Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Grijalva amendment, which would restore proper environmental oversight and protections to construction performed by the Border Patrol.

Even with the Bishop amendment just adopted, the bill waives 16 different environmental laws--for example, the National Environmental Policy Act and wildlife refuge laws--to give DHS operational control over these lands.

Mr. Chairman, that would mean that on our northwest border, the Border Patrol would have largely unfettered access, and environmental protections would be waived, within 10 miles of Seattle. In Arizona, this would encompass all of Tucson. In New York, land in Buffalo and Syracuse could come under control. These are sweeping and unnecessary provisions, and the Department of Homeland Security has said it does not want them.

Having worked on this issue for years as chairman and ranking member of the Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee, I urge my colleagues to adopt the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I will be voting against H.R. 436, not because I believe that the current tax on the device industry is perfect, but because I object to the politicization of the issue and the use of a fundamentally-flawed offset.

As one of their first acts upon taking the majority, House Republicans voted to repeal the Affordable Care Act. Since then, they have voted to dismantle the law piece by piece. Today, they are at it again, and instead of addressing industry concerns in a concise and targeted manner, the majority has crammed together a politically- motivated bill designed to stick it to the President. Don't just take my word for it. Compare the bill we have before us today with the 1099 repeal law. Both deal with problematic revenue raisers included in the health reform law, but the 1099 repeal bill took a targeted approach that represented practical policymaking at its best. This effort is purely political, and the result is a legislative goody bag.

Moreover, while the 1099 bill's offset, a modification of the health insurance subsidy recapture cap, was a difficult pill to swallow, H.R. 436's offset is a poison pill. H.R. 436 would fully lift the cap, leading an estimated 350,000 people to forgo health insurance, according to the bipartisan Joint Committee on Taxation. These are working Americans earning between 133 and 400 percent of the federal poverty level. Why would the Majority ask working and middle income people to bear this burden alone? It is unacceptable.

As the representative from a part of our country known for its research and innovation, I fully understand the importance of the device industry. Medical devices have the potential to save and enrich the lives of Americans, and the companies that produce them are helping our economy recover by investing in new technology and providing high- paying, high-skilled jobs. Those companies also tried to be good actors in the health insurance reform debate. Like other industries, device companies understand that the skyrocketing cost of health care represents one of the greatest threats to families, small business owners, state and federal budgets, and the overall economy. Attempting to reverse this trend is one of the reasons Congress enacted the Affordable Care Act, and AdvaMed, the trade association representing medical device manufacturers, participated in the effort to ensure that the legislation would be deficit-neutral.

The final law brought the original $40 billion levy on device manufacturers down to a $20 billion contribution through a 2.3% excise tax on medical devices. However, as the ten-year budget window has shifted, industry reports that they expect to paying closer to $29 billion. We need to monitor this carefully and find a fair solution that accounts for the additional business the device industry may acquire as a result of the Affordable Care Act, while underscoring the need to keep the industry vibrant and innovative. That is not the discussion we are having today, but I hope it is one House Republicans will be willing to have in the near future, and I stand ready to work with them to do just that.

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

Mr. Chairman, I want to second the chairman's willingness here to accept this amendment. We think it's a good amendment, straightforward, intended to achieve goals about which we all ought to be able to agree. It simply seeks to ensure that Federal funding for the Department of Homeland Security is not used by law enforcement to discriminate or to deprive individuals of their constitutional rights.

I commend the gentleman for offering this amendment and urge its acceptance.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment, which would negate the recent rule that would grant certain immediate relatives of U.S. citizens to apply for a provisional unlawful presence waiver while still in the U.S.

Applications for the unlawful presence waiver can take months or even years to adjudicate. This change in processing, this new rule, would permit U.S. citizens to remain united with their loved ones and ensure that the U.S. citizen is not subjected to the very harm--that is, prolonged separation--that the waiver, if granted, was meant to prevent.

To be clear, a pending or approved provisional waiver will not provide the interim benefits, such as employment authorization, it will not provide lawful status, it will not stop the accrual of unlawful presence, it will not provide protection from removal.

What it would do is eliminate the catch-22 faced by many American families who want to do the right thing by having family members already eligible for the waiver come forward to adjust to legal status. Under the current process, they're penalized if they come forward, penalized by long-term separation from U.S. citizens who are immediate relatives and who depend on them for emotional and financial support.

By allowing the processing of waiver applications in the United States, the proposed rule would improve the efficiency of the process and would save taxpayer money. It's a much needed change. It's a good rule. This change in processing is vitally needed. I see no reason to approve an amendment here tonight that would cancel out this beneficial change, and I urge the amendment's defeat.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. It would prohibit any funding for Immigration and Customs Enforcement's new Public Advocate, a crucial position formed just this past February.

The public advocate works directly with ICE's Executive Assistant Director of Enforcement and Removal Operations to respond to acute and pressing concerns from those going through the immigration process, as well as family members and advocates. For example, the public advocate assists individuals and community members in resolving complaints and concerns with agency policies and operations, particularly those that are related to the use of ICE enforcement involving U.S. citizens. It proposes changes and recommendations to fix community-identified immigration problems and concerns. Without the public advocate, individuals proceeding through the immigration process would not have the same level of access to neutral, unbiased internal oversight, fulfilling the role of ombudsman for the public.

Since its inception on February 7, the public advocate has provided effective resolution of serious complaints, assisted in increasing public engagement at all levels, and acted as a good steward of the public dollar.

By adopting this amendment, we'd be saving ICE less than $200,000 per year, while severely impeding community participation and commonsense enforcement strategies.

I can't imagine why we would want to cancel a position that is so effective in helping citizens, helping those who have a stake in all this, helping them penetrate the bureaucracy, helping them get a resolution of serious complaints, making this agency, in effect, more user friendly, more responsive. Why would we want to damage that or destroy it? But that's exactly what this amendment would do, and I urge its rejection.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

I think it's fair to say, if we are talking about common sense, that the balance of common sense lies against this amendment and with section 526 of the Energy Independence and Security Act.

It's quite a straightforward provision intended simply to ensure that the environmental costs from the use of alternative fuels, whatever they may be, are at least no worse than the fuels in use today. Why shouldn't that burden of proof be placed on the use of alternative fuels? It requires that the Federal Government do no more harm when it comes to global climate change than it is already doing through the use of unconventional fuels.

So this is a commonsense provision. It escapes me as to why we would want to violate this or bypass it in this Homeland Security bill, so I urge the rejection of the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

This is an amendment that it seems very clear would actually hamper DHS operations and make us less safe.

Every component of DHS has to communicate effectively in their daily operations in order to accomplish the mission of the Department. How can ICE enforce our immigration laws without being able to communicate meaningfully with foreign-born persons with limited English proficiency? This is a critical executive order. It was a top priority in the Bush administration.

There was a memorandum issued during the Bush administration to the heads of all Federal agencies that helped facilitate the development of limited English-language proficiency plans.

To elaborate on that further, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Chu), a leading member on the Judiciary Committee.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would prohibit the use of funds to enforce memos, internal ICE memos, on civil immigration enforcement priorities and on prosecutorial discretion.

Now, our friend from Texas rightly talks about the importance of law enforcement, and I would just ask colleagues, is there any law enforcement agency in the land that does not set priorities?

Every law enforcement agency set priorities. They have to make the most effective use of limited resources.

No law enforcement agency can go after every violation indiscriminately. Every law enforcement agency has to prioritize its resources to decide what's most important, what's most protective of the public safety and go after the perpetrators that would do us the most harm. That's about as basic as it gets.

In a world with limited resources, it's dangerous and irresponsible not to prioritize the detention and deportation of people who pose a threat to public safety and national security.

Why would we want ICE to spend as much time and energy going after innocent kids in college who were brought to this country by their parents as it spends going after known, dangerous criminals? Why would we want ICE to focus on the detention and deportation of the spouses of U.S. citizens serving in our military, rather than on people who pose a threat to national security?

The answer is, we would not want them to do such reckless and indiscriminate things. We want them to set priorities, and that's exactly what the Morton memos are about.

I yield to the ranking member of the Immigration Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Zoe Lofgren).

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

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Chairman, this amendment is aimed at the people who protect us in our airports. It disparages their service, devalues their contribution, undermines our efforts to make this a more professional and competent force. Why would we do this? What an unnecessary and damaging amendment.

This amendment would prevent the Transportation Security Administration non-law enforcement personnel from wearing a metal badge or wearing a uniform that resembles the uniform of law enforcement. What an insult to these people. We count on these people to protect us. We put them in our aviation system as critical protection against terrorism and against others who could do us harm. How counterproductive is this to our efforts to develop a competent professional force?

