the chair: on this vote, its yeas are 167, the noes are 257. he amendment is not agreed to. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from colorado, mr. polis, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. polis of colorado. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device.

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

the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 180 and the noes are 244. he amendment is not --

the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 180, the nays are 245. the amendment is not agreed to. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on an amendment offered by the gentleman from nevada, mr. heck,

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

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 156. the noes are 268. he amendment is not agreed to. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from florida, mr. garcia, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. garcia of florida. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the .s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 186. the noes are 236. he amendment is not agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee seek recognition? >> i move that the committee do ow rise. the chair: the gentleman from tennessee is recognized. does the gentleman have a motion? >> i move that the committee do now rise. the chair: the question is on that the committee rise. all those in favor say aye. all those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly, the committee rises.

the chair: mr. speaker, the committee of the whole house on the state of the union having -- nder consideration the speaker: the chair of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports that the committee has had under consideration h.r. 2217 and has come to no resolution thereon. the chair lays before the house a communication. the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, sir, i have the honor to transmit here with a scanned copy received from all-y allen, director of elections and information technology, missouri, secretary of state's office, indicating that according to the unofficial returns of the special election held june 4, 2013, the honorable jason smith was elected representative to congress for the eighth congressional district, state

of missouri. with best wishes signed sincerely, karen l. haas, clerk. the speaker: the house will be in order. members will please take their seats. for what purpose does the gentleman from missouri rise? mr. clay: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from missouri, the honorable jason smith, be permitted to take the oath of office today. his certificate of election has not arrived, but there's no contest and no question has been raised with regard to his election. the speaker: without objection, so ordered. will representative-elect smith and the missouri delegation please present themselves in

the well of the house? and will all members please ise? and will representative-elect smith please raise his right hand? do you solemnly support and swear that you will support and defend the constitution of the united states, foreign and domestic, that you'll bear allegiance to the same, that you take this freely without mental reservation and you will well and faithfully discharge the duties on the office for which you are will to enter so help you god? congratulations. you are now a member of the 13th congress.

without objection, the gentleman from missouri is recognized for one minute. mr. clay: thank you, mr. speaker. as the co-dean of missouri's u.s. house delegation, i want to congratulate and extend a warm welcome to my newest colleague, congressman jason smith. mr. smith is an attorney, fourth generation farmer from southeast missouri, and he has distinguished himself as one of the youngest speaker pro tempores in the history of the missouri house. he follows in the footsteps of my dear friend, former congresswoman joan emerson, who represented -- jo ann emerson, who represented missouri's eighth congressional district for 17 years and i now we can ann, and i know mr.

smith will continue her legacy of public service. and now i am pleased to yield to my good friend and colleague , mr. graves. mr. graves: thank you, mr. speaker. i want to also welcome mr. smith to the u.s. house of representatives. he's a fourth generation farmer but seventh generation missourian and he's been living on the same farm that his great grandfather once lived in. he graduated from my alma mater, university of missouri, and has been involved in agriculture and practicing law and as a farmer -- i don't think we can have enough farmers in this body. mr. speaker, missouri is known as the show me state. and last night jason smith won special election with over 67% of the vote. i think that shows that he's truly the representative of the eighth district of the state of missouri. it gives me a great deal of pleasure to yield the rest of our time to the gentleman from

the eighth district of missouri, jason smith. jason. mr. smith: thank you very much. first, i'd like to thank congressman clay and also congressman graves for your kind remarks and also the missouri delegation. thanks for being here and it's great to have that support right behind you. you know, less than 18 hours ago i was standing before friends and family in my small town of salem, missouri, and just got elected. we hit the ground running and wanted to make sure that we didn't waste any time to get up here. so all i can say is that i truly look forward to working with every member of this body. there's 435 of us. my goal is to get to know each and every one of you and help move the country forward one step at a time. i know that we're not going to

agree on everything, but you know what, we need to find those places that we do agree on the issues and then come together and work for the better. and i think that we can do that, and i look forward to working with the entire chamber, and it's truly and honor and pleasure to represent the fine folks in south east and south central -- southeast and south central missouri, following in the footsteps of jo ann emerson and thank you and i look forward to working with you. the speaker: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. under clause 5-d rule 20, the chair announces to the house in light of the administration to the gentleman from missouri, the whole number of the house is now 435.

pursuant to house resolution 243 and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the further . nsideration of h.r. 2217 will the the gentlewoman from kindly ms. laint, ms. ros-lehtinen kindly resume the chair. the chair: further consideration of h.r. 2217, which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill making appropriations for the department of homeland security for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2014, and for other purposes. the chair: when the committee of the whole rose earlier today, an amendment offered by the gentleman from california, has

been disposed of and the bill had been read through page 41, line 2. the unfinished business is request for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from florida, mr. deutch, on which further proceedings were postponed, and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. deutch of florida. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 8, this will be a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of

epresentatives.]

the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 190, the nays are 232. the amendment is not agreed to.

the chair: the committee will be in order. for what purpose does the gentlelady from illinois seek recognition? >> strike the last word. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. ms. duckworth: madam speaker, a few days ago, in a new report by

the department of homeland security inspector general made recommendations could save taxpayers -- the chair: the house is not in order. the gentlelady will suspend. the gentleman is correct, the committee is not in order. the gentlelady's recognized. ms. duckworth: a few days ago, a new report by the department of homeland security inspector general made recommendations that could save taxpayers $126 million in improved border security. the department of homeland security used helicopters operated by the coast guard and customs and border protection agency for mission support primarily for law enforcement and search and rescue missions. these aircraft are being converted to add 15 years of additional operational life. the report found that while the coast guard properly managed its

conversion program, a similar conversion program at customs and border protection led to significant cost overruns and delays that could ground as many as nine of the helicopters beginning in 2014. the i.g. made what i think is a very good recommendation. have the center conduct the remaining h-60 conversions. according to the i.g., the coast guard could convert the helicopters faster and at a lower price tag. this could issue save department of homeland security about $1626 million and speed up the time the aircraft could be operational and patroling our border by seven years. rather than implementing this commonsense taxpayer savings, the department of homeland security is choosing instead to conduct a cost benefit analysis.

i think this -- >> the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the -- the chair:, the gentleman is correct, the house is not in order. the gentlelady deserves to be heard. the gentlelady's recognized. ms. duckworth: i think this delay is unnecessary at a time when department of homeland security law enforcement personnel are facing furloughs, this is a missed opportunity to save precious funds and meet the itical coal of improving our border security. i yield to the chairman. mr. dent: as ranking member price can attest, the committee has a long bipartisan history supporting robust funding for the h-60 conversions and the h-60 an recap two helicopters.

'm a pro -- proponent of not paying top dollar. i would like to look into this before drawing any particular conclusions. >> would the gentleman yield? ms. duckworth: i yield to the ranking member. mr. price: i express my agreement with what mr. dent just said. these aircraft are vital for border patrol and air and marine personnel. if there are is a cheaper way to convert, i'm in favor. i yield back. mr. dent: again, i thank the gentlelady for raising this issue. clearly she has some personal experience flying these aircraft and i'm grateful for her service. and i yield back. ms. duckworth: i thank the chairman and ranking member for your attention to this matter and i hope we can work together to ensure that management of

this program is improved. i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields ack the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina seek recognition? >> strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> mr. butterfield: i thank the chairman and ranking member. i watched the two of you and you work so well and i thank you so very much. over the years i have led an effort here in the house to recognize a group of americans who served our country during world war ii and they are the merchant marines and they have not been properly recognizeded for their service and i'm very sad about that. we are running out of time to recognize the few remaining americans who served as merchant marines when our country needed them the most during world war

ii. without weapons or formal training, many risked their lives and too many gave their lives in defense of our great nation during the second world war. for those who are still living, we must not let their efforts go unrecognized while we still have a chance. the recent passing of senator lautenberg earlier this week, the last remaining world war ii veteran in the senate is a strong reminder that our time is running to recognize those who are lesser known but still contributed significantly to the world war ii effort. few have given more to this country than senator lautenberg and i pray his family has peace in the weeks and months to come. he will be missed. it is fair to recognize merchant marines, i re-introduced h.r. 1288, the w.w. ii mariner service act. i have been joined by 81 of my colleagues from both sides of

the aisle in support of this bill and i encourage all of my colleagues to co-sponsor this bill. it would award veteran status and limited benefits to the world war ii merchant marine. they operated tugboats and barges in the territorial seas of the united states transporting raw materials, weapons and troops to sustain the war effort. though most of these individuals operated domestically, their duties were not without risk. a tugboat was sunk by a german -boat on march 31, 1942, causing deaths 16 of the 18 mariners. i acknowledge that a point of order would be raised if i was to offer this legislation as an amendment today. however, the legislation before us does address funding that is utilized in support of our coast guard and merchant marines and i couldn't forego the funt to

address to rightly recognize the individuals of these individuals before it's too late. i thank you for allowing me to speak on this very important issue and i encourage my colleagues to join me in h.r. 1288 so these remaining americans can gain the recognition they deserve. i thank you and yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina seek recognition? the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. . . . >> they do not pay enough attention to the likelihood that adversaries use could quickly turn to an attack or electromagnetic pulse. this nation's electrical grid is vulnerable and could be

crippled by such attack. mr. hudson: it would quickly move beyond the electrogrid. other systems could collapse leaving failure to other critical infrastructures such as communications, transportation, banking and finance as well as the transportation of food and water. as i traveled around my district, i heard from several constituents and experts to see this threat is ever present. while technology's made society more efficient, it's also made us more vulnerable by permeating every aspect of our culture. the assessment that the u.s. is vulnerable to an e.m.t. attack is based on the work of the commission that analyzed this threat for nearly a decade from 2001 to 2008. the posturing commission and several other u.s. government studies arrived to similar conclusions and represent a scientific and strategic p. ensus that nuke e.m. ttack important.

i hope they will continue to engage with academic institutions and private organizations to find better cost-effective solutions to protecting our nation's critical infrastructure and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? the gentleman is recognized for ive minutes. mr. pascrell: madam speaker, i move to strike the last word. i rise to express my support for the nonprofit security grant program. the nonprofit security program administered by the federal emergency management agency provides critical support to nonprofit organizations at high risk of terrorist attack. this is not a theoretical threat. this is a real threat. a string of anti-smetic hate crimes took place just --

anti-semitic hate crimes took place in new jersey. i represent. these heinous attacks culminated in arson. the residents, the rabbi, his wife and five children and his father, thankfully the rabbi and his family escaped serious injury in attack and local authorities arrested the suspects and in the process of bringing them to justice. other things have showed the continuing need for these grants as well. , st year a gunman wounded six killed four at a sheik temple in oak creek, wisconsin. a security guard was tragically killed several years ago at the holocaust museum here in -- ngton by a holocaust white spremmist. crimes are not being investigated by white

spremmists in this country, just as an aside thought. these are just a handful of the examples showing the vulnerability of nonprofit organizations to attack. the nonprofit security grant program was designed precisely to allow at-risk, nonprofit organizations such as houses of worship, community centers to protect themselves from these types of tragedies by acquiring and installing equipment to secure against potential attacks. these capital improvements include upgrading security measures such as installing alarms, barriers, cameras or controlled entry systems. in fiscal year 2011, the year during which the terrible took plakes inburgon county, the nonprofit security grant program was allocated $19 million. but for the past few years it has been reduced by nearly half to nearly $10 million.

