Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 24, H.R. 307--Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness Reauthorization, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

On rollcall No. 25, Motion to adjourn, had I been present, I would had voted ``nay.''

Mr. Speaker, today I congratulate Robert M. Lightfoot, Jr., on the occasion of his appointment as the Associate Administrator for NASA, the agency's highest-ranking civil servant position. As he is the first native Alabamian to hold this position, I am pleased to stand before this body of Congress to recognize his contributions to NASA and our country.

He previously was director of NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Ala. Named to the position in August 2009, he headed one of NASA's largest field installations, which plays a critical role in NASA's space operations, exploration and science missions. Mr. Lightfoot managed a broad range of propulsion, scientific and space transportation activities contributing to the nation's space program.

From 2007 to 2009, Mr. Lightfoot was Deputy Director of the Marshall Space Flight Center. Lightfoot served as manager of the Space Shuttle Propulsion Office at Marshall from 2005 to 2007, where he was responsible for overseeing the manufacture, assembly and operation of the primary shuttle propulsion elements: the main engines, external tank, solid rocket boosters and reusable solid rocket motors.

Mr. Lightfoot received a bachelor's degree in mechanical engineering in 1986 from the University of Alabama. In October 2007, he was named Distinguished Departmental Fellow for the University of Alabama, Department of Mechanical Engineering. He was selected as a University of Alabama College of Engineering fellow in 2009. Lightfoot serves on the University of Alabama Mechanical Engineering Advisory Board. In 2010, he was inducted into the State of Alabama Engineering Hall of Fame.

Mr. Lightfoot has received numerous awards during his NASA career, including a NASA Outstanding Leadership medal in 2007 for exemplary leadership of the Shuttle Propulsion Office, assuring safety for the return to flight of the space shuttle. In 2006, he was awarded the Presidential Rank Award for Meritorious Executives, and in 2010 he received the Presidential Rank Award for Distinguished Executives--the highest honors attainable for federal government work. In 2000, Mr. Lightfoot received a Spaceflight Leadership Recognition Award, which recognizes leaders who exemplify characteristics necessary for success. In 1999, NASA's astronaut corps presented him with a Silver Snoopy Award, which honors individuals who have made key contributions to the success of human spaceflight missions. He also received the NASA Exceptional Achievement Medal in 1996 for significant contributions to NASA's mission.

We are thankful for the years of dedication and hard work by Robert Lightfoot. We wish him and his family the best in this new role of service to our country.

I want to thank the gentleman from Georgia for the time.

Mr. Speaker, I'd also like to rise this evening to pay tribute to one of our colleagues who's played a critical role--as has been said here tonight, a behind-the-scenes role--here in the House of Representatives for many years, of course, the man, Jay Pierson.

As it's been noted here tonight, Jay has been a floor assistant to the top Republicans here in the House since '86, serving Republican Leader Bob Michel, Newt Gingrich, Speaker Hastert, current Speaker John Boehner, and even prior to that, of course, worked as floor assistant to the Journal Clerk for Republican Leader John Rhodes and assistant manager for the Republican Cloakroom. His experience has really been invaluable to all of us that serve here in the House of Representatives.

Jay is known for his vast knowledge of the rules, for his vast knowledge of the traditions and history and the procedures of the House of Representatives. He has been a teacher and a coach to so many Members of Congress over the years, and we are grateful to the dedication that he has given this institution over the past 34 years.

Jay was born in Santa Barbara, California, and of course graduated from Westmont College. Most don't realize that Jay has a master's degree and a Ph.D in English literature from California State University and University of Maryland, respectively. He and his wife, JoAnne, have two grown sons, Joel and Jeff. But Jay is also a man of faith, and he is a man who has his priorities in the right place.

Several years ago, he told his college alumni magazine that politics must be secondary to faith and to life. Ultimate answers don't lie in politics. No matter what we do or legislate, we won't solve all the problems. The issues are incredibly complex. Jay is someone who understands the importance of the legislative process; however, he also realizes that the ultimate answers are not found here.

Jay and JoAnne have been active members in their church, and that's where I've gotten to know both him and JoAnne even better over the years. I have found Jay to be, as mentioned

here by several Members here tonight, as the go-to guy when it comes to floor operations here in the House of Representatives. He is someone who is dependable and someone that, if he doesn't know the answer, can point you in the right direction where you can find the answer.

Thirty-four years is a long time to work in one institution, but I think his commitment to that 34 years tells you about his commitment in general and his dedication in general. All of us here in the House will miss Jay, but having worked in this place for over 34 years, I hope that he will be back to visit quite often.

So, Mr. Speaker, we wish Jay Pierson all the best in the next chapter of his life.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of one of Alabama's most heroic sons, Joshua Wetzel of The United States Army. While out on patrol on May 31, 2012 Joshua was almost killed in an IED explosion in Kandahar Afghanistan. While he lost his legs and suffered numerous other injuries, he never lost his faith. As he said to me the first time I met him in a hospital bed at Walter Reed, I'm still standing! And that pretty much sums up this man's will to live and can do spirit. He makes all of America proud and his town of Glencoe. With the help of his family and wonderful wife Paige, he has already made such great strides in such a short time and it's going to be hard to catch up to him. I ask that this poem penned in his honor by Albert Caswell be placed in the Record.

I'm Still Standing

I'm . . .

I'm still standing . . .

Here on this very day . . .

You may take my two strong legs,

but my heart you can not so sway!

I'm still standing!

Look at me out on my way!

For I've got mountains to so climb,

and so many hearts to so inspire,

and such hope to so convey all in my time along the way!

Yea, I'm still standing,

as I fight this new fight each and every day!

All at speed,

as my heart so gives me all that I so need . . .

so you better get out of my way!

You see,

War Eagles do not so hesitate!

For I am Army Strong,

as my heart beats loud and long . . .

to fight for freedom night and day!

2nd Infantry, EARTH PIGS who fight and lead!

And The University of Auburn,

is all part of my very DNA!

Because, sweet Alabama was where I was born and raised!

And all of my children are going to graduate from there one

day!

For I am a grunt!

Ever on the hunt!

To evil to so confront!

As I was on that fateful day!

As when my short life almost went away!