TSA's current title and uniform policies are consistent with the skilled and professional nature of TSA's frontline workforce. These policies are aligned with policies for other security professional positions within the Department of Homeland Security.

So how gratuitous is it to disparage this workforce? These are skilled professionals. We want to make them more so. We want to boost their morale and show appreciation for their efforts. This amendment would be a backward step and, I think, a fairly petty backward step. It would hinder our efforts to develop a risk-based, intelligence-driven organization to secure our airports.

With that, I yield to our colleague from the authorizing committee, the gentlelady from Texas.

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

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

I first want to express some puzzlement though, and perhaps the sponsor of this amendment can clarify this as she closes.

One of the early scribbled versions of this amendment did indeed refer to VIPR teams, and about two-thirds of her statement was about VIPR teams, but my understanding is that the copy of the amendment we now have has had that portion scratched out. So the amendment no longer pertains to VIPR teams.

Could I, just for a moment, get some clarification on that.

And I yield to the gentlewoman from Tennessee.

Reclaiming my time, I asked a very direct question: Does the amendment include or not include VIPR teams?

I yield to the gentlewoman.

I thank the gentlewoman for clarifying that.

There is a lot of confusion about this amendment. The VIPR teams aside, let me just say that to put in this bill a blanket prohibition against TSA officers operating outside of an airport is overly broad and really would be damaging with respect to the things our screeners often are asked to do. Some screeners do assist in passenger screening at transit facilities, for example, and sometimes they are asked to help in screening at national security events. I am told there may be a role at the national conventions or events of that sort where a surge capacity is called for.

Now, some discretion, some good judgment is called for in the use of these personnel, but it escapes me why, in an appropriations bill, we would want to write in a blanket prohibition of this sort when there are demonstrable uses for these personnel outside the airport that are very valuable and contribute to our security.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would prohibit any funds from being used to terminate 287(g) agreements.

The 287(g) program, as many people know, is a well-intentioned effort to allow State and local law enforcement entities to enter into a partnership with Immigration and Customs Enforcement. It is well intentioned, but it has turned out seriously flawed in the practice. Nine years after the 287(g) program was first initiated, there has been a thorough documentation of abuses and of the poor management of the program. There have been three audits by the DHS Inspector General that have raised serious concerns about the program.

As a result, ICE has had to reform the 287(g) program to ensure consistency in immigration enforcement actions across the country. The agencies have also had to terminate some 287(g) task forces, notably in Maricopa County, Arizona, after the Justice Department clearly documented racial profiling and other program abuses. Two other counties were also terminated for cause. There are also questions about cost-effectiveness, in fact, very serious questions about cost- effectiveness. Under the 287(g) task force model, it costs $13,322 to apprehend one alien and $19,941 to remove that alien.

Because of these costs, as well as other concerns I've already mentioned, Assistant Secretary Morton began notifying communities this spring that ICE would no longer be considering any 287(g) task force model request from State and local jurisdictions. It, instead, will devote resources to the expansion of other ICE programs and to the continued deployment of Secure Communities. For comparison purposes, under Secure Communities, it costs ICE $649 to apprehend one alien, and $1,321 to remove the alien. That's 10 times less than the 287(g) task force model.

Many communities across the country are agreeing with the transitioning away from the 287(g) program to Secure Communities. For example, the sheriff of Davidson County, Tennessee, questioned whether the 287(g) program was necessary given its low level of apprehensions and the fact that only 68 communities participated across the country. With Secure Communities being fully implemented nationwide in over 3,000 communities by the spring of 2013, I, frankly, see little need to continue the 287(g) program. Now, if this amendment is adopted, it's going to force ICE to fund this cost-prohibitive and questionable immigration enforcement activity in order to keep on doing what we know isn't working and wasting Federal taxpayer funds.

This is a time of fiscal restraint. This is a time when we should be applying cost-benefit standards, effectiveness standards. So Members need to oppose this amendment and allow the Assistant Secretary to prioritize funding decisions based on the most pressing immigration needs of this country and on reasonable standards of cost- effectiveness.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Chairman, this amendment is merely a restatement of existing law. It doesn't need to be in this bill. Moreover, there's no evidence that any State or local government has violated Federal law in this area.

In 2007, in fact, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, a Republican, as we all know, testified that he wasn't aware of any city that interferes with the Department's ability to enforce the law. It's a largely fabricated problem, I believe, and the amendment itself would simply restate existing law.

I yield to Ms. Lofgren, the ranking member of our Immigration Policy and Enforcement Committee.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I confess to some puzzlement as to the intent of this amendment. Despite the gentleman's explanation, what he's doing here is, in effect, totally restructuring the surface transportation security program. He's limiting to $20 million the funds available for surface transportation security inspectors. That's a potential decrease of $70 million from the carve- out in the bill.

Now, he also, in the current draft of this amendment, excludes from the prohibition, excludes the national explosives canine training program and the VIPR teams, in essence shifting--he's not reducing funding overall. He's shifting a huge amount of funding to these two functions. I just don't understand the rationale for that, particularly when you consider the vital functions of the surface transportation security inspectors, why would we want to virtually phase them out? The mission of these individuals is to assess the risk of terrorist attacks for all nonaviation transportation, to issue potential regulations, to enforce existing rules and protect our transportation systems.

This proposed limitation could hinder rail inspections, baseline assessments, mass transit assessments, and risk mitigation activities. As I read the amendment, all these functions would be drastically compromised, and with them, I think the security of the traveling public. So I'm baffled by the amendment, but I feel constrained to oppose it and urge its defeat.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, our colleague from Colorado is a persistent critic of the Department of Homeland Security, and I think often his criticisms have force--for example, his remarks a few moments ago on the unneeded so-called ``sanctuary cities'' amendment. This amendment, though, I believe is an overreach, is indiscriminate, and I do feel constrained to oppose it. It would reduce funding for every frontline agency within the Department of Homeland Security by 2 percent.

The bill already includes a 1 percent reduction for the budget request, and it reflects the third year in a row that funding for the Department of Homeland Security has decreased. I think this amendment would do damage to our security. If this reduction were adopted, critical programs such as border security, immigration enforcement and transportation security would no longer be shielded from ill-advised cuts throughout the bill.

The reduction would require the Department to lay off crucial staff we've hired over the past 3 years, including more Border Patrol Agents, CBP officers at the ports of entry--and many of those ports of entry are already backed up--ICE investigators along the Southwest border, and Coast Guardsman who work on environmental efforts such as oil spills.

This reduction would also mean the Department would need to abandon critical research and technology procurements, the science and technology program that we're painstakingly building back from unacceptably low levels in the current fiscal year. These research efforts will better protect our aviation and transit systems, and we need to continue cutting-edge research.

We also need to protect our national security so that we can prevent or thwart attempted attacks before they occur. As we saw just last month, terrorists remain committed to attacking the United States, our citizens, and our allies.

Finally, with this amendment, front office and management activities would also be negatively affected. Already, this bill slashes funding by 21 percent below the administration's request.

I know that's an easy target, Mr. Chairman. There's no constituency out there for good management and for necessary administrative expenses. But believe me, cutting those front offices, cutting those administrative functions does affect front line operations at the end of the day.

The Secretary and her staff have to run the day-to-day operations of the Department. They need adequate personnel, adequate staff support. The offices are already operating on fumes. This additional cut would do great damage.

So this is an amendment that I believe, despite the offerer of the amendments good intentions and his conscientious critique of certain departmental operations, I believe the amendment is overly broad, would do damage, and should be rejected.

I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

I thank the ranking member for his comments. I agree with them.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I want to associate myself with the remarks of the chairman.

I confess to some confusion as to the exact intent of the amendment. Like some earlier amendments we were dealing with, it seems to have gone through many drafts. I'm not sure if the idea is to say you can't terminate an agreement or that somehow you can't restrict access to the program. But, in any case, it seems to me the problem with this amendment is a tying of the Administrator's hands when some flexibility and some judgment is called for.

I certainly have no objections to the principle of the Screening Partnership Program. If a private company can provide screening in accordance with TSA standards and a local airport authority wants to contract with them, so be it. In fact, this bill increases funding for the SPP by $15 million over current year levels.

But to say that under no circumstances can the TSA exercise discretion in granting these contracts or continuing them, I think, really goes too far. We need standards. We need qualified professionals to screen passengers. We need for the TSA Administrator to have some flexibility to protect the flying public. So if a private company fails or doesn't meet the standards, then they shouldn't be given this contract, and we have to have the flexibility to make sure that they don't receive the contract.

