[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 94 (Tuesday, June 24, 2003)]
[House]
[Pages H5744-H5795]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2004
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 293 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 2555.
{time} 1334
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill
(H.R. 2555) making appropriations for the Department of Homeland
Security for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2004, and for other
purposes, with Mr. Gillmor in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having
been read the first time.
Under the rule, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) and the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers).
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Chairman, this is a historic day. Only 4 months after the
Department of Homeland Security was stood up, we now consider in the
Congress the very first ever Homeland Security appropriations bill on
the House floor.
The creation of the Department is by far the largest reorganization
of the Federal Government in its history. Mr. Chairman, 180,000
employees, 22 security-related agencies merged into a single unit,
agencies as diverse as the new Transportation Security Administration,
FEMA, the Customs Service, the Secret Service, the Coast Guard, and
some 18 other agencies throughout the government.
But, Mr. Chairman, I want to spend a couple of minutes talking about
the breadth of the problem that we face.
On our borders, we have to protect ourselves: 2,000 miles of border
with Mexico; 5,500 miles of border with Canada. There are 9,500 miles
of shoreline. We have 157 ports of entry, 361 seaports. There are 440
million visitors who arrive in our country by land, sea, and air each
year. There are 118 million vehicles that come here, 11 million of them
trucks; 2.5 million railcars; and 17 million cargo containers that
cross through our ports every year.
In transportation, there are some 768,000 commercial flights that
enter the U.S. at 429 commercial airports, carrying some 635 million
passengers a year. We have 18,000 general aviation airports. We have
143,000 miles of freight railways, 3.9 million miles of highways, and
550 major public transportation systems throughout our country. There
are 590,000 bridges. There are 526,000 interstate trucking companies,
43,000 of them certified to carry hazardous materials.
We have 150 oil refineries, 86,000 miles of crude oil pipelines,
278,000 miles of natural gas pipelines. There are 66,000 chemical and
hazardous materials plants. There are 1,800 Federal reservoirs. There
are 9,300 power plants, including 104 nuclear, in our country.
And then there are all sorts of high-target, high-risk symbols of our
Nation. We are speaking from one even as I talk now: the Capitol. We
have the White House, the Washington Monument, the Lincoln Memorial,
the Statue of Liberty, the St. Louis Arch, the Golden Gate Bridge, and
on and on and on, including some 463 skyscrapers in our land.
I mention those facts, Mr. Chairman, to highlight the enormous
challenge that we face as we begin to tackle our homeland security
needs. Protecting American citizens from harm is the first and foremost
duty of the Federal Government, and this awesome task largely falls
upon the shoulders of the Department of Homeland Security.
This bill, Mr. Chairman, provides $29.4 billion for the Department.
That is an increase of just over $1 billion above what we were asked by
the President, and $535 million more than the current-year levels.
The bill recognizes that while the Department of Homeland Security
has the lead in developing our national Homeland Security strategy,
implementation of that strategy requires the active participation of
State and local governments and the private sector.
When it comes down to it, homeland security, Mr. Chairman, is
essentially hometown security; and it requires the active engagement of
all Americans and all branches of government.
The bill before us today recognizes the role each stakeholder must
play in this big mission. It funds not only the Department's first full
year of operations, but also anticipated efforts of State and local
governments and the private sector.
As we debate this bill today, I urge my colleagues to remember
everything that has been accomplished since September 11. While some
might suggest that we are not doing enough, I would say we are making
tremendous progress in our war on terror. The glass is not half empty;
it is half full.
Since September 11, we have provided $75.8 billion for homeland
security funding across the entire government. For these 22 agencies
that now make up the new Department of Homeland Security, we have
provided $43.9 billion through fiscal year 2003; and in this bill, we
add an additional $29.4 billion, bringing the total provided to the
Department to $73.3 billion for fiscal years 2002 through 2004.
Protecting the Nation's borders is our first line of defense against
terrorism. We include in the bill a total of $9 billion for border
protection and related activities. That is an increase of $400 million
over the current enacted levels, including $2 billion for the U.S.
[[Page H5745]]
Coast Guard homeland security activities. This bill makes innovative
technology and capital investments a priority, recognizing that our
borders will only be secure when we use a combination of people and
technology.
Since September 11, 5,400 inspectors, special agents, and Border
Patrol agents have been added to our borders, increasing coverage at
ports by 25 percent. An additional 4,100 Coast Guard personnel have
been hired to protect our ports and our waterways, increasing the
intensity and number of inspections at ports of entry. We will continue
to inspect 100 percent of all high-threat cargo and high-threat vessels
coming into our waters.
We include $388 million for port security grants. The $100 million
included in this bill is another down payment to secure critical port
facilities, bringing the total funding since 9-11 to $488 million.
Since September 11, we have provided $263 million for technology,
including radiation detectors for our ports and nonintrusive inspection
technologies for cargo screening. These technologies have been deployed
at our busiest land and sea ports, including Miami, Los Angeles, and
Newark; and in this bill we add another $129 million for those
technologies, bringing the total since 9-11 to $392 million.
We provide $60 million for the Customs Container Security Initiative,
fully funding that effort since its inception. We include $62 million
for that program, bringing the total funding to $122 million to support
the participation of nearly all of the 20 foreign megaports from which
we receive practically all of our cargo. This initiative targets high-
threat cargo before it comes into our ports.
We also place in the bill a high priority on funding our State and
local first responders. I believe it is essential that our State and
local governments have the resources to address the needs of our
hometowns. We include $4.4 billion for our first responders, law
enforcement officers, firefighters, and emergency response personnel.
And since September 11, Mr. Chairman, I want all of my colleagues to
hear this: since September 11, the Congress has appropriated $20.8
billion in assistance to our State and local governments for terrorism
prevention and preparedness.
{time} 1345
That, Mr. Chairman, is an increase of 1,000 percent before 9/11.
Despite that significant investment, there are concerns about how and
when this money gets to both State and local organizations. I agree in
some instances it is taking too long for those funds to get there and
the complex process is complicated and cumbersome. We tried to address
that in this bill. I am optimistic that this issue will be addressed as
part of the final bill that is sent to the President for his signature.
Enhancing transportation security is a continuing concern. Since 9/11
we have provided a total of $10.38 billion for passenger safety through
the Transportation Security Administration. Passenger screening,
baggage screening, cargo screening, an additional $5.172 billion is
included in this bill. Since September 11, $1.5 billion has been spent
on explosive and trace detection systems, including the development,
procurement and installation in our airports. We include in this bill
an additional $335 million for the purchase and installation of these
systems, as well as $50 million for air cargo safety and $40 million
for research on next generation technologies at our airports.
Science and technology are critical to improving security, increasing
efficiency and reducing costs. We include $900 million for science and
technology, including $60 million, Mr. Chairman, to design develop and
test any missile devices for our commercial aircraft. Other funds are
targeted at research, development and rapid deployment of innovative
technologies that our universities and other public and private
organizations are already developing.
Lastly, the bill includes $5.6 billion over 10 years to encourage
commercial development and production of medical countermeasures
against bioterrorism, the so-called BioShield program. Funding in
fiscal year 2004 is limited to $890 million. These funds will remove
the barriers to develop next generation treatment for potential
bioterror agents and will encourage the private sector to conduct the
necessary research to counter bioterror threats.
Mr. Chairman, the bill before us today is the first Department of
Homeland Security appropriations bill ever considered by these bodies.
I believe it presents a well-balanced approach to tackling the job
ahead. It invests in people. We invest in technology. We invest in
partnerships. It funds efforts to assess our vulnerabilities and
capitalize on our assets.
A lot of people would want us to spend tons and tons of more money,
and believe me, if we thought it was useful to do so we would have no
compunction against doing that. But there has got to be somewhere where
we sensibly allocate our funds to our vulnerabilities and spend those
dollars, but we should not spend money just for throwing it away.
I believe this bill is responsible, and I urge my colleagues to
support this historic measure.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, first let me congratulate the gentleman from Kentucky
(Chairman Rogers) on the first homeland security bill and congratulate
him on a job well done and also add my thanks to the staff, both
minority and majority, for their hard work in putting this bill
together. We really do appreciate their efforts.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the fiscal year 2004 Homeland
Security appropriations bill. But I must say that in many ways I think
it is premature for this bill to be the first appropriations measure
brought to the floor. The Department is in serious disarray, and the
committee received very little support from the Department in putting
together this bill and report. In fact, many of the agencies
transferred to the Department were prevented by the Department from
providing responsive information to the subcommittee.
