Floor Statements

I thank the gentleman from Minnesota and the manager, and my friends on the other side of the aisle.

This is an important, crucial motion to instruct. Crucial is the word. And I thank the gentleman for recognizing that while we are here, others are languishing, bridges are languishing, highways are languishing, ports, and even our mass transit concerns are languishing because we have not moved forward. One, two, three, four, five--I think we're up to five extensions the last 5 to 7 years, if my counting is correct.

But most importantly, let me congratulate Members from both sides of the aisle that have come forward to support the gentleman's motion to instruct, which evidences how crucial this motion is and how we need to move beyond the many, many conference calls that I know that those conferees who are in are getting from so many interest groups, and indicate that we need to move forward and bring a report forward that will not stop us from continuing to negotiate on some of the many sidebar issues.

But as we languish, we're losing jobs. As we languish, Americans are unemployed. As we languish, bridges continue to crumble.

I remember our good friend, Chairman Oberstar, who taught us a few years ago that if you pass a transportation and infrastructure bill, you put America back to work. Tragically, as he was speaking some years ago, tragically one of his own bridges in that area had a very devastating impact in the fracturing of that bridge.

We don't want to see that anymore. We want to be able to see people going to work. And so I simply would ask that this motion to instruct be followed. Bring to the floor in a conference report not later than June 22, 2012, the ability to pass this legislation.

Bring to the floor this conference report, put to work people in Texas, fix bridges and put to work people in Minnesota, Virginia, New York, across the Nation, south, north, east and west, and begin to solve separate difficult problems, if I might say, on the side.

I want to see our workers working, many of our friends in the IBEW and building trades and many other supporting unions for the machinists and others, working. I believe this is a bipartisan message. Let's do it now.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 683, ``Expressing the regret of the House of Representatives for the passages of laws that adversely affected the Chinese in the United States, including the Chinese Exclusion Act.'' This resolution acknowledges the historical injustices against Chinese Americans, as reflected by a series of laws; however, with a particular emphasis on the Chinese Exclusion Act that which was first passed on March 23, 1882.

One hundred thirty years after the passage of the Chinese Exclusion Act and other such measures unjustly targeting individuals in the U.S. with Chinese heritage, it is necessary for

Congress to take steps to right the wrongs that were placed on thousands of people by recognizing that discriminatory laws were passed that had a harmful effect on persons of Chinese decent here in the United States.

Just last year, I congratulated the Chinese American Citizens Alliance in Houston, Texas during their momentous 51st Biennial National Convention. This historical and highly respected organization was founded in response to the repressive 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act and other Federal and State laws that aimed to restrict and ostracize. This celebration highlights the organization's 116 years as the oldest Asian American civil rights organization, consciously commemorating its courageous founders by continuing to pioneer a pragmatic future.

Securing equal economic and political support, cultivating minds through the exchange of knowledge, defending American citizenship, and observing the practice of the principles of brotherly love and mutual help, are a few of this organizations highly beneficial practices.

These goals are achieved by the organization's eighteen affiliated chapters being highly decorated with individuals of significant achievement; including leaders in the legal, medical, educational, scientific, arts and literature as well as corporate, business, and entrepreneurial endeavors. These endeavors are also supported by Members of Congress who recognize the important contributions of Chinese Americans. Legislation like the one before us today serve as reminders of how important it is not to remember our past so that we do not repeat it.

The United States has always been a place where people from diverse backgrounds arrive in hopes of attaining better opportunity, seeking refuge to escape prosecution and provide a more fruitful lifestyle for their families, likewise in the 19th and 20th century many Chinese came to the United States for similar reasons, unfortunately they were not treated favorably.

With the passage of legislation that limited Chinese immigration such as the renegotiation of the Burlingame Treaty and the Fifteen Passenger Bill which only permitted 15 Chinese passengers on any ship coming to the United States, the Chinese in this country were directly affected by unequal treatment.

On a personal level I can relate to the plight of many Chinese Americans as they fought to be accepted in the United States. I am well aware of the United State's history of discrimination and the harmful impact such discrimination has upon our society as a whole. It is my belief that no one should be forced to endure inequality on the basis of their race, class, gender or religious belief.

It is necessary that measures are constantly taken to ensure that our past failures are acknowledged and not repeated. H.R. 683 demonstrates the regret felt by the House of Representatives for the passages of laws that targeted people of Chinese origin solely based upon their ethnicity.

The passage of this bill will make clear that we do not support those actions today. It is essential that we continue to aim for cultural acceptance and embrace the differences that make up the diversity of this country that sets us apart from any other nation.

Mr. Speaker, the crisis in Syria is getting worse and worse and worse. I join with the United Nations, but I ask that the Arab League and NATO raise their voices to remove women and children and the elderly and the disabled and the sick from this onslaught of violence.

And I ask the head of Russia, Mr. Putin, does he have a heart? Is he going to continue on the basis of ego and collaboration, determined that he allow the violence against the Syrian people to continue?

I ask my Christian friends in Syria, as well, to join with the world of humanity to stop the violence against women and children. It is time now.

One Vote, One Person

Mr. Speaker, I change to another topic very quickly and say: one vote, one person. The voter ID law doesn't allow that, and the massive infusion of dollars coming from places that no one knows, no one has to account for. Let us have the Constitution stand again. Let America have a 2012 election without the infusion of unnamed dollars; now, $100 million may be coming into this election from one person. Mr. Speaker, the Constitution deserves respect--one vote, one person.

Mr. Speaker, we can do better. As we work to ensure the tranquility of this great land and the opportunity for those who desire and deserve jobs, I frankly, think, it is likewise a devastating disaster, a crisis, that the world has not risen to stop the bloodshed in Syria.

I realize that we are not ready to engage in war, and I say that we do not have to. Syrian Americans are just pleading for the world to intervene, for Dr. Assad to step down, for the cease-fire to take place, and for the killing of women and children to stop.

I join with the administration to ask for Dr. Assad to be removed. I ask the Arab League, I ask the surrounding neighbors to stand up against this increasing violence. To the Syrian Americans that I have stood with in Houston, I stand with you until Dr. Assad is removed and the violence is stopped.

The United Nations has moved towards a resolution of peace, and Russia and China must stop standing in the way and watching bloodshed pour. Remember, children are dying.

Dr. Assad in Syria must leave and peace must come.

I thank you very much.

Mr. Price is absolutely right, I serve as the ranking member on the Transportation Security Committee on Homeland Security, and a risk- based, well-trained professional team is what we have been working toward and what we are achieving.

I ask my colleagues to remember America pre-9/11 without a professional workforce. And I'd also like to say that in spite of the citations of inappropriate behavior, which none of us condone, there are thousands and thousands of untold stories of TSO officers doing their job, providing the safety lines for the safety of this Nation and providing assistance to the traveling public.

How do I know? Because I make it a habit of visiting airports and seeing our TSO officers work and interacting with them and asking them how long they have served. Many of them came in after 9/11 because they could not sit idly by while the Nation had been attacked. Many of them are former law enforcement officers, former military personnel who believed that they were serving their Nation.

What is a badge? It is a dignity that is allowed to those who are on the front lines of the Nation's security.

What is a uniform? It is a consistent statement that you are authorized to do your duty.

And I would simply say in the mistakes that occur in any body, whatever body it might be, local law enforcement, the United States military, do we strip them of their gear because of incidental or arbitrary incidents that individuals perpetrate? In this instance, we have a majority of heroic, first-line individuals who want to do better.

Can we do better? Absolutely. But it is not done through the removal of the badge or the removal of the uniform. I would just say to my colleagues that we have been blessed since the tragedy of 9/11, but I am reminded of the tragedy of 9/11, and I'm reminded of the heroic souls who lost their lives, families who still mourn. And I'm reminded of the effort of this Congress and the administration at that time, President George Bush, to answer the call. The TSA was part of answering that call. It is our duty, I believe, to ensure that professional service, to allow them to serve, and to ensure that they are serving the American public.

With that, I ask my colleagues to oppose the gentlelady from Tennessee's amendment.

I thank the ranking member and the ranking member of the full committee and ranking member of the subcommittee for their courtesies, and I think clearly over this process that we've had an opportunity, as authorizers, to work with our friends on the Appropriations Committee.

