Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material for further consideration on H.R. 2217.

I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion.

Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill. It's a strong bill. This bill focuses on securing the homeland, protecting our citizens against terrorist acts like the one that we experienced in Boston, and we've talked about it for the last 3 days.

Mr. Speaker, this motion is unnecessary. This bill specifically addresses the events in Boston by the following:

Adding an additional 1,600 CBP officers, increasing the funding for watch-listing for the 3rd year in a row, increasing visa enforcement; increasing first responder grants by $400 million for a total of $2.5 billion--more than adequate funding to help equip and train first responders, and doubling the amount for bomb prevention. And the bill already has more than $30 million in pre-disaster mitigation grants.

This bill was constructed in a bipartisan fashion, garnering unanimous support at the subcommittee and full committee levels, and has earned praise from both sides of the aisle and here on the House floor.

This bill is not contentious. It fulfills one of the most basic duties of the Members of Congress: keeping our Nation safe.

Let's not focus on politics today. Let's focus on constitutional responsibility to provide for the safety for all who live in our wonderful country.

Mr. Speaker, it's time to apply the lessons learned from recent terrorist attacks, reject this flawed motion, and vote on this important bill. Vote ``yes'' on the important bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 9 a.m. today.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the consideration of H.R. 2217 and that I may include tabular material on the same.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

It was 69 years ago this Thursday that more than 9,000 Allied soldiers were killed or wounded during the D-day invasion in Normandy, France. That courageous operation, as well as the sacrifice of so many brave individuals, serves as a sobering reminder that freedom and security are, in fact, not free.

It is with this solemn commitment to both freedom and security that I respectfully present to the people's House the fiscal year 2014 appropriations bill for the Department of Homeland Security. Similar to our subcommittee's work over the past 3 fiscal years, this bill demonstrates how we can fund vital security programs and enforce the law while also reducing discretionary spending overall. So this bill is about our security and fiscal priorities and getting them right.

The President's fiscal year 2014 budget proposal for DHS presents a harmful budget for our frontline homeland security agencies, diminishing their operational workforces and undermining mission capabilities. The end result of the President's budget proposal would, undoubtedly, be a less capable DHS. That's why our subcommittee, on a bipartisan basis, strove to significantly improve the flawed budget request through this bill before the House today.

First, this bill targets the very programs and systems displayed during and after the recent horrific attack at the Boston Marathon. It does this by a nearly 20 percent increase above the request for FEMA's first responder grants; substantial increases above the request and last year's level for CBP's targeting, TSA's Secure Flight, and ICE's visa enforcement programs, including the phase-in of 1,600 additional CBP officers; doubling the Department's Bombing Prevention program, substantially increasing counter-IED training and applying the lessons learned from our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; and a nearly 40 percent increase in the program If You See Something, Say Something.

In addition, the bill restores virtually all of the unjustified proposed cuts to DHS' operational programs, to include restoring the cuts to ICE's mandated 34,000 detention beds and vital investigative programs; restoring cuts to the Coast Guard's operational expenses, including aviation and flight hours, as well as restoring the President's truly harmful cuts to recapitalization and acquisitions of cutter and aviation assets; restoring the proposed cuts to CBP air and marine operating hours and procurement, as well as mission support functions; restoring the proposed long-term cuts to Secret

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

This bill also considers our Nation's fiscal crisis by invoking real fiscal discipline and efficiency, including a more than $613 million-- or more than 1.5 percent--reduction below fiscal year 2013 to the Department's annual budget; a 15 percent cut below the request to DHS headquarters staffing; a nearly 25 percent cut below the request to departmental administrative expenses and bureaucratic overhead; denial of the President's request to increase bureaucracy by creating three new headquarters offices; termination of funding for ineffectual offices and programs and substantial oversight requirements, ranging from withholding funds to statutory mandates to reporting requirements on everything from major acquisitions to ammunition inventories, purchases, and usage.

Mr. Chairman, this bill does not represent a false choice between fiscal responsibility and security. Both are urgent priorities, and both are vigorously addressed by this bill.

I must note that DHS did a shameful job in complying with statutory requirements enacted into law FY13. Those failures are certainly addressed in this bill. We are serious about compelling the Department to both enforce the law and comply with the law, and we will not tolerate further failures in this regard, a point I think we make clear in this bill through 50 percent withholdings to the Department's executive offices and 50 percent reductions to offices that are delaying the review and submittal of needed, factual information requested by Congress.

On a final and regrettably sober note, my staff and I have been regularly talking with our dear friend and my classmate, Tom Cole, and doing all that we can to help the good people of his Oklahoma district get back on their feet from the devastating tornado that hit the town of Moore and surrounding communities.

So, in addition to the nearly $11 billion that is currently in FEMA coffers, this bill fully supports the known requirements of $6.2 billion for the disaster relief fund in FY14. These funds, combined with our continued oversight, will help ensure disaster assistance rapidly gets to those who've lost so much. Mr. Chairman, we send Tom and his constituents our sincere condolences and wish them a speedy recovery.

In closing, let me first thank Ranking Member Price for his statesmanship and partnership. I sincerely thank him and his dedicated professional staff for their input and notable contributions to this bill.

In addition, let me thank the thoughtful Members of this body. We received program submissions from 222 Members, and their input was critical to our oversight work over the past few months, as well as the production of this bill. I know that my staff and I made every effort to accommodate virtually every Member's submission we received, and that has only made this a stronger product.

Finally, I must thank the distinguished chairman and ranking member of the full committee, Chairman Rogers and Mrs. Lowey. Their input and support for the bill is genuinely appreciated.

I sincerely believe this bill reflects our best effort to address our Nation's urgent needs: security, enforcement, and fiscal restraint.

I urge my colleagues to support this measure, and I reserve the balance of my time.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH05JN13.001

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH05JN13.002

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH05JN13.003

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH05JN13.004

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH05JN13.005

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH05JN13.006

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH05JN13.007

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH05JN13.008

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH05JN13.009

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH05JN13.010

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH05JN13.011

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH05JN13.012

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH05JN13.013

Mr. Chairman, at this time I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, who is the former founding chairman of this subcommittee and a former great prosecutor from the State of Kentucky.

Mr. Chairman, at this time I yield 3 minutes to my colleague from the great State of Texas, (Mr. McCaul), the chairman of the full Committee on Homeland Security.

Mr. Chairman, at this time I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Aderholt), a former chairman of this subcommittee and currently chairman of the Appropriations Committee's Subcommittee on Agriculture.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished member of our subcommittee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

At this time I yield 2 minutes to a very distinguished member of our subcommittee from the great of State of Tennessee (Mr. Fleischmann).

Mr. Chairman, at this time I'd like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), who is the chairman of the Coast Guard and Maritime Subcommittee of the full committee.

Mr. Chairman, at this time I would like to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from the State of Pennsylvania (Mr. Barletta). He is the chairman of the committee that authorizes

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, this amendment is unnecessary since the bill already includes ample funding for necessary oversight of ICE's 287(g) program. In fact, on page 11 of the bill's accompanying report, it states:

Included within the amount recommended for the Office of

Civil Rights and Civil Liberties is a total of $2,394,000 for

reviews of 287(g) agreements and ICE's Secure Communities.

These funds are in addition to the ongoing work of ICE's

Office of Professional Responsibility and the DHS Office of

Inspector General, who reviews 287(g) agreements for

compliance.

So, while I certainly support robust oversight and also demand ICE's compliance with all applicable laws and standards therein pertaining to civil liberties and civil rights, I cannot support additional bureaucracy.

Furthermore, the offset to this amendment will cut CBP's Automation Modernization account--a cut that will impede CBP's processing of trade and result in longer wait times at our ports of entry, which are detrimental impacts to our economy which none of us can afford to accept.

Finally, I think I need to remind Members that the President's budget request decimated operational staffing and enforcement programs. This bill reversed that flawed approach and is holding DHS headquarters' resources in check. Therefore, I cannot support an amendment that increases headquarters staffing beyond what is necessary or what can be afforded, and does so at the expense of our economy.

Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge my colleagues to support fiscal discipline, support economic growth, and vote ``no'' on this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, at this time, I want to congratulate Mr. Reichert for his amendment. I think it is necessary, and I approve of it.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Robust enforcement of our immigration laws is critical to our national security. Clearly, the 287(g) program supports that goal.

Under the 287(g) program, ICE enters into a partnership with State and local enforcement agencies and authorizes them to remove criminal aliens who are a threat to local communities. In effect, the program acts as a force multiplier and ensures more resources to enforce immigration laws and policy. In fact, since January of 2006, the 287(g) program is credited with identifying more than 279,311 potentially removable aliens, mostly at local jails.

ICE's cross-designation of more than 1,500 State and local patrol officers, detectives, investigators, and correctional officers allows them to pursue a wide range of investigations, such as human smuggling, gang/organized crime activity, and money laundering. In addition, participating entities are eligible for increased resources and support in more remote geographic locations.

Currently, ICE has 287(g) agreements with 75 law enforcement agencies in 24 States. Utilizing these funds as an offset takes resources from local sheriffs, police officers, and other first responders and puts it in the hands of a bureaucrat at DHS headquarters.

And while I appreciate the gentleman's suggestion that the deficit is too high, I reject his choice of balancing the budget by jeopardizing public safety and law enforcement.

To his point that the deficit must be reduced, let me point my colleagues to other provisions in the bill that instill fiscal discipline by cutting departmental administrative expenses and bureaucratic overhead by nearly 25 percent and by denying the President's request to create three new offices.

For these reasons, I oppose the amendment, urge Members to join me in opposition, and yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am happy to accept this amendment from my colleague and friend, Judge Poe, which provides $10 million for CBP to procure additional equipment for surveillance and detection at both the southern and northern borders.

Some of the technological solutions CBP procures for border security include integrated fixed towers, tactical communication, and tethered aerostat radar systems. All these systems increase situational awareness and assist law enforcement personnel as they identify and resolve illegal activity. In effect, they become a workforce multiplier, freeing agents to focus on other vital tasks like identifying, tracking, interdicting, and resolving events along the border.

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

The bill before us today was born out of a need for reform. It consolidates disparate grant programs, provides discretion to the Secretary while balancing fiscal discipline.

In total, this bill provides for $2.5 billion for Homeland Security First Responder Grants. This is $400 million above the President's request for fiscal year 2014 and $35 million above fiscal year 2013.

This bill prioritizes our funding. The consolidation in this bill forces the Secretary to examine the intelligence and risk and put scarce dollars where they are needed most, whether it is port, rail, surveillance, or access and hardening projects, or whether it is to high-risk urban areas or to States, as opposed to reverse engineering projects to fill the amount designated for one of many programs.

This does not mean lower-risk cities will lose all funding. It means the funds will come from other programs,

such as State homeland grants that are risk-and formula-based.

I strongly urge my colleagues to support fiscal discipline and vote ``no'' on this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I accept the gentleman's amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to accept the amendment. I, too, have concerns about surface rail.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Not only do I oppose the increase of $10 million for additional CBP officers; I oppose the offset suggested to pay for the increase.

As drafted, the bill provides for $105 million for hiring 1,600 officers over a 2-year period. In fact, we provide funds sufficient to cover the costs of no less than 21,186 CBP officers, which sets a historical precedent.

The reason we took this incremental approach into hiring 1,600 new officers is because CBP's staffing and deployment plan was not linked to its goals for border security. To address these concerns, the report includes language directing CBP to provide a more complete 5-year staffing and deployment plan.

Furthermore, an internal audit revealed systemic failures within CBP's budget formulation for salaries and benefits of its operational workforce. And though I believe taking a go-slow approach to hiring just makes sense, I oppose the offset, which decreases funds for the 287(g) program.

Under the 287(g) program, ICE enters into partnerships with State and local law enforcement agencies and authorizes them to remove criminal aliens who are a threat to local communities. In effect, the program acts as a force multiplier to ensure more resources to enforce immigration laws and policies. In fact, since 2006, the 287 program has been credited with identifying more than 279,311 potentially removable aliens, mostly from local jails.

So I oppose this amendment and yield back the balance of my time.

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

I would like to accept this amendment and yield back the balance of my time.

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

I rise in opposition to this amendment, which strikes the legal requirement for 34,000 detention beds.

The simple fact is that sovereign countries control their borders and have an immigration system with integrity that adheres to the rule of law.

This last Friday, I visited the ICE facility in Houston, Texas. I find it interesting the numbers that they explained to me that were going on today in the Houston-Corpus Christi region, which takes in the entire gulf coast of Texas along with what we call the lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas. They informed me that we are having a massive encroachment into our country from across the border right now of approximately 100 OTMs a day in addition to the Mexicans who are coming across the border. It's interesting that we talk as to the alternatives to incarceration. In the Houston office alone, 64,000-plus are on alternatives to incarceration, which is almost double the number of detention beds for the entire United States in one office. So I think, with this, we get a better picture of what this invasion is all about.

The attacks of 9/11 taught us that immigration enforcement matters. It matters to our security. The Boston Marathon attacks underscored this sobering lesson. Each year, more than 1 million aliens attempt to illegally enter the United States without proper documentation, or they enter legally but overstay and violate their visas.

Though reasonable people can disagree, I believe detention beds are a

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

In contrast, the President's request provided funds sufficient to support 31,800 beds, justifying the request by saying there's no need to support 34,000 detention beds, even though, as I speak today, those in detention are at 38,000 beds. So it looks like we've got overage, not shortage.

The facts, however, refute this completely.

First, as of last Friday, more than 38,000 illegal immigrants are being held in ICE custody, many of whom meet the mandatory detention requirements.

Second, by the administration's own estimate, there's at least 1.9 million removable criminal aliens in the United States.

There is general acknowledgement of an illegal alien population of approximately 11 million. That estimate goes up to as high as 20 million in some quarters.

Clearly, detention beds are necessary. This bed mandate is needed.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I have listened to the arguments from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, and I find it interesting. First, those who cross into our country without and contrary to the laws of this great Nation have committed an illegal act. Calling them not illegal doesn't make them not illegal.

I really would like to point out that we have a curious way to discuss this as a policy; that is, no one here stands responsible for the decision. You know, the alternatives to incarceration were created by judges, and the judicial system stands in a little different situation than the Members of Congress. When one of these people who's let out under alternatives to incarceration in fact commits another criminal act--and believe me, it happens--nothing more than just DWI, when you run over a little kid--the judge, who puts him on that particular forum, is held responsible. And he is now going to read his name in the newspaper that he put that person out that should have been in jail, out on an alternative to incarceration. Or if the person commits another criminal act even more severe--murder, rape, robbery-- if it happens when the judge puts him out on alternatives, the judge has to take the heat.

But as we have this great policy debate in Congress, no one who is arguing to release all these people on alternatives is taking any heat at all on what the accomplishments in the criminal realm will be of those we release.

I approve of alternatives to incarceration. I just told you that 64,000 people alone in the city of Houston's jurisdiction, which is the valley all of the way up to Beaumont, were out on alternatives. But detention beds are also full and overflowing. When I visited the ICE unit there, the red uniforms were the majority, and the red uniforms are criminal aliens. They have committed crimes in this country.

And so I think we are being a little bit safe to make these arguments as we stand here in these hallowed Halls. Never is our name going to appear in any newspaper when one of these people commits an act that causes damage to our fellow citizens. And yet we make this argument very passionately. I just want to remind everybody that we are responsible for those criminal aliens that we release, and criminal aliens are right now being released. And, in fact, Ms. Napolitano, after I asked her specifically, Are you releasing anyone from detention, she looked me right in the eye and said, No. And 2 days later, she released 2,300. And of those 2,300, the top two categories were both represented in that release--the most serious and the second- most serious categories of crimes we hold people for.

So this is a policy. This administration continues to have a policy of not enforcing the law, and, quite frankly, we need this availability of beds so we can enforce the law.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the simple fact is this amendment is unnecessary and harmful to national security, in my opinion.

Now, am I happy with TSA? No. I have criticism of TSA also. Most people who travel have some criticism of TSA. But zeroing out TSA and leaving our airports unsecured is not the solution to the problem.

