers in service, with its members helping to recruit, train, and supervise more than 4 million volunteers in 2012.

Along the way, AmeriCorps helps organizations leverage substantial private investment from businesses, foundations and other sources, thereby stretching our federal dollars and broadening the reach of the AmeriCorps mission.

But our national service programs not only transform the lives of those who receive services; they transform the lives of those who deliver them. Participants learn marketable skills and earn post- service education scholarships, which helps them jumpstart their careers and increase earning potential over the course of their professional careers. And AmeriCorps alums are also more involved in their communities and more likely than their peers to enter into a career of public service.

This September is just the beginning of a year-long celebration of the extraordinary impact AmeriCorps has had in its past twenty years. It is also a time to look ahead and to ensure AmeriCorps is poised for even greater impact in future years.

To all of our remarkable AmeriCorps members and alums, I want to personally thank you for your service and commend your efforts to help our local communities. And once again, I extend my congratulations to AmeriCorps on this twenty year anniversary and my excitement for what is to come.

Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant to the following:

Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the Constitution provides

Congress with the authority to ``make all Laws which shall be

necessary and proper'' to provide for the ``general Welfare''

of Americans. In the Department of Education Organization Act

(P.L. 96-88), Congress declared that ``the establishment of a

Department of Education is in the public interest, will

promote the general welfare of the United States, will help

ensure that education issues receive proper treatment at the

Federal level, and will enable the Federal Government to

coordinate its education activities more effectively.'' The

Department of Education's mission is to ``promote student

achievement and preparation for global competitiveness by

fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise in reluctant opposition to this measure before us today.

I have supported the repeated rounds of sanctions that Congress has already enacted. I have supported them because of the threat of a nuclear-armed Iran and because of the intransigence of the Iranian Government in defiance of the international community.

These sanctions have brought the Iranian economy to its knees, they have yet to produce meaningful concessions by the Iranian Government. I have thus remained open to the possibility of additional sanctions as part of a broader strategy to induce the Iranian Government to change its course.

But the bill before us today could not come at a worse time. In 3 days, Iran will inaugurate a new President, Hassan Rouhani, elected on promises of moderation and openness despite repression and intimidation by the Iranian regime, trying to deny him that election.

Since his election, Dr. Rouhani has made repeated overtures to the international community, signaling his intent to resume the stalled P- 5+1 nuclear talks upon taking office and promising greater transparency and confidence-building measures. He reportedly intends to appoint as his foreign minister a seasoned diplomat who favors closer ties with the West.

Let us be clear: we do not know whether Rouhani truly intends to follow through on these promises. We don't know if he'll be able to overcome the resistance of Iran's hardliners. We do know that history counsels us to be cautious about the prospects for meaningful change in Iran, and Rouhani's actions will surely speak louder than his words.

But to rush through a new round of sanctions before the new President has even taken office could slam the window of opportunity shut before we even have a chance to test whether it is genuine.

A recent letter to the President signed by a group of respected former diplomats and military officials--including Ambassador Tom Pickering and the former commander of CENTCOM, General Joseph Hoar--has warned that further sanctions ``could empower hardliners, in the Iranian Government, who are opposed to nuclear concessions, at the expense of those seeking to shift policy in a more moderate direction.''

Moreover, by removing the President's authority to relax sanctions on countries that are cooperating with

our strategy toward Iran, this bill risks shattering the unprecedented international coalition which we have worked so hard to build, thus making sanctions less effective than they are at this moment.

Some argue that we should not be concerned about the House passing this bill, since it will be some time before the Senate follows with an improved bill, and longer still before the new sanctions take effect. I must say, that is not a very compelling argument for rushing this bill to the floor right now. Why not act when we can assess the diplomatic prospects more accurately?

Mr. Speaker, I will take a back seat to no one when it comes to my concern about the threat posed by a nuclear Iran to our ally Israel, to the broader Middle East, and to the United States.

I will yield to no one in my concerns about these matters. I believe we must redouble our efforts to secure an enforceable agreement that ensures Iran does not acquire a nuclear weapon.

But sanctions alone are not a strategy. In order to be effective, they must be integrated into a broader strategy that brings all other elements of American power to bear on the challenge. The administration is working hard to advance such a strategy, with unprecedented cooperation from our international partners.

If the strategy fails to induce the new Iranian Government to change its course, then new sanctions may, indeed, be warranted. But to pass them now only undercuts our Nation's strategic objectives.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this ill-timed bill.

Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for yielding.

I want to commend both the chairman and the ranking member for their hard work on this bill. But no amount of hard work could redeem this bill, and I am rising in strong opposition. We call it the THUD bill. Well, the bill makes about the same sound as it spells--thud.

