resources. given these issue, it is not the time to increase c.b.p. 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 affect animals and our food chain and by extension human beings. the undersecretary for the department for science and technology herself testified before our subcommittee that the threat of a biological attack through large and vulnerable food chain is a top priority. she has confirmed that the mbath as a facility is required to meet this threat so the administration itself has said that this is very important. i would urge my colleagues that they would oppose this amendment and i would yield back the balance of my time. .

the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california seek recognition? >> i would like to strike the last word. and i appreciate -- the chair: the gentlelady will suspend. does the gentlewoman ask unanimous consent to strike the last word? ms. hahn: i have to ask unanimous consent. the chair: is there an objection? mr. aderholt: i respectfully object. the chair: the objection is heard. the chair: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from kansas seek recognition? the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized for five minutes. ms. jenkins: the department of homeland security chose

manhattan, kansas as the site for the new facility. this will be the only such facility capable of researching large animals in the united states. the construction of this cutting-edge facility must move forward quickly so we can safely critical research to develop vaccines and countermeasures in order to protect the public and lifestock from the threats of devastating diseases. not only will the mbath accelerate ourselves to protect us, it will be the world's premier animal research facility and sold file as the international leader in international health. it is needed to replace the obsolete and increasingly obsolete and expensive plum lab.

it was built in the 1950's and the facility doesn't contain the biosafety levels to reach the research requirements and never will and an attempt to upgrade plum island will cost more. we don't have the ability to research the effects of these diseases on large animals in the united states nor can we rely on international partners. it has a history of broad-based support. the bush and obama administration and the house precipitations committee under both democratic and republican leps said that the best place is in kansas. we have committed more than $200 million towards this project.

conducting research to protect our nation could not be more crucial. we cannot just wish away these threats or rely on others for our own security. and the truth of the matter is, we are dangerously underprotected from the threat of biological attack against our people and our food. while the gentlelady's amendment to increase salaries for the custom and border patrol has merit, it shouldn't be done by cutting 29% of the funding for construction of this important lab. the result of this amendment would be stopping or delaying construction of this nationally important mbath facility and our nation's food supply cannot afford another delay. we need to protect our food and families from danger and need to stay on the cutting edge of this research field. our security is at risk if delaying this project further. we need this mbath and urge my colleagues to vote against this

destructive amendment. and i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back. for what purpose does gentleman rise? >> i move to strike the last word. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. >> i urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment as well. the facility is not just about kansas. it's important it's in kansas and happy that kansas went through an incredible competition against businesses all across the state and facilities all across the country to make sure we have the best facility, the facility that was right not just for kansas but for america. manhattan, kansas was chosen for the site. and now kansas and the united states have already invested heavily in this facility. mr. pompeo: it creates a biosafety level 4. no other national security asset in america. it is incredibly for our food

supply and safety and safety for human health. not a partisan issue. it was supported by both the bush and obama administration and pass by republican and democrat-controlled congress. there is no partisan nature to what is going on at the facility. it is simply about national security. you know, there have been multiple reports in commission indicating that this kind of threat is one of the most imminent threats to our nation's homeland security. and it's been for that reason that d.h.s. has been supportive for mbath and it being built in kansas. the state is uniquely qualified and has the scientific experts and the expertise to be applied immediately and the facility to be built in a way that it can operate safely. we have to protect animals and people from disease and make sure that our communities are safe and secure. this is a challenge that our country is ready and able to undertake at the facility in

congress. i urge my colleagues to reject this amendment. and ultimately reject this in the name of the safety of people. and i yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. mrs. davis: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6, rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from california will be postponed. the clerk will read. the clerk: page 9, line 5, automation modernization, $7,000 242,000 to remain available to september 30, 2017.

infrastructure and technology, $327,997,to remain available. >> mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman from utah is recognized for five minutes. for what purpose does the gentleman from utah seek recognition? >> i do have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. bishop of utah. after the dollar amount insert reduce by $3 million. after the dollar amount insert increase by $624,000. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes and will be charged for destructing of furniture property. mr. bishop: thank you, mr. chairman. the border patrol does a great job when they are allowed to do a great job. unfortunately, there are certain areas of access into this country who are illegal, an area

of choice especially of the drug cartels and drug traffickers and there are is a relation between areas of access and federal property which has been designated as endangered species habitat. last year's figures i have, over half of the illegal entries went through one sector in arizona, a portion of the state of arizona was 80% federally controlled, much of that in wilderness area. the border patrol is restricted in these areas from the way they can enforce their purpose of patroling the board. one of the things that is strange, the border patrol has almost unlimited ability to do their job, but only on federal property that the federal border patrol is restricted on how it fulfills its federal purpose. fortunately the drug cartels and human trafficking, they don't

care about that restriction. they, for some reason, don't necessarily respect the environmental laws that we have and the destructions to our environment is caused by them. pictures of endangered cacti cut down and used by the drug cartels and amount of trash left behind is not only destroying the environment but an expensive effort to clean it up. i have said that the drug cartel would rather eat an endangered species than protect it. the border patrol is required to pay for environmental mitigation damages. since 2007, the duret has used the money that we are appropriating to the amount of $7 million to go to the department of interior for these proposed hit occasion of environmental damages. let me give you a couple of examples what has bothered us in

the past. the arizona border, they had to reposition their surveillance towers which led to security gaps in those areas but another problem of the lesser longnose bat, which has a nasty habit of having the tendency of flying into the towers. one of the mitigations insisted upon is that the border patrol had to pay for bat control to monitor and track bats that may sometimes fly into the tower. on the sonora long horn sheep, for the border patrol to create another herd and make sure they have people to monitor, feed and avoid the prong horn, they have to stand really still. even though this provision has been revoked in recent years, some of the money was used to

buy land and had nothing to do with the border security whatsoever. we take what is in this proposal, $3 million that has been ear marked for environmental mitigation and move it intoal legitimate use of that activity by taking it to the air and marine interdick shon account to -- interdiscs account to use it for their fleet. this has impeded the operational readiness. these obsolete planes make it unable for them to properly secure the border. g.a.o. said 73% of the 38,000 requests for air support could be granted simply because the fleet was aging at that particular time. what it is trying to do is a very simple concept, the better the border patrol is at controlling the border, the

better the environment will be. it's not the border patrol that creates havoc but the human traffickers and drug cartel. to take this money and put it where it is desperately needed to help the infrastructure so the border patrol can better do their job, we would have a better environment. it's the right thing to do and would be an appropriate and intelligent thing to give the border patrol the infrastructure they need to do their jobs along our borders both in the north and in the south. i urge adoption of this amendment and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from alabama seek recognition? mr. aderholt: i rise in support of this a amendment. the funds are included and probably the most necessary environmental activities directly related to border security construction, operation

and maintenance. i understand the gentleman's position and concerns and for that reason, i accept the amendment. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina seek recognition? mr. price: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. price: i rise in opposition to this amendment which would eliminate $3 million in environmental mitigation in our border security efforts and add that money to air and marine assets, which is already greatly, greatly increased in this bill. first a bit of context. since 2006, this subcommittee has increased funding for border security by $2 billion annually. we invested well over $1 billion for fencing and other tactical infrastructure alone during that period. responding to concerns about possible environmental problems society wd such a massive construction undertaking, much of which has taken place on

environmentally-sensitive lands, congress provided very modest amounts to hit debate these environmental consequences. as a government, we have many responsibilities and priorities and these include both securing our borders and protecting our natural and cultural resources. the sort of interagency agreement that homeland security and interior have entered into for environmental mitigation is what we should be encouraging and supporting especially because this arrangement is explicit because interior can take any action that first c.b.p. does not agree to. we have to keep that commitment to preserving our environment. we have to maintain that commitment and i urge colleagues to defeat this amendment. and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from wyoming seek recognition? mrs. lummis: move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized for five minutes.

mrs. lummis: the bishop amendment strikes environmental funding that has no place in this bill. this is a homeland security bill. we spend this money to protect the homeland and secure our borders. these are some of the most important responsibilities we have as a congress under our constitution. but this money won't go to border security, this money will go to pay off federal agencies just so the border patrol can access public lands. . our border patrol is locked out of huge swaths of public lands along our border unless they fork other tax dollars for environmental mitigation system of we, the congress, under the auspices of border security, are spending the people's hard-earned money on a slush fund for land managers. just to name a few examples,

agencies have demanded this money to monitor bats, to monitor prong horn antelope. my state of wyoming has three time more antelope than people. and in one case to protect the endangered ocelot, which hasn't been seen in the area for 20 years. this is madness. if you want to protect the species and ecosystems along the border, then secure the border. rampant border crossings across wilderness do more damage than our border control ever could. we need to eliminate restrictions on the border control's access to federal lands, not enable them. if you want to stop this extortion of border security dollars, vote for the bishop amendment. this puts money toward air and

marine interdiction and if you want environmental mitigation, put it in the interior bill. where it belongs. and where congress can keep track of where the money goes. and where land managers have to justify it. let our border patrol to its jobs. vote for the bishop amendment. mr. chairman, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman from wyoming yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from utah. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. >> on that, i request the yeas and nays. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from utah will be postponed.

clerk will read. the clerk: page 9, line 16, air and marine interdiction operations maintenance and procurement. $518,469,000 to remain available until september 30, 2015. construction and facilities management. $252,567,000 to remain available until september 30, 2017. immigration and customs enforcement, salaries and expenses. $5,236,331,000. the chair: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by ms. loretta sanchez of california, page 11, line 21, after the dollar amount, insert reduce by $40 million, increase by $40 million. page 13, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert reduce by $40 million.

the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized for five minutes. ms. sanchez: my amendment is simple. let us combat human trafficking and child exploitation my amendment would take $40 million from detention operations and transfer those funds to the office of investigations to support anti-child exploitation and trafficking initiatives. i.c.e. is one of the key global partners aimed that the -- dismantling criminal infrastructure engaged in child exploitation. the special agents are in many countries throughout the world and the crites and i have had the opportunity to meet with them overseas, where child exploitation is rampant, such as thailand and cam bode y. that is why i would like to increase funding to combat child exploitation and i am requesting $40 million be transfered to them. the funds are coming from an

account that is $70 million over the president's budget. i didn't even take all of that access -- excess. i'm just asking for $40 million. leaving roughly $30 million for the president's tpwhunlt i.c.e. detention and removal operations. with women and girls accounting for over 80% of the people trafficked throughout the world, including within the united states, this issue is something that is very close to my heart and i have been a vocal advocate to stop and combat sex exploitation trafficking. my district represents the largest vietnamese population outside of vietnam in the world and the fact is that much of this human trafficking -- much of the human trafficking victims are originating from asia. i have a responsibility to the people i represent to seek out ways to ensure that i.c.e. can combat child exploitation globally, since it impacts us

locally. in fact, in cambodia, brothel owners pay traffickers from $350 to $450 for each attractive vietnamese virgin 16 years or younger. nonvirgins or those considered less beautiful are trafficked for about $150. apiece. i'm asking the chairman to join me in this outrage that these things still happen in our modern world and more often than not, they occur in our own districts here in the united states. the only way to eradicate child exploitation is to stand together to protect every child's rights to be free from victimization. we can all work toward elame -- eliminating child exploitation by ensuring that we have people who combat this and by putting

this money into this account. we need to give those people on the front lines the tools to stop this. i thank the chairman for the time and i ask him to support my amendment. thank you, mr. chairman. the chair: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from alabama seek recognition? mr. aderholt: i rise in opposition to the gentlelady's amendment. the concern is the amendment seeks to gut detention operations just as the administration have tried to do whereas the build holds the administration's feet to the fire and provides resources to force them to enforce the law. the committee recommends $2.75 billion for i.c.e. detention and removal operations, $71 billion above the request, a minimum of 34,000 detention beds. detention beds are a necessary

resource to support robust immigration enforce. . make no mistake, there's a need for these resources. first by the administration's own estimates, there are at least $109 million removable criminal aliens in the united states. there's a general acknowledgment that an illegal alien population of approximately 11 million work the expansion of secure communities and i.c.e. prior utilization, there's no doubt they need at least 34,000 beds. despite the fact that congress has funded every request that i.c.e. has provided for bed spaces, we got excuses that they did not have the resources needed. now the resources are being provided and the committee insists that i.c.e. intentsfi its enforcement efforts and fully utilize these resources. let me say that countering child exploitation is a critical effort in this bill. where we already have provided

increases for i.c.e. and secret service activities. the wasserman schultz amendment, which will be brought up shortly, provides an additional 25% for the child exploitation center. we have been working with congresswoman wasserman schultz on this amendment. we are accepting that 25% increase for the child exploitation center. i would urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina rise? >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. price: i rise in support of the gentlewoman's amendment. i think it is a well designed amendment both in its positive purpose and in the offsets she has chosen. she proposes that we increase i.c.e. funding for child

exploitation and that is a worthy cause that we do need to fund more generously than is present in the bill as brought to the floor. each year, millions of children fall victim to sexual preddor -- predators. these young victims are left with permanent psychological and physical and emotional scars. immigration and customs enforcement, i.c.e., targets and investigates child pornographers, child sex tourists and facilitators, human smugglers and traffickers of minors. criminal aliens, convicted of offenses against minors, and those deported for child exploitation offenses who have returned illegally. i.c.e. is at the forefront of these activities and can make goods you of the funding that our colleague proposes. so i commend her for bringing this issue to our attention and for putting this amendment before us. i also have to say that the

offsets are particularly well chosen. as i said, as we began de-- as i said as we began debate on this bill, this bill contains some ill-advised funding floors, some mandatory spending that is rigid and is wasteful. a certain minimum, increased minimum of detention beds, for example. and a required funding for the 287-g program a program that is very problematic and that really needs to be transitioned in my view to the secure communities program that maintain thegs -- maintains the federal and local roles more distinctly. so these are offsets that we can afford and offsets that in fact would improve the bill.

only rarely can one say that about the offsets in these debates. so i commend the gentlelady for her amendment and urge its adoption. the chair: the gentleman yields back. if there are no other speakers, the question is on the amendment offer pid this gentlelady from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the noes have it. ms. sanchez: mr. chairman, i request a recorded vote, please. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceed option the amendment offered by the gentlelady from california will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from nebraska rise? intl i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> mr. chairman, i wish to enter into a colloquy with mr. chairman aderholt of alabama, the gentleman from alabama and first i want to commend his leadership on this transportation -- on this appropriations bill concerning

the security screening of children by the transportation security administration. the t.s.a. should absolutely have particular sensitivity in the screening process of children and minimize their distress and discomfort. i'm very thankful to the gentleman for raising this issue in the manager's amendment and for recognizing this need. as this process moves forward, i would encourage the chairman to stresse stress the importance of the same sensitivity to the elderly and infirmed. we have all seen too many images in high profile news stories about the mistreatment of this -- mistreatment of the elderly and infirmed as well as passengers with religious or conscience objections. mr. fortenberry: no good american should be required to check their modesty at the airport door. maybe their luggage, but not their modesty. i also appreciate that it encourages various alterptive screening models that would respect the privacy of all passengers by moving toward a more risk-based approach use

manager intelligence rather than relying on technology and encourage the chairman to continue moving t.s.a. along this path. would the chairman be willing to work with me on these issues for the benefit of the -- of america's airline passengers? mr. aderholt: would the gentleman yield? mr. fortenberry: i yield. mr. aderholt: i thank the gentleman. as a parent of an 8-year-old and a 13-year-old, i understand these concerns. it is certainly reasonable to include other vulnerable individuals like the elderly and infirmed. i would certainly be happy to work with the gentleman going forward on these matters and i thank him for bringing this to our attention. the challenges of screening to the floor this evening and look forward to working with him on the matter. . mr. fortenberry: i thank the gentleman for his leadership and his particular sensitivity to this issue. and i yield back.

