David Price

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds, Madam Speaker.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I reserve.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the remainder of our time. Madam Speaker, I rise once again to urge colleagues to support this carefully worked out conference report. And since no debate is permitted on the motion to recommit, I do wish to say a few words about the motion and strongly urge its rejection. The motion to recommit would derail $42.8 billion in Homeland Security investments, investments in critical efforts to protect the American people from the threat of terrorist attacks and natural disasters, and to secure our borders, ports and skies. The motion to recommit would reopen the compromises made with the Senate that allowed us to provide $2.5 billion in additional resources for our homeland security efforts. My colleagues should make no mistake, this motion to recommit will dissolve our conference and kill the bill. Now, that should be reason enough for voting against the motion, but let me talk about the substance of the motion as well, because I do want to make certain that Members understand what we're dealing with. The motion to recommit would dismantle the agreement that we on the majority side had with the minority in our full committee, which was passed by a large bipartisan vote in the House as a whole. In listening to our colleagues debate today, you would hardly understand that. But as a matter of fact, they readily agreed, eagerly agreed, in the markup in the Appropriations Committee that of course there should be an exception for bringing detainees to this country for prosecution if that was determined to be the best way of dealing with their case. I think it's fair to say that no matter what President was in the White House, he or she would insist on this flexibility, and we should insist on it for them. This motion to recommit would guarantee, I'm afraid, no progress in resolving the status of detainees for a year. It goes against the basic American principles of due process and access to a fair trial. It goes against America's basic interests as well, the interest in closing down Guantanamo--and that, I remind colleagues, is an objective articulated by President Bush as well as by President Obama--our interest in closing down Guantanamo and in bringing related cases to an orderly conclusion. The motion to recommit unreasonably and unwisely exalts these detained individuals above the most savage prisoners in the U.S., saying we just can't handle them, we just can't handle these dangerous people in our court system. This, I would say, emboldens the terrorists, perhaps even helps their recruiting efforts. We have tried, convicted, and punished people who are the worst of the worst in this country repeatedly, and we can do so again. Similar provisions, Madam Speaker, were rejected by this body just last week in a motion to recommit the Defense authorization bill, and they should be rejected today. Now, we heard a lot of arguments today about ``Mirandizing'' prisoners and reading them their rights on the battlefield. That is a red herring, unrelated to this bill. Legal protections are a matter for the courts; they are a matter for other committees in this body. Our conference report does not reach these matters. We have assurances, as a matter of fact, from General Petraeus that U.S. military forces are not and will not Mirandize detainees. The Department of Justice has said there has been no policy change nor blanket instruction issued for FBI agents to Mirandize detainees overseas. There have been specific cases in which FBI agents have done this at Bagram and in other situations in order to preserve the quality of some evidence, but there has been no overall policy change. In fact, the whole issue of Mirandizing terrorists on the field of battle shows a lack of understanding of what ``Miranda rights'' are. Miranda warnings are given prior to interrogation for collecting evidence from a suspect in a crime. They are a protection against a suspect's making self-incriminating statements. They are not a part of arrest or detention procedures. The courts have held that they do not prevent questioning about identity and that they do not apply in cases where public safety is threatened, such as on the field of battle or at the site of a terrorist attack. We don't interrogate on the field of battle. It's a red herring. By the way, we're also not reaching the question of the future of military tribunals, but the ranking member's motion to recommit would very definitely shut off access to U.S. courts. We need to ask ourselves whether that is something we want to do in cases where that may be the most appropriate venue for prosecution. My colleague seems to think that three convictions by military tribunals in the entire period of their existence is an impressive record. One of those was by a guilty plea. It's not an impressive record. By contrast, a recent analysis of the 119 terrorism cases involving 289 defendants tried over the last 20 years in U.S. courts shows a 91 percent conviction rate for the cases that had been resolved as of June 2. Is that an option that we simply summarily want to close off? I've already indicated, Madam Speaker--and I won't repeat--the layered protections that our bill contains with respect to the movement of detainees, the transparency it requires and the accountability it enforces. This bill contains multiple protections, and I stress again that they're based on an earlier bipartisan consensus. They reflect not just the wording in our bill but the language in several of the appropriations bills. This move today to recommit this bill makes me wonder just how much our colleagues have really meant it when they have urged us to consider this bill quickly and to act with dispatch. We heard this through much of September. The Guantanamo provisions that they asked for were included in the bill. We brought the bill with those provisions intact from the conference. They've been clamoring for weeks to get this bill to the floor, to pass it as a free-standing bill. But all of a sudden