provides funding for an additional 1,600 customs and border protection officials requested by the administration. and for substantially strengthened cybersecurity protective efforts. these efforts are absolutely necessary to monitor and detect intrusions to our federal networks and protect them from foreign espionage and cyberattacks. . finally i commend chairman carter for providing the requested amount for the disaster relief fund which will ensure that there are sufficient disaster relief resources moving into the coming fiscal year. and i echo the chairman's pledge of support for representative tom cole, for his constituents and the other people of oklahoma to fully address their needs. i also want to remind my colleague, however, that should emergency disaster relief funding become necessary beyond what we have budgeted, congress

must respond immediately and effectively. without distracting fights over budget policy. i do have some concerns with the bill. notably some of the immigration provisions. the bill once again sets an arbitrary minimum of 34,000 i.c.e. detention beds. denying i.c.e. the flexibility it needs to manage its enforcement and removal resources in response to changing circumstances. and to use cheaper, alternative forms of supervision where that's appropriate. the bill also unnecessarily and wastefully continues the 287-g program which was designed to secure local law enforcement participation in immigration enforcement. in addition to being seriously flawed, this program has become obsolete with the full implementation of the secure communities program. i also must note my concern with some of the withholdings in the bill.

i understand the need to give incentives to the department to respect reporting deadlines, established by the committee. but i hope we can temper some of these withholdings as we move through the process, as they do have the potential to seriously undermine the department's management functions. the bill also provides no funding for the new d.h.s. headquarters, despite $105 million in the request. now, we've been told repeatedly by the administration that deferring these investments will greatly increase the projects' costs and eventually it's bound to affect frontline operations and i believe they're correct on both counts. i also want to note my strong objection to three general provisions related to abortion services for detainees that were added to the bill in full committee. while they have no impact on i.c.e. policies, they unnecessarily interject a divisive issue into the bill,

distracting us from what should be our focus and straying far outside the lines of the jurisdiction of the appropriations committee. so, mr. chairman, while i support the bill as reported to the house by the appropriations committee, and believe it represents an improvement over the budget request, it still falls short of the bill i believe we would want to craft were we operating under a mored a kuwait allocation -- more adequate allocation. let me also express the hope going into this debate, that this year we can avoid loading the bill up here on the floor with controversial and unnecessary policy riders. there will be a time and a place to debate immigration reform and the homeland security appropriations bill should not be caught up in that process. in closing, i too want to express my appreciation for the hardworking and dedicated staff on both sides of the aisle. in the course of the just two months, they have diligently wrapped up the fiscal 2013

bill, analyzed the president's fiscal 2014 request, and crafted the bipartisan measure before us. thanks to ben nicholson, chris mallard, cornell teague, valerie baldwin, pam williams and hillary may on the majority side, and of course derek newbyy and justin weam on our side of the aisle. with that i approve -- i urge approval of the bill and reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from north carolina reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. carter: mr. chairman, at this time i yield atches time as he -- as much time as he may consume to mr. rodgers from the great state of -- rogers from kentucky, a former great prosecutor for the great state of kentucky. the chair: the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. rogers: i thank the chairman for yielding the time. mr. chairman, i rise in support of this bill. first, i'd like to thank our

colleagues for their careful consideration yesterday of the military construction, veterans appropriations bill which as you know passed overwhelmingly in the house. there were only four members who voted against that bill. and i'd like to ask all of the supporters of those bills, that bill, to continue on this bill today. a very conscientious piece of legislation that i believe can and should pass this body on a bipartisan basis. the bill before you, as the chairman and ranking member have said, provides $38.9 billion for the department. in such austere budget times, this bill rightly prioritizes spending on programs that save american lives. frontline protection, terrorism prevention and response,

disaster recovery and a strong and secure border, all of these are paramount to the safety and ecurity of our homeland. mr. chairman, we are constantly reminded that we can't let our frontline security efforts lapse. the terrible attack at the boston marathon underscored the need to support key readiness programs, provide heroic first responders with the funding and equipment they deserve, and improve intelligence and targeting activities so we can help avoid terrible attacks like boston in the future. with this bill, we're tightening security at our borders, with funding increases for customs and border protection and i.c.e. that preserve the highest totals of

border patrol agents and c.p.b. officers and the highest detention bed capacity in history. we've targeted funding to ombat human trafficking, child exploitation, cybercrime and drug smuggling. and we're protecting our shores and access points with adequate funding for the coast guard and t.s.a. this bill also fully supports the known requirements from the fema disaster relief fund which provides assistance to localities overwhelmed by catastrophic natural disasters like the recent tornados in the midwest. our thoughts and prayers, like others, continue to be with the victims of those disasters, that have ravaged our nation like oklahoma. to that end, this bill provides an additional $6.2 billion for

that disaster relief fund. that's for fiscal 2014. right now, though, as the chairman has said, combined with the approximately $11 has on itty that fema hand, there is sufficient funding for the immediate response to oklahoma and other affected areas. and our committee stands at the ready to assess any further needs, as a fuller picture of the damage becomes clear. it's our duty as members of congress to provide this critical assistance to communities that are suffering from such unexpected and devastating natural disasters. mr. chairman, strong national security comes at a price. and as we all know, tax dollars

for these programs are in limited supply these days. so we can't let any of the funding we appropriate to the department of homeland security go to unproven or wasteful programs. across the department we've made careful reductions that bring total funding in this ll to $617 million less than the fiscal 2013 enacted level. we've enforced strict reporting requirements and other oversight tools to guarantee that d.h.s. is spending its dollars wisely. and we've prevented funding from being used on risky or controversial efforts like transferring detainees from guantanamo bay or another fast and furious-type program. now, mr. chairman, before i conclude, let me extend my

appreciation to chairman carter and ranking member price, former chairman of the subcommittee, for their hard work in crafting this bill. as has been said by both sides, this is a nonpartisan bill. it always has been that way. we've attempted to work from the very beginning of this subcommittee's existence to work across the aisle, to be sure that the homeland is adequately protected. that takes cooperation across the middle aisle and it's happened over the years and it's happened this year. and i want to thank these two gentlemen, especially, for working together as they have. this is john carter's first bill as a cardinal. .e's making his maiden voyage and i think the ship is sailing true. he says he hopes so.

and we want to thank, of course, the staff of the subcommittee for their tireless hours, dedicating toward crafting this bill of great importance to our national security. so i'm proud to say, mr. chairman, that i stand before you in 100% support of this bill. it represents all that makes our country great, and the security that will keep our country great. and i urge our colleagues to support this bill. and i yield back. thank you. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentleman from north carolina is recognized. mr. price: mr. chairman, i am pleased to yield three minutes to the distinguished ranking member of the full committee, mrs. lowey. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman -- the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized for three minutes. mrs. lowey: thank you, mr. chairman. d i want to share the very gracious remarks on the part of the chair of the full committee , the chair of the subcommittee, the outstanding

ranking member and all the staff, for the important work you did on this bill. over the past year we have experienced the devastation of hurricane sandy, heartbreak in moore, oklahoma, tragic acts of terror in boston, disasters, natural or manmade, pose risks to our communities which must be matched with the resources of the federal government and in particular the department of homeland security. the bill before us, which is approximately $35 million below the administration's request, does a good job yet inadequately funds other programs such aspirational accounts, which face cuts so severe that they cannot realistically be implemented. i do thank the chairman and ranking member for including several priorities. providing $1.5 billion for fema

state and local grants which were underfunded in the request. prioritizing high-risk areas in our grant programs. continuing the security -- the securing the cities program to prevent roadlogical and nuclear attacks -- radiological and nuclear attacks. making needed investments in cybersecurity and helping to stem sexual assault in the coast guard which has become a significant and outrageous problem in the military. however, the bill before us ignores the dangerous impact of sequestration, putting off difficult choices that must be made if we are to enact responsible spending bills for f.y. 2014. with the majority's unworkable 302-a allocation, which is $92 billion below the president's request, unless -- and less than the amount agreed to under the budget control act, this is one of the few bills that will

have sufficient funding to garner bipartisan support. the budget resolution and appropriations process under way harm our ability to invest in education, medical research, transportation infrastructure, energy development, all of which we need to grow our economy and build a competitive work force for the future. i was very proud to serve in the homeland security subcommittee and appreciate again the chairman and rank member's efforts as well as the professional staff in writing this bill. the subcommittee has a history of working across the aisle and if we avoid poison pill riders during this debate, we will likely pass a bipartisan bill to provide responsible funding levels for the agencies tasked with vital security functions. thank you. i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman from new york yields back. the gentleman from north carolina reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. carter: mr. chairman, at

this time i'd like to recognize my colleague from the great state of texas, mrs. mike mccaul, the chairman of the whole committee on homeland security. the chair: how much time? the gentleman from texas is recognized for three minutes. mr. mccaul: thank you, mr. chairman. let me thank my dear friend and colleague from texas, the great state, judge carter, and commend him for a fine job on this legislation. the recent boston attacks serve as a stark reminder that the terrorist threat to america remains constant. despite the president's dangerous narrative downplaying the radical jihadist threat to america, al qaeda and its affiliates and those they inspire have not given up their quest to attack us. in today's challenging fiscal climate, it is more important than ever that every dollar spent on national security be linked to results. our safety depends on the strategic funding of programs

and technologies that provide us with valuable defenses and measurable outcomes. this bill demands that those criteria be met. i am pleased to see this bill provides appropriate funding for our front line efforts, reins in wasteful spending and ensures that tax dollars are accounted for by providing requirements for the department. i will soon introduce a cybersecurity bill, defining the department's role in ensuring the role of real-time information, data and financial systems. this bill provides the necessary funding needed for d.h.s. to fulfill its important cybersecurity mission. i recently introduced h.r. 1417, the boarder security results act, a strategy to have control over our borders. the appropriations bill

presented here today supports a strong commitment to secure our borders by providing over $350 million to the border technology account and supports the refinement anded a aptation needed to improve the border and our boots on the ground. the bill provides for an additional 800 c.v.p. officers, funding for i.c.e.'s 30,000 detention beds, despite the administration's plan to reduce that number and release hundreds of dangerous criminals into our communities. it also restores cuts to our coast guard, which will strengthen our interdiction efforts in the western hemisphere. and finally, the bill applies lessons learned from the recent boston attacks. it rejects the president's 39% cut to bombing prevention programs and increases funding for visa security and overstay enforcement programs by $10 million. this bill reflects the right priorities and insists on

accountability from d.h.s. it will help to ensure that america's safe, secure and protected, and i urge my colleagues to support this bill. with that i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from north carolina is recognized. mr. price: mr. chairman, i'm pleased to yield three minutes to ms. roybal-allard of california. the chair: for what length of time? mr. price: three minutes. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized for three minutes. ms. roybal-allard: i want to thank the chairman and ranking member for the drafting of this call. for the refusal to go to conference on the budget, the budget process will be -- education, research, transportation and infrastructure. nonetheless, this bill will help make our nation stronger and more secure. it funds grants to provide our first responders with the resources they need to protect the public when disaster

strikes. the bill also funds the highly effective alternative to detention program at $24 million above the president's request. while i believe it should be significantly expanded, i was pleased to see the increased allocation for this proven program. in addition, the bill provides a $16.9 million increase in funding for the scene and technology which will enable d.h.s. to develop new tools to detect and deter terrorists before they attack. however, there are still aspects of the bill that are of concern. for example, the bill continues to mandate that every night i.c.e. maintains 34,000 detention beds even when they are not needed. this needless quota restricts i.c.e.'s flexibility in using the smartest, most cost-effective means of enforcing our immigration laws by limiting i.c.e.'s ability to base detention decisions on whether or not an individual

closes a -- poses a threat to our country. the bill also increases funding for the ineffective and unnecessary 287-g program which encourages racial profiling and undermines confidence and law enforcement in our minority and immigrant communities. these scarce resources could be better spent addressing serious threats like cyberwarfare and cybercrime. instead, the bill underfunds this critical national priority by more than $24 million below the president's request. in spite of these weaknesses and given the limited resources allocated to the subcommittee, i do believe chairman carter and ranking member price have done their best to enable tfs to protect the american -- d.h.s. to protect the american people in an increasingly dangerous world. for that reason i support the bill in its current form. however, i understand some members will try to pass anti-immigrant amendments, which would make it impossible for me to support this bill. these efforts are contrary to

the bipartisan spirit in which this bill was written and the bipartisan spirit in which this house has always opposed issues of national security. if introduced, i urge my colleagues to reject these irresponsible amendments. again, i thank the -- chairman carter, ranking member price and the subcommittee's hardworking staff for putting together this bill. the chair: the gentlewoman from california yields back. the gentleman from north carolina reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. carter: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, at this time i'd like to yield two minutes to mr. aderholt, a former chairman of this subcommittee, and currently the chairman of the subcommittee on agriculture for appropriations. the chair: the gentleman from alabama is recognized for two minutes. mr. aderholt: thank you, mr. chairman. i also rise today for f.y. 2014 appropriation bill for homeland security. i want to commend chairman carter and also ranking member price for their hard work in making sure that they set up

the right priorities during a very difficult budget time here in this nation. the bill provides the resources that are needed to meet our most essential obligations while at the same time maintaining the fiscal responsibility and also greater oversight. it is $617 million below last year's spending level. as been mentioned, the bill rejects the administration's reduction of the coast guard and increases funding for critical programs such as t.s.a. secure flight program and the fema first responders grant. the bill maintains the needed number of beds for i.c.e. detention. it also includes a substantial amount of funding for mbap. this important asset provides our nation with critical capabilities to conduct research, develop vaccine and our countermeasures in a time of when we would most need it. so, again, i want to congratulate chairman carter

and ranking member price for their hard work on this bill and i would urge my colleagues that this is a good bill and this is a measure that should have their support. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from alabama yields back. the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentleman from north carolina is recognized. mr. price: mr. chairman, i'd like to now yield three minutes to another outstanding subcommittee member, mr. cuellar of texas. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized for three minutes. mr. cuellar: i thank the speaker for yielding. i rise in support of this appropriation bill, which includes the hiring of 1,600 new c.p.b. officers. these people man our ports of entry. these 1,600 officers will be a huge and historic step in addressing the congested ports of entry and i thank the chairman, chairman carter, and

the ranking member, mr. price, for their leadership and the bipartisan approach on this very important issue. in f.y. 2012, the officers processed more than 350 million travelers and facilitated $2.3 trillion in trade at our ports of entry. they are vital part of our economic activity and the high volumes of goods move through our ports of entry, port security is an urgent priority, and therefore this new increase of officers will achieve the fwole of facilitating trade, -- will the goal of facilitating trade. every day there's $1.2 billion of trade between the u.s. and mexico. my -- just my hometown of laredo, that port of entry handles about 45% of all the trade between the u.s. and mexico. in fact, every day there's about 12,000 commercial trucks that cross the bridges in laredo. these 1,000 men and women in

blue will help facilitate trade and travel at our ports of entry and will help our economy and, again, i want to thank the chairman and ranking member for this effort. now, we also have to do some enhancements at our critical ports of infrastructure. that's also very necessary. with limited federal funding at our ports of entry, we need to be innovative and we need to think outside the box. in fact, it's essential that the federal government explore the use of public-private partnerships which allows the federal agencies to partner up with local governments and private stakeholders to help fund the land ports, sea ports or airports, infrastructure projects. these innovative financial mechanisms with the proper safeguards that we will add will adequately staff, supply and construct and rehab our ports of entry and in turn will make our ports more secure and more efficient. i've been working with my colleagues, both democrats and republicans, to encourage the use of public-private