So I associate myself with the position of the chairman, and urge rejection of the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I would associate myself with the words of the chairman and also oppose this amendment.

The behavior detection program utilizes specially trained individuals to identify potentially high-risk passengers. It's not a new or a novel idea. In fact, it has been a cornerstone of the Israeli Government's aviation security for many years. Administrator Pistole, a man who has spent his entire professional career dedicated to protecting this country, does believe in this program. He is also attempting to refine it and to utilize it to its fullest potential.

Our committee has resisted greatly expanding the program. In fact, we don't fund the administration's request for an additional 75 officers, and we do reduce the funding by $7 million. The program is important. It is part of a layered system of security, so it would, I think, not be wise to eliminate the program altogether. I think it would be unsafe, in fact, so I urge the rejection of the amendment.

I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I have read this amendment carefully, and we dealt with it, as colleagues may remember, on the floor last year.

The gentleman offering the amendment says it does nothing but restate existing law, but, at a minimum, it sends a strong anti-immigrant message.

The gentleman says the amendment prohibits the use of funds by ICE to process the release of illegal immigrants to administer alternative forms of detention to immigrants who have committed crimes which supposedly mandated incarceration. If we're following the existing law, I don't understand the need for this language, the need for this amendment.

I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.

If ICE is not enforcing existing law, then ICE needs to be brought into line. But this amendment, you're saying, does not add to existing law.

Yes.

I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, that's the point. There is no evidence that the gentleman has presented or that I've seen that ICE is, in fact, releasing or holding in alternatives to detention people who, according to the law, should be detained. The law is what it is. This amendment does not add or subtract to the law. It clearly insinuates that things are going on that we have no evidence that are occurring. For that reason alone, it seems redundant on one level, but has a misleading and hostile message on the other. I urge its rejection.

ICE isn't pursuing alternatives to detention in cases where they shouldn't be doing so. I see no evidence for that. In fact, I think alternatives to detention often are useful and certainly more cost effective, and the absconding rate is very low. If we have people who should be detained, then of course we should detain them. But the notion that ICE is not doing that, that ICE is pursuing these other alternatives with people who really shouldn't have access to them, is not accurate. For that reason, I urge rejection of this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, at this time I would like to yield to our colleague from the authorizing committee, the gentlelady from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

I yield back the balance of my time.

Announcement by the Acting Chair

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the bill and yield myself such time as I may utilize.

Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased we're considering the fiscal year 2013 Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill in a timely fashion and under an open rule. Chairman Aderholt has been collaborative and collegial in the drafting of this bill, and I appreciate his willingness to include input from our side all along the way.

I'm generally supportive of the funding levels provided in the bill. The fact remains, however, that our subcommittee was forced to accept a reduced allocation for the Department of Homeland Security when Republicans unilaterally cast aside the spending agreement we reached last August, forcing the Appropriations Committee to absorb $19 billion in reductions below the Budget Control Act levels.

Largely because the majority broke that agreement, DHS is funded at 1 percent below the requested level, continuing a downward funding trend for

this agency over the past few years. The bill does retain the disaster cap adjustment included in the Budget Control Act agreement.

Mr. Chairman, fortunately, despite these circumstances, the bill before us provides adequate funding for DHS front-line employees so that they can continue to conduct critical operations along our borders, to protect our Nation's airports and seaports, to disrupt the latest plots against the United States and our citizens, and to respond to the spate of natural disasters our country has experienced.

I'm also pleased that the bill significantly increases funding for critical grant programs, in marked contrast to the current year's inadequate levels. The bill also rejects the administration's poorly articulated changes to the grant structure, changes that have not been authorized.

Specifically, funding for FEMA's State and local grants is $413 million above the fiscal year 2012 level, and both fire grants and emergency management performance grants are funded at the levels requested by the administration.

Equally important, the bill provides improved funding for research and developments efforts. The bill contains sufficient resources for the Science and Technology Directorate to fund all high-priority research efforts and some new projects as well.

Unfortunately, while the bill appears to fully fund the administration's request for science and technology, in reality it includes $75 million for construction of the National Bio and Agro- defense Facility, NBAF, which the administration did not request, in effect reducing funds for research and development efforts.

Now, I support the eventual construction of this facility, but I must question the inclusion of $75 million in limited resources for a project that the President did not request, that remains under review by two National Academy of Science panels, and that already has unobligated prior-year appropriations that it can draw upon.

The bill also increases funding for critical Coast Guard, as well as Air and Marine, acquisitions, to recapitalize aging assets while also bringing the latest aviation and vessel technologies online to ensure our personnel can operate more effectively.

And, finally, the bill includes a substantial increase for cybersecurity protective efforts to continuously monitor and detect intrusions to our Federal networks from foreign espionage and cyberattacks.

Mr. Chairman, the bill does contain some ill-advised immigration provisions. Unnecessary and wasteful statutory floors are set for a variety of programs, such as an arbitrary minimum of 34,000 detention beds, a required level of spending for the seriously flawed 287(g) program, and an inflexible amount for work-site enforcement. Including these types of spending floors and mandates in bill language limits the Department's flexibility to respond decisively to immigration challenges and is likely to waste taxpayer dollars for no good reason.

I also object to the three abortion general provisions that were added in full committee. Now, we all know, Mr. Chairman, abortion is a politically charged subject. Numerous restrictions in law have already conditioned and qualified reproductive freedom in practice. Among those are prohibitions on the use of Federal funds for abortion procedures, which are specifically applied to Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Department of Homeland Security by the President's Executive Order 13535, issued on March 24, 2010.

Until now, our bill has never touched on the topic of abortion because it's not relevant to the Department of Homeland Security, and it falls far outside the lines of jurisdiction of this subcommittee. So these provisions are redundant. They will accomplish nothing. They make no change whatsoever in current law or procedures.

They seem designed mainly for political effect; but I tell you, political effect cuts both ways. These abortion riders, while unnecessary, are inflammatory. They're divisive. They should not be included in the final bill.

Finally, I also strongly disagree with provisions that withhold the following: 60 percent of all funding provided to the Secretary, Under Secretary, Chief Financial Officer; 10 percent of all funding for salaries and expenses at Customs and Border Protection personnel; about 37 percent for Coast Guard Headquarters Directorate until they submit numerous reports required by statute.

Even more egregiously, these withholdings are coupled with a provision that prevents the Secretary, the Deputy Secretary, the commandant of our Coast Guard, and the vice commandant from using their aircraft until certain key reports are received by the committee. These constraints are excessive. They will prevent Department and Coast Guard leadership from effectively doing their jobs.

I support efforts to hold the Department accountable; and, in fact, we included carefully calibrated and targeted withholdings in this bill when I was chairman. But excessive and unrealistic limitations, frankly, detract from this subcommittee's credibility, and they're likely to be counterproductive.

Mr. Chairman, I will close by thanking the hardworking professional staff which has helped craft this bill and has assisted the subcommittee in a bipartisan manner over the course of the year. I want to thank, as the chairman did, Ben Nicholson, Kathy Kraninger, Jeff Ashford, Kris Mallard, Joe Croce, Miles Taylor, and Cornell Teague on the majority side and, of course, Stephanie Gupta on our side of the aisle and Justin Wein from my office.

Again, I want to reiterate my appreciation to the chairman for his efforts to work with us on so many issues and to sustain our front-line Federal homeland security operations.

With that, Mr. Chairman I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 3 minutes to an outstanding member of our subcommittee, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey).

Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), a leading member of our full Appropriations Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I am privileged to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi, the outstanding ranking member of the authorizing committee, Mr. Thompson.

Mr. Chairman, I yield an additional minute to the gentleman from Mississippi.

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

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

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

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, does the majority have any further requests for time?

Mr. Chairman, I will conclude by again commending the chairman and our whole subcommittee. We have a good active group of members, and virtually all had positive input into this legislation. I appreciate the spirit in which the chairman has made an honest effort to accommodate constructive input from all sources.

There's much to commend about this bill, starting with the support of frontline operations, but also some improvements from the funding situation we're

dealing with this year with respect to State and local FEMA grants, for example, and with respect to science and technology investments. There are funding shortfalls in this bill with respect to the headquarters' needs at St. Elizabeth's, with respect to certain administrative needs of the Department, and others that we could name. But under the constraints of the budget allocation there is a good balance in this bill, I think, and one that has required a great deal of accommodation and a great deal of hard work.

I have already said that I think there are some extraneous elements of this bill that are not so constructive: the immigration provisions, the abortion provisions, and some excessive withholding provisions. I sincerely hope that in the debate to come we will not compound that problem.