Hearings could not even be arranged for four of the largest and most
important of the Department's 11 major agencies. Those four agencies
constitutes $9 billion, or 31 percent, of the Department's total
budget. And I must say that that is an additional reason for thanking
the staff, both minority and majority of this committee, for putting a
bill together with the lack of information coming from the Department.
In some ways the current state of the Department of Homeland Security
reminds me of the situation we faced 1 year ago and still face today
with TSA. The management failures of TSA are well known, and I fear
that the Department of Homeland Security is going down the same path.
The Department so far has failed to develop a useful road map of its
security goals for the Nation. If anyone at the Department has a
strategy for basic objectives, such as securing the northern border,
tracking all vessels entering American waters, or ensuring that airline
cargo is effectively screened, no one has been willing to share that
information with us. I find that disturbing.
If the Department will not define its goals, it is up to the Congress
to do them. This bill provides $29.4 billion in discretionary budget
authority for the Department of Homeland Security. This is only $536
million, or 1.8 percent, above fiscal 2003 funding. The gentleman from
Kentucky (Chairman Rogers) has managed to fill some of the most glaring
funding gaps contained in President Bush's 2004 budget, specifically
funding for first responder programs contained in this bill. However,
the tightness in the budget resolution restricts this bill from doing
more to protect our borders, secure our ports and other critical
infrastructure. This does not serve our Nation well.
In conclusion, while I support the bill overall, I have many concerns
with the current abilities, or rather inabilities of the Department of
Homeland Security to adequately address obvious homeland security gaps.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp) seek
unanimous consent to control the time of the gentleman from Kentucky
(Mr. Rogers)?
Mr. WAMP. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Tennessee?
There was no objection.
[[Page H5746]]
Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Young), the distinguished chairman of the full Committee
on Appropriations.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman
yielding time.
I rise in strong support of the bill. Mr. Chairman, as you know, when
we made the recommendation to reorganize the Committee on
Appropriations, it was a major reorganization, the biggest
reorganization in many, many years, and it was the right thing to do.
When I selected the gentleman from Kentucky (Chairman Rogers) to chair
this subcommittee, it was the right choice. He has done a tremendous
job in understanding the issues and in bringing together all of the
various agencies that are involved in homeland security.
This is a good bill. There are some who will say that it is too much
spending, and others who will say that it is not enough. You are going
to hear that on all 13 appropriations bills. I tend to think we are
just about in the right place on all of the bills.
Today we are focused on homeland security. On Friday we will consider
the Military Construction appropriations bill. We have already marked
up in addition to Homeland Security and Military Construction, after
about a 4-week delay in getting approval on the budgetary levels, the
Interior, Agriculture, Labor-HHS, Legislative and Defense
appropriations bills in subcommittee.
Tomorrow we will mark up the Labor-HHS bill, the Interior bill, and
the Agriculture appropriations bill in the full committee.
On Thursday we will mark up the Defense appropriations bill and the
Legislative Branch appropriations bill in full committee. So for the
Members' interested in having some idea of our schedule, we plan to
have those bills through the House before the August recess.
The committee, once we were freed up from the hold that we had due to
budgetary issues, has moved quickly and in a very responsible way, and
I am happy to report, Mr. Chairman, that in addition to this good bill
we are considering today, the Military Construction bill, which is also
a good bill, will be considered on Friday and the Committee on
Appropriations is well underway with the eleven other bills and has a
very aggressive schedule.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the distinguished ranking member of the
committee.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. Chairman, it is difficult to know how to handle the money in this
bill because in my view the reorganization which took place leaves us
with still a very discombobulated set of agencies, and it also I think
has confused people about what our priorities are.
I am proud of the fact that on four separate occasions this Committee
on Appropriations on a bipartisan basis tried to add additional funding
for key homeland security items even though on each of those four
occasions the White House opposed our efforts. But I want to tell you
that today I think the chairman has produced a perfectly reasonable
bill provided that we think that the status quo is all right given
everything that has happened.
My problem is that I and my staff and the chairman of the full
committee and his staff, have had extensive conversations with
virtually every one of the national securities agencies in this
country. And we got from them a year ago, a year and a half ago, and we
have gotten from them as recently as a few weeks ago, their honest best
estimates about where we need additional support in order to increase
security of people on the home front.
The problem we have today is that we cannot put the resources in this
bill that we ought to be putting in because the Congress, the majority
party in the Congress, has decided that instead their number one and
virtually only priority is tax cuts. And those are skewed mightily to
the most well-off people in this country.
And the problem is that when you decide that you are going to put a
trillion dollars into tax cuts, then that means that money is not
available, not even a portion of it, to use to deal with our high
priority needs at home, be they education or health care or, in this
case, homeland security. And so what happens is that because of the way
the budget process is handled, the public never gets to understand what
the linkage is between the tax cut decisions that were made by this
Congress and the linkage with these funding limitations for high
priority security items.
So very simply, I will be trying to offer an amendment that does a
number of things. We will add about $400 million to the Coast Guard for
port security grants. The Coast Guard estimates that their long-term
needs are for $4.4 billion. We think we ought to do more than just add
$100 million to it under those circumstances.
We would increase our share of funding, the share of the Federal
contribution for port facility security needs. The problem is, if we
stay with the $100 million contained in this bill, it will take about
20 years to close the need in the estimate of the Coast Guard.
We also provide $100 million to implement the Maritime Transportation
Security Act to improve and analyze vessel threat information.
We also add $100 million to the Customs inspectors so we can have
1,300 additional people inspecting containers shipped into the United
States. Right now only 2 percent of those containers are checked. We
think that is a needlessly reckless vulnerability. We are trying to
increase by 6 percent the total number of inspector personnel. I think
that is hardly out of line.
Then we add $200 million to try to improve northern border security.
As I pointed out in the Committee on Rules, during Operation Liberty
Shield, 10 aircraft came across the border without clearance even while
we were patrolling that northern border by air. We have no idea who or
what would have been in those planes.
We proposed to pay for this funding by reducing the size of the tax
cut that will go to those with incomes of more than a million dollars
next year. We proposed to reduce the size of their tax cut by 6 percent
so that instead of getting $88,000 on average, they will get $83,000
per average. That is hardly putting them in the poor house. But it
would enable us to reestablish additional support for these crucial
investments.
I would urge the House to allow us to consider that amendment because
the public has a right to know which of us are for it and which of us
are against it. They have a right to know whether we put tax cuts for
wealthy people ahead of the security of this Nation.
{time} 1400
Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen), the chairman of the Subcommittee on the
District of Columbia.
(Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, today I rise in strong support of
the fiscal year 2004 Homeland Security appropriations bill. This bill
is a first of its kind but, more important, in the history that is
being created with this first-ever homeland bill is the fact that this
bill, simply put, makes America and my home State of New Jersey a safer
place.
We in New Jersey and New York and the New York metropolitan area know
better than most how vulnerable an open and free society can be. We put
a very human face on the homeland security issue, as 700 New Jersey
citizens went into Lower Manhattan that terrible morning on September
11, 2001, and never came home again, and many more people in New York
City as well and residents from over 80 countries. This is all very
personal.
These appropriations if spent and managed wisely may well prevent
another catastrophic attack on American soil. While we can never really
totally eliminate our vulnerabilities, this bill takes important steps
to better protect our people and the infrastructure that carries them
into and around New York City and over and under the Hudson River each
and every day and protects people in other communities and cities
around the Nation as well.
Notably, this historic bill recognizes that, while the Department of
Homeland Security has the lead in developing our national homeland
security strategy, implementation of the strategy requires the active
collaboration
[[Page H5747]]
and contributions of all States and municipal governments, and the
private sector as well. It also recognizes that many of the agencies
merged into the Department of Homeland Security in March have
traditional missions.
For these and other reasons, Mr. Chairman, I support the passage of
this appropriations bill.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price).
(Mr. PRICE of North Carolina asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to
participate in this first-ever debate on the Homeland Security
appropriations bill. I want to commend the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr.
Rogers), the chairman; and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo), the
ranking member, for their leadership of our subcommittee and the fine
staff, majority and minority, for their good work.
Our task was to develop a budget where none had previously existed
for a Department that is struggling to master its mission. Hearings
could not even be arranged for many of the largest and most important
of the Department's 11 major agencies. As a result, we did not have the
benefit of questioning important agencies such as Immigration and
Customs Enforcement, Citizenship and Immigration Services, Information
Analysis and Infrastructure Protection, and Office of Domestic
Programs. Those four agencies alone constitute 31 percent of the
Department's total budget.
The bill before us today provides over $35 billion for the new
Department, which is $1 billion over the administration's request. In
addition to providing for big-ticket items such as $5.6 billion for
Project Bioshield, it provides $4.4 billion in grants to our first
responders, which is 25 percent more than the President requested, and
$900 million for the science and technology directorate to promote the
research and development of security-related technologies.