I wanted to have the opportunity to share what I think is important information, an amendment that I believe and hope that the policy aspect of these amendments we can work together in conference to ensure we've come to a meeting of the mind.

I look forward to working with the conferees and working with the Senate to make some corrections. Last evening, my amendment to help to restore the mission of FAMs was, in essence, an amendment that needs to be clarified. I again rise with the policy amendment that would help FAMs, the Federal Air Marshals, which I think I could poll any American and ask them the question as to whether or not Federal Air Marshals are, in fact, a crucial element of our security.

Today in our hearing, Administrator Pistole, in a direct question that I asked of him as to whether a $50 million reduction would reduce the mission and the security aspect of the Federal Air Marshals, his emphatic answer was, yes, that is what is happening.

I think that we should streamline and be efficient, but my amendment that we were hoping that would be discussed was an amendment to restore the $50 million. It should be noted that this was taken from $5 billion, and many Members thought we were, in essence, drawing resources that were taken away from a small pot; but of $5 billion, we are simply asking that 50, 51 would be taken out to restore the mission of FAMs and to respond to concerns about cabin security.

Mr. Chair, I rise today to offer my amendment 404 to ``the FAMS Appropriation in Fiscal Year (FY) 2013.'' The House Report has recommended reducing the FAMS budget by $50 million. It is my sincere belief that this is a detrimental mistake. This recommendation ignores FAMS' integral part in the homeland security mission. If FAMS loses $50 million to its budget it will result in the virtual shut down of the FAMS program.

Flight coverage is controlled by two outstanding factors: the number of FAMs available and the Mission Travel Budget which includes hotel and per diem costs. These constraints directly impact FAMS ability to perform optimally. They are outlined in the FAMS risk-based concept of operations (CONOPS). International flights are the highest risk followed by large plane and long haul flights.

With the reduction, FAMS will be forced to choose whether domestic or international flight coverage will be decreased. If domestic flights are maintained, then international flight coverage must be cut by 20 percent. Keep in mind that as I stated, international flights are the highest risk operations. By contrast, if international flights are maintained, domestic flight coverage must be cut by as much as 30 percent. This domestic reduction does not take into account the 10 percent decrease noted in the President's proposed budget. In total, FAMS domestic coverage will face a crippling 40 plus percentage reduction that FAMS has not experienced since Christmas Day 2009. I mention this date because on Christmas Day in 2009, a failed attack forced Congress to increase FAMS' size to cover both domestic and international flights. It was clear then that Congress recognized flight vulnerabilities that have since been all but forgotten. While we believe that we cannot afford the FAMS budget, what we truly cannot afford is a successful attack to our security.

It is important to note that FAMS is exploring alternative cost saving efforts. FAMS plans to extend its current hiring freeze into FY 2013 as mandated by the President's Budget. The reduction combined with limited employees

would severely undermine FAMS mission. The hiring free will extend to administrative personnel in FY'13. FAMS will also implement a furlough of all FAMS personnel of three to five days, reduce mission coverage, assess which offices can be shut down and consider a reduction in force (RIF) to strategically reduce on-board staffing levels. In addition, FAMS will undergo a significant decline in critical operational programs including travel, information technology and logistical support.

I must stress again that any reduction to the FAMS budget goes beyond the reasonable operational abilities of this program. It will severely impact our aviation security and impede the good work and progress of this program. For these reasons and more I urge my colleagues to restore the $50 million to the FAMS budget.

Amendment to H.R. 5855, as Reported

Offered by Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas

At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the

following:

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk, and I would ask unanimous consent that my amendment be considered out of order.

I thank the chairman of the subcommittee and the ranking member for their courtesies.

I am the ranking member on the Transportation Security Committee and have had the privilege of serving as the chairperson of that committee. I now work with the chairperson, and I appreciate the opportunity to speak to the issues of our committee as relates to the present appropriations.

I think we can all be reminded of a number of incidents, starting with 9/11 and the attack on the Nation's aviation and the Nation's soul. During that time, we did not have the structure of Federal Air Marshals that we have today.

We can be reminded of the shoe bomber, the Christmas Day bomber, the issue of the pilot that caused a disturbance some weeks and months ago. We know that the idea of aviation security is crucial. In the course of that, we have developed a very important system called the Federal Air Marshal system.

If you would query much of the traveling public, whether domestic or international, they would say yes to more Federal Air Marshals, and I agree. I've offered amendments and legislation to require more Federal Air Marshals on international trips and certainly have encouraged the training and utilization of FAMs on domestic trips.

I have visited their offices. I've sat down and spoken to them. They are committed and dedicated public servants.

My amendment will restore the Federal Air Marshals, FAMs, budget by $50 million.

As you're aware, FAMs is an integral program to the homeland security mission. I believe that this recommendation takes into consideration the crucial operational challenges FAMs will face as a result of a reduction.

The FAMs risk-based concept of operations, CONOPS, outlines the two constraints that impact its optimal allocation of flight coverage:

First, FAMs is, of course, dependent on the number of Federal Air Marshals available;

Secondly, FAMs' flight coverage is reliant on the mission travel budget which covers all FAM travel expenses, including hotel and per diem costs.

With the large cost difference between domestic and international flight operations, CONOPS must be used to conduct the most optimal mission allocation that can be maintained within those limitations.

In deciding the FAMS appropriation, the House must take into consideration FAMS' plan to extend its current hiring freeze in FY 2013, as mandated by the President's budget. It plans to be cooperative.

With limited employees, if the proposed $50 million reduction were to be implemented, FAMS' operation would be severely undermined. I would venture to say they would be shut down to a great extent. The program would be forced to extend the hiring freeze to include civilian personnel, implement a furlough of all FAMS personnel for a minimum of 4 days, reduce mission coverage, assess which offices can be shut down, and consider a reduction in force, or RIF, to strategically reduce onboard staffing levels. This is not the time to do this in the course of franchise terrorism.

In addition, FAMS would suffer a significant decline in critical operational programs, including travel, information technology, and logistical support. A reduction would be an obstruction to the good work and progress of this program.

For these reasons, I encourage my colleagues to look closely at the devastation and the loss of these dollars and ask you to restore the $50 million to the FAMS budget.

I would ask my colleagues to consider this amendment, and I would ask that we include or recognize FAMS as an integral part of a homeland security, Nation security, frontline security, and an important point and program to consider funding necessary to ensure the security of the traveling public and the Nation's homeland.

With that, I ask support of the Jackson Lee amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I rise today to offer my amendment to H.R. 5855, Making Appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security for the Fiscal Year ending September 2012. My amendment will restore The Federal Air Marshalls (FAMS) budget by $50 million. As you are aware, FAMS is an integral program to the homeland security mission. I believe that this recommendation takes into consideration the crucial operational challenges FAMS will face as a result as of a reduction.

The FAMS risk-based concept of operations (CONOPS) outlines the two constraints that impact its optimal allocation of flight coverage. First, FAMS is of course, dependent on the number of Federal Air Marshals available. Secondly, FAMS flight coverage is reliant on the mission travel budget which covers all FAM travel expenses including hotel and per diem costs. With the large cost difference between domestic and international flight missions, CONOPS must be utilized to conduct the most optimal mission allocation that can be maintained within these limitations.

In deciding the FAMS appropriation, the House must take into consideration FAMS' plan to extend its current hiring freeze into FY 2013 as mandated by the President's Budget. With limited employees, if the proposed $50 million reduction were to be implemented, FAMS' operations would be severely undermined.

The program would be forced to extend the hiring freeze to include civilian personnel, implement a furlough of all FAMS personnel for a minimum of four days, reduce mission coverage, assess which offices can be shut down and consider a reduction in force (RIF) to strategically reduce on-board staffing levels. In addition, FAMS would suffer a significant decline in critical operational programs including travel, information technology and logistical support. A reduction would be an obstruction to the good work and progress of this program. For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to restore the $50 million to the FAMS budget.

I thank the distinguished ranking member, and I really thank the chairman for his comments.