the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlelady from florida rise? ms. wasserman schultz: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. ms. wasserman schultz: first let me say how much i appreciate the opportunity to work with the chairman and appreciate his work both when we work together in the leadership of the legislative branch appropriations subcommittee and for his commitment to increasing the amount of funds available to pursue child exploittation in this bill. both of us being parents of eight and 13-year-olds, i have a particular appreciation for this. and i rise to ask for my colleagues' support for an amendment to protect what we have been talking about, our most vulnerable constituents our children. $20 million through i.c.e. for the purposes of child exploitation.

no question that our children need our support more now than ever. with the proliferation of the internet and wireless technology, the spread of child porn must be addressed now. we don't have a moment to waste. the department of justice estimates that more than one million pornographic images of children on the internet with 200 images being posted every day and one-third of the world's pedo files worldwide live in the united states. the internet allows these images to go out indefinitely, victimizing that child again and again with each click of the mouse. these aren't just heinous images but crime scene photos. every photograph is a face of a child that need our support to escape living hell and exploitation. since the 1970's before we had a

child pornography statute, i.c.e. was the leader to protect our children. as recently as 2009, i.c.e. was responsible for 52% of cases prosecuted for child sex crimes. this is in addition to hundreds of arrests every year and thousands of children rescued to date. their efforts are second to none and i know they will put the resources to good use. for every child rescued, hundreds more remain trapped, the horrors none of which can imagine and we need the best personnel going into the fight to rescue these children. it's my hope that some of these funds will be used to employ our wounded warriors. in addition to the experienced agents already fighting these battles. they have protected us abroad and naturally our veterans are a perfect choice to protect our most precious resources.

rich anderson is fighting in the field office in tennessee. who better to hunt child predators than someone who has already hunted men. i know the immense skills and motivation of returning men and women can be the key to our most successful afront against child predators. by harnessing the skills of our wounded warriors, their drive will be put back to use at home and we give them a job that truly makes a difference. let me be clear with the passage of this amendment we would be putting predators on notice. they are coming to an end, you can bet on it. i urge my colleagues in committing to fight until every american child can live free from terror and exploitation and support this important amendment . thank you very much. and i want to add, mr. chairman,

that i support my colleague from california's amendment to increase the funds available to i.c.e. by reducing the funds for removal and i thank the chairman and my colleagues for doing this backwards. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. ms. wasserman schultz: i yield to the gentleman. the chair: would the clerk death the amendment. the clerk: offered by ms. wasserman schultz of florida. the chair: the amendment is now formally before us. the gentleman from alabama. mr. aderholt: we would gladly accept the gentlelady's amendment. the chair: any further discussion? if not, the question is offered on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from florida. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair --

for what purpose does the gentlelady from california rise? >> i move to strike the last word in support of the amendment offered by the gentlelady from florida. each year many children fall victim to sexual predators and left with permanent, psychological, physical and emotional scars. immigration and customs enforcement, also known as i.c.e. investigates child porn graphers and section tourists and human smugglers, criminal aliens convicted of offenses against minors and those deported for those who have returned illegally. the child exploitation center is at the forefront of these investigations. unfortunately, funding for i.c.e.'s center has decreased over the past two years from $16.7 million in 2011 to a proposed $14.7 million in 2013.

this amendment bolsters funds for the center by a modest amount, bringing total funding to $20 million, restoring the budget cuts and providing a small additional amount to make additional headway on ending these heinous crimes. i appreciate the gentlelady bringing this issue to our attention and i support the adoption of this amendment. these dollars will be well spent safeguarding our children worldwide. and i appreciate the chairman accepting the amendment. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. now we'll try it again. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from florida. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. and the motion is agreed to. the clerk -- >> move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman from alabama. mr. aderholt: i yield to the the gentleman from texas to talk

about an important immigrant enforce problem. the speaker pro tempore: the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. carter: i thank the chairman for yielding to me. i would like to bring to the attention to my colleagues the recent change made by the department of justice to the state criminal alien assistance program also known as scap. while this is under the jurisdiction of the d.o.j., it is the government's failure to secure our borders, which is why i bring it up during this debate. it would reimburse states and counts for incarcerating undocumented criminal aliens. i want to emphasize, this program does not come close to fully reimbursing our states or our counties for the full costs for incarcerating these individuals. recently d.o.j. announced they

will offer no reimbursement for what they consider to be unknown documented aliens. ile being an unknown documented aliens means that d.o.j. has no information on that individual, a designation that would apply to a majority of the illegal aliens in this country. so, for example, when they show up in my home county, picks up someone for aggravated assault and in accordance with the secure federal data base, if this person has never been processed by d.h.s. they will be considered unknown documented aliens and ineligible to be reimbursed for any part of the incarceration under this rule. i would like to point out this disproportionately affects counties overstates, both of which are eligible for

reimbursement under scap. county jail is the first point of contact with the criminal justice system, so there is no background on the individual. these inmates are also typically held for a shorter period of time making it difficult for them to be processed by the federal government before they are transferred to a state institution after they are convicted. this change has much less impact on the states they typically hold inmates for a longer period of time giving them plenty of time to be processed by i.c.e. agents who are typically located at the state prison, a luxury that the counties do not have. if this change were implemented in 2010, my home county would have received $90,000 less than their full payment for that year, which is only about

$150,000 and which is only a small portion of the overall costs of incarcerating these individuals. that's a lot of money for a moderately sized county in texas. the impact on larger counties would be much greater. i don't think our counties should be punished for the federal government's failure to secure our borders and process undocumented aliens in an acceptable time frame. now, i would like to commend our chairman for prioritizing the front line operations by funding the border patrol agents. i would like to propose to the chairman that we work together with these agencies to find a solution to this problem. in the meantime, i will be writing a letter to the justice department along with my friend and colleague, congressman honda from california, to ask the department to delay this change

while we work to find a solution that will not punish our counties for the failures of the federal government. mr. aderholt: mr. chairman, reclaiming my time. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. aderholt: there were concerns raised by the gentleman from texas this evening. the department of homeland security needs the support of states and counties and border security and scap is an important tool. i look forward working with the gentleman to ensure that department of homeland security and department of justice find the right solution. i know that my other distinguished colleagues on the appropriations committee from the state of virginia has this program within their jurisdiction. >> the gentleman yield? mr. aderholt: i yield back.

the chair: the gentleman yields back. >> i strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. wolf: commerce, justice science subcommittee, i'm sympathetic to the concerns raised by the gentleman from texas. i understand that last year, d.o.j. notified perspective f.y. 2011 applicants of this coming change and worked closely with d.h.s. to increase alien status verification. i didn't hear any new concerns during the consideration of the appropriations during f.y. 2012 or 2013 and but i would be pleased to work with you and the department of justice and department of homeland security to help ensure that the reimbursement methodology is secure and maximizes the status of verification of aliens and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields

back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? mr. honda: move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. honda: as a member of the committee on commerce, justice and science, i would like to thank you for speaking on this important issue today. scap is a bipartisan issue and has a bipartisan effort to address it. california jurisdictions already receive 10% of the total cost of reimbursement because of the drastic cuts this program has received over the past few years. the recent funding would stop reimbursements for all by the department of justice and has the potential to worsen the situation and will devastate county budgets at a time when they are already feeling the pinch of state and federal cuts. as a former member of the county board of superviseors i know how

hard the impact will be. it is undisputed that the vast majority are unknown to the federal government. the decision by d.o.j. to only provide scap funds to those that are known is deeply troubling and back-door attempt to kill the program. as my friend judge carter has noted, counties will be hit by this change the hardest because of the inability for i.c.e. agents to be present at all times to process unknowns in county jails. in state jails, prisoners are held longer and i.c.e. agents are on staff so there is opportunities for unknowns to be processed in the system. if the department would like to make this change, it has to provide a clear, timely and acceptable method to the counties to process unknowns properly, something which they clearly do not have now. i look forward to working with

the appropriate agencies and subcommittees to ensure we can find an equitable solution to this. i appreciate chairman wolf and chairman aderholt's time on this. until then, however, i will be writing a good letter to delay this change until the appropriate time. thank you, and i yield back. . . the chair: the gentleman from michigan. >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. clarke of michigan. page 11, line 21, after he dollar amount insert reduced by $10 million. page 37, line 18, after the dollar amount insert increased by $10 million. the chair: the gentleman from michigan. mr. clarke: thank you, mr. chairman. this amendment would add $10 million to fema's state and local grant program. this will be an additional $10

million that our state governments and local units of government could have available to them to better protect their citizens in the case of an emergency an also to respond more effectively to such a disaster. this money can go to high-risk urban areas such as metro detroit that really need the resources. it can also go to better protect and secure or ports which would also benefit regions like metropolitan detroit. the reason why i come to this congress, to this budget, and ask for these additional resources is because in the past, this congress failed to properly oversee the housing market, which resulted in a crisis that dramatically reduced property values all around this country and most tragically, reduced the revenues available to state and low -- states and localities to fund these important services. that's why i'm asking this

congress, this house, to amend this budget to provide an additional $10 million to our states and local units of government so they can better protect our citizens in case of an emergency. thank you so much, i look for your support and i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman yield back. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> mr. chairman, i rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. carter: this amendment seeks to cut critical funds for enforcing our nation's immigration laws. those laws are important to be enforced. i urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from north carolina. >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five mins. mr. price: i rise in support of the gentleman's amendment.

it adds $10 million to fema's state and local grants and as we've said many times this evening, these are grant programs that have been cut severely in recent years and while this year's bill improves on that, we certainly can use more funting in this area and the gentleman has figured out a way to do it. he's come up with an offset that actually improves the bill. the proposed offset is to the troubled 287-g program, reduces it by $10 million, moving it closer to the administration's request. mr. chairman, three inspector general audits have found serious flaws with this program. i.c.e. has had to terminate some 28 -g agreements because of racial profiling and other abuses. we have no business funding this program at levels above the request, much less having a mandatory funding level which

is included in this bill. so, the gentleman has come up with an amendment that adds needed grant funding and improves the bill in its offset and i urge its adoption and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from michigan. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the noes have it. the amendment -- mr. clarke: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from michigan will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado rise? >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. polis of colorado, page 11, line 21, after the dollar amount, insert reduced by $501,331,000. page 99, line 17, after the dollar amount, insert increased

by $501,331,000. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. polis: thank you, mr. chairman. my amendment would bring down funding for i.c.e. to fiscal year 2008 levels. i know that this is a time when it's critical to balance our budget, to cut government spending and here's an example of a line item where we simply can't afford to continue to reward failure. my -- this bill is a great place to start in making sure that we have a sound policy for our country. we can't afford to continue wasting billions of dollars of hard-earned taxpayer money to fund an agency that frankly isn't producing results. this bill proposed to appropriate billions of dollars to i.c.e. to enforce our broken immigration laws. that means they spend this money to continue deporting hardworking immigrants,

separating families, kicking out students who have lived in this country their entire lives. all at taxpayer expense. how much does this cost the american tax pay her i.c.e. has said each deportation costs $12,500. outside estimates put the number higher, around $23,000. in fact, it costs an average of $112 a night just to detain illegal immigrants. that's right this country is putting illegal immigrants up effectively at hotels. we might as well put them up at a bargain hotel, let's find a $49 room rather than spending $112 a night to feed and house illegal immigrants every night. my amendment will not end that practice but it will take it back to 2008 levels. we simply can't deport our way out of our current immigration problems. one study estimates it would cost $285 billion to deport all the illegal immigrants in the country, not to mention the devastating impact on the economy that that would have. we need to replace our broken

immigration system with one that works and simply throwing good money after bad at a failed agency like i.c.e. which has not stopped illegal immigration is simply a recipe for continued disaster. in addition, i.c.e. is responsible for shutting down websites and frequently they have taken down legitimate websites without any due process of the law. the story of -- a site was seized by i.c.e. for over a year without any explanation or due process, and when the government finally returned control of the site to its owners they couldn't explain why they took control of the internet site. imagine if the government had seized the printing press or a magazine or newspaper. we would be outraged, on the left, on the right. why is this any different? seizing a website without any due process of the law is contrary to the principles

enshrined in our constitution. it's un-american and violates our freedom of speech. make no mistake, even if my amendment pass the bill would still appropriate far too much for a failed agency. it still would appropriate billions of dollars and i would still oppose that appropriation but at least let's return that appropriation to 2008 levels to stop putting illegal immigrants up at hotels, to stop closing down websites that are free press. to stop spending enormous amounts of taxpayer money not solving our immigration problem. it's more important than ever that we balance our budget and end the deficit. we can start that by reducing wasteful government spending instead of increasing wasteful government spending. i.c.e. has failed to stop illegal immigration. let's not reward failure. let's not reward failure. i.c.e. has shut down websites without any due process. let's not reward failure.

now, obviously, there are members on both sides of the aisle, myself include -- included, that want to address our broken immigration system and we should have a country that's zero illegal immigrants, not 10 million or 12 million, frankly the less i.c.e. does, the more like he we can eliminate illegal immigration in this country. all they do is contribute to it. my bill will reduce the funding to 2008 levels. i think it's a commonsense amendment and anybody who opposes this amendment is effectively rewarding the continued failure of one of the most poorly performing government agencies. i urge my colleagues to vote for my amendment and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from texas. mr. carter: i rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. carter: mr. chairman, this amendment slashes immigration enforcement and would result in laying off many, many i.c.e. agents and potential releasing

dangerous criminal aliens from custody. the gentleman's argument is interesting. his argument seems to be that if you fire the enforcing officers and legalize the criminals you're not going to have a problem. i'm sorry, mr. chairman, but that's not the way it operates. when you break the law, you have to face the consequences, and we need the enforcement officers to go out and assist us in enforcing the law. whether or not the immigration law is broken, i happen to agree it is broken. we might not necessarily agree on how to fix it, but i agree it is broken. because i agree we have porous borders. but i believe the ice people are doing the very best they can. quite honestly, i'm shocked that the solution to a criminal problem is fire the law enforcement officers. that's not good policy under anybody's thinking.

