Dina Titus

Ms. TITUS

Ms. TITUS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barrow).

Ms. TITUS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Nolan). (Mr. NOLAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. TITUS. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1848, the Small Airplane Revitalization Act of 2013. H.R. 1848 would require the Federal Aviation Administration to update its part 23 small airplane design regulations by December 31, 2015. Last week, the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee ordered H.R. 1848 reported favorably to the House by a voice vote. In June, an FAA-chartered Part 23 Aviation Rulemaking Committee, or ARC, submitted its comprehensive report with recommendations for rewriting and reorganizing part 23 to the agency. Representatives from the FAA, international regulatory agencies, aircraft manufacturers, general aviation pilot groups, and labor unions all participated in the ARC. Its work followed a 2009 FAA report on the Small Airplane Certification Process and fulfilled requirements in section 312 of the FAA reauthorization bill. Mr. Speaker, prior to the Part 23 ARC, the agency's most recent comprehensive review of part 23 was almost 30 years ago, in 1984. Part 23 has not kept up with the times. These regulations are prescriptive in nature, often written to address out-of-date technologies. As a result, they are creating cost barriers for certifying new airplanes and retrofitting older aircraft with new safety-enhancing modifications. The need to improve the process for retrofitting older aircraft is particularly urgent, given the 40-year-old average age of the U.S. general aviation fleet. Small airplane manufacturers and part suppliers across the country are limited in their ability to innovate with new technology because of these outdated regulations. This bill will allow these manufacturers to innovate more quickly and bring more safety technology online. H.R. 1848 will fast-track the Part 23 ARC's work by requiring the FAA to draft a new regulation that emphasizes performance-based safety objectives. These new regulations make the retrofit of new technology more straightforward and also remove barriers to bringing new, safer airplane designs to market. It will help small business, and I urge support. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. TITUS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. TITUS

Ms. TITUS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. On January 3, 2012, President Obama signed into law the Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation Act of 2011. Section 24 of that act states that, effective January 3, 2013, the Secretary of Transportation may not issue ``guidance or a regulation that incorporates by reference any documents or portions thereof unless the documents or portions thereof are made available to the public free of charge or on an Internet Web site.'' Then, in the last Congress, the Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials held a number of hearings on pipeline safety, one of which highlighted a current regulation that required pipeline operators to develop and implement public education and awareness programs. The regulation did not explain what should be contained in the education programs, however. Instead, it pointed readers to an industry-developed standard. But in order to read the standard, you had to pay the drafters more than $1,000. If you're a small community, $1,000 is a lot of money for access to just one of many pipeline safety standards. I and many of my colleagues have concerns about the Federal Government issuing a regulation that requires whoever wants to read it--particularly local communities, first responders, and private citizens--to have to purchase it from a private association. Fortunately, the 2011 act resolved this situation. Following enactment of section 24, DOT held a public workshop and Webcast with more than 70 industry, safety, and government representatives present to discuss options for implementing the new law. Nearly 200 other entities participated in the Webcast. Additional comments were provided through the Federal Register notice, including by the Small Business Administration, which noted many concerns of small businesses with the continued use of incorporation by reference. Since the workshop, several standards development organizations have agreed in writing to electronically post on the Internet all of the consensus standards that the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration incorporates by reference into the Federal pipeline safety regulations. Those include ASTM International, the Manufacturers Standardization Society, the Gas Technology Institute, NACE International, the National Fire Protection Association, the American Petroleum Institute, the American Gas Association. I will include their letters in the Congressional Record. I also will insert letters from the Pipeline Safety Trust, Dakota Rural Action, and Columbia law professor Peter Strauss expressing the need for public availability of the standards in the Record. Unfortunately, some organizations have expressed concerns about posting their standards on the Internet. This has in turn held up progress of several important safety rulemakings that were mandated in the 2011 pipeline law. So in the spirit of bipartisanship, and not wanting to hold up the rulemaking process, I believe the law should be modified to provide DOT with additional time to implement it and with additional flexibility to determine how best to make the standards widely available to the public. I believe that, even with these changes that are in the law, the law will continue to address the transparency and openness concerns of the safety community. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time. U.S. Department of Transportation, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, Washington, DC, March 4, 2013. Re incorporation by reference of voluntary consensus standards for pipeline safety regulations. Mr. James Thomas, President, ASTM International, West Conshocken, PA. Dear Mr. Thomas: As you know, the practice of incorporating voluntary consensus standards allows pipeline operators to use the most current industry technologies, materials, and management practices available on today's market. New or updated standards often further innovation and increase the use of new technologies that improve the safety and operations of pipelines and pipeline facilities. On January 3, 2012, President Obama signed into law the Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation Act of 2011 (P.L. 112-90) (the Act). Section 24 of the Act states that, effective January 3, 2013, PHMSA may not issue ``guidance or a regulation that incorporates by reference any documents or portions thereof unless the documents or portions thereof are made available to the public, free of charge, on an Internet Web site.'' In support of Section 24 of the Act, we thank ASTM International (ASTM) for agreeing to electronically post on the Internet all ASTM consensus standards that PHMSA incorporates by reference into the federal pipeline safety regulations after January 3, 2013. It has also agreed to post on the Internet any updated, revised, or new ASTM consensus standards that PHMSA proposes during rulemaking to incorporate by reference. While ASTM has discretion in how they accomplish this objective, it has agreed that, at a minimum, these voluntary consensus standards will be: Electronically posted on an Internet Web site; Available to the public; and Free of charge. ASTM has agreed to notify PHMSA immediately if it is no longer able or capable of meeting the above minimum posting requirements. We request that you also notify us if any standards are removed from your electronic archives, if you have such an archives. The voluntary consensus standards developed by ASTM play a critical role in safeguarding pipeline safety, and PHMSA is tremendously appreciative of the constructive role ASTM is playing in ensuring their continued use in the federal pipeline safety regulations. After you review the terms of this agreement, please sign below and return a copy to PHMSA. If you have questions, please contact Mike Israni at 202-366-4571. Sincerely, Jeffrey D. Wiese, Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety.