despite the ongoing need for this assistance. if we can't protect our houses of worship, what can we protect? the program is funded out of the department of homeland security's state and local programs account and allows the secretary discretion to allocate this funding as she sees fit or he sees fit, whoever's there. i call upon the secretary to allocate at least $15 million to the nonprofit security grant program as a step towards restoring adequate funding to this vital program. although i hope that we can bring this funding back to 2011 level and beyond $15 million should be the baseline level of funding these vital programs. i also believe that the nonprofit security grant program should receive its own dedicated funding. rather than competing with other important initiatives for a small share of the department state and local program's dollars. i urge my colleagues to support

the nonprofit security grant program in order to ensure that these nonprofit organizations which serve as the heart of our communities receive the protection they need. madam speaker, let me just add one other thing and that is it reduces a tremendous amount of anxiety at these houses of worship -- and i mentioned a few religions here now and i can cite others -- reduces the anxiety of being safe where you sleep or where you worship. we had the right idea. this was a bipartisan idea in 2010, 2011 and even before that. why can't we do the right thing? it's not that much money. it will help a lot of institutions to protect themselves, especially when you put in a camera or the other things i mentioned. it makes people feel a lot more relaxed and it reduces anxiety. i hope we can do this. i know, madam speaker, and i'm sorry if i'm -- madam speaker, you understand this program very, very well. i would solicit your support

for this and i think it's very important because it's going to stop terrorism in this form. i mean, this gentleman was sleeping with his family, rabbi, and the bomb came into the window, was thrown out the second floor, exploded. i mean, can you imagine the trauma for those children? i apologize for directing my attention to you because you know about these things and i'm asking you to be helpful to me. thank you, madam speaker. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. who seeks recognition? the gentleman will suspend. the clerk will -- the clerk will read and we will get to the point -- the clerk: page 41, line 3, emergency management performance grants. $350 million. radiological emergency

preparedness program, aggregate charges shall not be less than 100% of the amounts anticipated by the department for its radiological emergency preparedness program in the next fiscal year. >> madam chair. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent that the -- mr. dent: that the remainder of the bill through page 52, line 19, be considered as read, printed in the record and open to amendment at any point. the chair: is there an objection to the gentleman's request? without objection, so ordered. are there any amendments to that section? for what purpose does the gentleman seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will read. e clerk: page 52, line 20, acquisitions, construction improvements and related expenses $30,885,000 to remain

available until september 30, 2018. science and technology, management and administration, $129 million. research, development acquisition and operations, $1,096,488,000. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? >> madam speaker, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. bishop of new york. page 54, line 3, after the dollar amount insert reduced by $404 million. page 54, line 9, after the dollar amount insert reduced by $404 million. page 93, line 9, after the dollar amount insert increased by $404 million. the chair: the gentleman from new york is recognized for five minutes. mr. bishop: thank you, madam speaker. my amendment is very simple. it strikes the $404 million included for the national

bioand agro defense facility planned for manhattan, kansas, and uses those funds to reduce the deficit. i continue to voice two vitally nbadf. t concerns for studying the most harmful diseases known in the heart of cattle country and in the area that is in the area of frequent crime of tornadoes is a risk for an $80 billion industry and when the safety of that lab is still in question. while supporters of the project will talk about the safety, this is not supported by the two risk evaluations conducted by the national academy of sciences research arm, the national research council. these risk evaluation studies sites specific assessments conducted by the department of homeland security. in its review of d.h.s.'s first study, the n.r.c. found that the risk of foot and mouth

disease released in the nation's heartland was 70% over a 50-year period. furthermore, the cost of a release of foot and mouth disease is estimated between $9 billion and $50 billion. in june, 2012, the n.r.c. found that the department's second risk assessment relied on, quote, questionable and inappropriate assumptions, closed quote, in calculating risk to determine that nbaf posed near nonexistent safety risks to surrounding areas. the same report could not verify d.h.s.'s results due to the, quote, methods and data being unevenly and poorly examined, closed quote. if the own safety assessment throws into question the safety of this new facility, how can we be certain that a $1 billion project could not pose significant security threats to americans living nearby? the n.r.c. findings are not a resounding endorsement by any

stretch. in addition to these significant safety concerns, nbaf's costs is alarming. initially, $451 million was budged for its construction. today's price tag is a staggering $1 billion. it can hardly be considered fiscally responsible to spend more than double the initial amount to build a massive research facility only to duplicate research activities currently performed by other existing facilities. more cost-effective solutions must be considered to meet the agro defense search needs including the expansion of existing facilities around the country. alternative options to nbaf do exist. a july, 2012, n.r.c. study looked at three separate futures for the nation's biosecurity needs and clearly demonstrates that even without nbaf as currently designed, those needs can be adequately filled by existing facilities. specifically, one option includes continuing the exemplary work already being conducted it at the animal

disease center while leveraging out the four facilities to other existing facilities. this option would represent a significant savings while ensuring the current research needs are met. the n.r.c. study's reaffirms my concerns as well as concerns of many in the agriculture communities that the unknowns are too many, the risks are too great, the price tag too high to justify going forward with this -- with this construction at this time. let me close with this. this nbaf project is a boondoggle. we don't even have a shovel in the ground yet and already the cost has gone up by 250%. it is not needed. a very reputable organization, that is to say the n.r.c., has asserted a perfectly reasonable and vastly less expensive alternative exists and we have scores and scores of infrastructure needs, much, much more urgent that we are not addressing. i urge my colleagues to vote yes on this amendment, support my amendment, reduce our deficit by $404 million. i yield back the balance of my

time. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek time in recognition? mr. dent: i seek time in opposition. i rise in opposition to this amendment and sympathetic to the gentleman and doing his best, but this amendment would cut funding for the national bioand agro defense in manhattan, kansas, research center by $404 million and increasing research and development by an equivalent amount. this has cut this to $714 million. the amount provided in the bill, 404 million is the amount needed in order to obtain the kansas cost share. i believe kansas is prepared to offer $202 million in support of this project. while i understand the

gentleman's local district concern and this amendment is shortsided. the horse is already out of the barn, so to speak. we have an mediate need to buildup our capacity for research. the under secretary of d.h.s. science and technology herself has testified the threat of biological attack to our large and vulnerable food chain is a top priority. she has confirmed that nbaf is required to meet this threat. and also testified that plum island, which is in the gentleman's district cannot meet this need, yet this amendment would freeze this effort. this needs to address a serious known risk and i urge opposition to the amendment. we need to get this facility up and running in kansas and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the

gentleman from north carolina seek recognition? >> i move to strike the last word. mr. price: madam chairman, i rise in opposition to the amount amendment offered by my friend from new york, to eliminate agricultural funding. i supported a similar amendment offered by the gentleman last year, but the circumstances i believe have changed decisively. last year the administration did not request funding for nbaf for fiscal 2013. we were waiting on the results of a national academy of sciences for review of options of the animal disease research needs and on the results of a separate national academy review of the department's updated risk assessment for nbaf. last june the national academy released a report. concluding that the department

has made substantial improvements compared to the first risk assessment and that the so-called 65% design phase plans for the facility itself appear to be sound and in conformance with international standards. further, last july, a separate national academy of sciences report made clear that the existing animal disease research facility on plum island is not an option for meeting the nation's needs and new facility with a laboratory is required. this is the capability that the new nbaf facility will provide. now the two studies make clear that critical work must continue. notably, the national academy of science review determined that the department underestimated some types of risks while overestimating others. the department dispute some of these assessments. even acknowledging that d.h.s.

must continue to improve its methodology and response planning before the nbaf facility becomes operational, we shouldn't wait any longer to begin constructing the facility, which we know is securely and safely designed. the more we wait, the more costly its construction will be and costly to maintain the plum island facility. we also must consider the cost of delaying the availability of a biosafety level-4 facility which the d.h.s. and other stakeholders are fully quipsed we need. so i believe the funding provided in the appropriations bill is timely and needed, and i urge members to oppose the amendment and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose the gentlelady from kansas seek recognition? >> move to strike the last word.

ms. jenkins: the department of homeland security chose manhattan, kansas as the site for the new bio-a gmp ro defense facility and this will be the only such facility capable of researching large animals in the united states. the construction of this cutting-edge facility must move forward quickly so we can create critical research to develop vaccines and countermeasures to protect the public and lifestock from the threat of devastating diseases. not only will it accelerate america's ability to protect ourselves, the food supply and agriculture community, it will be the world's research facility and solid file our nation's place as the international leader in international health. it is needed to replace the plum

island disease center. this lab was built in the 1950's and reached the end of its life. the facility does not contain the biosafety level to meet the requirements and it never will. any attempt to upgrade plum island would cost more than building the nbaf. currently we don't have the ability to research the effects of disease on large animals such as foot and mouth disease at any facility in the united states nor can we rely on international partners for our own security needs. the nbaf project has a history of broad-based support. d.h.s. both under bush and obama administrations and house appropriations committee under democrat and republican leadership have made it clear that the country needs the nbaf and it is in manhattan, kansas.