Without legs, and halfway to death as there I lay!

As I had a choice,

as when inside of me I so heard a voice,

telling me to stay!

And I got up and run for the first time in my life without

legs!

With the tears running down my eyes,

I began to pray!

As along side of me my Lord God ran with me that day!

Helping me chase all of that heartache and doubt away!

As now I must rebuild!

As so inside of me my hearts instills!

The courage and the strength to so will!

Because, I'm Standing Still!

Heartache and pity get out of my way!

Don't cry for me,

but for all of my Brothers in Arms who now lie in such soft

quiet graves!

And I'm going back home to sweet Alabama,

running one day!

And to this our world,

my life still has so much more to say!

And I've got a wonderful wife,

who is the light of my life who has shown me that true love

really stays!

And this War Eagle,

stands so regal with his courage he displays!

As I'm still standing even taller on this day!

I want to thank the gentleman from Kentucky for his time and just take a moment to say how much we appreciate working with him and his staff on this legislation as we've moved forward.

As has been mentioned here, the purpose of this legislation, in many respects, is to make critical technical changes to the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act, known as EISA, which will both preserve jobs and create new jobs in several related fields of industry.

I want to speak in particular to section 313 of EISA as it relates to the efficiency standards of walk-in coolers and freezers. The section mandates that cooler and freezer doors must meet a certain R-value as a measurement of their ability to retain temperature and use less energy. The problem here is that R-value is a measurement based primarily on one insulating product in particular--foam--and on how thick that foam actually is. However, requiring a product to meet an R-value prohibits technologies that are just as efficient even though they utilize alternative materials or technologies.

In this case, the technology is even more efficient. Although regulatory statutes many times provide the Department of Energy with a waiver authority, a waiver was not a part of this particular statute. This legislation provides the Department of Energy with the authority to waive the requirement if they determine a product meets or exceeds the desired energy-efficiency goals.

Bureaucratic red tape and Federal regulations can sometimes accidentally keep America's innovators and small businesses from creating jobs. Therefore, the Manufacturing Technical Corrections Act is a commonsense solution which maintains standards and yet corrects a problem which otherwise stifles growth and causes companies to lose jobs. Due to an increase in regulation over the past few years, too many small businesses have had to lay off employees, reduce production, and even shut their doors. This is precisely what happened to an innovative manufacturing company in the district I represent back in Alabama.

The Federal Government's embrace of outdated technology prohibits new and innovative solutions to improve energy efficiency. Without sacrificing the efficiency standards which drove the original bill, my bill here that we're discussing this afternoon merely makes a commonsense update.

Just to be clear, this legislation, H.R. 6582, does not create new standards, but it does make existing standards better for businesses and better for consumers. I can personally attest that this technical corrections bill will directly affect over 100 jobs in the State of Alabama, and potentially many others could be created with this new and innovative technology. The other sections of this bill affect a similar and, in some cases, I'm told, an even greater amount of jobs in other places in the country.

Simply put, this commonsense legislation provides technical corrections which remove barriers to technologies and which untie the hands of companies that manufacture here in the United States of America. This means jobs. And not only by moving this legislation will we be able to create jobs, but we'll be able also to make sure that we continue economic growth in this country.

Therefore, I suggest and urge my colleagues that they support this legislation that's on the floor today.

Mr. Speaker, it has been eleven years and we shall never forget the impact that September 11, 2001 made on every American.

Today, eleven years since tragedy struck the shores of America at the hands of Osama bin Laden and his followers, we should all pause for a moment and reflect upon not only the solemness of this day, but also the strength of American ideals to overcome adversity and persevere.

Today, we should all remember the thousands of people needlessly murdered in New York, Pennsylvania, and Virginia on that faithful day; the brave first responders who rushed into harm's way without concern for the consequences; the thousands of brave men and women that have made the ultimate sacrifice in the course of the war of terror; and the thousands of security, intelligence, and law enforcement officials that continue to work tirelessly to keep our Nation safe and secure.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to honor the outstanding young men and women of the Cullman Area Teenage Republican Club for being named the Most Outstanding Teenage Republican Club in the Nation for the second year in a row at the National Teenage Republican Leadership Conference. These fine young men and women should be applauded for their dedication and hard work. Together, they spent over 2,300 hours participating in special projects, grassroots outreach, and community activities.

This organization has also had some outstanding leadership. Under the guidance of Republican State Executive Committee member Rebecca Branch, conservative teenagers in Cullman formed the Cullman Area Teenage Republican Club and found an avenue by which they could impact elections at all levels. Rebecca has been a shining example and has provided real leadership to these students over the years.

In addition, Daniel Robinson, a 2012 graduate of Cullman High School, has been recognized as the Most Outstanding Republican in the Nation. Daniel not only worked to increase membership in Cullman, but also helped start new Teen Republican Organizations in Baldwin, Shelby, Madison and Morgan counties. Daniel plans to continue his education at Auburn university this fall and looks forward to having the opportunity to work with Auburn's Young Republicans this fall.

These exceptional young people have worked diligently to recruit Alabama youth, involve them in the political process, and promote the understanding of the conservative philosophy. It is encouraging to see these young students from Alabama's Fourth District do such great things and I applaud them for their accomplishments.

Mr. Speaker, it is a great privilege to honor the members of the Cullman Area Teenage Republican Club for their achievement and unwavering resolution in building this organization for the conservative youth of Alabama. I join their family, friends, and colleagues in congratulating them on receiving this award.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to pay tribute to Arthur E. ``Gene'' Goldman, Acting Director of NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center, on the occasion of his retirement from NASA and his 28 years of distinguished federal service. Mr. Goldman provided superb leadership to over 5,000 personnel across a wide variety of disciplines, and provided sound fiscal management of a $2.5 billion budget. With those resources, he achieved cutting edge advancements in launch systems, spaceflight vehicles, and the supporting research and development efforts. All of these will shape our great nation's space program for years into the future.

Mr. Goldman was born and raised in Russell, Mississippi, where he was introduced and attracted to the awe of space when his father took him out one night and showed him the Echo satellite passing overhead. With that inspiration and desire to learn, he graduated from Mississippi State University with a Bachelor of Science degree in Civil Engineering and thereafter earned his Registered Professional Engineer-Civil certification, with the intention of building bridges. Although he never physically built a bridge, he certainly built, mended and maintained a multitude of bridges among NASA components, stakeholders and customers.

