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 quote, it is imperative

that congress act as quickly as possible to pass a five-year extension of flood insurance so that policy holders can have an assurance moving forward. this is by one of the ought thors of the amendment. section 207, does something that no other flood bill has done before. it says that homeowners in flood zones must pay an amount that accurately reflect their risk of flooding. congress noted this section. so to address this concern, section 207 specifically stated that the rate increase must be phased in over five years not to exceed a 20% increase each year. the outcome is commonsense reforms that are supported by republicans and democrats that alance concerns of homeowners. these are bipartisan reforms that you don't often see passed

in washington. let's don't back up. let's keep going forward. the biggert-waters flood insurance reform was to get fema out of this consistent bailout but be fair to people who experience frequent flooding. these reforms were enacted a year ago in the financial services committee. we haven't held a hearing on implication. this does president need to be -- this doesn't need to bed h -- ms. waters: i move to strike the last word. i rise in support of this amendment offered by the gentleman from louisiana, mr. cassidy. i'm pleased to say that my colleagues, mr. cassidy and mr. richmond and i have worked to address this important issue in an ongoing, bipartisan way.

the national flood insurance program was created in 1968 after record flooding led the private sector to abonn done the flood insurance market and stop writing flood policies. the program is a key component of the federal government's efforts to minimize the damage and financial impact of floods. it is the only source of insurance against flood damage for most residents and provides much needed coverage for 5.5 million homeowners and their families. this is why i worked across the aisle with my colleagues, representative judy biggert, to re-authorize this program. before this re-authorization, the flood insurance program was lagued by repeated lapses in authority placing many local communities at risk. fema was not able to write new policies, renew expiring policies or increase coverage limits, causing great

uncertainty for millions of homeowners who depend on the program's existence. the biggert-waters bill was instrumental in the program. it provided a five-year re-authorization and made critical improvements to the program. the reforms in biggert-waters gave communities more input into flood maps and strengthened the financial position of the flood insurance program. n drafting this bill, with then-chairwoman judy biggert, i struck the right balance between protecting homeowners and strengthening the law. this law was intended to re-authorize the program in a sustainable way. the inat the present time was ot to impose punitive or unaffordable rate hikes that can make it difficult for some to remain in their homes. you heard the testimony from mr. richmond about the incredible increases in the premium costs.

that is why i'm extremely concerned about reports that homeowners in certain areas are facing high and unsustainable flood insurance rates. i have committed to work with fema and my colleagues here in congress to address this unintended consequence of this otherwise temperature porl legislation. i'm supporting the gentleman's amendment. this would prohibit fema from using funds to implement one provision from biggert-waters that has raised an unintended consequence and requires further study before being implemented. while the gentleman's amendment is a positive first step in addressing this issue, more needs to be done. mr. richmond and i introduced , a bill on which mr. cassidy is an original co-sponsor that would make

additional steps to provide meaningful relief and address the issue of affordability. the bill would delay implementation of changes to grant fathered rates for three years instead of one and delay implementation of the rate changes that feemave is currently ruling out. i look forward to work with my friends to ensure the biggert-waters act is implemented to ensure the flood insurance program's affordability. the schedule would upset that balance and impact families and local communities. for these reasons, i urge my colleagues on both sides of the i'll to support 2199 and vote aye on this amendment. and let me just say to those who would represent that we all voted for it, so, since we voted

for it and we worked together, we worked across the aisle, democrats and republicans working together, that somehow we can't make amends or changes that are desperately needed, working together. i think it is extremely important when you have mr. cassidy over there and waters over here, one of the original authors of the bill who are talking bg something has happened, unintended consequences that have taken place that will cause homeowners to lose their home. now, it's easy if this does not happen in your community or in your districts, but ladies and gentlemen, i want you to know that this is an business that we are in in and to the agree we recognize other people's problems and stand up and give support in particularly when it talks about home ownership, when it talks about that which is so

important to all of us and i would urge an yay vote. >> move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. >> i rise to speak against the amendment and one thing that has gone overlooked in this debate, which is not only was this provision in the bill originally in order to bring sustainability to the flood program, it was also designed to bring fairness to the flood program. mr. mulvaney: what do i mean by this, the original bill was designed to raise flood rates on some people. it was also designed to lower them on other people. you heard the gentleman from louisiana state this amendment would have no impact -- the c.b.o. would have scored it at zero. absolutely true. the underlying language in the bill would h was scored the exact same way. that provision scored out at zero because the c.b.o. assumed

that did it on its own, that when rates went up on some people, they would go down on others. that seems to make a lot of sense that we would have an insurance program that would charge folks more who are in riskier areas but seek to charge people less who are in less risky areas. it bears stating that if this amendment passes, yes, folks who live in high-risk areas will see lower premiums. but we have a chance to bring some sanity to something in a government program. we have a chance to bring reason and rational thought to this government program by saying people in riskier areas should pay more. are there protections there? yes. are they necessary? yes. this program was designed to bring sanity, which is why so many people voted for this originally. these are well intentioned.

i disagree with the impression that these are unintended consequences, these are the exact unintended consequences that we would charge folks who are in risky areas more. if you live below sea level, your rates should go up. if you live 600 feet above sea level, your rates should go down. there are people in my district that will pay less. there are people who will pay more and will turn on its ear if the amendment is passed. what we did last year was accurate and correct and with that, i yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from georgia. the chair: the gentleman from south carolina has to remain standing. mr. westmoreland: thank you, and i thank the gentleman for yielding. and let me just say that fema,

this does not go into effect this year. so, you know -- in fact, fema, the louisiana fema has been told not to give out these rates because they don't know. they have been trying to do a flood map for 30 years. if we think a one-year extension is going to help them, we are misleading ourselves. from my legislative experience, when you stepped it for one year, you are asked to extend it again. look at the student loans. it's a constant extension. my experience has been most court cases are settled on the courthouse steps when the pressure is put on both people to settle. i think this is bringing to the head the fact that fema needs to get their act together along with the corps and get these flood maps done. by us giving them another year extension isn't going to do anything but delay from us

getting these maps for another year. i promise you, that's the way government works. we need to understand on the one these ma has given out new rates but on the same hand we are saying they don't have the exailt of doing a flood map. either fema can do it or can't do it. we need to do this through the financial services committee, the ranking member, the gentlelady from california, was a big part of what we did in the biggert-waters bill. so why don't we take it and go back through financial services where this bill came from rather than trying to do it through an appropriations bill? that's the reason this process is so messed up here that we try to do things like this. so my concern is is that this is the wrong place to try to amend this bill. we need to have hearings.

we need to have oversight of fema and find out how the implementation of this bill is going and put the pressure on fema and the corps to finally get these maps straightend out. for somebody to have a home at 7 feet below flood level and pay $329 a year in a premium does president make sense. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york rise? >> move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. >> i rise today in support of the amendment offered by my friend and colleague mr. cassidy and thank my colleagues across the aisle, ms. waters, mr. richmond, for their support. i do want to clarify one thing because i think that the tatement was made that it's an unintended consequence for premiums to go up and down. that is true.

but the consequence we are speaking about is the consequence that many of those who have lived in those areas for 40, 50 years are suddenly going to lose their home because of extreme rise in premiums, upwards of $15,000 and more. mr. grimm: i just wanted to make sure that that was clear. and i know this not because i myself live in a coastal flood area but because superstorm sandy left a trail of destruction, particularly in staten island and parts of brooklyn. destruction that was unprecedented. tins of thousands of my constituents found themselves homeless. their lives were turned upside down and are wondering how they are going to rebuild or move forward. many of my constituents lost everything to superstorm sandy and will be years before their lives return to any sense of

what i would consider normal. so to ask these victims of a natural disaster who find themselves in this horrible position through no fault of their own to pay upwards of $15,000 upwards so soon after this disaster took everything from them, amounts to them being victimized yet again. if these premiums were to go into effect, the reality is simple. for my of my constituents they will find themselves unable to pay both their mortgage and flood premiums and their bopt in the -- property in best case will lose considerable value, but in the worst case, it will be completely worthless. this is unacceptable and this is why i support delaying the implementation of section 207 of the biggert-waters act so congress will have the time to re-examine and look at the rate

increases and ensure that the future viability of the flood insurance program while at the same time that flood insurance remains affordable to those who need it most. i ask my colleagues to consider all that these individuals have been through, all that they have lost and bring some understanding through the unintended consequence of only losing everything they own but through flood insurance, losing their value. i ask for their support and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from florida rise? >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> i yield my time to maxine waters. . . . ms. waters: thank you very much. i'd like to thank mr. grimm for his he will consequent description of what can happen

and what -- eloquent description of what can happen and what is happening and his plea to all of us to ensure that we don't place people in the position of losing their homes because they cannot afford these extraordinary increases in premiums. i met with residents from a parish who came to the congress of the united states, all the electeded officials and community leaders came together and they came here to make a plea. to understand that with this increase in premiums, they certainly can't afford it and they can't afford to sell it. because nobody's going to buy it. and so mr. grimm talked about victimization and the fact that we would be victimizing people who are victims of natural disasters twice. and that's precisely what it's all about. and i think that we are more caring than that. i think that we understand that there's still a lot of things

to be worked out. the flood maps have not been completed, the pricing has not been really dealt with. and so i think we need time. we need time in order to answer these questions, to deal with the complexities of what we're trying to do. i think we can stabilize flood insurance. i think that is possible. but i, as one of the authors of this bill, i'm also making a plea to say that we did everything that we could to try and have a bill that's sustainable, that's viable, that makes good sense, but as we review what is going on, and the risk and the harm that people are now confronted with, we're saying, let's take a step backwards for a short period of time. and let's give these victims and other victims in other areas of this country an opportunity to at least hold on

to their homes and not have them literally taken away from them because we didn't realize these unintended consequences. and i will yield back the balance of my time. >> thank you. i yield the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from louisiana rise? >> to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i rise in strong support of congressman cassidy's amendment . mr. scalise: want to touch on a few things. first of all, when we talk about the need for reform to the national flood insurance program, there were many things that needed reform. in fact, the program had expired, lapsed, in some cases for a few hours, for a few days . multiple times over the last few years. and that's not a consistency that i don't think any of us want to see in our economy when it literally meant home sales would have to be canceled, realtors that were preparing to have a house sold, somebody that was buying a house, selling a house couldn't even do that because banks require

in many cases that flood insurance be attached to the mortgage. and if there was no program for flood insurance, then that means somebody couldn't even buy or sell a house. so it had an incredible disruption in our economy. but there's also the importance of making sure that the program's sustainable. when you look at what is flawed in the interpretation of fema, as we stand right now, a year after passage of the law, fema has admitted themselves they're not ready to implement the changes in the law. and we go through communities, and i want to mention a few in particular because it highlights the problems that have maybe been misrepresented, maybe are not even understood by some people, when they wonder about this program. there are communities, and i'll use some examples of some communities in my district, in coastal louisiana. one flood protection system was a system that was built by the people in those communities. it wasn't a corps of engineers

project. that community did not flood, did not flood in hurricane katrina, did not flood in hurricane rita, didn't flood in hurricane isaac. and yet if you look at what fema has done with the community like that, they don't even recognize that that flood protection system exists. they've dessertified that levee. and so -- decertified that levee. there's this perception out there that these are people who have flooded multiple times. these people in this community never flooded. even during katrina, rita, isaac. and yet fema has decertified their levee and said basically they don't have a levee. so somebody who is behind the levee protection system that worked for katrina, fema has said that levied system doesn't exist and that person now is being -- levee system doesn't work and that person is now being faced with a $500 premium that fema is telling them will go up to $15,000 a year. does anybody really think that a family making maybe $40,000,

who has a home that never flooded, they never filed a claim, and now fema's going to tell them, you have to pay $50 15,000 a year -- $15,000 a year just for your flood insurance, the c.b.o. recognized that person can't pay that $15,000 premium. you've literally made that home worthless. a home that never flooded that's behind the flood protection system. and the irony is, let's look at the corps of engineers' certified flood system. go look at new orleans. the new orleans flood protection system that failed during katrina. flooded thousands of households, cost tremendous devastation and loss of life. that's a certified levee. that system that failed is certified and then the system that never failed, that never flooded is decertified by fema. you're going to tell those people they have to pay $15,000, $20,000 a year for flood insurance when they never flooded and their system works. same with another hurricane protection system. under fema's interpretation of this law says that levee doesn't even exist. let me show you a picture. this is recently.

you can see the flood waters here. and yet behind that levee system, the hurricane protection system, these people didn't flood. all you see is green grass here. there's no water because they didn't flood. fema has said this flood protection system doesn't exist. so these people who never flooded, who haven't filed a claim, they're not a burden to the system. they're paying premiums to the system right now. actually helping try to get it back into the black. fema's saying this levee system doesn't even exist so now these people maybe have to pay $20,000 a year in flood insurance. again, they can't pay $20,000 a year in flood insurance. nobody -- that's not -- nobody that's not a millionaire can do that. so they'll walk away from that home. the bank will have to absorb that mortgage. their homes are basically pg going to be deemed worth -- basically going to be deemed worthless even though their flood protection system works today. this protection system didn't

flood in hurricane katrina, hurricane rita, hurricane isaac. they didn't file a claim and yet their system is decertified. this is a flawed and broken system. it's the reason c.b.o. says there's no score to this. because the way it's being implemented is unworkable and even fema's admitting, this isn't ready for primetime. so this amendment is needed to say, let's go back and actually make a system that works. fix the problems with the system, but you don't go and punish the people that played by all the rules and never even filed a claim. so i support the amendment, rge --, -- urge my colleagues to do so 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 mississippi rise? >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i rise today to ask my colleagues to support this bipartisan amendment to the homeland security appropriations act and i want to thank representative cassidy, waters, scalise, richmond and the many others who support this amendment. this amendment would provide relief for many homeowners across the nation facing significant increases in their

flood insurance premiums because of the biggert-waters flood insurance reform act of 2012. many facing these steep increases are still recovering from devastating storms in recent years such as hurricane katrina, isaac and sandy and some can see increases as steep as 25% per year. plazzplazz while i believe it is imper ive -- mr. palazzo: while i believe it is imperative that the program remains solvent so flood insurance remains available to those who need it the most, changes can be implemented in a more compassionate and gradual way. the severe way in which these rate rinse creased under current law will place a heavy financial strain on families, small businesses and new homebuyers. we need more time to study how these rate changes will affect americans. this amendment to the homeland security appropriations bill gives fema more time to complete an affordability study and review the impact that these rate increases would have on homeowners. it keeps nfib solvent in the long run while implementing

changes in a compassionate man that are keeps flood insurance both affordable and available. i strongly urge my colleagues to support this amendment. and i yield my time to epresentative cassidy. mr. cassidy: i thank you for yielding the time. the chair: the gentleman from mississippi has to remain on his feet. mr. cassidy: i thank you for yielding the time and i'll be very short. let me say to my colleagues who oppose this bill, this does not repeal the entire law. this just repeals the portion which is not actuarialy sound. we did vote for an insurance program but we voted for one that was functional and again actuarially sound. this does not repeal section 205. those that built below code or in flood zones knowingly violating local code will still pay the penalty. this is for 207, for folks who have never flooded, who have done it right, who have built behind flood protection to code and yet in some cases, because of flawed methodology, they will be paying up to $20,000.

