David Price

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, the American people have had enough of this cynical attempt to shift blame for the Tea Party shutdown. Of course we want the American people to have access to our national parks, and I wish our Republican colleagues had thought a little bit more about that World War II Memorial before doing what they did last night. Of course we want the D.C. government to continue to function. Why weren't Ms. Norton's compelling arguments given more attention before what our Republican colleagues did last night? Of course we want the Veterans Administrations to resume their operations for those who have worn this country's uniform, although we do not like seeing our veterans used to score political points. What about the thousands of Department of Defense civilians who were told not to come into work today, including those in my district who serve Fort Bragg? What about those EPA scientists in the research triangle who spent today on a community service project instead of conducting important research on air quality or the firefighters across the Nation who depend on FEMA grants to keep their communities safe? What about those Agriculture Department-funded researchers at NC State whose paychecks are running out? What about the NIH researchers at Duke and UNC whose grants are under threat, or those desperately ill people who will now be cut out of NIH clinical trials? The American people deserve a government that works for everybody. The Senate has passed a responsible, bipartisan funding bill that would pass this House easily if the Republican leadership would simply allow it to receive a vote. Let's dispense with this political theater. Let's get back to the basics: keeping the government open, paying the country's bills, and negotiating a comprehensive budget plan that lifts sequestration, that revives our economy and reduces our deficit. The first step is to pass a clean continuing resolution.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker we're now just hours away from the Tea Party-inspired government shutdown. Here our Republican colleagues go again, holding the economy hostage to their ideological demands and their take-it-or-leave-it politics. This isn't the behavior of responsible legislators or of a serious political party willing to do what it takes to govern. The only party that has actually compromised on the bill before us is Democrats, who have agreed to a short-term funding level below the Senate budget resolution, despite our belief that we should be replacing sequestration instead of locking it in. By contrast, Republican leaders have steadfastly refused to go to conference to work out a budget with Senate Democrats. They walked away from negotiations with the President on a comprehensive budget deal in December. And now it is Republicans, as the President said, who are demanding a ransom merely for doing their job of keeping the government open. That ransom, incredibly, is health insurance for millions of our fellow citizens. The Affordable Care Act has been upheld as the law of the land by a majority of Congress, a majority of the U.S. Supreme Court, and a majority of Americans at the ballot box. If the junior senator from Texas and his acolytes think they can overturn those decisions unilaterally, I suggest they consult the Constitution. I'd be happy to loan them a copy. Mr. Speaker, we've got to reject this latest Republican ploy, and this body, this country, has got to get back to the basics: keep the government running, pay the country's bills, and negotiate a comprehensive budget plan that ensures our fiscal future.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Speaker, most of us will vote for this bill, but it's not going to fix the damage to our country of a shutdown, nor can it mask what's going on here tonight: another chapter of Republican hostage-taking, threatening to shut down the government, or to refuse to pay the country's bills, if they don't get their way politically. It's been pretty confusing tonight with all this talk about who's willing to negotiate. Republicans know very well that it is they who have refused to go to conference with the Senate on the budget. They also know that it's their leaders who cut off discussions of a comprehensive budget deal with the President back in December. What they're doing tonight is the opposite of negotiate--take-it-or- leave-it politics, threatening government collapse and economic ruin in pursuit of a political agenda they could not advance by legitimate means. We need to get back to the basics: keep the government open, pay the country's bills, and negotiate a real and comprehensive budget plan.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this poorly conceived, politically charged, and economically disastrous Continuing Resolution before us. With a few hours left for legislative work before the end of the fiscal year, not one of the twelve funding bills required to keep the government open has been enacted into law. In fact, a number of bills have never even been brought before the Appropriations Committee for debate. Even the initial short-term continuing resolution had to be pulled from the floor because of Republican infighting. My colleagues, the appropriations process--that hallmark of Congress's constitutional authority and wellspring of our power to conduct oversight and set national priorities--is on life support and in danger of total collapse. Unfortunately, this bill is yet another example of the complete abdication of our Committee's constitutional responsibility, as we have allowed fringe members of this body to craft a bill that stands no chance of becoming law. Let me repeat that in case there is any confusion--the bill before us now has absolutely no chance of being enacted--zero. Therefore, the only reasonable conclusion to draw is that the Republican majority is intent on once again taking us to the brink of shutdown--this time because of the zealot-like opposition in their ranks to improving health care access for millions of Americans. A government shutdown--which this bill invites--will hamper our economic recovery, deny benefits to millions of Americans, and once again compromise this institution and its core functions. I urge my colleagues to reject this ideologically-driven CR.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert into the Record the story of Nathan, a veteran from Rapid City, South Dakota, a face of hunger in America.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule and the underlying bill. You may have noticed Fox News is trying to help the Republicans push this mean-spirited legislation by focusing on a California surfer who abuses the SNAP system. Well, it's time for a reality check. This isn't about surfer dudes. I'll tell you one group it is about: our Nation's veterans, 50,000 of them to be exact. Let me clarify. These veterans, with an average income of $2,500, would lose benefits immediately. As the bill's other provisions kick in, as many as 170,000 veterans could lose their SNAP assistance. In Cumberland County, North Carolina, home of Fort Bragg and of thousands of veterans, our unemployment rate is nearly 11 percent. This bill requires States to terminate the already minimal food aid available to able-bodied but unemployed individuals living in such high-unemployment areas. By the way, Republicans would also subject these veterans to the added indignity of a drug test. I urge a ``no'' vote on this rule and the underlying bill. It dishonors our poorest veterans, and it disparages those the Gospel of Matthew calls ``the least of these.''