The majority's bill says of our transportation and infrastructure commitments, We don't care if the wheels fall off. It says of our housing and development commitments, We don't care if the roof caves in. Thud.

While I appreciate the hard work of the members of this subcommittee and of the dedicated staff on both sides of the aisle, the funding levels included in this bill are just unacceptable. They're impossible. The 302(b) allocation received by this subcommittee is 15 percent lower than it was last year. And that was already low. It's 19 percent below the Budget Control Act. It's nearly $10 billion below the level that the Senate is considering in the same bill.

This funding level reflects the reckless discretionary spending caps adopted by the House majority in the Ryan budget resolution, which not only locked in sequestration; it doubled down on sequestration in order to shelter defense and homeland security bills from some of the cuts. This made allocations for our domestic investments even worse--far, far beyond the usual zone of political disagreement. The Transportation and Housing bill we're considering today is a prime example of this impossible tradeoff.

On the transportation side, the bill makes deep cuts to the capital programs of the Federal Aviation Administration, Amtrak, and the Federal Transit Administration's New Starts program. It zeroes out funding for the TIGER program, which has been enormously successful at advancing critical

surface transportation projects in communities across the country, and yet has had to leave thousands of meritorious proposals unfunded. Once again, the bill includes no funding for the development of high speed rail.

Funding for our housing needs is even worse. The bill reduces funding for the Community Development Block Grant program, a program that over the years has been known for its bipartisan support, to $1.6 billion. That's the lowest level since this program was created in 1975. The HOME program is funded at $700 million, the lowest level since that program began in 1992. And the bill rescinds funding for the Choice Neighborhoods program, the successor program of Hope VI. That means the bill lacks funding for any comprehensive revitalization program whatsoever.

During the Appropriations Committee markup of this bill, Democrats offered a series of amendments to restore these damaging cuts and produce a bill that more adequately meets our Nation's critical housing and infrastructure needs. All of those amendments were rejected on party-line votes.

Mr. Chairman, perhaps the most tragic and disappointing fact about this bill is that the cuts it imposes could be avoided if the Republican leadership would only appoint budget conferees to go negotiate, with their Senate counterparts, a long-term deficit reduction deal that would lift sequestration and preserve vital investments in our future.

Alternatively, Republican leaders could reconsider their refusal to talk with the President. That offer from December still stands. They should work with him to address the real drivers of the deficit--tax expenditures and entitlements--thus, lifting sequestration, along with the drag it represents on our economy and the mockery it makes of the appropriations process.

The bill before us is exhibit A of this travesty. I urge my colleagues to raise their voices and their votes against it.

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

Mr. Chairman, the report for this year's Transportation, Housing and Urban Development bill, the ``THUD'' bill, as I noted earlier, states:

The Nation is in desperate need for infrastructure and

investment.

I am glad we can agree on that. We are indeed in desperate need, yet the bill before us hardly reflects that. It chooses to prioritize spending cuts over putting Americans back to work. It is part of a budget process that places antitax ideology above all and refuses to address the main drivers of the deficit. Instead, it simply doubles down on sequestration, making sequestration even worse with respect to the domestic bills so as to give some measure of protection to defense. It is an atrocious process, and this bill is Exhibit A for this travesty.

We all know America's surface transportation network is essential for moving goods and services, as well as people, in an efficient manner. Unfortunately, that transportation system is becoming increasingly outdated and ineffective. The American Society of Civil Engineers recently gave America's infrastructure a cumulative grade of ``D.''

Congestion, aging trains and roads, and thousands of structurally deficient bridges are imposing real costs on the American people and on the American economy. It is estimated that Americans spend 4.2 billion hours a year stuck in traffic. I can testify to sharing that experience last Sunday. This costs the economy $78.2 billion annually. The poor condition of our roads costs motorists another $67 billion a year in repairs and operating expenses.

The civil engineers stated that ``current spending amounts to only about half of the needed investment.'' Instead, similar to the proposed Ryan budget, this Republican fiscal year 2014 THUD bill would underfund programs that provide critical investments in transportation alternatives and smart growth, providing about $2 billion in total for transit programs, which is about a 17 percent cut from last year.

The bill would completely eliminate funding for the overwhelmingly popular and successful TIGER grant program, which invests in multimodal projects, including roads and bridges, transit, high-speed and intercity passenger rail, freight rail, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and ports--these things that promise to achieve critical national objectives and make our communities more livable and sustainable. On top of that, the bill would even rescind funding for the fiscal year 2013 TIGER grant process that is already under way.