and supposedly those who object are not thinking straight, well i would argue the contrary is the case in this particular argument. i urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. the chair: the gentleman from texas yields back. the gentleman from north carolina. mr. price: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. price: i rise in opposition to this amendment. it cuts i.c.e. salaries and expenses by $500 million and puts all that spending in the spend regular ducks account. there's some ironies in this amendment. it would actually hinder our efforts to move away from the flawed 287-g program. it would hinder nationwide deployment of the much more con seeptyull -- conceptually sound

secure communities effort. it would recuse deuce alternatives to detention where we very much need to go. it would lay off thousands of i.c.e. personnel and what do these personnel do? we've hired them. -- we've hired them to fight the drug trade. to fight human trafficking. to fight violence along the southwest border. i urge defeast this amendment and yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment aired by the -- offered by the gentleman from colorado. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the noes visit. the amendment is not agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> mr. chairman, i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i would like to thank the chairman and ranking member and members of the subcommittee for recognizing the importance of supporting a path for legal immigrants to become citizens. mr. honda: the united states has a special interest in and draws unique benefits from extending citizenship to immigrants who have legal

residents' civic knowledge requirements. i appreciate the chairman's encouraging to keep the natch salization fee affordable so -- naturalization fee affordable so we don't prevent people from pursuing citizenship simply because they cannot afford it. but i am concerned at the way the bill approaches funding for immigration grant programs could undermine this effort to keep fees affordable. integrating immigrantest strengthens their commitment to the united states and makes us a stronger and more prosperous democracy. integration grants have proven to be cost effective means of encouraging immigrants to integrate. it is unfair that the cost and limited availability of citizenship education and legal assistance is the reason that many of the more than eight million legal and tax paying permanent residents are unable

to naturalize despite their eligibility to do so. this bill only allows funding of immigrant education programs through fees checked. departing from past practice of providing discretionary funding to support the program. this will require fee hikes that push naturalization further out of the reach of people who already struggle to pay costs of up to thousands of dollars for the current application, attorneys fees, required dumont collection and other fees, defeating the stated goal of keeping fees affordable. the future viability of the immigration grant program may depend on congress' willingness to reinstate discretionary funding to support it as the senate has proposed to do in its version of the bill. i support the senate's approach to provide discretionary funding regardless of the funds

deposited into the immigration examination fee account and i hope that as we move forward to conference with the nat, we can adopt that approach. it is in this country's interest to support our future u.s. citizens and so it is in all our breasts to give support for immigrant integration grants and doing it right. thank you, mr. chairman, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the clerk will read. the clerk: page 15, line 1, $232,000,6,000 to remain available until september 30, 2015. construction, $5,450,000 to remain available until september 30, 016. transportation security administration, aviation security, $5,041,230,000 to remain available until september 30, 2014. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? >> mr. chairman, i have an

amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. broun of georgia. page 15, line 23, after the dollar amount insert, reduced to zero dollars. page 99, line 17, after the dollar amount insert, increased by $5,041,000,000. the chair: the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. broun: thank you, mr. speaker. my amendment would completely eliminate funding for the transportation security administration, t.s.a., and transfer that money into the deficit reduction account. saving taxpayers more than $5 billion. the fact of the matter is very simple. t.s.a. is not doing the job that it was created to do 10 years ago. originally congress intended for t.s.a. to be an efficient cuten-edge intelligence-based agency responsible for protecting our airports and

keeping passengers safe and secure. today it has grown into one of the most -- one of the largest bureaucracies, bigger than the departments of labor, energy, education, housing and urban development and state all combined. larger than all of those. they've had a 400% increase in staff over the past 10 years. a good portion of that has gone to headquarters' employees making six figures on the average. what's worse is that american passengers aren't getting the good return on the nearly $60 billion that they've invested, spent on t.s.a. reports indicate that more than 25,000 security breaches have occurred at u.s. airports since 2001. plus we have evidence today that terrorists that are on the no-fly list have been still able

to fly successfully aboard u.s. aircraft. on top of this startling information, we've all seen the recent news headlines detailing the lack of professionalism, unreliable training and even alleged corruption in the t.s.a. ranks. since about the only thing the t.s.a. is good at is using its extensive power to violate american travelers' civil liberties. the stories range from embarrassing near strip searches all the way to agents being hired without background checks. the t.s.a. has veered dangerously offcourse from what it was intended to do. i've repeatedly asked that we use our resources to focus on intelligence and technologies that can be more effective when it comes to catching terrorists. instead of patting down grandmas

and children. i'm de-- i've demanded the administrator's resignation and i called for the privatization of t.s.a., along with some of my other colleagues here in the house. but we still have yet to see the necessary changes made to the t.s.a. personnel or procedures that will ensure the safety and security of our airports and passengers. mr. chairman, this amendment, to zero out of play out funding for t.s.a., forces congress -- to zero out funding for t.s.a., forces congress and the department of homeland security to start all over again, start from scratch, on a better, more effective and more progressive system for protecting our airlines without violating the person and liberties of our citizens. i urge my colleagues to support my amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas, for what purpose? >> i rise in opposition to the

gentleman's amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> mr. chairman, again it's never been a solution for failed enforcement to fire all the police officers and get rid of them and then hope it will all work out. mr. carter: without speaking to the criticisms of the gentleman, with the terrorist threat is still real -- the terrorist threat is still real. this is an agency that has that dutyy and responsibility to zero out them and lay them all off would not be productive in stopping criminal activity in the united states. and for that reason i oppose the gentleman's amendment. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from north carolina. >> move to strike the last words. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. price: mr. chairman, i too rise to oppose this amendment. aviation continues to be the main focus for terrorists seeking to do us harm.

i would think we all realize that. this amendment would prohibit all the screening, all the scanning, all of the protective measures that we have undertaken for our protection. it's indiscriminate ath, it's excessive and it should be rejected. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from georgia. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. and the amendment is not agreed to. the clerk will read. the clerk will suspend. who seeks recognition?

all right, then the clerk will read. the clerk: page 19, line 1, surface transportation security, $126,418,000. to remain available until september 30, 2014. the chair: for what purpose does does the gentleman from georgia rise? -- florida rise? mr. mica: i move to strike the last word. chau, -- thank you, mr. chairman, and my colleagues. i had intended to offer an amendment at this stage in the proceedings but i'm not going to do it at this time because i have received some cooperation from the appropriations committee and i want to thank chairman aderholt and the staff and others for including in this d.h.s. bill some reforms of t.s.a. that are long overdue.

the gentleman from georgia just mentioned that this is an agency that is out of control and it is important that we as members of congress try to get agencies that spin out of control under control and that's i think what we're attempting to do here. let me say about this process, this is an incredible process and it's an open process, so i thank our side of the aisle for allowing members to have these opportunities. we were closed off many opportunities in the past to make these changes that are necessary in reforming agencies like t.s.a. let me say what they have done in this bill that is important, and one reason i'm going to support the bill, they need to go a lot further than they've gone, but one reason i'm going to support the bill is they have taken some opportunity to cut some of the administrative overhead. listen to this, t.s.a.'s grown

to 65,000 employees. of that there are 14,000 administrative personnel. 4,000 in washington, d.c. not very far from us. 4,000 making on average, and they've got the statistics right here, the staff will give them to you, $104,000 on average per administrative person. 10,000 administrative people out in the field. so this bill does reduce, i believe it's by about $60 million, some of that administrative overhead. that's only the beginning, but at least it's a beginning. this bill also cuts some programs that have failed like the behavior detection program. it reduces some of the spending there. another program that doesn't work that we need to cut funds on, it does redirect the money. and must congratulate the committee for restoring the

flight officer cuts. the obama administration proposed disarming our pilots, 50% of that program, volunteer pilots who pay their own way to learn how to arm themselves, to protect their aircraft themselves -- aircraft, themselves and their passengers. one of the most cost effective programs we have. i guess that would be the way that the obama administration goes. you want to keep the bureaucracy but do away with cost effective programs. thank you, committee members and staff, for restoring that. so almost every proposal we made from the transportation committee for cuts and reassignment of funds have been made here. not to the degree i would like, but at least i will say it's a beginning. finally let me say that we've

got to do something to further get this agency under control. last week we learn ad lib about a meltdown in security at one of my florida airports, fort myers. we got some information because we get tips all the time, everybody tells us what's going on at t.s.a. except the t.s.a. bureaucrats that are trying to protect their positions. you know, they wait until friday afternoon and released a one-paff graph statement, -- one-paragraph statement, keeping our committee in the dark, trying to keep it from the public and the press and from congress. i took the opportunity to let the press and the public know what i knew which wasn't much, and thank goodness for a free and open press because they went after t.s.a. and we found out monday morning, along with everyone else, what they had done. and not providing accurate information. not telling us it was one of the most serious of meltdowns of t.s.a. personnel and we've had them before in knew washing and charlotte, we've -- newark and charlotte, we've had them in new york city and others. this is an agency that's out of control. we need to cut the bureaucracy

as they have begun to do here. we need to realign where the moneys need to be spent. i have no problem with spending money for security and making certain that terrorists don't take advantage of our most vulnerable achilles heel in the transportation network and for the american public that's aviation. we've seen them go after it again and again. but you need to spend the money where it makes the most sense and does the most as far as true aviation security. extensive aviation theater security is not the way we're going to go. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee rise? >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> mr. chairman, i had intended to -- considered offering an amendment again this year, concerning the federal air

marshall program. i offered an amendment last year to simply keep the federal air marshals at level funding that were approaching almost $1 billion spending each year and they've been given 10 straight years of increases. and this program was called to my attention by an article i read in "usa today" in which they said that more air marshals have been arrested than have been arrests made by air marshals and that they were spending approximately $200 million per arrest each year. and i became convinced because of that report and other reports that this really was probably one of the most useless, needless agencies in the entire federal government. mr. duncan: but i offered the amendment knowing that it's almost impossible to cut a law enforcement agency or an agency that can claim it's doing something toward aviation safety and security.

so my amendment received a lot more votes than i expected, but did not pass. but at that time chairman rogers and ranking member price assure me that they would look a little more closely at this program and i feel that they have done so. and so i rise to commend them and tell them that i appreciate the fact that they have added an $86.5 million cut to this program. that is frankly more than i had planned to cut in the amendment that i offered last year. i want to say that i'm a really strong supporter of law enforce, always have been and always will be. but when you take scarce law enforcement dollars that are especially needed for our local law enforcement people who are the ones out there fighting the real crime that needs to be fought, then you're depriving the agencies that really need it when you give it to an agency like the federal air marshal program that is doing almost no

good whatsoever for this country. . almost every member in this congress flies a couple of times each week and we are doing the same thing that the marshals are doing. they fly back and forth, back and forth and back and forth. i appreciate the fact that chairman rogers has agreed to and ranking member price has agreed to this $86.5 million cut. i wish it was a lot more and think this agency needs to be eliminated, but i do appreciate the progress that's being made thus far. and will not offer an amendment this year, because i think we have started in the right direction on this program. and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota rise? >> i ask for unanimous consent to consider my amendment at this point in the reading.

the chair: is there objection? no objection. the clerk will report. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. cravaack of minnesota, insert, increased by $10 million, reduced by $10 million. the chair: the gentleman from minnesota is recognized for 10 minutes. mr. cravaack: i offer an amendment to the homeland security appropriations bill to increase the funding for flight deck officers. this amendment is fully offset, costing the taxpayers no additional money. this amendment is supported by the national rifle association. mr. chairman, 9/11 woke us up. the reality is we live in a very dangerous world with varied threats. while screening can reduce some threats, terrorists are probing and exploiting our weaknesses. they along with federal air marshals act as a chief deterrant but the last line of

defense is a federal deck steer. reinforced doors is a step to buy time, but the armed pilot is the last line of defense in someone taking over the aircraft to be used as a weapon of mass destruction. the last line of defense is not the secured cockpit door but the armed pilot behind it. according to estimates by the airline pilots association, federal flight deck officers only cost $15 per flight segment. they defend over 100,000 flight segments per month and 1.5 million flight segments per year. thousands of flight deck officers have been certified through the program. despite a budget that hasn't grown since the program's inception. federal flight deck officers pay many of the expenses out of their own pockets for the privilege and the honor to defend our country from terrorist attacks. this year, the obama

administration proposed to have the program, effectively shoulding it down. with $12.5 million in funding, the program wouldn't be able to certify the pilots in the program or maintain its management structure and would not be able to train any new flight deck officers. i'm thankful that chairman aderholt and ranking member price have restored the funding levels to the same as they were as last year, but level funding means that over 1,000 pilots who have expressed interest cannot be vetted or trained. also at this funding level, the program can train only a limited of pilots who have been vetted and would take almost 10 years to process the current backlog to say nothing of future pilots who may volunteer for the program. with the coming mandatory program of many pilots age 65 and fewer flight deck officers

coming on-line, they will not provide the same level of deterrence. i would like to reiterate that the increased funding will not come to the expense at taxpayers and the increase of $10 million is fully offset. $15 per flight, flight deck officers provide the most cost effective aviation security program in existence. as a former federal flight deck officer myself, i can testify about the sacrifices pilots undergo to participate in the program. they actually pay to protect and defend the nation. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment. and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas. mr. carter: mr. chairman, we accept the amendment. the chair: so recognized. and the gentleman from texas yields back.

the gentleman from north carolina. mr. price: i move to strike the last word. i rise in opposition to this amendment. it increases funding for the federal flight deck officers program. but the bill already greatly increases this program above the request, 50% of the request, returning the program to its 2012 level. and it's not a harmless offset. on the contrary. management is cut by $20 million in this bill and we can ill afford to cut it further. this is an unnecessary and unwise tradeoff and i urge rejection of the amendment. and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. does anyone else seek recognition on this amendment? for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan rise? >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes.

ms. clarke: i would like to yield to the gentleman from minnesota. the chair: the gentleman from minnesota is recognized. mr. cravaack: over 700 pilots have been vetted and not trained. 1,500 pilots have applied for the program but have not been vetted. it costs $6,000 per pilot to put them through the backlog for background check and training. they are only to bring about 250 new pilots per year on board which leaves them in less than a status quo status. once a pilot hits age 65. funding is the bottleneck rather than the training center capacity. $10 million would not clear the backlog that exists but it would be a good start. the proposal to redues the screener maintenance by $5

million each. we have strong approval of many organizations for this program, including the airline pilots association. mr. speaker, this is one of the most valuable programs and deterrence that is in the air at current time. it costs again once again, $15 per flight to protect the american traveling public. to me, mr. speaker, this is a no-brainer and thank you and i would yield back. >> i commend my colleague for offering this amendment and commend him for his service to

the country and the military and it is a valuable lesson having been there in the cockpit yourself and i support the amendment as well. and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. any further discussion? the question is on the amount offered by the gentleman from minnesota. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. and the amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentlelady from texas rise? ms. jackson lee: i have an amendment at the desk and ask unanimous consent that my amendment be considered out of order. the chair: would the gentlelady specify which amendment? ms. jackson lee: page 15, amendment number -- designated number 400. the chair: is there objection to considering the amendment? if not, the clerk will report. the clerk: amendment offered by ms. jackson lee of texas, page 15, line 23, after the dollar amount, insert reduced by $61 million. page 20, line 6, after the dollar amount, insert increased by $50 million. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. ms. jackson lee: i thank the chairman. i thank the chairman of the

subcommittee for his courtesy and ranking member for his courtesy. i'm the ranking member on the transportation and security committee and had the privilege of serving as the chairperson on that committee. i work with the chairperson and i appreciate the opportunity to speak to the issues of our committee as it 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 questionery much of the traveling public, whether domestic or international, they would say yes to more federal air marshals and i agree. i have offered amendments and legislation to require more federal air marshals on international trips and certainly have encouraged the training and out lization of them on domestic trips. i have visited their offices. i have sat down and spoken to them. they are committed and dedicated public servants. my amendment will restore the federal air marshals's budget by $50 million. i believe that this will recommendation takes into consideration the crucial operational challenges that they will face as a result of reduction. the operations caught up outlines the two constraints that indicate optimal flight