I don't want to give a whole historical perspective, but I've certainly been on the Homeland Security authorizing committee since 9/ 11. I am quite familiar with the technologies and various changes in aviation travel in particular, and we've made great strides. We have certainly made great strides, but here is my point that I think is crucial: How long are we going to continue to count on heroic, if you will, passengers and continue to cite them as great heroes until the day of some tragic and horrific incident?

We thank the American traveling public for what it has done to thwart a number of incidences, some of which, obviously, are not terrorist- directed but which do impact on the traveling public's security while airborne.

Air marshals are the frontline support and defense in a vessel, if you will, in an aircraft that, if tampered with airborne, can be a catastrophe of enormous proportions. Air marshals are, in essence, a crucial part of the security of this Nation. If we are to literally obliterate them by the $50 million reduction, you will see a reduction in mission, what offices will be ultimately shut down, FAMs personnel being furloughed for a minimum of 4 days, and civilian personnel gone.

I don't deny that we can look to be responsible fiscally and that we can find ways that will streamline. I happen to believe that $50 million is too drastic a cut and should be restored. So I would ask my colleagues, in spite of what changes may have been made, that they do not act superior to that human resource on that aircraft that is standing in the gap for a dastardly devastating terrorist act or some other altercation that needs the resources and expertise of the Federal Air Marshals.

Let me conclude by saying for a very long time I've introduced legislation to give flight attendants the kind of security training that would help them in the course of a potential terrorist incident on the aircraft. We'd hoped that that would have already occurred. I believe the other front-liners are TSO officers. That flight training has not yet occurred, so Federal Air Marshals act in the capacity of that standing in the gap to secure the crew and as well to secure the traveling public.

Who wants to subject the traveling public, domestic or international, to that kind of gaping hole of the reduction of cost or dollars that would ultimately result in this huge reduction of mission, furloughs, loss of civilians, closed offices?

I think that we need to reconsider, and I would ask my colleagues to support this amendment of adding back the $50 million reduction that has taken place.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Chairman, I hope that my appreciation to the ranking member and the chairman is evidenced by hoping to offer an amendment that is a reflection of the time that I served on the Science Committee for 12 years, and now almost a decade plus on Homeland Security.

When we speak about jobs, we understand that jobs are equated to education, and the education that is the key of today in the 21st century is science, technology, engineering, and math.

I had the privilege of participating in one of the largest robotic competitions among students from around the world, hosted in Houston, Texas, sponsored by the Harmony School. It was amazing, Mr. Chairman, to see the outstanding and talented young people, particularly from the United States, but hosting individuals from around the world. The camaraderie, the collegiality around not war but peace and how to use science, technology, engineering, and math to improve the quality of life of all who live in this world was amazing.

But more importantly, as we look to America and the creation of jobs, we must create a new generation of inventors knowledgeable about science,

technology, engineering, and math similar to what NASA did in inspiring young people to go into physics, biology, chemistry, and a variety of sciences, all desiring be to be astronauts, many of whom became medical doctors.

Now, as we begin to look at regaining our manufacturing prowess, science, technology, engineering, and math are key. The United States economic base has shifted from the manufacturing of durable goods to processing and analyzing information.

In this information-driven economy, the most valuable assets are human resources in science, technology, engineering, and math. But, in addition, manufacturing can be bolstered by science, technology, engineering, and math. It is so important, then, to ensure that we prepare the next generation.

This amendment is simply a restatement and an affirmation of the importance of the fact of the Department of Energy energy programs, science, and that we reinforce the value of these programs. I have seen it firsthand. I am promoting, and many Members as well, science, technology, engineering, and math in their particular communities.

The National Assessment of Educational Progress, the Nation's education report card, shows that fewer than 40 percent of students at every grade level tested are proficient in math and science. In 2006, only 4.5 percent of college graduates in the United States received a diploma in engineering.

So I ask my colleagues to just reinforce our commitment to job creation; to science, technology, engineering, and math; to inventiveness; to world peace; to the collaboration of young people in this generation moving forward to make a better quality of life for all who are in this world.

I would be happy to yield to the gentleman.

I thank the gentleman very much, and I thank the committee for its work.

I ask my colleagues to support the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I rise today to offer an amendment to H.R. 5325, the ``Energy and Water Appropriations Development Act, FY 2013.'' My amendment will protect funds provided for Science under Title III of the Department of Energy's Energy Programs. This amendment addresses the need to increase programs that educate minorities in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM), as well as, the need to train teachers and scientists in advanced scientific and technical practices.

As a former Member of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, I recognize the importance of developing a highly skilled technical workforce. Over the last 50 years, there have been major changes in the United States in terms of both the economy and the population.

The economic base has shifted from the manufacturing of durable goods to processing and analyzing information. In this information-driven economy, the most valuable assets are human resources. Therefore, in order to compete successfully in the global economy, the U.S. needs citizens who are literate in terms of science and mathematics, and a STEM workforce that is well educated and well trained (Friedman 2005, National Academy of Sciences 2005, Pearson 2005). Consequently, we cannot--literally or figuratively--afford to squander its human resources; it is imperative that we develop and nurture the talent of all its citizens.

The jobs of tomorrow will require workers who possess strong advanced science, engineering and math backgrounds. Other countries are training and educating their citizens in these areas and we must do the same. By investing in the scientific advancement of our workforce and our youth, we are investing in our future . . . we are investing in job creation . . . we are investing in greater job opportunities for Americans. This investment is the only way to address the increasing knowledge gap between our nation's workforce and those of our international counterparts. We must invest in our citizens. My amendment will ensure the funds that have been made available will be utilized for that purpose.

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

For a number of years, Mr. Chairman--and to my colleagues, again, I thank the chairman and ranking member--I practiced energy law in the State of Texas.

For a number of years, I worked with advocacy groups that were crying out for an energy policy in this Nation, one that would respect the assets that we've been blessed with in this country. Texas is blessed with a number of assets, particularly wind and solar, as it has fossil fuel, shale--opportunities to ensure that America remains independent in the quest for energy independence.

My amendment recognizes the holistic approach to energy. In recognizing the various resources that our State has and many other States, it is a very, very small contribution, but an important contribution, for the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy program.

Whenever you speak to the multinationals, I will assure you that all of them have within their companies an emphasis or a section on the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy program. This is an essential office that invests in clean energy technologies, an office that is created to strengthen our economy and protect our environment. It works well simultaneously along with the other very important programs in the U.S. Department of Energy.

Under H.R. 5325, this development program fosters research, providing to innovators the funds and resources they need to develop energy- efficient equipment that can be used at home, by the construction industry, and in the transportation market. The main concept is that this can create jobs, that partnerships can create jobs. This program is designed to develop cost-efficient methods through the use of renewable energy practices for the home. Financial incentives are provided to builders that utilize methods that result in the reduction of energy use during construction, as well as to manufacturers within the transportation industry who research and design energy-efficient vehicles.

I have had the privilege of going through energy-constructed homes. What a unique difference. Builders across America are crying out for the opportunity to experiment with these very special, unique tools. I would ask my colleagues to consider the job creation aspect of renewable energy and the role that it plays in a holistic energy policy. I ask my colleagues to support this amendment.

I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.

I thank the gentleman very much.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

I respect and thank the gentleman from Indiana very much, the ranking member, for his support of the amendment, and I thank him for his leadership.

I appreciate the chairman's commentary, but that is why I attempted to be very responsible and balanced.

This is a mere--though I take that word seriously--$10 million. And let me tell you why it is enormously important. The U.S. Department of Energy report found that wind energy could supply 20 percent of the Nation's electricity by 2030. We're fast approaching that, which could entail 300,000 megawatts of new wind-generating capacity.

There are States throughout the United States that would have a great opportunity for increased job creation and businesses around wind capacity. Again, a holistic approach to energy. Nearly $20 billion will be saved if the energy efficiency of commercial and industrial buildings improved by 10 percent.

As a member of the Homeland Security Committee overseeing the Homeland Security Department, I know we look at all aspects to secure our Nation. Energy independence, in spite of the fact of our diversity in resources, is extremely important. That's why I believe a holistic approach is crucial. This helps the holistic approach. As we continue in States that deal with fossil fuel, this is equally important. Thirty percent of energy in buildings is used inefficiently or unnecessarily. Ethanol is a clean renewable energy. It is helping to reduce our Nation's dependence on oil and offers a variety of economic, environment benefits.