While at NASA, Mr. Goldman also held the positions of Deputy Director of Marshall Space Flight Center; Director and Deputy Director of Stennis Space Flight Center; Manager and Deputy Manager of the Space Shuttle Main Engine Project; and project engineer on the Marshall Shuttle Project Integration Office. He was assigned to the Senior Executive Service in 2004. Prior to joining NASA in 1990, he worked for the Tennessee Valley Authority for 6 years and in the nuclear power industry.

During his tenure, Mr. Goldman was awarded the prestigious Presidential Rank Award in 2010, the NASA Outstanding Leadership Medal in 2007, the Exceptional Achievement Medal in 2002, the NASA Certificate of Appreciation in 1997, and the Marshall Space Flight Center Director's Commendation in 1992. He also completed the Senior Executive Fellows Program at Harvard University.

Mr. Goldman is widely known and appreciated throughout NASA for treating every single person he encounters with utmost respect and value, regardless of their function. His strategic guidance, sage advice and leadership have brought him unqualified success and significant positive impact on NASA's mission. With extraordinary and sincere gratitude, I thank Mr. Goldman for his dedicated service and outstanding contributions to our country. I wish Mr. Goldman all the best as he retires from NASA, and may God bless him, his wife Nancy, his daughter Jennifer, and his entire family in the days ahead.

Mr. Speaker, today I would like to honor Sergeant Scott Entrekin; Clark Thompson; Colt Gregory; Jeff Hopper; Jordan Harwood; Stephen Hill; Sergeant Gary Pierce; and Mitch James, of the City of Gadsden Police Department in receiving the Gadsden Police Department's Medal of Valor on July 10, 2012. These fine officers should be applauded for their harrowing actions and professionalism in defusing a dangerous situation this past January in Alabama City, Alabama. These men truly embody bravery and a devotion to serving their community.

As an armed man fled from police through an Alabama City neighborhood, he began to fire at all of the officers. Many of the officers that responded are on the department's Joint Special Operations Group and are trained in tactical SWAT operations. Using their training, the officers worked to contain the situation without opening fire in order to prevent crossfire in the residential area. In a team effort, including assistance from an Etowah County sheriff's deputy and a crisis negotiator, they were able to corner the shooter and convince him to surrender.

These courageous men were able to take the suspect into custody without any injuries that morning. This is a great testament to not only their professionalism, but also their restraint. The tremendous leadership shown by these officers is an example of their dedication to protect their community, as well as fellow officers.

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a great privilege to honor these eight men: Sergeant Scott Entrekin; Clark Thompson; Colt Gregory; Jeff Hopper; Jordan Harwood; Stephen Hill; Sergeant Gary Pierce; and Mitch James, for earning Gadsden Police Department's Medal of Valor for their heroic actions in keeping our community safe. I join their family, friends, and colleagues in congratulating them on receiving this distinguished honor.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, when Congress passed the Energy Independence and Security Act in December 2007, it inadvertently did not allow a procedure for technologies which may provide greater energy efficiencies than even what is required in the bill. The legislation before us this afternoon simply makes a small change in relation to walk-in coolers and freezers.

Section 312 of the Energy Independence and Security Act regulates the efficiency standards of walk-in coolers and freezers. The section mandates that cooler and freezer doors meet a certain R-value as a measurement of their ability to retain temperature and use less energy. The problem is that an R-value is a measurement based primarily on the thickness of foam. Therefore, requiring products to meet an R-value prohibits technologies that are just as efficient, but utilize alternative materials or technologies.

These types of statutes typically provide the Department of Energy with a waiver authority. This bill simply provides the Department of Energy with the authority to waive the R-value requirement if they determine a product meets or exceeds the desired energy-efficiency goals. This bill is supported by the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy. Furthermore, we have spoken with officials at the Department of Energy who recognize the need to consider the energy savings of nonfoam products.

Madam Speaker, this situation offers a prime example of how making an adjustment in a government regulation can maintain standards and at the same time allow flexibility for businesses and retailers to purchase superior products to enable their businesses to use less energy and therefore save more money. The law as it currently stands is preventing this mutually beneficial transaction from taking place. Furthermore, without a waiver authority, the law will continue to limit future innovations in this important sector. It would be, as if in the 1950s, Congress had mandated that the record industry only use a certain type of vinyl. Therefore, there would be no cassette tapes, CDs, or iPods.