coverage. it is dependent on the number of federal air marshals available. flight coverage is reliant on the mission travel budget which covers all travel expenses including hotel and per diem costs. on these missions, it must be utilized to have the optimal allocation. in deciding the appropriation, the house must take into consideration the current hiring freeze in f.y. 2013 as mandated by the president's budget. it plans to be cooperative. with limited employees if the reduction were to be implemented, the operation would be undermined and they would be shut down to a great extent. the program would be forced to extend the hiring freeze and implement a furlough of all personnel for a minimum of four

days, reduce mission coverage and consider a reduction and force a risk and strategically reduce on-board staffing levels. in addition, the program would face significant decline including travel, information, technology and logistical support. it would be reduction in the force of this program. i encourage my colleagues to look at the loss of these dollars and ask you to restore the $50 million to the budget. i reserve. the chair: the gentlelady may not reserve, but she can yield back. ms. jackson lee: i ask my colleagues to consider this amendment. and i would ask that we include or recognize the program as an integral part of homeland security, front-line security and an important point and program to consider funding necessary to ensure the security of the traveling public and the

nation's homeland. i ask support of the jackson lee amendment and i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from alabama rise? mr. aderholt: i rise to reluctantly oppose the amendment. while the federal air marshals service 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 grew after 9/11 and the christmas day bombing attempt. how they are deployed and how many they 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 expansion of the federal flight deck officer program are examples of steps taken to secure aviation that reduce the need to allow fams on routes that do not represent a high risk potential. this bill focuses on funding to fund the top priority routes based on threats whether national or international. the bill fully funds the ffdo program which complements fams and is the only security element on board. it directs t.s.a. and fams to look how to include other federal law enforcement agents working with them. this amendment 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 fams operation. i believe the bill would support a robust and targeted fa mmp s 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. and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina rise? mr. price: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. price: i yield to ms. jackson lee for a response. . ms. jackson lee: i thank the chairman for his comments and 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'm 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's 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 they do impact on the traveling public's security while air born. air marshals are 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. and if we are to literally obliterate by the $50 million reduction, will you see a reduction in mission, what offices will ultimately be shut down, fams' personnel being purr lowed for a minute umof four days, civilian personnel gone. i don't deny that he can can -- we can lock to be responsible filly -- fiscally and we can find ways that will streamline. i happen to believe that $50 million is too drastic a cut and should be restored and so i'd ask my colleagues, in spite of what changes may have been made, 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 mar shals. let me conclude by -- mar shals. let me conclude by -- marshall -- marshals. let me conclude by saying that i think we should give flight attendants the kind of security training that would then hem -- help them in the course of a potential terrorist incident on the aircraft. we hope that that would have already been barrowed. i think the other frontliners are t.s.o. officers. but 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 want to subject the traveling public, domestic or international, to that kind of gaping hole of the reduction of costs or dollars that would

ultimately result in this huge reduction of mission, furloughs, closed offices? i think we need to reconsider and i'd ask my colleagues to support this amendment of adding back the $50 million reduction that has taken place. i thank the gentleman from north carolina for his wonderful courtesies and again i ask my colleague and i yield back to the gentleman. mr. price: mr. chairman, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from texas. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. ms. jackson lee: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from texas will be postponed. the clerk will read. the clerk: page 19, line 6, transportation threat assessment

and credentialing, $192,424,000 to remain available until september 30, 2014. transportation security support, $928,663,000 to remain available until september 30, 2014. federal air marshals, $879,600,000. united states coast guard operating expenses, $6,759,627,000. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois rise? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. dold of illinois. page 21, line 1, after the first dollar amount insert, increase by $5,200,000. page 22 line 14, after the dollar amount insert, reduced by $5,200,000. the chair: the gentleman from illinois is recognized for five minutes. mr. dold: thank you, mr. chairman. and i certainly want to thank the chairman and the ranking

member for their leadership on this legislation and i want to thank the staff for working with me on this amendment. mr. chairman, my amendment increases the coast guard operating expenses by $5.2 million to address search and rescue capabilities in the great lakes region. search and rescue is one of the coast guard's oldest missions, dating back to the u.s. revenue cutter service that was founded in 1790. today coast guard search and rescue response involves multimission stations. cutters, aircrafts and boats linked by communication networks that also include over 5,000 commercial vessels that provide a voluntary global response force. using these assets in the past year, the coast guard has responded to over 6,468 search and rescue cases, assisting over 10,000 people and saving over 1,400 lives. just last week, mr. chairman, two young women were saved by

the coast guard air assets on lake michigan. unlike the president's budget that makes dramatic cuts to critical search and rescue operations, this amendment would increase our nation's search and rescue capabilities by adding funding for needed assets. as ets vital to life-saving -- assets vital to life-saving capabilities. these investments build on previous investments that specifically increase capability in the great lakes to increase -- to include the installation of rescue 21 this past december. rescue 21 is now standing watch on over 42,000 miles of coastline. improving the coast guard's ability to assist mariners in distress and save lives and property. further, by the end of this fiscal year, the coast guard will have delivered the last of three new long range response boats to the great lakes area and will enhance response capabilities. mr. chairman, the great lakes is one of the most popular recreation areas in our country.

and the coast guard is a vital part of making it safe for thousands each year. we can't stand by and allow the administration to eliminate life-saving efforts on our great lakes. i certainly urge support for this amendment and i do want to yield the remaining time i have to my good friend, the gentleman from michigan, who has been instrumental in assisting me in this amendment. mr. hughesinger. mr. huizenga: i thank my good friend from illinois -- -- >> we share a great lake. michigan is uniquely situated literally bordering all five of the great lakes. lake superior, lake hereon, lake michigan, lake ontario. mr. huizenga: four of those are actually international boundary waters with thousands of miles of shoreline that are on there, dozens of ports throughout the great lakes and i might add that

they are aptly served by the district nine commander out of cleveland as he is juggling all of the various assets that the coast guard has. but i do reject the plans by this administration to decrease the search and rescue capabilities in the great lakes. this vital amendment restores funding in order to maintain the level of capability that has been present in the great lakes for many years and it's been much needed, mr. chairman. as the gentleman noted, these funds combined with offsets in this bill address shortfalls that this administration's actually advocated for. so coast guard search and rescue in all of the great lakes cannot be shortchanged and as we see an example after -- in example after example, whether it be by boat or helicopter, in lake superior, lake michigan, lake hereon, lake ontario, some of the busiest boating traffic, recreational as well as commercial trafpk, that we see anywhere in the world concentrated in that area. and i urge a yes vote on this amendment and i yield yield. -- and i yield back the balance

of my time to the gentleman. mr. dold: i do urge my colleagues to support this amendment. it's commonsense legislation. we cannot afford to have search and rescue capabilities be diminished. it's certainly, as we look at the number of recreational boaters, it's a vital part of making sure we're saving lives in the great lakes region. >> would the gentleman yield? mr. dold: i certainly do. i yield to the chairman. >> yes, mr. chairman. i would want to commend the gentleman from illinois for their commitment to search and rescues. mr. aderholt: and we would gladly accept their amendment. i yield back. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from illinois yields back fpblgt does anyone else seek recognition? if not the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from illinois. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. and the amendment is agreed. for what purpose does the

gentleman from alaska rise? mr. young: i move to strike the last words. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. young: at this time i'd like to engage with the distinguished chairman of the -- for a colloquy regarding the polar sea, the coast guard's second heavy icebreaker. i yield to you. mr. aderholt: at this time i'd like to yield my time to the gentleman from alaska for the purpose of moving forward with the colloquy. mr. young: mr. chairman, again, i thank you and there may be some confusion here. we've talked about this. i rise today in regards to the coast guard icebreaker polar sea. it has been di decommissioned, will soon be put on dry dock to be prepared for scrapping. however i believe that before a resale value of the polar sea is significantly reduced by removings i proto -- its propeller and shaft, that the coast guard must consider other options. to date the coast guard has not yet officially surveyed the private sector for interest in the polar sea and its current

condition. private sector interests in the polar sea may increase after this summer's arctic drilling season, when permitted drill something expected to be shortened due to heavy ice in the far north. my good friend, mr. dicks, and i are offering this colloquy to delay the scrapping. our goal is to specifically instruct the coast guard to provide a survey of whether or not there's a better use for this vessel. i was prepared to offer an amendment today that would direct the coast guard to report back to congress on the conditions of polar sea, the cost associated with the reactvating the vessel for service and the interest of private or public entities in purchasing and operating the polar sea. this amendment would have prevented the coast guard from moving any major equipment or systems from the polar sea until the coast guard submitted its report to congress. unfortunately the amendment is subject to a point of order. but i'd ask the chairman for his support and commitment to work with me and mr. dicks on this

important issue as we pursue the alternative legislative fix and transportation committee. time is of the essence. i'd like to now yield to my good friend from washington, mr. dicks. mr. dicks: i thank my good friend from alaska for yielding. and i thank the gentleman for raising this important issue. the dramatic reduction in the arctic sea ice that is happening at the north pole is leading to substantial growth in activity in the arctic region. the coast guard in a high latitude study determined it need as minimum of three heavy and three medium icebreakers to meet its statutory mission. this bill includes funding to start the design phase of a new heavy icebreaker. however it will not enter service until 2020 at the earliest. until then there will be only one heavy icebreaker, the polar star. and one medium icebreaker in operation. this is clearly not enough for the coast guard to accomplish its mission. and given the age of the polar star, which entered service in the 1970's, the possibility of a

breakdown or extended maintenance create a significant which would leave us without any serviceable heavy icebreaker at all. as my friend has noted, the polar sea, the coast guard's second heavy icebreaker, has been decommissioned. and is awaiting the final orders to scrap it. given our rapidly growing need in the polar region, i worry that the coast guard is not considering other options for the polar sea. personally i think a compelling case can be made for directing the coast guard to make the investment and put it back into service. but at the very least the coast guard needs to take time to review alternatives. in my judgment it would be a shame to scrap such a potentially useful asset when there are so -- there is so much evidence before us that we need more immediate ice breaking capacity. my friend from alaska has noted that he and i had been considering working on language that would direct the coast guard to consider alternatives, but that such an amendment would

be subject to a point of order. i'm glad the gentleman will be able to work on the issue on a bill pending before the transportation and infrastructure committee. i want to indicate to him that i share his commitment to ensuring that the nation's ice breaking needs are met and will continue to work with him to ensure that the coast guard considers all available options for the polar sea. i yield back to the gentleman from alaska. . i yield back to chairman aderholt. mr. aderholt: thank you, mr. young. i understand the concerns from my colleagues from the state of washington and state of alaska and i appreciate calling attention to the subcommittee. it is important to keep the vessel intact. i would urge the coast guard to work with the authorizing committee to accomplish this

assessment. mr. young: i thank the understanding of the chairman and ranking member of the full committee. this is important to our nation and state of alaska and i do appreciate your consideration and with that, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado rise? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. gardner of colorado, page 21, line 24 insert before the period at the end the following, provided further, that of the funds made available under this heading, such sums as may be necessary shall be available to the secretary of homeland security to comply with the coast guard's energy management requirements under section 543 f-7 of the national conservation policy act 42 u.s.c. f-7. the chair: the gentleman is

recognized for five minutes. mr. gardner: this amendment which i'm offering along with my colleague, mr. welch from vermont, addresses an important issue relating to coast guard facilities. we have offered this same amendment to the two other appropriations bills this week and they passed by voice vote and while my colleague from vermont is not here, i commend him for his hard work on these energy-savings performance contracts in general. the passage sends a clear signal that congress understands the importance of saving energy and costs for the federal government. this amendment does one simple thing. it says that the coast guard should provide an inventory of ways to improve efficiencies in their buildings, which is already a directive under current law. energy savings performance contracts are provided as a mechanism for private companies to come into federal buildings and make energy efficiency upgrades. this results in savings to the federal government and creates well-paying private sector jobs at no cost to the taxpayers.

reducing debt and creates jobs. the private sector company must guarantee that it will produce energy savings to complete the project. there is no reason we shouldn't be helping to find ways to save money and upgrade federal buildings. i urge adoption of this amendment and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. aderholt: we accept the gentleman's amendment and we appreciate him bringing this to the subcommittee's attention. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. any discussion? the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from colorado. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed. the clerk will read. the clerk: page 22 line 1,

environmental compliance and restoration, $12,151,000 he. reserve training $115,128,000. $50 million to remain available until september 30, 2015. $1,128,593,000 of which $398 million shall be available until september 30, 2017. research, development, test and evaluation, $19,690,000 to remain available until september 30, 2017. retired pay $1,423,000,000 united states secret service salaries and expenses $1,556,

055,000. acquisition, improvement, $4 mill 330,000 to remain available until september 30, 2017. title 3, national protection and programs direct ate, management and administration, $45,321,000. infrastructure protection and information security $1,110 ,430,000, and shall remain available until september 30, 2014. federal protective service, revenues and collections credited to this account shall be available until expended or expenses relate todd the protection of federally-owned buildings. office of biometric identity management $190,380,000.

office of health affairs, $132 ,00,000. federal emergency management salaries and expenses. automation modernization, $58,048,000 to remain available until september 30, 2015. state and local programs including transfer of funds $1,762,589,000. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona rise? mr. flake: i have an amendment at the desk designated as amendment number 2. the chair: clerk will report. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. flake of arizona, page 37 line 18 after the dollar amount

reduced by $412 million. mr. flake: i ask unanimous consent that the reading be -- the chair: without objection. mr. price: we do not have a copy of the amendment. the chair: does the gentleman object to the suspension of the reading? the clerk: increase by $412 million. the chair: the gentleman from arizona is recognized for five minutes. mr. flake: mr. chairman -- mr. price: could we have a copy of the amendment? thank you. the chair: the gentleman from arizona is recognized for five minutes. mr. flake: i thank the chairman and i apologize to my object jecking to this reading took longer than reading.

this amendment is straightforward and would reduce the amount appropriated for state and local programs in the bill by $412 million making the amount available in homeland security grants consistent with f.y. 2012 levels. i understand that some of these are a popular program and i'm under no delusions about the prospect of this amendment but i understand that these programs were cut heavily last year in the fiscal year 2012 homeland security appropriation bill when it was reported out of the committee with $1.3 billion cut from the previous year and funding level $2.8 billion less than the president's request. by comparison, this $412 million cut is a bit chintzy and there are good reasons for them. setting aside the steep financial precipice we find ourselves on and still on, there

are some problems with these programs that led to them being cut last year. according to the house appropriations report from 2012, core reductions were due to the persistent lack of quantifiable metrics that could measure the additional capacity that our nation has gained for the billions of dollars that have been invested in these grant programs. we have good metrics to determine if this money is being spent well or not. the report continues, based on the latest estimate, the department currently has about $13 billion in previously appropriated funds that remain unspent dating back to f.y. 2005. quote, this level of unexpected balances is unacceptable. that's what the report reads. mr. chairman, the house committee on appropriations approved this bill and the report which accompanied it just less than one year ago. and when it did, it appropriated only $1 billion for these

programs. while the conference report increased that to $1.34 billion today while preparing to approve a bill that properties more than $750,000 that the house thought appropriate last year. for these programs, the house heavily criticize -- i should mention these programs were criticized last year and here we are with this massive increase. what dent has been made in the $13 billion in unspent funds that existed less than one year ago? the criticisms levied by the house against these programs have been echoed by g.a.o. they found that fema's assessments do not provide a means to measure the effective wrieges' projects that they have on building regional capabilities, which is a goal of the program. taxpayers have footed the billions with no clear way of telling how the money has

improved readiness or national security. in fact, it remains difficult tore any member of congress to know what these funds are being spent on. we've got to do better than this. when we don't get good reports back as to how the money is being spent, how can we ensure that additional monies like this is going to be spent in an appropriate manner? i'm certain that my colleagues want to ensure that money is spent well. that's why i think we should simply forego spending this additional amount. that's what this amendment is intended to do. this amendment would simply reduce the amount appropriated by $412 million making it level with 2012 funding levels. again, we have got to start cutting spending somewhere. and when we increase spending on programs like this, where we don't get good information from

the agencies that spend it as to whether or not it's doing the good it was intended to do, then i say this is an area we should cut. with that, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? mr. broun: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. broun: i rise in support of mr. flake's amendment. he beat me to the microphone, because i had intended to introduce the same amendment that mr. flake is presenting to us now. but i would like to say that this amendment of mr. flake's will keep funding state and local programs that fall under fema set at those 2012 levels. it does not affect disastrous assistance, only state and local programs. mr. chairman, our nation is broke and many agencies along with entire branches of the

federal government are experiencing drastic cutbacks. the underlying bill increases to state and local fema programs by more than $400 million. while fema provides necessary support for various grant training programs, but i'm a firm believer these would be better regulated by state and local governments. therefore, i feel it is more than reasonable to ask that for right now, particularly while we are in such a crisis economically as a nation that we simply freeze funding for these programs this at the 2012 levels. i congratulate my friend, mr. flake, for his amendment. and i support it. i congratulate him on his long-standing efforts to bring the federal government into fiscal sanity. and i urge support of this amendment. and i yield back.