Again, I'm not too unappreciative, if you will, of the diversity of energy in this country not to look at all aspects of it. And I do hope that we can have a holistic approach. I think this contributes to that holistic approach, taking into account all aspects of energy in a unified energy policy.

I ask my colleagues to support this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I rise today to offer an amendment to H.R. 5325, the ``Energy and Water Appropriations Development Act, FY 2013.'' My amendment provides to increase funds by $10,000,000 for the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Program.

The Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Program is an essential office that invests in clean energy technologies created to strengthen our economy and protect our environment.

Under H.R. 5325, this development program fosters research providing funds to innovators with the resource they need to develop energy efficient equipment that can be used at home, by the construction industry and in the transportation market.

This program is designed to develop cost efficient methods through the use of renewable energy practices for the home. Financial incentives are provided to builders who utilize methods that results in the reduction of energy use during construction, as well as, manufactures within the transportation industry who research and design energy efficient vehicles.

Providing additional funding to this program today only advances research that may one day result in a significant decrease in our dependence on energy from foreign sources that are hostile to U.S. interest. In addition, this program will positively impact rising fuel prices affecting Americans across the country.

It is this research which will ultimately contribute to sustaining our economy by looking for domestic solutions to energy concerns thus reducing foreign dependency on highly consumed substances such as oil. Likewise it provides incentives to businesses taking initiatives to conserving energy by creating tools directly effecting solar, wind and water energy. Programs like these are vital to the Americans, in order to develop a highly skilled technical workforce to address current energy issues that have generational effects on our families and our land.

fast facts

The U.S. Department of Energy's Building Technologies Program reduced energy costs for consumers and businesses by billions of dollars, as well as associated energy use and emissions, through setting minimum energy performance standards for appliances and commercial equipment.

To date, every Federal dollar spent has resulted in an average of $650 in net savings, and has also helped spur product innovation. As of 2010, consumers and businesses have saved $15 billion per year, and this annual amount is expected to nearly double by 2025.

Buildings use more energy than any other sector of the U.S. economy, consuming more than 70 percent of electricity and over 50 percent of natural gas.

A U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) report found that the wind energy could supply 20 percent of the Nation's electricity by 2030, which would entail 300,000 megawatts (MW) of new wind generating capacity.

Nearly $20 billion would be saved if the energy efficiency of commercial and industrial buildings improved by 10 percent.

Thirty percent of energy in buildings is used inefficiently or unnecessarily.

Ethanol is a clean, renewable fuel. It is helping to reduce our Nation's dependence on oil and offers a variety of economic and environmental benefits. Today, on a life cycle basis, ethanol produced from corn results in about a 20 percent reduction in GHG emissions relative to gasoline. With improved efficiency and use of renewable energy, this reduction could be as much as 52 percent.

One hundred ten (110) manufacturers joining the Better Buildings, Better Plants Program to gain recognition and technical support from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). Demonstrated their commitment to energy savings by signing a voluntary pledge to reduce energy intensity by 25 percent over 10 years. These companies are implementing cost- effective energy efficiency improvements that reduce their bottom lines while enhancing U.S. competitiveness.

Household vehicle ownership has changed over the last six decades. In 1960, over 20 percent of households did not own a vehicle, but by 2010, that number fell to less than 10 percent. The number of households with three or more vehicles grew from 2 percent in 1960 to nearly 20 percent in 2010. Before 1990, the most common number of vehicles per household was one, but since 1990, the most common number of vehicles is two.

Starting in 1980, more than 50 percent of American households owned two or more vehicles.

The typical U.S. family spends at least $2,000 a year on home utility bills. This amount can be lowered by up to 25 percent by engaging in more efficient methods to save energy within the home.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Chairman, I again ask my colleagues to support this amendment because anyone who has lived near a port understands what the Army Corps of Engineers is going through. We spend our time working with the Corps on this issue of dredging. In every port in the United States, millions of dollars are lost because of the inability of access and the difficulty of making sure that our Nation's ports are ready for the increase in business.

The Transportation Institute Center for Ports and Waterways indicated, analyzing the direct economic effects of channel restrictions and the loss of 1 foot of draft from the Houston ship channel, as an example, and the data was collected from the years 2008 and 2009, the study determined that a direct economic impact of the loss of 1 foot over 2 years amounts to $373 million. This, in fact, is an account that has been authorized, as evidenced by the Army Corps, which deals in particular with the Department of Army Operations and Maintenance. This infusion is to assist in making sure that jobs are saved and jobs are created.

The study does not consider other effects that are very real but are extremely difficult to measure, but they can measure what the lack of dredging can bring about. I would make the argument that in ports that are competing with world ports, accessibility is crucial.

I ask my colleagues to be reminded that we are in the business of creating jobs. It seems ridiculous that we cannot add to an existing account to create jobs, to assist in one of the largest ports in the Nation, ports along the west coast, ports along the gulf, and ports along the east coast, all ports that are engaged in receiving large vessels that are bringing in goods and large vessels going out with manufactured and other goods from the United States of America.

I ask my colleagues to support this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I do.

I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for his expression. What I would argue is: What are Members here to do?

I would vigorously disagree this is an earmark. I believe there is authorization, in particular under operation and maintenance. But the dilemma that the gentleman is making an argument on is whether or not you can increase it versus reducing it. And so what my argument is is that this is a general increase to operation and maintenance

with no specific tie to indicate that it is an earmark.

There is no monetary benefit to me as a Member of Congress, publicly stated on the floor of the House. Therefore, this is to increase millions of jobs in America, in ports around America, for an issue that is devastating to ports and that the Army Corps of Engineers is being overwhelmed, that is, the requirement of dredging. Dredging equals allowing the quality of vessel to increase by tonnage, to bring in and take out goods that Americans have manufactured and goods that Americans are seeking to import with our allies and trading partners.

It is to increase jobs. Therefore, I'd make the argument that we are bound by rules that have nothing to do with earmarks if you are, in essence, placing funding into existing accounts to help Americans--all of America--and to build our ports--all of our ports--making them more secure and making them more accessible so that the goods of Americans can go to and fro, and that jobs can multiply.

If one port alone, by one foot of inaccessibility, lack of dredging, loses $373 million, multiply that by the number of major ports in the United States from the East to the southern coastline to the west coast. I make the argument that this is an amendment that can stand on its own and should not be subject to a point of order.

I ask my colleagues to support the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, this is my ``can we all get along'' amendment. I thank, again, the chairman and ranking member for their work on this bill.

My amendment would be helpful to the Army Corps of Engineers and their work on our east coast, on our gulf, and on our west coast because it deals specifically with restoration. It sends a strong message to the importance of restoration and its issue of national importance. It talks about the economic well-being of the regions along the Nation's coastlines, and it provides an opportunity for restoration.

There is no doubt that over the years our coastlines have deteriorated and that wetlands have not been protected. We've experienced a devastating spill on the gulf coastline, and so many along that coastline, from Florida to Alabama to Louisiana to Texas and in between, have experienced a negative impact on their wetlands and their coastline. This takes a mere $10 million--again, I say it with respect--to assist the Nation in providing aid and improvement to the Nation's coastlines, which, again, produce opportunities of economic development, tourism, and various protections for a coastline that has suffered under neglect.

The United States Army Corps of Engineers estimates that 60 percent of the coastline along the gulf is eroding. The coast loses up to 10 feet of shoreline a year, with 225 acres of topsoil washing into the gulf coast. Funds are needed to preserve the gulf coast as well as other coasts. This will, in turn, protect the economic stability of that region.

Just a few months ago, I introduced H.R. 3710, which would provide for the added opportunity of protecting the coastline as well as for deficit reduction through an energy security fund. The legislation would provide funds for programs to help with the restoration as it establishes grants for States along our coastal areas--a coastal and disaster grant program and a national grant program--to address coastal and ocean disasters and the restoration, protection, and maintenance of the coastal areas and oceans, including research and programs in coordination with State and local agencies.