With this simple bill, Congress can fix this oversight, allowing more eco-friendly innovations and a freer marketplace. This is one way we as Representatives can help continue to create an environment for economic growth. For those reasons, this bill enjoys wide bipartisan support, and I urge a ``yes'' vote on H.R. 4850.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that, during further consideration of H.R. 5855 in the Committee of the Whole pursuant to House Resolution 667, no further amendment to the bill may be offered except (1) pro forma amendments offered at any point in the reading by the chair or ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations or their respective designees for the purpose of debate; and (2) further amendments, if offered on this legislative day, as follows: an amendment by Mr. Aderholt regarding funding levels; an amendment en bloc by Mr. Aderholt consisting of amendments specified in this order not earlier disposed of; an amendment by Ms. Baldwin limiting funds regarding Coast Guard Offshore Patrol Cutter class of ships; an amendment by Mr. Barletta regarding section 642(a) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996; an amendment by Mrs. Black limiting funds for the position of Public Advocate within U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; an amendment by Mrs. Blackburn regarding Transportation Security Administration employee training; an amendment by Mrs. Blackburn regarding Transportation Security Administration teams used in any operation; an amendment by Mr. Brooks regarding section 133.21(b)(1) of title 19, Code of Federal Regulations; an amendment by Mr. Broun of Georgia limiting funds for Behavior Detection Officers or the SPOT program; an amendment by Mr. Broun of Georgia regarding the Screening Partnership Program; an amendment by Ms. Brown of Florida regarding funding levels for U.S. Customs and Border Protection; an amendment by Mr. Cravaack limiting funds for security screening personnel; an amendment by Mr. Cravaack limiting funds to pay rent for storage of screening equipment; an amendment by Mr. Cravaack regarding section 236(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act; an amendment by Mr. Crowley regarding India; an amendment by Mr. Culberson regarding the Immigration and Nationality Act; an amendment by Mr. Davis of Illinois regarding cybersecurity; an amendment by Mr. Ellison regarding the Civil Rights Act of 1964; an amendment by Mr. Engel regarding light duty vehicles; an amendment by Mr. Flores regarding section 526 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007; an amendment by Mr. Fortenberry limiting funds to restrict airline passengers from recording; an amendment by Mr. Garrett limiting funds for VIPR teams; an amendment by Mr. Graves of Missouri regarding the rule entitled Provisional Unlawful Presence Waivers of Inadmissibility for Certain Immediate Relatives; an amendment by Ms. Hochul regarding unclaimed clothing; an amendment by Mr. Holt limiting funds for aerial vehicles; an amendment by Mr. Holt regarding scanning systems; an amendment by Mr. King of Iowa regarding Department of Homeland Security policy documents; an amendment by Mr. King of Iowa regarding Executive Order 13166; an amendment by Mr. Landry regarding aerial vehicles; an amendment by Mr. Loebsack limiting funds to deny assistance obligated by FEMA; an amendment by Mr. Meehan regarding Boko Haram; an amendment by Ms. Moore regarding a pending application for status under the Immigration and Nationality Act; an amendment by Mr. Murphy of Pennsylvania regarding a Federal Air Marshal Service office; an amendment by Mr. Pierluisi regarding section 1301(a) of title 31, United States Code; an amendment by Mr. Polis regarding an across-the-board reduction; an amendment by Mr. Price of Georgia regarding immigration laws; an amendment by Mr. Ryan of Ohio regarding visas; an amendment by Mr. Schweikert regarding the Secure Communities program; an amendment by Mr. Sullivan regarding section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act; an amendment by Mr. Thompson of California regarding deportation of certain aliens; an amendment by Mr. Turner of New York regarding surface transportation security inspectors; and an amendment by Mr. Walsh of Illinois regarding software licenses; and that each such further amendment may be offered only by the Member named in this request or a designee, shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole, and shall not be subject to amendment except that the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations (or their respective designees) each may offer one pro forma amendment for the purpose of debate; and that each further amendment shall be debatable for 10 minutes, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent.

Mr. 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 on H.R. 5855 and that I may include tabular material on the same.

I reserve a point of order.

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

Mr. Chairman, I would yield to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry) to talk about an important cyber-critical infrastructure issue.

I thank the gentleman for his comments. I am also a member of the Speaker's Task Force on Cybersecurity, and I understand the concerns that the gentleman has expressed this afternoon.

As the gentleman noted, this bill focuses on Federal network security by addressing the failure of the administration to protect its own networks. Again, I want to thank the gentleman for his comments, and I would be happy to work with him to address his concerns.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murphy).

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

Amendment Offered by Mr. Ellison

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

We would be happy to accept the amendment from the gentleman from Minnesota.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

I would be happy to accept the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and it constitutes legislation in an appropriation bill and therefore violates clause 2 of rule XXI.

The rule states, in pertinent part:

``An amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.''

The amendment imposes additional duties.

I ask for a ruling of the chair.

Will the gentlewoman yield?

We believe this is duplicative, but we will accept the gentlelady from Tennessee's amendment. The position would be duplicative, but we do accept the gentlelady's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment.

Yes, I would be happy to accept your amendment, and I look forward to working with you as we move forward in the process.

I rise in support of the gentleman's amendment from Iowa, and we think this is a good idea.

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

I yield to the gentlelady from Tennessee.

Mr. Chairman, I rise regrettably to oppose the amendment. I think this amendment is very well-intentioned; but the amendment, unfortunately, would force the TSA to wear civilian gear and this could possibly confuse the public as to whether the screeners have the authorized duty to carry out their lawful inspection of screening. It would also require the TSA to discard millions of dollars' worth of current uniforms, and the bill does not fund any new uniforms.

I do think that there are some things we need to address, and I appreciate the gentlelady from Tennessee bringing it to my attention here, and I would be happy to work with her. Again, I have to oppose the amendment, but like I said, I would be happy to work with her and see if we can't come to some accommodation on this.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

At this time, I would like to yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).

I yield to the gentlewoman.

I thank the gentlelady, and reclaim my time.

I appreciate the gentlelady from Tennessee working with us on this as we are trying to reword the amendment with the proposed changes. So with the proposed changes that have been given to the Clerk and handed out to the minority, we would accept the changes and accept the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, we withdraw our point of order, and we accept the amendment.

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

I would like to add that we strongly support 287(g). As a matter of fact, we have increased 287(g) by 25 percent in this bill. We reject the administration's cuts to 287(g), and we agree with the amendment from the gentleman from Oklahoma.

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

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

I yield to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Loebsack).

I want to thank the gentleman for raising these issues and bringing it to our attention.

Just this past year, the district I represent was devastated by tornados. So the people of the district that I represent know firsthand what it is to work with FEMA and the recovery from a horrific disaster.

I understand my colleague's concerns and agree that we need to be cognizant of the burden on local communities if they've been awarded recovery funds and then have those funds taken back through no fault of their own.

My colleague certainly raises some commonsense points and issues that we should look at to address and to make sure that communities across the country aren't expending local funds for no reason, so that taxpayer dollars are protected at both the local and at the Federal level, so there is a better and more cooperative partnership between the Federal Government and these recovering communities.

It is important that the State and the Federal partnership on disaster recovery is maintained in a collaborative and productive fashion, and I agree with my colleague from Iowa and hope that the issues like this don't disrupt the partnership that lead to communities doubting the sincerity or the ability of their government to come to their aid in such a time as needed.

I know that everyone wants favorable outcomes and for our communities to recover as quickly as possible and agree that communities shouldn't shoulder the burden of an agency's mistake.

As recovery continues in the district of my colleague from Iowa, I pledge to work with him and FEMA to address these issues and look forward to recovery in a timely manner.

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

Amendment Offered by Mr. Barletta

I move to strike the last word.