the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the -- the gentleman from north carolina seek recognition? mr. price: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. price: i rise in opposition to this amendment. this amendment would december imate the funding -- decimate the funding for our fema grants. the transit and rail grants that we heard so much about in thisening's debate. i mean the port grants, the urban area grants that are risk-based and targeted to the areas in this country that are under the greatest risk and other programs of smaller size. . .

these programs have help keep our communities safe. after all, our first responders are not of the federal level. our first responders are at home. and our states and our local communities are on the frontlines of responding and preparing to respond, mitigating and then dealing with disasters. disasters of terrorists attacks, natural disasters, other major emergencies. this amendment would return to the 2012 funding levels which were greatly reduced from previous year funding levels. in fact, the levels in 2012 were at an all-time low and were widely decried by our states and localities and so this year we've begun in this bill to build those funding levels where they need to be and this amendment would wipe all that out. in sage stroke. -- in a single stroke. the altogether of this amendment

-- the author of this amendment has made a great deal of the pace of the spending on these grant programs. i have to say that the figures cited tonight are misleading in the sense that these are multiyear programs, they're often dealing with large construction projects. all of this money, except the money for the current year, all of this money is obligated, it's not just sitting there. the money's obligated. and of course after the projects are completed the full amount will be registered as spent. and so we need to oversee these programs carefully, we need to make sure that they're being administered in a responsible way. we need to exercise careful oversight. but the notion that we would come in and wipe out with a single amendment the progress

we've made in getting these funds back to a level that will give our communities and states the support they need i think is unthinkable. i hope this body will reject this amendment and i yield back. mr. dicks: will the gentleman yield? mr. price: i'd be happy to yield. mr. dicks: i'd like to associate myself with the gentleman's remarks. i believe these programs are very important, that there have been major cuts made in the last two years, as i understand it, and that this would just be another major cut on top of this. and to my friend from georgia, austerity isn't helping england, isn't helping france, isn't helping greece and it's not going to help the united states. we need a recovery here at home. that's what we need. not mindless cutting and slashing of the budget that will throw people out of work and not create jobs for the american people.

austerity has failed and i think it's time for the majority to wake up and recognize that. and i don't have the time or i'd be delighted to yield. mr. price: i'd be happy to yield. mr. broun: i thank my frnd from north carolina for yielding -- friend from north carolina for yielding. just to remark about, mr. chairman, from my friend from washington state's remarks, the countries in europe are failing because they spend too much money. government does not make jobs. it's the private sector that makes jobs. republicans have passed bill after bill after bill here in the house that harry reid throws in the trash can as soon as they get over to the senate. we've passed bills here that would lower the cost of gasoline and oil, natural gas of course is very low because of the amount that we have and it's

begun down because the marketplace works and we need to develop our god-given resources. mr. price: reclaiming my time. reclaiming my time. mr. broun: thanks for yielding. mr. price: we are talking here about state and local grant programs whereby the federal government shares in emergency preparedness and response. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. price: virtually without dissent in our communities. this funding is needed. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from -- for what purpose does the gentleman from alabama rise? mr. aderholt: strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. aderholt: yes. we arise also to oppose this amendment as well. we have concerns about the cuts to the funding as well. i wanted to go on record that we do have concerns about this amendment. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no.

in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. and the amendment is not agreed to. the clerk will -- for what purpose does the gentlelady from california rise? >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report. the clerk: amendment offered by ms. hahn of california. page 37, line 18, after the dollaran amount insert, increase by $75 million. page 55 line 2, after the dollar amount insert, reduce by $75 million. page 55, line 4, after the dollar amount insert, reduce by $75 million. the chair: the gentlelady from california is recognized for five minutes. ms. hahn: thank you, mr. chairman. my amendment would increase funding for port security grants by $75 million. you know, i came to congress to

really bring the issue of our ports to -- into our national dialogue and how important they are to our economy, to our jobs, to our national security. and i've been the co-founder with my friend, ted poe, of the congressional ports caucus and as a representative of a district that borders one of the largest ports in the country, this issue is very important to me. the lessons of 9/11 have taught us that we must continually be vigilant and proactively seeking out and preventing our country's most pressing threats. the port security grant program helps address these threats by providing key funding to port areas for enhancing maritime security. we have millions of tons of cargo shipments coming into ports across this country and they provide viable entry points for terrorists who seek to use weapons of mass destruction.

when people ask me what keeps me up at night, it's the thought of what could happen at one of our ports and what that would mean not only to our national economy, but to the global economy. an attack in our nation's ports could severely damage our own fragile economy right now and cause a ripple effect across the global supply chain. this requires us to take proactive steps and invest in critical detection and response operations and equipment. each year port security officials attempt to address these many threats that exist at our nation's ports by applying for these port security grants. unfortunately the irresponsible cuts to preparedness grants this last year resulted in huge gaps being left unaddressed and security officials unable to build and sustain capabilities needed to prevent, detect, respond to and recover from a potential attack.

while i commend the chairman and ranking member's efforts in bolstering funding for state and local homeland security programs this year, this amendment will assure that the ports receive the funding they need in order to address the lingering gaps in port security of which there are many. and even though i understand the intended purpose of the national bioand agro defense facility, the reality is that this facility was promoted $75 million even though the president did not need nor request these funds. additionally the department of homeland security is still waiting for the recommended design modifications made by the national academy of science and for the administration to review the cost and scope of the project. which isn't anticipated to be completed until 2020. i think this money could be better spent on providing critical support for our american ports and inland waterway systems which is provided through this port security grant program.

i have no doubt that all of us recognize the urgency of this threat and the importance of having safe and secure maritime facilities in order to protect our critical borders, moving goods and our american citizens. therefore i urge my colleagues to support this amendment. mr. chairman, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from alabama rise? mr. aderholt: yes, thank you, mr. chairman. i rise in opposition to the amendment. as i had mentioned earlier in the evening, our nation does have an immediate need to build up our research capacity into pathogens that afflict our food chain and by extension human beings. this amendment would put that to risk and therefore i would oppose the amendment, but i'd also like to yield my time to the gentlelady from kansas and

have her to speak on this amendment as well. the chair: the gentlelady from kansas is recognized. ms. jenkins: i thank the gentleman for yielding. thank you, mr. speaker. d.h.s. under both the bush and obama administration have made it clear that a b.s.l. -- bsl-4 lab is essential to our security and building a new structure is both responsible and cost effective. manhattan campus was selected as the new site for this after an exhaustive study by the bush administration's d.h.s. and then reconfirmed by the current administration's 2012 budget. we need this and man hat isn't best place to build it. a fact that secretary nal confirmed earlier this -- napolitano confirmed earlier this year. while fema state and local grants are important, uncreasing them by eliminating construction of this lab is simply irresponsible. make no mistake about it, if we had a surplus it might be nice to increase these grants but the result of this amendment f amendment will be stopping or

delaying -- amendment will be stopping or delaying construction of the facility and jeopardizing the security of our nation's food supply. i urge the body to reject this amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from alabama. mr. aderholt: we oppose the amendment and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from north carolina. mr. price: i move to strike the last word. the chair: recognized for five minutes. mr. price: mr. chairman, i hope that we've established in the course of this discussion tonight that i and our side of the aisle is strongly in favor of the fema grants and that most certainly includes the port grants. so i commend our colleague for calling our attention to the importance of these port security grants and the need for more funding. although in this bill we have begun the way back in terms of restoring funding for the state and local grants and the port grants and the rail and transit grants and the high risk area

grants. we're not there yet. and so our colleague has made a constructive suggestion as to how we might augment this funding. do i feel obligated, though, to make a comment about the proposed offset. our colleague has made some very cogent points about the project. i believe that with the funding that's already in the pipeline and the national academy of science reviews that are under way, that we do not need to include money in this year's bill for that construction. but this is part of the science and technology account. and we're going to have later this evening an amendment from our colleague from new york that will suggest taking the designated funding and restoring it to the science and technology account and i have to say that that science and technology

account is very much in need of that funding. science and technology research activities have been drastically and unwisely cut in recent years. they've been cut by 60% over the past two years. now, there's $158 million increase in this bill that restores some of these cuts. but that's taking place against a baseline that was simply too low to meet the needs of the different homeland security components. and the needs of our nation. so, in weighing the equities here, as we said earlier, we have one compelling need and we also have an offset that raises some serious issues and we will have an occasion later this evening to talk about the science and technology account and the place of that within that account. and i yield back.

the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from kansas rise? >> thank you, mr. chairman. i rise to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. the chair: mr. chairman, i rise in opposition to the amendment which strikes a dagger in our efforts to protect our country, our homeland security, from threats to our food system, our agriculture system, and our threats to the american people. as horrific as it is to imagine, reports show that one of our greatest vulnerabilities is threats to our food supply, to our agriculture. one doesn't have to stretch too far to think how mad cow disease or some other spread could grind our economy to a halt and strike fear in the hearts of all americans. this simply cannot happen. and the hahn amendment which completely defunds 100% of the national bio and agro defense facility in this bill would completely set us back, would make us very vulnerable to threats to our agriculture system from foreign-borne illness and those terrorists that would seek to injure and

strike fear in the hearts of americans. currently our country lacks a lab needed to keep our food supply safe. the secretaries have stated that this is a priority and it has bipartisan support within the administration. . is homeland security is not a partisan issue. we are here today to do what we can to protect the american people. i commend the chairman and the committee for their work in ensuring the national bioand agriculture defense was funded. terrorists are not sleeping. they are not waiting for this committee to debate and not waiting for conference committees. they are doing everything they can to strike fear in the hearts of americans and disrupt our food supply. i stand strongly against the hahn amendment and dangerous to

our national security and national people and i ask the body to reject it. and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. and the amendment is not agreed. for what purpose does the gentlelady from california rise? ms. hahn: have a recorded vote on that. the chair: pursuant to clause 6, rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from california will be postponed. the gentleman from new york, for what purpose does the gentleman from new york rise? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. higgins of new york, page 37, insert increase by $58 million.

page 55 line 2, after the dollar amount insert reduced by $58 million. page 58 line 4, insert reduce by $58 million. the chair: the gentleman from new york is recognized for five minutes. mr. higgins: my amendment is co-sponsored by representative stiffers is a bipartisan effort to provide funding to communities across the country that are determined to be at high risk of a terrorist threat. this amendment would provide for an additional $58 million to state and local grant programs and the secretary of homeland security should use to increase eligibility for urban areas, secure initiatives to all communities at high risk, including buffalo, which i represent. the intent is to restore the eligibility of these communities to again participate in the program after being

unfortunately cut out in the past. the buffalo region, which was made ineligible without merit. the area includes four international bridge crossings and the busiest national crossing with canada and largest electricity producer in new york state and the area that was home to the al qaeda terrorist cell. it sits along two great lakes, which contains the largest fresh water supply in the world and is within a 500-mile radius of 55% of the american population and 62% of the canadian population. buffalo is not alone either. border communities like el paso, san antonio, and austin were cut as well. cities in close proximity to large ports, refineries and utilities like columbus, new orleans, memphis, nashville and oklahoma city were cut as well.

36 communities in total were cut from all across the country. now as we are only to realize, threats posed by these places is it penny-wise and pound-foolish to leave them without the resources to maintain the capacity in gains they developed throughout this program. mr. chairman, the 9/11 commission made it clear that protecting the homeland from terrorist threats can and should be a federal priority. yet, the department has hedged on its commitment by excluding too many vulnerable communities that need to participate in this department of homeland security program. we know that the threats to these areas are real and we should be doing everything possible to provide law enforcement with the tools to prevent and to respond to them. again, mr. chairman, i urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan amendment because the

terrorist threat to these communities is real and is dynamic. and we should be doing everything we can to empower these communities to prevent themselves from the threat. thank you. and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from alabama rise? mr. aderholt: i would strongly urge my colleagues to support fiscal discipline as well as critical research and development. therefore, concerns we have about the gentleman's amendment, we ask for a no vote. i yield back. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina? mr. price: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. price: here we have another amendment dealing with fema grants and once again, we come to appreciate the need for

morrow bus support for urban area grants, for state and local grants, for transit and port grants, rail grants. the kind of protective efforts that our communities require. we are reminded that those grants have been cut very drastically. and in this bill, we are only beginning to bring them back to the levels required. i commend our colleague for this amendment, which proposes $58 million, i believe, in increased funding for these grants. this is money that could be well spent, wisely spent, prudently spent by our states and local communities. again, i simply call attention to the problems posed by the offset. members will have to make their own judgments about this. the money is taken out of the science and technology direct ate at the department of homeland security and taken out of the labs' accounts, as i

understand it, which does include the item discussed earlier, but isn't limited. i would remind colleagues science and technology activities have been cut by 6 %. we fought our way back in this area, too, in this bill. restoring some of these cuts against the baseline that was way too low and so these science and technology -- this is not free money. this is related just as surely as anything in the bill to this country's security and it's underinvested in at the moment. so we do have to weigh competing values here and certainly in the balance, we deserve to -- the science and technology priorities deserve serious consideration. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields

back the balance of his time. the question then is on the amendment -- on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new york. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. mr. higgins: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6, rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new york will be postponed. the clerk will read. the clerk: page 41, line 19, firefighter assistance grants $670 million to remain available until september 30, 2014. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from alabama rise? mr. aderholt: mr. chairman, i ask unanimous consent the remainder of the bill through page 54 line 19 be considered as read, printed in the record and open to amendment at any point. the chair: is there any

objection? hearing none, so ordered. are there any amendments to that portion? for what purpose does the gentleman from new york rise? mr. bishop: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk has to read first. the clerk: page 54 line 20, research development, acquisition and operations $695 million of which $493,333,000 shall remain available until september 30, 2015. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from new york rise? mr. bishop: i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: page 55 line 3, after the dollar amount insert by 75 million. insert reduced by $75 million. the chair: the gentleman from new york is recognized for five minutes. mr. bishop: my amendment is simple, it reduces by $75

million the amount that d.h.s. can spend on construction of laboratory facilities, specifically the nbath and return to those funds to the acquisition account. this unnecessary account is an attempt to earmark funds for a project that the obama administration zeroed out that the d.h.s. acknowledges will cost over $1 billion to construct and the national academy of science has raised concern about foot in mouth disease and many in the agricultural community is asking why take the chance. when the review they indicated that the foot in mouth was a 70% risk over a 50-year period. the academy estimated the cost of a potential release of foot

in mouth disease at $9 billion to $50 billion. while it is correct that d.h.s. indicated that this risk had been mitigated, the national acad by of sciences is reviewing the risk assessment. common sense requires until the revised risk assessment is complete we shouldn't be completing the idea of taxpayer dollars for construction of this project. this has become a financial boondoggle. the costs have skile rocketed from $451 million to well over a billion dollars today. at this time, it is a colossal risk to the american taxpayer to advance a project the cost of which has doubled in less than five years and when funding from fiscal years 2011 and 2012 remain unobligated. at a time when our republican

colleagues argue that our nation's debt is out of control and the deficit must be brought in, it is hypocritical and unwise to spend taxpayer dollars that the president hasn't requested for a project is that still under design review and sensitive to the horrible diseases that will be studied. the only logical and responsible thing to do while the questions remain unanswered is to wait and continue to utilize existing assets to study the various animal diseases. mr. chairman, funding for the construction is tantamount to a $75 million earmark for the kansas delegation. funds were not included and the project has yet to spend the money that has already been appropriated. d.h.s. has more pressing construction projects than this. i urge my colleagues to support my amendment.