Ms. TITUS

Ms. TITUS. Mr. Speaker, this bill is another example of House Republicans' misplaced priorities. Instead of addressing food insecurity in our country, this bill completely omits nutrition assistance funding and instead provides millions of dollars in subsidies to the nation's largest corporate farms. SNAP is a life line for millions of families who suffer from chronic hunger. With one in four children in the United States at risk of going hungry, including 170,000 school children in Southern Nevada, it is not only irresponsible, it is morally unacceptable to exclude SNAP funding from the Farm Bill. That is why I voted against this legislation, and why I have introduced the Weekends Without Hunger Act. My bill fills a critical need in our community by providing a nutritious meal to students who would not otherwise have access to food on weekends and during school breaks. I will continue to advocate on behalf of our communities to ensure they have the resources they need to root out the causes of hunger and build strategies to eliminate food insecurity.

Ms. TITUS

Ms. TITUS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks in strong opposition to the farm bill rule and the underlying bill because it takes the safety net away from America and Nevada's poor families.

Ms. TITUS

Ms. TITUS. I move to strike the last word.

Ms. TITUS. Mr. Chairman, I rise this evening to speak on a serious issue that affects my constituents. I've been investigating it since it was brought to my attention several months ago through our local media. The Department of Energy is in the process of moving dangerous radioactive waste thousands of miles across the country from east Tennessee to southern Nevada. This waste is destined for the Nevada Nuclear Security Site, formally known as the Nevada Test Site. This is a totally separate issue now from the proposed Yucca Mountain storage site debate that we have heard earlier today. If you're unaware that this radioactive waste is traveling through your backyard, I'm not surprised. The DOE has failed to properly inform Congress about this activity. The project involves the transport of hundreds of canisters containing high-concentration fissile materials from the Consolidated Edison Uranium Solidification Project in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, to be dumped in my State of Nevada. The materials are so radioactive that they have a half life of more than 160,000 years. I want to be clear that this is not the kind of low-level waste that the Nevada Test Site has been accepting for years. In fact, just weeks ago, I learned that the Department of Energy had reworked the waste acceptance criteria for the security site to allow storage of materials that have radioactive concentrations more than 40 times higher than anything that has ever been brought to the site for disposal before. That revision to the WAC, or waste acceptance criteria, was signed off on by the DOE the very same day that agency officials met with my staff and State and local officials, yet DOE didn't think it was necessary or important to inform any of us about this change. As a matter of fact, it took an Internet search days later to discover that DOE had actually reworked the playbook for the site without any public input. Mr. Chairman, there are far too many questions about what DOE is doing and plans to do at the Nevada Test Site, questions that so far have gone unanswered. Nevadans have had a lot of experience dealing with Federal officials throughout the days of atomic testing and during the Cold War. We're not going to just turn aside now and let the DOE run roughshod over our communities. And I can tell you that I'm not alone in expressing my concerns about the DOE's activities. Our Republican governor, Brian Sandoval, has also publicly stated his opposition to the shipments of this radioactive waste. In a letter to the Energy Secretary, our Governor stated that classifying ``this material as low-level waste sets a dangerous precedent.'' I will be submitting the letter from Governor Sandoval for the Record. Mr. Chairman, my district sits just 65 miles southeast of the Nevada Test Site. The Las Vegas metropolitan area is home to nearly 2 million residents and more than 40 million visitors annually. Any plan to transport waste through the heart of the Las Vegas Valley would be extremely risky and incredibly irresponsible. The stakes