I would simply like to rise in support of the gentleman from Pennsylvania's amendment and say that we agree with his amendment that he has brought forth tonight.

I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Culberson).

Reclaiming my time, I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.

Reclaiming my time, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Reclaiming my time, I would just like to say I support the gentleman from Pennsylvania's amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I move to strike the last word.

At this time I would like to yield to the gentleman from Rhode Island to talk about an important cyber workforce issue.

I thank the gentleman for his continued leadership on cybersecurity matters and welcome the opportunity to engage him in this colloquy. Ensuring that the Department of Homeland Security has the resources needed to execute cybersecurity responsibilities entrusted to it is

extremely important to both the short-term and the long-term success of its critical cybersecurity roles.

I assure the gentleman that we will continue to examine how to best proceed to make sure the Department has adequately and effectively resourced to deter and defend against cybersecurity threats.

I yield to the gentleman.

I appreciate the gentleman's views and I look forward to working closely with him in examining these issues as we move forward. I'll make every effort to address the workforce concern as we move toward conference on this bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

En Bloc Amendment Offered by Mr. Aderholt

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment en bloc at the desk, and I would ask unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment combines three separate amendments which were outlined in our unanimous consent agreement earlier. The first, from Mr. Engel, has a limitation on funds for the lease or purchase of new light-duty vehicles that are not in accordance with the President's fleet efficiency standards.

The second amendment is from Mr. Holt. It is a limitation on funds for the use of armored, unmanned aerial systems. And the third is from Mr. Price of Georgia. It's a limitation on funds being used in contravention of the Nation's immigration laws.

I would urge my colleagues to support the adoption of this en bloc amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

That is correct.

No.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise to reluctantly oppose the gentleman's amendment.

I appreciate that he has brought this to our attention. I just found out about the matter today. I would like to work with the gentleman from New York. However, I do have concerns about the broadness of this amendment.

The TSA surface transportation security inspectors, or TSI, provide a number of security functions agreed on as a result of consultation with the State, Federal, local, and private stakeholders. In addition, the inspectors provide the subject matter expertise for FEMA to evaluate eligibility for surface transportation security grants.

The amendment that the gentleman brings up tonight would result in laying off about 240 inspectors, which is about 60 percent of the current workforce. This would be an excessive action to address what seems to be a need to better focus on the operations of surface inspectors. It would effectively take TSA out of the surface security realm at a time when we know terrorists and those interested in attacking our mass transit and other surface modes of transportation are focused on just that, so I urge my colleagues to reject the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition because the amendment would slash critical funding for our Nation's homeland security. For the third fiscal year in a row, this bill that we have before us accomplishes a dual goal that we have constantly worked on-- fiscal discipline and necessary funding for the homeland security needs of this country.

The bill reduces the departmental management by $191 million, or 17 percent, below the request and $71 million below last year. It demands efficiency from all agencies, including an overall reduction of the TSA of $147 million, or 3 percent. It cuts programs that are not performing and reduces bureaucratic overhead.

The Department is an Agency of 230,000 employees with an absolutely critical Federal mission. So I would urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, I rise reluctantly to to oppose the amendment of my good friend from Georgia.

I do support privatized screening; however, I'm concerned how the amendment that has been proposed by the gentleman would be applied. The effect of the amendment would be to prohibit TSA from canceling a contract for cause, such as the case where a privatized screening airport fails to comply with applicable laws and security requirements.

The amendment may be intended to restrain TSA from capriciously canceling contracts, but it would go too far, and it would tie the TSA's hands.

So again, I reluctantly cannot support my colleague's amendment, and I would urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I do appreciate the gentleman's oversight concerns and his suggestions on how we can make this a better program. However, behavior detection officers are actually a meaningful layer of our Nation's risk-based approach to security.

While there have been questions about the overall size of the program and the science behind it, this committee has continued to address any concerns through robust oversight. I would welcome the opportunity to work with the gentleman from Georgia on how we might address these concerns, but this does not mean that we should completely destroy a program that is designed to counter new and evolving tactics being developed by terrorists and our adversaries as we speak.

As recently as last month, after a foiled terrorist plot that originated in Yemen, we learned that our enemies are still actively plotting to hit our aviation sector. These operatives are devising new methods for attacking this Nation, and some of them are more difficult to detect using the traditional screening methods that we normally see in the airports. This is where the behavior detection officers come into play. These officers serve as additional layers, as I mentioned, of defense to root out these adversaries who would try to slip through our defenses.

This committee will continue to make sure that the BDO program is rightly sized and that the Department validates the science behind it. It is something that we have certainly focused on this year and that we need to continue to focus on. Again, cutting the entire program would be irresponsible and would open up holes in our Nation's security posture, particularly in light of the continued attempts to attack our Nation's transportation system.

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

Will the gentleman yield?

I would like to say that we would agree with the gentleman from Minnesota's amendment and would support it and think it's a good idea.

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

I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise and report the bill back to the House with sundry amendments, with the recommendation that the amendments be agreed to and that the bill, as amended, do pass.

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

Mr. Speaker, this bill is already robust on cybersecurity. It provides a substantial increase in every cybersecurity program across the Department.

Furthermore, this bill already does more for grants to high-risk areas than any previous DHS appropriations bill, and we increase grants by more than $400 million. Let me repeat that: By more than $400 million we increase grants.

In short, this motion is not needed. This bill cuts spending overall, but it also fully sustains all frontline and high-risk operation. It is a balanced bill. It is a disciplined bill. It is a bill worthy of support.

Mr. Speaker, it's time to vote. It's time to meet our Nation's needs for security and fiscal restraint. I urge my colleagues to reject this unnecessary motion and to enthusiastically support this bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. 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 on H.R. 5855, and that I may include tabular material on the same.

Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Chair, it was 68 years ago today that more than 9,000 Allied soldiers were killed and 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 not free. It is with this solemn commitment to both freedom and security that I respectfully present to the people's House the FY 2013 appropriations bill for the Department of Homeland Security.

