David Price

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

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

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

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the chairman yielding, and I also want to oppose this amendment. I want to say to my colleague that I very clearly understand the purpose of this amendment. 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. So the gentleman, as I understand it, is trying to apply some pressure in that situation so that 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 vital inspections that really can't lapse would not go on. So I have to reluctantly urge defeat of the amendment, although I agree with and understand its underlying purpose.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant opposition to the amendment as well. I do this because I have great respect for the gentleman from Mississippi and for the good work that he does on the authorizing committee. And I also know that the concerns he has expressed here tonight are legitimate ones. But I believe striking this funding in an appropriations bill is not the preferred way to deal with it. The Behavior Detection Officers program utilizes specially trained individuals to identify potentially high-risk passengers. This program is specifically designed to detect individuals exhibiting behaviors that indicate they may be a threat to our security. And these behaviors, by the way, are not just randomly chosen. These individuals are trained in psychologically grounded theories as to what kind of behaviors they're looking for and what those behaviors may indicate. It's one element of a layered approach to ensuring the security of our commercial airlines and airports. Now, I'm aware that the inspector general will soon issue a report that faults TSA for not being able to accurately assess the effectiveness of the program and for not having a finalized strategic plan that identifies the mission, the goals, and the objectives needed to develop performance measures. My understanding, however, is that TSA 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 TSA has already drafted a strategic plan for the program. Ending a program at the Department of Homeland Security just because the inspector general has found that it needs to improve its strategy and its performance measures just doesn't make sense to me. The inspector general certainly has not recommended that the program be ended. The use of behavior detection is not a new or novel idea. As I say, in fact, it has a validated foundation in psychology. It's been a cornerstone in the Israeli Government's aviation security for years. I commend Administrator Pistole 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; we need to work with TSA and push it to quickly implement the IG's recommendations. So I urge defeat of the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I simply want to express my agreement with the chairman on this matter. I appreciate the amendment being offered by my friend from North Carolina, but I believe it would introduce an element of rigidity and an 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, but in the meantime, it seems the amendment almost presupposes a negative or a suspicious outcome of the study. Maybe not. In any case, I see no reason for layering on a requirement forbidding the purchase of ammunition while we conduct this study. So I urge the defeat of the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I thank the chairman for yielding. I am happy to also offer my support. I hope my colleagues will support this en bloc amendment.

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

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

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I am also not going to object to this amendment given TSA's decision of this afternoon, the decision that has, I believe, made the amendment largely irrelevant. I do want to express my appreciation for the concerns addressed here tonight by the sponsors of this amendment and the stakeholders that many of us have heard from. I want to take just a second, though, to underscore that TSA did not propose these changes haphazardly. The proposal that is being attacked here tonight and that has been reversed here today by the agency, that proposal was the result of a risk-based approach to TSA's security requirements. I also remind the House that the current TSA administrator, Mr. Pistole, is a 26-year veteran at the FBI. I've been impressed by his willingness to stand by the data, stand by what objective analysis dictates, whether that means reconsidering a regulation or insisting that it remain in place. Since the International Civil Aviation Organization changed its standards to prevent passengers from carrying small pocketknives in 2010, more than 5 billion commercial airline passengers on a flight originating outside the United States have traveled without incident. And I do think it's ironic, Mr. Chairman, that after all these years of Members complaining about long wait times and passengers having to take off their shoes and their coats and their belts, they have to take out those laptops, take out those liquids, that TSA now does something to speed up security lines and suddenly Members want to reverse that decision on the floor of this House. I hope we are not going to get into the habit of overturning risk-based decisions, threat-based decisions on the floor of this House. But as I say, the amendment before us is now largely irrelevant, so I have no objection to its adoption, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I'm happy to urge my colleagues to vote for the amendment.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I, too, commend the gentleman for his amendment and urge its adoption. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I want to join the chairman in opposing this amendment. This amendment would prohibit any funding from being utilized by our mobile Visible Intermodal Protection and Response teams, the VIPR teams. These teams provide the ability for TSA to randomly screen passengers on mass transit and in our airports. They also work in concert with State and local law enforcement agencies. They provide a surge capacity beyond the local capability in order to be able to respond to intelligence information and special situations. It's also important that exercises be conducted on a regular basis in order to test the concept of operations and develop the essential working relationship with local authorities. As the chairman indicated, in our assessments after the attacks in Madrid and London, it became clear that we lacked the capability, lacked the ability to rapidly respond to threats quickly and to react with a show of force against potential threats. That's precisely the purpose of these VIPR teams. The concept was authorized specifically by section 1303 of the 9/11 Act, a bill that passed this House with 371 votes. We will address these problems, as the chairman has indicated, problems that the gentleman has identified, problems that deserve to be addressed. We will address the issues that you raise. You, obviously, have legitimate concerns. But none of what the gentleman has said is an argument for eliminating the funding and for removing an important deterrent capability. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

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

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

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I want to add my thanks to my colleague from Oregon for what he has said here tonight. This area of disaster relief funding is one that has challenged us for a long time, getting accurate predictions and estimates of the needs from Democratic and Republican administrations and dealing with this under budget pressures here in this body. But the baseline for any of this has got to be honest budgeting, realistic assessments, and we need to work on this going forward. So I'm interested in what the gentleman from Oregon says about the ideas that he has that might help us strengthen this, both the accurate accounting of expenditures for past disasters and also a better understanding of the mitigation potential. I think both of those are important areas for exploration, and I certainly will work with the chairman and with him in exploring this going forward.

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. Will the gentleman yield?

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

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, at this time I'd like to yield 3 minutes to our distinguished colleague from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz).

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), the distinguished ranking member of the full committee.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to another outstanding subcommittee member, Mr. Cuellar of Texas.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to the remaining time?

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I'm now pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Roybal-Allard), an outstanding member of our subcommittee.