are just too high to gamble on District One's safety. The DOE has refused to cooperate with repeated attempts to gather additional information so we can have appropriate oversight. It's unthinkable that DOE is moving forward with this program without properly briefing Members of Congress. If we are being kept in the dark, who is overseeing the DOE's plans? It's critical that DOE be forthright about how and why the WAC was changed, how the changes relate to the proposed shipment, and how these changes will affect the safety and security of southern Nevada and communities across the country in the path of this transportation. I'd like to thank the chairman and especially the ranking member for allowing me to bring this to the attention of the House, and I would ask them to work with me to ensure that there's proper congressional oversight of DOE and that the people of Nevada and beyond get the answers that they deserve. With that, I yield back the balance of my time. Office of the Governor, Las Vegas, NV, June 20, 2013. Re Planned Shipment of Wastes from Oak Ridge to Nevada National Security Site Hon. Dr. Ernest Moniz, Secretary, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, DC. Dear Secretary Moniz: I'm writing to inform you that after long and serious consideration, I have decided to oppose the Department of Energy's plan to ship the Consolidated Edison Uranium Solidification Project (CEUSP) canisters containing dangerous and long-lived radioactive waste for disposal at Area 5 of the Nevada National Security Site (NNSS). I am aware that DOE believes that these canisters qualify for disposal as low-level radioactive waste (LLW). My advisors have independently evaluated all of the important technical and regulatory issues. They have concluded that the CEUSP canisters are not commonplace LLW; even if these canisters meet a legalistic definition of LLW, they are not suitable for shallow land burial at the NNSS. Nevada is also not satisfied with the overall process that DOE has followed in developing its disposal and transportation plans, including failure to appropriately address the concerns of affected local governments and Native American Tribes. The CEUSP canisters can only be considered LLW because they do not meet the legal definition of high-level radioactive waste, spent nuclear fuel, transuranic waste, or uranium mill tailings. Using this logic, DOE is attempting to exploit a gap in current regulations. This dangerous waste should be managed in the same manner as remote-handled transuranic waste, which DOE currently ships to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant for permanent deep-geologic disposal. The canisters contain a high concentration of fissile material (Uranium 235 and Uranium 233), uranium isotopes that are extremely long- lived (half lives of more than 160,000 years), and have a relatively high surface dose rate (300 rem per hour), which makes them dangerous to workers and a potential source of ``dirty bomb'' material. Moreover, qualifying this material as LLW sets a dangerous precedent for the classification of potential future waste streams that exist across the nation. Both Nevada and DOE have a mutual interest in the long-term and safe management of NNSS. Over the past two decades, the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection has worked successfully with DOE on a broad range of environmental assessment and remediation activities at NNSS. I believe that this provides a basis for shared planning for future uses of DOE facilities at NNSS. I request a meeting with you at your earliest convenience to discuss in a cooperative manner Nevada's views on the future of operations at the NNSS. Timely matters for discussion include the recently completed Site-wide Environmental Impact Statement and pending issuance of the associated Record of Decision, troubling revisions to the NNSS Waste Acceptance Criteria, and the unsatisfactory manner in which DOE and National Nuclear Security Administration have dealt with affected local governments and Native American Tribes in Nevada. The State of Nevada is committed to a long-term cooperative relationship with your Department, based on mutual respect, sound science, protection of the environment, and public health and safety. I look forward to meeting with you at your earliest convenience. Sincere regards, Brian Sandoval, Governor. Amendment Offered by Mr. Turner