Similar to our committee's work over the past 2 fiscal years, this bill demonstrates how we can sufficiently fund vital security programs while also at the same time reducing discretionary spending overall. This bill does not represent a false choice between fiscal responsibility and our Nation's security. Both are national security priorities and both are vigorously addressed in this bill by focusing upon four key priorities:

First, fiscal discipline. This bill reduces spending below the FY12- enacted level;

Second, oversight. This bill continues and strengthens the subcommittee's long bipartisan tradition of strict accountability;

Third, support for frontline operations. This bill sustains and it actually even increases operational programs, including border and maritime security, immigration enforcement, investigations, targeted aviation security activities, disaster relief, and also cybersecurity;

Fourth, preparedness and innovation. Despite the bill's overall reduction in spending, investments and preparedness grants and science and technology are substantially increased above FY12 levels.

In sum, I believe this to be a very strong bill that incorporates considerable input from nearly 200 Members, including members of the authorizing committees, and also along with the Appropriations Committee, which meets our Nation's pressing needs for both security and fiscal restraint.

I would like to go into a few details on fiscal discipline and spending that are included in this legislation.

The bill before us today provides $39.1 billion in base discretionary funding, which is nearly a half billion dollars below the FY12-enacted level, and it is almost $400 million below the President's own request. There are no earmarks in this bill or the accompanying report.

The bill cuts the Department's bureaucratic overhead and headquarters functions by nearly 18 percent below the request and 7 percent below last year's level. Also, the bill substantially reduces the administrative overhead of the Department of Homeland Security component agencies, including a $61 million reduction to TSA's administrative functions and a reallocation of TSA's resources to increase privatized screening and canine enforcement teams. In fact, TSA is cut overall by some $422 million below last year's level.

As I noted, this bill puts priority funding on frontline personnel, such as the Border Patrol, CBP officers, Coast Guard military personnel, and law enforcement agents. It supports the largest immigration detention capacity in the history of ICE, and it sustains high-risk aviation security. It fully funds the known requirement for disaster relief; supports long overdue initiatives in cybersecurity; and robustly supports intelligence, watch-listing, threat-targeting systems, preparedness grants, and science and technology programs, including the National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility.

In addition, this bill reforms the way the Coast Guard acquires its costly operational assets and responsibly funds much-needed cutters and aviation assets, those essential tools that will keep our coastlines safe and secure our maritime approaches against the plague of illegal drugs.

This bill also provides funding where the administration utterly failed. This bill makes up for the $115 million shortfall that was handed to us by the Department through phony, unauthorized fee collections, as well as the $110 million shortfall resulting from OMB's failure to properly access CBP's fee collections. The administration may be able to rely on some of these fee gimmicks in the President's budget, but here in the House and in the subcommittee we do not have that luxury.

With respect to oversight, our subcommittee has a bipartisan tradition of insisting upon results for each and every taxpayer dollar that it appropriates. Therefore, the bill includes robust oversight by way of intensified spend plan requirements, reporting requirements, a full accounting of disaster relief costs, and operational requirements to include Border Patrol staffing levels and ICE's detention capacity.

However, I must note that the Department of Homeland Security did an unacceptably poor job at complying with the statutory requirements that were enacted in FY12. Those failures are assertively addressed in this bill and the report, and we address this through sizable cuts and withholdings to the Department.

Furthermore, this bill holds the administration's feet to the fire when it comes to enforcing our Nation's immigration laws. In response to the administration's repeated attempts to water down enforcement, this bill directs ICE to maintain 34,000 detention beds and continue funding 287(g) and worksite enforcement at the FY 2012 levels. It is the prerogative of Congress to set such priorities, and I stand by this direction in the bill.

Our subcommittee is serious about compelling the Department to not only enforce the law, but to comply with the law as well, and we cannot tolerate further failures in this regard.

Finally, on preparedness and innovation. The bill increases preparedness grants by nearly 17 percent and science and technology programs by nearly 24 percent above last year's levels. Committee members and our authorizing members have provided considerable input on these programs, and I'm committed to leveraging technology and well- justified investments to sustain our Nation's preparedness as well as spur innovation and foster an environment for job growth.

In closing my comments this afternoon, I would like to thank Ranking Member David Price. He has been a statesman and a real partner during this process as we have moved this bill forward over the last several months. I do want to thank him for his dedicated professionalism and also his dedicated staff that have acted in a tremendously professional manner, for their input and contributions that they have made to this bill.

Let me recognize and thank the members of the Appropriations Committee and also many of the members of the authorizing committee, for their input and their vital oversight work over the past few months as well, as we have moved forward in the producing of this bill.

I'd like to thank the dedicated staff for the Department of Homeland Security that I work with on a day-by-day basis as we move this bill forward: the clerk, Ben Nicholson; Jeff Ashford; Kris Mallard; Kathy Kraninger; Miles Taylor; Cornell Teague; and Joe Croce, as well as in my own office, in my personal office who worked on this bill, Brian Rell and Mark Dawson and, of course, on the minority side, Stephanie Gupta, who did a tremendous job in a professional manner on the minority side.

Finally, I do want to thank the distinguished chairman and the ranking member of the overall Appropriations Committee, Chairman Hal Rogers and Ranking Member Norm Dicks. As much as we had to make difficult choices and tradeoffs at the subcommittee level, I know they had to make much more difficult choices across all 12 subcommittees.

So I sincerely believe, Mr. Chairman, that this bill reflects our best efforts to address our Nation's most urgent needs for security and also to address fiscal discipline. I would urge my colleagues in the House to support this measure.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), the chairman of the full Appropriations Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the chairman of the Homeland Security authorizing committee, the gentleman from New York, Mr. Peter King.

Mr. Chairman, at this time, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey, the hardworking chairman of the Energy and Water Subcommittee, who has also been on the floor this week with his legislation, Mr. Frelinghuysen.

Mr. Chairman, at this time I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham), who is the chairman of the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development Subcommittee.

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo), who is the chairman of the Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the vice-chairman of our Subcommittee on Homeland Security, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Carter).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, a hardworking member of our Subcommittee on Homeland Security, Mr. Dent.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Rogers), who is the subcommittee chairman on the authorizing Homeland Security Subcommittee and chairing the Transportation Security Subcommittee.

We have no further requests for time.