as the conference proceeded, again they cried, ``Stop.'' Now they're objecting to provisions that they, themselves, endorsed in the Appropriations Committee and on the House floor. They're objecting to our good faith safeguards on the movement of detainees to other countries and to the transparency requirements. They're simply saying, ``Stop.'' Once again, ``Stop.'' Well, we can't afford to stop, Madam Speaker. We're already into the fiscal year. We have no reason to stop, and we cannot afford to stop. We will not hold up the $1.5 billion in this conference report to identify and to remove illegal aliens who have been convicted of crimes. We will not delay $800 million to secure our borders. We will not delay $4.2 billion for Homeland Security grants to ensure our first-responder community is well-prepared to meet all hazards. We will not delay funding for our Coast Guard, for our Secret Service, for disaster assistance, or for cybersecurity. We will, in fact, pass this bill today. We've worked with our colleagues. We've debated the priorities. We've operated in good faith. We've accommodated interests by Members throughout this body. Now it is time to get on with it, to get past the political games, to get past the ``gotcha'' amendments and motions, and to fund Homeland Security. This body has a responsibility to legislate. Let's get the job done. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this motion to recommit and to vote enthusiastically for this conference report.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to our valued colleague from New York (Mrs. Lowey), a member of the subcommittee.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to present the conference report for the Department of Homeland Security appropriations for fiscal year 2010. This agreement provides $42.78 billion for the Department, $2.64 billion, or 7 percent, above the fiscal year 2009 level. I want to thank the distinguished ranking member, Mr. Rogers, for his advice and counsel and help in making this a better bill, and also his staff for working so closely and constructively with us. I want to highlight the work of all staff on both sides of the aisle who have helped us present such a strong legislative product to the Congress. This is a critical year for the Department of Homeland Security, as it has weathered its first leadership transition with the new administration, in the midst of a global economic recession. I commend the Department's new leadership on its strong efforts to enhance our Nation's security posture and its willingness to reach out to Congress to make adjustments and to promote change when needed. This conference report, carrying the seventh annual appropriation for the Department since its inception, addresses the needs and challenges that this still-young Department faces. It also represents a considered approach to funding critical domestic security requirements and other core departmental missions within a bipartisan consensus on fiscal responsibility. Madam Speaker, one can make an argument for increasing funding for many of the programs contained in this report. When discussing homeland security, worst-case scenarios often abound, as do advocates for fixating on one threat while downplaying others. Our obligation, by contrast, is to take a balanced, realistic approach, to weigh risks carefully, and to set priorities and make prudent investments in smart, effective security. I believe this conference agreement supports the Department's efforts to focus on the highest priorities for protecting our country and to prevent, prepare for, and respond to legitimate threats, whether natural or man-made. To conserve time, Madam Speaker, I will highlight just a few items in the proposed agreement, items I believe are of interest to all Members. First, the conference agreement provides the resources to support the readiness of our State and local partners, our first responders out on the front lines. This includes $810 million for firefighters, $887 million for the Urban Areas Security Initiatives grants and $340 million for emergency managers. It also includes over $900 million to strengthen FEMA's operational response capabilities and to enhance the agency's emergency management mission. The conference agreement includes $1.5 billion for more effective efforts by U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement to identify and remove illegal aliens who have committed crimes, a priority we share with the President and Secretary Napolitano. Of this total, $200 million furthers development of the Secure Communities Program, which offers a productive approach for Federal immigration agents to work closely with State and local law enforcement, while maintaining the distinction between the traditional Federal role of enforcing immigration law and the local role of prosecuting criminal violations. The conference agreement includes $800 million for infrastructure and technology to secure the border, with an emphasis on developing technological surveillance and improving tactical communications so our Border Patrol can make smart use of its resources to police an expansive border. It includes $40 million to minimize adverse environmental impacts of border infrastructure and operations, and maintains strong oversight requirements to ensure the Secure Border Initiative delivers as promised. The conference agreement provides a total of $7.66 billion for the Transportation Security Administration to improve aviation security and efficiency. Two areas of note are over $1 billion available to deploy explosives detection systems at airports throughout the country that have less capable and slower screening systems, and $122 million for air cargo security so TSA can meet the August 2010 deadline for screening 100 percent of cargo in the hold of passenger planes. This conference agreement continues to take steps to increase the Coast Guard's contribution to national security, including protection of our waterways and those who use them and stemming the flow of illegal drugs into this country. Overall, this bill includes $10.14 billion for the Coast Guard, $170 million more