it includes $714 million which would complete construction. and while i prefer that this bill include that figure, chairman carter has responsibly included sufficient funding. construction on this facility has already begun and congress has already appropriated $127 million and the state of kansas and city of manhattan have committed $212 million. these dollars show a strong commit hit. our nation's food supply cannot delay another -- sustain another delay. we need to protect our food and family from danger. we need to stay on the cutting edge of this research field. our security is at risk and delaying this project any further is not an option. we need nbaf. and i urge my colleagues to vote against this destructive amendment. and i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields

back. for what purpose does the gentleman from kansas seek recognition? mr. huelskamp: move to strike the last word. i appreciate the opportunity to speak on the topic of nbaf and as has been mentioned by my colleague from kansas, currently, currently in the united states, there is not a single research facility that is able to conduct research at the biosafety level number 4. nbaf facility being discussed here today and would be funded in this particular bill will provide critical research in areas again that are not able to be researched currently, such as african swine fever. i repeat we currently as a country, without this facility, are required to outsource this

particular research to other countries. as a kansas farmer and rancher, i recognize the critical damage that would be done to our livestock industries if we do not proceed forward with the construction of nbaf. shovels are being turned in manhattan, kansas today. the central utility plant relate todd this, construction is proceeding. the state of kansas has agreed to pay a substantial sum to assist with the cost of construction of this facility. and as was indicated earlier, the current facility that has served over 50 years is aging in plum island and needs to be replaced. the manhattan, kansas that has been selected, experts agreed that this is the best place to build nbaf and provide the critical research that is necessary not just to protect the outbreak of foreign animal

diseases that might be accidental, but to protect america and our livestock industries from mass destruction, from terrorism and numerous other attacks that could use these particular foreign animal diseases. one other connection i will note, these are diseases that in many cases not only impact the livestock industry, it can impact humans. this research needs date of birth to be done and needs to be conducted. and 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 york. 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. bishop: may i request a roll call vote. the chair: the gentleman requests a vote. pursuant to clause 6, rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new york will be

postponed. who seeks recognition? the clerk will read. the clerk: page 54, line 12, office of management and $37,353,000. research development and to tions $211,210,000 remain available until september 30, 2015. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? mr. dent: i ask unanimous consent that the bill through page 71, line 14 be considered as read printed in the record and opened to amendment at any point. the chair: is there objection to the gentleman's request? without objection, so ordered. are there any amendments to that section? the clerk will read. the clerk: page 71, line 15,

section 530, 30 days after the date on which the president determines to declare a major disaster, the administrator shall publish on the web site a report regarding that decision. section 531. any official that is required to report to the committee may not delegate such authority unless specifically authorized. of ion 532, section 550 b the department of homeland security is further amended by striking on october 4, 2013, an inserting on october 4, 2014. section 533, none of the funds appropriated -- the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. moran of virginia and section 533, amend paragraph 2 to read as follows. two, as transferred to the united states naval station, guantanamo bay, cuba, by the

department of defense after december 31, 2005. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? mr. dent: i reserve a point of order on the gentleman. the chair: a point of order is reserved. the gentleman from virginia is recognized for five minutes. mr. moran: thank you, madam chairwoman. section 533 would pribt any funds being used for the transfer, release or assistance in the transferor release of any guantanamo guantanamo detainee housed in cuba on or after june of 2009. my amendment would change that date december 31, 2005. now in 2006, people who were truly the worst of the worst, those detainees were housed in c.i.a. black sites, were transferred to guantanamo.

ow prior to 2006, guantanamo was populated with detainees who are simply not as deserving of indefinite detention as this latter group, in my view, is. 86% of the people of the first roup, prior to 2005 were arrested in exchange for a bounty. the vast majority never committed an act of violence against the united states or any of its allies. 5% may have been affiliated with al qaeda. . . now, it seems to me that it's time that we clarify the definition of who was at

guantanamo. i listen very closely to my good friends -- i listened very closely to my good friends yesterday, include building wolf, who sighted a sheik in defining who was at guantanamo. the sheik is one of those worst of the worst. i don't care what you do to him. as far as i'm concerned, from everything i know, he deserves whatever happens to him. but we're not talking about him if this amendment were to pass. we're talking about people who were brought there initially, more than half were already released, of the 779, by the bush administration. 86 more have been already cleared for release. now, madam chairwoman, the fact is we're spending $150 million . year to house these folks

about 150 of them are people that were brought there before 2005. and we've authorized up to half a billion dollars to be spent to further modernize the facilities so that we can keep them indefinitely. it's expensive. we're spending $1 million per detainee now and then we would be talking, if we spent that $500 million more, for indefinite detention. and the problem with that, in addition to the money, is the national security issue. because guantanamo is a recruiting tool and a rallying cry for the enemy. not the only thing they cite, but invariably it's one of the principle things they cite. and why the united states is not the country that it truly

is. they suggest that we are not good to our word, that we don't believe in the very principles of our injures prudence system. that people are innocent until they've been proven guilty. that they ought to be charged with crimes. that we don't believe in indefinite detention. that's what other countries do. we don't do that. we give people a fair trial. but the reason we have guantanamo is that this was set up to be above the law. it's extrajudicial. the rules don't apply. and the rest of the world looks at this and it undermines our credibility and our security as a nation. that, madam chairwoman, is exactly why we should distinguish. the worst of the worst, keep them there. keep them in some kind of isolated structure, but you sure don't have to spend half a billion dollars for 12 to 15

people. but those other 150, of whom many of them are now on a hunger strike, the majority are on a hunger strike, because they believe there's no hope. there's nothing to live for. they're going to be there forever. and in fact more than 30 of them, 37 to be exact, are being forcibly tube-fed. this was in another nation, we'd be on the floor. that's why this amendment should pass, madam chairwoman. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> i rise to withdraw my point of order and rise in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. the reservation is withdrawn and the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, madam chair. i rise in opposition to the amendment simply because i don't know that the impact of security -- on security of this amendment. who would be released.

where would these prisoners be relocated? and where would they be released to? to yemen? to the united states? i simply don't know by reading this amendment. mr. dent: it's clear that if these individuals were released to yemen they would not lies likely remain in custody for long and they'd most likely rejoin the fight. ality the outset of the president's first term, an executive order declared the intention to close guantanamo bay and bring the detainees to the united states. that proposal was rejected by this congress and prohibitions on transferring detainees to the u.s. were enacted by overwhelming bipartisan majorities. as mr. wolf just discussed yesterday during consideration of the milcon bill, this amendment could result in very dangerous outcomes. 779 people were detained in the first few years and at this time it is unknown how many could potentially be released as an effect of this amendment. as you know, several men who have been released from guantanamo have gone back into the bat amfield and killed americans -- into the

battlefield and killed americans. we also know that having these dangerous individuals in the united states dramatically impacts the facilities and localities where they're located. you must remember that the violent nape of some of these individuals and the -- nature of some of these individuals and the social impact of having some of these people in our neighborhoods. i simply cannot support this amendment. it has a high monetary and social cost and could potentially endanger our communities. in fact, a few years ago, it was discussed about releasing some of these detainees, five up into new york city, and that was rejected very strongly. by both republicans and democrats. any proposal that results in these detainees being sent to the united states is simply the wrong policy. i urge my colleagues to reject the gentleman's amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina seek recognition? mr. price: madam chairman, i ask to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. price: i rise in support of

my colleague, mr. moran's, amendment. the fact is that section 533 of this bill, which his amendment amends, that section has no place in this bill in the first place. this doesn't simply -- doesn't belong in the homeland security bill. if it belongs in any bill, it would be the commerce justice bill. but as a political gesture for years now, we've had this amendment or something very much like it added to a number of appropriations bills. what mr. moran's done tonight though is interesting. he's not proposed that the section be removed, he has simply amended, he's amended it, i think, in a sensible way. he would limit the prohibition to he transfer of detainees those demonstrably dangerous people who were transferred after 2005.

and that should remove most of the objections people have made to the elimination of this prohibition entirely. it seems that the people who have pushed, the colleagues who have pushed this amendment year after year and bill after bill, they don't apparently have very strong concerns about indefinite detention and the kind of stain that this represents on this country. they also seem to think that when detainees are going to be brought to trial, that the way to do it is military commissions at guantanamo. seem to think that's the only possible form of justice for these detainees. well, the reality is that military commissions have a very spotty record at best. while our criminal courts have a long and successful record of prosecuting terrorists.

why would we want to eliminate that option? why would we want to deny that option to the president? i think the reasoning of the proponents of this provision, both denigrates our judicial system and actually exalts these detainees to a status they don't deserve in the eyes of the world. so, if i had my way, this section would not be in the bill in the first place. but since it is, i think our colleague has made a very sensible proposal that we should consider very favorably. and i hope that my colleagues will do just that and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? mr. wolf: strike the requisite number of words. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. wolf: i rise in opposition to the amendment. i want to begin again, i don't believe it's fair to say that had we closed down guantanamo

bay, bin laden would not have done what he had done. bin laden was active and al qaeda was active in the 1993 bombing of the world trade center, that was before guantanamo bay. they were involved in the bombing of the american embassy in tanzania and nairobi, that was before. and i don't believe that al qaeda and all these are waiting to see, well, when president obama closes down guantanamo bay, we're going to kind of get off the field, it's going to be over. i just don't think that has any impact. secondly, the transfer reads, according to a political article, f.b.i. director robert muller stated that the transfer of detainees to local jails could affect or infect other prisoners or have the capability of affecting events outside the prison system. i agree with director muller. i think director muller's done a great job. on the other case, he was in

.lexandria for four years and to bring some of these people and to try them here creates a lot of problems. the other issue, 15%, at least, and this is an old figure, it could be higher, it could be a little bit lower, but at least 15% of the terrorist recidivism rate of released detainees that were released back to yemen, and places like that, it is not unheard of to have, as you release some and some were released in the bush administration, went back on the field and killed our men and women. and so to release these, certainly you would never do this in an appropriation bill. you would have extensive hearings in and out. you'd call the f.b.i., ask what the ramifications -- you'd call the c.i.a. to ask them what the ramifications are. you would ask homeland security, to ask what the ramifications are. so for all these issues, and i

won't take up any more time, these were covered last night, i think this is a bad amendment and i urge its defeat. and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. connolly: thank you. i think this is a very important debate. i remind my colleague from virginia that i was on the board of supervisors in fairfax county during the karzai trial and most certainly it was a difficult time. but we handled professionally that trial. he was tried fairly, convicted and excuse the -- executed in the commonwealth of virginia. it is not beyond our reach to be able to handle these difficult cases. i believe that this is a very important debate, i believe the author needs to be heard and i'm pleased now to yield to mr. moran of virginia. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. moran: thank you, madam

chairwoman. i thank my very good friend from virginia. and i would like to address a few points that my very good friend, my other very good friend from virginia made. first of all, with regard to the case that was tried in alexandria -- i need to address the chairwoman. the chair: the gentleman from virginia needs to remain on his feet. mr. moran: thank you very much, madam chairwoman. the case that n, my good friend from virginia referred to is actually a case in point. as mr. connolly pointed out, the american injures i prudence system worked. he was tried and he was convicted and he was executed. convictions have been achieved with these military commissions. two guilty verlanders. but they were overturned.