If the gentleman's argument is that we're being fiscally responsible to do away with the TSA part of this budget, I would argue the contrary. This bill, quite frankly, has made cuts, and, in fact, for 4 years now we have reduced spending in this bill. That's not a good argument.

It's easy to get mad at somebody that interferes with your life every time you travel, especially when you travel every week, but the reality is, this would be a mistake to national security. This would be a mistake to our country.

And even though we have criticism of TSA, our job is to fix TSA, not abolish TSA. And I know there's plenty of folks that think that abolishing it is a good idea, but, quite honestly, it would be a real tragedy to leave our airports undefended. We need to make them better. And I think one of the things we're doing is the oversight that we've provided in this bill so that we can take a hard look at DHS across the board and come up with solutions where things need to be fixed; and, of course, if TSA's on the radar screen, they ought to be fixed.

But I think this is a mistake. I think it's bad policy. I think it's good grandstanding but bad policy, and I oppose the gentleman's amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I share some of these concerns with the gentleman from Colorado, and I believe that outstanding questions still remain over the timeline for replacing the AIT scanners. I expect TSA to sufficiently answer the question posed here today.

I urge TSA to move forward with the replacement of AIT scanners at the affected airports as soon as possible. I commit to the gentleman from Colorado that the committee will look into this issue further and do everything within its power to fix the problem to the extent that it does not cost the American taxpayers more money. It's my understanding that this amendment will not result in the need for additional TSA screeners.

Therefore, I accept the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I accept the amendment and yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I share the gentleman from North Carolina's concern on that. The House Appropriations Committee included report language asking for final action on this rule. It is well past time to finalize this rule, whose delay has impeded manufacturers in growing critical markets for aviation exports.

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

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

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

I share the gentlelady's concern of this implication that these are law enforcement officers. It is something that anyone who has ever dealt with law enforcement officers should be worried about, so I thank her for working with us and for explaining to us her concerns. I don't want anyone to be out there fooling the public, having people think they're trained law enforcement officers when they're not. I think that's an important thing at every level of law enforcement.

Representative Blackburn brought this to my attention and to the attention of the committee last year. We appreciate her staying on top of these issues. In fact, I asked the staff to look into this matter earlier this year. As a result, as she has described, this bill cuts the screeners' uniforms by $18 million, which is about a 20 percent decrease. In fact, this bill calls for a net decrease of $387.5 million to TSA, or 8 percent below the FY13 enacted levels.

Finally, the committee has directed TSA to provide a report describing in detail how TSA is complying with the Buy American Act and to provide Congress with the total number of uniforms and screener consumables purchased in fiscal years '12 and '13.

Moving forward, we will continue to work with the gentlewoman from Tennessee to ensure TSA screeners are not abusing the perception that they are officers of the law. We credit her for shedding light on this issue, and I thank her for bringing it to the attention of the committee. I am willing to work with the gentlewoman in any way she chooses.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, while I have concerns with carving out funding amounts for specific grants, I will accept the amendment.

I was born and raised in Houston, Texas. I had something happen to me many years ago as a young lawyer in a hearing at the Port of Houston. Back in 1968, I was told by the Coast Guard that every day two ships pass each other in the Port of Houston, and should those ships collide, just the mixing of those two cargos would explode and kill every man, woman, and child on the Texas gulf coast all the way to Corpus Christi. That's without a nuclear weapon.

We are the largest petrochemical port in the United States. I too am concerned about our ports. I'm very concerned that they could be a target of attack that could cause great damage both in structures and in human life.

So I join my colleagues from California to accept this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I'm willing to accept this amendment. Once again, I have the same concerns as my colleague, Mr. Price, about the carving out of funding amounts for specific grants, but I will accept this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I move to strike the last word.

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

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

I look forward to working with you.

I yield to the gentleman.

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

Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

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

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

Will the gentleman yield?

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

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

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

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

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

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

I rise in opposition.

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

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

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

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

I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

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

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

I yield back the balance of my time.

I move to strike the last word.

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

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

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

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I will in just a moment.

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

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

I will be glad to yield to my friend.

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

I yield back the balance of my time.

I move to strike the last word.

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

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

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

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

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

I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

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

I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

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

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

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

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

I yield to the gentleman.

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

I move to strike the last word.

Though in principle I believe there are times when alternatives to detention make sense, utilizing them to release convicted criminals is never appropriate. Therefore, I appreciate Congressman Collins calling attention to the importance of ICE maintaining a robust capability to detain and maintain custody of illegal aliens, especially those convicted of violent and serious crimes and felonies like drug trafficking, prostitution and conspiracy.

Included in this bill is no less than $2.8 billion for enforcement and removal operations, which include $148 million to fully support the statutory requirements to maintain at least 34,000 beds, which is critical if we're going to ensure that convicted criminals and repeat offenders do not endanger public safety. Therefore, I'm happy to accept the gentleman's amendment, and I reiterate my appreciation for Congressman Collins for offering it. And as to the fact that he didn't get information from ICE or from DHS, I've had the same experience and I was just as upset as you are.

I support the Congressman's amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I share some of the concerns of the gentleman from Mississippi, and I believe that the outstanding question still remains over the actual value of the Behavior Detection Officer, BDO program, which has yet to be sufficiently validated by TSA. In addition, it is my understanding that a recent OIG report may validate the concerns Mr. Thompson has raised about the program. In the report accompanying this bill, this committee also articulated some of the same concerns of Mr. Thompson, including whether passengers are screened in an objective and cost-effective manner.

However, I cannot accept this amendment at this time to zero out the program. I remain hopeful that TSA will correct these issues. And my colleague, Chairman McCaul, has also said he is hopeful that we can correct these programs. I will be willing to work with Mr. Thompson and Mr. McCaul and anyone else who has concerns about this to make sure that this program is effectively administered and effectively worked. So at this time, I oppose the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I move to strike the last word.

We will accept this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentlewoman yield?

I thank the gentlewoman from California for engaging me in this colloquy.

As she had just stated, wait times at our ports of entry, both vehicle and pedestrian, have increased in recent years. I would have supported the gentlewoman's amendment, but will vow to work with her in ensuring that the proper funds are given to the pedestrians to reduce wait times at land ports of entry. I'll be glad to work with you on this issue.

I move to strike the last word.

The authorizers have indicated that they oppose this amendment that's being proposed by my friend from New Jersey. I'm reluctant to oppose it. So I just wanted to make the statement that the authorizing committee is opposed to this. We've had a debate almost ad nauseam on the State of Louisiana, with exactly the same amendment. I think everything that's been said about this flood program has been said, so I'm not going to continue that debate. I just wanted to make a note that although I'm not going to officially oppose it, I will state that the authorizers were supposed to be here to oppose.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

I would like to comment to my colleague from Brownsville that we in Texas are very proud of our ports of entry on the border. They do an exceptional job in a difficult environment. We do need to reduce the wait times. And I'm looking forward to working with you and looking forward to coming to Brownsville and visiting down that way. I've been to Laredo a lot of times lately, but I haven't been to Brownsville. And I will get down that way.

I intend to work with you and our friends from California and Arizona to do the best we can to move these wait times down to something that's manageable. So I just want to comment I'd be glad to work with you.

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

Mr. Chairman, I do not oppose this gentlelady's amendment. It is my understanding that it's a restatement of current law.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Gingrey amendment, and yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Madam Chairman, we accept the gentleman's amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I appreciate the gentleman from New Mexico for raising this issue.

As he has pointed out, the Department has the ability to utilize the incredible scientific resources of our national laboratories. I look forward to working with him on this important issue.

As our Nation continues to face a tight fiscal situation, it is vital that DHS work to ensure that its Science and Technology Directorates make good use of our government's existing capabilities.

I move to strike the last word.

Madam Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. I think it's a good amendment, and I have the same concerns that are expressed by the author.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

In total, this bill provides $2.5 billion for Homeland Security first responder grants. This is $400 million above the President's request for fiscal year 2014 and $35 million above fiscal year 2013.

This bill prioritizes funding. The consolidation in this bill forces the Secretary to examine the intelligence and risk and puts scarce dollars where they are needed most--whether it's a port, rail, surveillance or access in hardened projects, or whether it is to high- risk urban areas or to States, as opposed to reverse-engineering projects to fill the amount designated for one of many programs.