partnerships. in fact, i reached out to our colleague in the senate from the homeland security subcommittee, the chairwoman, mary landrieu, and she supports this particular concept. i look forward to working with my good friend, the judge from texas, which both he and i agree that these are not federal handouts but it allows the local government to partner up with the federal government and allows us to make our ports more efficient, more effective. i look forward to working with you, chairman carter, with the ranking member price and the staff as we address this conference committee. so i yield back the balance of my time and i ask you to support this bill. the chair: the gentleman from texas yields back. the gentleman from north carolina reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. carter: mr. chairman, at this time i'd like to yield one minute to the distinguished member from -- a member of our subcommittee from pennsylvania, mr. dent. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for one minute. mr. dent: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in support of the 014 department of homeland security

appropriations bill being debated this afternoon. i certainly want to applaud the chairman of the full committee, mr. rogers, and certainly the chair of the subcommittee, mr. carter, ranking member price and ranking member of the full committee lowey of piecing together a bill. this bill strikes a proper balance of fiscal responsibility while fulfilling the mission of vital security programs and of course providing the resources to enforce current law. regarding fiscal restraint, the bill provides reduction by $613 million, elem nating ineffectual programs. the bill was crafted in such a way that agencies and programs will receive the resources and flexibility they need to meet the security needs facing the communities across the country day in and day out. for example, in the wake of the boston bombings this spring, the bill before us restores d.h.s.'s bombing prevention program, increasing counteri.d. training, the disaster relief fund is robustly funded and will meet the disaster needs of oklahoma as well as those

affected by the hurricanes in the northeast, hurricane sandy. additionally -- mr. speaker, can i get another 30 seconds? mr. carter: i yield an additional 30 seconds. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. dent: fire grants, a program that impacts countless fire departments each year, will receive a 20% increase. further, these safer grants will continue to provide additional flexibility to allow communities to use grants to retain or rehire firefighters facing layoffs. as an aside, i want to thank ranking member price as well as -- thank ranking member price and chairman rogers. this bill addresses our most pressing needs in securing our homeland. i urge support of the underlying bill. at this time i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentleman from north carolina is recognized. mr. price: mr. chairman, may i inquire as to the remaining time? the chair: the gentleman from north carolina has 12 minutes

remaining. the gentleman from texas has 10 minutes remaining. mr. price: at this time i have no further speakers and i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from north carolina reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. carter: i'd like at this time recognize a member of our subcommittee, very distinguished member, mr. fleischmann from the great state of tennessee, for two minutes. the chair: the gentleman from tennessee is recognized for two minutes. mr. fleischmann: mr. speaker, i rise in support of the fiscal 2014 homeland security appropriations bill. first, i'd like to thank chairman carter and the subcommittee staff for all the work that they have done in pressure ration of this legislation. this bill was a perfect example of what happens when real--- real time and thought is put into how taxpayers' dollars will be spent. as i've often said, budgeting is about prioritization and this is exactly what this bill does. the legislation before us today exercises fiscal discipline. as a whole, we will reduce discretionary spending while

ensuring that programs vital to our national security are properly supported. this bill also recalibrates the president's pernicious budget proposals for the department of homeland security to ensure that we are getting the most out of every taxpayer dollar. we must ensure the protection of americans by protecting security at and within our borders. by streamlining select programs within d.h.s. and implementing stringent oversight, chairman carter, the committee staff, with help from ranking member price have produced a bill that adequately funds our highest security priorities and eliminates waste, fraud and abuse. again, i thank the subcommittee for their diligence in crafting this legislation that pays equal heed to the protections of our taxpayer dollars and the security of our citizens. thank you. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from tennessee yields back. the gentleman from texas

reserves. the gentleman from north carolina is recognized. mr. price: mr. chairman, i continue to reserve. the chair: the gentleman from north carolina reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. carter: mr. chairman, at this time i'd like to yield two minutes to mr. duncan hunter from the state of california who is the chairman of the coast guard and maritime subcommittee of the full committee. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized for two minutes. mr. hunter: thank you, mr. chairman. and i thank the gentleman for yielding. as the chairman of the subcommittee on maritime and transportation, it is my pleasure to rise today in very strong support of h.r. 2217. earlier this year the president released a fiscal year 2014 budget that would cut funding for the coast guard by nearly 10% below current levels. this is the second year in a row that this president has asked the coast guard to sacrifice mission-readiness and success to pay for his questionable spending at other agencies. the president's budget would slash the service's acquisitions budget by 42% below current levels and would you is veerl undermine efforts

to re-- would severely undermine efforts to recapitalize asset, increase acquisition costs for taxpayers and seriously degrade mission effectiveness. the president's proposed budget points to a future in which a downsized coast guard would fail to be able to accomplish even its most basic missions and the cost could be measured in lives. fortunately the bill chairman carter has put before us totally rejects the massive cuts proposed by the president and ensures the coast guard is provided with the resources needed to carry out its very critical missions. i want to thank chairman carter, ranking member price and staff for their tremendousests and their commitment to the men and women of the coast guard and the safety of the maritime community. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from california yields back. the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentleman from north carolina is recognized. mr. price: mr. chairman, at this time i'd like to yield three minutes to our distinguished colleague, ms.

wasserman schultz of florida. the chair: the gentlewoman from florida is recognized for three minutes. ms. wasserman schultz: thank you, mr. speaker, and ranking member price. first let me commend both chairman culberson and ranking member price on a strong bipartisan bill. but let me especially recognize their leadership for adding language to this legislation to protect our most vulnerable squints, our children -- constituents, our children. this language will effectively fence off $20 million in funds for child exploitation investigations and forensics within immigrations and customs enforcement child exploitation unit. there is no question that our children need our support now more than ever. with the proliferation of the internet and wireless technology, the spread of child pornography online must be addressed now. we don't have a moment or an opportunity to waste. the department of justice estimates that at any moment there are more than one million pornographyic images of children on the internet. think of that. one million. with an additional 200 images being posted every day and more than 1/3 of the world's

pedophiles involved in organized pornography rings worldwide lives in the united states. the internet allows these images to be disseminated indefinitely, victimizing that child again and again with each click of the mouse. let's not forget that tease aren't just heinous intellectual -- forget that these aren't just heinous images. they're crime scene photos. since the 1970's, before we even had a federal child pornography statute, i.c.e. which was then called the u.s. customs service, was a leader in the fight to protect our children. that is still true today. last year there were more than 1,600 criminal arrests relating to child exploitation and 2,600 worldwide investigations were launched, setting new records for homeland security investigations. already this year there have been 1,382 criminal arrests -- arrests relating to child exploitation. their efforts are second to none and know they will continue to put these resources to good use. but for every child rescued, hundreds more remain trapped in

a current abuse, the horrors of which none of us can truly imagine and we need the best personnel going into the fight to rescue these children that's why 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 and i thank the chairman and ranking member for including language in the bill for this. our armed services have already protected us abroad so, naturally our veterans are a perfect choice to protect our most precious resources at home. in fact, retired army master sergeant rich robertson is already fighting child exploitation in tennessee. in his words, who better to hunt child predators than someone who has already hunted men? i'm enthusiastic about this initiative because i know the immense skills and motivation of our returning service men and women, the skills they could possess could be the key to our most successful affront on child exploitation yet. child predators won't stand a choice -- chance. we not only ensure that our wounded warriors' skills are put to good use at home, they

give them the most dignified thank you of all, a job that clearly makes a difference. with the inclusion of this language we are putting red predators on notice. i thank my colleagues on the committee for committing to fight until every american child can live free from terror and exploitation. thank you. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman from florida yields back. the gentleman from north carolina reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. carter: mr. chairman, at this time i would like to yield two minutes to the distinguished gentleman from the state of pennsylvania, mr. barletta. he's the chairman of the committee that authorizes fema. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for two minutes. mr. barletta: mr. speaker, i want to thank chairman rogers and carter that put together a bill that supports communities' natural disaster relief effort. with jurisdiction over fema, i want to thank the committee for including all three of my committee recommendations in the bill. thank you for continuing the

predisaster mitigation program which saves money in future disaster assistance. thank you for preserving the femaed a minutester -- administrator's authority for directing federal disaster response by eliminating the role of the principle federal official. and finally, thank you for funding the emergency management performance grants or e.m. -- empg. with a 50% match requirement, empg grants leverage twice as many preparedness dollars as any other federal program. for 60 years empg has been focused on building local and state emergency management capability. there are plenty of programs that buy equipment and other things but they won't do much good in major disasters without qualified local emergency managers. we have all seen the photos of evacuation buses, flooded and useless in new orleans because they didn't have a good hurricane evacuation plan. emergency managers developed a plan to get people out of harm's way and bring in help

from the outside to the disaster area. the empg program helps buy that capability and fema needs to keep the empg grant guidance focused on building local government emergency management capacity. again, let me thank chairman rogers and chairman carter for a good bill and i urge my colleagues to support it. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania yields back. the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentleman from north carolina is recognized. mr. price: mr. chairman, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from north carolina reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. carter: i have no more speakers at this time and i'm prepared to yield back. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from north carolina is recognized. mr. price: mr. chairman, i yield back. mr. carter: i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. all time for general debate has expired. pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. during consideration of the bill for amendment, the chair

may accord priority and recognition to a member offering an amendment who has caused it to be printed in the designated place in the congressional record. those amendments will be considered read. the clerk will read. the clerk: be it enacted the following sums are appropriated for the department of homeland security for fiscal year 2014. namely title 1, departmental management and operations, departmental operations, office of the secretary and executive management. 103,246,000. the chair: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from wisconsin seek recognition? ms. moore: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment offered by ms. moore of wisconsin. page 2, line 17, after the dollar amount insert, increase by $3,346,000. page 9, line 17, after the dollar amount insert, reduced by $4 million.

the chair: the gentlewoman from wisconsin is recognized for five minutes. ms. moore: thank you so much, mr. chairman. i rise today to offer an amendment to the department of homeland security appropriations bill for fiscal year 2014. my amendment is intended to restore the office of civil rights and civil liberties to fiscal year 2013 levels by transferring $3,346,000 into the office of the secretary and executive management. the amendment is fully offset. it's budget-neutral. mr. chairman, as you know, the office of civil rights and civil liberties is an integral part of enthuring -- of ensuring that our rights and values are carried out through the department of homeland security. today it is even more important than ever to ensure that this office is adequately funded. now, while this body continues to increase funding for immigration enforcement, and we expect even more funding in

personnel to be added in any comprehensive immigration bill that we adopt, it is essential that we maintain adequate safeguards to protect our rights and liberties. i offered a similar amendment last year that sought to provide the office funding that it requested to adequately review these 287-g and secure communities programs. and i thank the chairman, let me stop to do that now, the chairman and the ranking member, for directing $2.39 million to be used for review of these 287-g freshmans. now, as -- programs. now, as i mentioned last year, i remain grateful concerned about any 287-g programs that have been found to facilitate racial profiling in our communities, that have been found to -- that enforcement programs that make it harder for immigrants, especially

women, vic testimonies to get help from the -- victims to get help from the police. now, if my colleagues on the other side of the aisle continue to assist on fully funding 287-g programs, and this bill, $44 million above the president's budget request, and cite it as one of the reasons for white house veto, at the very least we should have rigorous safeguards in oversight. and i tell you, i must question whether or not we're on a path that recognizes that oversight is paramount, as we continue to allow local police to act as federal immigration officers. i mean, the bill increases these programs for review of 287-g's but i question whether or not we really get it. i'm here today because i disagree with the approach of the bill. specifically the bill would cut

the office of civil rights and civil liberties by 15.5% and then direct the office to pay for this increased review for the 287-g and secure communities programs, by making further internal cuts to other essential areas of their mission. in addition to oversight of 287-g and secure community programs, the office of civil rights and civil liberties provides homeland security officials with advice on the full range of civil rights and civil liberties issues. the office engages with communities that are disproportionately impacted by homeland security policies and activities. in 2005 the office had regular round tables with arab americans, six other muslims and other egget knick minorities. today they work with 13 core centers around the country. the office investigates detention facilities, violations through site visits

and i.c.e. detention facilities to investigate civil rights violations. complaints from the public, oversight of intelligence collection. and as i mentioned, comprehensive immigration reform has a chance of becoming a reality and we know there's going to be a vast increase of enforcement funding and personnel for this department t we can't continue to balance essential rights with the security of our country if we play these zero-sum games. it's essential that we adequately fund the office of civil rights and civil liberties to implement changes to our immigration law in a way that respects our values of our country, that the country was founded upon. again, my amendment is budget-neutral, mr. chairman. it only transfers a very small amount, which is vital funding to this $20.6 million office. i urge my colleagues to support this important amendment and i yield back the balance of my

time. the chair: the gentlewoman from wisconsin yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. carter: mr. chairman, i rise in opposition to this amendment. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized for five minutes. mr. carter: mr. chairman, this amendment is unnecessary since the bill already includes ample funding for necessary oversight of i.c.e.'s 287-g program. in fact, on page 11 of the bill , accompanying report, it states, including within the amount recommended for the office of civil rights and civil liberties is the total of $2,394,000 for review of 287-g agreements and i.c.e. secure communities. and these funds are in addition to the ongoing work of i.c.e.'s office of professional responsibility and the d.h.s. office of inspector general who review 287-g agreements for compliance so while i certainly

support robust oversight and also demand i.c.e. compliance with all applicable laws and the standards therein, protecting civil liberties and civil rights, i cannot support dditional bureaucracy. it will cut the modernization account, a cut that will impede c.p.b.'s processing of trade and results in longer wait times at our ports of he want thery which are detrimental impacts to our economy which none of us can afford to accept. finally, i think i need to remind members that the president's budget request decimated operational staffing of the enforcement programs. this bill reverses that flawed approach, holding d.h.s. headquarters resources in check. therefore, i cannot support an amendment that increases headquarter staffing beyond what is necessary and what can be afforded and does so at the

expense of our economy. mr. chairman, i strong low urge my colleagues to support fiscal discipline, support economic growth and vote no on this 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: mr. chairman, i rise in support of the amendment. the chair: does the gentleman move to strike the last word? mr. price:, mr. speaker, i move to strike the last word and express my support for the dip -- for the -- the chair: the gentleman from north carolina is recognized. mr. price: resupporting for the office of civil rights and civil liberties. the bill before us provides $18.3 million for the office of civil rights and civil liberties which is $3.4 million breaux the budget question and $3.3 million below current year funding. the amendment would simply restore funding to the office to the fiscal 2013 enacted level. now, i want to commend chairman

carter for fully funding the much-needed oversight activities related to the troubled 287-g program and to the secure communities program. oversight of these programs is probably the highest priority for this office. but with just a little more funding as provided in this amendment we can go further to ensure the protection of civil rights and civil liberties across the department's many functions, programs and activities. the office of civil rights and civil liberties is the key mechanism at the department of homeland security for ensuring the proper balance is maintain between measures to protect the country and the personal freedoms that we cherish. so i thank the gentlewoman for offering the amendment. it's a good amendment, reasonable amendment and urge colleagues to support it. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from wisconsin. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no.

in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is -- ms. moore: mr. speaker, i would note that a quorum is not present and i would ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from wisconsin will be postponed. the point of order is withdrawn. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. reichert of washington. page 2, line 17, after the ollar amount insert reduced by $2,838,000. page 42, line 8, after the dollar amount insert increased by $1,838,000. the chair: the gentleman from washington is recognized for five minutes. mr. reichert: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise to offer an amendment to h.r. 2217. as a former law enforcement

officer, i know very well the needs of first responders. that's why i am proposing that we increase funding for the united states fire administration by $1.8 million. this would restore funding to the fiscal year 2013 level of $44 million. my amendment is offset by cutting $2.8 million from the secretary of homeland security's departmental, operation and administrative account. according to the c.b.o., the amendment would reduce net budget authority by $1 million and will have no impact on fiscal year 2014. as far as the outlays go. continued funding for the brave men and women who protect american citizens by fighting fires is extremely critical, as we all know. the fire death rate in the united states is one of the highest in the strilized world. we can prevent -- industrialized world.

