David Price

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

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. 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 move to strike the last word.

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

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

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I would like to express my agreement with what Mr. Dent just said. These aircraft are absolutely vital for mission success for Border Patrol agents and air and marine personnel. If there are better, faster, cheaper ways to make these conversions, we need to know about them.

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

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. 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.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I too rise in support of the amendment, which would simply require a funding floor for the Port Security Grant program at the current level. I very much appreciate the gentlewoman's intent with this amendment. Our seaports are critically important to our Nation's economy, and, therefore, have been a primary focus of our security and preparedness efforts. Because our bill does not currently allocate State and local program funding among the major Homeland Security Grant programs, I do have concerns with carving out funding for one specific program. But the funding level which our colleague has proposed is equal to the amount allocated to ports in 2013 and that we anticipate would be available in 2014. Therefore, I support the gentlewoman's amendment, urge its adoption, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's amendment would provide an additional $32 million for the Screening Partnership Program. I have no objection to the concept of the Screening Partnership Program. If a local airport authority applies to participate in the program and a private company can provide screening in accordance with TSA standards and costs, then so be it. In fact, this bill increases funding for the SPP by $15.6 million over current-year levels and $10 million above the request in anticipation of the program's vast expansion. But I am unaware of a surge in demand for participation in the SPP that would warrant a 30- percent increase in funding for this program. The offset for the amendment is aviation security direction and enforcement, which the bill already cuts by $20 million below the request. Now, Mr. Chairman, should additional demand warrant funding for the SPP above what is already provided in this bill, we could work with the TSA to transfer funding to meet that demand. But it simply makes no sense to provide such a significant increase for the SPP when it is almost certain that those additional funds are going to go unused. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. I think it's a positive contribution to the bill. It improves the balance in the bill, both in what it proposes-- positively--and also what it cuts. I think we can use the additional funds in CBP for additional officers. And as has been said many times on this floor today, the 287(g) is flawed and wasteful and can well afford this kind of cut. So I commend the gentleman on both fronts--adding to the right things, cutting the right things--and I urge adoption of his amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I thank my colleague for yielding, and I very much appreciate my fellow North Carolinian raising this issue. I agree with his assessment that OMB needs to finalize this rule as soon as possible. It's critical to establish this risk-based security regime for these repair stations. So we do hope for a rapid conclusion of this protracted episode, and I appreciate his raising the matter.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. At this time I have no further requests for time, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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 rise simply to express support of the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

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 well-intentioned amendment. The amendment would cannibalize various administrative accounts throughout the bill, the Office of the Secretary for Executive Management, the Chief Financial Officer, the CBP Salaries and Expenses, FEMA Salaries and Expenses, somewhat obscure accounts, you might say; but, nonetheless, accounts that are vital to the Department's functioning. It would cannibalize these accounts and put $22 million more in grants, presumably for urban grants, UASI. Now, the grant programs can always use more money. I've championed those programs for years, especially the risk-based UASI program. But we need to think carefully what this amendment is really about. This is a risky path for this body to go down. It really seems to be about adding cities to UASI, adding cities. Now, UASI-eligible cities, and there are 25 of them, are picked on a risk basis. There's a formula involving threat and vulnerability and consequence. The estimates are updated every year. This is probably the most strictly risk-based assessment that DHS undertakes. Do we really want to substitute that for picking these cities on the House floor? I'm afraid that's what this amendment is all about, or at least it's the path that it could put us on. And so, therefore, I urge its rejection. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I, too, rise in qualified support of this amendment. When disasters strike, these Urban Search and Rescue Teams stand ready for FEMA deployment, complete with unique tools and equipment and training. I do want to register another concern about the cannibalizing of management accounts that this amendment, along with other amendments, is undertaking to do. We're already $302 million below the request and $147 million below our fiscal 2013, pre-sequestration, in this departmental management funding, so we've got to pay attention to this as we take this amendment to conference. We've got to have a better offset. Having said that, I do think this is a meritorious amendment, well justified. I urge its adoption, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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