I strongly urge my colleagues to support fiscal discipline and vote ``no'' on this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, on this I would like a recorded vote, please.

I thank my friend for highlighting this important program. As a fellow border State Member, I am especially aware of the issues we face with illegal immigration and criminal trafficking across our borders, particularly our southern border. Operation Stonegarden provides valuable resources to local and tribal governments for coordination with their Federal counterparts and to assist them in furthering our Nation's border security. I look forward to working with my friend from Arizona and others as we move forward to ensure continued support for this worthy and valuable program.

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

Madam Chair, we support this amendment, and I yield to my colleague, Mr. Price.

Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

I move to strike the last word.

Madam Chairman, we accept this amendment, and I yield the balance of my time to my colleague, Mr. Price.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I move to strike the last word.

I rise in opposition, reluctantly, to the gentlewoman's amendment.

This is very similar to the amendment that was raised earlier this evening. I expressed my opinion then, and I don't change my opinion. I have a great deal of concern about the issues that have been raised by my good friend from Tennessee--in fact, from Williamson County, Tennessee, and I'm from Williamson County, Texas.

I am going to recommend to my ranking member that we look into these allegations of misuse of law enforcement, or of the presumption of law enforcement. We are going to talk to Mr. Pistole to try to get to the bottom of this stuff, but I don't think what the gentlelady is trying to accomplish with this amendment is appropriate at this time without our holding hearings and discussing some of these issues and trying to examine the statutes and make sure that they are operating within the statutes.

So for that reason, I think this is not the time, and I am going to have to oppose this amendment.

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

I yield back the balance of my time.

I move to strike the last word.

We will accept this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Before I make a motion, Madam Chairman, I would like to thank all of the employees of the House for being willing to extend the time tonight so that we could get those Members who have been waiting for 4 or 5 hours finished. I want to apologize for the inconvenience, but we appreciate the efficiency that it allowed us.

Madam Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 9 a.m. today.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 12 o'clock and 32 minutes a.m.), the House adjourned until today, Thursday, June 6, 2013, at 9 a.m.

Mr. Speaker, the mission of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is broad and diverse. The men and women of DHS protect our borders and modes of transportation; they guard our waterways; they protect U.S. and foreign leaders; they prepare for and respond to disasters; they manage our immigration process; and, they defend us against cyberattack. DHS employees provide selfless service to their nation and they do so with honor and distinction under an ever-present threat.

I would like to pay tribute to the Department of Homeland Security's agents, officers, and Coast Guard personnel who lost their lives in the service of our nation in 2012. I would like to enter into the record the names of all sixty- one courageous men and women of DHS who have died in the line of duty since the Department's inception in 2003. We owe them more than a tribute on this day, but our gratitude begins with that.

LORENZO R. GOMEZ, Immigration Enforcement Agent, U.S.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement, El Paso, Texas, End of

Watch: November 8, 2003.

JAMES P. EPLING, Border Patrol Agent, U.S. Customs and

Border Protection, Yuma, Arizona, End of Watch: December 16,

2003.

NATHAN B. BRUCKENTHAL, Damage Controlman Third Class (E-

4), U.S. Coast Guard, Iraq, End of Watch: April 24, 2004.

TRAVIS W. ATTAWAY, Senior Patrol Agent, U.S. Customs and

Border Protection, Harlingen, Texas, End of Watch: September

19, 2004.

JEREMY M. WILSON, Senior Patrol Agent, U.S. Customs and

Border Protection, Harlingen, Texas, End of Watch: September

19, 2004.

PHILIP C. LEBID, Special Agent, U.S. Secret Service,

Tampa, Florida, End of Watch: November 22, 2004.

GEORGE B. DeBATES, Senior Patrol Agent, U.S. Customs and

Border Protection, Casa Grande, Arizona, End of Watch:

December 19, 2004.

DAVID G. WILHELM, Assistant Special Agent in Charge, U.S.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Atlanta, Georgia, End of

Watch: March 11, 2005.

CHRISTOPHER J. SMITH, Assistant to the Special Agent in

Charge, U.S. Secret Service, Atlanta, Georgia, End of Watch:

March 25, 2005.

NICHOLAS D. GREENIG, Senior Patrol Agent, U.S. Customs and

Border Protection, Tucson, Arizona, End of Watch: March 14,

2006.

JESSICA E. HILL, Lieutenant (0-3), U.S. Coast Guard,

Arctic Ocean, End of Watch: August 17, 2006.

STEVEN DUQUE, Boatswain's Mate Second Class (E-5), U.S.

Coast Guard, Arctic Ocean, End of Watch: August 17, 2006.

DAVID N. WEBB, Senior Patrol Agent, U.S. Customs and Border

Protection, Ajo, Arizona, End of Watch: November 3, 2006.

RAMON NEVAREZ, JR., Border Patrol Agent, U.S. Customs and

Border Protection, Lordsburg, New Mexico, End of Watch: March

15, 2007.

DAVID J. TOURSCHER, Border Patrol Agent, U.S. Customs and

Border Protection, Lordsburg, New Mexico, End of Watch: March

16, 2007.

RONALD A. GILL, JR., Port Security Specialist Third Class

U.S. Coast Guard Reserve, Puget Sound, Washington, End of

Watch: March 25, 2007.

CLINTON B. THRASHER, Air Interdiction Agent, U.S. Customs

and Border Protection, McAllen, Texas, End of Watch: April

25, 2007.

RICHARD GOLDSTEIN, Border Patrol Agent, U.S. Customs and

Border Protection, Indio, California, End of Watch: May 11,

2007.

ROBERT F. SMITH, Air Interdiction Agent, U.S. Customs and

Border Protection, El Paso, Texas, End of Watch: May 22,

2007.

ERIC N. CABRAL, Border Patrol Agent, U.S. Customs and

Border Protection, Boulevard, California, End of Watch: July

26, 2007.

JULIO E. BARAY, Air Interdiction Agent, U.S. Customs and

Border Protection, El Paso, Texas, End of Watch: September

24, 2007.

LUIS AGUILAR, Border Patrol Agent, U.S. Customs and Border

Protection, Yuma, Arizona, End of Watch: January 19, 2008.

JAROD C. DITTMAN, Border Patrol Agent, U.S. Customs and

Border Protection, San Diego, California, End of Watch: March

30, 2008.

THOMAS G. NELSON, Captain (0-6) U.S. Coast Guard, Oahu,

Hawaii, End of Watch: September 4, 2008.

ANDREW C. WISCHMEIER, Lieutenant Commander (0-4), U.S.

Coast Guard, Oahu, Hawaii, End of Watch: September 4, 2008.

DAVID L. SKIMIN, Aviation Survival Technician First Class

(E-6), U.S. Coast Guard, Oahu, Hawaii, End of Watch:

September 4, 2008.

JOSHUA W. NICHOLS, Aviation Maintenance Technician First

Class (E-6), U.S. Coast Guard, Oahu, Hawaii, End of Watch:

September 4, 2008.

NATHANIEL A. AFOLAYAN, Border Patrol Agent, U.S. Customs

and Border Protection, Artesia, New Mexico, End of Watch: May

1, 2009.

CRUZ C. McGUIRE, Border Patrol Agent, U.S. Customs and

Border Protection, Del Rio, Texas, End of Watch: May 21,

2009.

ROBERT W. ROSAS, JR., Border Patrol Agent, U.S. Customs and

Border Protection, Campo, California, End of Watch: July 23,

2009.

CHE J. BARNES, Lieutenant Commander (0-4), U.S. Coast

Guard, San Clement Island, California, End of Watch: October

29, 2009.

ADAM W. BRYANT, Lieutenant (0-3), U.S. Coast Guard, San

Clement Island, California, End of Watch: October 29, 2009.

JOHN F. SEIDMAN, Aviation Maintenance Technician Chief

Petty Officer, U.S. Coast Guard, San Clement Island,

California, End of Watch: October 29, 2009.

CARL P. GRIGONIS, Avionics Electrical Technician Second

Class (E-5), U.S. Coast Guard, San Clement Island,

California, End of Watch: October 29, 2009.