Ms. TITUS

Ms. TITUS. Mr. Chairman, I rise tonight to ask my colleagues to join me in protecting the fiduciary interests of the American taxpayer and in preserving the safety of my constituents in southern Nevada as well as of all of those who live along the proposed route for Yucca Mountain waste. My amendment would remove misguided language included in this bill that injects politics into a very serious and consequential debate surrounding the issue of nuclear waste disposal. This amendment would simply strike the language included in this bill that tries to restart the failed Yucca Mountain project by prohibiting the DOE from moving forward with plans to close Yucca Mountain and develop proposals for its alternative use. When the Department of Energy made the correct decision to put an end to the misguided Yucca Mountain project in 2010, they did so after decades of debate with nothing to show for it except for $15 billion wasted and a big hole in the ground. According to the Government Accountability Office, had the project been completed, it would have cost more than $80 billion. Those figures don't even take into account the cost of transporting 75,000 metric tons of highly radioactive nuclear waste thousands of miles across the country, through nearly every State in the Union. Now, this waste wouldn't just magically appear in Nevada. It would travel through many of your congressional districts--through backyards all across the country, near schools, homes, parks, and businesses--nor does this enormous cost figure account for the significant security expenditures required to protect the contents of Yucca Mountain from those seeking to cause our Nation harm. Mr. Chairman, if a nun with a pair of bolt cutters were able to break into one of the most secure nuclear facilities in the world, how can we ever expect to protect all of the Nation's waste in just one location? Let's not forget that Yucca Mountain is less than 100 miles from one of the Nation's largest cities that hosts more than 40 million visitors a year. In January of 2012, the Department of Energy's bipartisan Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future, led by former Congressman and 9/11 Commission Vice Chairman Lee Hamilton and former National Security Advisor Lieutenant General Brent Scowcroft stated in its final report: ``The need for a new strategy is urgent.'' The key concept here is ``new,'' but, instead, this bill tries to turn back the clock, back to an old, flawed strategy. It's Groundhog Day here in the United States House of Representatives. On the subject of Yucca, Congressman Hamilton stated: ``Nuclear waste storage at Yucca Mountain is not an option.'' General Scowcroft said the Commission will ``look forward, not back.'' It appears that that message didn't make it all the way up the steps of the Capitol and that some Members of Congress have not gotten the message that Yucca is dead. We cannot continue to throw good money after bad ideas and go down the same failed path that Congress put us on when politics targeted the people of Nevada in the development of the Yucca Mountain project decades ago. Although I don't agree with everything that's included in the bill, I applaud the bipartisan group of Senators who have introduced legislation to enact the recommendations of the Commission and have an actual debate that doesn't target communities like Nevada. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this amendment. It's time to have a serious debate over the safe disposal of the Nation's nuclear waste and develop an alternative plan that doesn't throw away billions of taxpayer dollars, endanger citizen safety, or threaten economic development projects in southern Nevada. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. TITUS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Ms. TITUS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Ms. TITUS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak in support of this amendment as well, which would strike language from the bill that mandates more wasteful spending on the defunct Yucca Mountain project and would redirect the funding to the Office of Science High Energy Physics program to support research in reducing nuclear waste. The bill requires that DOE spend $25 million on activities at Yucca Mountain, located less than 100 miles from one of the Nation's most popular tourist destinations. Now, let me remind you that the Department of Energy has already wasted $15 billion on this project with nothing to show for it but a big hole in the ground in the desert. In fact, had the Department of Energy not terminated the Yucca project in 2010, we would be throwing away at least another $67 billion with no guarantee that the project would ever be completed or functional. All of this, let me remind you again, despite findings by the GAO that over the past 20 years the proposed site has suffered from gross mismanagement, faulty science and research, and contract violations. Even more troubling to the people of Nevada and those living along the transportation route, questions about the safety and design of the site and its impacts on the surrounding environment and populations have never, never been satisfactorily addressed. Yet, while cutting ARPA-E, which is vital to our competitiveness in the global economy, stripping investments in energy efficiency, and renewable energy development, this legislation mandates that millions be squandered in an effort to restart a boondoggle that has been doomed from the start. Now, why, I ask you, are we throwing good money after bad ideas? We should not be turning back the clock, we should be moving forward. So I would say to my colleagues, please support this amendment. It will eliminate economic waste and allow Congress instead to have a proper discussion about how to dispose of the Nation's nuclear waste. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. TITUS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. TITUS