The bill also decreases funding for the Federal Transit Administration's New Starts and Small Starts program, which is the primary source of Federal support for major transit capital projects that are locally planned, implemented, and operated. They are critical for leveraging local investment to implement transit alternatives.

And then for yet another year, the bill provides zero dollars for development of high-speed rail corridor development. I speak as a representative of a State where high-speed rail development between Raleigh and Charlotte is well under way and holds great promise. Yet this bill denies further resources, denies that kind of support for other parts of the country. Our Nation has a major competitiveness gap in this area. These investments make sense. Sometimes you have to spend some money to make some money, and high-speed rail investments have a synergistic impact. They upgrade our rail infrastructure, they improve the mobility of goods and people, and they create jobs.

Finally, Amtrak. This bill is pathetic with respect to Amtrak--only $950 million total. Of this, only $600 million goes to the capital account. That is a 37 percent reduction from last year and more than $1 billion less than the administration's request for capital.

You can figure out how this is going to work. You subtract from that amount Amtrak's required mandatory debt service, that is $200 million; safety-critical work and inspections and maintenance mandated by Federal law, that is another $200 million; and new equipment expected to be delivered this year that will add capacity and improve returns on long-distance trains, that is $100 million. So you see where that money is going. It leaves almost nothing for capital investment in the national system, including improving accessibility for passengers with disabilities.

When you are cutting things this closely, it means the work you are going to do is going to be done less efficiently. Amtrak will have to fix problems only as they occur. It will defer major work. That is bad policy. It is bad economics. If Amtrak deteriorates, service will suffer, revenue will suffer, Amtrak's costs will go up, and that will eventually be reflected in higher appropriations needs in the future.

Mr. Chairman, transportation investments help improve the mobility of millions of Americans and provide alternatives to congested roadways. They foster the development of more livable communities and are proven job-creators. It is absolutely penny wise and pound foolish to shortchange these investments. I urge defeat of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Mrs. Allie Muse Peebles on being selected to receive the Humanitarian of the Year Award by the Raleigh-Apex chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, NAACP.

Mrs. Peebles has dedicated over twenty years of service to the Raleigh-Apex NAACP. As Life Membership Chairperson, she has encouraged more than half of the branch to become Life Members and secured needed funds for the branch's annual scholarship and other endeavors.

I first got to know Mrs. Peebles as I prepared to run for Congress some 28 years ago. I quickly learned how respected she was in Raleigh and Wake County, based on her commitment to community betterment and her ability to communicate and work with people of varying views and backgrounds. After retiring as an English teacher, she continued writing for the Carolinian, a biweekly African-American publication based in Raleigh, and she remains an active member of the Raleigh Alumna Chapter of Delta Sigma Theta Sorority, Inc., the Voter Education Coalition, the Sertoma Club, the National Council of Negro Women, and the Raleigh Alumni Chapter of Hampton University.

I commend her remarkable service both to the community and the Raleigh-Apex NAACP. Mrs. Allie Muse Peebles is very deserving of the Humanitarian of the Year Award, and it is with great pleasure and pride that I congratulate her on receiving this honor.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the faculty, staff and students of A.L. Stanback Middle School in Hillsborough, North Carolina, on being designated one of 115 ``Schools to Watch'' by the National Forum to Accelerate Middle-Grades Reform. The ``School to Watch'' designation signifies that A. L. Stanback's administrators and teachers have created one of the most academically excellent, developmentally responsive, and socially equitable middle schools in the nation.

I applaud A.L. Stanback's commitment to engaging students by challenging expectations and employing a variety of teaching methods. Reaching students during their middle school years is critically important, and A.L. Stanback truly takes this to heart, preparing its students not only for their high school education but their lives beyond by teaching critical thinking skills. By providing students with diverse opportunities in a supportive environment, A.L. Stanback is helping today's students become tomorrow's leaders.

The Research Triangle of North Carolina is considered one of the best places in the nation to live, work and raise a family, and the A.L Stanback Middle School community's record of success will only contribute to that reputation. This is well-deserved recognition, and I hope it serves as a shining example of the positive impact that creative, committed teachers can have not only on our young people, but also on how we strive for excellence in education.

Congratulations again to the teachers, administrators, parents, and students that helped A.L. Stanback Middle School achieve this award.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today rise today to congratulate the players, coaches, and staff of the Duke University men's lacrosse team for their victory in the 2013 National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) Division I Men's Lacrosse Tournament.

Duke University has a long tradition of excellence in collegiate sports, including collegiate lacrosse. In April of 1938, the Duke Men's lacrosse team played its first game, defeating its arch-rivals at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill by a score of two to one. Since then, the team has reached 13 national championship games, winning an NCAA Championship in 2010 and now in 2013.