I look forward to the hearing and passage of that legislation, but today I rise to support the Nation's coastal region and to provide these resources. With that, I ask my colleagues to support this amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I would make the point that this is included in this bill on page 3,

under ``Construction.'' I don't view this in particular as an earmark as much as I do as putting in resources necessary for the protection of our coastline. Again, it is not excessive. It does not undermine the atomic program. What it does is to help millions of Americans along the coastline and particularly those who have experienced deterioration going from the east coast to the west coast.

Certainly, I believe this is one on which we can join together and support. It is constructive; it is productive; it creates jobs; it creates an economic engine; and it protects one of our most valued resources, and that is the Nation's coastline, wetlands included. It is compatible with those who are fishing, with those who are exploring, and with those who are enjoying.

I think it is crucial that this amendment be passed by this House in a constructive way in order to create jobs, to move this Nation forward, and to preserve the bounty of the environment that we've been given to protect. I ask my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee amendment, which deals with the restoration of our coastline.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I rise today to offer an amendment to H.R. 5325, the ``Energy and Water Appropriations Development Act, FY 2013.'' My amendment would increase the Army Corps of Engineers Construction Account by $10 million for Texas Coastal Restoration and reduce the Atomic Energy Defense Account by the same amount.

My amendment sends a strong message that gulf restoration is of national importance. In addition to all the Gulf Coast States, Texas plays a crucial role in the Gulf Coast's economic well-being and deserves funds for its restoration as well.

The Importance of the Texas Gulf Coast

Texas boasts a 370 mile long coastline that plays a major role in the state and the nation's economy.

The state hosts three of the country's top ten ports and is ranked number one in the nation in the total value of waterborne commerce, most of which is dependent on the Gulf ports.

The Texas Gulf Coast also plays a major role in the tourism industry. Texas gets over $445 million a year from cruise ships and earns a quarter of the coast's travel dollars. The state also accounts for 37 percent of the Gulf of Mexico's tourism and recreational employment.

In 2008, the Gulfs oil and gas development generated about $26 billion in wages.

Erosion is steadily threatening to destroy the Texas coast's success. The United States Army Corps of Engineers estimates that 60 percent of the Texas coastline is eroding.

The coast loses up to 10 feet of shoreline a year with 225 acres of topsoil washing into the Gulf Coast.

Funds are needed to help preserve the Texas Gulf Coast which will in turn protect the economic stability of the gulf coast region.

This Congress I introduced a bill which is also designed to help restore our Gulf Coast. H.R. 3710, ``The Deficit Reduction, Job Creation and Energy Security Act.''

My bill directs the Secretary of Interior to increase the 5-Year oil and gas leasing program of lease sales designed to best meet the Nation's energy needs by 10 percent of the total acreage contained in the OCS Lands Act.

This 10 percent added acreage shall be known as the Deficit Reduction Energy Security Fund. For 15 years after issuance of the first lease or receipt of the first payment coming from the Deficit Reduction Energy Security Fund, all proceeds shall be deposited into an interest bearing account for a period of 2 years.

Upon expiration of the 2 year period, these proceeds shall be distributed as follows: The interest gained during 2 year period shall be placed in the Coastal and Ocean Sustainability and Health Fund; and the principle from the Deficit Reduction Energy Security Fund shall be applied directly toward deficit reduction.

My bill, H.R. 3710, not only increases access to oil and gas leases it also funds programs to help with Gulf Restoration as it establishes grants for states (Coastal and Disaster Grant Program and a National Grant Program) for addressing coastal and ocean disasters, restoration, protection, and maintenance of coastal areas and oceans, including research and programs in coordination with state and local agencies.

I firmly believe that we must continue to support Gulf Restoration which is why I offered the bill H.R. 3710 and why I propose the amendment today. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment which is intended to restore our nation's Gulf Coast.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

I thank the gentleman very much.

If my good friend from Iowa was joining and trying to make sure that Federally funded construction jobs went to companies that were based here in the United States, I would be celebrating with him to avoid the incident that happened with the bridge in California, where it was built by a Chinese company with Chinese nationals who had come over to the United States.

But in this instance, I would like to ask the gentleman where he finds this present-day discrimination.

In fact, as he well knows, opportunities for minority contractors have come about because of Members of this Congress who have fought for what we call--not set asides--but MWBE opportunities. We have seen the increase in construction companies. We need more. More importantly, unions have engaged in apprenticeship programs.

Prevailing wages are nothing but giving a hard day's work and a decent-paying wage. It is to construction what we were trying to do with paycheck fairness. I disagree with the gentleman that in this day and time we're not making extensive efforts to make sure that there are diverse populations working and being trained under the union label and umbrella, and that there are young men and women who are benefiting from these training programs. More importantly, MWBEs, and if the gentleman would want to work with me on ensuring that these small contractors can work on Federal projects, he would have me aligned with him today. But not to deny us the Davis-Bacon and prevailing wages.

I ask my colleagues to oppose the amendment in the name of fairness and in the name of the betterment of the working person.

Let me, first of all, say how pleased I am to have Benjamin with me, who is representing and advocating for the fairness and treatment of the foster care system and foster children as they mature into adulthood. This is an important aspect of democracy.

Mr. Speaker, I come this morning with a series of issues regarding rights. First of all, let me acknowledge that this was Memorial Day week, when I hope all of us were doing more commemorating than possibly celebrating with tasty food. I had the privilege of joining our community in a national Memorial Day celebration at the Houston Veterans Cemetery and then going to The Heights, a historic community, and commemorating the fallen soldiers at the World War II Monument in The Heights of the 18th Congressional District. On this past Saturday, I had a fun festival day of veterans and celebration commemorating the service of our soldiers--those who have fallen and those who live.

That's why I rise today to ask and encourage--even after the NATO meeting--that we have a quick resolution of the Afghan war. And I join my colleagues, Congresswoman Barbara Lee and Walter Jones, in their discussion this afternoon of what's next in Afghanistan. We thank those soldiers on the front line. None of our commentary to bring this war to an end has anything to do with their brave, wonderful, heroic acts of service and fighting for democracy and justice.

We ask President Karzai and his government to end its corruptness and to begin to transition so that the people of Afghanistan can live in peace. We want peace as well, and we want their rights to prevail.

Mr. Speaker, I now move to a tragic situation of huge proportions. I joined Syrian Americans on Tuesday in my community, standing in front of the Federal courthouse, crying out for peace and justice for the Syrian people. Alongside of me were Syrian Americans whose families were in Houla and Homs and had seen the brutality. We had projections of the violence against children and bodies wrapped in white cloth.

Mr. Speaker, we cry out and wonder why there cannot be more done by the world. Where is the outrage?

I congratulate the Secretary of State and the President of the United States and other Western countries and others who have expelled the Syrian envoys. Get them out now because, obviously, Dr. Assad does not recognize that people are valued.

And so I call upon the Arab League to put pressure on China and Russia. Let us not put our individual needs of energy--oil and gas, oil in particular--over the deadly violence that is going on in Syria. Shame on you.

I ask the U.N. Security Council that is now blocked by China and Russia to institute a U.N. Unity of Peace Resolution No. 377, which was done during the Korean War, where you go to the General Assembly and put forward recommendations that would engage or provide for peace and provide for the involvement of other countries providing for the assistance of the Syrian free army.

No, I'm not asking for war. I'm asking for the end of the violence in Syria. How can we stand by as we once stood by looking at Darfur, as we once stood by looking at Rwanda? How can we stand by?

I cry out for this Congress to issue sanctions. I cry out for actions.

Let me conclude by simply saying today we will have on the floor of the House a bill by the name of PRENDA. As I've heard from my colleagues, not one of us disagree with the idea of forced abortions, meaning that we do not disagree that that is heinous and horrific. I fear the PRENDA legislation because it is not thoughtful and has not been drafted in a way that distinguishes the rights of women in this Nation to have choice. And what it does, Mr. Speaker, is it criminalizes a doctor and criminalizes a relationship between a patient and a physician.

In this country, we have the right of choice. That choice is between a woman, her God, her faith, her family, and her physician. And what you do in PRENDA is that you taint and stigmatize the relationship between the doctor and the patient. Because how do you get in the mindset and the psyche of a physician who is doing his job providing the care that the woman has asked--her choice--and begin to demonize and suggest that she is forcibly deciding to abort because she is forcibly deciding what gender she wants?