and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from alabama rise? mr. aderholt: i rise to oppose the amendment. concerns that we had noted earlier about the importance of the nbath program that the administration has stressed and also the need that was stressed in our hearings earlier in the spring. i yield to the gentlelady from kansas to speak on this amendment as well. ms. jenkins: the first priority of the federal government is to protect the american people and the national bioand ag defense facility has been declared necessary to provide that protection. the department of homeland security under both the bush and obama administrations and the house appropriations committee under the republican and democratic leadership have made it clear that the country needs the nbath and the best place to do is in manhattan, kansas.

congress has appropriated $90 million and the city and state have committed $200 million. the latest estimate that was previously study indicated that an accident happened at this facility was less than 11%. while, again, this proposal might be nice if we had a surplus, the result of this amendment will be stopping or delaying construction of this vital facility, jeopardizing our security and our nation's food supply. i urge the body, reject this amendment. and i yield back. . the chair: the gentleman from alabama controls the time. mr. aderholt: i yield back.

the chair: the gentleman from north carolina. mr. price: i move to strike the last words. mr. chairman, i rise in support of the amendment offered by my friend from new york, mr. bishop. an amendment that will increase funding for research and development activities within the science and technology directorate by $75 million. and it will dictate that no new appropriated funds will be available in fiscal year 2013 for the national bio and agro defense facility. i stress, no new funds. the administration did not request funds for this in 2013 and i simply cannot support inclusion of the $75 million contained in this bill until two national academy of science reviews are completed on the security of in -- of this new facility to prevent the accidental release of harmful pathogens. members may recall that the g.a.o., the national academy of sciences and congress itself have had long standing concerns about the decision to relocate

the national bio and agro defense facility to the mainland. unless we have a comprehensive and validated strategy to prevent the release of food foot and mouth virus and other harmful pathogens into the community. in 2011 the national academy of sciences found that based on preliminary designs of the facility there would be a 70% risk of a release of foot and mouth disease, leading to infection outside the laboratory. the economic cost was estimated to be between $9 billion and $50 billion. over the next 50 years, as the life span of that would be projected. d.h.s. has redone its site security risk assessment now. now that the design is further along. adding additional protective measures, suggested by the original national academy study. as required by statute, the national academy is reviewing the site security risks again to

take into account these new mitigation strategies. now, even if we assume that the national academy gives a positive review to the site and i hope such a review will be warpted, the facility has -- warranted, the facility has two years of previously appropriated funds that remain unobligated. science and technology has told us that these funds will permit construction to begin and fund all necessary activities through fiscal year 2013. so the $75 million included in the bill before us is not needed at this time. and will not be needed in the new fiscal year. this $75 million set aside in the bill has some serious consequences for the science and technology function. it will eliminate most if not all funding for new research projects at the department that they plan to begin in 2013. these projects focus on critical homeland security capabilities and would do the following,

improve maritime transit security, improve explosives detection capability for mass transit, bulk cargo and suicide bombers, provide building security and checkpoint security with a standoff ability to detect trace explosives on people and personal items. would improve t.s.a.'s capability to identify threats to aviation security, would integrate passenger screening at airports to improve security and the travelers' overall screening experience. would increase government security when using cloud-based computing systems. would improve federal, state and local animal health official's emergency response to control the spread of foreign animal diseases an mitigate any impact on the livestock industry. development countermeasures against high priority -- develop countermeasures against high priority diseases of livestock. protect occupants in the event

of a chemical or biological attack and would approve the ability to respond to and recover from the effects of nuclear radiological attack. mr. chairman, that is an impressive list of research priorities we should take very, very seriously. any budget proposal that would displace or move aside these research of priorities, so this money will be returned to this catecal research and development function. restoring these efforts, making -- taking them back to the requested level. these funds will permit s.n.t. to resume search and development work on 22 projects, not funded in fiscal 2012. and would increase funding for 34 projects in the important homeland security mission such as border security, biosecurity, chemical security, explosives detection, hostile behavior detection and disaster resiliency. there's a lot at stake in this amendment, my colleagues. i urge you to adopt it.

i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from kansas rise? >> move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. as a farmer and rancher myself, i am very concerned by this amendment, one might be led to believe that with the adoption of this amendment somehow important research would continue. actually the opposite is true, mr. chairman. we have billions and billions of dollars in this country that are based on our livestocktry industries and unless -- livestock industries and unless this congress and this president continue forward with a plan to build a b.s.l. level four security research facility, we will not do the necessary research to protect critical industries, like stove -- livestock industries in particular, in this nation. let me identify two diseases that research is not occurring right now.

the first outbreak was in as you trail in 1994, it killed 13 horse, but more importantly it killed a number of humans. mr. huelskamp: the research is not occurring now. secondly, how about the nepa virus? first developed in malaysia in 1999. the outbreak resulted in the killing of more than one million hogs and 257 cases in humans, killing 105 of them. without this type of research, mr. chairman, these are the kind of viruses we have no protection for. folks might say, well, don't worry, if we would have this type of virus in america, we can outsource the research to friendly countries, australia. and canada will do the research for us. mr. chairman, i'm not willing to rely on outsourcing the protection of very important industries and these are just accidental outbreaks. there are numerous other viruses, numerous other diseases that are in the hands, i believe, and research will show,

in the hands of potentially of enemies of our country. we need to oppose this amendment and protect our key vital food and agriculture industries from accidental as well as potential bioterrorist attacks and so i urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and defend our critical industries. thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. the chair: who yields? the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new york. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in then of the chair, the noes have it -- in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the gentleman from new york. >> on that i request the yeas and nays. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new york plb postponed. - will be postponed. the clerk will read. the clerk: page 55, line 13,

domestic -- the chair: the gentleman from alabama. mr. aderholt: i ask unanimous consent that the remainder of the bill through page 99, line 11, can be considered as read, printed in the record and open to amendment at any point. the chair: is there objection? seeing none, so ordered. are there any amendments to that portion of the bill? if not, the clerk will read. the clerk: spending reduction account, section 569, the amount by which the applicable allocation of new budget authority made by the committee on appropriations under section 302-b of the congressional budget act of 1974 exceeds the amount of proposed new budget authority is zero dollars. the chair: the clerk will suspend. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, proceedings will now resume on those amendments upon which further proceedings were

postponed in the following order. an amendment offered by ms. moore of wisconsin, an amendment by mr. broun of georgia, an amendment by mr. holt of new jersey. first amendment by mr. clarke of michigan. second amendment by mr. clarke of michigan. first amendment by ms. hahn of california. second amendment by ms. hahn of california. an amendment by mr. poe of texas. an amendment by mr. bishop of utah. an amendment by ms. loretta sanchez of california. an amendment by ms. jackson lee of texas. an amendment by mr. higgins of new york, an amendment by mr. bishop of new york. the chair will reduce to two minutes any time for electronic vote on the -- after the first vote in this series. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from wisconsin, ms. moore, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by ms. moore of wisconsin. the chair: a recorded veat has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is

ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are --

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 154, the nays are 260. the amendment is not adopted.

the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from georgia, mr. broun, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. broun of georgia. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 140, the neighs are 273. the amendment is not agreed to. the question is -- the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new jersey, mr. holt, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. holt of new jersey.

the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 173, the nays are 240, the amendment is not agreed to. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from michigan, mr. clarke, upon which further proceedings were postponed and the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: first amendment offered by mr. clarke of michigan. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-minute vote.

[captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: the yeas are 211, the nays are 202. the amendment is adopted. the unfinished business is request for a recorded vote on the second amendment offered by the gentleman from michigan, mr. clarke, on which further proceedings were postponed and which the noes prevailed by voice vote.

the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: second amendment offered by mr. clarke of michigan. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in favor of a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: the yeas are 159. the nays are 254 and the amendment is not agreed to. the unfinished business is request for a recorded vote on the first amendment offered by the gentlewoman from california, ms. hahn, on which further proceedings were postponed and the noes prevailed. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: first amendment

offered by ms. hahn of california. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in favor of a recorded vote will rise. a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 156, the nays are 261. the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is a request for a recorded vote on the second amendment offered by the gentlewoman from california, ms. hahn, on which further proceedings were postponed and the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate. the clerk: second amendment offered by ms. hahn of california. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: the yeas are 144. the nays are 273. the amendment is not adopted.

the unfinished business is request for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from texas, mr. poe, on which further proceedings were postponed and upon which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. poe of texas. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a 15-minute vote -- a two-minute vote. a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of epresentatives.]

the chair: the yeas are 302 and

the nays are 113. the amendment is agreed to. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from utah, mr. bishop, on which further proceedings were postponed and the yeas prevailed. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. bishop of utah. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in favor of a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of epresentatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 230, the nays are 120 --

186. the amendment is adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from california, ms. loretta sanchez, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by ms. loretta sanchez of california. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 167, the nays are 249, the amendment is not agreed to. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on

the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from texas, ms. jackson lee, upon which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by recorded vote -- by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by ms. jackson lee of texas. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 60, the nays are 355 the amendment is not agreed to. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new york, mr.

higness, upon which further proceedings were postpone and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. higgins of new york. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are --

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 150, the nays are 266. the amendment is not agreed to. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new york, mr. bishop, on which further proceedings were postponed and upon which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. bishop of new york. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 166 and the nays are 245 and the amendment is not agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from alabama seek recognition? mr. aderholt: i move that the committee do now rise. the chair: the question is on the committee do now rise. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the yeas have it and the committee does now rise. the speaker pro tempore: the chair: the state of the union having had under consideration h.r. 5855 has come

to no resolution thereon. the speaker pro tempore: the committee reports that the committee has not -- has had under consideration h.r. 5855 and has come to no resolution thereon. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, proceedings will resume on motions to suspend the rules previously postponed. the unfinished question is on suspending the rules and passing s. 363. which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: an anth to authorize the secretary of commerce to convey property of the national oceanic and atmospheric administration to the city of pascagoula, mississippi and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill. those in favor say aye.

those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 being in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed and without objection, the the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the unfinished business is the question on suspending the rules and passing s. 292 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: union calendar number 295, senate 292, a bill to resolve the claims of the beering straits corporation and the state of alaska and land adjacent to salmon lake and provide conveyance to the united states corporation of certain other public land and partial satisfaction of the land entitlement of the corporation under the alaska native claims settlement act. the speaker pro tempore: will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3

being in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed. and without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the chair lays before the house the following personal requests. the clerk: leaves of absence requested for mr. coble of north carolina for today and the balance of the week and mr. culberson for today after 10:00 p.m. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the requests are approved. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois rise? mr. schock: i move that the house do now adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no.

. the yeas have it. the motion aadopted. >> we are joined by tim starks. what are some of the key issues

lawmakers will debate? >> a fair amount of the funding levels. in the past there has been where republicans are trying to cut for local grants and democrats want to increase them. they are a lot closer than they have been in past years. that means a couple issues that are a point of disagreement. the democrats would like to see the language removed. it is unclear if there will be a removal of the language because democrats got some things modifying the language they liked. there may not be enough energy or momentum to try to take the language out. there are other things you might see republicans pushing for more border security funding. it does decrease slightly border

security bureau. you might sit and try to increase those levels. democrats are upset about requirements and the bill that say they must have a certain number of detention beds. they would like to see the language removed because they say it does not represent the medium of what is out there. >> what other policy writer issues might we see in the debate mentioning abortion? >> some of the language about what, no -- guantanamo. that is one thing you might see. the language often says you cannot transfer anyone to you s sole real with any funds in this bill. that is how it has been in past years. >> looking more broadly at the bill, compare it to the spending level from last year.

what agencies and programs does is specifically cover? >> it is a very small decrease in terms of how many other departments are facing decreases. something like 1.2% decrease from last year. the department that suffered the most for some of the management like accounts and transportation and security administration. they wanted congress to increase the security the airline passengers paid. that fee has not been increased for something like a decade. the administration wanted that. republicans said, no, we're not going to do that. we are going to reduce tsa funding as a result of that. some other agencies that are effected, the coast guard. the department of homeland's security, the administration

proposed cutbacks that were unpopular in the congress. it is still about $10 million. that gives you a sense of how big the coast guard is. we are talking about a $40 billion bill just in terms of what lawmakers can move around another $5.5 billion that does not count against spending caps. there is an awful lot covered, but there are a couple of big components effected. >> where is the senate with their version of the homeland security bill? >> this bill in the house is about $41.9 billion. the one in the senate is $39.5 billion. some of the issues that have been big points of disputes have been some of the first responder

local state grants. because the republicans said, ok. we cut the enough in past years. will my institute those this year. the democrats in the senate are much closer to the republicans in the house than they have been. >> thank you for the update. >> thank you. >> the b-52, everybody thinks back to vietnam. they thing linebacker operation. they think about the history of the b-52. there is a different kind of power associated with the b-52. >> these are two friends, union and confederate who knew each other prior to the civil war who fought against each other in 1862. here they are at age 100 talking about the old days.