we can prevent deaths to make sure we have public education, research and training are always usfa's work -- as they work to reduce the nation's fire death rate. last year my district experienced a record devastation from forest fires. fires that quickly burned out of control and threatened both homes and entire communities. tens of thousands of acres were destroyed and it took over 1,000 firefighters and volunteers to get them under control. hundreds of families lost their homes, and it was only due to the valiant efforts of our fire personnel that more are not lost. one of the key roles of the usfa is to prevent those type of fires from happening. they do this by working with the local communities and stakeholders. they adopt codes, preventive measures and much more. they are also a key component

of the national wild land coordinating group which coordinated wild land fire prevention, preparedness, mitigation and response programs of various federal agencies. they do all of this not just to fight a common natural men ace but to pro-- menace but to protect lives. i urge my colleagues to support this important amendment endorsed by the international association of firefighters, international association of fire chiefs and the congressional fire services institute. together we can ensure the safety of our first responders and the american people they serve. i thank the chairman and mr. delaney. the chair: the gentleman from washington yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland seek recognition? >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in support of this amendment and thank mr. reichert for his work on this

maryland and his care on this issue. mr. delaney: this is a bipartisan and commonsense amendment that ensures we fully fund the usfa so that our firefighters receive world-class training. fires are not limited to republican districts or democratic districts. fires do not discriminate against rural or urban districts. fires do not choose between districts on the coast or in our heartland and thankfully neither do our firefighters. firefighters serve us all. across the nation when crisis strikes and the flames begin, our brave firefighters rush in. they risk their lives to save ours. we should do everything we can to make sure that firefighters are trained well. that investment will directly result in more saved lives and fewer tragedies. mr. reichert has spoken very eloquently and with great care about the benefits of this amendment. mr. speaker, i'd like to add that one of the keystones of our firefighter education system is the national fire academy located at the national emergency training center in

emersburg, maryland. this training center in emmettsburg is a world-class facility and one of the most important assets in our public safety infrastructure. this is the only federal facility of its kind. this facility is a tremendous public safety aspect or our country. thousands are trained there each year. in western maryland, we're proud to train heroes, heroes who save lives from maine to washington state, from minnesota to texas. this amendment restores funding for our critical training facilities at no cost to the taxpayer. i truly thank my colleague for his work on this amendment and i yield the remainder of my time. the chair: the gentleman from aryland yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina seek recognition? mr. price: i rise in support of the amendment. i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. price: i want to applaud chairman carter for funding the fire administration at a level

higher than the administration requested, but the bill before us still provides a slight decrease in funding when compared to the current year. so i believe this increase is warranted. the fire administration, as we all know, plays a critical role in training our first responders and enhancing the security of our infrastructure, better preparing the response capabilities of our communities. i do want to register concern, mr. speaker, about the offset for this amendment. the moneys taken from the office of undersecretary of management. this is at a time when departmental management funding is already in this bill $302 million below the request and $147 million below the fiscal 2013 presequestration level. so in dealing with this on the way to conference, we're going to have to pay attention to that offset. however, this is an important amendment. the fire administration is important to all of us and i

urge adoption of the amendment. the chair: the gentleman from north carolina yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. carter: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. carter: mr. chairman, at this time i want to congratulate mr. reichert for his amendment and i think it's a necessary amendment and i approve this amendment. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from washington. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? mr. polis: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. polis of colorado. page 2, line 17. under departmental management and operations, departmental operations office of the secretary and executive management after the first dollar amount, insert increased by $4,359,200.

under u.s. immigration and customs enforcements, salaries and expenses, one, after the first dollar amount insert reduced by -- two, after the sixth dollar amount insert reduced by $5,400,000. the chair: the gentleman from colorado is recognized for five minutes. mr. polis: thank you, mr. chairman. the 287-g program has become increasingly controversial and increasingly recognized as a costly failure. by allowing local police officers to effectively act as federal agents and immigration officials and not only increases crime by taking local cops off the beat, not only cost taxpayers money at a time when we have over $600 billion deficit, it also creates fear in latino communities and other immigrant communities. 287-g exacerbates tensions,

interferes with community policing and the efforts of law enforcement to gain the trust that people in the communities need to be able to do their job well. in effect, it's trained local law enforcement officials to use racial profiling, asking community members where they're born or if they're in this country illegally. now, the 287-g program has become infamous because of the implementation in maricopa county under their sheriff and its racial profiling. the program is sanctioned under 287-g has led to civil rights investigation by the department of justice and an independent civil suit. even the sheriff has acknowledged that the department of homeland security directed him and his officers to use racial profiling as part of their policing practices in identifying individuals for deportation. you know, if the sheriff is citing a federal expenditures as a justification for his

actions, there must be a problem with that federal expenditure. in fact there is. in the fiscal year 2014 bill, the house appropriations committee has funded 287-g at $44 million above the white house request. the white house has even threatened to veto the d.h.s. appropriation bill listing this as one of their concerns saying that the 287-g has been largely replaced by our law enforcement meck anythings like security communities. we don't agree on security communities but there is increasing consensus on all sides of the aisle that the 287-g has no place in our communities or in our budget. it doesn't help combat illegal immigration. in fact, it makes it worse and increases crime in our communities. this amendment will allocate 10% of that funding to the office of civil rights and civil liberties and 90% towards deficit reduction. by seeking to cut a program -- funding a program that relies

on racial profiling and increases crime, we're sending a clear message that we won't tolerate any more and we care about the budget deficit and we want to cut wasteful government spending. programs like 287-g have created mistrust between the latino and our immigrant communities throughout our country and local law enforcement and interferes with community policing. eliminating 287-g once and for all will begin to repair the trust that's been lost over the last decade. it will help local law enforcement fight crime instead of trying to implement failed federal laws and will take a step forward in the ultimate goal of this congress, fixing our broken immigration system, restoring the rule of law so that we can grow our economy and decrease crime. this amendment is very simple, it would save $44 million from a wasteful government spending program, allocate just over $4 million of that to address some

of the cuts that have been made to the office of civil rights and civil liberties, and use the bulk of that for the deficit reduction account. let's come together, democrats and republicans, to go after wasteful government spending and counterproductive government spending, as it is in this case, and i strongly encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this bill. the chair: the gentleman from colorado yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. carter: mr. chairman, i rise in opposition to this amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. carter: enforcement of our nation's immigration laws is critical to our national security. clearly 287-g programs supports that goal. 287-g programs, i.c.e. enters into a partnership with state and local enforcement agencies and authorizes them to remove criminal aliens who are a threat to local communities. in effect the program acts as a

force multiplier and ensures more resources to enforce immigration laws and policies. in fact since the january of 2006 the program is credited th identifying more than 279,311 potential removable aliens, mostly in local jails. i.c.e. cross designation of more than 1,500 state and local patrol officers, detectives, investigators, and correctional officers allows them to pursue a wide range of investigations such as human smuggling, gang or organized crime activity, and money laundering. in addition, they are eligible for increased resources and support from more remote geographic locations. currently i.c.e. has 287-g

agreements with 75 law enforcement agencies in 24 states. utilizing the funds as an offset takes resource from local sheriffs, police officers, and other first responders and puts it in the hands of bureaucrats at d.h.s. headquarters. while i appreciate the gentleman's suggestion that the deficit is too high, i reject his choice of balancing the budget by jeopardizing public safety and law enforcement. to his point that the deficit must be reduced, let me point my colleagues to other provisions in the bill that is still fiscal discipline, departmental administrative extense and bureaucratic overhead, nearly 25% denying the president's request to create two new offices. for these reasons i oppose the amendment, urge members to join me in opposition, and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from

texas yields back. for what reason 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 support of the gentleman from colorado's amendment. the gentleman's amendment eliminates increased funding in the bill for the critically flawed 287-g program, and it increases funding for the office of civil rights and civil liberties. i want to support the gentleman on both these fronts. as our colleague has noted, the 287-g program designed to facilitate cooperation between federal and local authorities and immigration enforcement, has in fact proved serious -- proved prone to serious abuse. it's fundamentally flawed in the way it blurs the line between federal and local roles in immigration enforcement. moreover, it simply waists money, it's very, very costly. the cost to the taxpayer of the

per removal in the task force model of 287-g, that cost is especially outrageous. $32,789 per removal. you compare that to only $1,500 per removal under the more workable, more appropriate secure communities program. o not only is $28-g flawed and prone to abuse, it's a waste of taxpayer dollars. it's increasingly redundant as the secure communities program takes effect. the gentleman is redirecting money, i think, in a useful way to the office of civil rights. it's the most important activity of that office is to oversee this problematic 287-g program, as well as secure communities. and the funding level in the

bill is short of the request. it's short of the current year's funding, so with a little more funding we can enable the office of civil rights and civil liberties to do its job in a better way. ideally, mr. chairman, this amendment would address serious other shortchanged areas of the bill. for example, cybersecurity, coast guard acquisitions, human trafficking, secret service. we can think of a lot. i would like to see some of those things addressed as well as the deficit reduction item. but i believe this amendment greatly improves this bill, both in the money it saves and in the money it redirects. i urge its adoption. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from orth carolina yields back. for what reason does the gentlelady from california seek recognition? >> i move to strike the last

word. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized for five minutes. >> mr. speaker, i rise today in sport of the polis-chu amendment to strike the funding for the 287-g program. ms. chu: 287-g is a misguided program. while it claims to help enforce our immigration laws, it actually diverts critical law enforcement resources and makes our communities less safe. by ken urging police to do the federal government's job, 287-g breeds mistrust in local law enforcement. immigrants worry that they will be punished or deported if they talk to the police. this means that victims would choose to suffer in silence. this means fewer witnesses will come forward to help solve crimes. and this isn't just about undocumented immigrants being scared to come forward. citizens and legal residents are holding back, too. that's because the 287-g program is a tool that too often relies on racial profiling.

take the sheriff in maricopa a nty awe a few weeks ago, federal judge said they violated the rights of latinos. it's no wonder that 44% of latinos surveyed across the country they were less likely now to contact police if they were victims of a crime. that's why 10% of the funding for 287-g in this bill will be transferred to the office of civil rights and civil liberties that investigate allegations of racial profiling against immigrants communities. leerment officials from across the country -- law enforcement officials from across the country oppose this because it gets in the way of their real job -- stopping crime and keeping people safe. it takes cops away from going after violent criminals to focus on civil violations. according to f.b.i. and census ata, 61% of 287-g local ates

-- localities have indices lower than the national average. they decided not to participate in the program because officers can't prevent or solve crimes if victims or witnesses are unwilling to talk to us. criminals are the biggest beneficiaries when immigrants fear the police, unquote. as if that weren't bad enough, the department of homeland security's own inspector general couldn't tell if the 287-g money was being used for its intended purpose. in the same 2010 program, the i.g. cited insufficient oversight and supervision of the 287-g program by i.c.e. and ineffective complaint system for abuse and a lack of focus on their local partners' civil rights issues. to keep our neighborhood safe we need the entire community to come together to solve crimes.

without it, the lapd would never solve the murder of juan garcia, a 5 -year-old homeless man who was brutally killed in an alley just west of downtown los angeles in 2009. at first the police were stumped. there were no known witnesses and few clues. then a 43-year-old undocumented immigrant who witnessed the crime came forward and told the homicide detectives what he saw. because of his help a suspect was identified and arrest add few days later while hiding on skid row. because the witnesses were not afraid to contact the police, an accused murderer was taken off the streets and we are all a little bit safer. we need to end this program today and ensure that no murder, no theft, no assault goes unsolved because of misguided policies like 287-g.

i urge you to vote in favor of the amendment and end funding for 287-g. it's time to let the police fight crime not illegal immigration. thank you. i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman from california yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from colorado. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. mr. polis: on that i request a recorded vow. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from colorado will be postponed. the clerk will read. the clerk: page 3, line 9, office of the undersecretary for management. $171,173,000. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. poe: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by

mr. poe of texas, page 3, line 13, after the dollar amount insert reduce by $10 million. page 10, line 4, after the dollar amount insert increase by $10 million. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized for five minutes. mr. poe: thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank judge carter as well. this amendment is relatively simple. it started back in march of 2010. march 27, 2010, a rancher by the name of rob crins owned his own property about 20 miles north of the arizona-mexico border, and he was murdered. even now three years later the killer or killers have not been captured. when he was found by people that live there, his wife, sue, was convinced that one of the reasons he was murdered, that he was in a certain area of his ranch that is a dead zone. dead zones, mr. chairman, exist

along arizona-mexico border, texas-mexico border are areas where there is no cell phone service. and ranchers rely many times on short wave radios to communicate with each other and law enforcement. basically rob could not call for help when he was murdered. this legislation first started when gabby giffords was here in congress and she proposed in 2010 that we fix that problem by taking about $10 million from the office of undersecretary of management at d.h.s. and move it to the border security fencing infrastructure and technology account with the purpose of allowing the ranchers to have access to cell phone service so they could call for help when they are in trouble. that legislation has passed twice and has not passed to become law. this legislation is being

brought to the house again for the third time. i appreciate my support from my friend, henry cuellar from laredo, texas. it's commonsense legislation. there are portions of the border that are not secure. and those portions, those dead zones, let's help out the ranchers so they can call for help when they are in trouble. that's what this legislation does. i yield back the balance of my time. thank you. the chair: the gentleman from texas yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from -- mr. carter: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. carter: mr. speaker, i'm happy to accept this amendment from my colleague and friend judge poe. this provides $10 million to c.d.p. to procure additional equipment for surveillance and detection at both the southern and northern borders. similar solutions of border security include integrated fixed towers, and tethered radar systems.