MONICA L. BEACHAM, Avionics Electrical Technician Second

Class (E-5), U.S. Coast Guard, San Clement Island,

California, End of Watch: October 29, 2009.

DANNY R. KREDER, JR., Aviation Maintenance Technician Third

Class (E-4), U.S. Coast Guard, San Clement Island,

California, End of Watch: October 29, 2009.

JASON S. MOLETZSKY, Aviation Maintenance Technician Third

Class (E-4), U.S. Coast Guard, San Clement Island,

California, End of Watch: October 29, 2009.

MARK F. VAN DOREN, Border Patrol Agent, U.S. Customs and

Border Protection, Falfurrias, Texas, End of Watch: May 24,

2010.

SEAN D. KRUEGER, Lieutenant (0-3), U.S. Coast Guard, La

Push, Washington, End of Watch: July 7, 2010.

ADAM C. HOKE, Aviation Maintenance Technician First Class

(E-6), U.S. Coast Guard, La Push, Washington, End of Watch:

July 7, 2010.

BRETT M. BANKS, Aviation Maintenance Technician Second

Class (E-5), U.S. Coast Guard, La Push, Washington, End of

Watch: July 7, 2010.

CHARLES F. COLLINS II, CBP Officer, U.S. Customs and

Border Protection, Anchorage, Alaska, End of Watch: August

15, 2010.

MICHAEL V. GALLAGHER, Border Patrol Agent, U.S. Customs

and Border Protection, Casa Grande, Arizona, End of Watch:

September 2, 2010.

JOHN R. ZYKAS, CBP Officer, U.S. Customs and Border

Protection, San Diego, California, End of Watch: September 8,

2010.

SHAUN M. LIN, Maritime Enforcement Specialist Third Class

(E-4), U.S. Coast Guard, Portsmouth, Virginia, End of Watch:

October 13, 2010.

BRIAN A. TERRY, Border Patrol Agent, U.S. Customs and

Border Protection, Naco Cochise, Arizona, End of Watch:

December 15, 2010.

JAIME J. ZAPATA, Special Agent, U.S. Immigration and

Customs Enforcement, Mexico City, Mexico, End of Watch:

February 15, 2011.

HECTOR R. CLARK, Border Patrol Agent, U.S. Customs and

Border Protection, Yuma, Arizona, End of Watch: May 12, 2011.

EDUARDO ROJAS, JR., Border Patrol Agent, U.S. Customs and

Border Protection, Yuma, Arizona, End of Watch: May 12, 2011.

DALE T. TAYLOR, Lieutenant Commander (0-4), U.S. Coast

Guard, Point Clear, Alabama, End of Watch: February 28, 2012.

THOMAS J. CAMERON, Lieutenant Junior Grade (0-2), U.S.

Coast Guard, Point Clear, Alabama, End of Watch: February 28,

2012.

FERNANDO JORGE, Aviation Survival Technician (E-7), U.S.

Coast Guard, Point Clear, Alabama, End of Watch: February 28,

2012.

ANDREW W. KNIGHT, Avionics Electrical Technician (E-4),

U.S. Coast Guard, Point Clear, Alabama, End of Watch:

February 28, 2012.

JAMES A. HOPKINS, Electronics Technician (E-6), U.S. Coast

Guard, Kodiak, Alaska, End of Watch: April 12, 2012.

RICHARD W. BELISLE, Civilian Employee (WG-8), Chief

Boatswain's Mate (E-7), Retired, U.S. Coast Guard, Kodiak,

Alaska, End of Watch: April 12, 2012.

LEOPOLDO CAVAZOS, JR., Border Patrol Agent, U.S. Customs

and Border Protection, Fort Hancock, Texas, End of Watch:

July 6, 2012.

JAMES R. DOMINGUEZ, Border Patrol Agent, U.S. Customs and

Border Protection, Cline, Texas, End of Watch: July 19, 2012.

JEFFREY RAMIREZ, Border Patrol Agent, U.S. Customs and

Border Protection, Laredo, Texas, September 15, 2012.

NICHOLAS J. IVIE, Border Patrol Agent, U.S. Customs and

Border Protection, Bisbee, Arizona, October 2, 2012.

DAVID R. DELANEY, Border Patrol Agent, U.S. Customs and

Border Protection, Big Bend National Park, Texas, November 2,

2012.

TERRELL E. HORNE III, Senior Chief Boatswain's Mate (E-8),

U.S. Coast Guard, Marina Del Ray, California, End of Watch:

December 2, 2012.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Sam Johnson is an American hero, and everybody in this House knows that. He's an American hero for all kinds of ways that he served this country. Many of the people here are going to talk about those ways, and every one of them are important.

I read Sam's book. It's an awesome book. It makes you cry at points; it makes you struggle. But it also expresses the kind of a man and, quite frankly, the kind of a family Sam Johnson has.

Sam was a guy with a broken leg, dislocated shoulders, who looked them straight in the eye and spit in their face and told them to take their best shot. And he suffered for it, he suffered unmercifully for it, but he never gave in to the enemy. He always stood his ground, to his detriment, and it harmed him in so many physical ways. And yet the thing that makes me always tear up is you read the part of the book where Sam steps off that plane, when we finally repatriated our prisoners, and saluted and said, Colonel Sam Johnson reporting for duty, sir. And Sam reports for duty.

People say, Who do you want to have your back in a foxhole? But people also say, Who do you want to have your back in Congress? I want Sam Johnson to have my back in Congress. He's a friend. He's one of my best friends in this Congress. I've gotten to know him very well. He and I go to a Christian retreat together almost every year.

And that's one of the things you notice from the book. Sam didn't talk about himself. He talked about when they took him out and he thought, This time they're going to shoot me. He prayed to God that he could stand there and be a man. And they went, Ready, aim, fire, click, and one more time they didn't shoot him. And at that time he thanked God and his Savior, because he knew he had witnessed a miracle.

Meanwhile, his sweet wife was praying and fighting on the home front because she didn't know. She got very little news about what was going on in Sam's life, but she never gave up because her faith strengthened her. And that's part of the theme of that book that you need to pick up and read, that their faith strengthened them in trials that none of us can ever imagine.

Sam Johnson is a hero, not just because of what went on in Vietnam and what our enemy did to him. He's a hero because he comes here every day and he fights for the people of his district and for the State and for this country. He's willing to take a risk and step out, even now after all the years of service, both legislatively and in the Congress. Sam Johnson is one who is willing to step out and take the shots.

I was once asked by ``60 Minutes'' to define what a leader is, and I said,

Well, I'm just a history guy who reads history. I always thought in the First World War how hard it would have been to come out of those trenches and charge those machine guns with a bolt-action rifle, and that the officers who climbed out in front and said, ``Let's go, boys; let's go get 'em,'' were the heroes, and the guys that stayed in the bottom and said, ``You go get 'em, boys,'' they were not heroes. And a special hero is one who says, ``I'm going first and I'll take the shots.''

There's plenty of shots to be had in this Chamber, and those are political shots. But I'm proud to say that that same hero that spit in the enemy's face, Sam Johnson, is still willing to stand up and take the shots in Congress. And for that reason, I today honor my good friend Sam Johnson and tell him I want him to keep taking care of my back, because I need it real bad.

God bless you, Sam. You're my friend.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Colonel (Retired) Herbert A. Coley, a member of the Senior Executive Service, for his exceptional dedication to duty and service to the United States Army and to the United States of America. On December 31st, Colonel (Retired) Herbert Coley will be leaving Federal Service after a total of 39 years of selfless and dedicated service to our Nation as an Army Officer and as a government civilian. His distinguished career is culminating as the Chief of Staff of the Army Medical Command where he ensured that Army Medicine met the needs of our Soldiers, their Families, and others entrusted to the Army's care.