now, by the way, i did vote for this bill, but not to force an inaccurate, dysfunctional system which the g.a.o. has criticized upon homeowners that are trying to live their life. there should be sanity and fairness but that sanity and fairness should be addressed as having something which is actuarially sound. now, one of my colleagues said, wait a second, some will pay less and some will pay more. actually, some may pay less, next year pay more, and then pay less again because they're being judged by systems which again are not sound. we speak so often in here of bringing certainty to business. let's allow business to know what's going on. why not have that same principle with homeowners? let's get the actuarial process in which we judge their risk sound, then we can tell them their premium is high, their premium is low. right now we're telling them it's going to fluctuate up and

down because the method by which we judge them is so poorly designed. so i do urge, i do urge, i do urge passage of this amendment both for the sake of proving we can have functional government as well as for the sake of these homeowners who are going to be terribly affected if we do not do so. i yield back the balance of my time. thank you. the chair: the gentleman from mississippi yield back his time? mr. palazzo: i yield back. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> i yield my time to the gentleman from georgia. the chair: the gentleman from georgia has to remain -- mr. westmoreland: i don't think i'll take the whole five minutes but i do appreciate the gentleman yielding. fema has stated that their staff in louisiana were wrong to provide these estimates based on inaccurate and incomplete information. they've already said that. in reality, no one knows. not fema, not any of my colleagues, how much folks in

these flood zones will pay for premiums under section 207. it's still being evaluated. flood maps change after every flood. and they're going to continue to do it. because of development and surface and other things that cause flooding to create in different areas. there is an appeal process that you can go through. but the best place to do this is where it originated. in the financial services committee. not as an amendment on an appropriations bill. how many hearings have been held on this amendment? none. we're always talking about regular order. that's our cry. regular order. why don't we go through the regular process, go through the same committee that this bill originated out of and see if there's not some oversight that we can offer to fema to make sure that these people are not

hit with these high premiums? and that everybody gets on the same page and we understand that if these improvements have been made by cities and counties or homeowners, that they need to be taken into consideration? but this is not the way to do it. and we talk about unintended consequences. i think this bill was 75 pages long. i can read section 207 if you want me to, but it's plain what it says. there is no unintended consequence to this. this is exactly what it said. if you want to talk about revisiting unintended consequence, look at the 228 -page affordable care act. but this is plain and simple. this isn't creating another agency or commission, this is

trying to make fema and the corps do their job on this mapping. this is the wrong place, it's the wrong time, it's the wrong bill to do this. i would work in an effort, in a joint effort to try to bring resolution to this problem but you have to remember that these fees do not come into effect this year. and nobody knows what they're going to be. the congress is either at stop or knee-jerk reaction and this is something that needs to be carefully thought out and needs to go through the subcommittee, the committee process and the chairman has promised that he is going to review this and look at the implementation of it. if we believe in regular order, let's give the system time to work and let's put it in the committee where the work was originally done. with that, i hope it will be a no vote on this.

and it can go back to the committee and ms. waters and others, can review it, bring fema in and do oversight which is our responsibility in the financial services committee, not the appropriations committee. and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise. >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. grayson: i speak in favor of the amendment and i yield to my colleague from louisiana. the chair: the gentleman from florida has to remain on his feet. the chardson: we have -- biggest safest investment and to pass it done, save money

buy a home and not change the rules in the middle of the chame and doesn't work and at the same time we value the home ownership and the american dream. what we are asking here today we back up a little bit because of what leadership does, sometimes you make a decision that has consequences that weren't foreseen. mr. richmond: the true sign of leadership is that you get it right, not do it for the sake of doing because we are doing it. where is the wrong road. the biggest question is what message are we going to send to those people in new york, louisiana and all of those red dots on the map that representative cassidy had. yes, you save to buy a home and

pay your insurance and we are going to raise your insurance so high. what are they to do? walk away from the homes? we have more brighted property. that's not what we should do as a body. and i would just say that it's not wrong, it's not unusual, and it's a strong sign of leadership to say, hey, we may have gotten it wrong. let's review it and make sure we are being fair and make sure we are protecting the american dream. with that, i would re-urge my colleagues to support the amendment and i would yield the balance of my time back to my friend. mr. grayson: reclaiming my time and i yield the remapeder of my time to the gentlelady from california. ms. waters: thank you very much, mr. chairman. the gentleman from georgia talked about there are no nintended consequences and

attempted to speak for me and he does not understand that we put in a lot of work on this bill. we worked in a bipartisan way and if one of the authors of the bills tells you there are unintended consequences, i think -- the gentleman from jea cannot dispute that. i talked with fema about mapping and about the dessert fide levees and they admitted that they had dessert fide and going to recertify them because they didn't know what they were doing. they told me that the maps need a lot of work, that they are not complete. and what i'm saying is this, all of those homeowners who can't sleep at night, who can't plan their futures don't know whether or not they are going to be able to send their kids to colleges.

all of those homeowners who are in limbo who don't understand whether or not they are going to be able -- certainly they aren't going to be able to pay increased premiums or sell the house, why would we be a party to causing that kind of consternation to fellow human beings? i don't think we want to do that. we have the power here today to support mr. cassidy's bill and buy some time and tell fema to get it right because these are unintended consequences. i wanted the gentleman from georgia to know that i appreciate your concern but you don't understand the work that was put into it and how i know unintended consequences because of the way i worked on the bill and it was not intended to do what it is now doing.

and if you had spent some time with the people who travel to washington, d.c., elected officials and community leaders ho took up a whole room making up the position, because fema was not ready, not prepared, not equipped maybe to do what they needed to do to carry out the bill even and that some of those increases that were being talked about, being projected were increases that were almost made. they were not sound. and so i would ask you to please vote for this bill, change your mind, give some leadership and ask your colleagues to vote for the bill. the chair: the time of the gentlelady has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from louisiana, mr. cassidy. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no.

in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. >> i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6, rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from louisiana will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? bart bart i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. bart bart i move to strike the last word to enter a colloquy with the chairman of the appropriations subcommittee. united states army is electing to reduce the number of dakota light helicopters which are made in my district which they intended to purchase over the next two years. these helicopters are cheaper to maintain and operate than the army has recently contracted for. i respect the army's wishes to control costs and not purchase additional aircraft that they do not need. but i am hopeful that you, mr.

chairman, and the chairman of the homeland security committee will work with me to have a study conducted to see if this is not some way to enhance our help nd security to protect the american people and secure our borders. yield to the chame. carlt mr. carter: i thank the gentleman for yielding and i will work with you, mr. barton as we move through the appropriations process. bart bart i thank the chairman for his willingness to work with me. i want to let the country is we are getting our job done. and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlelady from illinois rise? >> i have an amendment at the

desk. he clerk: amendment offered by ms. bus toes of illinois. none of the funds made available may be used to enter into a contract with an offer with a purchase of an american flag if as required as the federal acquisition regulation the flag is certified as a foreign-end product. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. mrs. bustos: the purpose of this amendment is similar, ensure that american flags are actually made in america. pretty simple, straightforward, common sense. currently, here's what's happening. the department of defense, the department of veterans affairs, the department of homeland security and even the u.s. capitol are free to buy american flags that are only 50% made in the united states of america. i find this astonishing. there are companies in america

that manufacture american flags. pretty logical. and there have been legislative efforts in the past to make sure that american flags purchased by the federal government are actually made in america. last congress, senator brown of ohio, was able to secure passage of the all-american flag act through the u.s. senate by unanimous consent. unfortunately, the house was unable to consider the measure prior to adjourning the last session of congress. according to the most recent numbers from the u.s. census, the value of american flags imported to the united states $3.8 ar alone was million. $3.6 million came from china alone. never in china tag should

be sewn into an american flag. my amendment today is an attempt to address the growing practice of importing american flags not actually made in america. the idea for this came about just last week when i was home listening to veterans all over our district. was in rockford, peoria, listening to veterans from the gulf war, from the vietnam war, from world war ii and had a gentleman stand up, so dishartened by the fact that they had flown flags, seen flags had a made in china tag sewn into it. it is my hope that this congress will engage further in this issue. until that time, i feel it necessary to offer this amendment. we must send a clear message as to what our expectations are.

and with that in mind and using existing law as guide, this amendment would ban purchases of any flag declared as a foreign-end product in buy-american act certification required by all federal contracts. this amendment is just the first step in what i hope is a larger effort to require that all american flags purchased by the federal government are actually made in america. i hope my colleagues will support me in this endeavor and work with me on moving forward on future similar efforts. with that, mr. chair, i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from texas. mr. carter: i move to strike the last word. we will support the lady's amendment and yield to my colleague, mr. price so he can also support this amendment. mr. price: i thank the gentleman for yielding and i urge colleagues to vote for the

amendment. yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from illinois. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, the yeas have it. for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina rise? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. meadows of north carolina, 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 for entering into a new contract for the purposes of purchasing ammunition before the date the report required by section 567-a is submitted to congress. the chair: the gentleman from north carolina is recognized for five minutes. mr. meadows: this is a simple amendment that they are being accountable to congress and the

american people. it was reported that v.h.s. sole is ted bids for 1.1 billion rounds of ammunition, more than 10 times the department purchased in 2012. the american people and members of congress rightfully had concerns and questions. the appropriations committee has recognized these concerns and by including language in this bill to address the ammunitions purchase by requiring d.h.s. to report the cost and needs to congress. this initial report is required to be submitted at the time of the president's budget. i commend the appropriations committee for their work in this area and my amendment would complement and prohibit any purchases until the required report is submitted to congress. it does not prevent existing contracts for procurement from being carried out. this is a responsible amendment that ensures that the american

people are aware of the necessity and costs of ammunition prior to entering of new contracts for procurement. . in fiscal year 2012, d.h.s. ,000 rounds, this is less than half the inventory they have on hand. and as of february 22, 2013, at were 62,618 employees d.h.s. trained and certified in firearms. given our current inventory, each individual has nearly 4,000 rounds before our inventory would be exhausted. with these facts in mind, it is important that we are responsible in entering into contracts for ammunition purchases. my amendment will ensure that this is the case.

i thank you, mr. chairman, for your time and i urge support and i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. carter: i rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. carter: i'd like to say to my colleague, i'm on the same wavelength with him and i have had both my personal office and my staff here at the committee look into in detail the allegations that he has raised by his amendment. and is he quite accurate that the amount of ammunition that is presently and that seems to be in the hands of d.h.s. and the amount of purchases that's taken place over the last three years from a gun owner standpoint, if you take a hard look at it, looks like they're shooting off an awful lot of rounds in practice. and i have the same concerns he has about that. that's why i put into this bill

, and at my request, this review of the trainee exercises, how many rounds are issued, portraying how many ounds are issued for firing in harm's way and a complete report to the congress of the united states on this issue. because the american people are very concerned about this issue. and i want to assure my colleague, we're going to look at this report in detail, we're going to have hearings and discuss this with the members of d.h.s. and all the gun-toting d.h.s. folks, to get an accurate assessment of how much shooting they do and how much they need to shoot. by my own personal inquiry, by talking to i.c.e. last friday, i talked to the border patrol personally, and they shoot four times a year to qualify and quite honestly, they acknowledge that they don't need to shoot, they don't need as many rounds as people think they do. but we want to get this study

done and if we can have patience to do the study, and not try to restrict contracting until we know, and i honestly am not encouraged to allow d.h.s. to have huge stockpiles of ammunition around the country. we want to have an efficient utilization of the purchasing power. as to the contracting power that they have for that billion-plus rounds, that's a process that i learned through my questions that is used to keep the lowest possible price and there's no intent is to make -- intent to make that type of purchase by d.h.s. in any form or fashion. it's a way that contracting is done on ammunition to utilize. i will also -- utilize the cheapest price. i will also say and then i'll yield, we checked with every ammunition manufacturer in the country and they assured me that the shortage of ammunition on the shelves for the american hunter and shooter is not

because the purchases by d.h.s. or the military or anybody else. quite honestly, it's because the american people are buying rounds as fast as they come on the shelf and they're competing with their fellow americans. i'll be glad to yield to my friend. mr. meadows: i appreciate the chairman yielding and i appreciate his comments. this amendment would not stop the current bids that are out there, the current process that we have in place. it would just stop additional process. we're looking at some six months before this report would be due and the inventory that we have in place currently, the inventory, mr. chairman, that we have in place currently is more than enough to handle the target requirements, the requirements that we have currently for those. we've had hearings already on a number of committees that have addressed that and the background that we have and the inventory that we have is more than enough to handle this while we wait for this report.

with that i'd yield back and i thank you. mr. carter: reclaiming my time. i understand the gentleman's argument. i think it is in the best interest for us to go forward with this study. we are going to keep a close eye, that's why we got it in this bill, on this issue, and -- but i'm not prepared at this time to restrict contracting so i have to oppose the amendment. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. 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: mr. chairman, i simply want to express my agreement with the chairman on this matter. the appreciate the amendment being offered from my friend from north carolina, but i believe it would introduce an element of rigidity and of arbitrary element into the purchasing process. the chairman has looked into this very carefully. we have provisions in the bill that should get to the bottom

of any allegations that have been made about the matter. ut in the meantime, to kind of presuppose, it seems the amendment almost presupposes a negative or suspicious outcome of the study. maybe not. but in any case, i see no reason for layering on a requirement, preventing the purchase of ammunition while we conduct this study. so i urge defeat of the amendment. 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 north carolina. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. mr. meadows: i seek the yeas and nays. the chair: does the gentleman ask for a recorded vote? pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from north carolina will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? >> mr. chairman, i have three amendments at the desk. these are grayson number 1, 3

and 4. and i ask unanimous consent in view of the late hour that they be considered en bloc. the chair: is there objection? without objection, the amendments will be taken en bloc. the clerk will designate or report. report. the clerk: en bloc amendment consisting of amendments number 1, 3 and 4 offered by mr. grayson of florida. at the end of the bill, before the short title add the following new section, section, none of the funds made available by this act may be used to enter into a contract with any offer or any of its principals if the offer certifies, as required by federal -- mr. grayson: mr. chairman. i ask unanimous consent that we move on to the reading of the next amendment. the chair: without objection, the clerk -- the first -- the reading of the first amendment is spended -- suspended. the clerk will report the second amendment. the clerk: at the end of the bill before the short title add the following new section, section, none of the funds made

available by this act may be used in contravention of the first, second -- first, second or fourth amendments to the constitution of the united states. at the end of -- at the end of the bill before the short title add the following new section, section, none of the funds made available by this act may be used for the purchase, operation or maintenance of armed, unmanned aerial vehicles. the chair: the gentleman from florida is recognized for five minutes on his en bloc amendments. mr. grayson: thank you very much, mr. chairman. with regard to the first amendment, this amendment is identical to language that was inserlted in the military construction -- inserted in the military construction v.a. bill yesterday by a voice vote. it expands the list of parties with whom the department of homeland security and other relative entities are prohibited from contracting with. and this includes contractors who have been convicted of fraud, theft, forgery, bribery, etc., etc., according to the terms of the amendment and otherwise. with regard to grayson number 3, the next amendment, this

amendment is a simple one. it reads none of the funds made available by this act may be used in contravention of the first, second or fourth amendments to the constitution of the united states. as you'll notice, the same sentiment and the relevant language appears in my colleague, mr. ellison's, amendment, addressing racial discrimination, and other matters. and gladly support his effort which passed unanimously by voice last congress and hope the same will be possible of my amendment in this congress. with regard to the last amendment, last grayson amendment, i regret that my colleague, representative holt, could not be here to offer this amendment himself. he is in new jersey today remembering senator lawsuitenberg. the amendment that i've called up is -- lautenberg. the amendment that i called up is the holt-grayson amendment. it's an amendment that mr. holt attached to the bill in the last congress as an en bloc amendment offered by representative aderholt that passed unanimously. the text of the amendment is the same word for word and it

reads as follows. none of the funds made available by this act may be used for the purchase, operation or maintenance of armed unmanned aerial vehicles. this is an important amendment and one that i'm proud to offer here today on behalf of representative holt. in no instance should d.h.s. have access to or use weaponized drones. the bill before us today is the appropriations bill for the department of homeland security, not the department of defense. that appropriations bill will come to the floor later this month. we hope. as our wars abroad come to a close and excess militarized drones become available for purchase and use, potentially by d.h.s., i feel it's important to lay down this marker here today that says, no , d.h.s. may not have access to that military equipment. d.h.s. will continue to have access to surveillance drones and if the committee report is correct, d.h.s. will increase

their supply of drones and possibly even mr. a new air field to support them. congressman holt shared his thoughts on the ways in which these drones should not be used in his previous amendment, so i'll close with this. chairman carter, ranking member price, let's be clear with the d.h.s., no armed drones in the united states. i ask for support of this amendment and i yield the remainder of my time. 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: this en bloc three amendments that we've got here, i want to address them as they were raised. the first amendment, i support this amendment with reservations that i don't understand some of the language in section b. but i'm not here today to act as a judicial interpretation of this, which is already in law. but i have some questions about the civily charged but i'm not going to go into that.