Ms. TITUS. When the majority leader announced a list of bills that the House may consider over the next few weeks, I was disappointed to hear that, in July, instead of focusing on significant challenges that face our Nation, House Republicans will begin the next chapter in their war on women. We may consider, we heard, appropriations bills and another farm bill that would have drastic cuts to vital programs like SNAP and WIC that disproportionately devastate low-income women and families. We may, yet again, vote on legislation to repeal or gut the Affordable Care Act, which has provided millions of women with access to preventive care and ensured, finally, that being a woman is not a preexisting condition. What's equally troubling is what we didn't hear, what's missing from the list. Where is a budget to replace the sequester, which is prohibiting access to lifesaving programs for victims of domestic violence? Where is legislation to create jobs, put Americans back to work, and strengthen economic opportunities for the middle class? And where is the Paycheck Fairness Act to finally ensure that women get equal pay for equal work? I say we need another list.

Ms. TITUS

Ms. TITUS. For far too long, DOMA denied legally married same-sex couples access to Federal benefits, including those provided by the VA. But with yesterday's decisions, the Supreme Court sent a clear message that all Americans, gay or straight, must be afforded equal protection under the law. There is no question that now we must implement the Court's ruling throughout every department of the Federal Government. Accordingly, I'm proud to introduce the Veteran Spouse Equal Treatment Act to amend the VA's definition of spouse as an individual of the opposite sex. This is a basic matter of aligning the VA with our Nation's laws, of living up to the principles of fairness and equality, of extending benefits to thousands of deserving military spouses, and of defending all those who have proudly worn the uniform of the U.S. armed services and their families. Yesterday, justice and freedom prevailed over intolerance and hate. So today I ask my colleagues to work with me to see that this legislation is passed without delay, to implement the Supreme Court's decision, and leave no question about equal protection under the law for all Americans.

Ms. TITUS

Ms. TITUS. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. TITUS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Ms. TITUS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, first I want to thank the leadership of the Rules and Agriculture Committees for making this amendment in order. Right here in the United States, the richest country in the world, one in four children is at risk of going hungry. Last year, 50.1 million Americans lived in food insecure households, including 16.7 million children. In my home State of Nevada, one in six households struggles with food security, and 170,000 schoolchildren in southern Nevada go to school hungry, leaving them unprepared to learn. So you can see, hunger is not some crisis that is just happening in remote, faraway lands. It's happening right here, all across our own country, and we must address it. That's why I've offered this important amendment that would restore funding to USDA's Hunger-Free Communities Grant program. This program has received wide bipartisan support and is included, or was included, without dissent in the Senate farm bill. The amendment is a commonsense proposal to ensure that children and their families have access to the nutritious food they need to survive and to thrive. It continues a grant program that includes assistance with food distribution, community outreach, and initiatives that improve access to food. The Hunger-Free Communities Grant program has helped facilitate public-private partnerships across the country, from New York City to Ajo, Arizona. The grants enable local communities to root out the causes of hunger and build strategies to eliminate food insecurity. With the proposed cuts of $20.5 billion to the SNAP benefits, which I oppose, this amendment becomes even more important. It's morally unacceptable to allow children to go hungry in the wealthiest country in the world, so I would encourage my colleagues to support this amendment to ensure that our communities have the resources they need to tackle hunger at the local level and create healthy, hunger-free communities. Again, I thank Chairman Lucas and Ranking Member Peterson for their consideration of this amendment.

Ms. TITUS. Mr. Chairman, I would just urge that my colleagues support this important amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. TITUS

Ms. TITUS. I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1797. This bill is not only a direct challenge to the Supreme Court ruling in Roe v. Wade, but it's a dangerous new attack on women's reproductive rights. The proposed ban in this bill does not include an exception for the physical or emotional health of a woman; it fails to provide sufficient protections for victims of rape and incest; and it has a very narrow exception in cases when a woman's life is in danger. H.R. 1797 would significantly reduce the safe, legal options that women have and would prevent doctors from providing the most medically appropriate care for their patients. Republicans have repeatedly demonstrated a lack--a lack--of understanding about basic women's health care, and this bill is just one more example of their continuing attack on women's rights. It is a step backward for women's health and a distraction from the critical work we should be doing to pass legislation regarding immigration reform, strengthening our economy, and creating jobs. I urge you to vote ``no'' on this unconstitutional legislation.