The son of an Army Medic and an Army Nurse and a native of San Antonio, Texas, Colonel (Retired) Coley had more than 28 assignments over his 39 years of government service. He entered active duty in 1970 commissioned as a Second Lieutenant in the Army Medical Service Corps after graduating from Trinity University. He served 28 years as an Army Officer as an aero medical evacuation pilot, healthcare administrator and commander. His active duty Army assignments included: Air Ambulance Section Leader at Fort Stewart, Georgia and Camp Mosier, Korea; Operations Officer and Platoon Leader for the 507th Medical Company (Air Ambulance); Commander, Headquarters and Support Company, 25th Medical Battalion, 25th Infantry Division; Commander, 507th Medical Company (Air Ambulance); Commander, 41st Combat Support Hospital; Chief of Manpower Programming and Analysis, Office of The Army Surgeon General; and, Director, Program Analysis and Evaluation, Army Medical Command. While on active duty he received a Master of Health Administration from Baylor University, graduated from the Armed Forces Staff College and was a fellow at the RAND Arroyo Center. Herbert Coley returned to government service shortly after retiring from the military and provided another 11 years of service. He had served as the Chief of Manpower Division, Army Medical Command and in 2009 he entered the Senior Executive Service as the Chief of Staff, Army Medical Command.

Colonel (Retired) Herbert A. Coley has devoted his life to the Army and our Nation's men and women in uniform. As the Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army Medical Command his skilled leadership was essential to improving the care or our Wounded Warriors and the readiness of our Army. He led this global organization with unwavering energy and compassion that endeared him to all, inspired trust and improved millions of lives. Herb Coley is one of the main reasons that Army Medicine is a preeminent system for health care in America.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of a grateful nation, I join my colleagues today in recognizing and commending Mr. Herbert Coley for a lifetime of service to his country. We wish Herb and his wife Stephanie all the best as they continue their journey in retirement.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to recognize the Lone Star Model A Ford Club upon achieving a milestone in the club's history. This Saturday, December 1, 2012, the club will meet for their 1,000th weekly breakfast in Georgetown, Texas.

Organized on September 26, 1993, in Georgetown, Texas, the Lone Star Model A Ford Club is for owners and admirers of Model A Fords who are interested in restoring and maintaining the automobile in a manner to attract prestige and respect within the community.

The Lone Star Model A Ford Club has served as a medium of exchange of ideas, information and parts for admirers of the Model A Ford car, manufactured from 1928 through 1931, and to aid them in their efforts to restore and preserve the car in its original likeness.

In addition, the Lone Star Model A Ford Club encourages and maintains among its members the spirit of good-fellowship, sociality, and fair play through sponsored activities including the use of the Model A Ford and family participation.

The Lone Star Model A Ford Club has consistently supported local civic endeavors by displaying their Model A's whenever asked by nursing homes, retirement homes, civic clubs, the Chamber of Commerce, the City of Georgetown, and Williamson County, including, during the re- dedication of the Williamson County Courthouse after its renovation.

The Club has twice hosted the statewide Model A Ford Convention in Georgetown with attendance as high as 550 people from throughout Texas in 1998 and again in 2005 and has been selected to host the 50th statewide Model A Ford Convention to be held in June 2013 in Round Rock, Texas.

Club members began meeting for weekly breakfasts every Saturday morning in October 1993 and have consistently continued this weekly social activity to this day.

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the 77 family members of the Lone Star Model A Ford Club on the occasion of their 1,000th weekly breakfast together and encourage our state's citizens to congratulate these individuals whose efforts should be recognized in preserving an important part of our nation's motoring history for the benefit of future generations.

I thank you for yielding.

I'm really pleased to step up tonight and say a little bit about my friend, Ralph Hall. Here he is, the oldest Member to cast a vote on this floor.

Texas has sent an awful lot of treasure to this place over the years. We've shared resources. We are a State of resources. We shared our resources, we think, pretty graciously with the rest of the country. And when we shared Ralph Hall with this body, we shared one of Texas's treasures.

We've talked about Ralph, and most of the stories that have been told I have known and thought about sharing. But the truth is that when I think about Ralph Hall, it's amazing. People that don't really know him in Texas think they know him because they know his reputation.

It's been said that a statesman is a person who puts everything above himself and all partisanship aside and tries to do what's right for the country. I've watched Ralph as a Democrat, I've watched him as a Republican, and that's what he does.

A national treasure is something they bury in the ground, so Ralph doesn't like to talk about that, but what he does like to talk about is the fact that we all need to be nice to each other. And Ralph Hall is like what we Texans define as a Texan. And the first definition every Texan will give is a man that'll look you straight in the face, make a deal with you, look him in the eye, he gives you his word, and you can count on it. That's the definition we Texans cherish.

He is the man who originated that definition, because he's the man you can look in the eye, and when he promises you he's going to do something, he's going to do it; but even more importantly, to be a person who has charm and grace and humor and the ability to make your day brighter every time you see him. I don't know of anybody in my life I've ever met that has that talent like Ralph Hall. That makes him a treasure.

God bless you, Ralph.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

This amendment would require the Secretary of Transportation to submit a report to Congress estimating: one, the number of jobs lost from the rule; two, the fatalities and injuries caused

by the rule; three the cost to the economy caused by the rule. And it prohibits the Department of Transportation from consulting with the Environmental Protection Agency or the California Air Resources Board to complete the project.

What we really have here is a situation of executive overreach. We have seen a lot from the Obama administration along those lines. He told us when Congress doesn't act, he will.

Well, the EPA has never been involved in fuel standards for the industry. This has been the job that the Congress authorized the Department of Transportation to do through the CAFE standards, Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards, not the EPA. California has State standards that they have established, but that doesn't make them the sole authority on the right standards.

What this rule will do is raise the average cost of a car by $3,000. It will cost 160,000 jobs by the Department of Transportation's own flawed analysis. It will cost industry and consumers $210 billion, the most expensive rule ever for the automobile industry.

This rule will price 7 million Americans out of the new car market. It will end the cars that are priced under $15,000. It will reduce vehicle safety mainly by reducing the weight and producing lighter vehicles, which are more susceptible to fatal collisions.

Finally, and most importantly to the State of Texas, this will reduce access to pickup trucks and other work vehicles, which are abundant in our State. This is overreach by the government.

I thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we have got a lot of hard work to do in about the next 3 months around this place. I want to talk tonight about a process that we have brought upon ourselves so that now we are faced with what, I think, could be one of the greatest catastrophes in the modern history of the United States--and that is almost the complete destruction of our military through a process called ``sequester.''

We use a lot of big words around this House, and half of the people who sit in this room on a daily basis don't even know what it means, to be honest with you, but they know what the process does: across-the- board cuts at every level of government. The reality of these cuts is that, at least in the current makeup of our government and with so many of our expenses in this government being mandatory spending and what we call ``entitlements,'' the lion's share automatically falls upon the military, on the Defense Department.

Even more critical to this particular agreement, which was made in the earlier part of this year when we had one of our many shutdown-the- government risks that have come upon this body in the last couple of years, the White House with the President, along with the majority leader of the Senate and the Speaker of the House, met to discuss how to keep from having a shutdown of the government and how to raise the debt ceiling so we could continue to operate this government. With everyone recognizing that there was a looming crisis from having spent more than we make for as long as we can remember, quite honestly, and, therefore, that we are now in a problem of debt which is drowning this Nation and the Members of this body wanting to address that, the discussion was about how we would do it.

They came up with a concept of a supercommittee. Most of you who keep up with current events know that we formed a supercommittee, the purpose of which was to come up with the cuts from the appropriate parts of this government so that we would reduce the spending of over $1 trillion, thus starting ourselves down the road to fiscal responsibility. This is what we set out to do. It was an honest effort, let's be frank. It was an honest effort. Everybody, whether elected to do it or not, recognized that this was the issue that was before us. The question was how to do this, and they came up with this supercommittee.

They agreed that, if the supercommittee failed, then the process of sequester would replace the actions of the supercommittee. There will be a political debate that will go back and forth as to who killed the effort in the supercommittee; but wherever the fault may lie, the supercommittee failed. Those of us who were in this House asked about the sequester and looked at it and worried about it as the vote came up as to whether or not this was the right thing to do. We then asked the question of the leaders here, which I'm sure was asked on both sides of the aisle: So what happens if the supercommittee doesn't perform?

We were told sequester, which was the worst possible thing to happen to this House, and I think both sides of the aisle agreed with that. But don't worry, it has never happened. It never will happen. We will do the right thing.

The committee failed.

It is almost August. Quite honestly, the number of legislative days left before the election can almost be counted on these two hands, and we haven't addressed how we are going to do this; but the folks who may most be affected have no choice but to address it.