i won't accept that amendment. in the second amendment, concerning the three sections of the constitution, i certainly will accept that. and in fact i would like not for anything within this bill to be in controversy with any section of the united states constitution. so i have no problem with that. and thirdly, the department has no intention to have armed drones and we will certainly accept the third amendment concerning armed drones. so i'm willing to accept all three and wanting to yield to mr. price. mr. price: i thank the chairman for yielding and happy to also offer my support. hope the colleagues will support this en bloc amendment. yield back. mr. carter: i yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from florida. en bloc. as many as are in favor will significantny nye by saying aye. those opposed will say no. in the opinion of the chair, the aye have. it the amendments en bloc are

agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. mica: thank you. i rise briefly to engage with the distinguished gentleman from texas in a colloquy. first of all, i'd like to compliment chairman carter and ranking member price and thank you for your work on this bill under some very difficult fiscal constraints. i believe the committee under your leadership has successfully found areas where taxpayers can really realize savings and implement reforms to strengthen our national security. as i've discussed with the chairman before and other colleagues in the past, i'm a strong believer in the effectiveness of modeling and assimilation for training. in the past, the department of homeland security has purchased large quantities of costly live ammunition. live fire testing and training is expensive, it's debt merge

to the environmental -- detrimental to the environment and it's really unnecessary for most training of almost all d.h.s. personnel. i believe that the department of homeland security would bing with -- would be well served by increasing its efforts to better integrate and utilize modeling and simulation in the training of law enforcement and security personnel under their jurisdiction. for years now our military and our armed forces, who daily face intense combat, in fact, they utilize effective and modern simulation technology in training and preparing our soldiers, these simulation technologies provide powerful planning and training tools capable of exposing all of our personnel to the complexities and uncertainties before ever stepping into harm's way. there's no reason d.h.s. can't do the same thing. the use of simulation training has yielded better trained, more capable and more confident

personnel. again without live ammunition. unfortunately d.h.s. just doesn't get it. simulation training is a cost-effective means by which law enforcement and security personnel can improve readiness, tactical decision making skills, ultimately save lives and save millions of ollars in taxpayer money. i yield to the chairman for a comment. mr. carter: the chairman makes a very good point, t.h.s. should review their training -- d.h.s. should review their training rental men and determine where simulation training makes sense. i appreciate the gentleman bringing this opportunity to my attention and look forward to work with -- working with him. mr. mica: i look forward to working with the chairman and yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back his time. ho seeks time?

for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? >> i have an amendment number two at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. murphy of florida. at the end of the bill before the hort title, add the following new section, section 571, none of the funds made -- mr. murphy: i move that the reading be suspended. the chair: is there objection? without objection, the aiding is suspended, the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. murphy: i move to bring an amendment that will cut $3 million from a program that's supposed to cost taxpayers nothing. if you wonder how we got to the point of paying for a tax-free program keep listening. customs and border protection and the u.s. department of agriculture do inspections on incoming agricultural vessels to protect our nation's

agriculture and wildlife. they have claimed that the cost of this program is covered by imposing fees on incoming vessels and travelers. a sensible approach. however, when the government accountability office last examined the program in 2011, the fees covered only 60% of the program's costs. as a result, the taxpayers had to cover a $325 million shortfall. i recently introduced the bipartisan save act with the gentleman from ohio, mr. joyce, which would implement recommendations to push customs and border patrol along with fee da to adjust its structure and fully cover the cost of this program. my amendment would prevent customs and border protection from continuing to use taxpayer dollars to subsidize incoming vessels and travelers and make the program truly fee supported. my amendment would free up remaining funds to do what they should be doing, securing the homeland and facilitating

travel, tourism and trade. more tourism and more trade mean more american jobs. mr. chairman, i think we can all agree this is a commonsense amendment that saves taxpayers' dollars and improves the environment for greater job growth. i urge my colleagues on both sides to support this cost saving amendment. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. carter: i rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. carter: i oppose this amendment because it would make it impossible for c.b.p. to carry out its mandated mission to inspect and clear agricultural products that enter the crites from a foreign country. a mixture of fees and discretionary funds paid for c.b.p. officers that inspect and clear foreign ag products. when fees return out, discretionary funds pay for the officers' work. if we do not provide these

funds, as the amendment proposes, agricultural imports to the united states would effectively halt and halt trade. mr. chairman, i urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment. and i'll recognize my colleague mr. price. mr. price: mr. chairman, i appreciate the chairman yielding. i also want to oppose this amendment, although i want to say to my colleague that i very clearly understand the purpose of this amendment and i think it's a worthy purpose. i think we should pay for these inspections through fee revenue and the fees need to be adequate to the task and so the gentleman as i understand it is trying to apply pressure in that situation so that gets done. that's a worthy purpose. but the risk is simply too great with a blanket prohibition of discretionary funds to be used for inspections. the risk is simply too great that the inspections, vital inspections, inspections that

can't lapse, would not go on. so i have to reluctantly urge defeat of the amendment though i agree with and understand its underlying purpose. i yield back. mr. carter: i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from florida. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the noes have it. he amendment is not agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number two printed in the congressional record offered by mr. collins of georgia. the chair: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for five minutes. mr. collins: i offer this amendment to ensure that none of the funds of this bill may be used in violation of section

26 -- 236c of the immigration act. it prohibits the customs enforcement to process the release of or administer alternate forms of detention to illegal immigrants who committed a crime that mandates their incourse ration under ection 236-c of the act. 236-c dictates that an illegal alien must be incourse rated until they are deported to their home country. processed -- i have written to d.h.s. and i.c.e. on two separate occasions to -- about the release. we don't know how many criminal aliens were release and to where. we don't know what crimes they had committed prior to detention and we don't know what forms of alternate -- alternatives to detention i.c.e. is using to ensure they don't commit additional crimes.

this is unacceptable. our nation was founded on -- founded on the rule of law and i don't believe taxpayer dollars should be used to circumvent the law. i appreciate the men and women who work for i.c.e. and have great respect for the work they do. this amendment ensures that political agendas won't interfere with the need to protect innocent citizens from criminal illegal aliens. the federal government should enforce immigration law, particularly section 236-c that mandates detention of criminal illegal aliens. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment that prohibit taxpayer funds being used in violation of 236-c and i yield back my time. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. carter: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. carter: i thank the chair for recognizing me. in principle, i believe there are times when alternatives to detention make sense, utilizing them to release cricketted criminals is never appropriate. therefore i appreciate congressman collins calling

attention to the importance of i.c.e. maintaining a robust capability to detain and maintain custody of illegal aliens, especially those convicted of violent and serious crimes in felonies like drug trafficking, prostitution and conspiracy. included in this bill are no less than $2.8 billion for enforcement an removal operations which include $148 million to fully support the statutory requirements to maintain at least 34,000 beds which is critical if we are going to ensure that convicted criminals and repeat offenders do not endanger public safety. therefore i'm happy to accept the gentleman's amendment. i reiterate my appreciation for congressman collins for offering it and as to the fact that he didn't get information from i.c.e. or from the d.h.s., i've had the same experience and i was just as upset as you are so i do support the

congressman's amendment. the chair: the gentleman yields back. mr. carter: i yield back. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from mississippi rise? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: another amendment is currently pending. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from georgia. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed. to for what purpose does the gentleman from mississippi rise in mr. thompson: i still have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number four prinned in the congressional record offered by mr. thompson of mississippi. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. thompson: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, my amendment does one simple thing. it stops t.s.a. from continuing

to waste taxpayer dollars on a program the agency has not scientifically validated or shown to be cost effective. since 2007, t.s.a. has spent approximately $1 billion on its behavioral detection program. the screening of passengers by observation techniques commonly referred to as the spot program. under this program on an annual basis, t.s.a. spends about $200 million to deploy 2,00 behavioral detection offices or b.d.o.'s at airports around the country to observe passenger behaviors for signs that they present a terrorism risk to aviation. while the goal of this program, preventing terrorists from boarding flight is laudable, the program is by any measure

fatefully flawed. chief among the flaws is that t.s.a. has not scientifically value date that b.d.o.'s can identify terrorists by observing behaviors. indeed, the government accountability office has found that not any known or suspected terrorists have moved through screens -- screenings on 23 different occasions at airports where b.d.o.'s were deproyed. in fact, b.d.o.'s have never identified apprehended, referred to law enforcement or prevented a terrorist from boarding an aircraft. this is not surprising considering that there is no scientific basis for suggesting that they should or would be able to do so. as if it were not bad enough that t.s.a. has spent almost $is 1 billion on a program without scientific validation,

yesterday, "the new york times" reported that the d.h.s. inspector general has found hat t.s.a. cannot ensure passengers at u.s. airports are screened objectively under the spot program, show that the program is cost effective or reasonably justify the program's expansion. indeed, the i.g. found that the program does not have a strategic plan, a financial plan, or even a comprehensive or uniform training program. in light of the sequester and the resulting budget cuts, i for one see no justification for spending another dollar on a program that is wasteful and ineffective. mr. chairman, the time has come to stop t.s.a. from squandering additional funds on this misguided effort. i was surprised that in these austere times the appropriations committee

provided funding for the program. especially when in the report accompanying h.r. 2217, the committee questioned the fundamentals for the program when it said that there are outstanding questions remaining over the value of the program. we have an opportunity today to ensure we fund programs that are merit worthy and effective, not programs whose value and effectiveness have not been established. further, we have the opportunity to ensure that $200 million saved by defunding this program are put to far better uses such as expanding t.s.a.'s precheck program so more individuals can receive expedited screening, reducing wait times at screening check points, and bolstering surface transportation security. earlier today, the chairman of the appropriations committee stated that we cannot afford to

fund unproven and wasteful programs. i could not agree more. that is why i'm offering this amendment to cut off funding for t.s.a.'s unproven and wasteful spot program. with that, mr. chairman, i urge my colleagues to support my amendment and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. carter: i rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. carter: the outstanding question remains over the actual value of the protection officer, which has yet to be sufficiently validated by t.s.a. a recent report may validate the concerns mr. thompson has raised about the program.

in the report acopping this bill, this committee arctic you lated some of the same concerns including whether passengers are screened in a cost-effective manner. i cannot accept this amendment at this time to zero out the program. i remain hopeful that t.s.a. will correct these issues and my colleague, chairman mr. mccaul, has also said he is hopeful we can correct these programs. i would be willing to work with mr. thompson and mr. mccaul and anyone else who has concerns to ke sure that this program is effectively administered. at this time, i oppose owes the amendment. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. price: i rise in reluctant

opposition to the amendment as well. great s because i have respect for the gentleman from from mississippi and good work he does on the authorizing committee and also on the concerns he expressed here tonight are legitimate ones. but striking this funding in an appropriations bill is not the preferred way to deal with it. the behavior detection office program utilize eggs specially-trained individuals to identify high-risk individuals with behaviors that may be a threat to our security. these behaviors are not randomly chose yep. these individuals are trained in sikecoling call-gronded -- sikecolingal grounded behaviors. it's one element of a layered approach to ensure the security

of our airlines and airports. i'm aware that the inspector germ that faults t.s.a. to not assess the effectiveness of the program and not having a plan that identifies the mission, goals and objectives needed to develop performance measures. my understanding, however, is that t.s.a. has agreed with all of these recommendations made by the inspector general to improve the program and plans to address them right away. i also understand that t.s.a. has drafted a strategic plan for the program. ending a program at the department of homeland security just because the inspector germ has found it needs to improve its strategy and improvement doesn't make sense. the inspector general has not recommended that the program be ended. the use of behavior detection is not a new idea. in fact, it has a validated

foundation in psychology. it's been a cornstone of the israeli government's security for years. i commend the administrator for his understanding of the possibilities and limitations of behavior detection and his attempts to use it effectively. we don't need to end this program but need to work with t.s.a. and quickly implement the i.g.'s recommendations. i urge defeat of the amendment and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona >> -- the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from mississippi. 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. thompson: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6, rule 18, further proceedings on

the amendment offered by the gentleman from mississippi will be postponed. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. salmon of arizona, at the end of the bill before the short title insert the following, section, none of the funds made vabling by this act may be used in contravention of section 4 642-a of the act of 1996. 8 united states code 1373-a. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. salmon: i might add that this amendment is one that was offered by my colleague, david schweikert from arizona last year and pass odd a voice vote. the t.h.s. has valued state and local governments that are partners that could assist d.h.s. in fulfilling its responsibility with respect to immigration enforcement and continues to welcome that

participation. in order to avoid complying with their assistance, local governments have taken on don't ask-don't tell policy. with the implementation of sanctuary policies, state and local law enforcement officers are barred from asking people about their immigration status or reporting them. sanctuary policies are bad, because states and cities that institute those policies are magnets for illegal immigration. illegal immigration results in higher cost of living and lower wages, higher crime rates, fiscal hardship on hospitals and substandard quality of care for residents, burdens on public services, increasing their costs and diminishing their availability and reduction of the overall quality of life. sanctuary policies are expensive and shift the costs of illegal immigration on to citizens and

legal immigrants. many are utilizing state and local benefits without contributing their fair share. sanctuary policies are a s toerse incentive for alien institute those policies. it encourages others to follow the same path and gives prospective immigrants to pursue the legal path to citizenship. sanction tu area policy insults those immigrants who waited months and years for the u.s. state department and d.h.s. to approve their application and paid thousands of dollars to abide by the laws and regulations. sanctuary policies conflict with federal law. recognizing the adoption of

these policies to combating the wave of illegal aliens, congress adopted the illegal immigration reform and immigration responsibility act of 1996 that barred state and local governments from prohibiting employees from providing, receiving and sharing information on those here illegally with federal government officials. sanctuary policies denies customs enforcement with assistance to accomplish its mission to identify and remove those here illegally who are currently in state or local custody. nctuary policies undermine fforts and terrorists go unnoticed. sanctuary cities tell those who are here illegal that our laws don't matter. it encourages illegal immigration and weakens our

ability to secure our borders and contribute to a flood of illegal immigrants. during the immigration reform debate, this policy has created even bigger immigration problem. with money so tight these days, cities that are skirting federal law should not benefit from federal law enforcement funding. the funds should be used for those cities who are actively enforcing the law. what this amendment would do is disallow any funds from this particular legislation to go to sanctuary cities. 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: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. carter: we will accept this amendment. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by -- >> mr. chairman. ms. jackson lee: i move to strike the last word.