I am also pleased with the attention paid to the equally important
non-homeland security traditional missions of the many agencies now
incorporated in this new Department. For example, the bill before us
today rejects the administration's proposal to discontinue the section
404 postdisaster hazard mitigation program and combines it with $200
million for predisaster mitigation activities to both learn from the
past and prepare for the future.
I am also encouraged that the bill recognizes the potential of our
Nation's institutions of higher learning: $80 million is included for
the rapid development of promising homeland security technologies by
universities, national laboratories, nonprofit institutions and private
companies, as well as $35 million for university and fellowship
programs, including $25 million for the creation of university-based
centers of excellence.
There are, however, Mr. Chairman, ample grounds for concern: for
example, the security of our Nation's ports. Despite no request from
the administration, the subcommittee has appropriated $100 million for
port security grants to shore up our significant vulnerabilities there.
Unfortunately, our Republican friends rejected a Democratic amendment
that would have added $500 million toward the $4.4 billion the Coast
Guard estimates is needed for port facility security improvements. We
would have paid for that by a small reduction in the tax cut going to
people making over $1 million a year.
Still, the subcommittee has been assured and must continue to demand
the completion of port vulnerability assessments at the Nation's 55
largest ports by the end of 2004.
I remain concerned, Mr. Chairman, with overall fiscal year 2004
appropriations for law enforcement and emergency services. Given the
importance of our Nation's first responders to the security of our
communities, I want to ensure that the overall funding levels for the
Office of Justice Programs, Community Oriented Policing Services,
(COPS), the Byrne grant programs, and related accounts remain at or
above fiscal 2003 levels.
I support this Homeland Security appropriations bill with the
expectation that other appropriations bills, unlike the President's
budget request, will provide adequately for first responders. We cannot
allow those on the front lines to fall victim to an appropriations
shell game, giving with one hand, taking away with the other, to the
detriment of our local communities.
Mr. Chairman, it has been over a year and a half since September 11.
Much has been accomplished; yet many, many challenges remain. I rise
today in support of this appropriations bill, while recognizing the
progress we have yet to make in providing for the security of our
homeland.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp), a very valuable member of our
subcommittee, who has contributed much to this bill.
(Mr. WAMP asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I want to make two points: one, if my
colleagues like what they see with our Armed Forces and what they have
seen in the last several months around the world in terms of our men
and women in uniform, I want them to know that what we are trying to do
with homeland security is essentially the same kind of bipartisan
cooperation here in the Congress so that we adequately resource and
establish the priorities for homeland security that mirror what we have
done in the Congress to support national security throughout the years,
so that the technology that is deployed and the efficiencies that are
created, the accountability that is instilled in the Department of
Homeland Security is the same as the Department of Defense, and it is
difficult. We can always spend more money, but I want my colleagues to
know that this bill adequately and effectively resources the needs that
we have today.
I also want to point out that a lot is going to be said about tax
cuts as we debate all of the appropriations bills, it already has been,
but this is not a tax bill. We cannot cut taxes or raise taxes in an
appropriation bill. We are charged with spending the money within the
budget agreement, and that debate was in April. It obviously lingers
here, but that debate was in April. Now we have the responsibility
within the budget agreement to spend the money and set the priorities;
and in doing so at homeland security, we have had extraordinary
cooperation.
I salute the professional staff, I think one of the best staffs that
has ever been assembled here; and it was important that we put the best
people on the field that we could possibly find, on both sides of the
aisle. Our committee work and our chairman and our ranking member, the
leadership has been extraordinary; but this is such an important issue.
It needs to be the best possible.
So we are off to a good start. Let us stay focused.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano), a member of our subcommittee.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, let me first simply say on a comment that
we just heard on the House floor that it is related to taxes, because
it is a simple mathematical equation. If we have less money to spend
because we give it away to the rich, then we have less money for
education, for housing, for senior citizens, and for homeland security;
and this is a fact of life.
However, having said that, I want to take this opportunity, first, to
thank the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), the chairman, and the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo) for this historic moment in putting
together this bill. This bill, in my opinion, has some deficiencies;
but on the other hand, it is a historic bill. It is the first time we
have attempted to put together a bill like this and to take care of a
need. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant support of H.R.
2555.
On September 11, everything changed in this country. The savage
attacks on New York and Washington brought home to America that the
threat of terrorism at home was terribly real. Among the responses by
Congress were the creation of the Department of Homeland Security and
the reorganization of the Committee on Appropriations to oversee and
fund the new Department. The gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) has
ably taken up the challenge of chairing the new
[[Page H5748]]
House Subcommittee on Homeland Security. However, the leadership of
this House has failed to give him or our ranking member the resources
they need to do the job. The bill would not even provide enough funding
to keep up with inflation, never mind step up the pace of improvements
to our security.
As has been amply covered in other statements and is thoroughly
demonstrated by the Obey amendment, which the Republican leadership
through the Committee on Rules refused to make in order, there are
gaping holes in our security, and at the rate we are going it will be
many years before they can be filled. From ports to airport perimeters
to our borders, we continue to face risk to our security that must be
addressed, but cannot be, under this bill.
On a somewhat more parochial level, I am disappointed that we were
unable to do more for grants to high-density urban and high-threat
areas. Secretary Ridge just yesterday stated that he believed $750
million would be ``a nice place to start,'' not the $500 million now in
the bill.
If I sound somewhat negative in my support of this bill, one needs to
understand that I was there in New York on September 11. I saw the
tragedy that took place. I saw the crime committed on our country, and
the scene of the crime was New York; and so New York has had a tendency
to know what it is that we need to deal with this issue because we saw
it firsthand. That does not take away our respect for our chairman, our
ranking member, the work of the committee.
Mr. Chairman, once again, I reiterate my support for the bill in the
hope that as it continues to go through the Senate, it becomes the bill
it should be.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham), a very distinguished and very helpful
member of our subcommittee who contributed greatly to this bill.
(Mr. LATHAM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding to me.
Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to commend the gentleman for the
great job that he has done on this bill. It is the first Homeland
Security appropriation bill in history. We are charting new waters
here, and I also want to strongly compliment the great staff that we
have on the subcommittee. They have done just an outstanding job to
bring this very difficult bill together with all the ramifications that
we have.
All Members here should be keenly aware of how difficult this task is
and how broad the jurisdiction is, trying to combine 22 different
Federal agencies into one Department, have them communicate with each
other, have them function together, have them understand their role is
to cooperate with States and local governments to ensure our homeland
security.
This is a bill unlike any other that we have; and as the Chairman has
said so many times, we are successful when nothing happens. As we are
spending all this money, if the final outcome is that everything
remains quiet, we have been successful, and it is very difficult to
judge exactly how many dollars need to go exactly where to complete our
role, but I think the chairman and the subcommittee have done an
outstanding job.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this bill, and commend Chairman
Rogers for his attention to the many difficult issues we have discussed
in our hearings on homeland security.
He has been given the tough job of putting together a spending bill
for this new Department and this bill is a testament to his good work
and the good work of the Subcommittee staff--they have done an
excellent job under difficult circumstances.
Mr. Chairman, the approach the Subcommittee has taken with this bill
has been one of strong support for the mission of this new Department
and a scrutiny of the many requests and ideas put forth by Members and
others.
I believe this has been the best approach because we are moving
through uncharted territory. One of my concerns has been that--going
forward with this new bill--we would put forth too much money in a way
that would paint us into a corner before all of the most pressing
homeland security needs became clear.
I believed early on--and still believe--the members of this Committee
deserve to know the most efficient methods in which to deploy our
Homeland Security resources.
We cannot appropriately fund programs that do not have understandable
goals or clear justifications. Every State and Member of Congress
should be aware of the pitfalls of adding monies to specific accounts
because they feel they have the best answer to our Homeland Security
problems.
Let me remind you. We are witnessing the infancy of a Department.
There are few of us in this body who have been faced with the enormous
and important task of funding a new Department of this size.
I am certain nearly every one of you has been asked to request
funding for a specific appropriation for a specific homeland security
project. I'm betting that most of you have been overwhelmed by the
number of ``potential targets'' in your district.
Those of us on the Subcommittee share your concern. But, this bill is
not about Congress making local security decisions--it is about making
sure our local responders have a functional Federal agency to work with
to solve those problems.
That said--as we move deeper into the process of providing for our
Homeland Security, we are going to get a clearer picture of what our
needs are. We will be in a better position to prioritize those needs.