We know we're going to be dealing with dozens of amendments. We're going to be dealing with additional proposed riders, ill-advised for the most part. We're going to be dealing with some tempting spending provisions that will cannibalize those front office expenses or the science and technology expenses or other accounts in this bill for the sake of amendments that may sound good but really could upset some of the delicate balances that this bill has struck.

So we're going to have, I hope and believe, a probably lengthy and also constructive process of discussion and amendment under the open rule, and I very much hope that the end result of that process will be a bill that can claim broad support. We're going to have a few hours until that process begins, but I look forward to getting on with this and at the end of the week producing a Homeland Security appropriations bill.

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 to restore funding for the Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties in order to ensure that both the 287(g) program and the Secure Communities program are not illegally profiling individuals.

The bill before us funds the Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties at a level that is $2.2 million below the budget request and $3 million below current year funding. Now, we're in a tight fiscal environment, we all know that, but surely we can meet the needs of our frontline personnel without jeopardizing the proper and robust and careful oversight of the activities provided by the Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Office.

In fact, at the same time this bill is reducing funding for oversight, it's actually increasing funding for the controversial and all-too-often mismanaged 287(g) program. Three different audits by the DHS inspector general have found serious concerns about the 287(g) program, and ICE has had to terminate some 287(g) task forces, notably in Maricopa County, Arizona, after the Justice Department documented clear racial profiling and other programmatic abuses. So we need to make sure this authority is being exercised properly, and that's exactly the task of the Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties.

So I thank the gentlewoman for offering this amendment. It's a good amendment, and I urge colleagues to support it.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I want to second the remarks of our chairman. I think this is an amendment that, while well- intentioned in certain respects, is not one that we can or should accept.

I know it's easy to target management and administrative costs. They sometimes lack concreteness. They lack a consistency. But, as a matter of fact, we depend on these management and administrative functions to run the Department. And at the end of the day, cutting those functions will, indeed, affect frontline operations. We should make no mistake about that.

In my opinion, this bill already cuts administrative functions by imprudent amounts. It already slashes funding for offices at the departmental level, for example, by 21 percent below the administration's request.

So while this amendment may be appealing to some, I believe it's unwise, and I urge colleagues to oppose it.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I want to commend our colleague from New Jersey for offering an amendment that takes explicit account of the need for robust funding for State and local grant programs, including those aimed at rail and transit security.

As I noted as this debate began, we are indebted to Chairman Aderholt and to the majority for increasing the funding for these grants in this fiscal year 2013 bill over the 2012 levels; but as the gentleman from New Jersey has noted, this funding is against a baseline that has been significantly reduced in the previous 2 fiscal years.

I was privileged to serve as the chairman of this subcommittee in the years 2007 2010. We worked very hard in those years to provide robust funding for important grant programs, and we increased the funding for FEMA first responder grants by $1 billion between fiscal '07 and fiscal '10. Unfortunately, these programs are now under threat. Since 2010, funding for FEMA grants has been cut by nearly 50 percent to a total level of $1.3 billion for fiscal 2012. Those cuts are shortsighted and they're dangerous, and I have said so repeatedly.

After all, local governments are the first responders to terrorist attacks, natural disasters, and other major emergencies. Local law enforcement, fire, emergency, medical, as well as county public health and other publicity safety personnel, are responsible for the on-the- ground response and recovery action. Local communities or public entities own, operate, and secure essential aspects of our Nation's infrastructure, of our ports and transit systems, of our water supplies, and of our schools and hospitals. So, plainly put, these grants protect our communities and are vitally important in our ability to detect, deter, and respond to a variety of threats and disasters.

As the gentleman from New Jersey has stressed, our rail and transit systems are an important part of this network, and they are in many cases very much in need of the kind of funding that this bill has provided and should provide. I reluctantly add, though, Mr. Chairman, that there are problems with these offsets, and I will repeat what the chairman has said about some of the cuts that are included in these bills, these important accounts:

The Secretary's office, that may seem an easy thing to cut, but this bill already reduces the Secretary's office by 9 percent. Analysis and Intelligence, this bill already cuts this by 8 percent. Then TSA aviation security has one of the largest cuts in this bill. It's $212 million below the 2012 levels.

There are very few good places to turn, I realize. We're so often in a position of trading off worthwhile objectives, but I do feel bound both to commend the gentleman for calling our attention to these grant programs and the need for robust funding, but also to highlight some of the problems with the offsets in this particular amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise to commend the gentleman from Michigan for his attention to the need for robust grant programs, FEMA grant programs for State and local governments and their various emergency preparedness functions.

As we said earlier with respect to Mr. Holt's amendment, these programs have been underfunded in recent years. We're doing better this year in this bill, but we're building on a depleted base. So I commend him for his attention to this.

At the same time, I feel bound to say that the offset is problematic. The Under Secretary for Management--I know that sounds like an easy target. But with the Grimm-Connolly amendment that we just adopted, by my calculation, that brings the Under Secretary for Management $30 million below the 2012 level. That's 12 percent. It is a cut that, in my opinion, we can ill afford. That's already what we've done with this bill.

Eventually, management and administrative cuts do affect frontline operations. So I feel bound to say that, as we balance the equities here, the need for robust grant programs and for making them more robust wherever we can, but at the same time to preserve essential departmental functions.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise also to oppose this amendment. I do so reluctantly, because I know that the need that Representative Poe and Representative Altmire are addressing is a real one. There are vast expanses of territory, including a lot of territory near the borders, that suffer from a lack of mobile communications.

We do need to work in concert with State and local governments and the private sector to address this need. This is not something, though, that this bill or the Department of Homeland Security can take on. It simply is not feasible. It is not a DHS function.

We need to work on it, but I think this remedy is flawed, and I, once again, say that I know it's an easy target to go after the administrative expenses of the Department, but in this case the Under Secretary for Management is already something like 12 percent below the 2012 level, that is, assuming the passage of the Grimm-Connolly amendment, and I do not think that further cuts can or should be sustained.

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 firefighter grant programs. I applaud Chairman Aderholt for fully funding the budget request for these programs, that is, providing $670 million for the assistance to the Firefighter Grant Program equally divided between SAFER hiring grants and equipment grants.

I also commend the chairman for accepting the amendment our colleagues have just offered. Although, again, the offset is not what one would wish, this is a case, I think, where the consideration, the balance of values clearly leads us to bring this program to the present funding levels, which is what the amendment does.

We have approved in committee these firefighter grants and we've also approved the continuation of the waivers. That was my amendment in committee and I am pleased that we were able to adopt those--the economic hardship waivers that are currently in place.

The law traditionally permits SAFER grants only to be used to hire new firefighters. That provision makes sense when our economy is booming and local governments are in a position to hire new workers. But when the local budgets are continuing to shrink and some fire stations are closing their doors and others are laying off workers, FEMA needs the flexibility to use these grants to keep firefighters from being laid off in the first place. The administration has requested this, and FEMA Administrator Fugate testified to this need earlier this year during our appropriations hearings.

I believe strongly in the need to assist local fire departments and ensuring they have the personnel and equipment necessary to keep our communities safe. When I was chairman of the subcommittee from 2007 2010, we were able to more than double the funding for the SAFER program, reaching a peak of $410 million in fiscal year 2010.

It's regrettable that we're still not able to maintain that level because any cuts to firefighter grants do result in thousands of fewer firefighters on the job. They leave fewer departments able to maintain safe staffing levels and much less to add needed personnel. So we need to maintain this support.

The real challenge in many communities is not the reluctance of local governments to hire new personnel. It's the potential and actual layoffs of personnel, which would mean reduced levels of safety. So it's very important for us to maintain robust grant funding for these programs. It's going to help preserve public safety and security. In this bill we've provided for this. And this amendment adds to that.

So 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 rise in opposition to this amendment, which would eliminate $3 million funding for environmental mitigation in our border security efforts, and add that money to air and marine assets, which is already greatly, greatly increased in this bill.

First a bit of context. Since 2006, this subcommittee has increased funding for border security by over $2 billion annually. We invested well over $1 billion for fencing and other tactical infrastructure alone during that period.

Responding to concerns about possible environmental problems associated with such a massive construction undertaking, much of which has taken place on environmentally sensitive lands, Congress provided very modest amounts to mitigate these potential environmental consequences.

Now, as a government, we have many responsibilities and priorities, and these include both securing our borders and protecting our natural and cultural resources. The sort of interagency agreement that Homeland Security and Interior have entered into for environmental mitigation is what we should be encouraging and supporting, especially because this arrangement is explicit, in that Interior cannot take any action that CBP does not first agree to.