Then, of course, you add insult to injury by profiling various countries. As my colleague has previously said, why can't we look for more positive ways of providing women's rights and discerning or educating people that women are equally valuable as human beings as men? But the PRENDA bill demonizes the patient-physician relationship. We cannot have that. I ask for a ``no'' vote.

Mr. Speaker, faced with a number of challenges, I have lived through hurricanes Rita, Katrina, Ike, Storm Allison; and I realize the importance of emergency radio and television giving us the information as a lifeline, and I rise to thank Charity Productions going on in my district right now, the Sixth Annual Ecumenical Hurricane Forum. Thank you so very much for educating our public.

I also wanted to rise today to congratulate CNBC and the Congressional Black Caucus Faith Forum that has been going on for the last 2 days. We realize that America's faith institutions, and in this instance African American denominations, are crucial, coming together to reach out for empowerment, for social justice, and certainly freedom. We thank them so much for the work that they do.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, let me say that in this particular body, and in the Judiciary Committee, we are facing the question of FISA and the impact of the FISA amendments, as it has reversible impact on spying on Americans. We must look to get the data and insist that we are securing the homeland, but we must also ensure that Americans are not in essence spied upon, are not surveilled by the impact of international needs.

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

I thank the chairperson of the Intelligence Committee and the ranking member and speak in the spirit of bipartisanship, and I congratulate both gentlemen for recognizing that the security and intelligence of America speaks loudly to the idea of bipartisanship.

Just a few hours ago, I was in a classified briefing--for fear of anyone thinking that I will share that classified briefing, I will not. But what I will say is it is clear that intelligence is a key to the peace and security that the American people have experienced since 9/ 11. Through the work of Members of Congress and the intelligence community, of which we owe a great deal of that gratitude, we have been able to, for now some 11 years plus on our soil, experience the safety and security, although we have had many attempts.

For that reason, I believe this is important work. My amendment says that it is important for the Director to consider the necessary processes to increase the recruitment and training of ethnic minorities as officers and employees of the CIA.

We have done this before. We have encouraged them to do so. And we can say that there have been gradual steps. And we applaud that. But the men and women who conduct this important work certainly deserve our support and all of the resources that we can muster to make sure they are successful in their endeavors. Yet we also ensure that the CIA itself reflects the American population and that of the world. Having agents who can be deployed anywhere at any time is vital to our national security, as well as the ability to interact with foreign nationals who speak the language is truly important. A diverse workforce can make America safer and more secure.

Historically, there's been an exclusion of minorities, particularly African Americans and Latinos, in the highest levels of national security. Let's continue to break that barrier. It's taken decades for minorities to make inroads into America's national security apparatus. And I know that this is a sense of Congress, but I always have faith that people will adhere to a positive statement by this body.

Although the number of CIA employees remains a classified secret, the Agency has released some numbers over the years. In 1966, blacks represented 10 percent of the CIA's total workforce and only 3 percent of the Agency's officers in senior intelligence service, whereas 17 percent of the clerical staff and 22 percent of the Agency's blue collar workforce was African American.

Over this past weekend, we commemorated, mourned, and celebrated our fallen soldiers. I had the privilege of having uncles who went off to war in World War II, one who served as a chief petty officer in the United States Navy. That was the integrated United States Navy. I can tell you that we are better for it when we utilize the talents of all Americans.

In 1992, a declassified study of CIA personnel found that about half of all black intelligence officers reported that they had been victims of racial harassment by the Agency. As of today, of the CIA's core of case officers, which is believed to number more than 1,000, only 11 percent are minorities and 18 percent are women. The majority of the Agency's top managers are still predominantly nonminorities.

According to CIA officials, one-third of the new operations officers hired in 2011 have been women, while just 11 percent have been minorities, as traditionally defined: African Americans, Asian Americans, or Latinos. Twenty percent of all new operations officers are native speakers of a foreign language and 75 percent have advanced proficiency in foreign languages, many because they've lived abroad. Almost half have advanced degrees.

I applaud that and I truly believe, as some may be listening and saying, Aren't we are all Americans? Yes, we are. If we are all Americans, then our

CIA, one of our most storied Agencies, needs to join and continue to recruit and improve on bringing in the diverse picture of the face of America because we'll be better for it.

When President Truman integrated the United States military, we became better for it. We celebrate all people who are willing to put the Nation's uniform on and die for their country. Likewise, for this wonderful intelligence Agency, we do the same.

With that, I ask my colleagues to support my amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman. I thank the ranking member as well.

In closing, let me just pay tribute to Garrett Jones, who served as a CIA station chief in Somalia during peacekeeping operations in 1993 and was cited as an African American officer who was able to work undercover for weeks in North Mogadishu, which his duty officers said would have been all but impossible by Jones' other officers.

We all have a contribution to make. And I look forward to this sense of Congress not being weeded out in conference and reemphasizing the importance of this effort.

With that I ask support of my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I rise to debate my amendment #7 to H.R. 5743 ``Intelligence Authorization Act,'' which is a Sense of Congress that the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency should take such actions as the Director considers necessary to increase the recruitment and training of ethnic minorities as officers and employees of the Central Intelligence Agency.

The men and women who conduct this important work certainly deserve our support and all of the resources that we can muster to make sure that they're successful in their endeavors. Yet, we must also ensure that the CIA itself reflects the American population and that of the world. Having agents who can be deployed anywhere at any time is vital to our national security. As is a diversity of thought and perspectives that can be garnered by having a diverse workforce.

Historically there has been an exclusion of minorities, particularly African Americans and Latinos in the highest levels of national security.

It has taken decades for minorities to make inroads into America's national security apparatus.

Although the number of CIA employees remains a classified secret, the agency has released some numbers over the years. In 1996 Blacks represented 10 percent of the CIA's total work force and only 3 percent of the agency's officers in senior intelligence service whereas 17 percent of the clerical staff and 22 percent of the agency's blue- collar work force was African American.

In 1992 a declassified study of CIA personnel found that about half of all black intelligence officers reported that they had been victims of racial harassment by the agency.

As of today the CIA's corps of case officers which is believed to number more than 1,000 and only 11 percent are minorities and 18 percent are women.

The Majority of the agency's top managers are still predominantly White males.

According to the CIA officials one-third of the new operations officers hired in 2011 have been women. While just 11 percent have been minorities as traditionally defined (African Americans, Asian Americans or Latinos), 20 percent of all new operations officers are native speakers of a foreign language and 75 percent have advanced proficiency in foreign languages, many because they have lived abroad. Almost half have advanced degrees.

There have been improvements since 1992, however, more must and should be done to ensure that diversity is reflected at the highest levels of the CIA.

The value of diversity in a spy service that operates in almost every country would seem to be obvious.

Garrett Jones who served as CIA station chief in Somalia during peacekeeping operations in 1993, cited the example of an African American officer who was able to work undercover for weeks in north Mogadishu, which he said would have been all but impossible for Jones or any of the station's other white officers. As we must deploy CIA agents all over the world. We need agents that are able to blend into a variety of situations. We need diversity.

Interest in working for the CIA rose after the Sept. 11 attacks. Between October 2001 and October 2002, the agency received 170,000 resumes.

Since founding of Office of the Director of National Intelligence minority representation increased to nearly 23 percent in 2009 in FY 2009, up since FY05, when it was 20 percent. Minorities received nearly 25 percent of promotions in FY09 and over 27 percent of new hires were minority. Women earned 46 percent of promotions in FY09, significantly higher than their representation at about 39 percent.

Letitia ``Tish'' Long is the first woman to head a major intelligence agency as director of the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, the office responsible for collecting and analyzing overhead imagery and geospatial information.

Women have held the #2 spot at several intelligence agencies, including National Security Agency, National Reconnaissance Office and NGA. CIA however has never had a woman as #2, but has had a woman in its #3 spot.

My amendment is a reflection of the need to continue to place the spotlight on the intelligence community to ensure that they continue in their efforts to reflect the needs of this country by recruiting, training, and retaining qualified minorities,

I have an amendment at the desk.