the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. jackson lee: i will say that i'm concerned if we are going to deny fnding to cities that have established rules that may be determined that they are sanctuary cities and in fact they are not. any cities have a process in their own jurisdiction where law enforcement wants to ensure that in the enforcement of their local laws that all communities be considered engaged in the law enforcement process. i don't know whether the gentleman determines whether that is a sanctuary city where chiefs of police wish to hear rom communities that are bilignual and don't want to have a structure that intim dates

them and inhibits the prosecution of laws or inhibits the elimination of crime. so i would only make the argument that i know that the chiefs of police, the association of chiefs of police have argued that it is important to ensure that immigrant communities feel free enough to communicate with their law enforcement officers. i don't know if that's the interpretation of the gentleman's sanctuary cities, but i hope they will not be biased or discriminated with respect to funding. and i yield back. i will be happy to yield to the gentleman. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from arizona. sam sammy -- mr. salmon: my interpretation of the law is the same we passed in 1996 and nothing more, nothing

less. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona rise? >> move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. schweikert: i appreciate my old friend for bringing it up. for those of us from arizona, we have some intimate experience which -- dealing with these mechanics. for almost all of us in this body we run for office telling everyone that immigration is a federal issue, we need to set federal policy and that's how we will come up with our enforcement. but what happened when all of a sudden we have a municipality that is still taking the federal dollars and yet is not playing under the same rules as their next door neighbor municipality? the beauty of this amendment is very, very simple. it says if you are going to take these resources, you need to

play by the rule book that we, in congress, set on an issue that we are supposed to be dominant on. and the reality is, when you have a municipality that through stated policy, flaunts what we are trying to do, particularly in immigration policy, it creates and sets off the very fights that our last speaker was touching on. and having been the treasurer of maricopa county, i have seen the edges of this when one municipality was looking very, very different at our federal laws compared to another one and literally, the movement that would happen with populations and the fights that would start and the chaos when you are trying to have a community of equal law enforcement. so mr. chairman, one of the

reasons i stand here and support the salmon amendment and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlelady from california rise? >> i move to strike the last word. i ms. sanchez: i hope to engage in a colloquy with the chairman. mr. chairman, thank you for the work you have done on this bill along with our ranking member. i had intended to offer an amendment in the hopes of modernizing our pedestrian access at our land ports of entry, but i was held up in the markup which is ongoing still. it would have set aside $ million within the construction and facilities management to begin construction on shovel -ready projects at the pedestrian access points. mr. chairman, our land ports are out of date and in need of massive repair.

this is the first step in addressing the massive wait times for pedestrians across our country. i was in colexico, california where i saw elderly people waiting in 102 degree heat waiting to shop in the united states. we hinder our economy when we hinder the lifeline to the economy. this is happening every day at our border communities throughout this country and as a member of congress from a border state, you understand that all too well. so i want to ask the chairman for his support in working with me during the conference ensuring pedestrian points have the funds to be improved so we can increase our trade at our land points. . . mr. carter: will the gentlelady

yield? >> i will. mr. tart -- mr. carter: as we she kated wait times at ports of entry have increased in recent years. i won't support the gentlewoman's amendment but i will vow to work with her in ensuring that proper funds are given to pedestrians to shorten wait times at ports of entry. i'll be glad to work with you on this issue. ms. sanchez: i thank the chairman, thank you for your support and i yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona. those opposed, no. -- those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment.

the clerk: amendment offered by mr. runyan of new jersey. at the end of the bill before the short title insert the following new section. section, none of the funds made available in this act may be used to carry out the amendments made by section 10027 of the biggert-waters flood insurance reform act of 2012, title 2 of division f of public law 112-141 with respect to any property located in the state of new jersey or the state of new york. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. runyan: my amendment is very similar to what representative cassidy had on the floor about an hour ago. my amendment would delay the increase in national flood insurance premiums in new jersey and new york until the end of f.y. 2014. it does it through prohibiting funding for the implementation of section 207 of the

biggert-waters flood insurance reform act with regard to the states of new york and new jersey. new jersey and new york have suffered unprecedented damages in hurricane sandy. many of these coastal residence -- residents in new jersey and new york are still struggling to rebuild and now we're staring down huge increases in flood insurance premiums due to the provisions of the biggert-waters act. the people of new jersey and new york have suffered enough and cannot afford to pay skyrocketing premiums in the middle of the rebuilding process. the least we can do is give them a reprieve a little peace of mind until the end of the 2014 fiscal year. i'd like to thank mr. king and mr. lobiondo for working with me on this amendment and i urge my colleagues to support the amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered -- for what purpose does the gentleman from

texas rise? mr. carter: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. carter: the authorizers have indicated that they oppose this amendment that's being proposed by my friend from new jersey and i'm reluctant to oppose it so i just wanted to make that statement that the authorizing committee is opposed to this. we've had a debate almost add nauseam on the state of -- almost ad nauseam on the state of louisiana with almost exactly the same amendment and i think everything that's been said about this flood program has been said so i'm not going to continue that debate, i just wanted to make a note that although i'm not going to officially oppose, i will state that the authorizers are supposed to be here to oppose and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. 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 minutes. >> i want to thank the chair and the ranking member of this subcommittee for their work on this bill. it's certainly one that i'm very happy to support. given the importance of trade at both our northern and southern land ports of entry, i'm particularly pleased that the bill includes 1,600 new c.b.p. officers to ex-pa -- expedite trade at our ports. mr. o'rork: i planned to target an amendment to target them to the busiest ports of entry, it would have required the department of homeland security to submit a report detailing the average crossing times at the busiest land ports and what the staffing needs are to ensure we can reduce the wait times to 20 minutes or less. i understand my amendment would be subject to a-pound of -- point ofrder but i look forward to working with the chair and ranking member to address this issue as the process moves

forward. very quickly, wait times right now at our ports of entry are unpredictable and they are inconsistent. people can wait as few as 20 minutes, they can wait as long as two or three hours to enter the united states at a pedestrian bridge, as a chuter by vehicle, or most importantly for our economy, trade can wait hours at a time to enter the united states. the economy that i represent in el paso, texas, has 100,000 jobs at stake that depend on this cross-border trade. there is over $90 billion in u.s.-mexico trade crossing at these ports every single year. more than six million jobs in this clint depend on u.s.-mexico trade that's crossing at our southern ports of entry alone. in the state of texas, we have more than 400,000 jobs, in the state of north carolina, we have over 100,000 jobs. that's why i think it's so important to understand the wait time, to be able to fix

them and to move people and c.b.p. officers where they are most needed so again i look forward to working with the chairman and ranking member to address this issue going forward. with that, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. carter: i move to strike the last word. i'd like to -- the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. carter: i would like to comment to my colleague from brownsville, we in texas are proud of our ports of entry on the border, they do an exceptional job in a difficult environment. we do need to reduce the wait times and i'm looking forward to working with you, looking forward to coming to brownsville and visiting down that way, been to la ray to doe a bunch of times -- to laredo a bunch of times lately, but haven't been down to brownsville, i intend to work with you and our friends from california and arizona to do the best we can to move wait times down to something that's manageable. i just want to congressmen i'd -- comment i'd be glad to work

with you. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? mr. price: strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. westmoreland: i'd like to address mr. runyan's amendment on the flood insurance. we had a great discussion tonight on flood insurance and how appropriate it is to come through an appropriations bill rather than going through regular order, going through the committee of origination. which is the financial services committee. so i don't want to take up any more time, we have been through this and through this and through this and with all respect to the gentleman from new jersey, i just don't know that it's proper to do something specific for just two states when there's other states -- we're all, anybody, 5.5 million people have flood insurance. we're all involved in this. i ask for a no vote on this we should give

the committee of authority the ability to address the fema situation. with that i ask for a no vote and yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new jersey. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the noes have it. the amendment is not agree tosmed >> mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey. mr. runyan: i request a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new jersey will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentlelady from texas rise? ms. jackson lee: i have an amendment at the desk regarding ir marshals. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by ms. jackson lee of texas at the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the following. section, none of the funds made available in this act may be

used in contravention of section 44917 of title 49 united states code. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. ms. jackson lee: thank you, mr. chairman. let me thank the me for its leadership and acknowledge to my friends that this amendment was adopted in the last appropriations for homeland security and i believe it's an important amendment to continue to keep before this committee but also to continue to provide codification of it. i have served on the homeland security committee for a very honorable period of time and when i say that, it is a time that i have enjoyed being able to address the questions of homeland security or domestic security under the homeland security department. and through ta that -- and through that time i've had the privilege of one of me committees to have oversight over the u.s. air marshals and

i would say to my colleagues that often u.s. air marshals dent get the tanks -- thanks and appreciation they deserve. it is not an easy task even as they are on domestic flights, international flights are quite a difficult -- are quite difficult in terms of the time but theals intensity of the work because their astuteness and awareness of what's going on in a small, compact area is very important to the safety of those passengers. so my amendment, mr. chairman, is very simple. what it does is it asks that no funds be used to limit the discretion of the secretary of homeland security to enhance the use of federal air marshals on inbound international flights considered to be high risk by the department of homeland security. there's little that i need to say to my colleagues is that we live in a different atmosphere and certainly a different neighborhood. we're all well aware of our eyes being focus opped the christmas day bomber a few years ago, or in fact the shoe

bomber that was headed to boston or the fact of the various training that is going on with individuals even from the united states and yes, ma'am -- in yemen. we're also aware that one of the boston massacre bombingsings -- marathon bombings flew from the united states overseas and back. so we realize that individuals are using the international air skies, if you will, to travel back and forth to the united states. my amendment ensures that the federal air marshals are effectively using their funds to deploy personnel on inbound flyings that are considered high risk by the department of homeland security and there's no limitation to that ability. i believe the federal air marshals are the last line of defense in many instances in defending the cockpit and aircraft cabin against terrorist attacks. those who have obviously been able to transcend other barriers in getting on planes in international ports.

as a former chair and current member of the homeland security transportation committee, i've worked over the years and sponsored legislation to ensure we have enough air marshals to ensure they receive the requisite training to effectively secure the aircraft. many times their work goes unnoticed but it is vital work, to best protect our nation from terroristic threat it is of extreme importance that we use the necessary funds to support air marshals on inbound international flight thesms threat to our society continues to be a serious and danger threat. it is often recited by those who are engaged in intelligence matters that aviation assets still are the asset of choice for many of these franchise terrorists to best protect our nation from terrorististic threats, it is important that we take note of our international flight. following the capture and killing of osama bin laden,

intelligence was gathered that suggested that al qaeda still has an interest in attacking the united states, likely through transportation modes whether it is to airplanes, train, and other modes. this fact, coupled with numerous suspicious activities even on domestic aircraft where passengers are attempting to open cabin doors in flight soft concern and certainly our air marshals play a very important role. while my amendment deals with the threat on inbound aircraft to the united states, its ultimate impact will be to ensure that air marshals are assigned to highest risk flights. it simply prohibits funds from being used to limit the discretion of homeland security to -- on inbound high risk flights and reinforces the importance of the job air marshals do and the importance of assessing this high risk threat in many instances which is the aviation vehicle.

the terrorist threats are ever changing. we must allow the secretary of homeland security to make thes in adjustments to address this. this amendment is budget neutral and i would ask my colleagues to support this amendment that really speaks to the idea of security for the american people. with that, i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman rise? mr. carter: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. carter: i do not oppose the amendment. it's my understanding that it's a restatement of current law. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from texas. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by

mr. gingrey. insert the following, section, none of the funds made available by this act may be used in contravention of 287-g of thism gracious and nationality act 8 united states code 1357-g. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. gingrey: i ry rise to offer an amendment. the program has been an integral component of immigration enforcement yet the obama administration has been weakening the integrity of the program by slashing fund and discontinuing numerous agreements. my colleagues have tried to do the same through this amendment process. mr. chairman, i want to commend my friend, homeland security security subcommittee chairman, john carter, ensuring that the

underlying bill provide $43.5 million to restore it. my amendment simply adds an additional layer of protection for the program by stating that none of the funds made available under this act may be used in contravention of section 287-g of the immigration and nationality act. the 287-g program enables state and local law enforcement to enter into agreements with mmigration and customs enforcement by processing illegal aliens who are incarcerated for crime for removal. the agreements have a proven track record, mr. chairman. since 2006, over 209,000 potentially removeable i will gel -- illegal yaleance have

been identified. the final decision remains with i.c.e. additionally with less than 000 i.c.e. agents, 287-g agreements serve as a force multiplier by allowing state and local law enforcement to incease in enforcing federal immigration laws. in my district, the 11th congressional district of georgia, the sheriff's department has successfully participated in the 287-g program since 2007. i know that the cobb sheriff's department wants to continue its participation in this program and i'm sure that countless other law enforcement agencies want to do as well. however, the obama administration continues to weaken our immigration laws by reducing options available to enforce those laws. the administration has gone so far as discontinuing existing

agreements, suspending pending agreements and seeking to slash the 287-g program by 25%. we cannot let this continue. mr. chairman, the administration and my colleagues on the other side of the oil, tout secure communities as an alternative to the program. while secure communities is an important part of immigration enforcement, imfoes cusses on removing aliens that the administration deems a priority, namely, criminal aliens, while removal of these types of aliens is important, the administration must stop picking and choosing of existing immigration law it chooses to enforce. state and local enfor thement officers go through extensive training to participate in 287-g agreements. the training allows them to

participate and enforce immigration law while carrying out their other duties. rather than turning a blind eye to someone here illegally, officers are able to identify and take action when they encounter an illegal alien who has been incarpeted for committing a crime. they aren't patroling the streets. the administration's attack ignores the success and officer's training assuming they can't multi task, assuming, it is time to enforce our immigration laws and time we uphold the rule of law. for these reasons i urge all of my colleagues, please support my amendment to this bill. and 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: i move to strike the last word. i rise in support of the gingrey amendment and i yield back. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina rise? mr. price: i move to strike the last word. mr. chairman, i'm baffled by this amendment, what on earth could it mean to ontraconvenient 287-g? nobody wants to do any federal statute. that's what this amendment says. if the offering of this amendment is an occasion to gloss over the problems with 287 -g and tout its virtues, i will briefly go back to the debate earlier -- earlier today when i think this was pretty thoroughly discussed. to bring local

firnls into the immigration. that has worked well. and where those local authorities focused on the jails and on the prison population and the people who had committed serious crimes and in that sense , it is a parallel effort with the secure communities' effort. i know of other instances, though, and i think the department has validated or verified there are other instances where that line between federal and local authority has gotten very seriously blurred, where there have been instances of profiling and other abuses. there have been so many abuses that i concluded some time ago to abuse, as prone too many programs for it to be set up for it to be our

long-term effort to involve local officials in immigration matters. so i believe it's very important be phased into the secure communities' effort. the secure communities' effort is taking off around the country and can, in time, supersede this flawed 287-g concept. and there is the matter of expense. we discussed earlier today, $32,000 per removal for that task force model, 287-g program versus something like 1.5,000 dollars. it's a waste of money and i thought the administration did the right thing in reducing the funding for 287-g and continuing

the phase-in of secure communities and i regret the community put that money back, but i certainly feel that this current amendment -- i don't understand what it means, but i certainly don't want to let the occasion pass without saying to my colleagues, i think this 287-g program is one that we need to oversee very, very carefully. and i remain convinced that it can and should be superseded by a better program. i yield back. >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> i yield balance of my time to mr. gingrey from georgia. mr. gingrey: i appreciate the gentleman yielding me time. i say to my colleague from north carolina in describing this amendment, 287-g program

superseded some of the state laws that were enacted west of the mississippi, not east of the mississippi. and obviously there was some problems -- but in this situation that i'm describing and the reason that the chairman of the subcommittee wants so strongly to fund this program is that communities like cobb county, georgia, in the heart of the 11th congressional district, my district, sheriff warren, who has been utilizing this program since 2007, mr. chairman, and as i pointed out, it is a force multiplier. the deputy sheriffs in co bmp b county are not patroling the streets, profiling, looking for certain individuals to ask them for their papers or anything of that sort. this program is just simply when

someone is incarcerated for committing a crime in our community and it doesn't matter the ethnicity. anybody in that jail with the training of these officers under program, federally trained. they have the ability, the knowledge to find out, to check the data bases, homeland security information, social security, to find out whether or not these individuals are in this country legally. now, if they're not in the country legally, we make note of that. they make note of that under the 287-g program. they serve their time for the crime they committed, whether that's running a red light, driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol, a minor fender-bender, whatever it is, they serve their time.