>> we have one to the east mart 901 and one to the west marked 903. they reference the momentum of the bomb which was at 902. >> look for the history and literary culture of our next stop in jefferson city, missouri. >> the senate banking committee looked into j.p. morgan's recent $2 billion trading loss and the risks such losses pose to the broader economy. the comptroller testified did in adequate risk-management was to blame and his agency was investigating the incident. also testifying were deputy treasury secretary.

this is two hours and 20 minutes. >> i called this meeting to order. this is part of the committee's continued oversight of the implementation of the reform act. it is also to discuss with bank regulators the implications of the laws recently announced -- loss recently announced by j.p. morgan bank. when a bank announces they have lost billions of dollars in a large trade -- it reminds us no financial institution is immune from bad judgment. while the j.p. morgan trading loss does not appear to have

systemic problems, it is a clear reminder that wall street continues to need better risk management. if the rules are broken, and yielding a enforcement. to repeal or weaken wall street reform and defund would take us back to the days before the financial crisis of 2008. wall street reform was a response to the crisis caused by a lack of consumer protection, reckless behavior in the financial sector, and regulators to fail to take action in time. we now have an agency solely focused, tough new rules to end reckless practices by some on wall street and regulators armed with new powers to ensure the

safety and soundness of the banks they supervise. the regulators are also in the process of enhancing the standards. all the regulators to this day our members -- they are also working the volcker rule to prohibit proprietary trading with government to insure deposits and the fdic continues to work diligently to implement

requirements. similarly, while there is a need for a stronger regulation of all financial decisions, wall street reform recognizes the strong community banks should not be treated the same as the largest banks. large complex banks take on the most risk and pose the greatest threat to our economic stability, they should be required to pay their fair share and to deposit insurance funds. likewise the small banks that did not cause the crisis should not have to pay for the risks taken on by their larger competitors.

a one size fits all approach is not appropriate and many have raised concerns about challenges faced by small community banks. i hope to hear from our witnesses today about the steps they are taking with regard to small banks. some have claimed that the wall street reform act was not the right set of solutions to the crisis. it asks regulators to manage the activities, i disagree. they have built a stronger oversight framework that poses regulatory depth and financial stability and better protect consumers, investors, and

taxpayers. it must be and remains a top priority for the committee. about the progress they have made to complete implementation of wall street performance. the thoughts on the potential implications of the laws or some -- it super evasion going forward. i also want to thank them here on the banking committee for all their input and cooperation over the past several months.

when most -- the committee has been busy getting things done on the senate floor. the bipartisan export import bank reauthorization past with broad support and was signed into law by the president last week. they received four votesreceivel help to secure the passage of the confirmation. we passed a bipartisan transportation bill in the senate and the transportation meetings are currently ongoing with the house. we passed a 60-day extension of the national flood insurance program. we have commitment from the

leadership. in addition, there is another important legislative matter facing this committee. how can responsible homeowners refinancing into lower interest rates with no cost to taxpayers? we already have several hearings on financial proposals. i would like to take a bipartisan approach similar to others bills -- to other bills of this congress where we work together in a bipartisan way with amendments limited to those related to the underlying bill. i'm hopeful that my colleagues will agree to move forward in this manner as well. we can help responsible homeowners.

with that, i turn to the center. >> thank you, mr. chairman. we have spent a lot of time together. probably, we will spend more in the future. today, the committee will hear from the financial regulators who supervise our nation's banks. the safety and soundness of our banking system depends on your efforts. it was not long ago that our banking system began to collapse, notwithstanding the presence of a large and vigorous regulatory structure. i believe it is critical that this committee conduct rigorous oversight to ensure the financial regulators do not repeat the mistakes of the past. as the primary regulator of the national banks, the office of

the comptroller of the currency is responsible for insuring the safety and soundness of our largest banks. this means that the occ supervisors, j.p. morgan chase, whose recent bidding in trading loss has been in the news, and because taxpayers guarantee j.p. morgan's deposits, the public has a right to know whether these trades threatened or could threaten the solvency of the bank. this committee has an obligation to determine whether this loss ofeals any operation regulatory weakness. next week, j.p. morgan colorado jamie dimon will appear to explain his bank's actions. today, i would like to hear the occ's views on what happened at j.p. morgan, in particular the

comptroller should give us his assessment of whether these trades ever written the safety and soundness of one of our nation's largest banks. banks are in the business of taking -- risks. it is the job of regulators to prevent banks from taking risks that expose taxpayers. some people have used j.p. morgan's loss as an opportunity to argue for stronger implementation of the volcker rule. matter where you stand on the role, this is a bit immaterial. most importantly, the current authority is sufficient to prevent these trades from putting taxpayers at risk, if they did, if so, did the occ properly use the authority it had? i look forward to hearing the comptroller's answers to these

questions. also today is the acting chairman of the insurance corp., no stranger to this committee. we have been told don frank -- dodd-frank will prevent future bailouts. yet, under the fdic's plan for implementing the resolution authority, short-term creditors would still be bailed out. the lesson we all should have learned from the tarp bailouts is that creditors of a failed firm should bear its losses. today, i hope the acting chairman can reassure this committee that the fdic's resolution authority will not institutionalize government bailouts. regrettably, the fdic is not the only regulator that is taking actions that may institutionalize too big to fail.

the financial stability oversight council, led by treasury, and the federal reserve board, have recently used the authority granted by dodd-frank to designate several companies as systemically important, and are preparing to designate a larger group soon. i believe the danger presented by such a designation is that the market view as an unpleasant guarantee that the federal government, the taxpayers, will not allow the designated institution to fail. this was the same problem that arose with fannie and freddie, and ultimately, led to about a $200 billion taxpayer bailout, and more to come. i would like to hear from the treasury and the federal reserve board as to how the designation process will eliminate, rather than create, too big to fail companies. we will hear from the director of the bureau of consumer financial protection, the proposed regulation and

supervision will impact the safety and soundness of our banking system, i believe. unlike other bank regulators, the bureau is not required to consider safety and soundness when it to write rules or takes actions against banks. i think this is becoming apparent, as the bureau's proposed rule will impose huge costs on banks and create serious confusion about what banks need to do to comply with consumer protection laws. the director of the bureau has unilateral authority to declare practices to be abusive. the bureau has said it will not write a regulation to clarify what the term "abuse of" means. think about it. the refusal to write a rule stands in stark contrast to the directors a statement that the bureau would give banks clear moves uncertainty about what they could do and what they

couldn't. the refusal of the bureau, a lot of us believe, to issue, "-- clear rules, means banks will have higher costs, more exposure to lawsuits, and less effective operations, something i don't think congress intended. in the end, it will be consumers that will pay the price in the form of higher cost, less access to credit, fewer choices, and more paperwork from less efficient banks. this should come as no surprise to the regulators here. after all, it was not our regulators or the banks that paid for the poor regulation and practices that led to the financial crisis. it was the taxpayers and consumers. thank you, mr. chairman pierre >> thank you, senator shelby. this morning, opening statements will be limited to the chairman and the ranking member to allow more time for questions from the committee members. i want to remind my colleagues that the record will be open for

the next seven days for new statements and any other material you would like to submit. now, i will personally introduce our witnesses. neil is deputy secretary of the u.s. department of the treasury. dan is currently serving as a member of the board of governors of the federal reserve system. thomas is comptroller of the currency. welcome to your first hearing before the banking committee since your confirmation as comptroller. marty is the acting chair of the insurance corp.. richard is director of the consumer for the national protection bureau. i think all of you again for being here today. i would like to ask the witnesses to please keep your remarks to five minutes.

you're full written statements will be included in the record. secretary, you may begin your testimony. >> members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear today to discuss implementation of the dodd-frank act. it will help protect americans from the excessive risk, oversight, and poor consumer protections that played roles in bringing about the financial crisis. that crisis and the recession that accompanied it cost me it -- nearly $9 million -- 9 million jobs and brought gdp growth to - 9%. today, the economy has improved substantially. more than 3.4 million jobs have been created over the last month. our economy has grown at an annual rate of 2.4%. as part of our efforts to strengthen the economy, treasury

is focused on implementing the dodd-frank to build a more stable financial system. core elements include tougher strengths on risk-taking and leverage, and a new authority to resolve large interconnected firms facing failure, comprehensive oversight of derivatives, stronger consumer financial protections, and new measures to promote transparency and market integrity. substantial progress has been made since the dodd-frank act was enacted. regulators have finalized nearly all the major roles related to the core elements of reform. treasurys implementation responsibilities include the secretaries role as chair of the financial stability oversight council and standing up the office of financial research and the federal insurance office. excellent progress has been made setting up each of these entities. treasury has also charged with coordinating volcker rul maker. -- rule making.

it limits investments in and sponsorships of hedge funds and private equity funds. the lessons learned from the recent failures in risk- management at j.p. morgan chase will be an important input in efforts to enact the reforms, including a strong volcker rule. it exempts from the prohibition of proprietary trading the ability of firms to engage in "risk mitigating hedging activities in connection with and related to individual or aggregated positions designed to reduce the specific risk to the banking entity. to that end, the role should clearly prohibit activity that does not reduce the risks related to specific individual or aggregate positions held by a firm. losses at j.p. morgan raise questions that go beyond the vo lcker -- colvker -- volcker rule

as well. strength and supporting structures and establish clear accountability for failures in risk management. regulators should make sure they have a clear understanding of exposures and that senior management is held accountable for the thoroughness and reliability of the risk- management systems. ultimately, the test of reform is not whether it prevent firms from taking risks or making mistakes. it is whether our financial system is tough enough and designed well enough to make those mistakes -- prevent those mistakes from harming the economy or costing taxpayers money. we all have an interest in the outcome. our ability to achieve its depends on the authority and resources to enforce liquidity requirements on banks in the largest, most complex financial companies. it depends on implementing the free-market protections on derivatives, for margin requirements, and central clearing of standard as

derivatives to greater transparency into risks and exposures. it depends on providing the cftc and other enforcement authorities with the resources to police manipulation, fraud, and abuse. it depends on our ability to safely unwind a large firm without broad collateral damage and risk to the taxpayer we experienced in 2008. it depends on making sure that no exception built into the law is a lot to undermine the impact of the top safeguards we need. the challenges of our economy is continuing to experience since the financial crisis only increase our commitment to implementing lasting financial reform. recent failures in risk- management provide an additional reminder that comprehensive reform must continue to move forward. the administration will continue to resist all efforts to roll back reforms already in place or block progress for those that remain to be implemented. the lessons of the financial

crisis should not be left forgotten. nor should american workers or american taxpayers be left unprotected from the consequences of future financial instability. thank you. >> thank you. governor, please proceed. >> thank you, mr. chairman and members of the committee. you are probably familiar with the concept of the law of the instrument. you may know it as the law of the hammer. if you're holding a hammer, everything looks like a nail. that concept is supposed to be a warning, not to use reflexively a familiar tool in response to every problem. i must confess, the longer i taught and wrote in the area of financial regulation, the more convinced i became of the centrality of strong capital standards to a sound financial system. my time at the federal reserve has not changed my mind. on the contrary, a series of events was recently the j.p. morgan lost announced a few

weeks ago has only reinforced my conclusion. a bank with a strong capital position can absorb losses from unexpected sources, whether those be external shocks to the economy, the insolvency of important counterpart is, or failures of risk-management within the firm. strong capital buffer's ensure that losses are borne by shareholders of the bank, not by taxpayers. it is either directly through a bailout or indirectly through a major negative effect on the economy resulting from the bank's failure. i am especially pleased that tomorrow afternoon, the federal reserve board will be considering a final regulation implementing more rigorous capital requirements for market risks and banking organizations, as well as proposed rules to increase the quantity and quality of capital held to satisfy regulatory requirements. these regulations are the product of cooperative efforts

by the fed, the occ, and the fdic to achieve strong international capital arrangements, and over the last several months, to draft a joint domestic regulations. along with our annual capital reviews and anticipated systemic risk surcharges, these regulations will form a complementary set of requirements for the country's largest institutions. while capital is central to good financial regulation, it is not all the rest. there is more than a hammer in the regulatory tool box, which also includes non capital rules, market discipline, and supervisory oversight. we continue to work on rules, notably the enhanced standards for larger institutions required by sections 165 and 166 of the dodd-frank act and the volcker rule. multiple agencies have reviewed the letters and are considering

potential modifications of the proposed rule. the enhanced standards solicited fewer letters, but still present a number of important issues for consideration before final regulations can be implemented, including how to take -- tailor the application of these standards to firms of different sizes and complexities. as to market discipline, when development of notice the federal reserve and fdic will be reviewing the resolution plans to be submitted by large firms in accordance with the joint rule adopted by the two agencies last year. finally, with respect to supervision, the federal reserve continues to build a more centralized, horizontal, and data-driven approach to supervision of our largest institutions. the process has run the stress test and other horizontal supervisory exercises since its establishment in 2010 and is

extending its activities to coordinate other supervisory process is more effectively. thank you for your attention. i would be pleased to answer any questions you might have. >> thank you. comptroller curry, please proceed. >> thank you, chairman johnson, ranking member shall become intimate to members. thank you for the opportunity to update you on our implementation of the dodd-frank act and our response to j.p. morgan chase's losses recorded in may. among the many dodd-frank- related rulemaking, our rules remove references to a final market rule. in addition, i will approve publication of the set of proposals to implement -- the occ is reviewing comments received in response regarding

the volcker rule and stress tests. the rules, when final, will lead to the financial institutions in the country. translating these reforms and to improve the soundness of our banking system and fair treatment of customers requires a strong supervision, a theme that flows throughout my testimony. the occ has begun efforts to heighten supervisory expectations for the largest institutions we oversee. this process includes increasing our awareness of risks, facing banks in the banking system, insuring these risks are understood and well-managed, and raising our expectation for management, capital, reserves, liquidity, risk-management, and

governments. it will take time to achieve these objectives and we must remain vigilant in maintaining our course. my testimony provides considerable detail about these efforts. i want to use the remainder of my time to provide an overview of what the occ is doing in response to the losses reported in may. we are the primary regulator of the national bank. we are responsible for the prudential supervision of the bank. since early april, the occ has been meeting with bank management to discuss the chief adjustment office positions, risk-management, and control. as positions deteriorated, discussions turned to corrected actions to medicate -- to mitigate the position. we in the federal reserve are conducting reviews in the banks

and are sharing information with the fdic and other regulators. we are taking a two-prong review of our supervisor activities. the first component focuses on evaluating the adequacy of current controls at the bank the second component evaluates the lessons learned from this episode that could enhance risk management processes at this and other banks. consistent with our supervisory policy of heightened expectations for large banks, we are demanding the bank get here to the highest risk management standards. we are not limiting our inquiry to the particular transactions at issue. we are assessing the adequacy of risk management brought the bank. we are using these events to broadly evaluate the effectiveness of the bank's risk-management of its cio function and to identify ways to improve our supervision. if corrective action is

warranted, we will pursue appropriate informal or formal remedy -- remedial measures. national bank has approximately $1.8 trillion in assets and 100 -- given that scale, the losses affect the earnings, but that the -- but does not present its solvency issue. it has improved its capital reserve and liquidity since the financial crisis, and those levels are sufficient to absorb this loss. it is also worth noting that the events do not threaten the broader financial system and the bank's effort to manage its position is not creating an unusual risk of contagion. there has been much discussion about whether these activities would be permissible under the proposed volcker rule. it is premature to reach any conclusion the for our review is

complete, but this will help focus our thinking on those issues. i appreciate the opportunity to appear before the committee. i want to stress my commitment to ensuring the occ continues to enhance supervision. i look forward to updating you throughout my tenure on how we are achieving strong, effective, fair and balanced supervision of national banks and federal risk. thank you. >> thank you. chairman gruenberg, please proceed. >> thank you for the opportunity to testify today on the fdic's efforts to enhance bank supervision and reduce systemic risk. the most important authorities under the dodd-frank act are those that provide for the orderly resolution of system -- systemically important financial institutions. since passage of the act, the fdic has taken a number of steps to carry out its new

responsibilities. first, the fdic established a new office of complex financial institutions to carry out three core functions, to monitor risk, and risk to the deposit insurance fund, to conduct a resolution planning and develop strategies to respond to potential crises, and to coordinate with regulators overseas regarding the significant challenges associated with cross-border resolution. for the past year and a half, this office has been developing internal resolution plans in order to be ready to resolve a failing systemic financial company. the fdic has also completed the basic rules-making necessary to carry out its systemic resolution responsibilities. in july of last year, the fdic board approved a final rule implementing the title to