Again, let me thank the chairman of the committee and the ranking member for bringing forward a bipartisan initiative, and I hope that this would add to, again, reemphasizing what we have begun to do and that we will continue to do, and that is to recognize the value of security, but also recognize what Americans hold dear--their privacy, their respect for individual rights, their civil liberties. And so this amendment speaks specifically to the importance of protecting the civil liberties of religious and ethic minorities.

I can cite the moments in history where we have failed. Certainly, the Japanese interment loudly speaks in current, modern-day history of the tragedy of not respecting the civil liberties of Americans. Certainly, if we went as far back as the slave history of America, we can see that those who are on American soil who would have sought well to be Americans, their civil liberties were not protected.

But America has made great progress, and I think it is important as we look at new populations that come to this country that we particularly focus on this whole concept of religious liberty. It is a concept that sometimes is very difficult to adhere to. I may not agree with your faith and your religion, but you have the right to practice it as long as you're not doing harm to the American people.

For example, President George W. Bush in 2001 told the American Congress during that very difficult time that terrorists practice a fringe form of Islamic extremism that has been rejected by Muslim scholars and the vast

majority of Muslim clerics, a fringe movement that perverts the peaceful teachings of Islam.

And so this particular faith certainly has been one that has been most noted. I think we have all come to the conclusion that we should protect the civil liberties of those who practice their faith under the Constitution of the United States, which the First Amendment guarantees the right to the freedom of access, freedom of movement, freedom of religion, freedom of speech.

I would hope that in the intelligence community, as they do their work fighting terrorism, fighting the potential of those terrorist cells that may find themselves on our soil, that they will recognize the right of individuals to practice the faith and the aspect of the faith that follows the tenets of their faith and not categorize those individuals simply because of their faith that they might be intending to do us wrong.

There are many incidences where we have the kind of treatment of individuals because they happen to be of a particular background, particular ethnicity, racial background, and then, of course, faith. But I want to speak to this amendment so that people will know that it is a broad base, because many times we have disagreement with a number of subsets of different faiths, whether it's Protestant, whether it's faith that we are used to addressing.

So it is a statement that says that the civil liberties of all Americans will not be deprived through the necessity of protecting this land through our intelligence community on the basis of their religion and ethnic minorities.

We know that in some jurisdictions there have been incidences of individuals that believe that their privacy has been intruded upon. I would hope that in the framework of the fine work that the intelligence community has to do that there is no intimidation of making sure that civil liberties can be protected.

Many of us have debated a number of bills on the floor of the House dealing with privacy questions. I think it is important in this sense of Congress to always restate that we are committed to national security, but we're committed to the civil liberties of those within our soil--American citizens.

With that, I ask my colleagues to support my amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Let me capture what the chairman said. I like the terminology that says the American people must have faith in their intelligence community, but faith in the principles upon which we live. And they must know that the Constitution is a living, breathing document. And we as Members of Congress must as well.

So, again, I make a plea that this sense of Congress is a reaffirmation, but also an encouragement and a statement that should be in this bill that we respect the civil liberties of racial, ethnic, and religious minorities, and in fact so will our intelligence community.

With that in mind, I would ask my colleagues to support the amendment and also ask that it be maintained even in conference, the reaffirmation of this important instruction as the civil liberties protection officer operates and does the work that they need to do. I ask my colleagues to support the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I rise to debate my amendment #8 to H.R. 5743, ``Intelligence Authorization Act,'' which is a Sense of Congress that the intelligence community should take all appropriate actions necessary to protect the civil liberties of religious and ethnic minorities.

We can obtain vital intelligence without compromising our civil liberties. As you know, risks to civil liberties are inherent in the very nature of domestic intelligence. This is because intelligence necessarily operates in secret and as a result, it is difficult to subject intelligence activities to the checks and balances that the Framers of the Constitution realized were essential to prevent abuses of power. Even judicial reviews of intelligence activities are often given deference.

Intelligence is the information we use to identify and locate individuals involved in planning terrorist acts. This information must then be used to prevent any potential attack and can be done in ways that are legally permissible.

Domestic intelligence community left unchecked could pose significant dangers to open government, individual privacy, and civil liberties. My amendment is designed as a limitation for a reason. We need a bill that is strong on civil liberties, and includes protections against infringement of our constitutional right to privacy.

My amendment serves as a reminder that the American people have put their faith in the intelligence community and in Congress to protect not only their security but the very essence of what makes America great . . . our freedoms.

Thomas Jefferson in 1787 stated that ``[A] bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth, general or particular, and what no just government should refuse.''

The September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on America have forced serious reflections about the institutional framework of civil society and the commitment to democratic principles. Although the balancing of the protections of citizens' rights and liberties against their peace and security is a continuous constitutional struggle. Especially during war and national crisis.

According to Justice Sandra Day O'Connor ``We're likely to experience more restrictions on our personal freedom than has ever been the case in our country . . . it will cause us to re-examine some of our laws pertaining to criminal surveillance, wiretapping, immigration and so on'' (New York Times, Sept. 29 2001).

Our efforts to provide for the safety and security has required Americans to accept certain restriction on their freedoms--more surveillance of their papers and communications, more searches of their belongings, possible detention without a writ of habeas corpus, and proceedings by military tribunals without the standard protections of due process of civil courts.

I realize that we must give our intelligence community the proper tools to protect us while upholding the civil liberties of Americans.

We must always recognize that the American people are being asked to trade off civil liberties and personal freedom for a greater sense of security from the threat of terrorist.

It is no answer to these legitimate concerns that police officers or member of the intelligence community who monitor political or religious meetings, compile dossiers on political activists, or infiltrate lawful protest organizations are complying with the Fourth Amendment and are doing no more than any member of the public could do on his or her own. When government acts, it has a special obligation to respect constitutional rights--which include the First as well as the Fourth Amendment--an obligation not imposed on private citizens. My amendment is a Sense that it is the intent of this body to protect the civil liberties of the very groups that may be monitored as a direct response to our concerns about a terrorist attack. We must be led not by fear but by reason!

The challenge to our intelligence community is the same as the challenge for the nation as a whole. Securing the Nation's freedom depends not on making a choice between security and liberty, but in designing and implementing policies that allow the American people to be both safe and free.

Increased threats of terrorism after September 11, 2001, lightning- fast technological innovation, and the erosion of key privacy protections under the law threaten to alter the American way of life in fundamental ways.

Terrorism threatens--and is calculated to threaten--not only our sense of safety, but also our freedom and way of life. Terrorists intend to frighten us into changing our basic laws and values and to take actions that are not in our long-term interests.

While the government has both the power and the obligation under the Constitution to

defend the nation and its security, these powers cannot be exercised in a manner that contravenes individual constitutional liberties. Among others, these include the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech, religion, and association, and the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. In addition, as with all government powers, national security and intelligence gathering powers should be subject to checks and balances, including meaningful judicial review and probing oversight by the Congress.

The internment of thousands of Japanese serves as a reminder for why we must protect the civil liberties of religious and ethnic minorities.

Will the gentleman yield?

I do not rise on the gentlelady's amendment. In the statement I made on amendment No. 7, I indicated that the CIA officer's name that was undercover, that was not the CIA's undercover agent's name, which I would not give. It was the section station director's name, Mr. Garrett Jones. The CIA agent was undercover and remains unnamed. But he was an African American who did his duty because of his background.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4201, ``Servicemember Family Protection Act.'' This legislation amends the Servicemember Civil Relief Act and provides protection for servicemembers who lose temporary custodial responsibility for a child from court due to deployment or anticipated deployment. Upon return from deployment, the court must reinstate the custody order that was in effect preceding the deployment provided that the reinstatement is in the child's best interest.

H.R. 4201 would prevent previous and future deployment from being considered in the determination of a child's best interest in a motion seeking a permanent order to modify custody. In addition, it also creates a uniform nationwide standard for dealing with servicemembers and deployment.

Just as our service men and women are stationed around the world fighting for our rights and freedom, we must protect their rights here at home.

According to a report from USA Today, military divorces reached an all time high in 2011. When children are involved, these divorce proceedings face even greater complications.

It is unfair to say the least, to use a servicemember's previous service to this country and possible future service against them in child custody battles.