i.c.e. is given this information and can make the decision whatever they want to do in regard to whether they deport these illegal immigrants and the program gives them the ability to decide not to deport them. the local community is out of it at that point. so nothing can be better than a program like 287-g and it's well worth a dollar spent as i point out, a force multiplier. i commend the chairman of the subcommittee and i say to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, let's get the job done nd support this amendment. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. ? for what purpose does gentlelady from texas rise? ms. jackson lee: i move to strike the last word.

i was intending on offering an amendment dealing with border security centers of excellence. i will not offer that amendment and i would like to just indicate that i look forward to working with the ranking member and the chairman. s we move toward comprehensive immigration reform, universities look to the highest technology of how to secure america. they design to meet the needs of department of homeland security, border security immigration and develop and use cutting research focused on unique science, policy issues and develop educational programs in order to educate current and future practitioners which is crucial and research is relevant. we need the technology and expertise. as the ranking member on the border security and maritime security, i can assure you as we

look to the new metrics on the northern and southern border, we need personnel and my amendment was going to ensure that we allow congress to gather the information needed by congress to establish more universities or opportunities for more universities and colleges to participate as border security centers of excellence. huent community college, texas southern university, university of houston, a number of campuses could be engaged as border security centers of excellence. one of the universities received a transportation security centers of excellence that was established under that particular legislation, the transportation security administration legislation. so i would like to make sure

that we look forward to doing that. and i would also add that i do want to indicate as we pass the amendment dealing with no knives on planes, i introduced legislation with mr. grimm, that allowed the administrator to consult with stakeholders. i believe that legislation helped turn the corner for the thoughtful position that mr. pistole has now taken. the amendment that we passed today is by voice and was common sense and makes a good important statement and i think the idea of the -- emphasizing air marshals and my previous amendment that was accepted is important to reinstate and re-emphasize the importance of us air marshals and the importance of the responsibility of the u.s. department of homeland security for the travel ping public to ensure that it assesses high risk places of

departure so that air marshals can be used effectively, efficiently and with funding. with all of that, i believe that the amendments that have been put on the floor today and discussed and offered contribute positively to the ultimate direction of security in this country and as well as i conclude, i hope we will be able to have more border security centers of excellence and i look forward to working with this committee to ensure that comprehensive immigration reform, we have the technology, the personnel, the training, the research and education to make it work as it should. with that, i yield back. . . the chair: the gentlewoman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from georgia. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. he amendment is agreed to.

pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, proceedings will now resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were postponed in the following order. amendment by mr. bishop of new york. amendment by mr. moran of virginia. amendment by mr. garrett of new jersey. amendment by mr. ryan of ohio. amendment number one by mr. cassidy of louisiana. amendment by mr. meadows of north carolina. amendment number four by mr. tompson of mississippi. amendment by mr. runyan of new jersey. the chair will reduce to two

minutes the time for any electronic vote after the first vote in the series. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new york, mr. bishop, on which further proceed wrgs postponed an on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. bishop of new york. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of a request for a recorded vote will rise and be downed. a sufficient number having risen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 80, the nays are 235. -- 345. the chair announces to the house -- the amendment is not passed. the chair announces to the house that two minute voting and ccur after this vote the chair asks that members pay attention because the votes will close quickly for the rest f the evening.

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

the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 165, the nays are 26 1. he amendment is not agreed to. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new jersey, mr. garrett, 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. garrett of new jersey. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a vorded rote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 180, the nays are 247, he amendment has not passed. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from ohio, mr. ryan,

on which further proceed wrgs postponed on -- and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. ryan of ohio. 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 risen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

choich on this vote, the yeas are 50, the nays are 373. one present. he amendment is not agreed to. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number one printed in the congressional record offered by the gentleman from louisiana, mr. cassidy, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number one printed in the congressional record offered by mr. cassidy of louisiana. 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 risen a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote, the yeas are --

the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 281, the nays are 146. he amendment is agreed to. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from north carolina, mr. meadows, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. meadows of north carolina. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise

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

the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 234, the nays are 192. he amendment is agreed to. the unfinished business is request for a recorded vote on amendment number 4 printed in

congressional record by the gentleman from mississippi, mr. thompson, on which further proceedings were postponed, on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 4 printed in the congressional record, offered by mr. thompson of mississippi. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded sotis 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 147, the yeas are 279 and the amendment is not agreed to. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new jersey, mr. runyan, on which further

proceedings were postponed and the noes prevailed. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. runyan of new jersey. 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. , 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 148, the nays are 278. the amendment is not agreed to. is not agreed to. >> the house will be in order. >> members will please take your conversations off the floor. the house will be in order. the committee will be in order.

for what purpose does the gentleman from texas secret mission? >> i have an amendment. by mr. floresed of texas. insert the following section,be used to enforce section 526 of the energy independence and ecurity act of 2007. public law 110-40. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized for five minutes. the chair: madam chairman, i rise to offer an amendment which addresses a misguided

regulation. the chair: the gentleman will suspend. members will take their conversations off the floor, the gentleman deserves to be heard. the chair: section 526 -- mr. flores: section 526 prohibits federal agencies from entering into contracts for the procurement of alternative fuels unless its life cycle greenhouse gas emissions are equivalent or less than those produced from conventional petroleum sources. my amendment would stop the government from enforcing this ban on all agencies funned by the department of homeland security appropriations tpwhism initial reason for this was to stifle department of homeland security's plan to buy

coal-based fuel. this is -- we must ensure our military has adequate fuel resources and can officially rely on domestic and more stable resources of fuel but section 526's ban on fuel choice now affects all federal agencies, not just the defense department. this is why i'm offering this amendment today to appropriations bills. departments should not be faced with this burden and that is to not restrict the government with misguyed policies like those in section 526. with increasing competition for energy and fuel resources and continued instability in the mideast, it's now more important than ever for our country to become more energy secure and further develop and produce our domestic energy resources. placing limits on federal agency fuel choices is an unacceptables predebit to set

in regard to america's energy policy and independence. section 526 make ours nation more dependent on mideast oil, stopping the impact of section 526 will help us promote american energy, improve american energy security, improve the american economy and create more american jobs. madam chairman, it's also important to note that this amendment does not prevent and does not restrict the ability of the federal government to purchase any alternative fuels including biodiesel, ethanol or other fuels from renewable sources. it places no restrictions whatsoever on that. let's remember the following facts about section 526. it increases reliance on mideast oil, hurt ours military readiness, our national security and energy security, promotes the use of safe, clean, north american oil and gas, increases the cost of american food and energy, hurts american jobs an the american economy and last but certainly not least, costs our taxpayers more of their hard-earned dollars. i offer this amendment to the

appropriation bills in the 112th congress and they all passed on the floor of the house with strong bipartisan support. my friend mr. conaway added similar language to the defense authorization bill to exempt the defense department from this burdensome regulationism urge my colleagues to support passage of this commonsense amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. carter: we accept the gentleman's amendment. i yield back. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina rise? mr. price: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. price: i rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. section 526 of the energy independence and security act of 2007 is intended to ensure that the environmental costs from the use of alternative fuels are at least no worse than the fuels in use today.

it requires the federal government do no more harm when it comes to harmful emissions and climate change -- and climate change than it does today through the crews of unconventional fuels. section 526 precludes the use of fuels such as coal to liquids as well as unconventional petroleum fuels such as tar sands and oil shale unless advanced technologies such as carbon sequestration are used to mitigate their greenhouse gas emissions. this is a provision in law that i think affords important environmental protections, important conditions on the adoption of alternative fuels, so i think it's a mistake, it would be a mistake for this body to prohibit in any way the enforcement of section 526 and therefore i oppose the

amendment and ask colleagues to do likewise and yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman from north carolina yields back. the gentleman from -- for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? >> i move to strike he last word, madam chairman. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five mins. mr. gingrey: madam chairman, i rise in strong support of the flores amendment to h.r. 2217 that will prevent funds in this legislation from being used to carry out section 526 of the energy independence and security act of 27. it prohibits all federal agencies from contracting for alternative fuels that emit higher levels of greenhouse gas emotions than conventional petroleum sources. this means that if a federal agency, particularly department of defense and homeland security, has the ability of utilizing an alternative fuel

that even has one scintilla and f carbon emissions fuels it cannot be used. some of you may not know what a scintilla is but the professor from duke does, it's a very, very, very small amount. this severely limits innovation from customs and border patrol to improve clean carbon captured technologies for alternative fuels, increasing our dependence on foreign oil and will only further increase fuel costs. the amendment intends to remove the handcuffs, the handcuffs placed on the agencies under this bill by section 526. this means that homeland security, the department of defense, particularly the air force, will still be able to purchase canadian fuels with just traces, scintillas of oil sands that may create more of a

carbon footprint than completely conventional fuel. madam chairman, i support a full repeal of section 526 because the cost to refine product for d.o.d. has increased by over 500%. 500% in the last 10 years when volume only increased 30%. this amendment, the floor rest amendment, takes a very important step of achieving this goal by prohibiting funding to carry out section 526 for this upcoming fiscal year at homeland security. when w that in mind, i appreciate the opportunity to work with my colleague from texas, mr. flores, on this important issue. i urge this body to support this amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from georgia yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from texas, those in favor say aye. those opposed, no.

in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. he amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman seek recognition? >> madam chairman. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from new mexico seek recognition? >> madam chair, i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> i rise to engage chairman cart for the a colloquy on the science and tech direct rat within the department of homeland security. mr. chairman, as you know, the enabling act that created the homeland security department provide the new department with special access to the department of energy's national laboratories. the intent was for d.h.s. to utilize the unique capabilities at the national laboratories so d.h.s. would not build up duplicative capabilities within the department. building duplicative capabilities at a different agency is poor use of taxpayer

dollars and there's no need to do so given the department's access to the existing national labs. mr. lujan: at a time when our government has dramatically reduced its ability to conduct cutting edge research into new technology, we must ensure that the department of homeland security is using its resources in the most cost effective methods possible. instead of reinventing the wheel and developing new capability the d.h.s. should be utilizing our d.o.e. national labs wherever practical as they conduct testing and evaluate technologies. they have first rate capabilities in many areas relevant to homeland security from explosive technologies to advanced cybercurt techniques. i urge us to work with the department to ensure their research and development funds are effectively spent and not used to create redundant capabilities and i yield to chairman carter. the chair: i -- mr. carter: i thank the gentleman for yielding and i thank the gentleman for rizzing

-- raising this issue. the department has the ability to utilize the incredible scientific resources of our national laboratories. i look forward to working with him on this important issue. as our nation continues to face a tight fiscal situation, it is vital that d.h.s. work to ensure that its scientific and deck direct rat make good news of our -- and tech direct rat make good use of our technology. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> madam chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. meehan of pennsylvania. at the end of the bill before the short title insert the following, section, none of the funds made available in this act may be used for u.s. customs and border protection pleer clearance -- preclearance

operations at abu dhabi international airport. the limitation described in this shall not apply in the administration of a tax or tariff. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for five minutes. mr. he man: thank you, ma -- mr. meehan: thank you, madam chair. rye rise in support of the eehan-defazio amendment. i this is a preclearance facility at abu dhabi international airport, there are preclearance facilities at other country around the world, the purpose is to facilitate the travel for many who go through this at a facility away from the united states. we have huge bag logs at some of the our critical airports, particularly places like new

york. now, however, the ranking member on the homeland security committee that i serve on a subcommittee, a-- along with other members and some 150 members of congress have joined me in a letter because we're concerned about the intent of what is done with this. the effect of it is going to be dramatically disadvantage american airlines. you see what's happening in abu dhabi is there is no american airline that flies from abu dhabi to the united states. this is supported by the united emirates. this will have an impact for the ability of our american airlines to be competitive. many people will say, i'm going to get to new york and i have a three, four-hour wait to get through that line and i'm going to fly there on the foreign

carrier, all the jobs associated with our american airlines begin to be influenced by supporting a foreign-based airline that will then increase their market share in here into the united states. now, what it does, it starts to shift some of the favor of the placement of these facilities towards third parties countries that will enter into an agreement that is happening, where they are underwriting 80% of the costs and i don't want to see our customs and border patrol to be for sale for the highest bidder and that is wup of the concerns here. the reality is the extent to which we think we are having an impact on terrorism, don't go to and you dhabi, go to the other other places that will will be a

check. and this will be funded with the taxpayer dollars. 20% of the costs are going to be associated with us. why would american taxpayers be paying money that will be benefit to the foreign-based irlse. only with our colleagues, i hope my amendment does not go to subsidize the preclearance subsidy and i urge both members of both parties to support it and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania yields back. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. carter: move to strike the last worth. i rise in support of this amendment and i have the same concerns that were expressed by the author. i yield to my colleague if he wishes to speak. mr. price: i rise in opposition to the amendment.

the chair: the gentleman from north carolina is recognized. mr. price: claim the time in opposition. mr. carter: i yield back. mr. price: the customs and border protection pre-clearance program searches a security function by stationing c.v. p officers abroad at the cost of the host nation. this allows c.v.p. officers to make decisions on individuals, goods and baggage long before they leave a foreign port or could possibly become a threat to the homeland. i have been screened in cappeda and ireland. and found these operations not only a convenience for travelers but effective and efficient way of carrying out security operations. in fiscal 2012 alone, the

officers precleared 1.5 million travelers december tipped for the united states. to outright prohibit the expansion of this program to an area of the world where we know terrorists are actively traveling, and carrying out missions against the homeland make no sense. i understand many domestic airlines have expressed concern that this would give the airlines an upper hand but there are facts that are disputed and something things we must consider. c v.p. said it would be a precondition of implementing preclearance there. secondly, our bill provides atutory language that pribts at three locations until

conditions are met. e foreign and security rationales have provided, a full cost analysis and an economic impact analysis of any new location on u.s. airline carriers has been -- the impact on the u.s. carriers hack conducted and provided to the congress. that's good language. that will be good oversight on our part and i commend the chairman for including that language in our bill. so given this language, given the known benefits for traveler convenient -- convenience, the known benefits that this program provides i quote support the gentleman's agreement and i urge its agreement. i yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from pennsylvania. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no.

in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, the amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from new mexico seek recognition? mr. lujan: i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: at the end of the bill before the short title insert the following, section, for department of homeland security, federal emergency management agencies, state and local programs for the state homeland security grant program under section 2004 of the homeland security act of 2002 6 u.s.c. 605 as authorized of such section, there is hereby appropriated in the amount otherwise provided by this act provided by department of homeland security, office of the chief financial officer is hereby reduced by $10 million.

the chair: the gentleman from new mexico is recognized for five minutes. mr. lujan: in one of the worst drought years of the recorded history of my home state, we are feeling the effects of another severe fire season. more than 18,000 acres of forest have burned as a result of do you understand power lines and those numbers are growing. hundreds of homes have been threatened and hundreds of families have been evacuated. in 2011, we lost 150,000 acres of forest to wildfire, again caused by a downed power line. the importance of disaster preparedness is key. my amendment would make available an additional $10 million for state and local grant programs to ensure communities can be prepared for troofic wildfires before they hit. this amendment is cost neutral.