Congress is not in a position to mess around with local funding
matters. Until the Congress, the administration and our local providers
have confidence in the long-term needs, I think the approach we are
taking today--in this first year of funding for this new Department--is
the correct one.
Again, I want to commend the Chairman for his work on this bill and I
urge all of the Members of this body to support this bill.
{time} 1415
Mr. SABO. How much time is remaining on both sides, Mr. Chairman?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo) has 14\1/2\
minutes remaining and the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) has 9
minutes remaining.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney), who has been a
member of the subcommittee who has been extremely helpful to us in this
bill.
Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I want to especially thank the chairman of
the subcommittee for all his great work.
This is not just about the merging of 22 Federal agencies into one.
This is not just about responding to the needs of first responders.
This is not just about establishing a system that not only helps first
responders but creates a system of first preventers. This has really
been a monumental task undertaken to give direction to an entity, a
notion, a thought about protecting the American people here at the
homeland, something prior to September 11, 2001 we did not give a lot
of time to and that goes well beyond anything this government has ever
done. This is about first responders, this is about border security,
this is about aviation and port security, it is about a BioShield
program, and it is about the four corners of defense.
I want to take my 1 minute to especially tell the chairman of the
subcommittee, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), how thankful I
am as a New Yorker, as an American citizen, as someone who lost friends
and neighbors in the attack of September 11, for the commitment that he
is honoring that we all made on September 11, 2001, for the great work
that he has put into this, and for the fact that I feel greatly
confident that as we go forward and need to make adjustments as this
process evolves, that we have the right person in place at the
subcommittee level.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).
Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
this time, and I rise in support of H.R. 2555, the first annual
appropriations measure for the Department of Homeland Security. This
bill will help us equip our Nation to prepare for and respond to future
disasters. But it is not enough. When it comes to protecting our
citizens, we must move faster and we must be stronger.
One critical shortcoming facing us is the failure of the DHS
Intelligence Director to fulfill its role as the agency's new nerve
center. The effective operation of this unit is indispensable to
[[Page H5749]]
the success of the rest of the Department. Instead, resources are being
allocated and priorities are being set without a reliable threat
assessment that can be mapped against existing vulnerabilities.
We also continue to fall short of meeting our responsibility to first
responders. Firefighters, police, health care workers and others on the
front lines need our support to keep America safe. With dozens of
States experiencing grave budget crises, first responders are more
desperate than ever for Federal assistance.
In countless other areas, from port security to air cargo screening
to computer interoperability, we are not moving fast enough and we have
not become strong enough. We simply must make homeland security our top
priority and devote the necessary resources to it.
Even at a time of mounting deficits, though, the administration and
Republican leaders in Congress have found trillions of dollars for tax
cuts for the wealthiest of Americans. I only wish the same
determination were at evidence in this bill.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson), the hard working member of
our subcommittee.
Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I wish to thank the chairman, the
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), for the tremendous job that he
and his staff have done in putting together the inaugural Homeland
Security appropriations bill and also for the honor of allowing me to
serve on that subcommittee as well.
This bill does make a large investment in our Nation's first
responders. We have added $888 million above the President's request
for the Office of Domestic Preparedness, Firefighters and Emergency
Management. This also includes another $750 million in firefighter
grants, which has greatly been appreciated in Missouri and, in my
judgment, is one of the most successful programs that FEMA and DHS have
undertaken.
The bill also makes another important investment in intercity bus
security by adding $10 million for this critical initiative. We also
include over $5 billion for various transportation security initiatives
to ensure that not only our airports continue to run smoothly but also
our ports and our highways.
We make a large investment in the future by investing $900 million
for science and technology. The funds will target research, development
and deployment of innovative technologies that will help us protect the
Nation well into the future.
So, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman again and also
Michelle, Stephanie, Jeannie, Jeff, Brian, Tammy, and Tom for the great
work they have done.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, one of the disappointments I had in this rule was it
did not waive a point of order on what I thought was a very reasonable
limitation on the development of CAPPS2. The gentleman from Kentucky
graciously accepted that amendment in committee. I would hope that the
folks who are objecting would not raise a point of order when we get to
that in the regular bill.
The provision is a moderate attempt to make sure that this very, very
large system of compiling information on the American public receives
the closest of scrutiny and the closest of examination by GAO and
others before it is implemented.
Our amendment left in place the money for the program, left in place
the capacity of the Department to proceed with work on how they want to
put the program together, but requires it be scrutinized by GAO and the
Academy of Science to look at the privacy issues and also to look at
its effectiveness. It has the potential to be the largest intrusion of
the American government into the private lives of American people that
has ever occurred. It also, on the other hand, has the ability to be a
system that totally complicates our screening process if it is not done
well. Rather than simplify, it may make our whole screening process
more cumbersome and more costly and less effective.
If a point of order is raised, the only alternative we will have is
to seek a pure limitation without the language. I would hope the House
would adopt such a limitation, if that is the situation we find
ourselves in, but I much prefer we preserve the language which is for
new activity of the Department, one not specifically authorized with
guidelines by Congress. It is a new activity that the Department is
pursuing and we simply want to put some regulations in place as they
move forward to make sure this whole new large complicated program is
put in place in a fashion that would work.
I might remind people this is an agency that has had trouble figuring
out whether their own workforce has had criminal involvement in the
past. They are struggling to make sure that their personnel do not have
criminal backgrounds. They have not succeeded doing that yet. So we
should be a little cautious before we give them a blank check to move
forward with a huge new complicated screening process of the American
public.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Granger), another hard-working member of
our subcommittee.
Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chairman, one of our greatest strengths as a Nation
has always been our ability to move people and products more safely and
efficiently than anywhere else in the world. Unfortunately, as we saw
on 9/11, this strength makes our transportation infrastructure a
tempting target for terrorists.
Those hijackers that turned four planes into missiles were not just
trying to kill thousands, they were also trying to restrict our freedom
of movement, our way of life. As people travel more and more, and
further and further for business and pleasure, the potential for a
large-scale loss of life and an attack involving an airplane, boat,
train or truck grows.
While protecting innocent lives is our top priority in homeland
security, we all know that serious economic consequences can result
after a terrorist attack when it disrupts the flow of goods and people
in America's transportation network. These disruptions do not just cost
money for big corporations with stranded products, they raise grocery
prices for families, cut the earnings of farmers, and cause small
businesses to close their doors.
In recognizing the importance and vulnerability of America's
transportation infrastructure, Congress has moved quickly to strengthen
transportation security. Since 9/11, we have provided more than $10
billion to safeguard and will add $5 million more in this legislation.
Mr. SABO. How much time do I have left, Mr. Chairman?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo) has 10 minutes
remaining and the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) has 6 minutes
remaining.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from New
York (Mrs. Lowey).
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. LOWEY. I yield to the gentleman from New York, my good friend,
for a colloquy, who will then yield back to me.
Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I intend to do just that, and I thank the
gentlewoman for yielding to me.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to enter into a colloquy as well with the
gentleman from Kentucky, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Homeland
Security. The chairman, who I have had the pleasure of working with,
has done a great job, as I said before on this bill, and I thank the
gentleman for the inclusion of high threat funds in this particular
bill and actually for having created the fund in the first instance.
But I wish to highlight some concerns I have with the current
distribution formula.
The City of New York spends $13.5 million a week, $700 million a year
on extra police protection during its current state of alert. That
amounts to more than $1 billion since September 11. And I am not
talking about money that the city would spend anyway for police
protection. I am talking about the net additional amount New York
[[Page H5750]]
spends to protect against terrorist attacks.
New York's needs were highlighted as recently as last week when news
of an al-Qaeda operative was arrested for plotting to sever the cables
on the Brooklyn Bridge. The operative said one of the main foils to his
plan was the added security around the bridge which prevented him from
acting.
One of the reasons terrorist prevention needs are not met by some
cities is because of the formula the Department uses to distribute
funds. I know this is an authorizing issue more than an appropriations
issue, but no first responder discussion is complete without
recognizing the current formulas, which do not provide enough emphasis
on the threat information.
The President and the administration at times have said they support
a threat-based distribution of first responder funds in this national
strategy for homeland security, and it is my hope this Congress moves
quickly to enact a new threat-based formula to apply to first
responders.
I recently introduced a bill to reform the first responder formula to
reflect today's realities, and that bill would lessen the impact of
allocating funds based on geography in favor of a quantitative
assessment of threat information, vulnerability and consequences. We
are dealing with serious people and we need a serious formula.