than the administration requested. Most of this increase is to purchase materials for a new national security cutter and to complete the refurbishment of a heavy icebreaker that will help secure America's interests in the Arctic. It also boosts support for the existing fleet, making investments above the administration's request for backlogged vessel maintenance. The conference agreement includes nearly $400 million for DHS cybersecurity programs, 26 percent above fiscal year 2009, to ramp up our protections for governmental computer networks and to bring on more professionals with cybersecurity expertise. In addition, DHS will be able to initiate new efforts to help those responsible for critical infrastructure and other private networks, reducing their vulnerability to cyberattacks. Also, the conference agreement includes $11 million to promote legal paths to U.S. citizenship by expanding the successful immigration integration program of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. The conference agreement includes $1.1 billion for departmental operations, up $90 million or 17 percent above fiscal year 2009, to improve DHS management and make it more cost-effective, to secure sensitive information, and to ensure that contractors are overseen by trained government professionals, not by other contractors. The agreement provides $221 million to continue efforts to safeguard international commerce and to prevent the use of cargo containers to carry or deliver weapons. This includes an increase of $12.5 million, or 8 percent, above fiscal 2009 to build on the Secure Freight Initiative and Container Security Initiative, as well as funding to sustain programs targeting high-risk cargo and shippers. DHS is also required to submit a realistic strategy for achieving effective cargo and supply chain security. To ensure that DHS can adequately protect public safety in its efforts to identify and prepare for biological or agricultural threats, the conference agreement requires DHS to conduct a thorough risk assessment to determine requirements for safe operation of the National Bio and Agro Defense Facility scheduled for Manhattan, Kansas. It calls for the National Academy of Sciences to provide an independent evaluation of the Department's safety, planning, and mitigation efforts in connection with this project. In addition, the conference report extends authorizations for the E- Verify program and for visas for physicians serving in rural areas, religious workers, and investors, each of these by 3 years. These are all short-term solutions until comprehensive immigration reform can be considered by the authorizing committees and by the Congress. Finally, I want to discuss two items that have been raised repeatedly, the release of photographs and videos of individuals detained by U.S. Armed Forces since 9/11, and restrictions on the administration's ability to transfer detainees from Guantanamo Bay Naval Station to the United States or elsewhere in the world. On the first topic, the conference report codifies the President's decision to allow the Secretary of Defense to bar the release of detainee photos for a period of 3 years. On the second topic, the conference report establishes strict safeguards on the movement of Guantanamo's detainees, and if the administration chooses to address their cases in U.S. courts, this legislation ensures that that will be done with due consideration, planning, and forethought. It prohibits current detainees from being released into the United States or any U.S. territory. It allows the transfer of a detainee to custody inside the United States only for the purpose of prosecuting that individual and only after Congress receives a plan detailing the risks involved and a plan for mitigating such risks, the cost of the transfer, the legal rationale and court demands, and a copy of the notification provided to the governor of the receiving State 14 days before a transfer, with a certification by the Attorney General that the individual poses little or no security risk. Our bill also prevents current detainees from being transferred or released to another country, including freely associated states, unless the President submits to the Congress 15 days prior to such transfer the name of the individual and the country the individual will be transferred to, an assessment of risks posed and actions taken to mitigate such risks, and the terms of the transfer agreement with the other country, including any financial assistance. It requires the President to submit a report to Congress describing the disposition of each current detainee before the facility in Guantanamo Bay can be closed. It bars the use of funds to provide any immigration benefits to Guantanamo detainees, other than to allow them to be brought to the U.S. for prosecution, and it mandates the inclusion of all detainees on the TSA No Fly List. These are provisions that have been supported on a bipartisan basis in Appropriations Committee markups and on the floor of this House. Madam Speaker, the conference report before us today represents hard work in a cooperative and bipartisan spirit. It invests in critical government efforts designed to keep the American people safe. I strongly support the proposed agreement, and urge my colleagues to do the same. Madam Speaker, I include the following for the Record: [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH15OC09.001 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH15OC09.002 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH15OC09.003 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH15OC09.004 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH15OC09.005

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include tabular and extraneous material on the conference report to accompany H.R. 2892.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 829, I call up the conference report on the bill (H.R. 2892) making appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2010, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to another fine member of our subcommittee, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Rothman).