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize AmeriCorps on its 20th anniversary. As a co-Chair of the National Service Caucus, I am proud to recognize the hard work and dedication of the men and women who have served our nation through AmeriCorps. Since its inception in 1994, more than 820,000 Americans have taken the AmeriCorps pledge, serving over one billion hours with more than 15,000 nonprofits, public agencies and faith-based organizations across America. In my home State of North Carolina, 10,000 people will participate in one of hundreds of AmeriCorps programs this year alone. Their common goal is to improve the lives of the American people, and they have done so immeasurably. Every day, these dedicated men and women work with community-based organizations to deliver services, address local needs, and deliver aid where it is needed most, and in innovative ways. They support and improve low-performing schools, build and renovate homes for low-income families, fight poverty, expand access to health services, rebuild communities after disasters, and help veterans transition back to civilian life. Building on the service of individual AmeriCorps members, the AmeriCorps national program provides benefits far beyond the sum of its parts and multiplies a modest federal investment many times over. First, AmeriCorps members help tens of thousands of faith-based and community groups expand services, enhance their capacity, raise funds, develop new partnerships, and create innovative, sustainable programs. In fact, AmeriCorps is the most effective multiplier of volunteers in service, with its members helping to recruit, train, and supervise more than 4 million volunteers in 2012. Along the way, AmeriCorps helps organizations leverage substantial private investment from businesses, foundations and other sources, thereby stretching our federal dollars and broadening the reach of the AmeriCorps mission. But our national service programs not only transform the lives of those who receive services; they transform the lives of those who deliver them. Participants learn marketable skills and earn post- service education scholarships, which helps them jumpstart their careers and increase earning potential over the course of their professional careers. And AmeriCorps alums are also more involved in their communities and more likely than their peers to enter into a career of public service. This September is just the beginning of a year-long celebration of the extraordinary impact AmeriCorps has had in its past twenty years. It is also a time to look ahead and to ensure AmeriCorps is poised for even greater impact in future years. To all of our remarkable AmeriCorps members and alums, I want to personally thank you for your service and commend your efforts to help our local communities. And once again, I extend my congratulations to AmeriCorps on this twenty year anniversary and my excitement for what is to come.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise in reluctant opposition to this measure before us today. I have supported the repeated rounds of sanctions that Congress has already enacted. I have supported them because of the threat of a nuclear-armed Iran and because of the intransigence of the Iranian Government in defiance of the international community. These sanctions have brought the Iranian economy to its knees, they have yet to produce meaningful concessions by the Iranian Government. I have thus remained open to the possibility of additional sanctions as part of a broader strategy to induce the Iranian Government to change its course. But the bill before us today could not come at a worse time. In 3 days, Iran will inaugurate a new President, Hassan Rouhani, elected on promises of moderation and openness despite repression and intimidation by the Iranian regime, trying to deny him that election. Since his election, Dr. Rouhani has made repeated overtures to the international community, signaling his intent to resume the stalled P- 5+1 nuclear talks upon taking office and promising greater transparency and confidence-building measures. He reportedly intends to appoint as his foreign minister a seasoned diplomat who favors closer ties with the West. Let us be clear: we do not know whether Rouhani truly intends to follow through on these promises. We don't know if he'll be able to overcome the resistance of Iran's hardliners. We do know that history counsels us to be cautious about the prospects for meaningful change in Iran, and Rouhani's actions will surely speak louder than his words. But to rush through a new round of sanctions before the new President has even taken office could slam the window of opportunity shut before we even have a chance to test whether it is genuine. A recent letter to the President signed by a group of respected former diplomats and military officials--including Ambassador Tom Pickering and the former commander of CENTCOM, General Joseph Hoar--has warned that further sanctions ``could empower hardliners, in the Iranian Government, who are opposed to nuclear concessions, at the expense of those seeking to shift policy in a more moderate direction.'' Moreover, by