John Carter

Mr. CARTER

Mr. CARTER. I will in just a moment. There's no intent to make that type of purchase by DHS in any form or fashion. It's just a way that contracting is done on ammunition to utilize the cheapest price. I will also say--and then I will 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 of purchases by DHS 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 will be glad to yield to my friend.

Mr. CARTER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to say to my colleague, I'm on the same wavelength as 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. He is quite accurate that the amount of ammunition that presently seems to be in the hands of DHS and the amount of purchases that have taken place over the last 3 years from a gun owner standpoint, if you take a good hard look at it, it looks like they're shooting an awful lot of rounds as practice. I have the same concerns he has about that. That's why I put into this bill at my request this review of the training exercises: How many rounds are issued for training? How many rounds are issued for firing in harm's way? A complete report to the Congress of the United States was issued because the American people are very concerned about this issue. I will 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 DHS, and all the gun-toting DHS 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 ICE last Friday--in addition, I talked to the Border Patrol personally, and they shoot four times a year to qualify--quite honestly, they acknowledged that 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 DHS 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 to make that----

Mr. CARTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CARTER. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

Mr. CARTER. In total, this bill provides $2.5 billion for Homeland Security first responder grants. This is $400 million above the President's request for fiscal year 2014 and $35 million above fiscal year 2013. This bill prioritizes funding. The consolidation in this bill forces the Secretary to examine the intelligence and risk and puts scarce dollars where they are needed most--whether it's a port, rail, surveillance or access in hardened projects, or whether it is to high- risk urban areas or to States, 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 balance of my time.

Mr. CARTER. Mr. Chairman, we will support the lady's amendment. And I will be happy to yield to my colleague, Mr. Price, so that he can also support this amendment.

Mr. CARTER. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. CARTER. Madam Chairman, we accept the gentleman's amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CARTER. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. I think it's a good amendment, and I have the same concerns that are expressed by the author. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CARTER

Mr. CARTER. I'm willing to accept this amendment. Once again, I have the same concerns as my colleague, Mr. Price, about the carving out of funding amounts for specific grants, but I will accept this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CARTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. CARTER. Mr. Chairman, while I have concerns with carving out funding amounts for specific grants, I will accept the amendment. I was born and raised in Houston, Texas. I had something happen to me many years ago as a young lawyer in a hearing at the Port of Houston. Back in 1968, I was told by the Coast Guard that every day two ships pass each other in the Port of Houston, and should those ships collide, just the mixing of those two cargos would explode and kill every man, woman, and child on the Texas gulf coast all the way to Corpus Christi. That's without a nuclear weapon. We are the largest petrochemical port in the United States. I too am concerned about our ports. I'm very concerned that they could be a target of attack that could cause great damage both in structures and in human life. So I join my colleagues from California to accept this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CARTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. CARTER. I share the gentlelady's concern of this implication that these are law enforcement officers. It is something that anyone who has ever dealt with law enforcement officers should be worried about, so I thank her for working with us and for explaining to us her concerns. I don't want anyone to be out there fooling the public, having people think they're trained law enforcement officers when they're not. I think that's an important thing at every level of law enforcement. Representative Blackburn brought this to my attention and to the attention of the committee last year. We appreciate her staying on top of these issues. In fact, I asked the staff to look into this matter earlier this year. As a result, as she has described, this bill cuts the screeners' uniforms by $18 million, which is about a 20 percent decrease. In fact, this bill calls for a net decrease of $387.5 million to TSA, or 8 percent below the FY13 enacted levels. Finally, the committee has directed TSA to provide a report describing in detail how TSA is complying with the Buy American Act and to provide Congress with the total number of uniforms and screener consumables purchased in fiscal years '12 and '13. Moving forward, we will continue to work with the gentlewoman from Tennessee to ensure TSA screeners are not abusing the perception that they are officers of the law. We credit her for shedding light on this issue, and I thank her for bringing it to the attention of the committee. I am willing to work with the gentlewoman in any way she chooses. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CARTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. CARTER. Mr. Chairman, I accept this amendment and yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CARTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. CARTER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I share the gentleman from North Carolina's concern on that. The House Appropriations Committee included report language asking for final action on this rule. It is well past time to finalize this rule, whose delay has impeded manufacturers in growing critical markets for aviation exports.