Ms. TITUS

Ms. TITUS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to give voice to the thousands of men and women who have been sexually assaulted while serving their country in our Armed Forces. The Pentagon estimates that as many as 26,000 servicemembers were sexually assaulted last year. That's 70 assaults a day. But only 13 percent of the victims have reported the crime because of fear of retaliation. We must establish a culture in our military that has zero tolerance for sexual assault; a culture that protects, not intimidates, victims; that prosecutes, not excuses, perpetrators; and that denounces, not ignores, sexual violence. We must make it a priority to end this unfathomable crime within our military and provide victims with the care that they need and deserve. Next week, I will introduce the National Guard Military Sexual Trauma Parity Act to ensure that victims of sexual trauma in the National Guard also have access to the resources and services they need.

Ms. TITUS

Ms. TITUS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to voice my objections to the limits placed on DHS regarding the UASI Grant program. My district is slated to lose $2 million due to the limit of awards to only 25 UASI grantees. While I believe that counterterrorism funding should go to the places that need it the most, an arbitrary cap, along with a flawed formula, is not helping our Nation's efforts to prepare for, and respond to, natural disasters and potential terrorist attacks. I have voiced these concerns on a number of occasions over the past few months with DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano, and I appreciate her willingness to work with me on this issue. I want to acknowledge other Members of our Nevada delegation for joining with me today to work on this issue through a proposed amendment, but I have a number of reservations about their approach. I am concerned about reductions in salary accounts for agencies that are charged with keeping our Nation safe and prepared for all types of emergencies. Furthermore, their amendment provides additional funding, but not additional instruction, so there is no guarantee that additional cities, like Las Vegas, will receive any of this increased funding in the amendment. I am proud to represent Las Vegas, one of the premier vacation and business destinations in the world. Ensuring that my constituents and millions of visitors who we welcome every year stay safe is a top priority of our local government and law enforcement. Without UASI funding to sustain and enhance our regional capabilities, Las Vegas, as well as our portion of the large FEMA Region IX, will be at a significant disadvantage in preparedness, response, and recovery capabilities. Hundreds of thousands of people gather in large venues in southern Nevada every day. Fifteen of the world's 25 largest hotels are in my district on the Las Vegas Strip with a total of over 62,000 rooms. In 2012, some 37.5 million visitors came to Las Vegas and over 21,000 conventions are held each year. On any given day, tens of thousands of tourists walk along the 4.2 mile Las Vegas Strip, just a few miles from critical Federal assets, including Nellis Air Force Base and Creech Air Force Base, as well as the National Nuclear Security Site and Boulder Dam. Mr. Chairman, I believe that counterterrorism funding decisions should be made using forward-looking, risk-based metrics. It is critical that DHS update their decision-making matrix to reflect these principles. DHS does not accurately count expected visitors in their decision-making process. It is important to remember that visitors to our city would need the most assistance in the event of a natural disaster or terrorist attack because they are unfamiliar with the area, as well as with local evacuation and safety plans. In Las Vegas, we welcomed over 40 million travelers to our city this year, an increase of 400,000 over last year. We are also expecting our local population to continue to grow. Yet despite these increases and increases in other components of our risk profile, Las Vegas actually slipped in DHS' risk rankings. This fall in ranking caused the city to fall out of contention for a grant, and it was announced that we will not receive the funding we need. This is not good planning and should be remedied immediately. I pledge to work with my colleagues from districts with other tourist destinations and with the Secretary to be sure that the formulas are updated and improved and that the funding goes to where it is truly needed. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time. Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Mica

Ms. TITUS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Ms. TITUS

Ms. TITUS. Over the last 50 years, women have broken barriers in business, science, education, and government. Today, they also account for half of the workers in the country, but still they earn less for equal work. In Nevada, the average woman still makes only 85 cents for every dollar that men earn, amounting to a yearly gap of $6,300 between full- time working men and women. Collectively, Nevada women are losing some $2.3 billion each year due to this pay gap. The pay gap not only harms individual women, but it hurts their families and our communities. It is an economic drag, a social calamity, and a moral injustice. In a country where we strive for equal opportunity, this is simply unacceptable. That's why it's so important that we pass the Paycheck Fairness Act. This critical piece of legislation would update and strengthen the Equal Pay Act and help women fight wage discrimination. The issue is simple: women should receive equal pay for equal work, and the Paycheck Fairness Act would provide the tools to reach that goal.