removing the President's authority to relax sanctions on countries that are cooperating with our strategy toward Iran, this bill risks shattering the unprecedented international coalition which we have worked so hard to build, thus making sanctions less effective than they are at this moment. Some argue that we should not be concerned about the House passing this bill, since it will be some time before the Senate follows with an improved bill, and longer still before the new sanctions take effect. I must say, that is not a very compelling argument for rushing this bill to the floor right now. Why not act when we can assess the diplomatic prospects more accurately? Mr. Speaker, I will take a back seat to no one when it comes to my concern about the threat posed by a nuclear Iran to our ally Israel, to the broader Middle East, and to the United States.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I will yield to no one in my concerns about these matters. I believe we must redouble our efforts to secure an enforceable agreement that ensures Iran does not acquire a nuclear weapon. But sanctions alone are not a strategy. In order to be effective, they must be integrated into a broader strategy that brings all other elements of American power to bear on the challenge. The administration is working hard to advance such a strategy, with unprecedented cooperation from our international partners. If the strategy fails to induce the new Iranian Government to change its course, then new sanctions may, indeed, be warranted. But to pass them now only undercuts our Nation's strategic objectives. I urge my colleagues to oppose this ill-timed bill.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant to the following: Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the Constitution provides Congress with the authority to ``make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper'' to provide for the ``general Welfare'' of Americans. In the Department of Education Organization Act (P.L. 96-88), Congress declared that ``the establishment of a Department of Education is in the public interest, will promote the general welfare of the United States, will help ensure that education issues receive proper treatment at the Federal level, and will enable the Federal Government to coordinate its education activities more effectively.'' The Department of Education's mission is to ``promote student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access.''

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, the report for this year's Transportation, Housing and Urban Development bill, the ``THUD'' bill, as I noted earlier, states: The Nation is in desperate need for infrastructure and investment. I am glad we can agree on that. We are indeed in desperate need, yet the bill before us hardly reflects that. It chooses to prioritize spending cuts over putting Americans back to work. It is part of a budget process that places antitax ideology above all and refuses to address the main drivers of the deficit. Instead, it simply doubles down on sequestration, making sequestration even worse with respect to the domestic bills so as to give some measure of protection to defense. It is an atrocious process, and this bill is Exhibit A for this travesty. We all know America's surface transportation network is essential for moving goods and services, as well as people, in an efficient manner. Unfortunately, that transportation system is becoming increasingly outdated and ineffective. The American Society of Civil Engineers recently gave America's infrastructure a cumulative grade of ``D.'' Congestion, aging trains and roads, and thousands of structurally deficient bridges are imposing real costs on the American people and on the American economy. It is estimated that Americans spend 4.2 billion hours a year stuck in traffic. I can testify to sharing that experience last Sunday. This costs the economy $78.2 billion annually. The poor condition of our roads costs motorists another $67 billion a year in repairs and operating expenses. The civil engineers stated that ``current spending amounts to only about half of the needed investment.'' Instead, similar to the proposed Ryan budget, this Republican fiscal year 2014 THUD bill would underfund programs that provide critical investments in transportation alternatives and smart growth, providing about $2 billion in total for transit programs, which is about a 17 percent cut from last year. The bill would completely eliminate funding for the overwhelmingly popular and successful TIGER grant program, which invests in multimodal projects, including roads and bridges, transit, high-speed and intercity passenger rail, freight rail, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and ports--these things that promise to achieve critical national objectives and make our communities more livable and sustainable. On top of that, the bill would even rescind funding for the fiscal year 2013 TIGER grant process that is already under way. The bill also decreases funding for the Federal Transit Administration's New Starts and Small Starts program, which is the primary source of Federal support