I know the war in Iraq is over, to whatever degree, and the national
threat level has decreased since then, but last week's news stories
prove we must remain vigilant in our fight against terrorism,
particularly in New York, and I cannot stress strongly enough the need
for focusing first responder funds on high-threat areas. It is no
secret where the terrorists are focusing their resources, and I would
ask the gentleman from Kentucky how he can address the concerns I
outlined if the gentlewoman from New York will yield time to the
gentleman from Kentucky.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman
from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) for agreeing to enter into this colloquy,
and I wish to associate myself with the remarks of my colleague from
New York.
We in New York have been bracing for another terrorist blow since
September 11, and all of America has experienced that anxiety. I know
the chairman is totally committed to doing everything possible to
protect our communities against any potential attack.
{time} 1430
It is my understanding from both Federal and local intelligence
briefings that New York is still acknowledged to be the top target for
terrorism. I believe that New York City and other cities across our
country, including Yonkers, New York, in my district, need dedicated
resources to protect sites of national significance and critical
infrastructure.
I agree with Secretary Ridge that we must distribute Federal funds on
the basis of threat of terrorist attack and need, as well as
population. That is not to say that States without high-density urban
areas do not have important security needs. Our resources are limited,
our responsibilities enormous, so we must be strategic; and I hope that
the number of us who represent high-threat, high-density urban areas
can work with the gentleman to examine this issue.
I appreciate the leadership of our chairman, and I thank the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney) for his hard work.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. LOWEY. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman and
gentlewoman for this colloquy and applaud the fight they have led for
New York, which is one of the reasons we enacted a total of $800
million for high-threat, high-density urban areas in fiscal year 2003.
Of that $800 million, New York received $186 million to assist first
responders with the increased security costs associated with the war in
Iraq and Operation Liberty Shield. I am aware of the concerns the
formula has generated. I assure my colleagues I appreciate the degree
to which New York is a target and the expenses New York faces. I am
also aware of those rural areas that rely on the basic formula grants
to fulfill their first responder requirements. I believe any reform to
the formula must ensure that these rural areas are not abandoned. I
will work closely with the gentlewoman and the gentleman as the bill
progresses to conference on these and other matters.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
In relationship to our latest colloquy, I understand the concern of
people over the situation in New York. They clearly have unusual
problems. Would the chairman agree with me that we do not know
precisely how the agency sets criteria for the balance of funds in this
particular discretionary program?
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SABO. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Only in a general sense. The presence of
high-risk infrastructure, the urban intensity of the region, we leave
it to the discretion of the Secretary, as I think we should, rather
than some formula. As the gentleman knows, we have been working
together.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, we have a little trouble getting a precise
understanding of what criteria are used.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue
to yield, the gentleman is correct, but I think in due course of time,
perhaps before the bill finally reaches the President, we will have
found out more.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Turner).
Mr. TURNER of Texas. Mr. Chairman, we consider today, of course, for
the first time the appropriations for the new Department of Homeland
Security. Just as the new Department is taking its first steps to make
America safer, we are also embarking on an effort to try to secure the
resources that we need for the longer term to ensure victory in the war
against terrorism. This bill is a good start, and I support dedicating
resources above the President's request to prepare our communities by
training and equipping first responders and securing our ports and our
transportation systems.
However, as we have been finding in the hearings before the Select
Committee on Homeland Security, serious deficiencies remain in the
Department's ability to carry out its mission of protecting all
Americans from those harms that could come our way through terrorism.
Testimony before our Select Committee on Homeland Security revealed
that there is one, precisely one, person in the Department of Homeland
Security assessing the bioterror threat to America and determining how
to match that threat against our vulnerabilities and then make plans to
protect America from bioterrorism.
It is clear we must move faster and we must be stronger to protect
America. We have learned that, while over 4,000 port facilities and
10,000 ships that enter our ports are required to undergo security
reviews, there is no funding to fulfill that mission. We must move
faster and be stronger. We have learned that there are serious gaps in
coverage on our northern border. There is on average only one person
guarding every 16 miles of our Canadian border. The PATRIOT Act called
for tripling the forces to protect our northern border, and the 2002
Border Security Act goes even further, but gaps still remain. We must
move faster, and our forces must be stronger.
Mr. Chairman, just a few months ago this Congress voted to spend $65
billion to prosecute the war in Iraq. We spent those funds to make sure
that our forces had the best training and the best equipment possible.
We need to make the same commitment to those who fight on behalf of
homeland security today.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Cox), the chairman of the Select
Committee on Homeland Security.
Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) and
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) have done an extraordinary job
in bringing to the floor a bill that has
[[Page H5751]]
as its object the most important function of the Federal Government,
protecting these United States from attack. Nothing that we do is more
important.
The $29 billion in this legislation for the coming year is nearly 4
percent more than the President requested. It is $250 for every single
taxpayer in America. It is an extraordinary amount of money to meet the
new challenges of the post-September 11 world.
The $4.4 billion in this bill for first responders is nearly $1
billion more than the President requested. We have in fact in this
Congress increased funding for first responders by more than 1,000
percent since September 11.
The Select Committee on Homeland Security, of which the gentleman
from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young)
are valued members, have had hearings and field investigations of the
problems of getting these monies to our first responders on the front
lines. The pipeline is the problem. That money is not getting to where
it belongs.
That is why, in addition to the work that we can do in this bill as
we go forward in conference, the Select Committee on Homeland Security
will also be bringing to this floor legislation to unclog the pipeline
and better distribute these monies on a threat basis, the way we have
always done it for national security. We will streamline the grant
process and base it on the principle of threat analysis.
I commend the chairman for the resources and direction provided in
this legislation to ensure an intelligence analytical capacity within
the Department of Homeland Security to meet not only the biothreat, but
all of the threats to our homeland security that we face. This is an
enormous amount of money. We now face the task of making sure that it
is wisely spent. In the exercise of our oversight function, we will do
just that. Our Nation's freedoms and our way of life depend upon it.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), a distinguished member of the Committee on
Appropriations.
(Mr. HOYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I rise to talk about the Obey amendment
which will be offered shortly. The Obey amendment puts before the
Congress of the United States, before our Republican colleagues and
before our Democrat colleagues, the question of what options do we want
to pursue. The gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) has said that the
most important objective is keeping our homeland secure, keeping
America and Americans safe.
The Obey amendment says do you care more about giving tax cuts to
those at the very upper ranks of taxpayers, or do you care about
keeping ports, airports, bridges and roads secure? It is a very simple
question. It is a question, though, all of us must answer; and we must
answer them with the responsibility to the American public that we have
uppermost in our minds.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues, I urge this House to allow the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) to offer this amendment and to
support this amendment and to say to America, we are prepared to
protect you.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) and congratulate the gentlewoman on Rice's
victory in the NCAA baseball tournament last night.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his
vision and knowledge of that great sport of baseball, and let me
congratulate the Rice Owls. We are excited and delighted that we have
such national respect.
I rise to be able to add my support for the Obey amendment. Having
just come back from field hearings in Long Beach and Los Angeles with
the Committee on Homeland Security, I assure Members it is crucial to
get funds in the hands of our local responders; and I use that
terminology because I believe it means not only the first responders of
firefighters and law enforcement, but nurses, doctors and hospitals,
school districts and local government, city and county. That is why I
have asked for amendments that I have offered to be made in order that
in fact we expedite and simplify the regulatory maze that is required
of these entities to get funding right on the ground.
It was amazing from a helicopter overview to be able to see how close
residential communities are to sites of potential terrorist acts. We
must act now to ensure that our first responders are the first ones
that are taken care of to protect our neighborhoods. We need to move
forward.
Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment to
the Homeland Security Appropriations Act.
This germane amendment would direct the Secretary of Homeland
Security, in conjunction with the appropriate federal agencies, such as
the Federal Transit Administration, to determine the percentage of
frontline transit employees who have received training in emergency
preparedness and response training.
This amendment would have also directed the Secretary of Homeland
Security is to Report to Congress no later than 90 days after enactment
of this legislation the percentage of ``frontline transit employees''
who have received emergency preparedness and response training.
In addition, the Secretary of Homeland Security would coordinate with
the appropriate federal agencies such as the Federal Transit
Administration and provide recommendations on what training on
emergency preparedness and response training shall be provided to
``frontline transit employees.''
Mr. Chairman this amendment would have provided this new agency with
guidance for years to come.
Understandably, we are all grappling with setting priorities and
funding levels for new security programs and emerging threats.
By establishing a baseline of what security training our transit
workforce needs, it will assist us in establishing priorities and
funding levels in future years.
But make no mistake about the importance of establishing a
comprehensive transit security-training program for our nation's
frontline transit employee workforce.
We need to start now in order to properly plan for the future.
For years, governments around the world have recognized that public
transportation is a major terrorist target.
Until 9/11 the United States has been largely spared the kinds of
terrorist campaigns waged against public surface transportation.