and while there may be concerns by some of my colleagues in opposition, i would ask that we work together to understand that when there's communities burning, that we reach out and try to do what we can to help these individuals. my amendment would allow local utilities to take preventive measures on the causes and impacts on wildfires. we must ensure that communities have the resources they need to address the dangers of wildfires before and after catastrophic events occur. i urge my colleagues to occur. i would like to thank the firefighters in battling the two wildfires in northern new mexico. time and again those on the front line as well as those on the lines have acted admirably and those who vol untiered and lent a helping hand and our

displaced friends and neighbors, god bless you and thank you for your hard work. i urge my colleagues to support my amendment to help our communities prepare for wildfires. and i thank the chairman and ranking member for their work in this important area and i reserve. the chair: the gentleman may not reserve. mr. lujan: i yield back. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. carter: i rise in opposition to this amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. carter: this bill provides 2.5 billion for grants. this is $400 million above the president's request for fiscal year 2013. $35 million above fiscal year 2013. this bill prioritizes funding, consolidation in this bill forces the secretary to examine

the intelligence and risks and where it is ollars needed most. high-risk it is to urban areas or to state as opposed to reverse engineering projects to fill the amount designated for one of many programs. i strongly urge my colleagues to support fiscal discipline and vote no on this amendment. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields ack the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina rise? mr. price: move to strike the last word. i have no objection to this amendment and want to commend the gentleman for offering it. he is in a tight spot with this

limited -- with limited possibilities for offsetting the addition he wants to apply to the situation in his area that he describes. and the offset is not ideal, but i'm willing to work with him going forward to get more money directed to these vital emergency needs and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from north carolina yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new mexico. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. mr. carter: madam chairman, i would like a recorded vote, please. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new mexico will be postponed. for what purpose does the

gentleman from arizona seek recognition? >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> i rise today to engage in a colloquy with congressman carter regarding operation stone garden which is part of our homeland security operations and which has provided for in the homeland security appropriations act for fiscal year 2014. mr. gosar: operation stone garden is a grant program that is intended to provide a great deal of cooperation and coordination among federal, state, local, municipal in a joint mission to secure the united states borders including travel cordors, canada and mexico and states and territories with international water borders. the grants are made to local units of government and made on feasibility, demonstrated by the applicant. i speak on behalf of the local

law enforcement entities in arizona when i say this program actually works. it serves to bowls ter resources available to border states as they tackle overwhelming problems of illegal immigration as well as illegal trafficking of drugs, persons, weapons and money. i hear nothing but praise for the program and i know the people of arizona and other border states reap the benefits of this program whether they know the program name or not. you see certain programs and initiatives take off because everyone's input is considered and valued. the program works so well, that in 2009, secretary napolitano decided to stepped $30 million to be divided amongst the states. while i may not agree with her on many issues, this is a decision i applauded. the problem of illegal

immigration is one i think will remain for some time and why we are debating immigration reform. trust is a series of promises kept. current and previous administrations held by both parties have failed to keep that promise, so we are here today. border security and interior enforcement are utmost concern when considering immigration and protection of our homeland and this program is a prime example of the team work that is need to deliver to the people of this great republic. this investment is one that pays off over and over again and my hope that future legislation will continue to provide resources for this program. it is our collective duty to ensure we support the federal programs and initiatives that work while at the same time while sunsetting those that do not. i'm pleased that both houses -- the house that has begun such a

process and i'm proud to be part of that. the people of arizona and i thank the resources available relative to previous appropriation and with that, i yield back to the chairman of the homeland security committee. mr. carter: i thank my friend for highlighting -- this important program. . a fellow border state resident, i know the problems we face. local and tribal governments need to work with federal counterparts to improve border security. i look forward to working with the gentleman from arizona and others as we continue to support this worthy and valuable program. i yield back to the gentleman from arizona. mr. gosar: i thank the

gentleman for yielding and i reserve the balance of my time. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? >> madam chair, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. engel of new york. at eend -- at the end of the bill before the short title insert the fol logue, section, none of the funds made available by this act may be used by the department of homeland security to lease or purchase new light duty vehicles for any executive fleet or for any agency's fleet , except in accordance with presidential memorandum federal fleet performance dated may 24, 2011. the chair: the gentleman from new york is recognized for five minutes. mr. engel: madam chairman, on may 24, 2011, president oba maw issued a memorandum --

president obama issued a memorandum that requires all vehicles in the federal fleet o be hybrid, electric or natural gas by december 1, 2015. my amendment echo this is by prohibiting funds in the homeland security appropriations act from being used to lease or purchase light duty vehicles except in accord with the president eat -- president's memorandum. i've introduced a similar amendment to nine different appropriations billed in the past two years and each time it was send and passed by voice vote. our transportation sector is by far the biggest reason we send $600 billion a year to hostile nations to pay for oil at ever-increasing costs. america does not need to be dependent on foreign sources of oil for transportation fuel, alternative technologies exist today that will allow any alternative fuel to be used in america's automotive fleet. the federal government operates the largest fleet of light duty vehicles in america. according to the g.s.a., there

are over 660,000 vehicles in the federal fleet. this is almost 55,000 being used by the department of homeland security. by supporting a diverse array of vehicle technologies in our federal fleet we'll encourage development of domestic energy resources including biomass, natural gas, agricultural waste, hydrogen and renewable eelect trissties. expanding the role the energy resources play in our economy will help break the leverage over americans held by foreign controlled companies and increase our nation's domestic security, protect americans from price spikes and shortages in the world oil markets. i ask that my colleagues support the engale -- engel amendment and on a similar note i'll be introducing the open fuels act with our colleague, the gentlewoman from florida, ileana ros-lehtinen. it would require 30% of new utomobiles in 2510 -- 2015 and

50% in 2016 and following years -- erate on fuels ternative fuels as well as traditional forms, it could fuel cell, d, natural gas. i remember going into a gas station in brazil, i believe the chairwoman was with me we noticed all kind of alternatives available to brazilian consumers not available to american consumers and it seems to me we ought to not only catch up but pull ahead and have that same kind of technology available to americans. so i encourage my colleagues to support this amendment and the open fuels act as we work toward breaking our dependence on foreign oil and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from new york yields back.

for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. carter: strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. carter: madam chairman, we support this amendment and i yield what time -- i'll yield time to my colleague mr. price. the chair: the gentleman from -- the gentleman is recognized for the remainder of the time of the gentleman from texas. mr. price: i thank the velt for yielding and want to express my support for the amendment, i hope my colleagues will support it. mr. carter: i yield back. the chair: 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 amendment is agreed. to for what purpose does the gentleman from yea seek recognition? mr. king: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. king of iowa. at the end of the bill, before the hort title, insert the following -- section a none of

the funds made available in this act may be used to finalize, implement, administer or enforce the documents described in subsection b. b, for purposes of this section, the document december scribed in this subsection are the following. one, policy number 1000 2.1 -- mr. king: i ask that the amendment be considered as read. madam chair, i ask unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read. the chair: is there objection? >> madam chair, i object. i think we want to hear this entire amendment. the chair: the clerk will report. the clerk: 10072.1 published on march 2, 2011, two, policy number 100075.1 publish opped june 17, 2011. three, policy number 100076.1 published on june 17, 2011. four, the memorandum of november 17, 2011 from the

principal legal advisor of the united states immigration and customs enforcement pertaining to case-by-case review of incoming and certain pending cases. five, the memorandum of june 15, 2012, from the secretary of homeland security pertaining to exercising prosecutorial discretion with respect to individuals who came to the united states as children. six, the memorandum of december 21, 2012, from the director of united states immigration and customs enforcement pertaining to civil immigration enforcement, guidance on the use of detainers in the federal state -- federal, state, local, and tribal criminal justice systems. the chair: the gentleman from iowa is recognized for five minutes. mr. king: thank you, madam chair. this is an amendment i offered last year that succeeded here on the floor by a vote of 238-175 in a bipartisan fashion. it's the amendment that simply

says none of the funds made available in this act may be used to finalize, implement, or administer the document december scribed, known as the morton amendment. the morton amendments are the morton language, the morton memos, excuse me, is -- are -- essentially executive edicts that have been -- they float from the white house, float also from the director of homeland security, secretary of -- secretary of homeland security, janet napolitano, down through john morton, the director of i.c.e. and seek to implement and administrative amnesty policy, there are six of these memos now, the one we're most familiar with is the memo that grants what's known generally speaking as dream act light which gives, i'll say, a legal status if you accept the authority of the president to suspend immigration law to those who fit four different classes of people.

four classes of people granted administrative amnesty if they are -- if they claim to have come to the united states under the age of 16. if they've been here over five years. if they have received a high school or g.e.d. degree or been honorably discharged from the military, and in the memo, particularly the one who is the dream act light memo, dated june 15, 2012, seven times they mention prosecutorial discretion on an individual basis. well this sets up four classes of people. it has been the subject of litigation, the litigation that's gone to a federal court n texas, the case of crain vs. napolitano, chris reign is the novet: c.e. union. they made 10 points as -- to the unconstitutionality of these memos which direct i.c.e. sometimes to break the very immigration law they pledge to

uphold. so i have in my hand the decision that came down from that district in texas and it's a northern district of texas, and of the 10 points made in this case, the judge uphold none -- upheld nine of them in the rule of law, the 10th he sent back and said, the government hasn't given us a clear enough argument, rewrite it an i'll give you another decision on it. i expect that all 10 are likely to be found in the favor of the constitutional and rule of law. the point here is, madam chair, the president does not have the authority to waive immigration law nor does he have the authority to create it out of thin air and he's done both with the morton memos in this respect. they do have prosecutorial discretion. i concede that point. but the president nor do any of his agents through the executive branch of government have the authority to create classes of people and waive the enforcement of immigration law for classes of people and on

top of that create a work permit out of thin air. that's a couple of these mem most, six memos altogether. we should remember that the memo dated november 17, 2011, includes 475,000 people who had already been adjudicated for deportation, the president, through his agents and the executive branch have ordered that the people that have been adjuted -- adjudicated for deportation on that list should have the law waived and stay in the united states even though the law requires -- they've already been adjudicated for deportation, 300,000 of the 374,000 have been granted an administrative legal presence. this congress has the full authority to establish immigration law. the president takes an oath of office to take care that the laws be faithfully executed. and every single document that provides lawful presence in the united states of america aside from a naturally born american citizen is a product of this congress. not a product of the pen of the

president or the people who he appoints. so this is an amendment that prohibits the resources from being used to enforce the morton memos and it conforms with the founding fathers' vision and it conforms with the constitution in that the president cannot defy his own oath of office, he can't defy the constitution, the president can't take on krl one authority and legislate by executive order or edict or press conference. that's the job of this congress. that's why we are article 1, he is article 2. whatever people think of the impending immigration policy we in the united states, cannot allow the executive branch to usurp the legislative authority of the united states congress. if we allow that to happen in immigration we could allow that to happen in anything. i yield back the negative

balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the question is on the amendment offered -- >> madam chairman. the chair: the gentleman from -- for what purpose does the velt from north carolina seek recognition? mr. price: i rise in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. price: madam chairman, i rise with great disappointment and i think sadness is the right word. this is an amendment i very much hoped would not be offered tonight. i know that many in this chamber hoped it would not be offered tonight. it's a poison pill amendment. that's a term i've not used tonight and it's a term i don't use lightly. i very much hoped this amendment would not be offered and i hope now that it's been offered that it is not fated to pass. we've worked for months cooperatively on this homeland

security appropriations bill. as i said in announcing bipartisan support for this bill, at the beginning of today's debate, i commended the chairman heartly and the staff and members who have work sod hard on this in a bipartisan fashion, trying to come together, we gave a little, we took a little. but we did understand that it was important for this institution and for our nation's security to come together on homeland security bill that most members of this chamber could support. . for that reason, most decisive issues, most extraneous issues that have the capacity to divide us and in fact that bipartisan support, most of those have been avoided. and that has included, until

this moment the offering of amendments on this floor. the gentleman describes this as an amendment he offered last year. yes. it's an amendment he offered last year and it's an amendment that blew up bipartisan support for this bill last year and it's an amendment, by the way, with one very toxic edition, twisting the knife, adding the dream ack -- act children to the bill's provision. unbelievable that that would be in this version of the bill. let me just say what the king amendment would pribt is what law enforcement agency in this country must do and does do with regularity, making the most effective use of limited resources. no law enforcement agency in the

land can go after every violation. each law enforcement agency must prioritize the resources and go after the ones who would do us the most harm. can we imagine the department of homeland security would not do that, in fact, we would rightly condemn them if they did not do that. one of the documents that the king amendment would require immigration and customs enforcement to ignore states and i'm quoting, aliens that would pose a danger are priority one for removal. that's what the gentleman wants the agency to ignore. in a world with limited resources, it's dangerous, it's rresponsible, totally ir irrealistic not to depose people who pose a threat to public

safety and saying if you prioritize criminals and prioritize dangerous people, then you must be giving amnesty to everyone else. it's absurd. it's absurd. may have a certain appeal on the talk shows, but unworthy of this body. why would we want i.c.e. to spend time going after innocent kids in college who were brought to this country by their parents as it spends going after known dangerous criminals? why would we want i.c.e. to focus on the detention of spouses of u.s. citizens serving in our military rather than on people who pose a threat to national security. colleagues know there is no answer to these questions. that doesn't point in the direction of a resounding rejection of this extreme and

destructive amendment. and i beg my colleagues to vote no. and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from orth carolina yields back. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from texas seek recognition? ms. jackson lee: to strike the last word. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized for five minutes. ms. jackson lee: i have a good number of good friends. mr. king serves with me on the judiciary committee, good friend, mr. price, who is the ranking member, has given the expose of the contents of mr. king's amendment and i worked with judge carter, congressman carter, as we look to ensuring the security of the border and protecting the homeland. i think it is important first all, we should thank i.c.e.

officers across america, because most i.c.e. officers, in spite of the judicial decision that mr. king offers, have followed the executive order or the directives of their administrator, who is an established public servant and law enforcement officer. his credentials are without question. the judiciary committee has heard from mr. morton on several occasions to articulate the premise of the provisions that are being attacked in this amendment amendment. each time he has been able to document the value of what this prosecutorial discretion, series of orders represents. in fact, mr. morton went out on the road and went to houston, texas, to explain to array of community persons, what this actually meant.