This year's Blue Devils team won nine out of ten games to close out the season, including a series of hard-fought, close victories in the NCAA tournament. This historic run included victories over Loyola 12-11 in double overtime, Notre Dame 12-11, and Cornell 16-14. To win the championship, the Blue Devils defeated a tough Syracuse team by a 16-10 margin, coming all the way back from a 5-0 deficit in the second quarter. Duke's Brendan Fowler won 20 out of 28 face-offs, while Jordan Wolf led the team with four goals, followed by Josh Offit and Josh Dionne with three each. I know other players made equally important contributions on the field, in practice, and in the classroom throughout the year, and it is in that spirit that I include below the full roster of this year's team, together with their hometowns and secondary schools, so that all will be recognized in the Congressional Record.

Special congratulations are also in order for Duke University's Coach, John Danowski, who has now led the team to two NCAA Championships. In his seven years as head coach, Coach Danowski has compiled an impressive 95-24 record, capturing five ACC regular season titles and four ACC tournament titles in addition to his two national championships. Coach Danowski has also mentored 37 All-Americans, 19 All-ACC selections, two Tewaaraton Trophy winners, two USILA Attackman of the Year award recipients, and 10 USILA Scholar All-America picks.

On behalf of my colleagues, I extend the House's congratulations to the Duke Blue Devils for their incredible season, and I look forward to welcoming them to Washington, D.C. and to the White House later this year.

Duke Blue Devils Roster 2012-13 Season

Head Coach: John Danowski

Assistant Coaches: Ron Caputo, Matt Danowski

Volunteer Assistant Coach: Joe Cinosky

#1--Kyle Turri, West Islip, N.Y. (West Islip)

#2--David Lawson, Westford, Mass. (Middlesex)

#3--Brendan Fowler, Wantagh, N.Y. (Chaminade)

#4--Dan Wigrizer, Villanova, Pa. (Haverford)

#5--Tanner Scott, Conestoga, Pa. (Conestoga)

#6--Will Haus, Palmyra, Pa. (Palmyra Area)

#7--Jake Tripucka, Boonton Township, N.J. (Mountain Lakes)

#8--Josh Dionne, Merrimack, N.H. (Avon Old Farms)

#9--Case Matheis, Darien, Conn. (Darien)

#10--Deemer Class, Baltimore, Md. (Loyola Blakefield)

#11--Eddie Loftus, Syosset, N.Y. (Syosset)

#12--Seamus Connelly, Duxbury, Mass. (Duxbury)

#13--Chris Hipps, Dallas, Texas (Highland Park)

#14--John Shaffer, Summit, N.J. (Delbarton)

#15--Myles Jones, Huntington, N.Y. (Walt Whitman)

#16--Kyle Keenan, Smithtown, N.Y. (Smithtown West)

#17--Dan DiMaria, Dix Hills, N.Y. (Harvard)

#18--Tommy Patterson, Chatham, N.J. (Delbarton)

#19--Christian Walsh, Baltimore, Md. (Deerfield Academy)

#20--Charlie Payton, Greenwich, Conn. (Lawrenceville

School)

#21--Brian Dailey, Conestoga, Pa. (Conestoga)

#23--Dax Cohan, San Francisco, Calif. (St. Ignatius Prep)

#24--Henry Meyer, Newton, Mass. (Belmont Hill)

#25--Josh Offit, Bethesda, Md. (Landon School)

#26--Joe Kruy, Sudbury, Mass. (Phillips Academy Andover)

#27--Justin George, Baltimore, Md. (Gilman)

#28--Jimmy O'Neill, Huntington, N.Y. (Chaminade)

#29--Morgan Kirby, Morristown, N.J. (Lawrenceville)

#30--Chad Cohan, San Francisco, Calif. (Saint Ignatius

College Prep)

#31--Jordan Wolf, Wynnewood, Pa. (Lower Merion)

#32--Greg DeLuca, Boonton Township, N.J. (Mountain Lakes)

#33--Jamie Ikeda, Berwyn, Pa. (Conestoga)

#34--Ben Krebs, Pleasanton, Calif. (Foothill)

#35--Jack Rowe, Vienna, Va. (James Madison)

#36--Ben Scharf, New York, N.Y. (Phillips Academy Andover)

#37--Casey Carroll, Baldwin, N.Y. (Baldwin)

#38--Chris Coady, Winchester, Mass. (Buckingham Browne &

Nichols)

#39--Luke Aaron, Great Falls, Va. (Deerfield Academy)

#41--Greg Rhodes, East Northporth, N.Y. (Chaminade)