However, we cannot wait for a tragedy to happen to prompt us to
address our vulnerabilities. We must act now!
An October 2001 study released by the Mineta Institute, Protecting
Public Surface Transportation Against Terrorism and Serious Crime: An
Executive Overview cites that between 1920 and 2000 there have been
approximately 900 terrorist attacks and other significant criminal
incidents involving public surface transportation systems.
However, all but 14 of these attacks occurred after 1970, the year
that marks the beginning of modern terrorism.
Attacks against transportation and transportation infrastructures
accounted for 42 percent of all international terrorist attacks,
according to the most recent statistics provided by the USDOT Office of
Intelligence and Security in 1998.
Again, Mr. Chairman, I offer my statement for the Record.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, hometown security should be our number
one priority to ensure the American public is safe from terrorism--both
domestic and foreign.
The federal government has made significant commitments, but
unfortunately these have been more show than substance. The most recent
example is the budget for the homeland security appropriations. I know
from my own experience that there are vast unmet needs in every
community around the country, and Oregon is on exception. The federal
government should be helping communities to pay for the costly
precautions that local governments must take to respond to high level
security alerts, the effects of which ripple through crippled local
budgets. We have yet to make local governments whole from the federal
government imposed shut down of airports following September 11th.
There are vast and clear needs for the Coast Guard which this budget
virtually ignores.
We are lavishing hundreds of billions in tax relief for those who
need it the least when we are investing billions of dollars in
questionable military expenditures, like theater missile defense or
Star Wars. It inexcusable that we do not do a better job of listening
to and meeting the needs of our local communities around the country.
I, in good conscience, find it very hard to vote for this appropriation
and hope that we will send the message that Congress should step up and
make its action match its rhetoric and the need.
[[Page H5752]]
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of
H.R. 2555, the Fiscal Year 2004 Department of Homeland Security
Appropriations Act.
This important legislation provides $30.4 billion in funding for the
upcoming year, $1 billion over the Administration's request, including
$4.4 billion for grants to the police, firefighter and emergency
medical personnel that are on the front lines of our nation's homeland
preparedness and emergency response. In addition, I am pleased to see
in this legislation a timeline to expedite the allocation of these
resources within 120 days of passage of this Act.
We have heard today, Mr. Chairman, and will continue to hear that
there are simply not enough funds included in this bill to achieve our
goal of making our homeland secure. The fact, however, is that to date
the federal government has spent $20.8 billion for our nation's first
responders, and we will continue to fund what is necessary to ensure
they have the training, equipment and resources necessary to do their
job.
We in this House know full well that money spend does not simply
translate into increased preparedness. This in only a start, and we
must continue to be vigilant in not only appropriating adequate funds,
but ensuring that these funds are administered strategically as part of
a comprehensive plan to address our nation's vulnerabilities and needs.
We must remember that while the Department of Homeland Security
develops our national homeland security strategy, the implementation
and the ultimate success of that strategy rests with our state and
local governments.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, the protection of the American citizens is
the first and foremost duty of the federal government, and this
Congress will continue to work with the Administration, and our states
and localities to this end. This bill is a solid next step for our
nation's emergency preparedness and response capabilities and I urge my
colleagues to support it.
Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Obey
amendment to add an additional $1 billion to H.R. 2555 to help fill
critical homeland security deficiencies and urge my colleagues to
support its adoption.
Mr. Speaker, the bill before us would provide $30.4 billion for
operations and activities of the Department of Homeland Security in
Fiscal Year 2004 and permit the Department to use an additional $4.8
billion in Immigration and air passenger fees.
Whether these amounts are sufficient for the Department to
successfully carryout its mission is difficult to know because the
Department has provided the subcommittee and my own Select Committee on
Homeland Security with very little information about their mission and
overall plan of operations. In fact, budget justifications for many
important activities within the Department were not submitted for
months after the President's budget was released and hearings could not
even be arranged for four of the largest and most important of the
Department's eleven major agencies.
This is very troubling, Mr. Speaker, particularly in light of the
enormity of the Department's mission to protect the country from
terrorist attacks.
Equally troubling is the denial by the rules committee of an
amendment which was offered by our colleague the Ranking Democrat of
the Appropriations committee, Dave Obey, to provide an addiitonal $1
billion to help fill critical homeland security deficiencies. The Obey
amendment would have added an additional $400 million to the bill for
additional port security grants. The Coast Guard has reported that it
needs approximately $4 billion more than the $463 million that has been
appropriated since September 11th for port security improvements.
In my district, the highest priority for securing our territory
against attacks has been and continues to be the establishment of a
``Border Patrol'' unit for the Virgin Islands.
Working in coordination with our U.S. Attorney's Office, the U.S.
Customs' Service, the F.B.I., the Transportation Security
Administration, and the U.S. Coast Guard, the Government of the Virgin
Islands is in the final stages of developing a strategic anti-terrorism
and Homeland Security plan for the territory. A critical component of
any such plan will require additional resources for our federal
agencies, especially the Coast Guard which has to oversee what maybe
the busiest cruise ship port in the Caribbean--the port of Charlotte
Amalie, St. Thomas. Additionally, the Coast Guard is also called upon
to inspect the several ships that visit our waters daily, as well as,
the pipes that lead from the ships to the tanks on land. Their search
procedure for all ships follow international law and regulations differ
for each different type of ship.
In addition to being the location of the busiest cruise ship ports in
the Caribbean, the U.S. Virgin Islands is also home to HVENSA, the
largest oil refinery in the Western Hemisphere, which regularly
receives a number of very large tankers.
The Coast Guard has requested the establishment of a Border Patrol
Unit for the Virgin Islands to better enable them to meet their several
mandates for protection of our coast, which includes 175 miles of
unprotected open borders and is the gateway to the United States as its
southern most border.
Enactment of the Obey amendment would have significantly increased
the likelihood that the Virgin Islands would receive a critically need
border patrol unit.
Mr. Chairman, the Democratic members of the Select Committee on
Homeland Security have been seeking answers to a number of fundamental
questions about the Department, since the committee's inception. We
have been trying to find out whether the Department is fulfilling its
responsibility to better coordinate and access threat information and
ensure that in the event of a terrorist attack, federal, state, local
and private entities are prepared to respond to the event. These
questions and others remain unanswered and the bill we are debating
today unfortunately does very little to help us receive them.
I urge my colleagues to adopt the Obey amendment.
Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 2555, the
Homeland Security Appropriations Act of 2004. As a member of the
Homeland Security Subcommittee, it has been an honor to take part in
the formulation of the new Homeland Security Department. I would like
to commend our Chairman, Hal Rogers, and our Ranking Member, Martin
Sabo, who under tight fiscal restraints did the best job possible
putting together this first appropriations bill for the new Department
of Homeland Security.
The Department of Homeland Security has had both success and
failures. It has been successful in unifying principal border and
transportation security agencies, coordinating a network of disaster
response capabilities, and creating a central point for the analysis
and dissemination of intelligence pertaining to terrorist threats.
Beyond that however, the Department has failed to develop a useful
roadmap of security goals the Department seems critical to protecting
the homeland, such as securing the northern border, tracking all
vessels entering American waters or insuring that airline cargo is
effectively screened.
As a result, many of the windows of opportunity for terrorist
organizations such as al Qaeda are nearly as wide open today as they
were on September 11th. Of equal concern, is the fact that the
Department seems to be stalled in its ability to put in place a program
to close those windows open to terrorist attacks.
Overall this bill provides $29.4 billion in discretionary funding for
fiscal 2004. That is only about 1.8 percent above the overall funding
level allocated to agencies within the Department for fiscal year 2003.
The Congressional Budget Office however, forecasts that prices will
increase during the current fiscal year by 2.3 percent. As a result,
the bill actually provides funding for the coming year that in terms of
real dollars is about $150 million below current levels.
Mr. Chairman, cities such as my hometown of Los Angeles are the ones
who must bear the brunt of this inadequate funding. Los Angeles is one
of the largest cities and metropolitan areas in the country, and is
considered to be one of the most ``at risk'' areas for terrorist
attacks. With one of the world's largest port complexes and a major
international airport, Los Angeles has heightened vulnerability to
potential terrorist attacks.
Without adequate federal support, protecting our cities and towns is
extremely costly and causes tremendous hardship on local governments.
For example, Los Angeles officials have reported to me that during the
days of the three Orange threat levels, the city registered $7.2
million in additional security costs. This figure includes additional
costs for areas such as our city airports, our port, our public utility
centers, our convention center and our police department. Although I am
pleased that today's bill provides $500 million for ``high threat urban
areas'' like Los Angeles, clearly this does not provide the funds
needed to address the security needs of Los Angeles and other highly
vulnerable urban areas.