Mr. CARTER. I accept the amendment and yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CARTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. CARTER. Mr. Chairman, I share some of these concerns with the gentleman from Colorado, and I believe that outstanding questions still remain over the timeline for replacing the AIT scanners. I expect TSA to sufficiently answer the question posed here today. I urge TSA to move forward with the replacement of AIT scanners at the affected airports as soon as possible. I commit to the gentleman from Colorado that the committee will look into this issue further and do everything within its power to fix the problem to the extent that it does not cost the American taxpayers more money. It's my understanding that this amendment will not result in the need for additional TSA screeners. Therefore, I accept the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CARTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. CARTER. Mr. Chairman, the simple fact is this amendment is unnecessary and harmful to national security, in my opinion. Now, am I happy with TSA? No. I have criticism of TSA also. Most people who travel have some criticism of TSA. But zeroing out TSA and leaving our airports unsecured is not the solution to the problem. If the gentleman's argument is that we're being fiscally responsible to do away with the TSA part of this budget, I would argue the contrary. This bill, quite frankly, has made cuts, and, in fact, for 4 years now we have reduced spending in this bill. That's not a good argument. It's easy to get mad at somebody that interferes with your life every time you travel, especially when you travel every week, but the reality is, this would be a mistake to national security. This would be a mistake to our country. And even though we have criticism of TSA, our job is to fix TSA, not abolish TSA. And I know there's plenty of folks that think that abolishing it is a good idea, but, quite honestly, it would be a real tragedy to leave our airports undefended. We need to make them better. And I think one of the things we're doing is the oversight that we've provided in this bill so that we can take a hard look at DHS across the board and come up with solutions where things need to be fixed; and, of course, if TSA's on the radar screen, they ought to be fixed. But I think this is a mistake. I think it's bad policy. I think it's good grandstanding but bad policy, and I oppose the gentleman's amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CARTER. I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. CARTER. I have listened to the arguments from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, and I find it interesting. First, those who cross into our country without and contrary to the laws of this great Nation have committed an illegal act. Calling them not illegal doesn't make them not illegal. I really would like to point out that we have a curious way to discuss this as a policy; that is, no one here stands responsible for the decision. You know, the alternatives to incarceration were created by judges, and the judicial system stands in a little different situation than the Members of Congress. When one of these people who's let out under alternatives to incarceration in fact commits another criminal act--and believe me, it happens--nothing more than just DWI, when you run over a little kid--the judge, who puts him on that particular forum, is held responsible. And he is now going to read his name in the newspaper that he put that person out that should have been in jail, out on an alternative to incarceration. Or if the person commits another criminal act even more severe--murder, rape, robbery-- if it happens when the judge puts him out on alternatives, the judge has to take the heat. But as we have this great policy debate in Congress, no one who is arguing to release all these people on alternatives is taking any heat at all on what the accomplishments in the criminal realm will be of those we release. I approve of alternatives to incarceration. I just told you that 64,000 people alone in the city of Houston's jurisdiction, which is the valley all of the way up to Beaumont, were out on alternatives. But detention beds are also full and overflowing. When I visited the ICE unit there, the red uniforms were the majority, and the red uniforms are criminal aliens. They have committed crimes in this country. And so I think we are being a little bit safe to make these arguments as we stand here in these hallowed Halls. Never is our name going to appear in any newspaper when one of these people commits an act that causes damage to our fellow citizens. And yet we make this argument very passionately. I just want to remind everybody that we are responsible for those criminal aliens that we release, and criminal aliens are right now being released. And, in fact, Ms. Napolitano, after I asked her specifically, Are you releasing anyone from detention, she looked me right in the eye and said, No. And 2 days later, she released 2,300. And of those 2,300, the top two categories were both represented in that release--the most serious and the second- most serious categories of crimes we hold people for. So this is a policy. This administration continues to have a policy of not enforcing the law, and, quite frankly, we need this availability of beds so we can enforce the law. I yield back the balance of my time.