So we've got to keep that commitment to protecting and preserving our environment. We have to maintain that commitment. And I urge colleagues to defeat this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my colleague's amendment, that of the Congresswoman from California, Ms. Sanchez.

I think it is a well-designed amendment both in its positive purpose and in the offsets that she has chosen. She proposes that we increase ICE funding for child exploitation, and that is a worthy cause that we do need to fund more generously than is present in the bill as brought to the floor.

Each year, millions of children fall victim to sexual predators. These young victims are left with permanent psychological and physical and emotional scars. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, ICE, targets and investigates child pornographers, child sex tourists and facilitators, the human smugglers and traffickers of minors, criminal aliens convicted of offenses against minors, and those deported for child exploitation offenses who have returned illegally. ICE is at the forefront of these activities and can make good use of the funding that our colleague proposes, so I commend her for bringing this issue to our attention and for putting this amendment before us.

The offsets are particularly well chosen. As I said as we began the debate on this bill, this bill contains some ill-advised funding floors, some mandatory spending that is rigid and is wasteful: an increased minimum of detention beds, for example, and the required floor funding for the 287(g) program, a program that is very problematic and that really needs to be transitioned, in my view, to the Secure Communities Program, which maintains the Federal and local roles much more distinctly. These are offsets that we can afford and offsets that, in fact, would improve the bill, and only rarely can one say that about offsets in these debates.

So I commend the gentlelady for her amendment, and I urge its adoption.

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's amendment.

It adds $10 million to FEMA, State and local grants. As we have said many times this evening, these are grant programs that have been cut severely in recent years. While this year's bill improves on that, we certainly can use more funding in this area, and the gentleman has figured out a way to do it. He has come up with an offset that actually improves the bill.

The proposed offset is to the troubled 287(g) program, reduces it by $10 million, moving it closer to the administration's request.

Mr. Chairman, three Inspector General audits have found serious flaws with this program and ICE has had to terminate some 287(g) agreements because of racial profiling and other abuses. We have no business funding this program at levels above the request, much less having a mandatory funding level, which is included in this bill.

So the gentleman has come up with an amendment that adds needed grant funding and improves the bill and it's offset. 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 rise in opposition to this amendment. It cuts ICE salaries and expenses by over $500 million and puts all of that spending in the Spending Reduction Account.

There's some ironies in this amendment. It would actually hinder our efforts to move away from the flawed 287(g) program. It would hinder nationwide deployment of the much more conceptually sound Secure Communities effort. It would greatly reduce funding for alternatives to detention, where we very much need to go. It would lay off thousands of ICE personnel. And what do these personnel do? We've hired them to fight the drug trade, to fight human trafficking, to fight violence along the Southwest border.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I, too, rise to oppose this amendment.

Aviation continues to be the main focus for terrorists seeking to do us harm. I would think we all realize that. This amendment would prohibit all of the screening, all of the scanning, all of the protective measures that we have undertaken for our protection. It's indiscriminate, it's excessive, and it should be rejected.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. It increases funding for the Federal Flight Deck Officers program. But the bill already greatly increases this program above the request, 50 percent above the request, returning the program to its 2012 level.

And it's not a harmless offset. On the contrary, aviation management is already cut by $20 million in this bill, and we can ill afford to cut it further. So this is an unnecessary and unwise trade-off, and I urge rejection of the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield to the gentlelady from Texas for a response.

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

Yes, Mr. Chairman, I object. We do not have a copy of the amendment.

I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. This amendment would decimate the funding for our FEMA Homeland Security grants. By that I mean the State and local grants on which our communities depend. I mean the transit and rail grants that we've heard so much about in this evening's debate; I mean the port security grants; I mean the UASI grants--the urban area grants that are risk based and targeted to the areas in this country that are under the greatest risk; and other programs of smaller size. These programs have helped keep our communities safe. After all, our first responders are not at the Federal level. Our first responders are at home. And our States and our communities are on the frontlines of responding and preparing to respond, mitigating, and then dealing with disasters-- disasters of terrorist attacks, natural disasters, and other major emergencies.

This amendment would return to the 2012 funding levels, which were greatly reduced from previous-year funding levels. In fact, the levels in 2012 were at an all-time low and were widely decried by our States and localities. So this year we've begun in this bill to build those funding levels where they need to be, and this amendment would wipe all that out in a single stroke.

The author of this amendment has made a great deal of the pace of the spending on these grant programs. I have to say that the figures cited tonight are misleading in the sense that these are multiyear programs. They're often dealing with large construction projects. All of this money except the money for the current year is obligated. It's not just sitting there. The money is obligated. Of course, after the projects are completed, the full amount will be registered as spent.

And so we need to oversee these programs carefully. We need to make sure that they're being administered in a responsible way. We need to exercise careful oversight. But the notion that we would come in and wipe it out with a single amendment the progress we've made in getting these funds back to a level that will give our communities and States the support they need, I think, is unthinkable.

I hope this body will reject this amendment.

I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Washington.

I would be happy to yield to the gentleman.

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, we are talking here about State and local grant programs whereby the Federal Government shares in emergency preparedness and response. It is virtually without dissent in our communities that this funding is needed.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I hope we've established in the course of this discussion tonight that I and our side of the aisle are strongly in favor of the FEMA grants, and that most certainly includes the port grants. And so I commend our colleague for calling our attention to the importance of these port security grants and the need for more funding. Although in this bill we have begun the way back in terms of restoring funding for the State and local grants and the port grants and the rail and transit grants and the UASI high risk area grants, we're not there yet. And so our colleague has made a constructive suggestion as to how we might augment this funding.

I do feel obligated, though, to make a comment about the proposed offset. Our colleague has made some very cogent points about the NBAF project. I believe that with the funding that's already in the pipeline and the National Academy of Sciences reviews that are underway, that we do not need to include money in this year's bill for

NBAF construction. But this is part of the science and technology account, and we're going to have later this evening an amendment from our colleague from New York that will suggest taking the NBAF- designated funding and restoring it to the science and technology account. And I have to say that that science and technology account is very much in need of that funding.

Science and technology research activities have been drastically and unwisely cut in recent years. They were cut by 60 percent over the past 2 years. There's a $158 million increase in this bill that restores some of these cuts, but that's taking place against a baseline that was simply too low to meet the needs of the different homeland security components and the needs of our Nation.

So in weighing the equities here, as we said earlier, we have one compelling need and we also have an offset that raises some serious issues. We will have an occasion later this evening to talk about the science and technology account and the place of NBAF within that account.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, here we have another amendment dealing with FEMA grants. And once again, we've come to appreciate the need for more robust support for urban area grants, for State and local grants, for transit and port grants, rail grants, the kind of protective efforts that our communities require. We are reminded again that those grants have been cut very drastically in recent years, and in this bill we are only beginning to bring them back to the levels required.

So I want to commend our colleague for this amendment, which proposes $58 million, I believe, in increased funding for these grants. This is money that could be well spent, wisely spent, prudently spent by our States and local communities.

Again, I simply call attention to the problems posed by the offset. Members will have to make their own judgments about this. The money is taken out of the Science and Technology Directorate at the Department of Homeland Security, taken out of the labs accounts, as I understand it, which does include the NBAF item discussed earlier, but isn't limited to NBAF.

I just remind colleagues that science and technology research activities have been cut 60 percent over the last 2 years. And so there's an increase in this bill. We fought our way back in this area, too, in this bill, restoring some of these cuts against the baseline that was way too low. And so these science and technology--this is not free money. This is related just as surely as anything in the bill to this country's security, and its underinvested in at the moment. So we do have to weigh competing values here, and certainly in the balance the science and technology priorities deserve serious consideration.

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 offered by my friend from New York (Mr. Bishop), an amendment that will increase funding for research and development activities within the Science and Technology Directorate by $75 million, and it will dictate that no new appropriated funds will be available in fiscal year 2013 for the National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility, NBAF. I stress, no new funds.

The administration did not request funds for NBAF in 2013, and I simply cannot support inclusion of the $75 million contained in this bill until two National Academy of Sciences reviews are completed on the security of this new facility to prevent the accidental release of foot-and-mouth virus or other harmful pathogens.

Members may recall that the GAO, the National Academy of Sciences, and Congress itself have had longstanding concerns about the decision to relocate the National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility to the mainland unless we have a comprehensive and validated strategy to prevent the release of foot-and-mouth virus and other harmful pathogens into the community.