In addition to representing the downtown portions of the City of Los
Angeles, I also represent nine smaller municipalities including Downey,
Commerce, Bell Flower, Huntington Park, and Vernon. Like other small
cities and rural communities across the nation, these smaller cities
are often overlooked in the urgent rush to protect the homeland and to
establish emergency preparedness plans. These smaller cities, have
increased security needs since September 11, 2001, and have also had to
incur additional costs in response to our nation's heightened security
alerts. Protecting our small cities is just as important as protecting
our large cities, and national landmarks. To highlight this fact, I
successfully included language in the bill's report which establishes a
process that ensures local governments will be included in the
development and
[[Page H5753]]
review process of each state's emergency preparedness and security
response plan.
Mr. Chairman, another areas of concern is the fact that the funding
for our nation's commercial seaports continues to be dangerously
inadequate. Our ports are one of our nation's most vulnerable assets.
Yet this administration, and the leadership of this Congress continue
to underfund our ports. While critics focus on the cost of providing
this security, I want to highlight the cost of not providing this
security. The labor shutout at the port complex of Los Angeles and Long
Beach last fall is estimated to have cost $1 billion per day
nationwide. This was only one port complex and yet the daily cost was
staggering. If our ports experience a terrorist attack, international
commerce would grind to a standstill. The Coast Guard has estimated
that the infrastructure security needs at our ports will cost $1
billion in the first year and some $4 billion over a ten year period.
Yes, this bill provides only $100 million in port security grants.
Congress was swift about providing funding to secure our nation's
airways following the events of September 11, 2001. We must not wait
for a similar tragedy at one of our ports to finally provide the
necessary security funds.
Mr. Chairman, I must also express my displeasure that the Homeland
Security Subcommittee was unable to hold a budget hearing with the
Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services. This bureau was created
under the Department of Homeland Security. Its responsibility is to
build and maintain a service system that provides immigration
information and benefits to the more than seven million annual
applicants in a timely, accurate, consistent, courteous, and
professional manner.
Having never met with Mr. Aguirre, the Acting Director, this
committee has no way of knowing if this bureau is fulfilling its stated
mission. Consequently, I am fearful that without adequate oversight and
funding this new bureau will fall into the same bureaucratic trap that
made the INS inadequate to meet the needs of this nation's immigrant
community. I am hopeful that the subcommittee will have a hearing and
receive a full budget justification from the Bureau of Citizenship and
Immigration Services before this bill comes to the floor for a vote
next year. I am also hopeful that next year the President's budget will
request enough funds to realistically address the thousands of cases in
backlog at this bureau. Although the committee increased the
President's budget request by $14 million, the amount is still fifteen
percent less than what was provided in Fiscal Year 2003 for immigration
services.
Mr. Chairman, I am also concerned about the ongoing difficulties
regarding airport security screeners at Los Angeles International
Airport (LAX). These difficulties stem from the poor quality of the
Transportation Security Administration's (TSA) security background
checks. Despite assurances from TSA that their airport security
workforce had been screened, authorized at LAX and other airports
discovered that some members of their security screener workforce had
criminal convictions. These airports petitioned TSA for the authority
to conduct their own background check of the screeners at their own
expense. TSA officials at first rejected the request before finally
granting approval. The ongoing background checks by these airports are
continuing to identify employees with disqualifying convictions.
Hopefully, this issue will be resolved once and for all when the Office
of Personnel Management (OPM) completes the last of its outstanding
background checks on the TSA airport screeners.
Until such time, I am pleased that the bill includes language I
offered that urges the TSA to work cooperatively with airport
authorities that wish to conduct their own background checks of their
TSA screener workforce.
I am also pleased that the bill includes report language that
provides guidance to the Department of Homeland Security on two issues
critical to the immigrant community. The report language expresses
concern about the pattern of harassment, excessive use of force, and
racial profiling by private vigilante groups that conduct paramilitary-
like operations along our Southwestern border. In San Antonio for
example, the sheriff recently arrested vigilantes who were charged with
assault for their illegal arrest of two migrants from El Salvador.
Vigilantes taking immigration law into their own hands is illegal, and
their activity can lead to serious violations of fundamental rights. It
can also interfere with the legal activities of protecting our
homeland. For that reason, I am pleased that the report includes
language I offered expressing concern that vigilante operations against
migrants along the Southwestern border should not be tolerated, and may
interfere with the work of the Department of Homeland Security.
Mr. Chairman, I am also pleased that the report contains language I
requested directing the Department of Homeland Security to improve the
processing and resettlement of refugees. Since the Sept. 11, 2001
attacks, increased security checks on individual refugee cases,
combined with greater limits on the travel of refugee and immigration
officers, have resulted in a slowdown of interviews necessary for U.S.
resettlement. Many of these precautions are understandable, but as the
Department of Homeland Security begins to shape its policy and
procedures, we need to find a safe and acceptable method to quickly
process legitimate refugee claims.
The world is looking to the United States for continued leadership in
providing a safe environment free of abuse and persecution for many of
the world's refugees. I am pleased that the report requests a plan from
the Department of Homeland Security, in conjunction with the State
Department, to overcome the hurdles encountered during the processing
of refugee claims.
Mr. Chairman, while I am disappointed in this bill's inability to
fully fund many of our countries initial national security needs, I
support the efforts of the Chair and the Ranking Member to best
allocate these limited resources. We have much more work ahead of us. I
urge the conferees to address this issue of limited funds. In closing,
I want to reiterate that I have enjoyed working with Chairman Rogers
who I know did his best given the limited resources the subcommittee
was provided.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak on the unfolding of the
appropriations process for fiscal year 2004 and the Homeland Security
appropriations bill in particular. The actual appropriations process
commenced on April 10 when, five days before the statutory deadline,
the U.S. Congress agreed to a budget resolution that established an
overall limit or allocation on appropriations for fiscal year 2004.
The budget resolution
The budget resolution provided a total allocation for discretionary
appropriations of $785.6 billion in fiscal year 2004, including the
amounts held in reserve for the Bioshield initiative. This represents a
2.6 percent increase over the current year, which is slightly higher
than the rate of inflation. Additionally, the budget resolution allowed
an additional $23.2 billion to be appropriated in advance for fiscal
year 2005.
The Congress agreed on this number after considerable deliberations
involving the Leadership, the Budget and Appropriations Committees, and
rank and file Members. We started with CBO's reestimate of the
President budget request of $786.6 billion. We added $890 million for
biological and chemical threats and another $215 million for the Iraq
supplemental. At the same time, it was reduced by $2.2 billion to
reflect advance appropriations that were not part of the President's
original budget submission.
302(b) allocations
Last week the House Appropriations Committee finally decided how to
divide that allocation across its 13 appropriations subcommittees.
Under these allocations, total appropriations for defense and military
construction will have climbed by 7.1 percent a year between fiscal
years 2000 and 2004. Somewhat surprisingly, all other non-defense
discretionary spending will have increased over the same period by a
robust 8.2 percent.
The Appropriations Committee appropriately exercised its prerogative
to allocate funding based on Congressional priorities. The
Appropriations Committee comes in under the Administration request's by
$3.2 billion for defense and $1.8 billion for Foreign Affairs. At the
same time, it would exceed the President's request by $448 million for
Labor, HHS and Education, $400 million for VA-HUD, $279 million for
Energy & Water, $221 million for Agriculture, and $241 million for
Commerce, State & Justice.
Homeland Security appropriations
Today we consider the first of these appropriations bills, H.R. 2555,
the Homeland Security Appropriations Act of 2004. This is a landmark
occasion: the first separate appropriation bill for the Department of
Homeland Security, which consolidates 22 Federal agencies and is
expected to reach 180,000 employees.
The spending levels in this important measure are consistent with the
limits for fiscal year 2004. The bill provides $29.4 billion in
appropriations for fiscal year 2004, an increase of $8.1 billion or 38
percent above last year's level. Much of this increase is for Border
and Transportation, Emergency Preparedness, Informational Analysis and
the Coast Guard. With total fiscal year 2004 appropriations equal to
the allocation for the Homeland Security Subcommittee, the bill
complies with the Congressional Budget Act.
The bill does provide an advance appropriation for Bioshield in
fiscal year 2005, however, that is not permitted under the terms of the
budget resolution.
H.R. 2555 does not contain any emergency-designated BA, which are
exempt from budget limits. Nor does it rescind any previously
appropriated BA.
This bill demonstrates Congress' unflinching commitment to win the
war against terrorism.