The agreement that came out of the meeting between the President and the Congress was that roughly half the $1.1 trillion number, I believe it is, would come out of the Defense Department and that the other half would come out of domestic spending. Well, the Defense Department being the Defense Department--and it cannot function without planning--is already planning what it would have to do in case this occurs.

We talk in big ideas and issues around here, but the reality is this: this is about a bunch of people who chose the profession for their lives, that of defending our Nation.

We should never forget that the ordinary soldier, sailor, airman, marine, and Coast Guardsman volunteered to join their branch of the service, most of them, as their profession. This is not the old drafted military of World War II or the Korean war or the Vietnam war or the Cold War. This is a volunteer military. This is a young man or woman saying: I choose the job of fighting for my country. This is what I choose to do with my life. I will earn my way. I will earn my promotions by being a good warrior.

My wife and I, when we first learned that we were going to have the honor of representing what we call a great place, Fort Hood in Texas, we wanted to meet with soldiers, and the place we could find them to meet with us around Thanksgiving time was in Korea. We went and met with Fort Hood soldiers in Korea. Most of them were from Texas at our table where they were talking to us, and I asked a question. I was new to getting to talk to the ordinary soldier. These were just ordinary soldiers. There may have been a couple of sergeants there, but most of them were not highly ranked.

I said, How long are you guys and gals going to be in Korea? They said,

Oh, 3 months, 6 months, whatever the time period was. I said, What do you want to do next in the Army? They responded, We want to go to Afghanistan or Iraq. This is back in '04. From someone of my age who has the memory of the draft Army, that was a shocking answer: We want to go from this place in Korea to the place where the war is, and we would like to go directly there. These were 19-year-old kids, kids like my son coaches in football and baseball back home. These were kids that could have been the same kids that played on the team the year before who were sitting there at the table telling us they wanted to go to war.

I was kind of taken aback by that answer. It was unanimous, by the way. There were eight people around the table that were all unanimous: we want to go to war. Then this young tow-headed 19-year-old soldier said, Sir, that's what we are. We're trained warriors. That's what we do for a living. We fight wars. We want to go where our country needs us. We want to go to war. Not because we like war, but because we are professional soldiers. We do this for a living.

This is the mindset that goes back in history a long ways. Some of the greatest armies in the world had that mindset, that this was the job they chose for their life. Now, because we have not been willing to live within a budget in the United States--we're all at fault, every one of us. The people in this House, both sides of the aisle, we're all at fault. We spend more than we make, and we wonder why in the world it doesn't work. How many people sit at home and look at their household budgets and say, My gosh, we're spending more than we make. No wonder it doesn't work. That's like the law of gravity. It's a natural thing that you can't spend more than you make and not ultimately be in trouble, even when you can take it out of other people's pockets like the government.

Now we are faced with a crisis, and we're talking about a solution for that crisis that's going to fall on the back of that 19-year-old kid that talked to me in Korea because his goal in life was to rise in the ranks by being a good soldier. As a good soldier, if he did a good job, he would be promoted and he would rise in rank. Maybe in his heart his goal was to some day be a command sergeant major of one of the commands in the Army, kind of the pinnacle of the career of an ordinary soldier. Because we spend too much and can't agree on how to cut it and we're going to have to go to automatic cuts, that young man's job is at risk. The President says he's going to protect the jobs of the soldiers. I hope what he means he's not going to fire anybody. Although one of the papers that I was reading an article in it said he's not going to cut the pay of the soldiers.

I happen to be blessed. One of the things that I'm very proud of in this body is I am a cochair of the Army Caucus here in the Congress, and I've heard the generals talk about what sequester means to the Army. It means cuts of 100,000 to 180,000 soldiers. That means that kid that I talked to in Korea, who's probably now done three tours in Afghanistan or Iraq, who has done a good job, fought for his country, performed in an excellent manner, has been promoted, he's in the beginning of the middle of his career, and because we can't agree on how to reduce our runaway spending, that kid is going to lose his job.

He will not only lose his job, but he's going to lose his career. He chose our United States Army partially out of the job he wanted to do, but in a great many cases out of patriotism for this country. He didn't sign on to be in somebody else's Army. He signed on to be in our Army. He's done everything right; and yet because we can't control our spending, that young man and those young men and women at that table could lose their careers that they chose for their lives, careers to be proud of as Americans. There are young people willing to do this for our country.

When we talk these big numbers and throw around big words, we've got to remember it affects human beings. We've got some charts here I want to show you so you get some idea of what we're talking about. Where is the spending? This is entitlements. The spending is at $26.1 trillion. Nondefense spending is at $11.3 trillion. Defense spending at $3.6 trillion. That's where the spending is in our country today.

Let's look at what we propose to do as a solution under sequester. From entitlements we're taking $171 billion out of $26.1 trillion. From nondefense spending, we're taking $322 billion out of $11.37 trillion. Over here in defense we're taking $422 billion, the highest of any of these numbers, out of $3.6 trillion. This is about a 42 percent cut. This is out of whack.

What's this out of whack going to do to our military? Let's start off with what we're talking about right now in the country. We're talking about our economy, we're talking about getting ourselves out of this slump we're in and putting Americans back to work. Does anybody think it's a good idea to create a program that loses American jobs? To me, I just can't fathom it. But according to CNN, 1 million jobs will be lost under sequester. That's not military jobs. That's the people who provide goods and services either directly for the military or sell it to the military.

And here is something else that's pretty frightening. As we look down the road at this sequester program, the law that was created by the Congress and which was signed into law says, if we anticipate the loss in an industry of jobs based upon the actions of this body, they have to pass out pink slips 60 days before that might happen and in some cases 90 days.

Well, the drop-dead date on sequester is January 2 of next year. So if we do nothing by January 2, we are going to have these across-the- board cuts. We are going to have 1 million people get pink slips in either October or November. Now, is that going to raise the enthusiasm for growing our economy in America? It is absolutely as destructive as it could be.

We have a responsibility to try to do something about this, and we can't keep kicking cans down the road in this body. If we do, one of these days, we are going to get a broken foot, and already there seems to be a brick in the can.

This is serious stuff. We've got real people's lives being affected in the military. We've got real people's jobs being affected in the defense industry. These are people who go to work, just like everybody else in this country. Somehow we hear the words ``defense industry,'' and we assume some kind of fat cats. Go over to one of the defense industries and see the machinists and the guys that do all kinds of jobs, that create these great instruments that are instruments of war and also instruments of peace that we use in our military. All of these things are at risk, and the people who do those jobs are at risk right now as they relate directly to the sequester.

I am joined by my friend Mr. Bishop from Utah. Would you like to jump in here and talk a little bit about this? You are on the Armed Services Committee, I believe.

We had 20-some minutes to start. So we are down to 10 minutes, I believe. Tell us your view from the committee.

Reclaiming my time, and we may get a little more time, so don't run off.

What you just had to say was really important. That's the kind of shock that the American people need to hear. We are going to take the most powerful and the strongest military force on Earth and hollow it out. And when you ask a commander to explain a hollow force, he will say, On paper, it will look like a combat brigade; but when you go down into the various jobs that must be done to have an effective fighting combat brigade, you will find there is no one in those jobs. Therefore, it is not an effective combat brigade. This is simple stuff using just people as an example.

When you are using carrier forces and you are saying, We're going to take out the carrier and all their supporting ships--so we're going to give up a carrier and its ships or maybe two carriers and its ships to meet this sequester--you gut the Navy.

You gut the way they deliver force to a fight. They are one of our major deliverers of force to a fight. We take their claws away from them. The long-range Stryker and our new ships that are coming online, that as I understand it--and I forget what they call that--but that is gone.

And the thing about the Air Force, my gosh, we have known for a long time, since I first came to this Congress, that we were behind the eight ball in developing the next generation of combat fighting aircraft. We were behind the eight ball. This is when I came in 2002 and the discussion I was having with the folks in those days, we are working on it, we have them on the assembly line, we are trying to finish them up, but we're behind the eight ball. The Chinese and the Russians already have the next generation of fighting aircraft, and they're developing more, just as you said. And yet, we're talking about ours are going to go away. You have much more experience with this than I do, but I think everybody has common enough sense to know that if you shut it down, bringing it back is going to take a long time. It's just that simple. It's complicated. It's not easy.