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to another valued subcommittee colleague, Mr. Ruppersberger of Maryland. (Mr. RUPPERSBERGER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to one of our hardest working subcommittee members, Mr. Farr of California.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is available on both sides.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, pursuant to clause 1 of rule XXII and by direction of the Committee on Appropriations, I move to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 2892) making appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2010, and for other purposes, with a Senate amendment thereto, disagree to the Senate amendment, and agree to the conference asked by the Senate.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I reiterate my request to our Members to vote against this motion to recommit. The motion is long and complex and by no means totally objectionable. But we have highlighted here today a feature of the Guantanamo provisions which not only is objectionable, but fundamentally runs counter to our country's interest--our country's interest in closing Guantanamo in a timely fashion and bringing the detainees there to trial. It also, in a strange way, seems to question our country's capacity, the capacity of our judicial system and our penal system, to handle hardened criminals, whereas I think that our capacity to handle even the most dangerous criminals is beyond question. And I believe this motion also risks elevating these criminals in the eyes of the world, suggesting that we can not handle them through our normal processes of justice. For all these reasons, I believe this motion to instruct is unwise, and I urge a ``no'' vote. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I have no further speakers.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to instruct offered by the gentleman from Kentucky and yield myself as much time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I want to begin by echoing the words of the ranking member. We have, indeed, enjoyed fruitful cooperation in formulating this bill and bringing it to this point. Mr. Rogers is a distinguished ranking member. He was the founding chairman of this subcommittee, and I think on both sides, we take pride in the process that we've developed that involves full consultation and, of course, not always perfect agreement, but a respect for each other's views and a product that can rightfully be called the fruit of our common labor. Having said that, I do want to oppose this motion to instruct. I don't oppose it in its entirety. It has some positive features, but I want to concentrate in my brief remarks this morning on what leads me to ask for a ``no'' vote. This mainly has to do with some parts of items two and three of this motion. The motion to instruct would basically prevent us from bringing anyone held in Guantanamo Bay to the United States for the purpose of prosecution. This provision is more restrictive than the House-passed bill, which allowed persons detained at the naval station at Guantanamo Bay to be brought to the U.S. for prosecution. Accepting a more narrow provision goes against basic American principles, as well as basic American interests. People are to be given due process and access to a fair trial in this country, and it is certainly in this country's interest to bring these people to trial, to dispose of their cases. I must say, this motion also goes against a perfecting amendment that the distinguished ranking member himself voluntarily accepted--in fact, eagerly accepted--in our full committee markup. So I have to ask, what would have made the other side change its mind all of a sudden? It appears that even when they get ``yes'' for an answer, it's hard to accept ``yes'' for an answer. Without allowing these detainees to come to the United States for prosecution, we're basically saying that our judicial and law enforcement officials are unable to handle these criminals here in the United States, and that our country's core values and interests do not apply in these cases. That's just wrong. The U.S. has successfully tried dangerous terrorists before--in fact, many times, executing some, putting others behind bars to fade into obscurity. The perpetrators of the 1993 World Trade Center and Murrah Federal Building bombings are perfect examples. Treating these individuals as though they are so dangerous that we cannot possibly put them on trial or punish them or lock them up and throw away the key, the way we deal with our most savage criminals here in the United States, gives these detainees an exalted status. Why do we want to do that? An exalted status is far from what they deserve. We can handle this, Madam Speaker. We're up to this challenge, and the last thing we ought to be doing is elevating these Guantanamo prisoners in the eyes of the world. The amendment that was accepted in committee, to permit us to bring these people into the United States for the purpose of prosecution, most certainly should remain. Finally, Madam Speaker, let me just say a word about the process by which this bill is being brought to the floor. We, of course, want to make certain that Members have ample time to study and understand bills before we vote on them. At the same time, I have to say, this bill has been a long time in the making. There has been a long period of discussion and debate and deliberation, and Members of this body should be assured that a full range of interested parties have been involved in crafting this bill in a bipartisan fashion since we received the budget in May. Even before receiving the budget, we held 15 days of hearings on a wide variety of topics, including responses to natural disasters, technology and efficiency improvements, immigration enforcement, and border security. We had testimony from DHS as well as GAO and other non-Department sources. So it's a thoroughly vetted bill, and the issues in this bill have been thoroughly examined. They've been given their proper due diligence. There are no surprises, and we are, indeed, ready to go to conference. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished chairman of our full committee, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I am still trying to process the notion that we have in our high-security prisons a population that is just waiting to be corrupted. We are all aware of the kind of people who are in these high-security prisons. They are already corrupted and they are dangerous, and we have proven our capacity to deal with them. I don't think that it behooves this body to cast such doubt on our capacities, the capacities of the judicial and penal systems of this country. We are up to this, Madam Speaker, and yet the motion before us would say that we cannot bring these people into this country for prosecution when it is clearly in our interest to do so. It is in our interest to close Guantanamo within a reasonable period of time and to bring these people before the bar of justice. I would like to yield 30 seconds to our full committee chairman.