all these systems increase situational awareness and since law enforcement personnel have identified and resolve illegal activity. in effect they have become a work force multiplier, freeing agents to focus on other vital tasks like identifying, tracking, interdicting, and resolving events along the border. for these reasons i accept the gentleman's amendment. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from texas. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. he amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from nevada seek recognition? >> mr. chairman, i have an

amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. heck of nevada. page 3, line 3, after the dollar amount insert reduced by $5 million. page 4, line 14, after the dollar amount insert reduced by $10 million. page 8, line 6, after the dollar amount insert reduced by $2 million. page 35, line 25, after the dollar amount insert reduced by $5 million. page 37, line 7, after the dollar amount insert increase by $22 million. the chair: the gentleman from nevada is recognized for five minutes. mr. heck: mr. chairman, i could have to the floor today along with mr. horsford to protect the cities and towns. we need to dedicate funds to address the unique planning, organization, training and exercise needs of high-threat, high-density urban areas and building a sustainable protect,

mitigate against, recover from acts of terrorism. however, due to a recent change in qualification criteria, a number of metropolitan areas will go without funds despite being qualified for funds last year. the areas that will be without funds include riverside, california, portland, oregon, orlando, florida, indianapolis, indiana, new orleans, louisiana, san antonio, texas, kansas city, missouri, and las vegas, nevada. now, if those sounds like high-threat, high-density locations to you, you'd be correct. they are. yet, despite recent years, they will not receive ues ay funds this year. i can tell you that las vegas, which holds more high-profile, highly attended events than any city in the country is worthy of these funds. in las vegas, law enforcement has to not only defend the las vegas metro area which includes the fab las las vegas strip with more dense -- fabulous las

vegas strip with more densely populated hotel rooms but has high density areas outside the city, like the las vegas motor speedway and the hoover dam, a source of electrical power for more than one million people across the southwestern united states. so, mr. chairman, today i have a very simple amendment to the bill. the amendment decreases funding under four different accounts as outlined previously and redirects those amount to the urban area security initiative for the purpose of funding the program to the top 35 eligible metropolitan areas. i recognize, mr. chairman, as our debt continues to increase and you must work to rein in wasteful spending and i recognize all the funding in the world isn't going to prevent every attack, but in this case, don't we think the safety and well-being of our cities and communities, our families are worth the expense? don't you believe they are worth our support? our constitution states that

our federal government must, quote, ensure domestic tranquility and provide for the common defense, end quote. that is the issue at hand with my amendment. as someone who's worked on the front lines of homeland security as a swat physician and emergency preparedness consultness as well as someone who wore the uniform in the u.s. army reserve, i believe we need to provide them the funding they need. i ask my colleagues to support this amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from evada yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from nevada seek recognition? mr. horsford: thank you. i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. horsford: thank you, mr. speaker. this bipartisan amendment i am offering along with congressman heck would help address some of our concerns about the calculations in the urban area security initiative funding formula. uasi provides critical funding to cities that are at risk for a terrorist attack. as a member of the authorizing

committee for the department of homeland security, i want to work with the appropriators on this concern. i have become deeply concerned about how the formula are currently being used by the department of homeland security will determine eligibility for this funding. the formula sometimes counts multiple buildings as a single site, something that shortchanges the las vegas strip. it also punishes cities for successfully implementing anti-terror programs. well, we should not be the victims of our own success. as it stands now, critical anti-terror programs for major tourist destinations around the country are being defunded, including for las vegas, new orleans and orlando, to name a few. that's the las vegas strip, the site of mardi gras and disney world. this is not an issue of budget cuts. it's an issue of

prioritization. it's an issue of a faulty policy that completely ignores some major international tourist destinations and the threat posed to them. during a recent house homeland security committee hearing, i asked boston police commissioner edward davis, about the value of the uasi program in responding to the tragic events of the boston marathon attack. commissioner davis told the committee that if it were not for usai, quote, there would have been more people that would have died in these attacks. it is critical that we maintain that funding to urban areas, unquote. he stressed that this is not a frivolous expenditure. it's something that works. it's something that our sheriff is asking for. it's something that our mayor of las vegas is asking for, and it's something the people on the ground, the first responders, desperately need. i visited the southern nevada counterterrorism center

recently. they do incredible work in keeping the two million residents and the 40 million tourists who come to southern nevada safe. and studies on terrorist targets, however, the rand corporation has stated that las vegas stands out in having a high proportion of high likelihood targets compared to the nation as a whole. the same study also reports that the unique composition of hotels, casinos and skyscrapers increases the overall attack probability in las vegas relative to other cities in the same likelihood tier. yet, in my home state of nevada, mr. speaker, we face reduce usai funding because of flaws in the relative risk profile model that has inappropriately dropped las vegas' ranking as a likely terrorist target. we need a serious re-evaluation

of the funding formula for uasi. it's wrong that las vegas has dropped in rankings and it's wrong that we'll face reduced funds because of faulty calculations. i urge adoption of this amendment and i look forward to continuing to work with the appropriators on addressing this very important concern to the safety of our domestic home front. the chair: the gentleman from nevada yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. carter: mr. chairman, i rise in opposition to this amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. carter: the bill before us today was born out of a need for reform. it consolidates grant programs, provides discretion to the secretary while balancing fiscal discipline. in total this bill provides for $2.5 billion more homeland security first responder grants. this is $400 million above the president's request for fiscal

year 2014 and $35 million above fiscal year 2013. this bill prioritizes our funding. the consolidation in this bill forces the secretary to examine the intelligence and risk and puts scarce dollars where they are needed most, whether it is port, rail, surveillance or access and hardening project or whether it is to high-risk urban areas or to states as pposed to reversing projects to fill account designated for one of many programs. this does not mean lower risk cities will lose all funding. it means the funds will come from other programs, such as state homeland grants that are risk and formula-based. i strongly urge my colleagues to support fiscal discipline and vote no on this amendment. i yield back.

the chair: the gentleman from texas yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina recognition? mr. price: mr. chairman, i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. price: mr. chairman, i want to join the chairman in opposing this well-intentioned amendment. the amendment would cannibalize various administrative accounts throughout the bill, the office of secretary for executive management, the chief financial officer, the c.p.b. salaries and expenses, fema salaries and expenses. some obscure accounts, you may say, but accounts that are vital to the functioning, would cal banize these accounts and -- cannibalize these accounts and put $22 million in grants esumably for urban grants, uasi. i championed those programs for years, especially the

risk-based uasi program. we need to look at what this program is about. this is a risky path for this body to go down. t really seems to be about adding cities. now, uasi grants are picked on a risk basis. there is a formula involving threat and vulnerable and consequence. the estimates are updated every year. this is probably the most strictly risk-based assessment hat d.h.s. undertakes. do we really want to substitute that for picking these cities on the house floor? i'm afraid that's what this amendment is all about, or at least it's the path that it could put us on, and so therefore i urge its rejection and i yield back.

the chair: the gentleman from north carolina yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from nevada. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. mr. heck: on that i request a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from nevada will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. runyan of new jersey. after the dollar amount insert reduced by $5 million. page 40, line 23, after the dollar amount insert increase by $5 million. page 40, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert increase by $2,500,000. page 41, line 1, after the dollar amount, insert increase by $2,500,000.

the chair: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for five minutes. mr. runyan: thank you, mr. chair. my budget-neutral amendment authored by my -- with my colleague from new jersey, mr. pascrell, who was going to be here on the floor today, who is attending senator lautenberg's memorial service this afternoon, supports our nation's firefighters in two critical ways. the fire and safer grants programs are two need-based department of homeland security administered programs that go directly to local fire departments throughout the country. this amendment supports volunteer and career firefighters by giving them resources to purchase highly specialized equipment necessary to carry out their mission. mr. chair, we all recognize the budget pressures facing our federal government and the need to prioritize where our tax dollars are spent.

fire and safer grants are in partnership with local fire departments and invests in our communities and increases the safety of our constituents. for that reason i strongly urge my colleagues to support this amendment which helps to ensure firefighters have the resources they need. and with that i thank you and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina seek rigs? mr. price: mr. chairman, i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. price: i rise simply to express support of the amendment. mr. carter: mr. chairman, i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. carter: mr. chairman, i accept the gentleman's 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 new jersey. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. he amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the

gentleman from new york seek recognition? >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. grim of new york. after the dollar amount insert reduced by $7,667,000. page 35, line 25, after the dollar amount insert increased by $7,667,000. page 36, line 21, after the dollar amount insert increased by $7,667,000. the chair: the gentleman from new york is recognized for five minutes. mr. grimm: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise today in support of my amendment that would fund the national urban search and rescue response system at $35.18 million. . it still reflects a reduction of roughly $6 million from fiscal year 2012. the national urban search and rescue response system, usnr,

provides significant national resource for search and rescue missions in the wake of natural disaster and structural collapse. a typical task force will conduct physicalp search and rescue operation that is provide emergency medical care to trapped victims, assess and control hazards such as ruptured gas and electric lines, and the evaluate and stabilize damaged structures. due to the critical lifesaving nature of their mission, us and r task forces must be prepared to delay within six hours of notification and they must be self-sufficient for the first 72 hours. these teams have been deployed to responses to the oklahoma tornados, superstorm sandy, the japanese tsunami, the haiti earthquake, hurricane katrina, 9/11 attacks, and many, many other disasters. current federal funding for the nation's us and r teams only provide a fraction of the funds

necessary to maintain each task force. it's important to note the recent devastation left in the wake of the oklahoma tornados, as well as superstorm sandy, and the subsequent response underscores the importance of the national search and rescue capacity. providing proper funding for the urban search and rescue response system will help ensure these highly skilled teams are available to respond to major emergencies without jeopardizing the budget priorities of our local first responders. i'd also like to thank my colleague and friend from virginia, mr. connolly, who is the lead co-sponsor of this amendment and a strong, strong advocate for the urban search and rescue program. therefore, i urge you to vote yes on this amendment and properly fund this critical program. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from new york yields back. for what purpose does the -- mr. connolly: i move to strike the last word.

the chair: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for five minutes. mr. connolly: i thank the chair. i'm so pleased to join my colleague once again in sponsoring this important amendment to restore money to our nation's elet urban search and rescue teams. our modest, simple, straightforward amendment which has the support of the international association of firefighters, would provide level funding, as my colleague indicated, to the department to continue supporting the 28 national teams currently spread across 19 states, including our respective home states of new york and virginia. when people are trapped in the unstable rubble of a collapsed building, the window of survivability can be measured in hours. without highly trained responders, rescue attempts can and ly empow he virktims rescue victims alike. because of this training we have made specialized research in search and rescue teams. these elite firefighters and emergency medical technicians are not just first responders,

though they are that. for people awaiting rescue, they are off the last hope. as my colleagues are aware, federally supported search and rescue responders were on the scene recently in oklahoma after the tornados. and in new jersey and new york after superstorm sandy last year. prior to coming to congress, mr. chairman, i served for 14 years in local government in fairfax county, virginia. and for nine of those years i shared an office with the fire department. i saw daily the self-less dedication of men and women who put their lives at risk in service to others. fairfax county is home to one of the most elite us and r teams in the country, in fact in the world. in partnership with the u.s. department of homeland security, the u.s. agency for international development, fema, the local county government, fairfax, serves american interests both here at home and abroad. the team is comprised of highly skilled career volunteer fire and rescue personnel whose daily duties are to serve the

community by responding to local fire and medical emergencies, but when called into service that team designated as virginia task force one is mobilized for quick response to domestic disasters, natural or man-made, with special expertise in collapsed building rescue. our team was deployed in oklahoma city in the wake of the terrorist bombing in 1995. it was among the first on the scene on the pentagon on 9/11. it was also dispatched to mississippi and louisiana in response to hurricane katrina. in 2005. and has answered the call for help in multiple states including california, north carolina, texas, florida, kansas, georgia, massachusetts, new york, new jersey, puerto rico, and the virgin islands to name a few. when disaster strikes, whether natural or man-made, domestically or internationally, the usnar teams have rushed to the scene saving countless lives.

they are heroic efforts have shown this to be a wise investment that absolutely must be maintained. i urge my colleagues to support the grim-connolly amendment -- grimm-connolly amendment to ensure this successful partnership is sustained. with that i yield back the balance of my time i yield to back, mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman from virginia yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from -- mr. carter: move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized for five minutes. mr. carter: i accept this good amendment. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina seek -- mr. price: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. price: i, too, rise in qualified support of this amendment. when disaster strike these urban search and rescue teams stand ready for fema deployment. complete with unique tools and equipment and training. i do want to register another concern about the cannibalizing of management accounts that this amendment along with other amendments is undertaking to do. $302 million

below the request and $147 million below fiscal 2013 presequestration in this departmental management funding. so we've got to pay attention to this as we take this amendment to conference. we have to have a better offset. having said that, i do think this is a meritorious amendment. well justified. i urge adoption. the chair: the gentleman from north carolina yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts seek recognition? >> good afternoon, mr. chairman. i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the gentleman will suspend. another amendment is pending. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new york. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts seek recognition? mr. lynch: thank you, mr. chairman. i believe i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will

designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 11, printed in the across-the-board, offered by mr. lynch -- congressional record, offered by mr. lynch of massachusetts. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. lynch: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. lynch: mr. chairman, my amendment increases the surface transportation security funding by about $15.6 million, f.y. ng it to the enacted 2013 level of $124.3 million. this would be offset by a reduction on a similar amount to the office of the undersecretary for management. last april, the united states received a chilling reminder that it remains a target for attacks by terrorists and their sympathizers when two men detonated bombs in my home city at the finish line of the boston marathon. one week later authorities foiled a plot to attack a passenger train running between canada and the u.s.

after the september 11, 2001 attacks, we as a nation undertook, and rightly so, a massive effort to strengthen aviation security. we invest in significant resources and to making our skies safer. i strongly supported those efforts, but would also caution that we cannot forget that other forms of transportation remain vulnerable to attack. .3 fiscal year 2002 $6 billion in funding has been dedicated to aviation security. however, during that same period surface transportation security has been funded at about $3.3 billion, less than 5% of our transportation security funding has gone into our transit systems, our rails and buses. now, it is sometimes said that our military planners are guilty of fighting the last war. i believe that in the war on terror, my fear is that it may be the case here. over the last number of years,

we have seen buses and passenger rail systems targeted throughout europe and asia. i'll just mention a few. as i mentioned in april of 2013 , al qaeda -- there was an al qaeda linked plot to attack a passenger train running between new york and toronto. in july, 2006, seven bomb blasts over 11 minutes took place in a suburban railway in mumbai. 209 were killed and over 700 injured. in march, twure, coordinated bombings on the madrid commuter rail system resulted in 191 killed and 1,800 injured. in february of 2004, two suicide bombers attacked a moscow metro station. at least 40 why killed and over 100 injured. as well in israel, france, japan they have suffered similar attacks on their bus and railway systems. many people don't realize that

u.s. passenger rail systems carry about five times as many people as do airlines. for a potential terrorist looking to cause as much damage and panic as possible, we cannot ignore the fact that our rails and buses are a target. this amendment is one step to better secure our surface transportation system that move millions of americans each and every day. i urge my colleagues to support both this amendment and the main bill. i thank you, mr. chairman. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. from massachusetts. cannot reserve time. the gentleman from texas. mr. carter: move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. carter: mr. chairman, i'm ready to accept the amendment. i, too, have concerns about service rail. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina seek recognition? mr. price: mr. chairman, move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. price: mr. chairman, i want to commend the gentleman on his

attention to the very real vulnerabilities of surface rail. his attention to this. and urge acceptance of the amendment. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from massachusetts. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. he amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the reading has not progressed to that point yesterday. clerk will read. the clerk: page 4, line 11, office of the chief financial officer, $41,242,000. office of the chief information officer, $210,735,000. analysis and operations, $291,623,000. office of the inspector general, $113,903,000. title 2, security enforcement

and investigation. u.s. customs and border protection salaries and xpenses, $8,275,983,000. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. garcia of florida. page 8, line 6, after the first dollar amendment, insert increase by $10 million. page 12, line 12, after the dollar amount, insert reduce by $10 million. page 12, line 23, after the dollar amount, insert reduce by $3 million. the chair: the gentleman from florida is recognized for five minutes. mr. garcia: thank you, mr. chairman. my amendment seeks to increase by $10 million the funding for customs and border protection staffing and decrease by $10 million the funding for the controversial 287-g immigration enforcement program. at the time when our economy is just starting to pick up steam, this amendment is intended to

promote trade, travel, tourism, and investment to our nation's airports and ultimately support our economic recovery. as the busiest airport in the united states for international flights, and the gateway to the americas, miami international airport is a vital economic engine for south florida and our country. unfortunately, m.i.a. has been among the worst hit with inadequate customs and border patrol staffing levels. at worst peak travel days we have over three hours and a half of waiting time and sometimes up to 800 missed connections. if we want to continue being the top destination for foreign investors, for immigrants, for tourists, for visitors, for businesspeople, we need to ensure we have an adequate c.d.p. staffing to handle our growing number of visitors. while these personnel short

ands are especially acute at m.i.a., these delays are prevalent at international hubs throughout the country. impeding trade, travel, tourism, and investment, and we need to fuel our economic recovery and create jobs. this amendment seeks to reduce the funding of section 287-g program to enable the increase of funding of c.d.p. staffing. the immigration enforcement -- this immigration enforcement program has been controversial and criticized for many years, and has been made increasingly redundant by the development and expansion of other questionable programs like security communities. that amount exceeds the request from the department of homeland security by $44 million. that is a $44 million increase over the request. both major cities of chiefs association and the international associations of

chiefs of police have expressed strong concerns about section 287-g's program which undermines public safety and diverts limited law enforcement resources and exacerbates fear and distrust in our communities. and if that wasn't enough, other imgrant enforcement programs, like secure communities, have replaced the need for 287-g and yet we're continuing to fund a practically defunk practice. i believe these funds are better spent on promoting american commerce, at our nation's interpret and invigorating our economy. i urge my colleagues to support what i think is a very sensible and important amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from florida yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. carter: mr. speaker, i rise in opposition to this amendment. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized for five minutes. mr. carter: not only do i oppose the increase of $10 c.p.d. for additional

officers, as drafted the bill provides for $105 for hiring 1,600 officers over a two-year period. in fact, we have funds to cover e no less than 21,600 c.p.d. officers which sets a historical precedent. the reason we took this incremental approach into hiring 1,600 new officers is because staffing was not linked to its goals for border security. o just these concern, it directs c.p.d. to provide more complete five-year staffing and deployment plan. furthermore, the internal audit reveals systemic failures within the formulation of salaries and benefits of its

operational work force. nd though i believe taking a go slow approach to hiring just makes sense, i oppose the offset which decreases funds for 287-g program. i.c.e. enters into partnerships with local law enforcement and authorizes them to remove criminal aliens who are a threat to local communities. in effect, the program acts as a force multiplier to ensure more resources to enforce immigration laws and policies. fact, since 2006, the 287 program as been credited with identifying more than 279,311 potentially removable aliens from most local jails -- mostly from local jails. so i oppose this amendment and ield back.