for major transit capital projects that are locally planned, implemented, and operated. They are critical for leveraging local investment to implement transit alternatives. And then for yet another year, the bill provides zero dollars for development of high-speed rail corridor development. I speak as a representative of a State where high-speed rail development between Raleigh and Charlotte is well under way and holds great promise. Yet this bill denies further resources, denies that kind of support for other parts of the country. Our Nation has a major competitiveness gap in this area. These investments make sense. Sometimes you have to spend some money to make some money, and high-speed rail investments have a synergistic impact. They upgrade our rail infrastructure, they improve the mobility of goods and people, and they create jobs. Finally, Amtrak. This bill is pathetic with respect to Amtrak--only $950 million total. Of this, only $600 million goes to the capital account. That is a 37 percent reduction from last year and more than $1 billion less than the administration's request for capital. You can figure out how this is going to work. You subtract from that amount Amtrak's required mandatory debt service, that is $200 million; safety-critical work and inspections and maintenance mandated by Federal law, that is another $200 million; and new equipment expected to be delivered this year that will add capacity and improve returns on long-distance trains, that is $100 million. So you see where that money is going. It leaves almost nothing for capital investment in the national system, including improving accessibility for passengers with disabilities. When you are cutting things this closely, it means the work you are going to do is going to be done less efficiently. Amtrak will have to fix problems only as they occur. It will defer major work. That is bad policy. It is bad economics. If Amtrak deteriorates, service will suffer, revenue will suffer, Amtrak's costs will go up, and that will eventually be reflected in higher appropriations needs in the future. Mr. Chairman, transportation investments help improve the mobility of millions of Americans and provide alternatives to congested roadways. They foster the development of more livable communities and are proven job-creators. It is absolutely penny wise and pound foolish to shortchange these investments. I urge defeat of this bill.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for yielding. I want to commend both the chairman and the ranking member for their hard work on this bill. But no amount of hard work could redeem this bill, and I am rising in strong opposition. We call it the THUD bill. Well, the bill makes about the same sound as it spells--thud. The majority's bill says of our transportation and infrastructure commitments, We don't care if the wheels fall off. It says of our housing and development commitments, We don't care if the roof caves in. Thud. While I appreciate the hard work of the members of this subcommittee and of the dedicated staff on both sides of the aisle, the funding levels included in this bill are just unacceptable. They're impossible. The 302(b) allocation received by this subcommittee is 15 percent lower than it was last year. And that was already low. It's 19 percent below the Budget Control Act. It's nearly $10 billion below the level that the Senate is considering in the same bill. This funding level reflects the reckless discretionary spending caps adopted by the House majority in the Ryan budget resolution, which not only locked in sequestration; it doubled down on sequestration in order to shelter defense and homeland security bills from some of the cuts. This made allocations for our domestic investments even worse--far, far beyond the usual zone of political disagreement. The Transportation and Housing bill we're considering today is a prime example of this impossible tradeoff. On the transportation side, the bill makes deep cuts to the capital programs of the Federal Aviation Administration, Amtrak, and the Federal Transit Administration's New Starts program. It zeroes out funding for the TIGER program, which has been enormously successful at advancing critical surface transportation projects in communities across the country, and yet has had to leave thousands of meritorious proposals unfunded. Once again, the bill includes no funding for the development of high speed rail. Funding for our housing needs is even worse. The bill reduces funding for the Community Development Block Grant program, a program that over the years has been known for its bipartisan support, to $1.6 billion. That's the lowest level since this program was created in 1975. The HOME program is funded at $700 million, the lowest level since that program began in 1992. And the bill rescinds funding for the Choice Neighborhoods program, the successor program of Hope VI. That means the bill lacks funding for any comprehensive revitalization program whatsoever. During the Appropriations Committee markup of this bill, Democrats offered a series of amendments to restore these damaging cuts and produce a bill that more adequately meets our