#42--Matt Kunkel, South Setauket, N.Y. (Ward Melville)

#43--Will Hendrickson, New York, N.Y. (Riverdale)

#44--Spencer Peterson, Encinitas, Calif. (La Costa Canyon)

#50--Reid Maxmin, Katonah, N.Y. (John Jay)

#55--Bill Conners, West Chester, Pa. (Malvern Prep)

#77--Henry Lobb, Narberth, Pa. (Malvern Prep)

#91--Luke Duprey, Concord, N.H. (Phillips Andover)

#97--Rowland Pettit, Fort Worth, Texas (Trinity Valley

School)

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Fuller Gifted and Talented Magnet Elementary School of Raleigh, North Carolina, on its 50th anniversary and for its strong tradition of excellence.

Fuller Magnet Elementary first opened in 1962 with 200 African- American students. Today, 50 years later, Fuller serves 600 students from many different backgrounds and cultures around the world.

Since its founding, Fuller has embraced the philosophy that each child should be challenged at his or her own intellectual level and be provided with opportunities for success each day. Fuller integrates two magnet programs into its instruction, offering the Gifted and Talented Program along with the Academically Gifted Basics program. Fuller also benefits from strong community ties, including a partnership with North Carolina State University in both academic and leadership initiatives.

I commend Fuller on its strong academic and instructional program. The school has set high expectations for students, parents, and teachers alike, and it has also looked at the whole of the student's education, teaching social responsibility and character development in addition to academics. Parental support, talented and committed teachers, and a positive school climate are the foundation of a successful educational community, and Fuller Elementary is abundant in all three. Fuller has been a valuable asset to the Raleigh community these past fifty years, investing in young people and equipping them with the skills and education they need to become the leaders of the future.

The Triangle is considered as one of the best places in the nation to live, work and raise a family, and Fuller Gifted and Talented Magnet Elementary School is one of the many excellent schools that contributes to that reputation. I hope that its 50th anniversary celebration is a time of reflection on the history of the school and of rededication to excellence and community betterment.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the players, coaches, and staff of the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill women's lacrosse team for their victory in the 2013 National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) Division I Women's Lacrosse Tournament.

UNC-Chapel Hill first started competing in Division I women's lacrosse in 1996, and at the time the coaches had to recruit athletes from the women's soccer team. In just 17 seasons since, the Tar Heels have made the NCAA tournament 14 times, reaching the semifinals seven times--including three of the last four years. In light of this meteoric rise, it was only a matter of time before the team claimed its first national title.

This year, the Tar Heels entered the NCAA tournament after a remarkable 15-3 season. They upset the reigning national champion, Northwestern, in the semifinals, marking the first time in seven years that the Wildcats did not win the NCAA tournament. In the finals, the Tar Heels defeated Atlantic Coast Conference (ACC) rival Maryland in triple overtime, relying on veteran leadership from NCAA Tournament Most Outstanding Player Kara Cannizzaro and junior veteran Abbey Friend as well two stand-out freshmen: Goalkeeper Megan Ward, who blocked a last-minute shot by Maryland, and midfielder Sammy Jo Tracy, who scored the winning goal in sudden-death overtime. In order to recognize the contributions of all of the members of this remarkable team, I have included the full roster and coaching staff below for inclusion in the Congressional Record, together with their hometowns and secondary schools.

I also commend Coach Jenny Levy on this triumph. Coach Levy was hired in 1994 to build a varsity program and has since developed an outstanding 224-92 record in 17 seasons as Head Coach, including a 63- 18 mark over the last four seasons. A former member of the U.S. Women's Lacrosse National Team, Coach Levy is now a three-time ACC Coach of the Year, winning five league regular-season titles and the 2002 ACC Tournament title. She ranks sixth in Division I women's lacrosse history with 242 career victories--a number that I suspect will only continue to climb in future years.

On behalf of my colleagues, I extend the House's congratulations to the UNC-Chapel Hill Tar Heels for their championship season, and I look forward to welcoming them to Washington, D.C. and to the White House later this year.

UNC Tar Heels Women's Roster 2012-13 Season

Head Coach: Jenny Levy

Assistant Coaches: Phil Barnes, Katrina Dowd

#1 Frysinger, Mallory, Corning, N.Y. (Corning East)

#2 Hanson, Paige, Baltimore, Md. (Bryn Mawr School)

#3 Zeigler, Maddie, -Alexandria, Va. (Bishop Ireton) -

#4 Patterson, Paige, -Alexandria, Va. (St. Stephens and St.