As I had mentioned earlier in my opening comments, I do believe this bill is a good bill. It reflects our best efforts to try to address our Nation's most urgent needs: of course, first of all, security, and second of all, fiscal discipline. Both of those are very important in this age in which we live.

So I would urge my colleagues to support this measure as it moves to the floor.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

I rise in support of the gentleman's amendment. The Secretary has failed to submit critical reports necessary for this committee's oversight, including workload staffing models for CBP officers. Therefore, we do accept the gentleman from Arizona's amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I'm going to have to rise to oppose the gentlelady's amendment.

The problem with the amendment is it guts the immigration enforcement and it demoralizes the frontline law enforcement personnel. This amendment would actually empower more bureaucrats from Washington to look over the shoulders of the hardworking officers in the field that are trying to keep us safe.

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

I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to reluctantly oppose my good friend from Georgia's amendment. I think he makes some very good points, but one thing, as I had mentioned in the debate this afternoon and the general debate, this is the third fiscal year in a row that the bill has tried to work at cutting already.

Fiscal discipline and funding for homeland needs are the two most important things. And as I said earlier, that fiscal discipline is something that is a very important aspect of this bill. The bill actually has a decrease of $484 million below last year's bill, and it is $394 million below the President's request.

As I had mentioned earlier this afternoon, we do think that we need to be very much mindful of the situation we find ourselves in in this country. But bear in mind that we have cut, we have reached a delicate balance to make sure that we make sure frontline operations are secure, that they are operating at a level that we can make sure that our Nation is secure.

The Office of the Secretary, for example, has been cut 9 percent below the President's request, and it's 8 percent below the FY 2012 act.

This is the 10th year anniversary of the establishment of the Department of Homeland Security, and certainly we've got to make sure that our Department is strong, it has strong management. My concern is that this amendment would undermine that goal. And so I would ask Members to oppose this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

The bill that we have before us that we have brought to the floor is something that has already cut programs substantially across the board. But the way that we have cut it, we feel, is responsible and manageable.

Some of the cuts that we have had in here--the Office of Secretary, as I had mentioned earlier, has been cut by 9 percent below the request, 8 percent below FY 2012, and it is 18 percent below the FY 2010 level. The bill has reduced management to a bare minimum, with decrease in most offices, including General Counsel.

The bill has already cut TSA management by $60 million, and $20 million is cut in the Aviation Security Account.

This amendment that the gentleman from New Jersey is bringing up, by taking $15 million more from this account, will impair TSA's ability to manage its aviation security missions and is also simply not responsible. The amendment would slash funding for the Department's intelligence programs, which represent a core homeland security capability.

For grants, the bill provides $2.8 billion for Homeland Security first responder grants, $400 million more than provided in FY 2012. Of that, the bill provides $1.8 billion for the Secretary to provide to programs that address the highest need, based on the threat and based on risk.

Breaking out specific grants, as this amendment does, funds projects for various programs without an overreaching lens. The consolidation of this bill forces the Secretary to examine the intelligence and risk and put scarce dollars where they are needed most. I would urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

We will accept the amendment of the gentleman of New York.

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

Mr. Chairman, as I have stated earlier, this bill provides $2.8 billion for Homeland Security first responder grants, $400 million more than provided in FY12. Of that, the bill provides $1.8 billion for the Secretary to provide to programs that address the highest need based on threat and based on risk.

The funding for grants has been a high priority for our bill this year, and we believe there's adequate funding for grants. Like I said, I would reluctantly have to oppose the gentleman's amendment.

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

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

I do commend the gentlemen from Texas and Pennsylvania for their attention to border security. Border security is a top priority with this subcommittee and with this chairman, but the amendment that is before us at this time proposes to cut the Department of Homeland Security to pay for cell towers to provide phone service, actually to the general public.

I am very sympathetic to the needs of rural communities. I represent a rural community and am certainly sympathetic to remote ranchers, but this is simply not a cost currently with the situation in this country that Homeland Security can bear.

This proposal would cut the Department's management functions below what is possible for our Nation's security. The bill already cuts the Office of Under Secretary for Management 4 percent below the request of the President and 11 percent below the FY12 level. It should be noted that this bill fully funds the Department's tactical communications.

I would 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.

We accept the gentleman from New Jersey's amendment, considering this is only a $5 million cut.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I insist on my point of order.

The amendment proposes to amend portions of the bill not yet read. The amendment may not be considered en bloc under clause 2(f) of rule XXI because the amendment proposes to increase the level of outlays in the bill.

I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

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

This bill already provides robust funding for border security operations. In fact, this year we increase CBP border security inspection and trade facilitation by $85 million above the President's request.

CBP border security is important, I totally agree, but let me mention that the funding that we've increased supports 21,186 CBP officers and other increases in the National Targeting Center and Global Entry, among other programs and initiatives, to increase efficiency in CBP operations.

CBP's budget faces real challenges. Seventy percent of CBP funds go for pay and benefits, up from 65 percent just last year.

This figure does not include costs associated with supporting frontline officers, such as equipment and facilities, much less new technology.

The committee report outlines opportunities for better managing fee funds and innovating CBP processes. Further, the Secretary has not yet submitted the workload staffing allocation model that will justify any additional CBP officer resources. Given these issues, it is not the time to increase CBP officer staffing.

I will say that it must be noted that the facility that would be cut, we have an immediate need to build up our capacity for research into pathogens that afflict animals and our food chain and, by extension, human beings. The Under Secretary for the Department for Science and Technology herself testified before our subcommittee that the threat of a biological attack through a large and vulnerable food chain is a top priority. She has confirmed that the NBAF facility is required to meet this threat. So the administration itself has said that this is very important.

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

I object.

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

The funds are included in support of border security, albeit to facilitate only the most necessary environmental mitigation activities directly related to border security construction, operation, and maintenance. However, I do understand the gentleman's position and concerns and, for that reason, we accept the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

The concern is that the amendment seeks to gut detention operations just as the administration has tried to do; whereas, this bill holds the administration's feet to the fire and provides the resources to force them to actually enforce the law. The committee recommends $2.75 billion for ICE Detention and Removal Operations, $71 million above the request to sustain a minimum of 34,000 detention beds. Detention beds are a necessary resource to support robust immigration enforcement.