In 2011, the National Academy of Sciences found that, based on preliminary designs of the facility, there would be a 70 percent risk of a release of foot-and-mouth disease leading to infection outside the laboratory. The economic cost was estimated to be between $9 billion and $50 billion over the next 50 years as the life span of NBAF would be projected.

DHS has redone its site security risk assessment now that the NBAF design is further along, adding additional protective measures suggested by the original National Academy study. As required by statute, the National Academy is reviewing the site security risks again to take into account these new mitigation strategies.

Now, even if we assume that the National Academy gives a positive review to NBAF, and I very much hope such a review will be warranted, the facility has 2 years of previously appropriated funds that remain unobligated. Science and Technology has told us that these funds will permit construction to begin and fund all necessary activities through fiscal year 2013, so the $75 million included in the bill before us is not needed at this time and will not be needed in the new fiscal year.

This $75 million set-aside in the bill for NBAF has some serious consequences for the science and technology function. It will eliminate most, if not all, funding for new research projects at the Department that they plan to begin in 2013. These projects focus on critical homeland security capabilities and would do the following:

Improve maritime transit security, improve explosive detection capability for mass transit, bulk cargo and suicide bombers, provide building security and checkpoint security with a stand-off ability to detect trace explosives on people and personal items, would improve TSA's capability to identify threats to aviation security, would integrate passenger screening at airports to improve security and the travelers' overall screening experience, would increase government security when using cloud-based computing systems, would improve Federal, State and local and animal health officials' emergency response to control the spread of foreign animal diseases and mitigate any impact on the livestock industry, develop countermeasures against high-priority diseases that threaten U.S. livestock, provide building and facility operators a rapid warning and response capability to protect occupants in the event of a chemical or biological attack, and would improve the national, State and local ability to respond to and recover from the effects of a nuclear radiological attack.

Mr. Chairman, that is an impressive list of research priorities. We should take very, very seriously any budget proposal that would displace or move aside these research priorities.

So, under this amendment, this $75 million will be returned to this critical research and development function, restoring these efforts, taking them back to their requested level. These funds will permit S&T to resume research and development work on 22 projects not funded in fiscal 2012, and would increase funding for 34 projects in the important Homeland Security missions such as border security, bio security, chemical security, explosives detection, hostile behavior detection and disaster resiliency.

There's a lot at stake in this amendment, my colleagues. I urge you to adopt it.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I will be voting today for H.R. 4133 because I agree with its two basic premises. The alliance between the United States and Israel, including military support, is of critical importance. And we must prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons capability.

I cast this vote, however, with serious reservations about both the bill's timing and its content. There is no question that a nuclear- capable Iran poses a grave threat not only to Israel, but to the United States and other nations. We must ensure that we have every tool available at our disposal to dissuade if possible and prevent if necessary the Iranian regime from developing nuclear weapons or the capability to produce such weapons from stockpiled materials and components.

Among these vital tools are a combination of diplomatic and economic mechanisms of the sort that I have frequently supported in the past-- including the Iran Threat Reduction Act, which also passed with overwhelming bipartisan support earlier in this Congress--that have often exerted effective pressures on Iran, hindering and deterring the development of nuclear capabilities. Military attacks on Iranian facilities by American or Israeli forces must be regarded as absolutely a last resort, fraught with potentially disastrous consequences, some quite predictable, some not yet imagined.

Yet this bill gives little weight or emphasis to critical diplomatic and economic measures and at points comes perilously close to signaling intent or support for the military option. In fact, the timing of this legislation risks being interpreted as a vote of ``no-confidence'' in our ongoing efforts to engage diplomatically with Iran. Developments such as the so-called ``P5+1'' meetings between the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council, Germany, and Iran--the next meeting of which is scheduled to be held in Baghdad two weeks from today--are critically important steps toward renewed engagement, with a lengthened roster of partners and a tighter sanctions regime. One can hope that the resolve expressed in H.R. 4133 might strengthen these efforts, but I fear that the bill's timing and some of its provisions may also threaten their devaluation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and legacy of an inspirational and beloved North Carolinian, Dr. LeRoy Walker. Coach Walker, as most of us knew him, passed away on Monday at the age of 93 in Durham, the North Carolina community he made his home for six decades. He achieved many firsts during a lifetime dedicated to excellence in athletics, character-building, and service to the community.

Coach Walker was born in Atlanta in 1918. He was the youngest of 13 children and went on to become the first from his family to graduate from college, earning eleven letters in athletics and All-American honors in football at Benedict College. After earning a master's degree at Columbia University, he came to North Carolina Central University in Durham, where he would serve as track coach for 38 years.

At NCCU, Coach Walker trained All-Americans, National Champions and Olympians. In 1976, he was the first African-American to coach the United States Olympic track team, helping American athletes bring home over 20 medals. This is a remarkable record of achievement, but for Coach Walker it was not merely about athletics; what made him happiest, he said, was seeing his former athletes succeed as strong citizens in their communities.

While serving as track coach, Coach Walker worked his way through a doctoral program at New York University, becoming the first African- American to earn a Ph.D. in biomechanics. He went on to serve as NCCU's Chancellor and as the President of the National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics. According to the Associated Press, even though he'd earned other titles--Doctor and Chancellor--Coach Walker still asked people to call him ``Coach.'' ``When you call me that, it means you're my friend,'' he said.

Having touched so many lives in our state, Coach Walker went on to touch lives across the world. After retiring from NCCU, he served a distinguished term as the head of the U.S. Olympic Committee, extending through the 1996 Atlanta Olympics. He was the first African-American to fill this post. As he brought the games to the city where he was born, Coach Walker reflected that his life--from a childhood spent in the segregated South to a professional life of great distinction--seemed like a Hollywood movie. But his was also a story that embodied the ideals of the Olympic Games--competition paired with sportsmanship, perseverance, universal respect, understanding and peace between peoples. The Committee could not have chosen a better leader.

We mourn the loss of Coach Walker, but we give thanks for the generous and exemplary life he lived. I extend the condolences of this House to Coach Walker's family, to the NC Central community and to all across the world who called him ``Coach.'' And I request, Mr. Speaker, that the fuller accounts of his life and work contained this week in the Raleigh News and Observer and the New York Times be included.

[From the News & Observer, Apr. 24, 2012]

Former NCCU Chancellor, USOC Head LeRoy Walker, Dies at 93

(By Ned Barnett)

Dr. LeRoy Walker, a historic leader in the U.S. Olympic

movement and a hugely accomplished coach and educator in

North Carolina, died Monday in Durham, his home for more than

60 years. He was 93.

Walker was the first African-American to head the U.S.

Olympic Committee and was instrumental in bringing the

Olympic Games to his native Atlanta in 1996.

In his long life, he overcame poverty and discrimination to

earn honors as an athlete and coach, but he also was an

academic. He was the first African-American to earn a

doctorate in biomechanics, and he went on to become

chancellor of N.C. Central University.

``LeRoy Walker was truly a remarkable human being, a great

teacher, a great leader as chancellor, and a great

international figure in competitive sport, especially the

Olympics,'' said William Friday, president emeritus of the

UNC system and a friend of Walker for 40 years. ``I don't

know of a man who has had a greater impact in his world than

did LeRoy. He will be greatly missed.''

Walker as an inspiration

Walker was a member of more than a dozen halls of fame, but

his admirers said his most impressive legacy may be not in

what he accomplished, but in what he inspired and enabled

others to achieve.

George Williams, who followed in Walker's path to become

coach of the U.S. Olympic track and field team, met Walker in

1976 when he sought him out for advice. Williams had just

been hired at as track coach at St. Augustine's College in

Raleigh, and Walker, then coach at N.C. Central, gave him

guidance on coaching and his book on biomechanics. Williams'

teams went on to win 32 national titles and produced 36

Olympians.

``Every championship I won was Dr. Walker's championship,''

said Williams, who learned of Walker's death while at track

practice at St. Aug's. ``With all the lives he touched, Dr.

Walker's life will go on and on. He taught us, and we'll

teach others.''

During his track coaching career at N.C. Central from 1945

to 1983, Walker coached athletes to 11 Olympic medals and

coached athletes to every Olympic Games from 1956 to 1976.

Williams said Walker died in hospice care after a brief

illness, but had been alert and engaged until recently,

smiling regularly with Williams and others during lunches.

``It's a sad day,'' Williams said. ``We lost an ambassador

and a great track coach. I lost a dad and a friend. But the

legend will continue.''

Building character

A product of an earlier era in sport, long before the taint

of steroids and college players routinely leaving school

early for the pros, Walker saw athletics not as an exclusive

activity, but as part of developing a strong overall

character.