fl was no offering of a.m. mess ti, no utilization of that language, no suggestion this would be an open-door policy, this was a suggestion that thoughtful i.c.e. agents, entrusted to uphold the law, ould have the authority to use prosecutorial discretion so we could go after the terrorists and go after those who would do us harm and allow hard-working families to stay together. my good friend does not make mention of the fact that the obama administration has deported more individuals than any others. many of us have advocated against that. at we advocated for is for a fair assessment of how you make that determination. maybe my friends are not aware

that we are operating under a budget line that is not even a rillion dollars, $970-plus billion. way below what i would like to see. if that is the question, then why would my good friend, mr. king, suggest that we aren't doing our job? so we want to split up hard-working families and fathers who are supporting their families who came in undocumented. but most of all the pain of the young people that have come into my office in the academic institutions in texas or houston, who want to stay here and contribute to america's dream, the dream children and we're now telling them after receiving a prosecutorial deferral, using prfrl

discretion, case by case, determining there is no criminal background, nothing they have done wrong, and by that decision, that simple even-handed decision, that nothing has been done wrong by them, they are allowed to stay. i want to know if my friend will support me on comprehensive immigration reform. but i would ask my colleague to look at this as a law enforcement tool. this is not willie nily. this has been a thoughtful process that i.c.e. has articulated for them to look at those individuals that would pose a danger, deport them. but to those families who need to be united who are surviving working five and four children, going to work and houses of worship or the children who are graduating or graduate school or

the mother who came and fell on crying ped in my office when it was acknowledged that her graduate-school daughter could stay here and finish here degree through no fault of her own, coming to the united states, not knowing she was on status. i'm hoping, mr. price, we will not have a devries i have amendment and i'm praying my good friend will join me on comprehensive immigration reform. the chair: the gentlewoman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> i yield the balance of my time to mr. king. mr. king: i appreciate the opportunity to respond to some of the statements that were made here, madam chair and i would go

through some of the things that i heard from the gentleman that this amendment is a poison pill, twisting knife, that it is talk show appeal. i would point out to the body that none of that has any substance. and the real substance of that is that we all stood here on the floor of this house of representatives, raised our hand the ok an oath to uphold constitution of the united states. i carry the constitution in my jacket pocket every single day and i read it many of those days, but i adhere that as we take the oath to do so. and if we have members of congress who don't know the difference between article one or article two or members of

congress that can inflate articles one and two or excuse a president who has crossed a line that he has drawn, not just with his oath of office that i referenced earlier but with a statement to a high school on i ch 28 of 2011 when he said know you want me to pass the dream act, but i don't have the authority to do that. that's congress' authority. i'm the president. congress writes the laws. and the judiciary branch rules on the language and the constitution nealt of it. he is right. he is a former professor of constitutional law at university of chicago. at that time he was right. about a year later, he issued this order that his dream like act that defied his own definition of the limitations of

article two the executive branch and he assumed the powers and authority of article 1. how can we take an oath to uphold that constitution and excuse that kind of behavior because whether or not we approve of the policy let's have the debate on the policy here where it be longs and not hand over to a president who has usurped constitutional authority. our founding fathers -- house or senate, would allow the president to usurp. they envisioned that each body would aggressively the authority we have within the constitution. this amendment that i have says we aren't going to use taxpayer dollars to defend this unconstitutional act on the part of the president of the united states. i called a meeting, we initiated the litigation and moving

through the court system and can't catch up through the litigation process, the president that has usurps. whatever your position is on the dream like anth and the gangs of eight and the house and senate, we have the oath. that's the vote here, madam chair. and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the the man from illinois -- gentleman from pennsylvania yield back. >> i yield back. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> first of all, this has nothing to do with the constitution of the united states. the fact is that the congress of the united states has passed lause granting the president of

the united states this executive authority. he has it by statute and by law. mr. gutierrez: as a matter of fact many of you may remember in 1999, congressman smith and others won't to president clinton asking him to use his discretionary power more often, in other words, i'm sorry to the gentleman, mr. king, but i think the gentleman from texas is an authority on this issue, as he has chaired the judiciary committee and the gentleman from texas signed that letter and it was bipartisan. this has nothing to do with the constitution of the united states. now, if we want to deal with what if this is good or bad, we can deal with that, also. this house passed the dream act. that is a fact in the fall of 2010. and a 55 senators stood up.

and the fact that a majority of senators have already voted in favor of it and a majority of the members of this house. now, what i don't find in the constitution that says that a majority of senators shouldn't prevail. we all know that. it should be 51-100. but that's not in the constitution of the united states. what the president is doing is allowing -- and i just want people to understand that we're also here for justice and for fairness and it is only fair and just that young men and women who are no different than my daughter, than your daughter, they are just as american, they speak this language, this is the country they love. only country that they know. and we're waiting for the paperwork to catch up to those americans.

that's what they are. and they came out by the hundreds of thousands, hundreds of thousands. in chicago, there was 12,000 in line, came up with their moms and dads and crying for joy because they had the opportunity to go to school and become educated and contribute back to this nation. children, we should not hold children responsible for the action of adults and their parents. we should give them the opportunity and that is what the executive order has done. they go to school with your children. . they sit down in the same pews in church with you on sunday and pray, they are an integral part of the community in which we live. in america when they hear them speak, they hear the voices of young americans. one day we'll pass the dream act and won't need an executive

order. thins are getting better, mr. king, here. november 6, everybody said stop picking winners and losers, let's fix this immigration issue and republicans and democrats are working together to come to find the solution, now is not the time to divide this house and the senate when it is looking. we can't talk decently about benghazi or the i.r.s. or anything, obamacare or the budget or gun, but there is one thing that, i mean, when you have a vice-presidential candidate, our colleague, paul ryan, come to chicago and speak, when off congressman carter come to san antonio with me and speak, things are changing. let's respect that. let's respect the love and the intensity of caring about fixing our broken immigration system that has been expressed. i was so delighted, i want to share with the gentleman from

iowa, when your majority leader, mr. cantor, gave a speech and said, i am not only for the dream act, i'm for a pathway to citizenship for the dreamers. i said, great. i didn't question his motives. i said, great. how can i help you. let's help him, the majority leader, and others, democrats and republicans alike, who have said you know what, let's fix our broken immigration system. we're tifed it dividing families. i want to say, i've had them come into my office, american citizens, soldiers, going and fighting on the front lines so you have the right to speak here and protect it and they have their wives being deported, we should have discretion so their wives aren't deported. that's only fair and right. four million american citizen children, mr. king, four million american citizen children, have undocumented parents. we should not separate them. we should have discretion to keep those families together. let's defeat this motion.

it has no place in the house of representatives. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from new mexico seek recognition? >> madam chair, i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> madam chair, i know everyone is tired, and i just finished getting off the floor offering an amendment and a colloquy with my colleague, the dear chairman, mr. carter as well. mr. lujan: i went back to my small place to make a sandwich and saw this amendment come on the floor and i had to hurry back. everyone is tired because it's so late, madam chair. it's midnight. under the dark of night here we have an amendment that i hope the talk shows are paying attention and watching tonight and i hope that dreamers across america are watching their televisions because if not, they're going to be reading about this in the morning. at a time when as congressman gutierrez described, we're coming together as a congress and as a nation to try to get

comprehensive immigration reform adopted, at a time when we should be concentrating our efforts on going after those criminals that are doing bad, bad things, when the chamber of commerce of the united states and faith-based organizations, churches across america, on sundays and saturdays an even on bible study on wednesdays are talking about the importance of respecting our friends and neighbors, especially those young people, these dreamers, these young men and women that serve in our military who are undocumented here in the united states, to look after them and pray for them and encourage the congress to come together, this amendment is a slap in their face, madam chair. the king amendment would make communities less safe by discouraging crime victims from coming forward to police. the more -- the morton memo on victims and witnesses encourages the agency not to

initiate actions against a witness or victim of a crime. this is so that they come forward to seek protection and it's needed to help effective prosecutions of criminals. they came under fire in the debate not withstanding the protections. let me see if i can make that simpler. an undocumented woman here in the united states that's a victim of rape, that comes forward to say who raped her, the that goes before the law enforcement without the memos in place and these protections, potentially she's to be detained and deported because she was raped and came forward with the courage to be able to try to get that individual, that perpetrate -- that perpetrated that crime. it's sad, madam chair that here we are yet again, that at a time when democrats and

republicans have come together to be able to advocate for the importance of taking care of our dreamers, when this passed this house and so many of our senators came forward, when the leaders of our respective parties in this very house of representatives that we're hop nored to be part of have come together and advocated for this change, we're having this debate after midnight here in washington, d.c. tonight, it's sad. and the morton mem rows are hardly new. prosecutorial discretion memos in the immigration context have existed since 1976. congressman gutierrez eloquently described the letters sent by congressman hyde and congressman lamar smith. asking for the executive to use his discretionary authority. madam chair it's a sad, sad day that we're here tonight under the dark of night where i hope dreamers across america are paying attention because we need them tomorrow to light up those phones and make sure they're talking to their friends and fame will --

family, their deacon, to their priest, to their faith-based leaders and ask them to please, please stand up and encourage members of congress, when this comes up for a vote tomorrow morning to call meshes -- members of congress and tell them to reject this amendment. with that, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota rise? >> to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> madam speaker -- mr. ellison: madam speaker, i would like to point out i do specifically challenge the gentleman from iowa's claim that the president's deferred action program is unconstitutional. the supreme court did rule in arizona vs. the united states that the federal government you should the supremacy clause does have the authority to set immigration policy. over and above that of any state. inherent in the authority to enforce immigration laws is the

-- is the right and the -- to be able to prioritize how that policy will be prioritized and how that policy will be executed. now, the fact is that the executive branch has the authority, has the right, to decide that they will take action on some cases and women -- and will take action on others in a prioritized fashion. and that is the very heart and soul of what it remits. for the gentleman to argue there's some constitutional infirmity with deferred action is wrong. he's wrong on the law. he's wrong on the constitutional argument and quite frankly -- i won't yield. and the fact is that it's important for the people the united states to hear that these specious, weak arguments about lack of constitutionality are incorrect and i would defer -- i yield the balance of my

time to mr. gutierrez. mr. gutierrez: thank you so much. the chair: the gentleman from minnesota will remain standing. the gentleman from illinois has the floor, has the balance of the time. mr. gutierrez: i thank you. i want to make clear something about daca. i filled out many applications as i know my colleague from minnesota has. they pay a fee. they go uh gsh go through an extensive background check. they have to give up their fingerprint and go through an extensive background check. if they find, they're denied daca. now they're given a work permit for twore years and they get to work with that work permit. they don't have any right to health care or any means tested program or anything but the right to work and not be deported from the united states of america and they're contributing to this country already. i just want to make that clear. why would we want to spend the money of the federal government

chasing down and hunting down and deporting people who came here as children who do not even know the country that they came from? again, i want to reiterate, they are american in everything but a piece of paper. and the congress of the united states should be working to try to see how it is we bring them in and integrate them more fully. i want to express to the gentleman from iowa something very, very clearly. i want to use every dollar and every resource to go after every gang banger, every drug deerl, every person that is a criminal doing harm in the united states. but these are children who are doing no one harm. they came as children they are innocent and should be treated as such. we want to prioritize our enforcement, we want to prioritize our enforcement so that we go after people who

will do american citizens ill. they don't. they're children. they're wonderful young people and i would suggest to everybody here, meet one. talk to one. and what you're going to see is the same values that you inculcate in your own children, the values that have been invested in these young men and women. western give them a chance. many of them are being denied as they go through the process but it is a process that says we should use prosecutorial discretion. everybody in this body know, you don't have to be a student of the constitution of the united states to know that the president has plenary powers to pardon anybody at any time for any reason. just ask gerald ford about richard nixon. that is a fact. and the president of the united states in this case is taking innocent young men and women who have been thoroughly checked in their background and said, you know what, i want to

go after the mean, ugly, people who want to do us harm. and i want to set aside these young men and women. we voted for it, 216-208. it was a proud day in the congress of the united states. i want to say one more time to the gentleman from iowa, there are members of your side of the aisle who i know -- mr. king: would the gentleman yield? mr. gutierrez: no. who are going to continue to work with us in this congress of the united states to get this finish. please let us do that work. the chair: the time of the gentleman from minnesota has expired. members are reminded to address their comments to the chair. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from iowa. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the noes have it. mr. king: madam chair, i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6

of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from iowa will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota rise? mr. ellison: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: clerk will read. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. ellison of minnesota. at the end of the bill before the hort title insert the following. section, none of the funds made available in this act may be used in contravention of any of the following, one, the fifth and 14th amendments to the constitution of the united states, two, title soisks the civil rights act of 1964 relating to nondiscrimination in federally assisted programs. three, section 809-c-1 of the omnibus crime control and safe streets act of 1968 relating to prohibition of discrimination. four, section 210401a -- for

what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota seek recognition? mr. ellison: unanimous consent to have the amendment considered as read. the chair: is there objection? without objection the reading is suspended and the amendment is considered read. the gentleman from minnesota is recognized for five minutes. mr. ellison: madam speaker, before me is a -- before the body is a simple amendment, leaders -- we have four separate caucuses members of the body, the congressional progressive caucus, the congressional black caucus, the congressional hispanic american caucus, and the congressional pacific islander caucus, it's important to point out -- they worked to together to bring this amendment. it's important to remember that the hard working staff of d.h.s. work hard to keep us safe and we appreciate that we

appreciate all law enforcement, especially when they put their lives on the line for us. drive of stions the them every day. however we occasionally hear about racial profiling and too many americans have been discriminated against because of race, color or ethnicity. . it's not what america is all about. this amendment would simply help to put an end to it. our amendment is straightforward and cites the constitution and anti-discrimination laws no nds can be used to engage in ethnic, religious profile. it was a former bush

this is not n said good policing. we ask this amendment receive the support of the body and that we again affirm our nation which believes in equality under the law and behavior that should inform law enforcement decisions and not simply identity. i yield back and i ask for a yes vote. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. carter: strike the last word. the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. carter: i accept this amendment and i yield to mr. price. mr. price: i urge acceptance of the amendment. and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from texas yields back. question is on the amendment offered by mr. minnesota.

those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the fin of the chair, the amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from tennessee seek recognition? mrs. blackburn: i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: 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 for any activity by transportation security administration transportation security officers outside an airport as zwind in title 49 united states code. the chair: the the gentlewoman from tennessee is recognized for five minutes. mrs. blackburn: as i have stated earlier during the floor debate, t.s.a. transportation officers are not federal law enforcement officers. they do not have any federal law

enforcement training, nor are they eligible to receive federal law enforcement benefits. when congress created the t.s.a. in 2001, we zwind the screeners as federal security screeners, their role as dwiped by the act is to screen passengers and luggage at airports across the country. however, beginning in fwife, t.s.a. administratively reclassified t.s.a. security screeners as transportation security officers. and began to upgrade their uniforms to reflect those as federal law enforcement officers with medal officer badges. "time" magazine reporter stated hat t.s.a. was and i quote outfitting employees with gold badges as part of a broader

effort to improve their image. the problem is that t.s.a. officers do not have any federal law enforcement training to reflect their officer title or appearance. law enforcement personnel for air transportation security are clearly defined in section 9407 of title 49 u.s. code. u.s. code states that law enforcement means individuals who are authorized to carry and use firearms, vested with the power of arrest and are identifiable by disstimpingtive marks of authority. t.s.a. officers do not meet this basic requirement of their law. two weeks in a classroom to learn how to screen passengers and bags followed by two to four weeks on the job training. it is troubling to me and many

of my constituents that t.s.a. is allowed with their officers to take part in d.h.s. viper feem operations outside of airports. this is operations are taking place on our highways, ferry terminals, bus stations and other mass transit facilities across the cuent try. adopting this amendment would end this practice. the american public should be outrage that had our national security strategy to prevent a horrific attack at a mass transit facility includes sending people with no federal law enforcement authority to randomly select and search citizens without any actionable intelligence. i believe that congress has an obligation to ensure the appearance of federal employees

properly reflects their training and background. there are well-documented concerns questioning whether these individuals can carry out the basic functions at the jobs within our airport. here's an example. last year, a t.s.a. officer whistle blower in nshville produced documents that t.s.a. officers were receiving failing grades at being able to identify potential threats and were not receiving remedial training. another example, a g.a.o. report failingat the t.s.a. is to deploy teams to airports and terminals with the highest risk as determined by the agency. furthermore, the report lays out reports that the current protocols are not appropriate for a suicide bottom bombing

attempt. and if that's not concerning enough, there is a d.h.s., office of the inspector general report released just last month t.s.a. behavior detection options and mr. thompson referenced this earlier which 's assist cysts of t.s.a. officers and raises concerns. officials at airports contacted and raised concerns regarding the allocation and performance. t.s.a. does not use an evaluation period to determine whether the new officers can perform behavior detection. for these reasons we should end this program and restrict them to the airport.

i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. carter: i move to strike the last word. mr. carter: i rise in opposition to the gentlewoman's amendment. this was an amendment raised earlier this evening and i expressed my spin then and i don't change my opinion. have a great deal of opinion about the issues raised. nd i'm from williams county, texas. and i would recommend that we look into these allegations of misuse of law enforcement. wre are going to talk to mr. pist omp l emp and try to get to

the bottom of this stuff. i don't think it's appropriate at this time without us holding hearings and discussing these issues and examine the statutes. so with that reason, i think this is not the time and i would oppose the amendment and yield the balance of my time to mr. price. mr. price: i thank the chairman for yielding and i would echo his sentiments on this amendment. it is well intentioned and there may be specific issues that demand attention, but this is largely the same amendment we voted down by a considerable margin and we should do it again. i yield back. mr. carter: i yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from tennessee. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no.