Nation's critical housing and infrastructure needs. All of those amendments were rejected on party-line votes. Mr. Chairman, perhaps the most tragic and disappointing fact about this bill is that the cuts it imposes could be avoided if the Republican leadership would only appoint budget conferees to go negotiate, with their Senate counterparts, a long-term deficit reduction deal that would lift sequestration and preserve vital investments in our future. Alternatively, Republican leaders could reconsider their refusal to talk with the President. That offer from December still stands. They should work with him to address the real drivers of the deficit--tax expenditures and entitlements--thus, lifting sequestration, along with the drag it represents on our economy and the mockery it makes of the appropriations process. The bill before us is exhibit A of this travesty. I urge my colleagues to raise their voices and their votes against it.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Mrs. Allie Muse Peebles on being selected to receive the Humanitarian of the Year Award by the Raleigh-Apex chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, NAACP. Mrs. Peebles has dedicated over twenty years of service to the Raleigh-Apex NAACP. As Life Membership Chairperson, she has encouraged more than half of the branch to become Life Members and secured needed funds for the branch's annual scholarship and other endeavors. I first got to know Mrs. Peebles as I prepared to run for Congress some 28 years ago. I quickly learned how respected she was in Raleigh and Wake County, based on her commitment to community betterment and her ability to communicate and work with people of varying views and backgrounds. After retiring as an English teacher, she continued writing for the Carolinian, a biweekly African-American publication based in Raleigh, and she remains an active member of the Raleigh Alumna Chapter of Delta Sigma Theta Sorority, Inc., the Voter Education Coalition, the Sertoma Club, the National Council of Negro Women, and the Raleigh Alumni Chapter of Hampton University. I commend her remarkable service both to the community and the Raleigh-Apex NAACP. Mrs. Allie Muse Peebles is very deserving of the Humanitarian of the Year Award, and it is with great pleasure and pride that I congratulate her on receiving this honor.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the faculty, staff and students of A.L. Stanback Middle School in Hillsborough, North Carolina, on being designated one of 115 ``Schools to Watch'' by the National Forum to Accelerate Middle-Grades Reform. The ``School to Watch'' designation signifies that A. L. Stanback's administrators and teachers have created one of the most academically excellent, developmentally responsive, and socially equitable middle schools in the nation. I applaud A.L. Stanback's commitment to engaging students by challenging expectations and employing a variety of teaching methods. Reaching students during their middle school years is critically important, and A.L. Stanback truly takes this to heart, preparing its students not only for their high school education but their lives beyond by teaching critical thinking skills. By providing students with diverse opportunities in a supportive environment, A.L. Stanback is helping today's students become tomorrow's leaders. The Research Triangle of North Carolina is considered one of the best places in the nation to live, work and raise a family, and the A.L Stanback Middle School community's record of success will only contribute to that reputation. This is well-deserved recognition, and I hope it serves as a shining example of the positive impact that creative, committed teachers can have not only on our young people, but also on how we strive for excellence in education. Congratulations again to the teachers, administrators, parents, and students that helped A.L. Stanback Middle School achieve this award.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Fuller Gifted and Talented Magnet Elementary School of Raleigh, North Carolina, on its 50th anniversary and for its strong tradition of excellence. Fuller Magnet Elementary first opened in 1962 with 200 African- American students. Today, 50 years later, Fuller serves 600 students from many different backgrounds and cultures around the world. Since its founding, Fuller has embraced the philosophy that each child should be challenged at his or her own intellectual level and be provided with opportunities for success each day. Fuller integrates two magnet programs into its instruction, offering the Gifted and Talented Program along with the Academically Gifted Basics program. Fuller also benefits from strong community ties, including a partnership with North Carolina State University in both academic and leadership initiatives. I commend Fuller on its strong academic and instructional program. The school has set high expectations for students, parents, and teachers alike, and it has also looked at the whole of the student's education, teaching social responsibility and character development in addition to academics. Parental support, talented and committed teachers, and a positive school climate are the foundation of a successful educational community, and Fuller Elementary is abundant in all three. Fuller has been a valuable asset to the Raleigh community these past fifty years, investing in young people and equipping them with the skills and education they need to become the leaders of the future. The Triangle is considered as one of the best places in the nation to live, work and raise a family, and Fuller Gifted and Talented Magnet Elementary School is one of the many excellent schools that contributes to that reputation. I hope that its 50th anniversary celebration is a time of reflection on the history of the school and of rededication to excellence and community betterment.