At Benedict College in South Carolina, Walker earned 11

letters in athletics and All-America honors in football as a

quarterback and still graduated in 1940 magna cum laude.

``It's probably shaped my attitude toward athletics and

academics,'' Walker told The News & Observer in 1996. ``Don't

tell me because you are an athlete you can't ...''

Can't wasn't a word that Walker paid much attention to,

even in a time when African-Americans faced open

discrimination.

``I have lived through some terrible pains of

segregation,'' he told The N&O, ``but I never talk about

them. I just tried to overcome whatever pains were there.''

Walker said at the time of his being named president of the

U.S. Olympic Committee, ``There are a lot of disenchanted

blacks, women and Hispanics in our country who feel they will

never get their just due no matter what they accomplish. I

think I serve as a model of the idea that if you constantly

pursue excellence, in spite of everything you have suffered,

there are enough fair-minded people out there who will

eventually recognize your talents.''

Atlanta and Harlem

LeRoy Tashreau Walker was born in a poor area of Atlanta as

the youngest of 13 children. He grew up in Harlem after the

death of his father when he was about 9 years old. He was the

only one in his family to go to college. He would later earn

advanced degrees, lead the Olympic movement and shape

thousands of lives as an N.C. Central track coach and

chancellor from 1983 to 1986.

Walker was proud of helping to bring the Olympics to

Atlanta, but he also insisted that the Olympic torch be

carried through Durham. When it got to N.C. Central, he

carried it himself and lit a gold cauldron in front of 500

cheering people before the gymnasium that bears his name.

``I wanted to share this with you, wanted to make sure you

got to witness and be part of this,'' he told the crowd. ``I

knew you'd be as overwhelmed by this as I am.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate this year's NCAA Division II Women's Basketball Champions, the Lady Bears of Shaw University!

As fans of the game know all too well, North Carolina schools have a tradition of excellence in collegiate basketball. That success became even more legendary in 2012. We have a new champion in our midst, the Lady Bears.

In some ways it's no surprise that the Lady Bears won the 2012 national title. They made the Final Four in 2011 and began the year in the top ten. But every season is different, and nothing in life or basketball is certain. I don't know what Coach Curtis did, but the season didn't finish as it begun. After compiling a 4 5 record in the first 9 games, the Lady Bears found their groove. From that point on, the team went 25 1 and closed the season on a 15-game winning streak. The Lady Bears went 15 1 in CIAA conference play, were undefeated on their home court, and won the conference tournament.

Then came the quest for the national championship. The Lady Bears beat West Virginia Wesleyan 92 78, Gannon University 64 59, Edinboro University 70 53, Pittsburg State 61 58 and Rollins College 87 71. The final game was as exciting and hard fought as they come. Shaw battled back from a 43 32 halftime deficit to force overtime. When the buzzer sounded, the Lady Bears had won 88 82 over Ashland University. Guards Sequoyah Griffin and Brittney Spencer led the team in scoring with 24 and 16 points, respectively. Center Aslea Williams scored 14 points and pulled down 11 rebounds, and Forward Kyria Buford scored 10 points and grabbed 8 rebounds. Reserve Guard Brittany Ransom also scored 14, providing the team with a valuable lift. The Lady Bears ended the season number one in the polls and with a National Championship in hand!

Coach Curtis deserves special mention for leading this team to victory. He was named the Division II Bulletin National Coach of the Year and the Minority Division II Coach of the Year. But he's done much more than coach. Every single player who has completed four years of eligibility under Coach Curtis has graduated. True collegiate champions pair winning on the court with strong character and academic dedication, and that's exactly what Shaw has done. As an educator, I admire the academic focus that Coach Curtis has made an integral part of the Lady Bears basketball culture.

Mr. Speaker, it was a tremendous season for the Lady Bears of Shaw. On behalf of my colleagues in this body, I congratulate this team for their perseverance, their will to win, and their success in becoming the 2012 champions.

No. 20 Shemieka Brown PG Sr. 5 8 Salisbury, NC; No. 21 Kyria Buford F Sr. 6 1 Charlotte, NC; No. 2 Isayra Diaz G Jr. 5 6 New York, NY; No. 10 Sequoyah Griffin G Jr. 5 9 Columbus, GA No. 30 Crystal Harris C So. 6 1 Jersey City, NJ; No. 32 Ariel Hatcher G Sr. 5 10 Detroit, MI; No. 15 Allyssa Lane PG Sr. 4 11 Winter Park, FL; No. 22 Jashaye Magnum C Fr. 6 1 Miami, FL; No. 33 Brittany Ransom G Sr. 5 10 Columbus, OH; No. 11 Brittney Spencer G Sr. 5 7 Norfolk, VA; No. 3 Enonge Stovall F Jr. 5 11 Philadelphia, PA; No. 41 Victoria Tanner F Sr. 5 10 Raleigh, NC; No. 5 Aslea Williams C Jr. 6 1 Akron, OH; Head Coach: Jacques Curtis; Associate Head Coach: Carl Hatchell; Assistant Coach: Ashante Timoll; Assistant Coach: Jonas Richard; and Athletic Trainer: Sean Burton.

Mr. Speaker thanks to Mr. Dreier, Mr. LaTourette and Mr. Dingell for organizing this special order in recognition of John Sullivan, the House's Parliamentarian since 2004, and Deputy or Assistant Parliamentarian since 1987.

For these 25 years, John has been a familiar face on the floor of the House of Representatives, helping presiding officers maintain order and the flow of business. He has done his work with reassuring steadiness and competence, impartiality and fairness, even when tempers were flaring and ingenious, sometimes disingenuous, arguments were flying all around him.

John and the parliamentary staff he oversees have also been invaluable sources of advice and counsel for this institution's members, officers, and committees. Their institutional memory--both in their personal capacity and in the reference and retrieval system they have developed--is beyond compare. John perfected his own skills under illustrious predecessors--Charles Johnson and Bill Brown--and has administered and advanced the office superbly. This institution is currently facing serious strains and challenges. But in the area of parliamentary experience and control, we are operating from a position of great strength, thanks to the work of John and his colleagues.

John Sullivan's work is enhanced by his historical and comparative parliamentary knowledge, and I want especially to commend him for his willingness to share that knowledge with our colleagues in parliaments with which we cooperate around the world. I particularly remember his participation with the House Democracy Partnership in a mission to two partner legislatures, Liberia and Kenya, in 2010. He engaged enthusiastically and helpfully with these parliaments as they developed their own parliamentary rules and standards under trying conditions. John has done this repeatedly, meeting countless times with visiting parliamentary and staff delegations and generously extending his counsel and encouragement.

In short, John Sullivan has been an exemplary public servant and an invaluable resource for this institution and our sister institutions around the world. I am happy to join with colleagues in thanking him for his service and wishing him well in retirement.

Madam Speaker, it was with great sadness that I learned of the passing of my good friend and colleague, Donald Payne. Few Members who've served in this institution have left a greater impression on their constituents, their colleagues, and their country's domestic and foreign policy than Don Payne.

From the moment Don set foot in Congress, he was a powerful advocate for the needs and interests of his central New Jersey community and of working Americans across our country. Bringing to bear his impressive and diverse record as a public schoolteacher, President of the National Council of YMCAs, and an elected official in Newark, Don quickly became one of the most forceful and effective advocates for public education in the Congress, playing a key role as a member of the Education and Labor Committee on virtually every major educational reform enacted over the last two decades. As the first African American elected to Congress from New Jersey, Don was an equally forceful advocate for the continued struggle for civil rights, eventually becoming chair the Congressional Black Caucus.

Now, these accomplishments in education and civil rights would qualify as a successful career for any Member, but Don didn't stop there. Driven by his early fascination with Africa and his adventuresome travels there, Don recognized that the struggle for civil rights and human dignity knew no borders, rising to become one of the most effective chairmen of the Foreign Affairs Africa and Global Health Subcommittee that we have ever had in this institution.

Our Nation's expanded focus on AIDS, malaria, and other pandemic diseases over the past decade would simply not have occurred without Don's visionary leadership and moral courage. It was fitting that USAID announced the launch of a Donald Payne Fellowship Program last week, designed to help young people enter careers in international service.

I was fortunate to benefit from Don's knowledge and advocacy personally as he became a founding member of the bipartisan House Democracy Partnership, which I cochair with my California colleague, Representative David Dreier.