mr. wolf: would -- never dicts. but they were overturn -- verdicts. but they were overturned. mr. wolf: would the gentleman yield? the chair: if the gentleman would suspend. the gentleman from virginia, mr. connolly, controls the time. mr. wolf: if the gentleman would yield me? mr. connolly: i'd yield to the gentleman from virginia. mr. wolf: he was picked up here in the united states. he was not picked up on the battlefield in afghanistan or some place like that so they were totally separate. i thank the gentleman. mr. moran: if they were totally separate then i don't know why he brought that issue into this debate. if they were totally separate. the fact is, there is a lesson. i want to explain what that lesson is. because our american system worked. he was convicted in a u.s. court. and in fact, before he was executed, there was a description of this person, i don't want to call him a gentleman, he was crying

uncontrollably. and apparently the reason was that with all the conceptions that he had proved to be misconceptions. he been screaming about how bad the united states was, how unfair the trial was. and then he realized he was wrong. now, it's too late for him to realize that but the american system worked and in fact we have tried more than 1,000 terrorists in the united states , we are currently holding 373 people convicted of terrorism in 98 facilities across the country. there are 98 justice department facilities and one is in alexandria where guantanamo detainees could be held in the united states. i want to show the rest of the world that our justice system

works, that it's what defines us as a nation and a people. guantanamo doesn't define in. it is opposite of what we believe in. that's the problem. nobody suggested that 9/11 appened because because of guantanamo. we know our history. we know when guantanamo was established. but the fact is, and we could cite any number of situations where our enemy cites guantanamo as a reason for these young impressionable men to join the forces of al qaeda, because they want to suggest that we really are not who we say we are. this amendment would let us be who we are. let the president close this facility that shouldn't have

been established in the first place. president bush recognized that. several traded for bounties. that's not the way we arrest people. the majority of people at guantanamo, they have been cleared for release. they ought to be released or they ought to be tried. as far as the worst of the worst, do what you want with them, but don't spend $500 million to upgrade the facilities at guantanamo so you can house people indefinitely. that's not who we are. that's why this amendment should pass. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from virginia. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the

noes have it. mr. moran: madam chairwoman. i would request a recorded vote. the chair: a recorded vote having been requested. pursuant to clause 6, rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from virginia will be postponed. the clerk will -- the clerk: page 73, line 9, none of the funds may be used for first class travel by the employees of agencies funded by this act. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? mr. dent: i ask unanimous consent that the bill through page 88 line 16 be considered as read printed in the record and open to amendment at any point. the chair: is there objection to the gentleman's request? hearing no objection, the request is approved. the clerk will read. are there any amendments to that section?

the gentleman from virginia is recognized. for what purpose? >> i think i have to wait. the chair: the clerk will read. page page 88 line 15. none of the funds maybe used to have a border crossing for presented strins along the southern or northern border. section 562, nope of the funds may be able to eliminate a program as proposed in the president's budget request. section 563, none of the funds may be used to petition -- the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? mr. goodlatte: i make a point of order, violates clause 2 of rule 11 which prohibits general language in a general appropriations bill. the chair: does any member wish to be heard on the gentleman's oint of order?

the chair: the chair is prepared to rule. the gentleman from virginia makes a point of order that section 563 proposes to change existing law in violation of clause 2-b of rule 21, as recorded in volume 8, chapter

26, section 52, even though a limitation might refrain from explicitly new duties to officers of the government, if it implicitly requires them to make judgments and determinations not otherwise required of them by law, then it assumes a character of legislation and is subject to a point of order under clause 2 of rule 21. the pro pronet of a provision assumes the burden of establishing any duty imposed by the provision are already required by law. the limitation proposed in section 563 declines to fund specified classifications, petitions filed by citizens or nationals. as the chair understands it, current law does not require department of homeland security to determine the citizenship or nationality of persons for whom classification petitions are filed. compliance with section 563 would require that relevant

federal officials receiving funds in this act to make a determination regarding national or citizenship of certain person. the proponent of this provision has not carried the burden of proving that the relevant federal officials are presently charged with making this determination. on these premises, the chair concludes that the section proposes to change existing law. accordingly, the point of order is sustained. section 563 is stricken from the bill. mr. goodlatte: thank you, madam chairman. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from oregon seek recognition? mr. blumenauer: move to strike the last word. we are debating legislation that is critical to the safety of all americans. the one threat that often gets underplayed but which has been brought into the news lately is natural disaster. 75% of americans live in areas that are at risk for some type

of disaster, whether flood, fire, hurricane, tornado, landslide or earthquake. the past two years the united states experienced 25 severe extreme weather events that caused over 1,100 fatalities, 188 billion in damages, far more than all the domestic acts of terror in the last decade. this legislation spends $6.2 billion on disaster relief, $5.2 billion is not subject to discretionary caps. i support the role of the federal government, but the cost of disaster relief are staggering and are growing, whether due to stronger, more frequent storms, climate change, increased development in harm's way or increst in disaster declaration. to put these costs in perspective, congress started in 2013 by passing the american

taxpayer relief act of 2012, which generated $600 billion over 10 years in new revenue. two weeks later we passed the superstorm sandy supplemental totalling $60 billion and totalled all the first year's revenue under that proposal. in times of budget austerity, congress should have a full understanding of how much money taxpayers are spending on disaster relief, recovery and mitigation. unfortunately, these expenditures are far from transparent. there are wild estimates of what these costs may be. the o.m.b. estimated that the federal government spent $11.5 billion from 2001 to 2011 but only included funding to the stafford act and excluded the highest and lowest spending years, including $37 billion for hurricane katrina and rita. another analysis found we spent

$136 billion from fiscal year 2011 to 2013 on disaster relief, about $45 billion a year and nearly $400 per household per year on average. 2005 study referenced the cost of $1 billion per week from emergency response, public and private property damages and business disruption. a calculation made before hurricane katrina. and an accurate and comprehensive accounting of federal disaster spending as well as an estimate of future needs will unable this congress and future congresses to make better decisions how to budget for these events and how to prioritize scares federal dollars. accurate information would also inform the ongoing administration on ways to reduce this spending in the first

place. spending more money up front omit gation and community resilience can reduce the need for disaster relief expenditures. the multi hazard mitigation council in a congressesally mandated study documented that every one dollar saves society an average of $4 in avoided disaster costs. now i appreciate the language that the chair and ranking member and their committee in this legislation requiring fema to submit an expenditure plan detailing the use of funds for disaster readiness and support. i think it's an important step forward but i think the reporting requirement would be too narrow. i would request you work with me as this legislation moves to conference to spapped the scope of the recording requirement. we need fema to look comprehensively at federal spending on disaster recovery

preparedness and yes, possibly prevention. look at spending on all federal programs, agencies and departments responding to and preparing for storms, flooding, fires, earthquake, drought and other disasters. fema should examine the reasons behind the rising costs and provide recommendations that may mitigate them going forward. the inherent unpredictability of natural disasters makes exact congressional budgeting in this area very difficult and my heart goes out to the committee and your staff. but it's clear disaster relief will continue to strain federal budgets particularly if the recent bought of extreme weather continues. the first step towards finding savings is to have an accurate accounting of these expenditures. we should take this step now in this legislation. and i look forward to working with the committee, if you are so inclined.

and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. carter: i appreciate your concern and agree with you that this is a topic of high concern to everyone. as you saw, our bill contains numerous oversight requirements to address these issues. i look forward to working with the gentleman as the bill moves through the process to ensure that congress has the most comprehensive information possible on the costs associated with natural disasters and i agree there is a way to mitigate, we should look into that. and i look forward to working with you, and i yield back to the -- or i yield to my colleague. the chair: the gentleman from texas controls the time. mr. carter: i yield to my colleague. the chair: the gentleman from

north carolina is recognized. mr. price: i thank the gentleman for yielding and add my thanks to the gentleman from oregon for what he has said here tonight. this area of disaster relief funding is one that has challenged us for a long time, getting accurate predictions and estimates of the needs from democratic and republican administrations and dealing with this under budget pressures here in this body. but the baseline for any of this has got to be honest budgeting, realistic assessments. and we need to work on this going forward. so i'm interested in what the gentleman from oregon says about the idea that he has that might help us strengthen this. both the accurate accounting of expenditures for past disasters and also a better understanding of the mitigation potential. i think bose of those are

important areas for exploration. and i certainly will work with the chairman and with him in exploring this going forward. mr. carter: i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the clerk will read. the clerk: page 89 line nine, section 564, none of the funds shall be available to pay for an abortion chept for the life of the mother would be endangered. section 565, none of the funds would be used to perform an abortion. nothing in the preceding section shall remove the director of department of homeland security for female detainees who receive such services outside the detention facility. section 567, the secretary shall submit to congress a comprehensive report on purchase and usage of ammunition by the department. .

of the funds appropriated to the department, funds are hereby rescinded from accounts and programs in the specified amount. rescission, section 569, from the unobligated balances made available in the department of the treasury forfeiture fund, $100 million shall be permanently rescinded. spending reduction account, section 570, the amount by which the applicable allocation of new budget authority made by the committee on appropriations is zero dollars. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you. i'd like to thank chairman carter and ranking member price on behalf of the residents of our region, new york, new jersey and connecticut and the east coast. mention was made of disasters and i want to thank the chair

and all of the committee members and certainly the big chair, chairman rogers. mr. frelinghuysen: particularly the homeland security appropriations committee for their working for -- with us on behalf of our residents who continue to suffer. i just want to take this opportunity to thank you, to show our appreciation. there's some tough decisions that have had to be made and we're especially grateful to the staff of both sides of the aisle that worked with us to make life a little more bearable for our residents. and since this is the first appropriations bill since hurricane sandy, i just want to express my appreciation. and also, madam chairman, i come from a 9/11 state and this committee is very important to ban areas and in this bill there are greater protections for the residents of major cities and metropolitan areas. i'd also like to express my appreciation to chairman

carter, mr. price, for making sure that different grants are there for first responders to, if there are manmade disasters or any type of disasters, that the funds are there. i yield back and appreciate the opportunity. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? mr. connolly: madam speaker, i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. connolly: madam speaker, i rise to invite the chairman, the distinguished chairman of the committee and the ranking member, tone gauge in a colloquy -- to engage in a colloquy. as a member who represents a large technology community in northern virginia, i share chairman carter and ranking member price's urgency cultivating a robust cyberwork force and i appreciate the committee's thoughtful report language identifying this as a homeland security priority, with specific access to the department to pursue so they can lead by example. i look forward to working with them and their staffs on this final initiative and with that i would ask unanimous consent that the remainder of our colloquy be entered into the

record at this point. the chair: without objection, so ordered. mr. connolly: i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. carter: strike the last word. i thank the gentleman -- the chair: before the gentleman begins, the gentleman may not enter a colloquy into the record. the gentleman from texas. mr. carter: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes -- for five minutes. mr. carter: i thank the gentleman from virginia, assure him we will continue to work together on this issue. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? mr. connolly: madam chairman, i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. connolly: madam speaker, i rise to invite chairman carter to engage in a colloquy. chairman carter and ranking member price have done a lot of

good work to create -- craft this bill in a bipartisan fashion that strengthens our ability to provide for the safety and security of our constituents and communities. as is known, this is a shared responsibility with local and state governments. i'm pleased to see this year's bill makes a significant investment in supporting public safety activities of those partners. i rise to call attention to the elimination of the office of national capital region coordination and ask the committee's assistance in ensuring the department not only maintain but demonstrably improve its collaboration with our local and state partners, in the absence of this stand-alone office. i share the committee's concerns with the performance of the regional coordination office, which according to multiple g.a.o. reports has fallen considerably short of its goals. two natural disasters in 2011, a record snowstorm and an earthquake showed that gaps in regional communication coordination unfortunately still exists in the national capital region. during my time in the fairfax county board of supervisors, i