Make no mistake. There is a need for these resources. First, by the administration's own estimate, there are at least 1.9 million removable criminal aliens in the United States. There is the general acknowledgment of an illegal alien population of approximately

11 million. With the expansion of Secure Communities and ICE's prior utilization, there is no doubt they need at least 34,000 beds. Despite the fact that Congress has funded every request that ICE has provided for bed spaces, we have gotten excuses that they do not have the resources needed. Now the resources are being provided, and the committee insists that ICE intensify its enforcement efforts and fully utilize these resources.

Let me say that countering child exploitation is a critical effort in this bill for which we already have provided increases for ICE and Secret Service activities. The Wasserman Schultz amendment, which will be brought up shortly, provides an additional 25 percent to the child exploitation center. We have been working with Congresswoman Wasserman Schultz on this amendment. We are accepting that 25 percent increase for the child exploitation center, so I would urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman for his support of the House report language on sensitivity for child passenger screenings, and it is certainly reasonable to include other vulnerable individuals like the elderly and the infirm.

I will work with the gentleman going forward on these matters, and thank him for bringing the challenges of screening these other individuals to the floor. I look forward to working with him on this matter.

Will the gentlelady yield?

Mr. Chairman, we would gladly accept the gentlelady's amendment.

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

I yield to the gentleman from Texas to talk about an important immigration enforcement program.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I share the concerns that have been raised by the gentleman from Texas this evening. The Department of Homeland Security needs the support of States and counties in border security, and SCAAP is an important tool to facilitate that support.

I look forward to working with the gentleman to ensure that the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice find the right solution. I know that my other distinguished colleague on the Appropriations Committee from the State of Virginia has views on this program within his jurisdiction.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to reluctantly oppose the amendment.

While the Federal Air Marshals Service, known as FAMS, does and certainly will continue to provide an additional layer in aviation security, the committee saw an opportunity in this bill to strike a balance and achieve some savings in a program that, before this year, had been growing rapidly.

FAMS deployment surged following the 9/11 attacks and again following the 2009 Christmas Day bombing attempts. Exactly how they are deployed, and how many there are cannot be discussed in open session. However, it is possible to note that many other security measures have been put into place since both of those events took place.

Intensified screening, new and more capable intelligence, information sharing, a more secure cockpit, and the expansion of the Federal Flight Deck Officer program are examples of steps

taken to secure aviation that reduce the need to rely on FAMS on routes that do not represent the highest threat potential.

The bill takes these security improvements into account and focuses on funding to cover the top priority routes based on threat, whether domestic or whether international. The bill also fully funds the FFDO program, which complements FAMs, and in some cases it is the only security element on board. In addition, the report directs the TSA and the FAMs to look again at how to include other Federal law enforcement agents working with them.

This amendment, while I believe it is well-intentioned, would sustain funding to lower priority flights at the expense of other security measures that offer more immediate security impacts. The committee report calls for FAMs to brief the committee within 60 days on its optimal mix of staffing, scheduling, and recommendations for any regulatory or legislative actions needed to improve the FAMs operation.

I believe the bill will support a robust and targeted FAMs mission, and I look forward to moving forward with a more focused and effective posture in aviation security. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentlemen from Illinois and from Michigan for their commitment for search and rescue, and we would gladly accept their amendment.

Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I understand the concerns of my colleagues from the State of Washington and from the State of Alaska. It is important to keep the vessel intact. My subcommittee agrees with this important goal.

I urge the Coast Guard to work with the authorizing committee to accomplish this assessment.

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

Mr. Chairman, we accept the gentleman from Colorado's amendment, and we appreciate him bringing this to the subcommittee's attention.

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

I move to strike the last word.

We rise to oppose the amendment as well. We have concerns about the cuts in funding as well. I want to go on record that we do have concerns about this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

As I mentioned earlier in the evening, our Nation does have an immediate need to build up our research capacity into pathogens that afflict animals and our food chain and, by extension, human beings. This amendment would put that at risk, and therefore, I would oppose the amendment.

I now yield to the gentlelady from Kansas to have her speak on this amendment as well.

Mr. Chairman, we oppose the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I would strongly urge my colleagues to support fiscal discipline as well as critical research and development. Therefore, with the concerns we have about the gentleman's amendment, we ask for a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I oppose the amendment because of concerns that we had noted earlier about the importance of the NBAF program that the administration has stressed, and also the need that was stressed in our hearings earlier in the spring.

At this time I'd like to yield to the lady from Kansas to speak on this amendment as well.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to honor and remember Stephen Duboise II, a soldier in the American Revolutionary War, along with his ancestors who can trace their lineage back to the founding of this country. Stephen Duboise II was the grandson of Isaac Duboise, who came to the United States from France. I am honored to recognize him and the entire Duboise family for their contributions to this country.

The Duboise family produced several Revolutionary War soldiers, including Stephen Duboise II. His service record speaks for itself and is documented in his application for a pension filed in Rutherford County, Tennessee, on August 24, 1832. During the war, he served under General Francis Marion (``The Swamp Fox'') and fought in several key Revolutionary battles.

Not long after his time in Tennessee, Stephen Duboise II moved to Franklin County, Alabama, which is part of the Fourth Congressional District that I am proud to represent. He is listed in the Franklin County census of 1840. Stephen Duboise II died in Franklin County on October 15, 1842, and is buried near the Duboise Cemetery in an unmarked grave.

On May 20, 2012, an unveiling and ceremony is scheduled along with the dedication of a monument at the Duboise Cemetery honoring Stephen Duboise II, along with other members of his family line from Isaac Duboise to Poter Duboise, who was buried alongside Stephen in 1910. By placing a monument at the Duboise Cemetery, with the genealogy attached, this rich heritage can be viewed and passed on for many generations to come. May God bless the Duboise family, the great State of Alabama, and the United States of America.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Appropriations have until 6 p.m. on May 25, 2012 to file four privileged reports on the following:

a bill making appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2013, and other purposes;

a bill making appropriations for military construction, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2013, and for other purposes;

a bill making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2013, and for other purposes;

and a bill making appropriations for the Department of State, foreign operations, and related programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2013, and for other purposes.