Don's counsel and guidance and encouragement were invaluable as the House Democracy Partnership initiated partnerships with legislatures in Africa and conducted outreach in countries affected by the Arab Spring. Our frequent travels together in the region forged a deep and lasting friendship. He probably knew more about the ins and outs of Africa politics than all the other Members of this institution combined. He had strong and well-informed views about what our country's policies should be, and he was ready to articulate those views persuasively, no matter who the President was or which party was in charge.

He also insisted on investigating situations on the ground for himself, which led to quite a few one-man codels and some anxious moments for those who wanted to prepackage congressional visits or maintain airtight security. It was fascinating to talk to him about his diplomatic forays, which

offered a combination of high adventure and a remarkable, inspiring dedication to the freedom and dignity of the people of Africa.

Congress has lost a true statesman, a dedicated humanitarian, and a loyal public servant. We mourn his passing, and we will miss Don Payne's counsel and friendship.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Raleigh's First Baptist Church on the occasion of its bicentennial celebration.

First Baptist is a pillar of the Raleigh community, with a history of prophetic witness and community service. For 200 years, it has been a spiritual home to successive generations in Raleigh and beyond, a place of learning and teaching, a place of faith and sustenance, and a place of commitment to a just society.

The church was founded in 1812 by a congregation of 23 members--14 black and 9 white--who had come to the State Capitol to hear Rev. Robert Daniel. At that time, the city of Raleigh had about 1,000 residents but not a single church building. The new congregation was dubbed Raleigh Baptist Church. At first, members met at the State Capitol, but church facilities were soon built, and, for the next 56 years, Raleigh Baptist Church was a unique multiracial assembly that reached more than 400 members.

Following the Civil War, the church's black membership, about half the congregation at the time, asked for and received permission to establish a new congregation, which was initially organized as First Colored Baptist Church. It was under these auspices that the church settled in its current location on South Wilmington Street, completing the church building early in the 20th century and ultimately becoming First Baptist. The remaining members of Raleigh Baptist Church retained the sanctuary on South Salisbury Street, just a few blocks away, and also became known as First Baptist.

The Rev. William Warwick, a Philadelphia native, was the first African-American pastor at First Baptist, leading the flock from 1867 to 1874 and establishing the Miles School, whose students were later absorbed into the public schools. The seventh pastor was Dr. Oscar S. Bullock, who, through the purchase of a bus in 1925, pioneered a program of church-provided transportation to ensure children and adults could attend Sunday school. Dr. Charles Ward led the church for a long period in the mid-20th century, from 1959 through 1988. He was a prominent leader in the NAACP and oversaw the construction of a housing development for low-income members of the community. He was nearing the end of his ministry when I first ran for Congress in 1986, and I will always be grateful for his counsel and encouragement.

In addition to Dr. Ward, I've been honored to work with several of First Baptist's other pastors during my time representing the Triangle. The Rev. Nathaniel O. Boykin and Dr. Isaac B. Horton led the church in interim capacities after the death of Dr. Ward in 1988. Since 1996, Dr. Dumas Alexander Harshaw, Jr. has led the church into a new era with his powerful preaching and teaching and a strong record of service to the broader community. Under Dr. Harshaw's guidance, the church has added an early Sunday service, purchased additional property and built an adjacent Family Life Center. Giving by the approximately 800 members recently surpassed the $1 million mark. From daycare and after-school programs to weekly meals for the homeless, job workshops for the unemployed, and substance abuse counseling, First Baptist continues to strengthen the community.

This week the successor congregations of Raleigh Baptist Church will celebrate their bicentennial with a joint party at the place of their birth, the State Capitol. While they remain distinct these churches share the honor of being the first religious community of any denomination in Raleigh.

Mr. Speaker, the two hundredth anniversary of the founding of Raleigh Baptist Church and the continued witness of these congregations merits recognition by this body. In particular, I look forward to celebrating this milestone on Saturday night with Dr. Harshaw and his flock, to whom I will bring the good wishes of my colleagues.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to stand with the President and working Americans today by supporting this measure, which will add an average of $1,000 to the paychecks of working North Carolinians this year, extend unemployment benefits for Americans who have lost jobs through no fault of their own, and ensure seniors on Medicare will be able to see their doctors. After a year in which Republicans in Congress took the country from one manufactured crisis to the next, this bipartisan agreement is a step in the right direction and at a time when so many families are still struggling to make ends meet, it may be our last chance to help revive the economy as we head into an election year.

Once again, however, House Republicans are asking us to rob Peter to pay Paul, and the positive economic impact of this measure will be undermined in part by their senseless and misguided insistence that federal employees, hospitals, clinical laboratories, and preventive health programs must bear the cost. Unemployment benefits are paid out during true economic emergencies and should not require offsets. And to the extent we should offset the cost of the other programs extended in this measure, we should do so by asking corporations and the wealthiest Americans to pay their fair share--not by asking middle-class Americans and providers of health care who have already sacrificed in the name of deficit reduction to do even more.

I'm particularly troubled by the demonization of federal workers by Republicans in Congress, which has reached a crescendo of late. To be effective and respond to the needs of the American people, government needs to attract the best and brightest to public service. Federal employees have already been subjected to a pay freeze, and now we are asking them to open their wallets again to pay for unemployment benefits for workers who have lost their jobs.

I cannot in good conscience oppose a measure that puts money in the pockets of American workers, protects our fragile economic recovery, and maintains the safety net for unemployed workers and health care for seniors. But we simply must do better if we are to maintain the promise of expanding opportunity for working and middle class Americans.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding and want to note that today we could be debating a jobs package. We could be debating a comprehensive effort to balance our budget. But instead, we're focusing on a bill to enshrine failed ``trickle-down'' policies in our already flawed budget process.

Now, let's be clear: this bill is designed to make it easier to pass large tax cuts without having to find real savings in our current budget. It relies on the thoroughly discredited notion that tax cuts do not add to the deficit, that they magically pay for themselves.

This is the height of fiscal recklessness and exemplifies the old adage that ``insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.''

After all, Congress experimented with this approach when it passed the Reagan tax cuts and again with the George W. Bush tax cuts.

And the results were soaring deficits. We now find ourselves in crippling debt, unable to pay for needed investments in our crumbling infrastructure, unable to pay for the education and retraining required to maintain American competitiveness in the ever changing global economy.

So I'll vote ``no'' on this tried and failed approach. And I ask colleagues to return to the pay-as-you-go rules that helped lead us to the balanced budgets and the economic prosperity of the 1990s.

Mr. Chairman, once again, instead of debating a bill that would create jobs and bring this economy back or a comprehensive effort to put our fiscal house in order, we're here on this floor tonight focusing on a so-called budget reform bill.

This bill will do nothing to spur economic growth, it will do nothing to bring us closer to a balanced budget, although it could greatly confuse and complicate the budget process.

We must be clear what this bill does, Mr. Chairman. The bill pretends that inflation doesn't occur. It's a pipe dream. By eliminating baseline calculations, it would make it far more difficult to estimate future budget needs. We need to know exactly what it would take to maintain the current level of effort and the current level of services in governmental programs. With that knowledge, we can make realistic decisions, knowing what result those increases or decreases would produce. But this bill would deny us that knowledge. All too often, we'd be making budget decisions in the dark without knowing their full implications.

Efforts like this should find bipartisan opposition. Make no mistake. This bill would--or it could--not only lead to the slow starvation of funds for Democratic priorities like Head Start, clean energy research, and WIC, but it also could starve all programs, including the Border Patrol, military health and veterans' programs, and the FBI. At the very least, it would make budget decisions, both increases and decreases, less precise and less efficient.

I'm voting ``no'' on this bill. I urge my colleagues to do the same. Let's stop wasting time on so-called budget reform bills. Instead, we need to get to work on the real budget to hammer out a comprehensive agreement, to bring this economy to full strength, and to get our fiscal house in order.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the motion to instruct and want to thank our colleague from Santa Barbara for offering it.

Last year, as we lurched from one congressionally created crisis to another, uncertainty plagued families and businesses, and the American people's confidence in our ability to do their work plummeted.

In the first few months of the new year, we can right these wrongs. We can proceed in a deliberative, mature manner to address our Nation's problems.

As the President will reiterate tonight in his State of the Union Address, this is a make-or-break moment for our economic recovery, for our middle class and those trying to reach the middle class. Extending the payroll tax cut will put an average of $1,000 in the pockets of working people this year. Let's not play games by threatening to raise taxes on 160 million workers if you don't get your way on one bargaining chip or another.

We should pass a full-year extension of the payroll tax cut right away and then move on to the President's broader jobs bill that would create jobs and put us on a faster road to recovery.