was a founding member of the metropolitan washington council of preparedness council. the attack on the pentagon on 9/11 revealed gaping holes in even basic communication between the federal government and regional partners. for example, following attack, the federal government allowed early release of all of its work force with zero coordination with local governments. thus creating some of the worst gridlock in the history of washington, d.c. thankfully a proposal to also close metro that day was rejected or the situation would have been even worse. this is not just any region of the country, this is the nation's capital. and the number of federal assets throughout the region demands that the federal government play an active role in coordinating preparedness and response efforts with our local and state partners. in fact, section 882 of the national security act of 2002 specifies the department help assess, advocate for and assist those state and local partners. i'd ask if the chairman of the

committee, if it's his intent, the committee's intent, to hold the department responsible for fulfilling those functions without the schedule -- >> would the gentleman yield? mr. connolly: i yield. mr. carter: i thank four yielding. i -- i thank you for yielding. madam speaker, i appreciate the gentleman's question. the committee has long expressed concerns with the operation of the national capital region coordination office and numerous g.a.o. audits have confirmed our concerns that the office has been underperforming its potential to improve regional preparedness coordination. i share the gentleman's desire to improve collaboration across the national capital region and with the federal government and now they're committed to doing just that. i am confident that the coordination responsibilities outlined in section 882 can be fulfilled within the reorganization under the office

of administrator. ranking member price and i are committed to making sure fema acts on the recommendations of the g.a.o., to better meet with the requirements and we will work to include you and other members of the national -- capital national region delegation in that effort. >> would the gentleman further yield? mr. connolly: i would and i thank the distinguished chairman. >> i want to echo chairman carter. we will work to make sure fema meets its coordination responsibilities with regard to the national capital region. mr. connolly: i thank the distinguished chairman and the distinguished ranking -- ranking member and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from oklahoma rise? >> mr. chairman, i move to strike the last word in order to enter into a colloquy with chairman carter. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. as many people in this chamber and around the country know, oklahoma has had a particularly

devastating period of time and i want to begin just by thanking my colleagues on both sides of the aisle and through them their constituents for their prayers and their sympathy and their help because we certainly have received an extraordinary amount of help from the american people, from the administration and from my colleagues here in this chamber. mr. cole: while most people have focused on the damage in my hometown of moore, we actually had, mr. chairman, three tornadic events. may 19, the towns of shawnee and small communities of carney and little axe were hit two people died. hundreds of homes destroyed. extensive damage. the second one was the next day, second episode, and hitting the towns of newcastle and oklahoma city, in addition to my hometown of moore. that one cost the lives of 24 people. i'll talk about that in just a second. then we had a third outbreak on may 31 that hitel reno, oklahoma, and part -- hit el

reno, oklahoma, and parts of oklahoma city that are in my district. this area spreads across several congressional districts. the first episode was largely in mr. lankford's district. the second largely in mine. but -- and the third actually hit mr. lucas' district, mr. lankford's district and my district. the single greatest loss of life, of course, was in my hometown of moore. so my colleagues understand the extent of the disaster. we not only had 24 dead, including 10 children, we had 33,000 people displaced in a town of 55,000. that is they are literally not sleeping tonight where they were sleeping on the night of may 19. in addition, we lost two elementary schools, school administration building, extensive damage to three other schools, the hospital, the u.s. post office, hundreds and hundreds of businesses. so the employment base of the community was devastated as well. full extent of the physical

damage in this area alone is not yet known. the initial estimates by the oklahoma insurance commission are somewhere between $2 billion and $4 billion. but it will take a while to actually get through this. so, i've spent a lot of the last few weeks visiting -- few days, excuse me, visiting with the people in the communities involved. particularly in moore. but also in little ax and newcastle and oklahoma city, the other areas. and without the tireless efforts of the first responders from all these communities and the surrounding area, we simply wouldn't have gotten through the horror of the experience. the communities in question are extraordinarily close knit and sadly are quite experienced in this kind of activity. my hometown of moore's actually been hit by six tornados in 15 years. including two f-5's, the highest category. one of the tornados in question in this latest incident was the largest ever recorded, 2 1/2

miles across. with wind funnel speedses much up to 295 -- speeds of up to 295 miles per hour. so extraordinary to behold. as i understand it right now, as best we can estimate, there are no current needs for additional disaster funding. but the possibility obviously of other disasters and hurricanes, fires, earthquakes, what have you, always raises the possibility that the resources that are available will be strained and i want to make it very apparent that if that were to happen i'll certainly be looking forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to make sure that should similar misfortune befall other areas, that they too have the help we need. if i may, i'd like to yield at this time to my friend, the gentleman from texas, the chairman of the homeland security subcommittee, on appropriations. -- subcommittee on appropriations. mr. carter: i thank my friend for fold -- for yielding. the bill before us today builds

on our actions of last year, including robust funding for fema in the disaster relief category. funning that will most definitely assist -- funding that will most definitely assist those who lost so much in oklahoma over the last few weeks. as of this morning, the disaster relief fund currently has a balance of approximately $11 billion, which is sufficient to address the needs of oklahoma and other regions' disasters. as oklahoma begins the road to recovery, i will continue to work with the gentleman to ensure that we're doing everything that we can to help the devastated communities and our hearts go out to those folks. i yield back to my friend from oklahoma. mr. cole: i want to thank my friend from texas who hit opportunity to confer with during recent days, for his kind support and assurances. you know, and i know my friend would appreciate this. we sort of think of ourselves as scotland to your england.

but -- and if football season, you know, i always remind people, the red river was an international border for 42 years and every october it is again. but the reality is, when you're in a tough situation, you don't have any better neighbors in the world than our friends from texas and not just on this floor, but the outpouring particularly from our neighboring state, in temples of volunteers and contributions -- terms of volunteers and contributions and all across america it's been extraordinary. boat the president -- the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. cole: i thank the gentleman nd i yield back. the chair: who seeks time? for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois rise? >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i rise to lend my support to the underlying bill we are debating today. the homeland security appropriations measures make key investments in technology

for our first responders, disaster relief fundings for our communities and critical grant funding for our local fire departments. it is the centerpiece for how we invest, not only in our national security but also in the security of our local communities. earlier this year, the district i represent was severely affected by regional flooding, that damaged hundreds of homes and businesses. the impacts on families is a human one. many lost their homes, many lost their business and may not e able to reopen. this highlights the need for disaster relief that's comprehensive and far-reaching. fema help miss in my district recover parts of their lives after the storms and i'm happy to see the committee included $6.2 billion in disaster relief. this will be critical for us as we continue to rebuild, as well as those in oklahoma and other areas as they rebuild after

natural disastersism also applaud efforts by the committee to support $1.5 billion allocated for fema state and local programs. i would like to highlight a program that shows the distinctive security needs for nonprofit groups helping to safeguard life and property against the credible threats to our communs. the urban area security initiative provides a funding source for targeted nonprofit groups to invest in their own security. these grants typically used by churches, synagogues and community centers are required to install equipment that can help mitigate terrorist threats in our communities. they install security cameras, physical barriers or controlled entry systems, safeguards that can make a difference in deterring threats. recent incidents in boston, new york, wisconsin, and new jersey, highlight the credible threats to our pill loofers the

community exist. the need for the grants is clear and the impact in our communities can be profwound. i would like to thank the me for the support of these programs that can be used to address emerging threats and security concerns specific to their circumstance. i appreciate the bipartisan work done on this important bill. thank you, mr. speaker, and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: the -- the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. garrett of new jersey, at the end of the bill before the short title insert the following, section, none of the funds made available by this act may be used by the transportation surt administration or a vipr team to conduct a security screening other than pursuant to section 44 of title 49 united states code. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for five minutes on his amendment.

mr. garrett: thank you, mr. speaker. the t.s.a. is not just for airports anymore. for dwhreers t.s.a. has deployed visible intermodal response or vipr teams to conduct thousands upon thousands of unannounced sweeps terminals and highways across the country. while they can show up anywhere, at any time they are typically not in response to any specific threat whatsoever. if you look into some of their team's actions they demonstrate this is not security, this is just security theater. for example, back in 2011, vipr teams searched passengers on an amtrak station in georgia after the people had gotten off the trains and obviously they served absolutely no purpose with regard to security whatsoever. if you think that you can escape the t.s.a. and keep some of your integrity intact by

simply not going to the airport anymore, by taking a bus, a train, driving your car, well, you're sorely mistaken. vipr teams now randomly are pulling cars and trucks off the road. they did it down in tennessee, highways where they did a search costing the drivers there countless hours and fuel as well. vipr teams conduct a similar operation to search vehicles leaving a port down in brownsville, texas. the reach of the transportation security administration, the t.s.a., has now expanded to such other areas and even moved beyond transportation, it's moved into sports stadiums as well. how do we know that? there was an article in "huffington post" where they reported the t.s.a. was patrolling the metrodome in minnesota following a viking-packers game. you have to ask yourself, to what end? a "los angeles times" article

revealed despite conducting thousands upon thousands of operations t.s.a. official says there's no proof that the roving vipr teams have foiled any terrorist plots or thwarted any threat to public safety. we cannot afford to continue to fund a program that by its own ad mission has no record whatsoever of preventing a threat to public safety. that is why i'm offering this amendment to prevent funds from being made available to the vipr teams to conduct searches outside of an airport. you know, as we come to the floor as good stewards of american taxpayers, congress should fund the expansion -- should not fund the expansion of t.s.a. responsibility, especial when we know the operations are more appropriately handled by local law enforcement agencies at the various levels of government this is a commonsense approach a commonsense amendment and helps the t.s.a. do its core function more efficiently and protect american air travelers and thank you, i reserve.

the chair: the gentleman yields back his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. carter: i rise in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. carter: i appreciate the opportunity to work with the gentleman on this issue but cannot accept this amendment. following the 2004 madrid train bombing and the 2005 london bombings that targeted civilians using public transportation, visible intermodal prevention and response or vipr teams were developed allow t.s.a. to utilize federal, state and local law enforcement to protect our nation's transportation system, including securing our service transportation systems from the threat of terrorism. t.s.a.'s surface transportation security is responsibility for assessing the risk of terrorist attacks for all nonaviation transportation modes. the vipr teams, which are specifically authorized in the 9/11 attack -- 9/11 act play an important role in protecting

our nation's service to -- surface transportation systems. simply put the presence of these teams is intended to promote confidence in our nation's transport system by preventing terrorism to any mode of transportation including surface transportation. now is not the time to eliminate this important program which serves to secure our surface transportation systems from acts of terrorism. >> will the gentleman yield? mr. carter: i will yield. mr. garrett: i agree we should add confidence to the travelers but i ask the gentleman from texas, what confidence can we veff sr. in a program that by its own admission says they have not foiled a single terrorist plot, by its own admission says they are screening people after they get off the train instead of before they get on, by its own admission says the programs are not mandatory, which means when you go to a rail station and see them there, if you were a true terrorist you would say i'm not going to go in that line, i'm going over in that line.