Not only does this create division in family households, it also creates negative feelings towards military service in the minds of the dedicated men and women who protect our freedom.

Past problems in these court cases have centered on a lack of uniformity of the law. Many states even lack laws concerning deployment as a criterion by courts. In previous cases this has caused servicemembers to fight custody suits in up to three states: the state where the suit began, the state where the child is residing and the state where the servicemember is stationed. Dealing with child custody battles is difficult even in civilian life. With the additional stress many in our military face, sometimes it can become unbearable. The Department of Defense and Service has even observed a connection between child custody battles and military suicides.

There must be justice and uniformity when deciding child custody disputes for our servicemembers. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 3140 ``Mass Transit Intelligence Prioritization Act.''

Mr. Chairman, I thank you for yielding, and I thank the chairman of the full committee and the ranking member.

As a ranking member of the Transportation Security Subcommittee, it's my privilege to rise to support H.R. 3670.

Let me thank the author of the bill, the gentleman from Minnesota, for his leadership--he is always speaking eloquently but fighting for our veterans, and we thank you very much both for your service and your leadership--and also to thank the gentlelady from Florida for her kind and astute remarks regarding the importance of TSA.

In the last 24 hours, there was a breach of security in San Diego when an individual went through a secured door and boarded a plane. The immediate response of some of the commentators was: What was TSA doing?

The head of my airport, Bush Intercontinental Airport, Colonel Testa, is retired military. The law specifies certain rank for individuals who serve in the uniformed services, including those in the Reserves or the National Guard who are called to duty. I join with my colleagues to support this legislation to ensure that TSA complies with USERRA.

Just 2 days ago we celebrated Memorial Day, and I would offer to say that we must continue to support our veterans but also mourn those who are lost, but in their name, it's important to support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to debate H.R. 3670, ``To require the Transportation Security Administration to comply with the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act.'' The Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) ensures that our valued citizens who serve or have served in the Armed Forces, Reserves, National Guard or other ``uniformed services'' are not disadvantaged in their civilian careers because of their service.

Under current law, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is not required to comply with certain provisions of federal labor laws, including USERRA. This is not right.

Currently the TSA, which has more than 50,000 employees, is not required to hold positions and promotions for employees who are called away for military service. 10,000 veterans serve on the TSA's workforce. That is \1/5\ or 20 percent of their entire workforce.

The law specifies certain rights for individuals who serve in the uniformed services, including those in the reserves or the National Guard who are called to active duty.

In particular, USERRA prohibits employers from discriminating on the basis of military service or obligation and protects covered individuals' rights to be reemployed upon returning from duty.

H.R. 3670 requires the TSA to comply with USERRA. According to TSA, the agency's existing policies regarding individuals who leave TSA to undertake uniformed service are already consistent with USERRA. We want to make absolutely sure that our veterans, servicemen, and future soldiers are protected by the laws that govern our great Nation. We have to ensure that they are taken care of. They are courageous enough to defend, and sometimes give their lives for the United States. We should do what we can to honor their bravery.

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that H.R. 3670 would not significantly affect the TSA's costs nor would enacting the bill affect direct spending or revenues.

I strongly support our troops and the brave men and women who have served in our armed forces. After their honorable service they should not have to face obstacles in finding civilian employment due to their service.

We must do everything in our power to ensure Members of our Armed Services are discriminated against based upon past, present, or future military service. They have sacrificed for their country and when they return to their civilian life that sacrifice should be honored not viewed as a negative. The federal government should be a ``model employer'' under USERRA, which is why H.R. 3670 is such a vital piece of legislation. Again, I urge you to honor the sacrifice of our troops.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2764, ``WMD Intelligence and Information Sharing Act of 2011.'' This legislation amends the Homeland Security Act of 2002 would direct the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), through the Office of Intelligence and Analysis (OIA), to undertake various activities to combat the threat of weapons of mass destruction. Those efforts would include assessments and analyses of threats and the sharing of such reports with federal, state, local, and tribal authorities.

While our intelligence community is strong and sophisticated, it is made even more powerful through the sharing of information between federal, state, and local officials as well as across bureaus.

We are all working towards a common goal--to keep the US and its citizens safe. In order to ensure we are working with all of our available resources and information, we must continue to advance regulations that allow for the sharing of information between our officials. This also includes ensuring that local law enforcement officers across the nation are trained to identify any potential threats and contact the correct authorities.

A partnership between DHS analysts and local law enforcement can enhance situational awareness with respect to the threat of terrorism to the millions of Americans who rely on mass transit systems, including the threat of an attack involving a weapon of mass destruction.

Mass transit systems across the world have continually been a target for terrorist threats, namely the 2004 terrorist attack on a packed commuter train in Madrid, Spain that killed 191 people. There was also the suicide bombing attack in London that left 50 dead in 2005.

While we have so far been fortunate to have not had any incidents of terrorism in our mass transit systems, we know of the threat planned by al-Qaeda to commemorate the both anniversary of 9/11 by attacking US mass transit systems. Thankfully, a Naval SEALS raid on Osama bin Laden's compound discovered and thwarted this plot.

Past incidents that were looked over by federal authorizes have been resolved by local enforcement officers. It is imperative that they continue to assist the efforts of the DHS and that the DHS is open and accessible to these officers via the communication of appropriate information.

Coming from Texas, I want to thank the gentleman from Texas, the ranking member of the subcommittee, for this legislation.

I rise in support of H.R. 915. We have heard that there has been a constant intrusion of activity over the border, specifically dealing with drug cartels. We recognize that it is important to utilize the combination of resources, and fusion centers represent an excellent logistical use of that, as they have been in our urban centers. Let me support and salute the utilization of fusion centers because it is extremely important that we provide a safe and secure border in the United States and on border States.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3140, ``Mass Transit Intelligence Prioritization Act.'' This legislation would amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002. It calls for the Secretary of Homeland Security (DHS) to make it a priority to assign DHS officers and intelligence analysts, including from the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), to participating state and urban area fusion centers located in high-risk jurisdictions with mass transit systems to enhance the security of these systems. These officers would help local enforcement authorities identify and investigate any threats to homeland security.

The DHS officers and analysts will also be responsible for creating mass transit intelligence products that will: (1) assist law enforcement agencies in deploying their resources most efficiently to help detect and interdict terrorists, weapons of mass destruction, and contraband at U.S. mass transit systems; (2) promote more consistent and timely dissemination of mass transit security-relevant information among jurisdictions with such systems; and (3) enhance DHS's situational awareness with respect to the threat of terrorist acts at or involving U.S. mass transit systems.

As a Ranking Member on the Subcommittee for Transportation, ensuring the safety and security of the nation's public transportation system is one of my top priorities.

Mass transit systems across the world have continually been a target for terrorist threats, namely the 2004 terrorist attack on a packed commuter train in Madrid, Spain that killed 191 people. There was also the suicide bombing attack in London that left 50 dead in 2005.

While we have so far been fortunate to have not had any incidents of terrorism in our mass transit systems, we know of the threat planned by al-Qaeda to commemorate the 10th anniversary of 9/11 by attacking US mass transit systems. Thankfully, a Naval SEALS raid on Osama bin Laden's compound discovered and thwarted this plot.

Rising gas prices have caused metro transportation systems to be used now more than ever, creating an additional urgency to keep citizens safe on the daily commute.

According to the American Public Transportation Association (APTA), Americans made 10.4 billion trips on public transportation in 2011. This is the second highest annual ridership since 1957. Houston's Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County accounted for 5.2 percent of that gain and has seen six consecutive months of increased ridership. In Houston, we understand the importance of a secured public transportation system.

Our metro transit system is closely partnered with the US Department of Homeland Security. It is equipped with surveillance capabilities and our officers are trained in counterterrorism measures as well as in the latest law enforcement techniques. In addition officers regularly check bus and rail lines and perform sweeps through the Transit Center as well as through the Park & Ride lots and bus stops.

As the city grows and new metro employees are hired, it is my goal that the Houston public transportation system maintains its high level of security and a strong relationship with Homeland Security. I desire this same level of security for all of the public transportation systems in the US.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 3140 ``Mass Transit Intelligence Prioritization Act.''