Agnes School)

#5 Scott, Lindsay, --Yorktown Heights, N.Y. (Yorktown)

#6 Skinner, Zoe, --Baltimore, Md. (Towson)

#7 McGee, Sam, --Baltimore, Md. (Bryn Mawr School)

#8 Andress, Alyssa, -Doylestown, PA (Archbishop Wood)

#9 Corzel, Margaret, -Berwyn, Pa. (Merion Mercy Academy)

#11 Griffin, Jessica, -Sudbury, Mass. (Lincon-Sudbury

Regional)

#12 Davis, Carly, --Skaneateles, NY (Skaneateles)

#13 Tracy, Sammy Jo, -Bedford, N.Y. (Fox Lane)

#14 Ballard, Cassie, -Millersville, Md. (Severna Park)

#15 Cannizzaro, Kara, -Cazenovia, N.Y. (Cazenovia Central)

#16 Serpe, Sloane, --North Caldwell, N.J. (West Essex

Regional)

#17 Ward, Megan, --Annapolis, Md. (St. Mary's)

#18 Friend, Abbey, --Canandaigua, N.Y. (Canandaigua

Academy)

#19 Scott, Sarah, --Yorktown Heights, N.Y. (Yorktown)

#20 Farrell, Breada, -Essex Fells, N.J. (West Essex

Regional)

#21 Giles, Eileen, --Concord, Mass. (Middlesex School)

#22 Garrity, Emily, -Rutledge, Pa. (Strath Haven)

#23 George, Taylor, -Arnold, Md. (Broadneck)

#24 Rubin, Morgan, --Baltimore, Md. (Bryn Mawr School)

#25 Markison, Devin, -Princeton, N.J. (Loomis Chaffee)

#26 Devlin, Kelly, --Downingtown, Pa. (Downington East)

#27 Messinger, Aly, Mendham, N.J. (West Mendham)

#28 Waite, Courtney, Bernardsville, N.J. (Bernards)

#29 Schmidt, Paula, Wantagh, N.Y. (Wantagh)

#30 Martino, Kate, Summit, N.J. (Summit)

#32 Sindall, Caileigh, Silver Spring, Md. (Our Lady of Good

Counsel)

#34 Lobb, Stephanie, West Chester, Pa. (West Chester East)

#35 Coppa, Brittney, Hampstead, Md. (North Carroll)

#50 Maksym, Lauren, North Massapequa, N.Y. (Farmingdale)

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.

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

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. Chairman, I'm pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), the distinguished ranking member of the full committee.

Mr. Chairman, I'm now pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Roybal-Allard), an outstanding member of our subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to another outstanding subcommittee member, Mr. Cuellar of Texas.

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to the remaining time?

At this time I have no further requests for time, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, at this time I'd like to yield 3 minutes to our distinguished colleague from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz).

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

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

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

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.

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

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. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

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.

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

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.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise simply to express support of the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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 move to strike the last word.

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.

Will the gentleman yield?

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.

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

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

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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 move to strike the last word.

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.

Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the chairman yielding, and I also want to oppose this amendment.

I want to say to my colleague that I very clearly understand the purpose of this amendment. I think it's a worthy purpose. I think we should pay for these inspections through fee revenue, and the fees need to be adequate to the task.

So the gentleman, as I understand it, is trying to apply some pressure in that situation so that that gets done. That's a worthy purpose. But the risk is simply too great with a blanket prohibition of discretionary funds to be used for inspections. The risk is simply too great that the vital inspections that really can't lapse would not go on.

So I have to reluctantly urge defeat of the amendment, although I agree with and understand its underlying purpose.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant opposition to the amendment as well. I do this because I have great respect for the gentleman from Mississippi and for the good work that he does on the authorizing committee. And I also know that the concerns he has expressed here tonight are legitimate ones. But I believe striking this funding in an appropriations bill is not the preferred way to deal with it.

The Behavior Detection Officers program utilizes specially trained individuals to identify potentially high-risk passengers. This program is specifically designed to detect individuals exhibiting behaviors that indicate they may be a threat to our security. And these behaviors, by the way, are not just randomly chosen. These individuals are trained in psychologically grounded theories as to what kind of behaviors they're looking for and what those behaviors may indicate. It's one element of a layered approach to ensuring the security of our commercial airlines and airports.

Now, I'm aware that the inspector general will soon issue a report that faults TSA for not being able to accurately assess the effectiveness of the program and for not having a finalized strategic plan that identifies the mission, the goals, and the objectives needed to develop performance measures. My understanding, however, is that TSA has agreed with all of these recommendations made by the inspector general to improve the program and plans to address them right away. I also understand that TSA has already drafted a strategic plan for the program.