mr. price: mr. speaker, i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman from north carolina is recognized for five minutes. mr. price: i rise in support of this amendment. i think it's a positive contribution to the bill. it improves the balance of the bill. and what it cuts. i think we can use the additional funds in c.v.p. for additional officers. as has been said many times on this floor today, the 287-g program is flawed and wasteful and can well afford this kind of cut so i commend the gentleman from on both fronts. adding the right things and cutting the right things and i urge adoption of the amendment. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from florida. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. mr. garcia: mr. chairman, i would like to request a

recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from florida will be postponed. the clerk will read. he clerk: page 9, line 14, $707,800,000. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. tipton of colorado. page 9, line 17, after the dollar amount insert decrease by $7,655,000. page 49, line 19, after the dollar amount, insert increase by $7,655,000. the chair: the gentleman from colorado is recognized for five minutes. mr. tipton: mr. chairman, as i stand here, wildfires burning in my district and in the state of colorado, the rampant drought, intense weather conditions, deteriorating forest health, they've all

increased the propensity for devastating wildfires across the northern states. according to the fire center, last year more than 9.3 million acres burned. that is an area that is approximately the size of rhode island, delaware, the district of columbia and massachusetts combined. these fires tradgecally claimed 13 lives, destroyed more than 2,000 homes, led to hundreds of millions of dollars in damages. nearly 400,000 acres burned in colorado alone. the tragic loss of six lives. the status quo of addressing a problem when it's too late is no longer good enough. the status quo has given us decades of declining forest health. the status quo has given us years of catastrophic wildfires. the status quo has put people, communities and ecosystems at risk. we must do more. it provides limitless and

economic benefits when healthy, the forest. it's our responsibility to be able to preserve this incredible natural resource and do all we can to be able to restore forest health and we also need to be able to prevent future loss of life and property to catastrophic wildfire. i urge this body to be able to join with me and my colleague, congressman polis of colorado, in taking a step in order to be able to prevent these tragedies. for far too long we've been trying to stop fires once they got and mitigation damage once it's already occurred. as the old saying good, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of pure. that is what this amendment is about, investing greater resources toward prevention so we can take a more proactive approach to restoring our forest to a healthy natural state. representative polis and i introduced this amendment to direct the money to fema's national predisaster mitigation fund, a program to be able to reduce the occurrence of

wildfire as it would provide funds aimed at mitigating conditions that lead to these fires. despite the need for proactive programs, such as this in the wake of increased occurrences of extreme weather events, including wildfire, the national predisaster mitigation fund is facing a reduction of nearly $2.5 million this year. considering the value of this program and the term saving it generates through prevent -- prevention of destructive fire, the federal government can realize budget saves. the automatic modernization account of the department of homeland security received an increase of $7,655,000 this year for the i.t. modernization despite concerns of transparency of spending with the agency. i share the concerns expressed there. senator coburn found troubling findings about wasteful spending within d.h.s., including the fact that this agency spent over $35 billion

of its taxpayers' money in the last 10 years. in fiscal year 2010, d.h.s. i.t. 6.5 billion on spending alone and planned to spend $4 billion on 68 i.t. programs. when identified by the government accountability office, it constained waste and not meeting specified commitments. the sites being replete with wasteful government spending, many programs at d.h.s. have found to be overlapping, unnecessary or lacking in transparency. until these concerns are addressed, i do not believe we should be providing additional resources for these programs at d.h.s. instead, we better use that $7,655,000 to take steps towards proactively reducing the occurrence of devastating wildfires while redirecting those funds to the national predisaster mitigation fund. i urge my colleagues to support this important amendment and

safeguard our forests. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from colorado yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? mr. polis: mr. mica:. the chair: -- mr. polis: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. polis: i want to thank mr. tipton for bringing forth this amendment. there has been two wildfires that have erupted in my district. we share northern and southern district. a wildfire ignited near evergreen, colorado. we had evacuation of several thousand people. these were just the early season fires in this -- and this year's wildfire season could be longer and extreme than ever before. the fire center has predicted that this summer will bring an increased fire threat to communities in multiple states across the united states. unfortunately, last year was a devastating year for fires in my home state. we had two of our most destructive fires in history in 2012. wildfires destroyed 650

structures, six coloradans lost their life in wildfires, 334,000 acres of land were burned and close to -- over half a billion dollars in property damage. in addition to wildfires, our country and our state has experienced natural disasters like droughts and tornados. and the impacts of these are reminders of how cost low and destructive extreme weather can be and how important it is to be prepared and to reduce risks where we can. in total, 11 extreme weather events last year across the country, including hurricanes, tornadoes, fires cost taxpayers $96 billion. extreme weather events have a real impact, a human impact and a cost. but we have an opportunity in this amendment to reduce and minimize the damage and cost of extreme weather events like wildfires by mitigating the

threat prior to an event. that's why i join representative tipton in directing $7.6 million to the national predisaster mitigation fund. we can spend a penny now to save a dollar later. the national predisaster mitigation fund is one of the only fema programs that reduces fire danger before a fire starts by increasing funding to mitigate extreme weather events, we can allocate more resources to preventing the impact of these devastating fires, saving lives and saving money. unfortunately, the predisaster mitigation fund, absent this amendment, is only funded at $22.5 million, which is a reduction of $2.475 million, even though events are occurring at higher rates last year and we have no reason to believe this year will be different. the predisaster mitigation fund very simply is a good investment, mr. chairman. the predisaster mitigation fund investments have already led to significant savings to taxpayers by reducing risks and

damages caused by extreme weather. the amendment is completely offset by reducing the same amount of funding to the modernization account. fact, our amendment decreases costs in the first year. the automation modernization account has already been noted by the committee of lacking transparency regarding how the funds are managed and of course while i support the d.h.s. modernizing its technology systems, i can't support increasing that account in this time of fiscal constraint, especially when the result of these disasters could very well cost more than an ounce of prevention now. so this increases the account by $7.655 million to the predisaster mitigation fund to proactively reduce the threat of wildfires and save taxpayer money. now, we can't stop wildfires, but we can take measures to reduce their impacts on our communities and to save taxpayer money. that's why i'm proud to join representative tipton and i've

offered this commonsense amendment that would allocate $7.655 million in additional resources to the predisaster mitigation fund. and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from colorado yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. carter: i yield -- strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. carter: i'd like to accept this amendment and yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina seek recognition? mr. price: mr. chairman, i rise to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. price: i, too, urge adoption of this amendment. i want to commend the chairman, though, while i have a moment, for putting in $22.5 million for predisaster mitigation into this bill. did that at my request, and we had a proposal from the president which was quite inadequate in this respect and so the chairman has put this money in and this is an amendment that would add more to that and it's money we can

quite well use. i don't believe the offset is ideal. the offset would slow down the i.t. initiatives at customs and border protection which are designed to help risk-based targeting efforts, and i don't necessarily think it's the best process for us on the house floor to be establishing carveouts in the predisaster itigation program. we'd need an all hazards approach. we dent want to rank the threat of higher than that of hurricanes and so forth. having said that though, i think this bipartisan pair of co-sponsors has made a compelling case today for the threat that their area faces and i urge my colleagues to support them. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from north carolina yields back. 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. he amendment is agreed to. the clerk will read. the clerk: page 10, line 1, border security fencing, infrastructure and technology. $351,454,000 to remain available until september 30, 2016. r and marine operations, $802,741,000, construction and facilities management, $471,278,000, to remain available until september 30, 2018. u.s. immigration and customs enforcement salaries and expenses $5,344,461,000. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the

desk. the clerk: the clerk -- the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. deutch of florida, page 13rk line 22, strike providing further that funding made available shall maintain a level of not less than 34,000 detention beds through 2014. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. deutch: i have a let for the support of this amendment signed by 66 local, national, and state groups an i ask unanimous consent that it be entered into the record. the chair: the gentleman's question is covered by general leave. the gentleman is recognized. mr. deutch: this would strike the proposal that funding made available shall maintain a level of not less than 344,000 beds through 2014. they interpret this to maintain a daily population of 34,000

people this detention bed mandates ties the hands of ice and restricts their discretion to make decisions even when release could be appropriate. this is an unprecedented mandate for law enforcement as no other law enforcement agencies have a quota for the number of people they must keep in jail this detention bed mandate is a drain of issa's --en on i.c.e.'s limited resource. i participated in a hearing with i.c.e. director morton who addressed this issue. he said that i.c.e. interpreted language as requiring the agency to keep, quote a yearly average daily population of 34,000 individuals. accordingly they've been maining an average number well over 34,000, with the numbers fluctuating between 35,000 and 37,000. due to the fiscally

drop ainable mandate they maryland, this strains i.c.e.'s budget, mandating that they ep 34,000 detainees in custody, forces them to forego actions that would save axpayer money. alternatives such as ankle bracelet, cur fuse, home visits can run from 30 cents to $14 per day, by untying i.c.e.'s hands, by striking this minimum detention environment, we could -- detention requirements we could allow them to make better use of their budget and focus tracking down human smuggling, drug trafficking and other crimes.

i'd like to thank chairman foster for his dedication to this issue. mandating that they retain 34,000 a day does not make us safer. this amendment would strike this arbitrary provision from the bill. i yield to my friend mr. foster. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. foster: i rise in support of this amendment and i'd like to thank my colleague from florida, mr. deutch, for joining me in the fight on this important issue. our amendment would end the costly and inhumane practice of imposing arbitrary immigrant detention requirements by striking the language in this bill which man tates that the immigration and cust toms enforcement otherwise known as i.c.e. maintains 34,000 imgrans in detention every single day. mandatory detention comes at a high cost for taxpayers and immigrant family whors needlessly torn apart. immigration detention kansases the united states $2 billion a year, $5.4 million a day or

$164 per day, per detainee. despite the availability of other proven, cheaper methods, including ankle bracelets an supervised release that cost the federal government anywhere from 30 cents a day to $14 a day, we continue to use detention -- detention as the primary method for immigrants facing deportation. not only is this quota fiscally irresponsible, but it makes it impossible for d.h.s. to make rational decisions about detention based on enforcement priorities and needs. there's a high human cost. most immigrants are held in county jails or facilities run by private prison corporations, often hundreds of miles from anyone they know. human rights abuses have been well documented in facilities across the country. many imgrans in the system have strong ties to their communities and no criminal record yet they must fight their cases from a distant jail. all because of this arbitrary quota. no other law enforcement agencies in our government have

such quo teas. rather than a per day bed quota, i.c.e.'s use of bed space should be binesd actual need, the approach used in every other law enforcement context. in his letter from the birmingham jail, martin luther king jr. said injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. mandatory detention quotas distort our system of justice and are a threat to freedom and justice in our country. i rise to end this costly and needless injustice and urge my colleagues to support our amendment. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. carter: i rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five mips. mr. carter: i rise in opposition to this amendment which strikes a legal requirement for 34,000 detention beds. the simple fact is that sovereign countries control their borders and have an immigration system with integrity that adhere's to the rule of law.

this last friday, i visited the i.c.e. facility in houston, texas. i found it interesting the numbers that they told me, they explained to me were going on today in the houston-corpus christi region, which takes in the entire gulf coast of texas along with the rio grande -- what we call the lower rio grande valley of texas. informed me that we were having massive encroachment into our country from across the border, right now, approximately 100 o.t.m.'s a day, in addition to the mexicans coming across the border. it's interesting as we talk to alternatives to incarceration, in the houston office alone, 64,000 plus are on alternatives to incarceration, which is almost double the amount of detention beds for the entire united states. in one office. so i think if we -- that we get a better picture of what this

invasion is all about. the attacks on 9/11 taught us that immigration enforcement matters. it matters to our security. the boston marathon attacks underscored this sobering lesson. each year more than one million aliens attempt to illegally enter the united states without proper documentation or enter legally but overstay and violate their visas. reasonable people can disagree, i believe detention beds are a critical component to enforces -- enforcing u.s. immigration laws an the detention and eventual removal of those aliens who entered this country illegally. therefore the bill recommends $2.8 billion to fully fund i.c.e.'s obligation to maintain no less than 34,000 beds. in contrast, the president requests -- the president's

request funds sufficient to support 34,000 beds say there's no need to support 34,000 detention beds even though as i speak today, those in detention are at 38,000 beds. so looks like we got overage, not shortage. in fact, however this is repudiated completely. as of last friday, and continuing on, more than 38,000 legal immigrant -- illegal immigrants are being held in i.c.e. custodymark of whom immediate the -- meet the mandatory detention requirements. second by the administration's own estimate there's at least 1.9 million removable criminal ail generals in the -- aliens in the united states. last general acknowledgment of the illegal alien population of approximately 11 million that estimate gos up to as high as 20 million in some quarters. clearly detention beds are

necessary. this bed mandate is needed. i urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from texas yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman seek recognition? mr. price: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. price: i rise in strong support of the deutch-foster amendment an i commend my colleagues for addressing one of the major problems in this bill. once again this bill sets an arbitrary minimum of 34,000 i.c.e. detention beds. whether or not i.c.e. needs them, whether or not the population it is managing on a given day warrants detention this detention bed mandate denies i.c.e. the flexibility it needs to manage its enforcement and removal in response to standards. it prevents them from making full use of cheaper forms of

supervision when that's appropriate. the specific number of beds is not the main issue here. the problem is attempting to micromanage detention operations from the floor of this house and doing it, by the way new york a way that wastes money and reduces flexibility. i've never understood why we would want to do that. and yet this keeps appearing in the bill produced by our majority colleagues. once again, we need to remove this provision and i commend mr. deutch and mr. foster for focusing attention on this so effectively. i urge adoption of their amendment and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from north carolina yields back. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from illinois seek recognition? >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes.