in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. mrs. blackburn: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from tennessee will e postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment offered by by mr. barr leta of pennsylvania. section, none of the funds made available under the heading departmental management and operations, departmental operations, office of secretary and executive management maybe used for expenses until the secretary of homeland security and 8es with section 7078

u.s.c. 1365-b. the chair: the gentleman from is recognized for five minutes. >> my amendment is simple. none of the funds from the office of the secretary may be untilor official expenses here is a biometric data entry system. it is already required by the law. in 2004, congressman dated the establishment of this system to track foreigners. the 9/11 commission created the system as well. the creation of an effective exit system would keep our country safe because we would have a more effective way of tracking people who may pose a risk to our national security. oftentimes, people speak of the issue of the northern, southern

and coastal borders. as boston showed us plainly, it involves much more of that. nearly half of the illegal immigrants did not cross a traditional border. they arrived here on a legitimate visa and saw the visa expire and never returned home. the truth is if your state is home to an international airport, you effectively live in a border state. 40% are illegal overstays. and since we don't have an ack attractive way of tracking this may be amendment. and until the bioi yield back the ball absence of my time. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas. mr. carter: strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized r -- for five

minutes. mr. carter: we will accept the amendment. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from pennsylvania. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition. mr. carter: i make a motion, i would like to that i all of the employees of the house for being willing to extend the time tonight to get those members that have been waiting four, five hours finished and i want to a apologize to the inconvenience and we appreciate the efficiency. i would move that the committee o now rise. the chair: the motion is that the committee rise. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopt. accordingly, the committee

rises. the speaker pro tempore: madam chair. the chair: mr. speaker, the committee of the whole house on the state of the union having had under consideration h.r. 2217 directs me to report that it has come to no resolution thereon. the speaker pro tempore: 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. mr. carter: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. carter: i ask unanimous consent that when the house adjourns today it adyourn -- adjourn to meet at 9:00 a.m. tomorrow. the speaker pro tempore: without objection.

mr. carter: thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the chair announces the correct tally on roll call 205 was 146 eas, 290 nays. the chair lays before the house the following enrolled bill. the clerk: an act to amend the federal food, drug, an cosmetic act to re-authorize user fee programs relating to new animal drugs and generic new animal drugs.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise in mr. carter: i ask that the house do now adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly, the house stands adjourned until

does the homeland spending bill say about the priorities of house republicans who wrote the bill? it says homeland security is still one of the bigger priorities for the house republicans. it's a $39 billion bill. something the ministration has , while their constable with the funding level, they do do not like it comes at the expense of domestic focus. >> what are some of the specific programs and agencies funded by the homeland security bill? >> the biggest ones are the border security agencies, customs and border protection and immigration and -- immigration enforcement.

the coast guard is another big one. the agency is another of the biggest. then the transportation security administration, stated service. they get smaller as they get down that way. >> how does the bill take into account or deal with the itomatic spending cuts? >> takes them into the account in the way some of the other bills do so far. the still would be above assumingevel sequestration is going in the past year as well. it's a raise from last year based on what's happening with sequestration in the current fiscal year. hothat about some of the button issues likely to come up during the debate of the bill? >> grant funding is always a popular topic. i think we will see something on that. there are some programs that are controversial that we might find track illegalat

immigrants or the text behavior detectsrts -- or behavior in airports. bans funding for visa immigration applications .rom brazil there might be effort to that. those are some of the bigger issues in terms of things we might see fights on. other issues have kind of been resolved. things like airport security increase for deeper cuts the coast guard the republicans were couple with. some of the overall priorities? click they have recently been happy with the bill. it gets in the ballpark of what they would like.

>> the grant programs are popular with democrats. things like firefighter grants, .ublic safety agencies some of the programs that have been controversial but democrats as they pertain to civil liberties. >> you mentioned the white house displeasure over some elements in the house bill. right.s issued a veto what do they want to see come out of congress? >> there are some specific things put into this bill. things like efforts to make it harder for them to close buttánamo they -- bay they want to see the brazil language come out. they are upset the republicans

keep putting back in language requiring a certain mandatory minimum number of detention beds for immigrants that of been captured. some ofl probably get what they want from the senate but there are some senate democrats who feel similar about the programs that house republicans did. in terms of what the senate might do that would be different, that might be less funding for the facility in kansas that was pretty agricultural diseases -- that would study agricultural diseases, there might be more funding than the republicans put in. starks is covering the debate over homeland security spending. you can read more at rollcall.com. up tonight on c-span, president obama announces he -- his choice for u.s. ambassador

and national security advisor. then payroll services for senator frank lautenberg in new jersey who passed away monday. then funeral services for senator frank lautenberg in new jersey who passed away monday. >> president obama announced wednesday that u.s. ambassador susan rice will become his national security -- security advisor. she is replacing tom donlan who is stepping down. the president also nominated samantha power to be u.s. ambassador. this is 25 minutes. >> ladies and gentlemen, the president of the united states accompanied by ambassador susan rice, tom dahlin and samantha power.

[applause] >> thank you, everybody. >> good afternoon. it is a beautiful day. it is good to see so many friends here. ,f all the jobs in government leading my national security team is one of the most demanding if not the most demanding. since the moment i took office, i have counted on the exceptional experience and .nsights of tom donlan nearly every day for the past several years, i started each morning with him leading the presidential daily brief. hundreds of times, a sweeping

assessment of global development and the most pressing challenges. as my national security advisor, his portfolio is literally the entire world. he has definitely advanced our strategic foreign-policy initiatives while having to respond to unexpected crises and that happens just about every day. he has overseen and coordinated our entire national security team across the government. it is nonstop. 365 days a year. today i am announcing that after more than four years of veterinary service, tom has decided to step aside at the beginning of july. -- years of extraordinary service, tom has decided to step aside at the beginning of july. i am asked ordinarily proud to new security advisor, susan rice. [applause]

as well as menominee -- as my nominee to replace susan rice, samantha power. [applause] when i first asked tom to join my team, i knew i was getting one of our nation's premier foreign-policy leaders. somebody with a deep sense of history and a keen understanding of our nation lays in the world. he shared my view that an order to review american leadership, we had to be balanced are foreign-policy. more than that, he knew how we could do it. tom is that rare combination of the strategic and tactical. he has a strategic sense of where we need to go and the tactical sense of how to get there. moreover, tom's work ethic of

legendary three he began in public service and the carter white house when he was just 22 years old. and somehow he is been able to maintain the same drive and the same stamina in the same enthusiasm and reverence for serving in government. he is helped shape every single national security policy of my presidency. national to any security strategy rooted rooted in our economic strength here at .ome to ending the war in iraq here at the white house, he oversaw the operation that led us to the modern. he is helped keep our -- led us to bin laden. he is played a critical role as we both serve the enduring pillars of american power, strengthening of my answers from europe to asia our relationship with key powers and moving ahead with a trade agreements and energy partnerships. onm our tough sanctions iran to our unprecedented military and intelligence

cooperation with israel, it is true. any start with russia to deeper partnerships with emerging powers like india to stronger skies with the gulf states, he has been instrumental every step of the way. i am especially appreciative for tom for renewing american leadership in the asia-pacific where so much of our prosperity will be shaped. he is forced a constructive relationship with china that advances our interests and values. tomgrateful, we joining -- will be joining me as i meet with president xi of china this week. i'm arsenal he grateful for your life, your counsel -- i am personally grateful for your advice, your counsel and your friendship. i do so knowing that you have process, yous have challenged assumptions and asked questions and lead a hard-

working national security staff and presented me with a range of options to advance our national interest. president can -- a can't ask for anything more than this. this is a testament to your incredible professional in your deep love of country. pace hasis relentless meant sacrifices for your family. for cathy who's here, dr. biden's former chief of staff nominated as a new global , and forr for women their wonderful children. today i want to publicly thank donilon's for their abiding commitment to public service. [applause]

you have been with me every step of the ladies past four years. the american people owe you an enormous debt of gratitude for everything you've you've done. you have helped restore our nation's prestige and standing in the world. you position us well to continue to lead in the years ahead. i think that tom donlan has been one of the world -- the most respected national security advisers our country has ever had and has done so without a lot of dust and fanfare. on behalf of us all, thank you for your ordinary service -- so withouth a lot of fuss and fanfare. on behalf of us all, thank you for your orde extraordinary ser. i am proud his work will be carried on by another exemplary - servant,vice - ambassador susan rice. susan was a trusted advisor during my first campaign for president. she helped to build my foreign-

policy team and lead our diplomacy at the united nations in my first term. i am absolutely thrilled that she will be at my side leading my national security team in my second term. with her background as a scholar, susan understands there is no substitute for american leadership. she is passionate and pragmatic. understandsybody susan is a freakish champion for justice and human dignity but -- is a fierce champion for justice and human dignity reaching us how to bring people together around a common policy and push it through to completion so that we are making a difference where it matters most. --have pledged to defend here in the country we have pledged to defend and around the world. she knows our policies are stronger when harder as the views talented people across .overnment

she is the consummate public servant. a patriot to put the country first, she is fearless, she is tough, she has a great tennis game and a pretty good basketball game. her brother is here who i played with occasionally. it runs in the family, throwing the occasional elbow. [laughter] shot.tting the big susan has been a tireless ourcate and advancing interests to richie is reinvigorated american diplomacy in new york. you felt to put in place tough sanctions on iran and north puta -- she has helped to in place tough sanctions on iran and north korea. she supported an independent south sudan. put simply, susan exempt by the finest tradition of american diplomacy in leadership. thank you susan for being willing to take on this next assignment. i am absolutely confident you will hit the ground running and

i know that after years of commuting to new york, you'll be the first person ever in this job who will see their family more by taking the national security advisers job. [laughter] [applause] normally i would be worried about losing such an extra night person at the united nations and be trying to figure out how we're going to replace her. an confident we have experience, affective and energetic un ambassador rice and waiting in samantha power. samantha first came to work for me in 2005 shortly after i became a united states senator. as one of our country leading journalists, i think she won the pulitzer prize at the age of 15 or 16. one of our foremost thinkers on foreign-policy, she so does --

she showed us the international community has a moral response ability and interest in resolving conflict and defending human dignity. mya senior member of national security team, she's is been an advocate for american interest and values, building partnerships on behalf of ,emocracy and human rights fighting the scourge of anti- semitism and combating human .rafficking to those who care deeply about america's engagement and leadership in the world, you will find no stronger advocate for that call that samantha. over the last four years, samantha has worked hand in glove with susan because she has been the lead white house staffer on issues related to the united nations. i'm fully confident she will be ready on day one to lead our mission in new york while continuing to be an indispensable -- indispensable member of my national security team. she knows the u.n.'s shanks and weaknesses and those americans interests can advance when we to ensure we have the

leadership we need at the united nations, i would strongly urge the senate to confirm or without delay. to you all for continuing to serve our country. beenteam of people has extraordinary dedicated to america. .hey have made america safer they have made america's values live in corners of the world that are crying out for our support and leadership. i cannot be prouder of these three individuals. not only their intelligence, not only their savvy, but their integrity and their heart. proud to have had the privilege of working with tom. very proud that i will continue

to privilege of working with samantha and with susan. with that, i would invite tom to say a few words. [applause] >> thank you, mr. president. you mentioned the many hours they work together in the situation room put together here by john kennedy without any windows. i was first like to thank you for this rare opportunity to be outside and experience national life. [laughter] -- natural light. [laughter] in 1977my service here when i was 22 years old. i still remember leaving at the end of the day, walking past the office of the then national security advisor and looking up at the windows of the white house, the light always on in the big office no matter how late. i think to myself, don't those guys ever go home? now these many years later i finally have the answer, no,

they don't go home very much. often or early as their family and spouses would like. to serve in this capacity to protect and defend the night the and improve -- defend united states has been a privilege of a lifetime. to serving your presidency is to defining of the moment in our nations history because of your vision, leadership leadership, your commitment to defending our interest in upholding our ideals. those hours in meetings and briefings have given me the opportunity to see m you as few people do. behind closed doors, with away from cameras. i would like to take this opportunity to share what i have seen. i have seen you make the most difficult decisions a commander in chief can make. the decision to send our men and women in uniform and harms way. i have seen a great care with which you make these decisions and your devotion to those in

uniform. i have seen your love of our country. when confronting with competing agendas, you always bring the discussion back to one question -- what is best for america? time and time again, you have reminded us our decisions must send it to the judgment of up to the must stsanand judgment of history. when he stepped off that plane with the words united states of to foreignach out audiences and lead to the aspirations we share as human beings, you send a clear message that america want to be their partner in that ability to new bonds inrge the forms of american power and influence that advocate our ideals as well. the vice president biden and jill, kathy and i have considered you dear friends for more than 30 years and it is an honor to make this journey to you -- with you.

to my colleagues and friends here, the american people will never truly know how hard you work in their defense. in theong-time partners senior leadership of the --ional security council could not have asked for better brothers or sisters in this effort. remarkable staff, you are a national treasure. and you'reou get up the best our nation has to offer. it is an honor and a privilege to serve with each and every one of you. the nation is fortunate to have leaders of intellect. compassion, character, and determination.

will be an outstanding national security adviser, samantha, and extending -- an outstanding ambassador to the united nations. as the president said, this job has meant great sacrifices for you and each of you has made a contribution to the country. i cannot be more grateful. again, mr. president, thank you for the opportunity to serve you and our nation. i stand here 36 years ago almost to the day when i first came on the 18 acres of the white house to come to work. i must tell you, i leave this andtion much less cynical never more optimistic about our country and its future. thank you, mr. president. [applause]

>> mr. president, thank you so much. i'm deeply honored and humbled to serve our country as your national security advisor. i'm proud to work so closely with you for more than six years and i am deeply grateful for your enduring confidence in me. as you have outlined, we have vital opportunities to seize an ongoing challenges to confront. we have much bill to accomplish on behalf of the american people. i look forward to continuing to serve on a national security team to keep our nation strong and safe. to, it is been a real honor work with you again.

you have led with great dedication, smarts, and skill and you leave a legacy of enormous accomplishment. all of us around the principles table will miss you and i wish you and kathy and her family all the very best -- and your family all the very best. ownnt to thank my wonderful family for their unfailing support. my mother, my wonderful husband, our children, and my brother john have all been my strength and my greatest source of humor. i am also thinking today about my late father who would have loved to be here. i am forever grateful to my family for their love and sacrifice. i want to thank my remarkable colleagues at the u.s. mission

to the united nations. i am so proud of the work we have done together under your president, to. advance america's interests at the united nations. and samantha, my friend, warmest congratulations. you are a tremendous colleague in the united states will be extremely well served by your leadership at the united nations. i am so glad we get to continue to work together. mr. president, having perpetrated in the national -- participated in the national security making decision process in the last four years, i admire the work done every at state, colleagues defense, the intelligence community, and across the government to make our nations -- our nation more secure. i look forward to working closely with you, your ordinary

national security team, our country's most experienced and as from both parties superb national security staff to protect the united states, advance our global leadership and promote the values americans hold dear. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you, mr. president. from the day i met you and you told me that you had to spend a vacation reading a long, dark book on genocide, i knew i wanted to work with you. it'd been my privilege to serve you and it would be the honor of a a lifetime to fight for milliken -- american values and interests at the united nations.

now that i have two children, the stakes feel even higher. thank you, tom and susan. i consider myself immensely fortunate to have collaborated with both of you. there are two no more dedicated professionals on this earth. no more strategic stewards of our foreign-policy than these two individuals. i moved to the united states from ireland with my parents when i was nine years old. i remember very little about landing and pittsburgh except i was sure i was in the largest airport in the history of the world. i remember what i was wearing. a red, white, and blue stars and stripes t-shirt. i always wore it in ireland on special occasions. even as a little girl with a