mr. carter: reclaiming my time, i listened to what you said before and you don't need to be repetitive, i understand your concerns and quite honestly they're valid concerns and i will as chairman of this committee with the assistance of mr. price look into the arguments you have made, but at this time i cannot accept your amendment. i don't need to hear the arguments a second time to accept your amendment. i am opposed to this 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: i want to join the chairman in opposing this amendment this amendment would prohibit any funding from being utilized by our mobile visible intermodal protection and response team the vipr teams. these teams provide the ability for t.s.a. to randomly screen passengers on mass transit and in our airports and work in concert with state and local law enforcement agency, they provide a surge capacity beyond the local capability in order

to respond to intelligence information and special situations. it's also important that exercises be conducted on a regular basis in order to test the concept of operations and develop the essential working relationship with local authorities. as the chairman indicated, after -- in our assessments, after the attacks in madrid and london, it became clear we lacked the capability, lacked the ability, to rapidly respond to threats quickly and to react with a show of force against potential threats. that's precisely the purpose of these vipr teams. the concept was authorized specifically by section 1303 of the 9/11 act a bill that passed this house with 371 votes. to eliminate -- we will address these problems as the chairman has indicated. problems that the gentleman has identified, problems that -- mr. garrett: would the gentleman yield? mr. price: let me afinish.

we will address the issues you raised, you have legitimate concern bus none of what you said, none of what the gentleman has said is an argument for eliminating the funding for removing an important deterrent capability. i'll be happy to yield. mr. garrett: i appreciate the fact that you would take a look at this. would that this be the first time i brought this bill to the floor and raised the egregious examples by the t.s.a. in the past, i would hold more weight to that, that you would look at it. but this has been going on for years now, to your paint saying we need them for specific -- when there are specific threat what t.s.a. told us is they are not doing this when there are specific threats, they're doing it when it's random, going into sports stadiums for no particular reason, going along highways for no particular reason, stopping trucks for no particular reason. not because of specific threats but because of random applications of it. if this was a situation where we say there was a known attack

coming or something of that sort and you want to apply it there, that would be one thing but that's not what t.s.a. does. they just go out, at this point in time, we are living in a country where if you want to travel you can go to the airport and they can say you can't travel unless wru go through t.s.a. but if i want to visit my mom in florida , they can go to the train station and say i can't get on the train without going through t.s.a., they can say i can't get on a bus without going through t.s.a., i can get in my car and i can't go in my car without going through t.s.a. i cannot travel in this country without some federal agency stopping me. mr. price: reclaiming my time. with all due respect, i believe the gentleman is exaggerating the kind of situation that rdinary travelers encounter. i also understand and hope he does that these vipr teams, if

there's going to be the search capacity if they're going to be there to respond to specific intelligence information, then they're going to have to remain in operation and they're certainly -- there's certainly a warrant for random checks, for checking situations that may be problematic. i'm not saying there would never be abuses, never be intrusive behavior but we need to correct that, not to come in with a meat ax and eliminate the funding. i simply reiterate my opposition to the amendment and ask my colleagues to vote against it. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yield back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new jersey, mr. garrett. as many as are in favor will signify by saying aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes it. mr. garrett: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18 further proceed option the amendment offered by the gentleman from new jersey will be postponed.

for what purpose does the gentleman from puerto rico rise? mr. faleomavaega: i have an amendment at the desk that was printed -- >> i have an amendment at the the desk. the chair: the lerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. pierluisi of puerto rico. mr. pierluisi: i offered this amendment last year, it was agreed by voice vote but it was not included in the act enacted in march this ehomicide rate in puerto rico is three times higher than any state and most of these murders are linked to the international drug trade. appropriately the federal government is allocating substantial resources to combat drug trafficking organizations operating in the central american corridor and along the southwest border. however, those organizations are adapting, returning to smuggling routes through the

caribbean region that were heavily utilized in the 1980's and 1990's. as a result, the coast forward seized or disrupted over 17,000 pounds of drugs in the vicinity of puerto rico in 2012, a 600% increase over the previous year. d.e.a. seizures rose over 60%, and customs seized more drugs in puerto rico than it did along the 180-mile border between mexico and new mexico. meanwhile the street price of drugs in puerto rico has decreased. this is a security problem of national scope given that 80% of the drugs that enter puerto rico are subs againly transported to the u.s. mainland where they destroy communities and lives. through various bills and accompany regular ports the house appropriations committee has expressed the view that the d.h.s. and d.o.j. should

prioritize counterdrug efforts in the u.s. caribbean to respond to the current crisis. as a case in point, the report for the 2013 d. h s. appropriations bill stated that the public safety and security issues of the u.s.er tos in the caribbean must be a priority and that the committee expects the secretary of homeland security to allocate resources, assets and personnel to these jurisdictions accordingly. u.s. customs and border protection is on the front lines of the counterdrug fight. the agency has hundreds of personnel stationed in puerto rico. my amendment is the -- is designed to address a problem that arose in fiscal year 2011 and continues to compromise the ability of c.b.p. to carry out its vital drug mission in puerto rico. for over a century federal law provided that the collection of certain duties and taxes in puerto rico by c.b.p. for its

-- or its predecessor agencies bill de-deposited in the puerto rico trust fund. pursuant to the law and implementing agreement between the puerto rico government and the federal government, a significant portion of that money is also used to fund certain federal operations in puerto rico including the maritime operations of c.b.p.'s office of air and marine. for many years these arrangements worked well enough, however, because of a short fall in the puerto rico trust fund of $1.7 million due to reduced customs collections in fiscal year 2011, c.b.p. closed a critical boat unit in san juan that in 2010 had seized over 7,000 pounds of illegal drugs. c.b.p. took this drastic action because it has interpreted current federal law to require that it use either the trust fund or general congressional appropriations to fund its operations, but not both.

the amendment with a simply give c.b.p. the authority to supplement any funding from the trust fund with general appropriations made in this bill. this would make it easier for c.b.p. to avoid any further reductions to its operations in puerto rico. and ideally enable the agency to enhance those operations. the need for this amendment is underscored by the fact that the president's fiscal year 2014 budget predicts trust fund receipts of $98 million which is $8 million less than -- an 8% reduction from the current trust fund receipts. i look forward to working with the chairman and the ranking member to ensure that this amendment, if adopted, remains in the final bill this year and to continuing to work with them to ensure the department of homeland security, including c.b.p., has the resources it

needs to adequately address the border protection challenges and drug-related violence in puerto rico. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman cannot reserve his time. the gentleman yields back his time. mr. pierluisi: i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. 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: mr. speaker, i accept this amendment. the chair: does the gentleman yield back? mr. carter: i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from north carolina. mr. price: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. price: i too commend the gentleman for his amendment and urge its adoption. and yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from puerto rico. as many as are in favor will signify by saying aye. those opposed will say no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, the ayes have it, the amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york rise? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will eport the amendment.

the clerk: amendment offered by mr. grimm of new york. at the end of the bill, before the short title, add the following, section, none of the funds made available by this act may be used to implement any change in the list of sharp objects prohibited under section 1540111 of title 49 -- mr. grimm: i ask unanimous consent for the amendment to be considered read. the chair: is there objection? without objection, the amendment is read. the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. grimm: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise today in support of my amendment that would prohibit any funds made available by this act from being used by t.s.a. to implement changes to the current list of prohibited carry-on items for air travel. specifically this amendment would stop t.s.a. from allowing knives back on planes for the first time since the terrorist attacks of september 11, 2001. today, following months of

outrage from nearly every corner of the aviation community, and with our amendment looming tonight to block the policy, t.s.a. abandoned its proposal to allow knives back on planes. i do commend t.s.a. for reveersing -- reversing its irresponsible decision for one that is smart and prudent. however, we still need to pass this amendment tonight to make sure this is the law of the land and ensure that there will not be another reversal in the t.s.a.'s position regarding knives on planes. we live in a post-9/11 world and there is no excuse to take liberties when it comes to public safety. as a former federal law enforcement agent, i know firsthand even a two-inch knife can cause very serious harm when used by a trained individual. there's simply no place for a knife in an airplane cabin and in one must travel with a knife, then they can check it in a bag. over the last two months, my colleagues and i have heard from flight attendants, air

marshals, pilots, t.s.a. screeners and a whole host of airlines who are all 100% in agreement that allowing knives to be brought into the cabin of passenger planes is dangerous. it's unnecessary and it's irresponsible. further, we've heard a chorus of objections to t.s.a.'s misguided proposal from groups such as the coalition of flight attendant unions, federal law enforcement officers association, coalition of airline pilots association, and american federation of government employees, along with american airlines, delta airlines, united airlines, u.s. airways and most importantly the american people. their opposition makes it clear that permitting knives on planes creates unnecessary risk for airline passengers and those serving them at 30,000 feet. in advocating for this change, t.s.a. administrator has stated, and i quote, there have been no attempts by terrorists to use a knife to commit a terrorist act aboard an aircraft since 9/11.

well, the way i see it, this should be a great indicator that the current policy is working and needs to be kept in place and not repealed. simply stating that there haven't been any terrorist attacks with naives on planes since 9/11 -- with knives on planes since 9/11 doesn't mean that terrorists won't carry them out in the future. i want to thank my co-sponsor of this amendment, representatives markey, cook, swalwell, reed, jackson lee, ros-lehtinen, wasserman schultz, who have stood in strong opposition to t.s.a.'s decision to jeopardize america's security. i thank you and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? mr. swalwell: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. swalwell: mr. chairman, as the gentleman from new york pointed out, over the last 11 years we have had zero attacks on our airlines where a knife was involved. zero attacks. that number cannot get better. however, as we saw on september 11, that number tragically can

get much worse. nd so i rise in support of the grimm-markey-cook-swalwell-reed -jackson lee amendment which would prevent the transportation security administration from changing its prohibited item list, also known as the p.i.l., and allowing small knives on airplanes. i want to thank the amendment's co-sponsors for their hard work on this issue. i also want to thank t.s.a. administrator john pistol. administrator pistol announced today that the t.s.a. will not allow knives on airplanes. i think this is a strong step forward and after listening to the stakeholders, his position is now that these knives should not be on airplanes. like many americans in our country, i was very deeply concerned and confounded when the administrator announced that they would consider allowing knives on airplanes. we saw after september 11 that, as my friend from new york mentioned, zero attacks occurred in our country. we do now have new threats. the threat from liquids or