ms. schakowsky: i rise today in strong support of mr. deutch's and mr. foster's amendment. it's astonish, we can have a conversation about different people who are here, undocumented, and whether or not they ought to be in detention and whether or not they have a criminal record and whether they're a danger to our country, but to say that we're going to say 34,000 beds have o be filled, no matter what, is so un-american. it's so un-american to say, we're going to build x number of prison cells and then no matter what, the law says we're going to fill them. we start with the need to fill the cell? what the deutch-foster amendment would do would be to

strike that mandate. it doesn't strike the idea that some people are going to be detained. it strikes the idea that we have to fill what janette napolitano, the homeland security secretary, just said is arbitrary. these mandated levels effectively mean that i.c.e., our immigration system, can't make ditension decisions based on risk to our country, to our people. risk -- the various agency priorities. it's officers -- its officers have to focus on, instead, on filling daily quotas and as a result growing numbers of immigrants are held in detention. in fiscal year 2011 alone, i.c.e. detained 429,000 people. let's talk about those people. some of them are dangerous criminals. but most are not.

over half of the immigrants detained in 2009 and 2010 had zero criminal history. of those who did, about 20% had only traffic violations. only 11% of the detainees with felony convictions had committed violent crimes. and so included among those detained are victims of trafficking, families with small children, elderly individuals, individuals with serious medical and mental health conditions. many of those detained have u.s. citizen children or spouses and deep ties to their american families and their communities, many have potential claims for lawful status but still are detained for months or even years. some are even survivors of torture seeking asylum in the united states. in my district, the heartland

alliance marjorie cobeler center works with survivors of torture and emphasizes that placing these individuals in detention can be particularly traumatic, replicating the feeling of vulnerability they experienced during their torture, an the irony is this. detaining large numbers of immigrants who have no criminal contradictions -- convictions except immigration charges does not make us safer. it is not necessary to enforce immigration law, we don't need it to enforce immigration law, and it represents a major waste of taxpayer dollars. each detainees -- detainee cogging the gost $164 a day to hold. i understand why the prison industry, the private prisons in particular, would love to see $164 and set this goal of detaining all these people every day. so, we should detain people because they pose a threat to our communities, not to meet congressionally mandated

quotas. the criminal justice system does use a range of cheaper and effective custody options, electronic monitoring, house arrest. alternatives to detention costs between 30 cents and $14 per individual per day, far less than our current spending on detention. so we're making real progress toward immigration reform, the senate is considering language that would allow undocumented immigrants to come out of the shadows and earn the tchoons rsue their american dream -- out of the shadows and earn the chance to pursue their american dreams. i find this policy so offensive to me. my district, one of the most diverse in the country, to say we have to fill prison beds with these people, whether or not they're criminals, whether or not they pose harm to our country, this is not who we are as americans. they don't make -- these provisions don't make us safer,

they don't solve the immigration challenges they face. they are a waste of taxpayer money. i urge the support of the deutch-foster amendment in promote -- and in promoting real immigration reform. i yield back. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado rise? to strike the ve last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. polis: mr. chair, i agree strongly with the impassioned plea by my colleague from illinois, ms. schakowsky, i'm very grateful for this amendment to be brought forward by mr. deutch and mr. foster. this really is an outrage. it's an outrage to our values as americans and frankly it's an outrage to taxpayers. the cost of holding an immigrant overnight is $2120 -- is $120. we have viable and proven alternative to detention that we should be using for noncriminal aliens. again, what we're talking about here are different folks.

when we are talking about criminal aliens, i don't think there's any dispute that to the extent we have criminal aliens, and at any given time this can be approximately 40% of the people or so in detention, when i visited the i.c.e. facility in you a roara, they keep them -- in aurora, they keep them separate, they wear different-colored jump suits. they're criminal aliens. they are whom, however many we have, subject to deportation orders, they, it's perfectly fair to be kept in some form of detention. but the majority, 60%, are noncriminal aliens. they were in the wrong place at the wrong time. could have been a tail light out. could have been going 10 miles over the speed limit. and yet we as taxpayers are removing noncriminal aliens from their homes, from being the bread winner for their family, for supporting their kids, and being an asset to our country, and instead turning them into a liability for taxpayers, to the tune of $120

a day. so, again, i don't see how this makes fiscal sense at all. we're paying for free room, free board, food, medical services, all of these are being provided at taxpayer cost for folks. how is this a good deal for americans? it doesn't make any sense to me. when we have at 1/10 the cost alternatives to detention that include call-ins, ankle bracelets, there's a comprehensive program for noncriminal aliens that can do it at a much less expensive cost. and by the way, in detention many of them remain for a period of months. i even talked to folks, noncriminal aliens, who had been in limbo for over a year. some approaching two years. so, yes, anybody who opposes this amendment is saying, u.s. taxpayers should foot the bill for food and board and health care for somebody who is here

illegally for two years. why do people want to subsidize our illegal population? it's absolutely absurd. commonsense measure, however many beds we need for criminal aliens, let's have. however many we need for noncriminal aliens in terms of alternatives to detention, let's do. obviously what we really need is comprehensive immigration reform to address this issue. there's no way that i don't even think people on either side of the aisle in this chamber think that we should pay for 12 million people to be detained at the cost of $120 a day. i can't even add that up in my own mind. but i can tell you it would be a deficit-buster right there. so let's start here. let's address our deficit. let's make sure that we keep families together. don't take parents away from kids. don't force taxpayers to buy medical care and lodging and food for people who aren't even in this country illegally. and we can do that right here,

right now, by passing the deutch amendment. i call upon my colleagues to join me in doing so and i yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from florida. >> mr. speaker, mr. speaker. mr. speaker. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois rise? >> i move to strike the last word, mr. speaker. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you. i rise in support of this important amendment by mr. deutch and mr. foster. first of all, this is the right thing to do, but to bring the conversation back to what my colleagues on the other side of the aisle pivot to in almost every policy discussion we have in this body, cutting spending. in a budget age where many in this body celebrate the draconian and harmful cuts of the sequester, it seems week of come to accept as the norm indiscriminant, across-the-board cuts that in many cases fall on the backs of those most vulnerable among us. mr. quigley: cutting spending

in this congress no longer equates to targeted cuts, to inefficient programs. cutting spending in this climate is simply about the bottom line. but it doesn't have to be that way. this amendment is the perfect example of how we can cut spending in a smart and efficient way while defending those most vulnerable. by ending the arbitrary 34,000-bed mandate for immigration detention, we can cut spending and do the right thing. how's this for a bottom line? alternatives to immigration detention save money. we're spending more than $5 million a day to detain immigrants. 45% of which have no criminal record, according to the human rights watch. that equates to roughly $164 per day per detainee for detention and roughly $2 billion per year. alternatives to detention on the other hand only cost between 30 cents and $14 per day per detainee and they have

proven safe and effective. according to julie miers wood, who ran i.c.e. under president bush, 96% of individuals enrolled in alternatives to detention show up for their final hearing and 84% comply with removal orders. so what's stopping us from putting in place these effective cost-saving policies? another harmful appropriations policy rider, mandating the daily detention level of 34,000 immigrants. in no other law enforcement context do we oppose such a ridiculous quota. you wouldn't tell a county jail or a state prison that you have to keep x number of prisoners in that facility. mandating such a high level of detention makes absolutely no sense. by doing so i.c.e. is effectively prohibiting -- prohinted from making decisions about detention based on enforcement policies, firbletsy and need. all too often in this body we look for someone else to blame.

but in this case we have no one to blame for this wasteful policy but ourselves. we have the power to change a policy that is nothing but waste -- that has done nothing but waste taxpayer money and caused undue hardship to immigrant families across the country. i urge my colleagues to vote for increased passion and urge a vote on -- yes vote on this amendment. thank you, mr. speaker, i yield back. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. carter: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. carter: i've listened to the arguments from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle and i find it interesting, first, those who cross into our country without and contrary to the laws of this great nation, have committed an illegal act. you know, calling them not illegal doesn't make them not illegal. but i really would like to point out that we have a curious way to discuss this as

a policy. and that is, no one here stands responsible for the decision. you know, when the alternatives to incarceration were created by judges and the judicial system stands in a little different situation than the members of congress. when one of these people who's let out on alternatives to incarceration in fact commit another criminal act and believe me it happens, nothing more than just d.w.i. when you run over a little kid, the judge who puts him on that particular for sum held responsible and -- forum is held responsible. and his name will be on the newspaper, that he put someone out there who should have been in jail. or someone who murders, rape, robbery. if it happens when the judge

puts them out on alternatives, the judge has too take the heat -- has to take the heat. but as we have this great policy debate in congress, no one who is arguing to release all these people on alternatives is taking any heat at all. on what the accomplishments in the criminal realm will be of those we release. i approve of alternatives to incarceration. i just told you that 64,000 people alone in the city of houston's jurisdiction, which is the valley all the way up to beaumont, are out on alternatives. but detention beds are also full and overflowing. and when i visited the i.c.e. unit there, the red uniforms were the majority and the red uniforms were criminal aliens. they have committed crimes in this country. so i think we are being a

little bit safe to make these arguments, as we stand here in these hallowed halls, never is our name going to appear in any newspaper when one of these people commits an act that causes damage to our fellow citizens. and yet we make this argument very passionately. i just want to remind everybody that we are responsible for those criminal aliens that we release and criminal aliens are right now being released and in fact mrs. napolitano, after i ask her specifically, are you releasing anyone from detention , and she looked me right in the eye and said, no, and two days later she released 2,300. so, don't tell me -- and of in the top two categories were both represented in that release. the most serious and the second most serious categories of crimes we hold people for.

so this is a policy, this administration continues to have a policy of not enforcing the law and quite frankly we need this availability of beds so we can enforce the law. yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from florida. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment -- >> 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 florida will be postponed. the clerk will read. the clerk: page 15, line 4, automation modernization,

$34,900,000 to remain available until september 30, 2016. construction, $5 million, to remain available until september 30, 2017. transportation security administration, aviation ecurity, $4,872,739,000. the chair: the clerk will suspend. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? mr. broun: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk and i ask unanimous consent to dispense with the reading of he amendment. the chair: without objection, the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. broun of georgia. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes to describe his amendment. mr. broun: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, my amendment would completely eliminate funding for the transportation security administration, t.s.a., and transfer that money to the spending reduction account. saving taxpayers nearly $5

billion. congress intended for t.s.a. to be an efficient, cutting edge, intelligence-based agency. responsible for protecting our airports and keeping our passengers safe and secure. but today, it has grown into one of the largest bureaucracies in the federal government. they've had a 400% increase in staff since they were created. a good portion of those are headquarters employees making six-figure incomes on average. what's worse is that american passengers aren't getting a good return on the more than $60 billion investment that they spent on t.s.a. reports indicate that more than 25,000, repeat, 25,000, security breaches have occurred in u.s. airports since 2001. plus we have evidence, evidence

today, that terrorists on the no fly list still have been able to board u.s. aircraft. terrorists boarding u.s. aircraft, despite t.s.a. furthermore we've seen report after report on t.s.a. employees displaying a lack of professionalism. being inadequately trained, and even engaging in theft and other illegal activities. just about the only thing that the t.s.a. is consistently good at is using its extensive power to violate american travelers' civil liberties. veterans, the disabled, the elderly, and even small children have been the victims of overly invasive searches by t.s.a. officers. this is all evidence that the t.s.a. has veered dangerously off course.

i've repeatedly asked that we use our resources to focus on intelligence and technologies that could be more effective when it comes to catching terrorists. i've called for the privatization of t.s.a. and so many other of my colleagues. -- and so have many other of my colleagues. but we still have yet to see changes made in the t.s.a. personnel or procedures to ensewer the safety and security of our airports and passengers. mr. chairman, this amendment to zero out funding for the t.s.a. forces congress and the department of homeland security to start from scratch on a leaner, more effective, and more focused and a more productive, system for protecting our u.s. citizens. i urge my colleagues to support my amendment and i yield back he balance of my time.

the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. carter: i rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes in opposition. mr. carter: mr. chairman, the simple fact is this amendment is unnecessary and harmful to national security, in my opinion. now, am i happy with t.s.a.? no. i have criticism of t.s.a. also. most people who travel have some criticism of t.s.a. but zeroing out t.s.a. and leaving our airports unsecured is not the solution to the problem. if the gentleman's argument is that we're being fiscally responsible to do away with the t.s.a. part of this budget, i would argue the contrary. this bill, quite frankly, has made cuts and in fact for four years now, we have reduced spending in this bill. that's not a good argument.

it's easy to get mad at somebody that interferes in your life every time you travel, especially when you travel every week, but the reality is this would be a mistake to national security, this would be a mistake to our country an even though we have criltcism of t.s.a., our job is to fix t.s.a., not abolish t.s.a. and i know there's plenty of folks that think abolishing it is a good idea but quite honestly it would be a tragedy to leave our airports undefends -- undefended. we need to make them better and i think up with of the things we're doing is the oversight we provide in this bill so we can d.h.s. rd look at across the board and find things that need to be fixed. if t.s.a. is on the radar screen they ought fobticksed -- fixed. i think this is a mistake, i think it's bad policy, i think it's good grand standing but bad policy.

i oppose the gentleman's amendment. i yield back. the chair: 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: mr. chairman, i join the subcommittee chairman in strong opposition to this amendment. the gentleman's amendment would eliminate entirely the t.s.a. aviation security account from this bill, more than $4.8 billion. now i oppose this dangerous amendment on numerous grounds but i'm most apalled by the fact that it includes no language on who, if not t.s.a., would be securing our nation's airports. and under what authority, what flines. if this amendment were to pass, not only would the public not worry about bringing knives on planes, but terrorists would be able to bring guns and explosives on planes. surely, surely the sponsor can't be suggesting that as an acceptable outcome of this amendment. i just have to say the job of

this subcommittee and of this bill is to provide for the defense of our homeland. that's our bottom line obligation. and this amendment is in direct contradiction to that obligation. so i urge the resounding defeat of this amendment and i yield back. the chair: 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. he amendment is not agreed to. 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. tipton of colorado, page 15, line 20, after the dollar amount, insert increased by $3 million. page 15, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert, increase

by $3 million. page 16, line 10, after the dollar amount, insert, increased by $3 million. page 19, line 15, after the dollar amount, insert reduced by $4 million. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes to describe his amendment. mr. tipton: i rise today with an amendment that cuts $4 million from transportation security administration and provides these resources for small and rural airports. airports that have had important passenger screening devices removed as a result of federal aviation administration's modernization act. passengers in rural airports in my district including yampa valley, gunnison, durango, have been impacted by unnecessary delays and intrusions because of removal of security screening devices sent to larger airports. in the interest of protecting passenger privacy, the f.a.a. modernization reforming at of 2012 required the use of

automat -- automated target reck mission -- recognition scanners by june 1 of 2012. while the intent of congress was admirable and protecting the privacy of passengers focus, it prevented avelers in small and rural airports. one company could not comply with the law and make changes in the equipment. f.a.a. destide ruff moo -- remove noncompliant machines throughout the country. rather than waiting for new machines, t.s.a. made the arbitrary decision of taking compliant scanners from small and rural airports throughout the country and giving them to larger airports who lost their noncompliant scanners. one alternative could have been a cost effective private

federal alternative screening model put forth by then house transportation chairman john mica. it would have saved billions of dollars and not compromised security at small and rural airports. t.s.a.'s implication that security check points at small and rural airports are somehow less critical is inaccurate. once passengers clear screening at small and rural airport they typically do not receive additional screening for connecting flights at other, larger airports. the amendment will assist with reducing unnecessary delay for passengers in small and rural airports by providing funding to be able to speed up the replacement of security equipment removed by the t.s.a. it is important to note that funds being redirected from t.s.a. toward improving passenger screening at small airports come from its administrative budget and as such do not impact panel security. there are numerous concerns for transparency and waste in the t.s.a. budget including a

recent agreement to purchase $50 million worth of new union forls that are unnecessary, wasting approximately $212 million each year on the inefficient spot program and billions on the transportation worker identification credential program. i believe that these resources could be better used, and used more efficiently, to screen passengers at small airports, strengthen security, prevent delays and avoid -- and avoidable intrusions. i encourage my colleagues to join me in support of this commonsense amendment. with that, i yield back. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. carter: i move strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five mins. mr. carter: i share some of these concerns with the gentleman from colorado and i believe outstanding questions remain over the timeline for replacing the a.i.t. scanners. i expect t.s.a. to sufficiently answer the questions posed here today. i urge t.s.a. to move forward with the replacement of a.i.t.