Ending a program at the Department of Homeland Security just because the inspector general has found that it needs to improve its strategy and its performance measures just doesn't make sense to me. The inspector general certainly has not recommended that the program be ended.

The use of behavior detection is not a new or novel idea. As I say, in fact, it has a validated foundation in psychology. It's been a cornerstone in the Israeli Government's aviation security for years. I commend Administrator Pistole for his understanding of the possibilities and limitations of behavior detection and his attempts to use it effectively. We don't need to end this program; we need to work with TSA and push it to quickly implement the IG's recommendations. So I urge defeat of the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am mainly baffled by this amendment. What on Earth could it mean to contravene 287(g)? Nobody wants to contravene any Federal statute. That's what this amendment says.

If the offering of his amendment is an occasion to gloss over the problems with 287(g) and tout its virtues, I will simply very briefly go back to the debate earlier today when I think this was pretty thoroughly discussed. We have in 287(g) an effort to bring local officials into the business of immigration enforcement.

In some communities that has worked reasonably well. And I must say, in my experience where it has worked reasonably well is where those local authorities focused on the jails and on the prison population and the people who, in fact, had committed serious crimes. And in that sense, it is a parallel effort with the Secure Communities effort.

I know of other instances, though--and I think the Department has verified that there are other instances--where that line between Federal and local authority has gotten very seriously blurred, where there have been instances of profiling and other abuses. In fact, there have been so many abuses that I concluded some time ago that 287(g) was prone to abuse, that there were too many problems with the way that program was set up for it to really be our long-term effort to involve local officials in immigration matters.

I believe it's very important that 287(g) be phased into the Secure Communities effort. The Secure Communities effort is now taking off around the country, and I think can in time supersede this flawed 287(g) concept.

And then, finally, there's also the matter of expense. We discussed earlier today $32,000 per removal for that task force model 287(g) program versus something like $1,500 under secure communities. It's a waste of money.

Therefore, I thought the administration did the right thing in reducing the funding for 287(g) and continuing the phase-in of Secure Communities. I regret that the committee put that money back, but I certainly feel that this current amendment--I don't understand what it means--but I certainly don't want to let the occasion pass without saying to my colleagues, I think this 287(g) program is one that we need to oversee very, very carefully. I remain convinced that it can and should be superseded by a better program.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. Section 526 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 is intended to ensure that the environmental costs from the use of alternative fuels are at least no worse than the fuels in use today. It requires the Federal Government do no more harm when it comes to harmful emissions and climate change than it does today through the use of unconventional fuels.

Section 526 precludes the use of fuels such as coal-to-liquids, as well as unconventional petroleum fuels such as tar sands and oil shale, unless advanced technologies such as carbon sequestration are used to mitigate their greenhouse gas emissions. This is a provision in law that I think affords important environmental protections, important conditions on the adoption of alternative fuels, so I think it would be a mistake for this body to prohibit in any way the enforcement of section 526. Therefore, I oppose the amendment and ask my colleagues to do likewise.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

The Customs and Border Protection pre- clearance program, Madam Chairman, serves a critical national security function by stationing CBP officers abroad at the cost of the host nation. This allows CBP officers to screen and make admissibility decisions on individuals, goods and baggage long before they ever leave a foreign port or could possibly become a threat to the homeland.

I myself have been screened as a part of pre-clearance operations in Canada and Ireland. Apparently, these operations offer not only a convenience for travelers but also an effective and efficient way of carrying out security operations.

In fiscal year 2012 alone, CBP officers and agriculture specialists pre-cleared more than 1.5 million travelers destined to the United States. To outright prohibit the expansion of this program to an area of the world where we know

terrorists are actively traveling and training and seeking to carry out missions of harm against the homeland simply makes no sense whatsoever.

I understand many domestic airlines have expressed concern that this deal would somehow give UAE-based airlines an upper hand, but there are some facts that aren't disputed and we simply should consider.

For one, CBP has stated numerous times that access to Abu Dhabi for American carriers would be a precondition of implementing preclearance there.

Secondly, our bill provides statutory language that prohibits preclearance operations at new locations until three conditions are met: the foreign and national security rationales have been provided to the Congress; a full cost analysis has been provided to the Congress; and an economic impact analysis of any new location on U.S. airline carriers has been conducted and provided to the Congress.

That's good language. That will be good oversight on our part, and I commend the chairman for including that language in our bill.

So given this language, given the known benefits for traveler convenience, for this country's security, the known benefits that this program provides, I simply can't support the gentleman's agreement and I urge its rejection.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

I have no objection to this amendment. In fact, I want to commend the gentleman for offering it.