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the players, coaches, and staff of the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill women's lacrosse team for their victory in the 2013 National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) Division I Women's Lacrosse Tournament. UNC-Chapel Hill first started competing in Division I women's lacrosse in 1996, and at the time the coaches had to recruit athletes from the women's soccer team. In just 17 seasons since, the Tar Heels have made the NCAA tournament 14 times, reaching the semifinals seven times--including three of the last four years. In light of this meteoric rise, it was only a matter of time before the team claimed its first national title. This year, the Tar Heels entered the NCAA tournament after a remarkable 15-3 season. They upset the reigning national champion, Northwestern, in the semifinals, marking the first time in seven years that the Wildcats did not win the NCAA tournament. In the finals, the Tar Heels defeated Atlantic Coast Conference (ACC) rival Maryland in triple overtime, relying on veteran leadership from NCAA Tournament Most Outstanding Player Kara Cannizzaro and junior veteran Abbey Friend as well two stand-out freshmen: Goalkeeper Megan Ward, who blocked a last-minute shot by Maryland, and midfielder Sammy Jo Tracy, who scored the winning goal in sudden-death overtime. In order to recognize the contributions of all of the members of this remarkable team, I have included the full roster and coaching staff below for inclusion in the Congressional Record, together with their hometowns and secondary schools. I also commend Coach Jenny Levy on this triumph. Coach Levy was hired in 1994 to build a varsity program and has since developed an outstanding 224-92 record in 17 seasons as Head Coach, including a 63- 18 mark over the last four seasons. A former member of the U.S. Women's Lacrosse National Team, Coach Levy is now a three-time ACC Coach of the Year, winning five league regular-season titles and the 2002 ACC Tournament title. She ranks sixth in Division I women's lacrosse history with 242 career victories--a number that I suspect will only continue to climb in future years. On behalf of my colleagues, I extend the House's congratulations to the UNC-Chapel Hill Tar Heels for their championship season, and I look forward to welcoming them to Washington, D.C. and to the White House later this year. UNC Tar Heels Women's Roster 2012-13 Season Head Coach: Jenny Levy Assistant Coaches: Phil Barnes, Katrina Dowd #1 Frysinger, Mallory, Corning, N.Y. (Corning East) #2 Hanson, Paige, Baltimore, Md. (Bryn Mawr School) #3 Zeigler, Maddie, -Alexandria, Va. (Bishop Ireton) - #4 Patterson, Paige, -Alexandria, Va. (St. Stephens and St. Agnes School) #5 Scott, Lindsay, --Yorktown Heights, N.Y. (Yorktown) #6 Skinner, Zoe, --Baltimore, Md. (Towson) #7 McGee, Sam, --Baltimore, Md. (Bryn Mawr School) #8 Andress, Alyssa, -Doylestown, PA (Archbishop Wood) #9 Corzel, Margaret, -Berwyn, Pa. (Merion Mercy Academy) #11 Griffin, Jessica, -Sudbury, Mass. (Lincon-Sudbury Regional) #12 Davis, Carly, --Skaneateles, NY (Skaneateles) #13 Tracy, Sammy Jo, -Bedford, N.Y. (Fox Lane) #14 Ballard, Cassie, -Millersville, Md. (Severna Park) #15 Cannizzaro, Kara, -Cazenovia, N.Y. (Cazenovia Central) #16 Serpe, Sloane, --North Caldwell, N.J. (West Essex Regional) #17 Ward, Megan, --Annapolis, Md. (St. Mary's) #18 Friend, Abbey, --Canandaigua, N.Y. (Canandaigua Academy) #19 Scott, Sarah, --Yorktown Heights, N.Y. (Yorktown) #20 Farrell, Breada, -Essex Fells, N.J. (West Essex Regional) #21 Giles, Eileen, --Concord, Mass. (Middlesex School) #22 Garrity, Emily, -Rutledge, Pa. (Strath Haven) #23 George, Taylor, -Arnold, Md. (Broadneck) #24 Rubin, Morgan, --Baltimore, Md. (Bryn Mawr School) #25 Markison, Devin, -Princeton, N.J. (Loomis Chaffee) #26 Devlin, Kelly, --Downingtown, Pa. (Downington East) #27 Messinger, Aly, Mendham, N.J. (West Mendham) #28 Waite, Courtney, Bernardsville, N.J. (Bernards) #29 Schmidt, Paula, Wantagh, N.Y. (Wantagh) #30 Martino, Kate, Summit, N.J. (Summit) #32 Sindall, Caileigh, Silver Spring, Md. (Our Lady of Good Counsel) #34 Lobb, Stephanie, West Chester, Pa. (West Chester East) #35 Coppa, Brittney, Hampstead, Md. (North Carroll) #50 Maksym, Lauren, North Massapequa, N.Y. (Farmingdale)