i.e.d.'s could seriously jeopardize the safety of airlines. and the passengers who ride on them. however, just because we have new threats that are posed against our airlines' safety does not mean that we should no longer consider old threats. the t.s.a. must learn how to walk and chew gum at the same time. and so i was proud to work with my friend from new york to organize a letter, along with congressman thompson, the ranking member on homeland security, and objected to that policy. in particular the failure of the t.s.a. to consult with the key stakeholders who would be most affected by this change, such as flight attendants, passenger safety group -- safety groups, transportation screening officers as well. the lelter had a total of -- the letter had a total of 133 members signing onto it. congress members grimm and markey also had another letter. just like my friend from new york, i also worked in law enforcement prior to coming to congress. i worked as a local deputy district attorney in the district attorney's office. i also served under this

capitol dome as an intern when september 11 happened. i know what terrorists can do if they have a mission to hurt passengers. i also know as a prosecutor what a knife can do in a close, confined area. it's not difficult then to understand why so many members chose to sign on to our letter. and t.s.a.'s mission, i want to remind the people of this body, is not only to protect the airline passengers from a terrorist attack, it's also to protect us and protect passenger safety in general. t.s.a. justified its decision by saying that it would allow the t.s.o.'s to move more quickly. however, when you put a limit now on what length of knife would be allowed, what the t.s.o.'s effectively become are nfl referees measuring first downs. you can imagine the scene. you have a knife coming through. the t.s.o. can't determine how big it is so he's got to take out the measuring tape, holding up a long line, preventing him from looking at liquids or

other explosives and whether they could bring down an airline. and then he's got to declare if it's allowed or not. all the while bags are still moving through to be screened. this would actually make it harder to detect liquids than make it easier as the t.s.a. had announced. had the t.s.a. meaningfully consulted with the stakeholders before announcing its proposal, these issues would have been addressed. but i do appreciate administrator pistol and his decision to put the policy on hold, to give more time for input. and i appreciate his decision today, stating that he no longer will allow knives onboard. our amendment reaffirms the current ban on knives on planes. it would prohibit the t.s.a. from making the change it had proposed and now has backed away from. our amendment is supported by a number of groups, including the coalition of flight attendants unions, international association of machinists, and aerospace workers, international brotherhood of teamsters, coalition of airline pilots association, and american federation of

government employees. it's important that we pass this amendment today, to show that the house stands with these groups and the flying public in rejecting knives on airplanes. i again want to thank my colleagues who are co-sponsors of this amendment. mr. grimm from new york, mr. markey, mr. cook, ms. jackson lee, and mr. reed. i appreciate their efforts and i encourage all members to support our amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlelady from texas rise? the gentlelady is recognized or five minutes. ms. jackson lee: to the managers of this important legislation, to judge carter and to mr. price, thank you for working on what is an enormously important message and mission of our nation. and that is to secure america.

i'm grateful to have the opportunity to work with the authorizers in chairman mccaul and ranking member thompson, and to work with the ranking member and chairperson of the subcommittee on transportation security, mr. hudson and mr. richmond. having just flown in from a memorial, and as members often do, and as we interact with our constituents, we know a lot about flying. and so it is very important that this amendment be taken as it has been offered. and i congratulate my co-sponsors, mr. grimm, mr. markey, mr. reid, mr. swalwell -- mr. reed, mr. swalwell and mr. cook, all of whom we have worked together with, for it is interesting that this has come

to a point where today we can thank administrator pistol for his thoughtfulness in this process and the deliberations that took place, that the announcement comes that he too understands that allowing knives on planes is not the right decision. but in addition to the important statement of knives, we now know that other accessories such as baseball bats and ski poles and hockey sticks and la crosse sticks, among others, and golf clubs, are likewise -- likewise have been included in his statement. this amendment deals with knives. and the reason why this is very important -- because we should reaffirm the fact. as a member of the homeland security, and for many of us who started on this committee, after the heinous tragedy of

9/11, many of us who went to ground zero during the recovery period, because of the horrific tragedy, smoke was still billowing from those terrible, tragic ashes, we too know what homeland security is. it is the promise to america to do everything we can to ensure he security of the homeland. it is important to take note of the administrator's thoughtful concern and that concern is with the idea of security of this amendment will give comfort to the issue of security. we know there are issues of safety, we want to make sure that seat belts are on and we want to make sure that seats work and bathroom doors work on a plane in flight. we want to make sure that passengers remain in seats during difficult weather. but security is an important question anded -- and today

this amendment takes a stand for security. i am glad that after 9/11 we had reinforced doors for the cockpit, we did have the ability of pilots to be trained and have weapons on board in that cockpit. all in the name of security. let me tell you a knife that's been measured by the eye, that then is allowed to get on the plane, it can be a weapon against security. and today we are saying that we need to codify in law the idea that knives will never be allowed to be on planes. human beings are in the cockpit, our very able pilots and flight attendants and passengers, grandmas and family vacationers and college students and businesspersons an our warriors both wounded and not and many others travel on airplanes. going home to loved ones, traveling to funerals, going for joyful occasion --

occasions. it is very clear that a might have can be a threat to security. it can be a threat to security because in fact even as our valiant flight attendants who have yet been given required flight training, flight attendant training, which we are continuing to work on, they will be the first to stand up against an individual attempting to take a plane or to be able to threaten all of the passengers to create an insecure atmosphere and who knows what pilots will be thinking of, will be required to do, who knows what an unmanned, unair marshaled plane or even one with an air marshal when there are a null of those who are on the flight with knives system of i ask my colleagues to vote for security and vet for the -- for this amendment to keep knives off of

planes. the chair: the time of the gentlelady has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new york. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> mr. chairman, i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five mins. mr. carter: i rise and i announce we will accept this amendment. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from north carolina. mr. price: mr. chairman, i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. price: neither am i going to object to this amendment given the t.s.a.'s decision of this afternoon, the decision that has i believe made the amendment largely irrelevant. and i do want to express my appreciation for the concerns adressed here tonight by the sponsors of this amendment. and the stake holders that many of us have heard from. i want to take just a second, though, to underscore that

t.s.a. did not propose these changes haphazardly, that the proposal that is being attacked here tonight and that has been reversed here today by the agency, that proposal was the result of a risk-based approach to t.s.a.'s security requirements. i also remind the house that the current t.s.a. ad mrtor is a 26-year veteran of the f.b.i. i've been impressed by his willingness to stand by the data, stand by what objective analysis dictates, whether that means reconsidering a regulation or insisting that it remain in place. since the international civil aviation organization changed its standard to prevent passengers to car -- to permit passengers to carry small pocket knives in 2010, more than five billion airline

passengers on flight originating outside the united states have traveled without incident. i think it's ironic that after all these years of members complaining about long wait times and passengers having to take off their hues and their coats and their belts, have to take out the laptops, take out the liquids, that t.s.a. now does something to speed up security lines and suddenly members wan to reverse that decision on the floor of this house. i hope we are not going to get in the habit of overturning risk-based decisions, threat-based decisions on the floor of this house. but as i say, the amendment before us is now largely irrelevant so i have no objection to its adoption. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new york. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no.

in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. >> mr. chairman, i request the yeas and nays. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio rise? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. ryan of ohio at the end of the bill before the short title insert the following, section, noiven funds made available by this act may be used to pay the salary of any officer or employee of the department of homeland security to approve my of the following petitions, one, a department of homeland security u.s. citizenship and immigration services form i-130 petition for alien relative in a case in which brazil is the beneficiary's place of birth as provided on such form. two, a department of homeland security u.s. citizenship and imgraig services form i-129f,

etition for alien fiancee in which case brazil is the alien fiancee's place of citizenship as provided on the form, three, a u.s. sintship services form i-140 immigration petition for alien work for the a case comm n which brazil is the country of sit zeppship or country of nationality as provided on such on the the alien -- petition being filed. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. he gentleman will suspend. the gentleman from ohio is recognized for five minutes on his amendment.

mr. ryan: thank you, mr. chairman. for doesn't allow petition relative, fiancees and workers coming from parasill. i want to say thank you to chairman carter, mr. price, we passed on a -- a very similar amendment out of the appropriations committee that earlier, here atele this is a narrowly tailored version of that. i rise today not because i want to, many of us come here because we want to offer amendments, i don't necessarily want to offer this amendment but i'm offering this amendment on behalf of major carl harrig. i'd like to tell the house of representatives a brief story about carl who flew 200 missions for our country in iraq and afghanistan. on march 10, 2007, major carl harrig's wife went out and bought a 357 magnum and shot

and went to a shooting range. she purchased ammo and asked what ammo can i buy here that best kills? o days later, claudia harrig shot major carl harrig in my congressional district. she fled to brazil where she was from. and she could not be extradited, so we were told, because we don't have a treaty with brazil in order to extradite their citizens. which would make sense. but later, throughout the investigation, we found out that in august of 1999, claudia harrig renounced her brazilian citizenship and said she was a citizen of the united states. which gives us every right to have her come back and extradited back to the united states. now this woman shot a war hero.

she renounced her brazilian sintship and she now is drinking rum runners in rio de janeiro, walking around freely in brazil. while carl harrig's family is sitting in newton falls, ohio, his brother, his parents, wondering why we can't bring this woman back into the united states for justice. now many people would say, why offer an amendment? why try to defund visas? because i've been working on this since 2007. i've got a stack of letters here that go back to alberto gonzales. many members of this congress don't know who he was. condoleezza rice. then secretary clinton. on and on and on to try to get the attention of people and it takes an amendment in the appropriations committee to say we're not going to pay -- be able to fund visas anymore.

i don't have any problem with brazil. we've got a good relationship with them. but they have a woman who killed one of our airmen, who flew 200 missions to iraq and afghanistan. and you want to talk about a safe haven, if the kids from boston, the boston massacre a few weeks back, instead of going to the 7-eleven, they got on a flight and went to brazil, they'd be sitting in brazil right mow and we wouldn't be able to get them back here. i recognize that this is extraordinary actions. but there's a long process ahead before this bill comes -- becomes law. we've gotten the brazilians' attention and now it's time for us not to take the pressure off but to allow this process to continue until claudia harrig is back in the united states and getting prosecuted in trumble county, ohio. it should be known, too, to this house, that al qaeda is

setting up shop in brazil. planning attacks, training people, in brazil right now. i've got two articles, mr. chairman, i'd like to submit for the record here. the chair: that has to be done under general leave. mr. ryan: then i won't submit them, mr. chairman. al qaeda is setting up in brazil right now. we have no mechanism if someone would commit a terrorist act here in the united states, flee to brazil, we would not be able to get them back and i think this amendment sends a signal to the brazilians hopefully in the long term to renegotiate treaties an the talk of extradition but also in the short term to get claudia harrig back into the united states. and i would just like to end, mr. chairman, with a quote from carl harrig's dad, ed. he said, our government is supposed to be the most powerful country in the world and they're turning their back on a 25-year veteran.