And then of course, if we're not going to reduce the numbers of our fighting force, we're going to reduce the way they go to battle because you've got to cut something in the Army. If you're not cutting people, and I don't know if that's what the President means when he says he's not going to go after the personnel, whether he means he's not going to lower their pay or he's not going to lower their numbers. I don't know the answer. But if they lower the numbers, this is the vehicle the next generation is supposed to go to war in. We're not going to have that vehicle to go to war in.

Thank you. We'll try not to use it all so somebody can go get some rest around here for all the good work you people do here. But I am grateful to have a little more time so I can visit with my good friend, Mr. Bishop.

That's what you've been saying to us here. And one of the things you hear around this House is, well, there's soft power. I've had debates with some of my colleagues that we don't use soft power effectively. We try to always use hard power. I would argue you can't

have soft power unless you've got hard power. All the sweet talk in the world, if you don't have somebody to back you up that you can ultimately punch them in the nose, it ain't getting you anywhere. And if we're taking the punch out of our military, what are we left with?

By the way, I think those young kids who are not getting the kind of history lessons they should get these days probably know from somebody telling them that the last time we took our military down to this level, we had an event called Pearl Harbor. And that shows what happens when your readiness is not ready. And this is a world full of very, very dangerous things right now. We've been looking at terrorism for the last 10 years, and terrorism remains a big, big problem for this country. But there are others who would do us harm out there that if we don't have the ability to defend ourselves, we could fall into serious harm's way.

I yield to my friend.

I thank the gentleman for pointing that out, and reclaiming my time, we've already done work to show the direction we can go to head off this absolute disaster for our national defense. It is in the hands of the Democratic-controlled Senate. It is in the hands of the majority leader in the Senate, and it is time for him to put the partisan politics aside and fund our military and make the cuts across other areas.

Let's keep to our word to make cuts. Let's don't break that word, but let's don't destroy the military and violate the Constitution, which says we are supposed to provide for the common defense of this country.

You know, sometimes we get kind of provincial in this country, so just for the fun of it, let's talk a little bit about all those jobs, who's going to lose those jobs.

Let me put that chart up here. Potential job losses across the board: California, 125,800; Virginia, 122,800; Texas, 91,600; Florida, 39,200; Massachusetts, 38,200; Maryland, 36,200; Pennsylvania, 36,200; Connecticut, 34,200; Arizona, 33,200; Missouri, 31,200. That's the top. That's the top 10, I think it is.

But the truth is the defense industry and those who provide for the defense industry are a major part of our economy. We're all going to feel this. But if you're one of those States, and you're already worried about where are your kids, when they get out of school, going to get a job with jobs being lost, look at that list and see that we're all in this together. As we make this crazy move of weakening our national defense to the point of disaster, we're also weakening the very economy we're struggling to strengthen.

How can this possibly be good sense to anybody in this country? To me, it doesn't register. We're looking to create jobs, not destroy jobs. This is going to be a major impact on our country. I think we have the real potential to go back into a deep, double-dip recession and hopefully just being able to head it off at that.

Meanwhile, as these cuts take place and our military gets weaker and weaker and weaker, what do we do about the enemies of the United States? Is that where we want to be? Have we become that kind of country? I don't think so. I think we all need to gut up and put the politics aside. Let's don't hold hostage these jobs and hold hostage our military so somebody can get their tax policy different from someone else's tax policy. Let's debate that without holding anybody hostage. Let's debate it, let's vote on it, and let's get it done. Let's go to conference and let's work on taxes the way we're supposed to, but let's don't hold anybody hostage with threatening to destroy our military and get half the country laid off because we want it our way.

I would argue that that's exactly what Harry Reid is doing right now in the Senate. And I think that is something we need to stand up and shout on behalf of those warriors who go to war for us and who, by the way, have gone to war for us multiple times in the last decade.

This is exactly what Congressman Bishop was talking about. We have a resolution that was sent over there, H.R. 5652. It replaces $78 billion in defense cuts with $316 billion in cuts over 10 years, and the cuts come from across the board--Agriculture, Energy and Commerce, Financial Services, Judiciary, Oversight and Government Reform, and Ways and Means--instead of all out of the Defense Department. And the committee chairmen of the committees in the House did the work, held the hearings, and came up with these solutions. This is how this place is supposed to work.

Now, why can't we let it work? Why do we have to play political games that hold the greatest defense in the world hostage? It's a crime. It's absolutely a crime not only to our institutions of the military, but to our individuals in the military who gave us 10 years of war and did it voluntarily. Not one of them was drafted into the fight. They all marched to war voluntarily. And some of them suffered horrendously on behalf of this country. They got promoted, and they were rising in the military; and with one fell swoop, because we refused to do it the right way, and the Senate wants to hold tax policy before the goodness of the Defense Department, these guys are going to

lose their jobs. And those people aren't in those unemployment figures. These are industry figures we're talking about.

But what about the guy that fought for you for 10 years and you've thrown him out of a job when he's been promoted? He may be a staff sergeant for all I know, that kid that I met in Korea almost 10 years ago. And yet do you know what? We're going to fire the kid even though he has been a good soldier. What are you going to do with him? He's got to find a new job and a new career. He chose defending his country as his career.

Through no fault of his own, but through the political will of the Senate, at least the majority of the Senate, he gets his job taken away from him, and he's out on the unemployment line. Something is bad wrong with this whole picture.

I'm not going to take all the rest of the time, Mr. Bishop. I'll yield back to you if you have anything you'd like to say in conclusion, and then I'll wrap it up. I'm really grateful for you coming down here because your insight coming from the committee and hearing this day in and day out, I know you all have held numerous hearings on every issue, and I really appreciate your coming and sharing that with us.

I think a good point that you've clearly made, ``sequestration'' should be a definition of our failure to meet our constitutional responsibility. And it just can't happen. So I want to end by encouraging both sides of the aisle and all my colleagues in this House, let's get this deal done, let's don't gut our military, let's come up with other solutions, and for goodness' sakes, let's don't sell out the people who have gone to war for us for the last 10 years.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Rev. ``Bob'' Xiuqui Fu on the ten year anniversary of his organization, ChinaAid Association. This Texas-based organization has been at the forefront of the struggle for freedom and rights in China. ChinaAid is doing important work and I hope they will continue to flourish in their next ten years.

In 2002, only six years after migrating to the United States, Rev. Fu founded the ChinaAid Association to promote religious freedom and raise worldwide awareness of the ongoing and unjust persecution of religious believers in China. ChinaAid's goal is to provide for the physical, legal, and spiritual needs of victims of human rights abuses and to be a ``voice for the voiceless'' in Washington, DC and the capitals of the world.

ChinaAid is not only an effective voice for the voiceless, but is also working to make sure China's human rights defenders are able to speak against injustice. In recent years, ChinaAid has expanded its mission to support legal defense in religious persecution cases, academic research on the rule of law, and the training of human rights defenders.

Rev. Fu knows first-hand what it's like to be persecuted by the Chinese government. In 1989, he was one of the student leaders in Tiananmen Square demonstrating for freedom and democracy. After the bloody crackdown, Bob became a Christian and led a house church while teaching English at the Communist Party School in Beijing. Considered a threat to the Chinese Communist government, Bob and his wife Heidi were imprisoned for ``illegal evangelism'' causing them to flee from China in 1996. He eventually migrated to the United States with the assistance of members of Congress and then President Bill Clinton.

Pastor Fu is recognized as a leading expert on religious freedom and the rule of law. He regularly testifies before the U.S. Congress and has provided expert testimony before the European Union and the United Nations. Bob has also established a close working relationship with President George W. and Laura Bush, taking the first group of Chinese ``house church'' Protestant leaders to meet a sitting President in the White House.

The work of his organization is vital, it is effective, it is bipartisan, and it is necessary. Everyone here in Congress will agree, a future

China that respects the freedom of speech, the freedom to worship, and the rule of law will be a critical strategic partner with the United States.

ChinaAid is working to ensure this future and that is why it should be congratulated today on its tenth anniversary.