He's in a tight spot with limited possibilities for offsetting the addition he wants to apply to the situation in his area that he describes. The offset is not ideal, but I'm certainly willing to work with him going forward to get more money directed to these vital emergency needs.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the chairman for yielding, and simply want to also express my support for the amendment, and hope my colleagues will support it.

Madam Chair, I object. I think we want to hear this entire amendment.

Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment

Madam Chairman, I rise with great disappointment, and I think ``sadness'' is the right word. This is an amendment that I very much hoped would not be offered tonight. I know that many in this Chamber hoped it would not be offered tonight.

It's a ``poison pill'' amendment. That's a term I've not used tonight, and it's a term I don't use lightly. I very much hoped this amendment would not be offered, and I hope now that it's been offered that it is not fated to pass.

We've worked for months cooperatively on this Homeland Security appropriations bill. As I said in announcing bipartisan support for this bill at the beginning of today's debate, I commended the chairman heartily and the staff and Members who have worked so hard on this in a bipartisan fashion, trying to come together. We gave a little, we took a little, but we did understand that it was important for this institution and for our Nation's security to come together on a Homeland Security bill that most Members of this Chamber could support. And for that reason, most divisive issues, most extraneous issues that have the capacity to divide us, and, in fact, to destroy that bipartisan support, most of those have been conscientiously avoided. And that has included, until this moment, the offering of amendments on this floor.

The gentleman describes this as an amendment he offered last year. Yes, it's an amendment that he offered last year, and it's an amendment that blew up bipartisan support for this bill last year.

And it's an amendment, by the way, with one very toxic addition from last year--twisting the knife, so to speak--adding the Dream Act children to the bill's provisions. Unbelievable that that would be added in this version of the bill.

Let me just say that what the King amendment would prohibit is what every law enforcement agency in this country must do and does with regularity: making the most effective use of limited resources.

No law enforcement agency in the land can go after every violation. Each law enforcement agency must prioritize the resources and go after the ones who would do us the most harm. Can we imagine that the Department of Homeland Security would not do that? In fact, we would rightly condemn them if they did not do that.

One of the documents that the King amendment would require Immigration and Customs Enforcement to ignore states, and I'm quoting:

Aliens who pose a danger to national security or a risk to

public safety are priority one for removal.

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

Why would we want ICE to spend as much time and energy going after innocent kids in college who were brought to this country by their parents as it spends going after known dangerous criminals?

Why would we want ICE to focus on the detention and the deportation of

the spouses of U.S. citizens serving in our military rather than on people who pose a threat to national security?

Colleagues know there is no answer to these questions that doesn't point in the direction of a resounding rejection of this extreme and destructive amendment. And I beg my colleagues to vote ``no.''

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I also urge acceptance of the amendment.

I thank the chairman for yielding.

I would echo his sentiments on this amendment. I understand that it's well-intentioned and that there may very well be some specific issues that demand attention, but this is largely the same amendment that we debated earlier this evening, which was voted down by a considerable margin, and I believe we should do that again.

I thank my colleague for yielding.

Madam Chairman, I rise today in qualified support of the fiscal year 2014 Military Construction and Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Appropriations bill.

I want to thank Chairman Culberson and Ranking Member Bishop for their leadership and commend my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee for a cordial, timely, and deliberative process.

I have to caution, however, that this bill's relatively generous allocation must be viewed in the context of the overall fiscal year 2014 appropriations process. To get workable allocations for the two appropriations bills we will consider this week, the majority has drastically underfunded other critical appropriations bills, from educational research, to health care, to repairing and maintaining our Nation's crumbling infrastructure.

Earlier today, I joined with many colleagues to vote against the rule providing for consideration of the bill before us, because the resolution requires this body to carry out the fiscal year 2014 appropriations process within the framework of the so-called ``Ryan budget,'' which doubles down on sequestration and will have devastating consequences as our Nation continues its economic recovery.

So the overall appropriations process is in deep trouble. But the bill before us gives the Departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs adequate resources to address several critical challenges faced by our military and veterans community. I'm particularly pleased the bill would fully fund the President's request for military construction projects at Fort Bragg, which is adjacent to my district.

The bill also provides critical funding for the Department of Veterans Affairs to assure that those who have served our country receive the benefits and services that they need and deserve. Our subcommittee paid particular heed to the ongoing disabilities claims backlog issue at the VA. The bill provides nearly $300 million for the continued implementation of electronic management systems and improved processing of both new and existing claims.

I'm also pleased the bill provides robust funding for medical and prosthetic research, suicide prevention and mental health treatment, addressing unacceptable levels of unemployment among veterans, and pressing to end veteran homelessness.

These are priorities, and this is a bill I hope all of our colleagues will be able to support.