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano). (Mr. SERRANO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Chair, I thank my colleague, and I want to thank the chairman of the committee and the entire committee for their work on this bill, making historic investments in America's education and economic prosperity. In particular, I want to thank the committee for including provisions in the bill that would allow guaranty agencies, such as the North Carolina State Education Assistance Authority, to provide value-added outreach services via contracts with the Department of Education. These services play a vital role at both ends of the student loan process by informing borrowers about their education financing options before college and helping them successfully repay their loans after graduation. Our proposed amendment simply clarifies that several of the key borrower services guaranty agencies currently provide, such as delinquency prevention, default aversion, and delinquency collections, also would be eligible for contract arrangements with the Department. The work of these agencies pays real dividends for students and taxpayers alike. In North Carolina, default rates have been consistently among the Nation's lowest and about half the national average for the last few years. In 2007, these services helped prevent an estimated $52 billion in loans from going into default, according to the National Council of Higher Education Loan Programs. So I thank my colleague from North Carolina and our other cosponsors for their collaborative work in putting forth this amendment, and urge Members to give it their support.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, on September 2 North Carolina lost one of its most consequential and compassionate political leaders, former Senator Russell G. Walker, Sr., of Asheboro. Recent days have been filled with tributes from those of us who treasured the opportunity to know and work with Russell--former Governor Jim Hunt described him as ``one of the most caring people I have ever met in politics.'' But untold thousands who never met Russell are also in his debt, by virtue of his work on mental health, maternal and child health, water quality, and other policy challenges during his ten terms in the North Carolina Senate. Russell was born in 1918 in the community of Conetoe, in Edgecombe County, North Carolina, and his family soon moved to High Point. During the Depression years Russell worked after school to help keep bread on the table and got into the grocery business, moving to Asheboro to manage a store at age 19. He married Ruth Brunt in 1941--the beginning of a 68-year marriage that warmed the hearts of all who knew them and of a family that includes three children, Russell, Jr., Steve, and Susan, seven grandchildren, and three great-grandchildren. Russell enlisted in the Army Air Corps after Pearl Harbor and spent much of World War II ``flying the hump,'' hauling troops, bombs, and fuel from India to China over the treacherous Himalayas. He founded his own supermarket chain, Food Line, after the war, and became a mainstay of civic, religious, and political life in Randolph County. Serving first on the Asheboro City Council, he gained election to the North Carolina Senate in 1974. While he is rightly known statewide for his pioneering and persistent work in health and human services, citizens of Asheboro are well aware of many more local and tangible results of his service: the North Carolina Zoo (the strategic location of which, in Asheboro, was no accident!), highway U.S. 64, and the Asheboro airport. I came to know Russell well in 1979-80, when I took a leave of absence from Duke University to serve as executive director of the North Carolina Democratic Party during his time as party chairman. We had a wonderful time riding North Carolina's roads together, visiting far-flung towns and counties and along the way talking for hours about every imaginable topic. I learned a great deal, especially, about Russell's wartime experience and the 1972 Nick Galifianakis Senate campaign, which Russell had managed and which was still fresh on his mind. Above all, however, Russell and I became good friends, and I came to understand what a remarkable man he was--compassionate, fair and decent, firm in his own convictions but open to what he might learn from others, quick to spot another person's promise and to offer encouragement. These are qualities I treasured in my own father and which I have seen in few people to the extent they were exemplified by Russell Walker. I could say more, Madam Speaker, about my indebtedness to Russell Walker as a mentor and for the encouragement and help he offered in 1986 and beyond as I began my own congressional career. But the most important and enduring point is the one about character, and I can underscore it with a story told by Lloyd Hamlet, a long-time friend of Russell's and mine, to the Asheboro Courier-Tribune last week. A youngster was caught stealing food at one of Russell's stores. The police were called, but Russell intervened and had a talk with the boy. He said that there was no food at his house; his dad was not in the home and his mother was often away. Russell went with the boy to his home, learned more about his circumstances, and eventually left the house filled with food from his store. Anyone who knew Russell Walker well would recognize him from that story. The story would be neither remembered nor recounted if Russell had reacted in the expected way. But we recall it fondly because of what it says about the man we knew and about the enduring power of love and kindness--a reversal, we may hope, of Shakespeare's famous dictum: it is the good that we do that endures. Certainly there is much good that Russell Walker did that lives after him--individual acts of kindness and encouragement, and social policies made more effective and humane by his years of legislative leadership. We are grateful for his life and the way he lived it and continue to be inspired by his example.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I ask that all Members rise and that we observe a moment of silence in memory of our dear departed colleague.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I ask unanimous consent, Mr. Speaker, that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the subject of my 1-minute.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I would now like to yield to the dean of our delegation, Howard Coble.