it's wrong. when you say the pledge of allegiance, the last sentence is, and justice for all. they are turning their back on my son's justice. let's right this wrong, mr. chairman. and pass this amendment. the chair: the time of the gentleman has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? >> i rise to claim time in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> i must reluctantly rise to oppose this amendment. i do not want to minimize the state of affairs or minimize the fact that a brute murderer is escaping wrussties. mr. collins: i also don't want to minimize the service this man gave in the service. it has been unfortunately my duty on many occasions to have to deliver news of one who has either been killed in action or one who has died tragically. by that, my heart bleeds and my heart hurts for this family.

in this situation, i commend my friend from across the aisle for his dedication to bringing this person to justice. and right now, there is the unescapable fact that there's a problem going on. however, the remedy proposed by the author of this amendment raises issues of such magnitude that they need to be resolved through regular order. through the judiciary committee's hearing and markup process. i pledge to work with mr. ryan to -- in the judiciary committee to issue the foreign nations compliant with extradition request. on behalf of chairman goodlatte i pledge to look at the right of withdrawing the right of noncooperating countries to enter the u.s. our crime subcommittee has the ex-peer tees on the issue, this is not the first time we have faced such troubling issues. for instance, it is often the case that foreign nationals refuse to -- foreign nations

refuse to accept the return of their citizens who have been ordered deported to the u.s. d.h.s.'s officer and inspector genre ported as of june, 2004, more than 132,662 illegal aliens have been apprehended and released into the united states. unlikely to ever be repay trayuated if ordered removed because of the unwillingness of their country of origin to wo provide the documents necessary for their repatriation. some have gone on to kill americans once released. last congress, the jew yashe -- judiciary committee considered legislation by mr. poe that would have withheld visas from countries that would not accept back their deported sints. it would have impacted not just a single foreign country, it would have penalized all bad actors on an equal basis. i need to mention there's humanitarian concerns with implementing this amendment. in 2012 over 11,000 brazilians

received green cards, immigrant visas. among them, 8,000 immediate relatives of u.s. citizens, so we just have to keep in mind by enacting this amendment we would be preventing thousands of u.s. citizens from reuniting with brazilian spouses and children. it is with a hard state ta i have -- that i have to rise in opposition to thement but for the reasons i have stated, the good intentions of the gentleman from across the aisle do not override the larger concern when dealing with this proposition in the issue of your amendment with. that, for these reasons i have set up i must oppose this amendment but i do look forward to working to resolve this distressing situation with the author. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from louisiana rise? >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is

recognized for five minutes. >> i stand in support of my colleague from ohio and part of being a legislator and part of having a responsibility of being elected to this body, and representing people back at home, is you have to use the tools that in front of to you accomplish the goal you need to accomplish. mr. richmond: so as we stress regular order and we talk about the judiciary committee, but right now, today, right here on the floor of this house, we have the ability as congressmen to make a difference, for a family whose hero was killed and we know who the perpetrator is, and nothing's been doing about it. so, i would share my colleagues' frustration and i would yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from ohio. the chair: the gentleman from louisiana has to remain standing. >> i thank the gentleman. i'm going to be brief. i want to thank chairman carter. i want to thank mr. price and just to say, i believe this is a homeland security issue. mr. ryan: this is an appropriate venue for that. as the gentleman from louisiana

said, there's a level of frustration here because we have been working on this, pursuing regular order now since 2007. and we have gotten nowhere. and as i said, this woman is walking around in brazil a free woman. when carl haring is dead -- harrig is dead and he flew almost 200 missions for our country. now, this process has a long way to go. we're not anywhere close to this bill becoming law. we've got a lot of time between today and that day. so let's work today to try to increase the pressure, to try to get justice for carl harrig and try to make this situation right. again, i thank everyone. i don't want to be here offering this amendment because of the situation. but i promised this family why do everything in my power to get justice for their son and to get this woman and so help me god i'm going to do everything i can to get this

wambach here, whether it's this bill or bills in the future. so i ask the members of this house to please, please, please support this amendment on behalf of carl harrig and his service to our country and with that i yield back to my friend from louisiana. ms. richardson: i yield the remainder -- mr. richmond: i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona rise? >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i'd like to commend the gentleman from ohio for standing so strong for an american patriot. i believe his motives are extremely noble and good. but i don't believe this is the right way to handle it. i am the chairman of the western hemisphere subcommittee on foreign relations. brazil comes under my purview. while we have points of trouble with all of our bilateral relationships, we don't necessarily throw the baby out with the bath water.

mr. salmon: this is an extreme measure. it would punish a lot of very, very innocent people who my colleague spoke of right before me. people, innocent people that are trying to immigrate or come work or study in the united states from brazil. the want to commit to gentleman from ohio, that as the chairman of the western hemisphere subcommittee, i will do everything in my power to work with him, if it requires hearings, whatever it takes. i want to help you bring justice. i do not believe that this is the right way to do it. in fact, i think it would be very counterproductive in our relationship with brazil and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from ohio. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the gentleman from ohio.

pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from ohio will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from louisiana rise? >> to propose an amendment. the the chair: will designate the amendment. -- the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 1 printed by mr. cassidy of louisiana. the chair: the gentleman from louisiana is recognized for five minutes. mr. cassidy: thank you. briefly, the bigger waters act was passed in order to make the flood insurance program both actuarial sound and functionally sound. and we hope it is on the track to make it actuarialy sound. but it is not functionally sound. so this attempts to address this. what this bill would do is, ection 207, and only 207, is would -- it would not allow it to be implemented for one year. after that it would begin to be

implemented. the c.b.o. has scored this as zero. it has no impact upon the federal treasury. the reason to do this bill is if teem does not yet have the methodology by which to implement this program. indeed, there's a g.a.o. report from 2008 which shows that fema's rates setting process warrants attention. as it turns out they have enough data since 2008. so their over 0-year methodology does not apply and families are being terribly affected. so there's one family in louisiana which has never flooded, and yet has a $6 -- 6,000% increase in their premium. clearly this has grave implications for this family. but as it turns out, it's turned their whole real estate market upside down. people can't build or sell. there's an uncertainty there created by the implementation of this particular section. now, let me emphasize, this is only section 207. all other sections continue and the c.b.o.'s score is zero. i know that others would like

to comment upon this. i will then reserve the balance of my time and yield to -- can i do what? i will yield back the balance of my time at this point. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from louisiana rise? mr. richmond: i move to strike the last word. chape the gentlewoman -- the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. richmond: back home i talked to thousands of my constituents and had thousands of my constituents talk back to me, scream back to me, cry in my arms because of the impact of this legislation. and right now what they're facing is a double whammy when it comes to flood insurance. they face the likelihood of higher rates and incorrect flood maps. fema has drafted new maps that completely ignore the facts on the ground. the maps disregard nonstructural features like marshland and forest and our investment into restoring our coast.

it also ignores the investment and sacrifices by locals to build their own levees. these communities are investing in their own safety, in their own security and fema should recognize that. many of these communities, like the west side of st. charles parish, the levees are more than 100 years old and many of these communities have not flooded in 100 years. if that's not 100-year flood protection, i don't know what is. you see, for too long the national flood insurance program wasn't on stable footing. since the last term -- since the last long-term authorization expired in 2008, we had to pass nine short-term extensions. during that time, the program lapsed five times. the last time, in june of 2010, approximately 47,000 home sales were delayed or canceled. due to the leadership of my colleague, representative waters, last july we passed a

flood insurance act. the bill put the program on stable footing for five years. but the rate increases fema has quoted are astronomical and unsbenleded. homeowners who played by the -- unintended. homeowners who played by the rules and by the their homes according to the guidelines in place are being told that their insurance is going to go up hundreds of percent. what's even more shocking is that many of these homes have never flooded. for instance, a homeowner in st. charles parish, louisiana, who is paying $338 per year for flood insurance will now have to pay $23,000 per year with this. another home owner in the same town will go from $365 to $28,000 per year. if this stands, people will be forced to give up their homes, burdening the banks and killing the real estate markets. we cannot in good conscience stand here and let this law force people to give up their homes. to give up on their the american dream and destroy hardworking tax paying citizens. these taxpayers depended on and

followed the rules and laws. we cannot turn our backs on them. i have a bill that will fix much of this without a score. and i'm proud that representative waters and the entire louisiana delegation has signed on. the homebuilders and realtors support this amendment and my bill. but this amendment would give homeowners immediate relief. therefore i urge to you join me in supporting this amendment so that we can fix these issues while keeping the national flood insurance program on sure footing and make sure that we don't leave hardworking families across the nation up on their own. because as we come here and do things in theory a lot of times, we miss what happens in reality and what's on the ground. and if we don't change this law, reality's going to set in and people are going to lose their homes, they won't be able to sell them and we will create another disaster of national proporpgs with unintended consequence, that we never tried to do. so i will just ask that we

support my colleague in this amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> mr. chairman, this kind of reminds me of a story about a world war i veteran, navy veteran, that went back home to his county where he loved to coon hunt and this gentleman being injured got a wooden peg leg. mr. westmoreland: but he took the boys and they went out and they got ready and they were all around the campfire, it was kind of cool that night, they were waiting for the dogs to tree one. so he got a little bit too close to the fire and it burned about eight inches off of this wooden peg. and so all of a sudden a hound starts baying and he gets up and starts running and he ran about 20 yards and he turned around and he said, watch out, boys, there's a hole every other step. there's some holes in what this

amendment is trying to do. first of all, you've got to remember that this bill was just passed a year ago. and it was the biggert-waters reform bill where we're trying to reform the flood insurance program. and let me remind people that 406 members voted in favor of this. and every member that i see down here, that is talking to try to relieve this voted for the bill. everybody in the louisiana delegation, everybody in the mississippi delegation, everybody in the new york tell gation -- delegation with the exception of one. everybody in the new jersey delegation, everybody in the mississippi delegation. voted for it. and this bill was passed by unanimous vote. bipartisan, because everybody realized, especially in the effects of katrina and others,

where in 2005, before katrina, they had a credit card limit of $1.5 billion. after katrina we raised that credit card limit $20 billion. after sandy we raised the credit limit another $10 billion. so right now we've got $30 billion on our credit card and you know what? in 2017 that has to go back to $1 billion. and if you look at the amount of money that we've had to borrow to pay for this, and i voted for the $9.7 billion because it's an obligation that i think that we had to the people that had flood insurance. that was an obligation that we have. but the way most insurance works is that if are you at higher risk, you pay a higher premium. if for some reason my car keeps running into things, accidentally, my car insurance is probably going to go up.

and anybody that has extenuating circumstances, whether they're in a fire zone or whatever it is, your insurance rates are based on that. the difference is, unfortunately, that the government fashion, the government-run flood insurance programs does not require homeowners in flood-prone areas to pay for their fair share. premiums are so low that fema has needed a bailout three times in the last eight years. due to fema's failures, congress passed the biggert-waters bill, insurance reform. it was supported, as i mentioned, by these delegations, this five-year authorization is something that even people here said we need to do this. i will q,