"orderly liquidation authority. i said,, the board adopted a rule requiring bank holding companies with total consolidated assets of $50 billion or more, as well as certain non-bank financial companies that the council may designate as systemic to develop, maintain, and submit resolution plans to regulators. these are the living rules. the fdic and the federal reserve have started the process of engaging with her in -- with individual companies under preparation of the resolution plan. the first plants for companies with non-bank assets over $250 billion are due in july. section 210 also requires the fdic to coordinate to the maximum extent possible with appropriate foreign regulatory authorities in the event of a resolution of a recovered

financial company with a cross- border operation. there are foreign operations in dozens of countries around the world. those tend to be concentrated in relatively small number of key foreign jurisdictions, particularly the united kingdom. our initial work with foreign authorities as encouraging. in particular, the financial regulatory agencies have made substantial progress with authorities in the u.k. in addition, the dodd-frank act provides other provisions that have a more direct effect on the other acts. the act may -- made changes to the deposit insurance program, implemented soon after enactment, which generally worked to the benefit of community institutions. the first of these was the role to implement the provision to permanently increase the insurance coverage limit to two under $50,000.

the fdic has implement -- $250,000. when the provision was implemented in the second quarter of last year, aggregate premium paid by institutions with less than $10 billion in assets declined by approximately 33%. many have expressed concerns about regulatory actions that would impact our ability to compete in financial markets. in response, the fdic is undertaking a series of initiatives related to the future of community banks. we're holding a series of round tables with first community bankers in each of the fdic six regions around the country. the fdic is undertaking a comprehensive review of the evolution of community banking

in the united states over the past 25 years. i have asked the fdic policy division of risk management supervision and the division of consumer deposits to review for risk-management and compliance provision as well as to review how to promulgate and release rules to see if we can improve our process of communications in ways that benefit community banks. that concludes my oral statement. i would be glad to respond to questions. >> thank you. please proceed. >> members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify as part of this panel of my colleagues. as the director of the consumer financial protection bureau, i am committed to being accountable to you and we're happy to have the chance to discuss our work with you. this is the 18th time the new

ashraf testified and i am pleased to be here again today. my testimony will focus on the area you specified in a letter inviting me to testify at this hearing. we have been focused on recruiting and hiring the best team we can find and its focus on consumer protection. we're blessed with talent. the former associate director of the financial practices of the ftc it believes the non-division team. they may seek actions to immediate harm to consumers. we have met with many supervised institutions to see how they operate and how they approach compliance. we're engaged to establish communication and share communication to reduce the compliance burden. we published our examination

mandell along with other examination procedures covering products answer -- and services. a memorandum of understanding clarifies how we will coordinate our supervisor activities to minimize the burden and avoid unnecessary duplication of error -- effort. our responsibility under the law is to achieve evenhanded and reasonable oversight of both banks and non-banks firms that compete in the same super- finance market. we take a consistent approach to examining both using the same procedures for the same products and services. in addition to mortgage lenders, services, pay lenders, and private student lenders, we will finalize our role to examine larger disciplines in the debt collection and reporting industries as we develop our non bank supervision program. the second topic you identified

is my statutory role on the financial stability oversight council. as you know, congress designated the director to serve as one of 10 voting members of the fsoc. this represents over $23 million -- 23 trillion dollars in -- $23 trillion in loans. our it to the participation furthers our efforts to maintain a collaborative approach. this provide a broader vantage point on the kinds of traders and vulnerabilities that pose a risk to the system. i have found this to be valuable as we work toward a sound and valuable system that protects consumers, supports responsible providers, and safeguards the economy against systemic risk. you asked how the statutory obligations affect our regulation of community banks. as you know, the consumer bureau does not generally examine any

banks with less than $10 billion in assets and does not enforce the law against any such banks. we do have the ability to adopt rules that can affect community banks as well as larger banks. we will help community banks around the country by our new oversight of non-banking firms. i have heard community bankers who refused to make an ill- considered loan only to see customers go down the street and get a loan from others who did not uphold the same standards. they managed to sell bad loans into the secondary market. once bundled into securities, the crash -- they crashed the economy. laz will create safety and soundness. -- laws will create safety and soundness. practice is traditional at our

good community banks. as we develop these regulatory initiatives, one size does not fit all. when it makes sense to treat smaller institutions differently, we have pledged to consider doing so. we're implementing panels on several of our mortgage rules and will be helpful in calibrating our proposals. when i became director i barely knew my colleagues. from our work together in various bodies, i have come to know and respect the mall. our team is glad to be working with their teams and the members of this committee to strengthen and support a vibrant system. i am happy to answer any questions you have. thank you. >> thank you. i would like to thank our witnesses for their testimony as we begin questions. i will ask the clerk to put five minutes on the clock for each member. it is clear from your testimony

that jpmorgan lacked the proper controls to mitigate such a large loss. was this a failure in risk- management? if so, what should they have done differently? >> we believe the issue at jpmorgan chase is one of an adequate risk-management within the office of the chief investment office. we have been focusing on the potential gaps and deviations from accepted standards of risk management within that particular office and looking to see whether similar gaps exist in any other area of jpmorgan's risk management architecture. >> the occ has dozens and dozens

of examiners at jpmorgan. first, did your agency check their risk-management and internal control of all aspects of the bank, including the chief investment officer before this event? or did you miss this and second, we are not in a position to review every single trade. what assurances can you give us that regulators will be able to monitor situations where large trades whether they're done for hedging or other purposes, could bring down a firm or have a systemic impact on the broader economy? >> one of the major focuses our examination and supervision activities is risk-management. we look at risk management in the entire organization and within key areas where there is

substantial risk facing the institution. that process is intended to go across the entire organization in those key areas. in this case, we're looking at whether there were gaps within our assessment of the risks and the risk controls in place at the office. we're in the process of evaluating that ongoing examination. the point i would make in terms of our focus on risk-management is that it is one part of the overall approach to identifying risks within the organization. as the governor mentioned, the key component of how we assess and mitigate risks in institutions is the institution's capital levels, their level of reserves, and their liquidity. in the case of jpmorgan chase, there goals and liquidity are

substantially higher than they were at the beginning of the financial crisis and as i mentioned in my oral and written comments, they are more than sufficient to withstand the reported losses in this area. we are continuing to review as part of one of the two prongs of our ongoing review is what exactly transpired with the trading operation with any -- within the cio's office and we're looking to make sure there are appropriate limits and controls in that area and how they compared to similar areas within the organization. >> it is important that wall street reform implementation is completed to enhance financial stability and reduce systemic risk.

just to be clear, doesn't that seem to be that the jpmorgan trading loss was systemic? do you agree and where the implications of the loss of jpmorgan that have yet to be completed? >> the loss at jpmorgan chase was a big loss and one that will affect shareholders. we concur in his judgment is not about the solvency -- it is not about the solvency of the firm. what is clear is the lessons we all learned from what happened that jpmorgan chase will serve as important lessons and insights into the range of dodd- frank implementation whether -- to come, whether it is the volcker rule or enhanced

standards for capital. it is important to pay attention to examples like this to learned those lessons both in response to dodd-frank implementation and the broader efforts of supervision that are ongoing. >> [unintelligible] to deal with external threats to our financial stability and economic growth like the eurozone crisis. what steps are you taking in response to this crisis? >> there is no question that the existence of the financial stability oversight council has given treasury and the various banking and market regulators of the u.s. government an opportunity to monitor financial markets and the exposures of our

banks and broader financial system to what is going on in europe. the financial oversight council has spent a lot of time in europe and thinking through what the implications are and might be to our financial system network. it is ongoing. i think for the first time, the council gives a range of relevant entities the capacity to share perspectives to work together in engaging a counterpart in europe to make sure that we are as well prepared and have thought through the various contingencies that might be necessary. >> governor, do you have anything to add to this? >> with respect to the european preparation, i would just say that one thing about the eurozone problem, it has been with us for some time as a result of which we have been able to regularize a system of oversight of u.s. financial

institution exposure and activities in europe. right after the first greek problems arose in may 2010 on an ad hoc basis we began looking at these but over time we have been able to do is put in place a system that allows us to check the positions and exposures of individual firms against aggregated data, whether for market sources or supervisor resources to make sure that we and the firms have a handle on what is going on. other than that, i concur with what the secretary said. >> senator shelby. >> thank you. it is a given here for what i read and what i know, the stress test that j.p. morgan -- jpmorgan went through of inadequate capital.

there would have to sustain $70 billion or $80 billion and still be standing. is that about right, governor? >> in the stress test, what we did with the trading is to assume instantaneous shock of based on a very adverse scenario and detailed trading losses of $20 billion. we also assumed over the period of the stress test credit losses. >> controller, tell us, just walk us through from what you know what was going on at jpmorgan chase. were they managing risk, were they making money, were they doing a combination of that? everyone has risk but what was really going on?

you have people on-site, right? >> that is right. >> they took a position, they had managed something they had already done or could you explain? >> that is the key question that we are trying to address, senator. this is what happened in this particular investment strategy. and it is a very complicated investment strategy in terms of its size as well as its complexity. we are looking to determine what the actual strategy behind that investment scheme was and also if there were any other factors that were driving that strategy, other than attempting to mitigate known risks in the

bank's portfolio. >> whether it is the banking arena or some other arena, especially in areas of derivatives, you take a position, someone else has another position, right? >> yes. >> if you win, you're looking great. you are looking smart. if you lose, you're maybe not having a bad day. i am not try to take risk out of the market -- you are not trying to take risk out of the market, are you? >> not necessarily. >> what you're trying to do from my perspective, banks ought to be able to take risks and they ought to manage those risks. the regulators want to make sure that they know what is going on from your perspective. of any huge risk they take that it might put in danger the taxpayer. lot of us, maybe not everyone but a lot of us are worried

about the taxpayer and bailouts. jpmorgan is strongest and seems from your testimony and others what we know was i never any danger. they lost $2 billion or $4 billion or what. that is a lot of money to me and it is a lot of money to them, i guess. what did the comptroller's office no -- kow, -- know, and were you on top of things? did you have people supervising them? >> let me address the risk management first. we're looking for the institution to identify and address the potential for serious risk with the organization. we are not looking to eliminate all risk. if you did so, you would not have a bank. the nature of the bank is to be

profitable. the role of capital is to absorber those areas where risk is not avoidable or occurs because of the nature of the business. in the case of jpmorgan chase's national bank which we supervise, there is ample capital. $101 billion.0 we have 65 individuals who are the core team of examiners who are resident at the institution. on top of that, we're able to draw on the considerable reservoir of skilled individuals with expertise in a variety of credit, markets, and other areas

that are brought in on an as needed basis. we also work in connection and cooperation with the federal reserve system which also supervises the holding company. in terms of this particular investment, situation at the cio's office, we did begin to examine this early in april. our interest and concern intensified during the month as losses increased within the portfolio, up to the point that the institution itself announced the significance of the losses that were incurred. since that point in time, we have -- our focus has been on our managing and monitoring the

bank's efforts to mitigate or de-risk that particular portfolio with the objective of ensuring there is a soft landing of that particular position to minimize both risk to the institution and ultimately to the deposit insurance fund. >> when do you think you will finish or analysis of what really happened -- your analysis of what really happened on this? >> we hope to do that as quickly as possible. we also hope to use our findings to inform us as to what potential implications there are or the other institutions, the cadre of institutions. >> thank you. >> thank you. you have 65 personnel devoted to

supervision. how many are in london? >> we have five individuals preside or are -- reside or are in house. they are responsible for any national bank that has a global operation, especially with the presence in the london branch office. >> how many would that be? >> i will give you the exact number -- it would be roughly a half dozen. >> how common is said to have a brisk office of the national bank located -- is it to have the rest office -- risk office of the national bank located outside the united states? >> from a supervisory standpoint, our focus in supervising that and other

global issues is really directed from our resident team in new york. >> one of the impression you get from the press is that the cio office in london had significant responsibility with the bank and the justification that has been made publicly is they were taking these hedge positions, taking these investment positions to protect the bank from the overall portfolio of the bank which is essential brisk operation. -- risk operation. could you explain? >> the individuals managing the arrest and establishing the parameters are housed in new york. that is where the physical focus of our activity has been. >> and there reported to the chief of management? -- they reported to the chief of

management? >> the chief executive officer, yes. >> they had complete authority to countermand or contradict or direct the operation in london? >> that is part of the focus, one of the focuses to determine accountability, the involvement of management in supervising the design of the rest rented at -- risk management controls when the monitor id. it.they monitor >> did you monitor the new model? it took place prior to you assuming these duties. april 1 was the first indication of difficulties. i think the model was evaluated by occ? >> there are hundreds, if not thousands of models employed by

large financial institutions to measure and monitor a variety of risks and other functions in the institution but under the authority of the applicable capital regulations, basel regulations, we are required to approve the capital-related models. there are other models at issue here. management-related models or other models would have been involved in this particular situation. we would not have had an express approval requirement of those models, but we would likely have been aware of them and we're looking at procedures for evaluating other types of models that are used by institutions such as j.p. morgan chase. didould point outt the occ

point out use of models by odd supervised -- occ supervised institutions. that outlined pitfalls by which management must assess the use of models in measuring risk. >> right now we face a serious challenge in europe with european banks who seem to be in a much more adverse condition that the united states banking industry based on capitol. to what extent did dodd-frank em improve and put us in a better, stronger position? >> both dodd-frank and the ability of the oversight council to come together and discuss and understand these things but also the work and -- of the fed and

other regulators sitting at this table to undergo the stress tests that have been at the core of making sure that our banking system is well-capitalized and well-cushioned from the kinds of exposures that might have otherwise have been important, we were in a better position before dodd-frank and in a much better position than our counterparts in europe. >> is that your view, the governor? >> yes. beginning in 2008 and with the hearings that were conducted by this committee and her counterparts in the house in 2009 on reform, there was a sea change in attitudes and orientation with respect to existing and new authorities. as the secretary indicated, particularly with respect to stress testing capital requirements.

we just all have a better handle on positions that our banks will [unintelligible] the bad if low probability outcome. >> thank you. >> thank you and thanks for the hearing. i do hope we are successful in having a markup on the menendez-boxer bill. i know that in any big piece of legislation, 2400 pages, there will be some good attributes. from my perspective, as we get further and further, it is more evident to me that in many ways, dodd-frank was a political response to -- instead of real reform in so many ways and i do hope that when this season is over, everybody talking about it being the best thing since

sliced bread, we will move on to exploring some real reforms that are down the road. i do thank you for talking about capital. i do think that that is the best buffer against financial institutions having trouble and i think that has been a contribution. i appreciate your coming in and talking about orderly liquidation. i do think, mr. chairman, i do not know how many people have gone through the proposed rules on resolutions, but the words of liquidation are throughout title ii and senator warner knows that well. it is anything but liquidation. it is dealing with holding companies. these institutions will continue. again, it will be great for us to understand that and maybe think about whether there should .e a chapter two title let me move on to the