scanners at the affected airports as soon as possible. i commit to the gentleman from colorado that the committee will look into this issue further and do everything within its power to fix the problem to the extent that it does not cost the american taxpayers more money. my understanding is this amendment won't result in the need for additional t.s.a. scanners -- screeners and therefore i accept the amendment. i yield back. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina rise in mr. price: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five mins. mr. price: i, too, would suggest that for now we accept this amendment and continue to work on the problems that the amendment highlights. my understanding from t.s.a. is that they have prior year funding available to replace detection machines removed due to the f.a.a. modernization act. the machines that were removed didn't meet certain privacy standard and were removed at

the cost of the contractor. t.s.a. is currently testing new machines that could be used to replace the roughly 215 removed from airports across the country. clearly this needs to be done. i'll be happy to work with the gentleman to press t.s.a. to move at an expeditious pace to replace these with more advanced machines. i yield back. the chair: 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. he amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina

rise? mr. price -- >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: would the gentleman please submit his amendment to the desk, we don't seem to have it. mr. price: it's amendment ffered by mr. mica, in defazio and mr. hudson. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 10 printed in the congressional record, offered by mr. hudson of north carolina. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes to describe his amendment. mr. hudson: i rise today to encourage my colleagues to support our amendment which strengthens the federal flight deck officer or f.d.o. program. it increases funding for the ffdo by $12.5 million, bringing the total authorized to $25 million with congressional

budget office reporting no budget tear impact. since its creation in 2003 this program has provided training to pilots willing to step up and volunteer to protect their fellow citizens by protecting the airliners millions of american flice on every year. as part of t.s.a.'s risk-based approach to security which i strongly advocated for on the homeland security committee, the ffdo program plays a role in providing additional security against terrorist attack. they have protected thousands of flights each day, thousands of flights each month at a fraction of the cost to taxpayers exeard to the federal air mall shall service. as the first line of deterrence an last hine of defense it makes sure we should continue to provide adequate funding to the program. while zeroed out in the president's budget we believe the ffdo program provides a cost effective solution in protecting passengers aboard our airliners.

i applaud chairman rogers, subcommittee chairman carter and the appropriations committee for finding ways to prioritize spending so this program did not meet its demise. with that said, $12.5 million represents more than a 50% cut from last year's amount. at this level of funding the ffdo program would be unable to recertify all the pilots in the program, maintain its current management structure or train additional officer. we offered a responsible and fully offset amendment that moves $12.5 million to the ffdo program to ensure we're using our resources wisely and in a manner that will directly benefit america's safety. the house unanimously agreed to a similar amendment offered in the f.y.-20 -- the f.y. 2013 bill and i hope they join me this year in providing the support the program deserves. thank you and i yield back the ance of my time. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from oregon rise? >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is

recognized for five minutes. mr. defazio: it's been nearly a decade since, on a bipartisan basis against bipartisan opposition, we fought and were successful in creating the federal flight deck officer program. since that time over 100,000, hundreds of thousands of flights have been protected by armed pilots. there was controversy at the beginning. could we trust pilots with guns? well, we trust them with our lives. we trust them with planes that were used as weapons of mass destruction by the terrorists in 2001. of course we can trust them. with guns. but they need proper training. because it's an unusual environment in which to possess and use a weapon. and use a weapon as the last line of defense, should a plane be taken over by terrorists. we've done other things to provide security, federal air marshals, armored flight decks.

but still, we know that this program is essential. it's inexpensive and it is something that pilots want to do. there were openings last year for a few additional training spots. over 1,000 people volunteered for those. many obviously were not chosen. if this program were eliminated, as was proposed in the president's budget, or even if it's cut in half, and i appreciate the fact that the committee has labored to find money to restore half the funding, many officers will not be recertified, new officers will not be allowed to join, and we will lose this last critical line of defense. and one that is wonderfully random. a terrorist could never, ever know if the pilots on that plane were armed. pretty hard to spot the air marshals, but it's even

impossible to know what the pilot has behind that locked flight deck door. so, we're recommending an amendment to our colleagues that would take money out of other parts of the bureaucracy of the t.s.a. at no increase in debt or deficit and fully fund this program so that thousands of pilots can continue to participate meaningfully as the last line of defense against a future terrorist attack. i think this amendment has tremendous common good sense about it, it's very cost-effective and i would hope that my colleagues will join us on a bipartisan basis in supporting it. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? >> mr. chairman, i ask to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. mica: thank you, mr. chairman. i also want to thank

particularly the committee leadership, mr. carter, mr. price, and the staff. they've done an excellent job into ing to put appropriations language and amounts of money expended, reforms that are long overdue in t.s.a. i'm pleased to join mr. hudson, the gentleman from north carolina, mr. defazio, my colleague, the gentleman from oregon, on this bipartisan amendment to restore the $25 million for the flight deck officer, a program -- i can't for the life of me understand why the obama administration would propose to congress that we zero out one of the most cost-effective mechanisms we have to ensure the safety and security of the flying public.

now, this program costs $25 million and that's out of a $5 illion expenditure for t.s.a., $25 million. it is probably the most cost-effective layer of security that we have. just a few dollars underwriting again the expense of training these pilots who have asked for the ability to protect their aircraft themselves and their passengers. we put this in place -- everyone was against it, when you heard mr. defazio, the story of this, the senate was against it, the administration was against it, the airlines were against it. we brought it out here in a demo project and the house overwhelmingly voted to support this program and it's done it time and time again. because it is cost-effective. it's a good layer of security. and now let me tell what you these pilots do. these pilots go at their own expense, they're not paid per

diem, they're not paid for the flight. i went out to visit the program , i have to at mid -- admit, whether it was a republican administration or democratic administration, everybody tried to do the program in. so they put the training facility almost on the border of mexico. i had to take three flights, one to denver, one to albuquerque and another one -- another jumper flight and then drive almost two hours to the border to get to this flight facility. that's what these pilots are doing on their own dollar for a week-long training program that, again, this is the cost of that training program, but the expense is borne by the pilot. i saw men, i saw women, i saw pilots for cargo, passenger, all going to get this training. why would you want to end a program that is so cost-effective and gives us this protection?

i don't want to belabor this, mr. hudson, mr. defazio have stated the case well. thousands and thousands of flights are protected and thousands and thousands of pilots participate on their own dime. i urge the passage of this amendment. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> thank you, mr. chairman. i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. swalwell: thank you, mr. chairman. moments ago the t.s.a. administrator announced that he will reverse his earlier decision to allow knives back onto airplanes and knives will now continue to be a part of the prohibited items list on our aircraft. making our passengers and our crew more safe. this is positive news. however, the administration's desire to zero out this ffdo program, allowing our pilots, our trained pilots to be armed

on the aircraft, puts us in a position that will put us more at risk. will put passengers and flight crew more at risk. and the t.s.a. not allowing knives on planes, that's just one step for passenger and crew safety. when we need a comprehensive approach to keep our passenger and crews safe, which would include not allowing knives on planes, which would include risk-based screening, which would include, as my friends from the other side have talked about, increasing funding for intelligence operations, to make sure we know who are getting on these airplanes. but it would also mean keeping the federal flight deck officer program fully funded. and this is a program i know about because of a personal friend in california who was a southwest airline pilot. and i have seen firsthand over the last seven years how serious he has trained to be ready for this program. and as my friend and colleague from the other side just mentioned, they fly down to texas routinely to train down there and they are very

diligent, they do this many times on their own dime. and a lot of skill and effort is put into their training to make sure that if something dangerous were to happen on that aircraft, they would be prepared. and it's a task they take seriously and it's a task we want them to continue to be supported by in the federal government. so, to have comprehensive airline passenger security, we want to restore the federal dollars for this, put it back at $25 million and i appreciate that this amendment was offered. thank you, mr. chairman, and i yield back the balance of my ime. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. carter: move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. carter: i accept the amendment and yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from north carolina. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no.

in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. he amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina rise? >> move to strike the last word for the purposes of a colloquy. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. as chair of the house transportation security subcommittee, i want to rise -- raise my concern about a delay in finalizing a rule to improve the security of f.a.a.-approved domestic and foreign repair stations. this rule making, mandated by congress in 2003, and again in 2007, has languished for almost 10 years. mr. hudson: by way of background, t.s.a. signed off on the rule late last year and d.h.s. completed consideration early this year. the office of management and budget is currently reviewing the rule. i hope that o.m.b. will complete this rule making by june 14, 2013, which is the end of the 90-day clock for their

consideration. at this time i will yield to my colleague from texas, chairman carter. mr. carter: thank you. i thank the gentleman for yielding. i share the gentleman from north carolina's concern, asking for final action on this rule. it's well past time to finalize this rule, whose delay has impeded manufacturers in growing critical markets for viation exports. i yield back. mr. hudson: i thank the gentleman. at this time i'd like to yield to my colleague from north carolina, congressman price. mr. price: i thank my colleague for yielding. and very much appreciate my fellow north carolinian raising this issue. i agree with his assessment that o.m.b. needs to finalize this rule as soon as possible. and it's critical to establish this risk-based security regime

for these repair stations. so we do hope for a rapid conclusion of this protracted episode and i appreciate him for raising the matter. appreciate his raising the matter. thank you and i yield back. mr. hudson: i thank the gentleman and, mr. chairman, i yield back the balance of my ime. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? mr. mica: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk and it's mica amendment 8, designated and preprinted. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 8 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. mica of florida. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes to describe his amendment. mr. mica: mr. chairman and my colleagues, first again i want to thank the chairman carter and ranking member price for their excellent work and again his staff. they have gone through some of

the expenditures for t.s.a. and not only in the dollar amounts but also in the language that's contained, supporting their appropriations measures. some excellent provisions. now, i do offer this amendment which is no greater increase in spending, but does move some money around from t.s.a. dministration to support our private screening partnership program. as you heard earlier from one of the speakers, this program is very successful, it's cost-effective and many airports want to avail themselves of it. t.s.a. has thwarted all the efforts to increase the private screening under federal supervision and came up with a whole host of excuses.

and also they have cooked the books as far as the cost of operating these private screening operations. now, you got to remember that if you look at this bill, it puts a limit of $-- 46,000 screeners, i believe, in the past we've increased that from 40,000, mr. rogers and i did that some time ago. we actually, if you go online, you'll find 51,000 screeners, we're not sure exactly what the figure is right now, it may be less than that. but there are a total of 66,000 t.s.a. employees. so that leaves approximately 15,000 even at our most conservative estimate of the number of people in administration. right now there's -- close to $1.2 billion spent on nonscreener salaries. it's $1.19 billion, to be exact, in this bill.

so this moves a small amount of money, $20 million-some, over to, again, the private screening account. i think it's justified that i think we're going to need it and i have several amendmented that i'm going to offer in a minute that i'd like to expand again on, the size of the bureaucracy and what t.s.a. is doing to thwart the privatization effort that could bring cost-effective screening to play and do a better job and save taxpayers money. o with that i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. who seeks time? the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman -- for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. carter: move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. carter: i accept this amendment. the chair: the gentleman yields

back. the gentleman from north carolina? mr. price: i rise in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five mins. mr. price: the gentleman's amendment would provide an additional $32 million for the screening partnership program. i have no objection to the concept of the screening partnership program, it's a local -- if a local airport authority applies to participate in the program and a private company can provide screening in accordance with t.s.a. standards and costs, then so be it. in fact this bill increases funding for the s.b.p. by $15.6 billion over current year levels and $10 million above the request. in anticipation of the program's vast expansion, but i'm unaware of a surge in demand for participation in the s.b.p. that would warrant a 30% increase in funding for this program. and the offset for the amendment is aviation security

direction and enforcement which the bill already cuts by $20 million below the request. now, mr. chairman, should additional demand warrant funding for the s.b.p. above what is already provided in this bill. we can work with the t.s.a. to transfer funding to meet that demand. but it simply makes no sense to provide such a significant increase for the s.b.p. when it's almost certain that those additional funds are going to go unused. so i urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. without any other members seeking time, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from florida. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from -- for what purpose does the gentlelady from nevada rise? >> i move to strike the last

word. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. s. titus: i rise to express my protest, my district is due to lose awards, while i believe counterterrorism funding should go to the places that need it the most, an arbitrary cap along with a flawed formula isn't helping our nation's efforts to prepare for or respond to natural disasters and potential terrorist attacks. i voice these concerns on a number of occasions over the past few months with c.h.s. secretary -- d.h.s. secretary janette napolitano and i appreciate her willingness to work with me on this issue. i want to recognize other members of the nevada delegation for joining with me today to work on this issue through a proposed amendment but i have a number of reservations about their approach. i'm concerned about reductions

in salary accounts for agencies that are charged with keeping our neigh safe and prepared for all types of emergencies. furthermore, their amendment provides additional funding but not additional instruction, so there is no guarantee that additional cities like las vegas will receive any of this increased funding in the amendment. i'm proud to represent las vegas, up with of the premiere vacation and business destinations in the world. ensuring that my constituents and millions of visitors who we welcome every year stay safe is a top priorities of our local government and law enforcement. without uasi funding to sustain and enhance our regional capabilities, las vegas as well as our portion of the large fema region nine will be at a significant disadvantage in preparedness, response and recovery capability. hundreds of thousands of people gather in large venues in southern nevada every day.