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise today rise today to congratulate the players, coaches, and staff of the Duke University men's lacrosse team for their victory in the 2013 National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) Division I Men's Lacrosse Tournament. Duke University has a long tradition of excellence in collegiate sports, including collegiate lacrosse. In April of 1938, the Duke Men's lacrosse team played its first game, defeating its arch-rivals at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill by a score of two to one. Since then, the team has reached 13 national championship games, winning an NCAA Championship in 2010 and now in 2013. This year's Blue Devils team won nine out of ten games to close out the season, including a series of hard-fought, close victories in the NCAA tournament. This historic run included victories over Loyola 12-11 in double overtime, Notre Dame 12-11, and Cornell 16-14. To win the championship, the Blue Devils defeated a tough Syracuse team by a 16-10 margin, coming all the way back from a 5-0 deficit in the second quarter. Duke's Brendan Fowler won 20 out of 28 face-offs, while Jordan Wolf led the team with four goals, followed by Josh Offit and Josh Dionne with three each. I know other players made equally important contributions on the field, in practice, and in the classroom throughout the year, and it is in that spirit that I include below the full roster of this year's team, together with their hometowns and secondary schools, so that all will be recognized in the Congressional Record. Special congratulations are also in order for Duke University's Coach, John Danowski, who has now led the team to two NCAA Championships. In his seven years as head coach, Coach Danowski has compiled an impressive 95-24 record, capturing five ACC regular season titles and four ACC tournament titles in addition to his two national championships. Coach Danowski has also mentored 37 All-Americans, 19 All-ACC selections, two Tewaaraton Trophy winners, two USILA Attackman of the Year award recipients, and 10 USILA Scholar All-America picks. On behalf of my colleagues, I extend the House's congratulations to the Duke Blue Devils for their incredible season, and I look forward to welcoming them to Washington, D.C. and to the White House later this year. Duke Blue Devils Roster 2012-13 Season Head Coach: John Danowski Assistant Coaches: Ron Caputo, Matt Danowski Volunteer Assistant Coach: Joe Cinosky #1--Kyle Turri, West Islip, N.Y. (West Islip) #2--David Lawson, Westford, Mass. (Middlesex) #3--Brendan Fowler, Wantagh, N.Y. (Chaminade) #4--Dan Wigrizer, Villanova, Pa. (Haverford) #5--Tanner Scott, Conestoga, Pa. (Conestoga) #6--Will Haus, Palmyra, Pa. (Palmyra Area) #7--Jake Tripucka, Boonton Township, N.J. (Mountain Lakes) #8--Josh Dionne, Merrimack, N.H. (Avon Old Farms) #9--Case Matheis, Darien, Conn. (Darien) #10--Deemer Class, Baltimore, Md. (Loyola Blakefield) #11--Eddie Loftus, Syosset, N.Y. (Syosset) #12--Seamus Connelly, Duxbury, Mass. (Duxbury) #13--Chris Hipps, Dallas, Texas (Highland Park) #14--John Shaffer, Summit, N.J. (Delbarton) #15--Myles Jones, Huntington, N.Y. (Walt Whitman) #16--Kyle Keenan, Smithtown, N.Y. (Smithtown West) #17--Dan DiMaria, Dix Hills, N.Y. (Harvard) #18--Tommy Patterson, Chatham, N.J. (Delbarton) #19--Christian Walsh, Baltimore, Md. (Deerfield Academy) #20--Charlie Payton, Greenwich, Conn. (Lawrenceville School) #21--Brian Dailey, Conestoga, Pa. (Conestoga) #23--Dax Cohan, San Francisco, Calif. (St. Ignatius Prep) #24--Henry Meyer, Newton, Mass. (Belmont Hill) #25--Josh Offit, Bethesda, Md. (Landon School) #26--Joe Kruy, Sudbury, Mass. (Phillips Academy Andover) #27--Justin George, Baltimore, Md. (Gilman) #28--Jimmy O'Neill, Huntington, N.Y. (Chaminade) #29--Morgan Kirby, Morristown, N.J. (Lawrenceville) #30--Chad Cohan, San Francisco, Calif. (Saint Ignatius College Prep) #31--Jordan Wolf, Wynnewood, Pa. (Lower Merion) #32--Greg DeLuca, Boonton Township, N.J. (Mountain Lakes) #33--Jamie Ikeda, Berwyn, Pa. (Conestoga) #34--Ben Krebs, Pleasanton, Calif. (Foothill) #35--Jack Rowe, Vienna, Va. (James Madison) #36--Ben Scharf, New York, N.Y. (Phillips Academy Andover) #37--Casey Carroll, Baldwin, N.Y. (Baldwin) #38--Chris Coady, Winchester, Mass. (Buckingham Browne & Nichols) #39--Luke Aaron, Great Falls, Va. (Deerfield Academy) #41--Greg Rhodes, East Northporth, N.Y. (Chaminade) #42--Matt Kunkel, South Setauket, N.Y. (Ward Melville) #43--Will Hendrickson, New York, N.Y. (Riverdale) #44--Spencer Peterson, Encinitas, Calif. (La Costa Canyon) #50--Reid Maxmin, Katonah, N.Y. (John Jay) #55--Bill Conners, West Chester, Pa. (Malvern Prep) #77--Henry Lobb, Narberth, Pa. (Malvern Prep) #91--Luke Duprey, Concord, N.H. (Phillips Andover) #97--Rowland Pettit, Fort Worth, Texas (Trinity Valley School)

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I just want to echo the chairman on this point. We will work together and with you and with Administrator Fugate to ensure that FEMA meets its coordination responsibilities with regard to the National Capital Region.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by my friend from New York that would eliminate funding in the bill for constructing the National Bio- and Agro-Defense Facility, or NBAF. I supported a similar amendment offered by the gentleman last year, but the circumstances, I believe, have changed decisively. Last year, the administration did not request funding for NBAF for fiscal 2013. We were still waiting on the results of a National Academy of Sciences review of options for meeting the Nation's animal disease research needs and on the result of a separate NAS review of the Department's updated risk assessments for NBAF. Last June, NAS released a report on DHS' updated risk assessment concluding that the Department had made substantial improvements compared to its first risk assessment and that the so-called 65 percent design phase plans for the facility itself appear to be sound and conform with international standards. Further, last July, a separate National Academy of Sciences report made clear that the existing animal disease research facility on Plum Island is not an option for meeting the Nation's needs and that a new facility with a BSL-4 laboratory is required. This is precisely the capability that the new NBAF facility will provide. The two studies also made clear that critical work must continue. Notably, the National Academy of Sciences' review determined that the Department had likely underestimated some types of risk while overestimating others. The Department disputes some of these assessments. But even acknowledging that DHS must continue to improve its risk methodology and response planning before the NBAF facility becomes fully operational, we should not wait any longer to begin constructing the new facility, which we know now is securely and safely designed. The longer we wait, the more costly its construction will be and the more costly it will be to continue to maintain the Plum Island facility. We also must consider the cost of further delaying the availability of a Biosafety Level 4 facility, which the NAS, DHS, and other stakeholders are fully convinced we need. So I believe the funding provided in the appropriations bill is timely and needed, and I urge Members to oppose the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of my colleague, Mr. Moran's amendment. The fact is that section 533 of this bill, which his amendment amends, has no place in this Homeland Security bill in the first place. If it belongs in any bill, it would be the Commerce-Justice bill. But as a political gesture, for years now, we've had this amendment or something very much like it added to a number of appropriations bills. What Mr. Moran has done tonight, though, is interesting. He has not proposed that this section be removed. He has simply amended it, and in a sensible way. He would limit the prohibition of the transfer of detainees to those demonstrably dangerous people who were placed in Guantanamo after 2005. That should remove most of the objections people have made to the elimination of this prohibition entirely. It seems that the colleagues who have pushed this amendment, year after year and bill after bill, don't apparently have very strong concerns about indefinite detention and the kind of stain that this represents on this country. They also seem to think that if and when detainees are going to be brought to trial, the way to try them is with military commissions at Guantanamo. They seem to think that's the only possible way to bring these detainees to justice. The reality is that military commissions have a very spotty record at best, while our criminal courts have a long and successful record of prosecuting terrorists. Why would we want to eliminate that option? Why would we want to deny that option to the President? The reasoning of the proponents of this provision both denigrates our judicial system and actually exalts these detainees to a status they don't deserve in the eyes of the world. If I had my way, this section would not be in the bill in the first place. But since it is, I think Mr. Moran has made a very sensible proposal that we should consider very favorably, and I hope that my colleagues will do just that. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Deutch-Foster amendment, and I commend my colleagues for addressing one of the major problems in this bill. Once again, this bill sets an arbitrary minimum of 34,000 ICE detention beds, whether or not ICE needs them, whether or not the population it is managing on a given day warrants detention. This detention bed mandate denies ICE the flexibility it needs to manage its enforcement and removal resources in response to changing circumstances. It prevents ICE from making full use of cheaper alternative forms of supervision when it's appropriate. The specific number of beds is not the main issue here. The problem is attempting to micromanage detention operations from the floor of this House and doing it, by the way, in a way that wastes money and reduces flexibility. I've never understood why we would want to do that, and yet this keeps appearing in the bill produced by our majority colleagues. Once again, we need to remove this provision, and I commend Mr. Deutch and Mr. Foster for focusing attention on this so effectively. I urge adoption of their amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.