150e6 world's 25 largest hotels are in my district on the las vegas strip with a total of over 62,000 rooms. in 2012, some 37.5 million visitors came to las vegas and over 21,000 conventions are held each year. on any given day, tens of thousands of tourists walk along the 4.2 mile las vegas strip just a few miles from critical federal assets including two air force bases and the national nuclear security site and boulder dam. mr. chairman, i believe that counterterrorism funding digs should be made using forward-looking, risk-based metrics. it's critical that d.h.s. update their decision based matrix to reflect these principles. d.h.s. does not accurately count expected visitors in their decision making process and it's important to remember that visitors to our city would need the most assistance in the

event of a national disaster or terrorist attack because they are unfamiliar with the area as well as with local evacuation and safety plans. in las vegas, we welcome over 40 million travelers to our city this year and that's an increase of over 400,000 last year. we're also expecting our local population to continue to grow. yet despite these increases and increases in other components of our risk profile, las vegas actually slipped in d.h.s. risk rankings. this fall in rankings caused the city to fall out of contention for a grant and it was announced, i'm sorry, that we will not receive the funding we need. this is not good planning and should be remedied immediately. i pledge to work with my colleagues from districts with other tourist destinations and with the secretary to be sure that the formulas are updated and improved and that the funding goes to where it is truly needed. i thank you and yield back. the chair: the gentlelady

yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? >> i have an amendment at the desk it's a dez -- mr. mica: a preprinted amendment, mica six. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number six prinned in the congressional record offered by mr. mica of florida. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. mica: mr. chairman, members of the house, i have this amendment and several others, i'm going to combine my remarks to this amendment and one of the other amendments to ex-p e-- to expedite this process. i'm pleased -- -- i'm pleased that the previous amendment to take money out of the t.s.a. administration which i believe is extremely bloated and putting it into, again, the private screening partnership program, that successfully passed. with that passing, i had a

second amendment to take a similar amount to put those funds into the transportation security support and intelligence account. so what's mica doing here? ladies and gentlemen, we've created this multibillion dollar bureaucracy that has been untable connect the dots. here is almost every terrorist incident, we'll put this in the record, t.s.a. failed every single time. they have never connected the dots. we need to be putting the money not into this huge screening bureaucracy that hassles veterans and little old ladies and children and you've seen it all. we have created this nbelievable, this detriment to the american right to fly and

be a free citizen. and you can't -- it's difficult to get this darn thing under control. but i'm telling you, the money need to be doing into -- to be going into security. when mr. defazio and i helped create t.s.a., the purpose was to connect the dots. i would move money out of administration. they have 4,000 to 5,000 people within a mile or two of here doing nothing. most of them making on average $104,000. someone told me they just left there, there were four secretaries in their office making over $100,000 apiece. do the math. we only 5 -- 457 airports in the country, that means you've got about 17 people in administration out there and about nine in washington in administration overseing this program. it's totally out of control. so the mica amendment that i'm not -- that i'm gopping to ask to withdraw in just a second would take money out of administration, put it into connecting the dots in

security. i know that's a dumb idea. then the other thing, too, is the staff has tone a great job here and some of the report language, there's good report language but t.s.a. is thwarting the intent of congress to allow honest competition of the private screening partnership program. we never intended to keep this all bureaucratic. only bull garequa, romania and poland have a similar screening model as the united states today. -- they've done is they hey pack each of the screening bureaucracies, san francisco, between 60 and 85 t.s.a. administerors, making around the $100,000 job range, don't have a job. how would you like that position? kansas city, 51 they left there, they don't need these

positions. they leave them there to jack up the cost to try to make private screening look more costry. -- costly system of while you have language again in this bill and it's good language, we need to hold t.s.a. accountable to stop cooking the books. give us honest accounting and then let the natural process of evolution to private screening under federal supervision, don't do away with t.s.a., and then finally getting t.s.a. and hopeland security to concentrate on security and intelligence and connecting the dots to stop the terrorists before they ever get to the airport or get to screening. with that, i'd ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment and i'll work with the committee, we'll finalize better language to get this done. the chair: without objection. he amendment is withdrawn.

who seeks time? for what purpose does the gentlelady from tennessee rise? >> i move to strike the last word and enter into a colloquy with the chairman. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. mrs. blackburn: thank you, mr. chairman. when congress was created, when it cree aed the transportation security administration in 2001, we defined t.s.a. screeners in law as federal security screeners. their role, as defined by the aviation and transportation security act, is to screen passengers and luggage at airports across the country. however, beginning in 2005, t.s.a. administratively reclassified t.s.a. security screeners as transportation security officers and proceeded to upgrade their union forls to reflect those of federal law enforcement officers with metal officer badges.

my concern and those of many of my constituents is that despite their appearance, t.s.a. officers do not have any federal law enforcement training to reflect their current title and appearance. this can be confusing to the traveling public as they interact with t.s.a. officers at airports and now on the highways, rail stations, ferry terminals, bus stations and other mass transit facilities across the country. i strongly believe that congress has an obligation to ensure that the title and appearance of federal employees properly reflects their training and background. until we are able to pass a legislative fix to correct the t.s.a.'s administrative decision, we need to use the power of the purse to ensure that t.s.a. screeners are not abusing the current perception that they are trained federal law enforcement officers. i would like to commend

chairman carter and committee staff for their due diligence and dedication in working with my office to address this issue. i am pleased that we were able to reduce screener uniforms by $18 million a 20% decrease, that we can continue to monitor this issue. i look forward to continuing to work with chairman carter and his staff moving forward on finding a permanent solution. i yield back. mr. carter: i move to trike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. carter: i want to thank the gentlelady for yielding and i that this oncern implication that these are law enforcement officers is a concern that anyone has ever dealt with law enforcement officers should be worried about. i thank her for working with us and explaining to us her

concerns. i don't want anyone to be out there fooling the public thinking -- into thinking they are trained law enforcement officers when they are not. so i think that's an important thing at every level of law enforcement. representative blackburn brought this to my attention. she brought it to the attention of the committee last year. we appreciate her staying on top of these issues. in fact, i asked the staff to look in this matter earlier this year. as a result, this bill cuts, as she described, the uniforms by $18 million, about a 0% decrease. in fact, this bill -- about a 20% decrease. this bill calls for $387.5 million to t.s.a. or 8% below the 2013 enacted levels. finally, the committee has directed t.s.a. to provide a report describing a detail of how t.s.a. is complying with

the buy america act and provoid congress with a total number of uniforms -- provide congress with a total number of uniforms and things purchases in 2012 and 2013. moving forward, we'll continue to work with the gentlewoman from tennessee to ensure t.s.a. screeners are not abusing the perception that they are officers of the law and we credit her for shedding light on this issue. i thank her for bringing it to the attention of the committee. i'm willing to work with the gentlewoman in any way she chooses. mrs. blackburn: i thank the chairman and i yield back. mr. carter: i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. who seeks time? the clerk will read. the clerk: page 18, line 23. surface transportation security, $108,618,000 to remain available until september 30, 2015. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise in mr. carter: mr. chairman, i ask unanimous consent that the bill -- that the remainder of the

bill through page 35, line 10, be considered as read, printed in the record and open to amendment at any point. the chair: is there objection to the unanimous consent request? without objection. are there any amendments for the section. hearing none, the clerk will read. the clerk: office of affairs, federal emergency management alaries and expenses $914, 795,000. the chair: for what purpose to read. ntinue the clerk: local programs, $1,500,000,000. the chair: for what purpose does the gentlelady from california rise? the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: an amendment offered by ms. brownley of california. line 7 and 10 after each dollar amount insert reduced by

$97,500,000, increase by $97,500,000. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for five mins. ms. brownley: thank you, mr. chair. i rise to offer an amendment to the homeland security appropriations bill that will provide $97.5 million for the port security grant program. i offer this amendment in conjunction with my colleague and friend, the gentlewoman also from california. i represent a port, a critical west coast in california in ventura county. the presence of the naval base makes the port a potential target of those who seek to do our nation harm. i believe we must do more to protect the port and other orts across this great nation. the port security grant program

is part of our strategy to protect our nation's critical infrastructure against risks associated with potential terrorist attacks. the vast majority of critical u.s. maritime infrastructure is owned and/or operated by state, local and private sector marinetime -- maritime industry partners which is why this state and local grant program is so critical. the funds that the program makes available to nonfederal entities are intended to improve portwide maritime security risk management, enhance awareness, support training and exercises and support port recovery capabilities. grant recipients must use funds to address vulnerabilities in port security and support the prevention, detection, response and recovery from attacks

involving grow adviced exexplosivive devices and other nonconventional weapons. my amendment simply ensures that the port security grant program will be funded at $97.5 million, which is at the same level as the previous fiscal year. this program is a critical homeland security initiative for port hueneme in ventura county, i ask my colleagues to support my amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. for what purpose does the gentlelady from california rise? >> thank you, mr. chairman, i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. ms. hahn: i rise to urge support for this amendment that i'm co-sponsoring with my good friend from california, congresswoman brownlee. this straightforward and simple amendment will keep the port security grant program funded

at last year's levels and ensure it's protected from further cuts. u.s. ports remain one of our country's most important economic engines. as they link our nation to the rest of the world and the global economy. each day our ports move both imports and exports totaling some $3.8 billion worth of goods through all 50 of our states. and according to the american association of port authorities, the u.s. port industry supports 13.3 million jobs and accounts for more than $649 billion in personal income. that's why i co-founded the bipartisan congressional ports caucus with my good friend, ted poe from texas, in order to ensure that congress recognizes the vital role ports play in our national economy and the importance of keeping them competitive and most importantly secure. despite their growing

importance, ports have failed to garner the attention and the resources that they deserve. during my very first homeland security hearing, i asked lee hamilton, the vice chairman of the 9/11 commission, what should congress be doing to improve security at our nation's ports? he responded by saying, my judgment would be that we have not focused enough on our ports. for instance, despite a peak funding level of $400 million as recently as 2009, congress has decreased funding for the port security grant program nearly every year since. this is despite the fact that ports remain extremely vulnerable to attacks. according to the congressional search service, a 10 to 20 kiloton weapon detonated in a major sea port would kill 50,000 to one million people and would result in direct property damage to $50 billion to $500 billion and indirect costs to $300 billion to $1.2

trillion due to trade disruption. and while an attack of this magnitude may seem unlikely to many americans, experts agree that a major attack at one of our nation's ports is more likely than ever before. just last week in a discussion regarding the likelihood of a nuclear attack at a major sea port, former d.h.s. undersecretary jay cohen stated that it's not a question of if it's going to happen but rather a question of where, when and to what magnitude. as someone who can see the port of los angeles from my back yard, this statement provides a sobering reminder that we must be doing anything and everything we can to guard against this threat. the port complex of l.a.-long beach is responsible for approximately 44% of all the trade that comes into this country. if an attack were to ever occur there, it would be economically debilitating, not only for my district, but for the entire country as well.

this amendment will ensure the port security grant program maintains last year's funding and will protect the program from any further budget cuts. by appropriately funding this program, we'll allow our port operators to continue to increase our capability to prevent, detect, respond to and recover from chemical, biological, nuclear and other nonconventional attacks. and while ideally i would like to see this program returned to its previous authorized level of $400 million, ensuring this critical program is protected against further cuts, it's one of utmost importance at this time. therefore, i urge my colleagues to support this incredibly important amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. carter: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. carter: mr. chairman, while i have concerns with carving

out funding amounts for specific grants, i will accept the amendment. i was born and raised in houston, texas, had something to happen to me many, many years ago as a lawyer at the port of houston. i was told by the coast guard every day -- this is back in 1968 -- every day two ships pass each other in the port of houston and should those ships collide, just the mixing of those two cargoast would explode and kill every man, woman and child on the texas gulf coast all the way to corpus christi. that's without a nuclear weapon. we have the largest petro chemical port in the united states. i, too, am concerned about our ports and i am very, very concerned that they could be a target of attack that could cause great damage, both in structures and in human life. so i join my colleagues from california, and i'll accept this amendment.

the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina rise? mr. price: mr. chairman, i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. price: mr. chairman, i, too, rise in support of the amendment which would simply requiring a funding floor for the port security grant program at the current level. i very much appreciate the gentlewoman's intent with this amendment. our sea ports are critically important to our nation's economy and therefore have been a primary focus of our security and preparedness efforts. because our bill does not currently allocate state and local funding among the major homeland security grant programs, i do have concerns with carving out funding for one specific program. but the funding level which our colleague has proposed is equal to the amount allocated to ports in 2013 and that we anticipate would be available at 2014. therefore, i support the gentlewoman's amendment and urge its adoption and i yield

back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. 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 ayes have it. the ayes have it. he amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. swalwell of california. page 37, line 7, after the dollar amount insert reduced by $97,500,000, increased by $97,500,000. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. swalwell: thank you, mr. chairman. if we learned anything about the boston marathon bombings, threats motivated by outside forces with great access now from readily accessible materials they can get from the internet and can become

radicalized from the internet and attack us here at home with i.e.d. devices. i rise in support of my amendment which would require $97.5 million provided to the federal emergency management agency for state and local government homeland security grants would be used for mass transit security programs. these programs are listed on 1-e on page 38 of the bill and the main fema and department of homeland security mass transit security effort is their transit security grant program. i want to start by thanking homeland security appropriations subcommittee chairman carter and ranking member price for the increase in funding for the account that funds local grant programs for security and terrorism readiness. i organized a letter signed by 39 other members of congress asking for funding that is sufficiently robust for tsgp to be able to meet our needs for mass transit security. chairman carter and ranking

member price listened to our question and more money will be available for this critical security program. now while the fema state and local grant account funds a variety of homeland security initiatives, my amendment addresses the critical, if often overlooked element of mass transit security. mass transit, which mostly includes bus and rail, is used by millions of americans every year. in fact, according to the american public transportation association, there are over 10.5 billion passenger trips in 2012 alone. that amounts to over 28 million rips per day. we're fortunate in the east bay of california, which i represent, to have a bus system and the bay area rapid transit system, bart. there were over 4,000 bart trip this is last prip. watch the things that makes

mass transit so great, it can rry so many people through areas at a time, makes it vubble initial to attack. the g.a.o. summarized the following, according to transit officials and transit experts, some features of our transit systems makes them inherently vulnerable to terrorist attack and therefore difficult to secure. high ridership, expensive infrastructure, economic importance and location in large metropolitan areas or tourist destinations make them attractive targets for terrorists because of the potential for mass casualties and economic damage. two months ago in april, a plot to target trains in canada was disrupted before anybody was hurt and of course everyone remembers the horrible london attacks from 2005 and the madrid transit attacks in 2004.

no american in any part of our country on any of our mass transit systems should live in fear of a mazz transit attack. damaging mass transit in our key urban centers wouldn't only harm that particular area but ripple through our nation's economy. transit scommurt, mr. chairman, means economic security. everyone has an interest in protecting our public transit tsgp s and that's where comes in local mass transit systems protect from terrorist events. example uses include surveillance training, public awareness campaigns, detection equipment, security cameras and hardening of infrastructure. the continuing resolution for fiscal year 2013 provides a oor of $97.5 million, before sequestration of which $10 million was reserve thrd amtrak. my amendment would use the same numbers and that would amount to an increase for fiscal year

2014 over fiscal year 2013. to provide such broad discretion for the department of homeland security is important, however, i also understand the argument that the homeland security secretary should be able to distribute money based on risk and harm. some members may feel we shouldn't set minimum amounts to spend out of this account. to provide such discretion is important but it is our constitutional authority to provide clear direction on how certain money is spent and it risks certain functions being ignored. also it's a competitive grant program so money would only be distributed based on risk potential. a compromise was developed last year with the senate including if transit security. i hope the same thing happens again. my amendment gives the house the opportunity to state now,

on the record, that we value mass transit. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. carter: strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. carter: i rise in support of theament, i have the same concerns as my colleague, mr. price, about carving out ams in grants but i will accept this amendment. the chair: the gentleman accept this is -- gentleman yield back. for what purpose does the gentleman rise? mr. price: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. price: i rise in support of this amendment which would require a funding floor public assistance and railroad security assistance at the current level, appreciate the gentleman's intent with this amendment. this public transportation infrastructure is absolutely critical to the function of our economy. therefore it is and must be a primary focus of our security and preparedness efforts.

the same reservation applies to this amendment as to the previous amendment, we do not currently allocate state and local program funding among the major homeland security programs. so we have some concerns with carving out funding for programs but the funding level proposed here is equal to the amount allocated to transit in 2013 and that we anticipate would be available in 2014. therefore i support the -- support the swrelt's amendment and urge its adoption and yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. clerk will read. the clerk: page 40, line 20, firefighter assistance grants, $675 million to remain trable

until september 30, 2015. the chair: clerk will suspend. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings will resume on amendments previously postponed in the following order. amendment by mr. polis of colorado, amendment by mr. hecht of nevada, amendment by mr. deutch of florida. the chair will reduce to two mins the time for any electronic votes after the first vote in this series. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote offered by the gentlewoman from wisconsin, ms. moore, on which further proceed wrgs postponed 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 record vote has been requested. those in forth of -- support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be downed. a sufficient number having risen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be 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.]