[[Page H5754]]
Consistent with the Budget Resolution, the bill provides resources
above the President's request in areas like Border and Transportation
Security, Emergency Preparedness and Response, and Science and
Technology. This bill will enhance the Nation's ability to secure our
borders, protect lives and property, and disrupt terrorist financing.
The bill also provides appropriations for the acquisition of various
countermeasures against nuclear, radiological and biological threats.
The authorization for these countermeasures has been reported by the
Energy and Commerce and Government Reform Committees and will be acted
upon by the Homeland Security Committee later this week.
bioshield
I am pleased the Appropriations and authorizing committees were able
to meet a critical need in the fiscally responsible manner outlined in
the budget resolution. Rather than create another entitlement program,
the program was kept fully within the oversight of the Appropriations
Committees. In order to give the administration the assurance of
adequate funding in the outyears, the bill provides advance
appropriations for fiscal years 2005 through 2013.
My only concern with this approach is that some might be tempted to
exploit the fact that much of the advance of appropriations are scored
in fiscal year 2005 on the expectation they will spend out over time by
reducing that amount in 2005 to achieve spurious savings. I take it in
good faith that the Appropriations Committee will leave these funds
untouched in fiscal year 2005 so they will be available as the need
arises in subsequent years.
closing
As we enter the appropriations season, I wish Chairman Young and all
our colleagues on the Appropriations Committee the best as we strive to
meet the needs of the American public within the framework established
by the budget resolution.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment
under the 5-minute rule. During consideration of the bill for
amendment, the Chair may accord priority in recognition to a Member
offering an amendment that he has printed in the designated place in
the Congressional Record. Those amendments will be considered read.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
H.R. 2555
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the
following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the
Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the Department of
Homeland Security for the fiscal year ending September 30,
2004, and for other purposes, namely:
TITLE I--DEPARTMENTAL MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONS
Departmental Administration
salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses for management and operations of the
Department of Homeland Security $221,493,000; of which not to
exceed $78,975,000 shall be for the Office of the Secretary
and Executive Management; of which not to exceed $116,139,000
shall be for the Office of the Under Secretary for
Management; of which not to exceed $8,106,000 shall be for
the Immediate Office of the Under Secretary for Border and
Transportation Security; of which not to exceed $10,044,000
shall be for the Immediate Office of the Under Secretary for
Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection and the
Command Center; of which not to exceed $3,293,000 shall be
for the Immediate Office of the Under Secretary for Emergency
Preparedness and Response; and of which not to exceed
$4,936,000 shall be for the Immediate Office of the Under
Secretary for Science and Technology: Provided, That not to
exceed $2,000,000 may be used for unforeseen emergencies of a
confidential nature, to be allocated and expended under the
direction of the Secretary of Homeland Security: Provided
further, That not to exceed $40,000 shall be for allocation
within the Department for official reception and
representation expenses as the Secretary may determine.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Filner
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Filner:
In the item relating to ``Departmental Administration-
salaries and expenses'' after the first dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $5,000,000)''.
In the item relating to ``Bureau of Customs and Border
Protection-salaries and expenses (including transfer of
funds)'' after the dollar amount, insert ``(increased by
$5,000,000)''.
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr.
Rogers) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo) for bringing us
this bill on such an urgent matter.
I come with a small amendment that has rather big ramifications on
our southern border with Mexico. I represent all of the California-
Mexico border. As the President of the United States and his Secretary
of Homeland Security agreed with the President of Mexico, we need a
smart border, a smart border meaning security, yes, tight security, but
efficiency also.
{time} 1445
We need a blending at our borders of security and efficiency. In my
district, I have got about a quarter of a million, that is over
250,000, legal crossings every day through the six or seven border
crossings in my district. That is a lot of traffic. That traffic is
very legal. It is for important purposes, important for our economy,
important for our families, jobs, housing, culture, education, all that
is going on in this exchange across the U.S.-Mexico border. We have
shown that we can have the security we want with efficiency. We started
a new program several years ago called SENTRI, meaning Secure Electric
Network for Travelers Rapid Inspections. What that means in English is
that we give people who have legitimate business across the border to
travel, and they do it frequently, we give them as extensive a
background check as is necessary to guarantee they are secure. We also
give their vehicle a background check, and that vehicle and that person
is matched when they cross the border by a smart card and a
transponder. That is the SENTRI system. The Customs and INS now and
under Department of Homeland Security set aside certain lanes of the
border crossings for that purpose, for the SENTRI crossings.
Unfortunately, the demand for those smart cards way exceeds the
ability right now of the Department of Homeland Security to meet. There
is a backlog of 6, 7, 8 months. The Subcommittee on Homeland Security,
and I thank the gentleman from Kentucky for this, in their report said
what a great program SENTRI is. They complimented the fact that it
exists. What we at the border need, though, is some assurance from this
Department that money will go to this incredibly important use. We are
not sure given some of the problems in the organization of this new
Department that people are looking at the border and will think about
it. We need some accountability that the money will go into that
program.
We now have 42,000 motorists using SENTRI. As I said, there are three
or four times that who are waiting to participate. The backlog is over
6 months. There is no assurance that that backlog will decrease unless
there is some dedication of funds to this program.
I know that there is on the part of the committee a rightful concern
with, ``earmarks.'' I just ask that the chairman think about
accountability not only in the Department but for the stakeholders at
the border. We have people on both sides of the border, people who are
doing legal business that are so important to our economies. Mexico is
now our largest trading partner. A big part of that trade goes on
trucks through California, the other part through Texas. We need to
move that quickly with security guaranteed.
That is what my amendment will do. The folks who are doing this at
the border need to know that the money is going to be there. They need
to know that their business can be carried on. They need to know that
they can expand their business because they know that crossing the
border will be enhanced in a positive fashion. I say to the gentleman
from Kentucky and the gentleman from Minnesota, I know that there is
some reluctance to specify programs in their bill. I would just hope
that such an amendment with such ramifications for our whole economy,
and not just in Texas and New Mexico and Arizona and California where
the border crossings are, but in Kentucky where there are people
waiting for just on-time delivery. They need to know that SENTRI is
working. I would ask for approval of $5 million for the SENTRI program.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant opposition to this amendment by the
gentleman who has been working very
[[Page H5755]]
hard on the issue. Originally, this program permitted those certified
as low-risk travelers to cross the Mexican border on an expedited basis
for 1 year. However, in order to accommodate the unexpected increases
in enrollment in that program following 9-11, Customs and Border
Protection in February 2003 extended the enrollment period to 2 years.
That had the effect of benefiting both participants in the program and
the government by reducing paperwork and made the annual enrollment fee
a biennial fee. But current enrollees had their eligibility
automatically extended for 2 years from the date of their last
enrollment and the applications backlog that was being blamed for
increased waits at the border has been greatly reduced. So I do not
think the problem is as bad as it perhaps was at the outset.
Number two, we took $333 million in the 2003 wartime supplemental and
gave that to the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection. We have not
received their spend plans on how they intend to use those funds. The
Department, however, could, I would remind the gentleman, could use a
portion of the supplemental to support the SENTRI expansion. They do
have some discretion.
Number three, and the gentleman alluded to this. We have already cut
the funds for the Department's administration by 25 percent. The moneys
he would take with this amendment would come out of administration. We
have already cut them past the bone almost. Additional reductions could
reduce the basic departmental administration programs and impair their
ability to fulfill management of the entire agency.
For all those reasons, Mr. Chairman, I reluctantly oppose the
amendment and would urge Members to reject it.
Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Filner amendment to the
Homeland Security appropriations bill. This amendment would provide the
Bureau of Customs and Border Protection with critical funding to reduce
the backlog of applications for the SENTRI program. I acknowledge the
words that were just spoken about the need to use administrative
funding; but, Mr. Chairman, we use less than 1 percent of that budget
for this program. I want to tell you how important it is. The gentleman
from California (Mr. Filner) and I are well acquainted with the merits
of the SENTRI program. I thank him for his work on this amendment and
for his continued support on border management issues. The gentleman
from California is a cosponsor of the SAFE Border Act, legislation that
I introduced to modernize SENTRI. I would also like to thank Chairman
Rogers and Ranking Member Sabo for the inclusion of report language
regarding SENTRI.
So what does SENTRI do? It prescreens applicants. The program accepts
only low-risk travelers who pass a background and a vehicle check, and
it focuses enforcement efforts on those travelers who are not
prescreened. Moving low-risk travelers into SENTRI lanes permits border
agents to concentrate on other border crossers. It allows the entry of
thousands of San Diego and Tijuana residents who cross the border every
day and play a vital role in the area's economic and social life as
commuters, shoppers, or visitors. Unfortunately, our border
infrastructure has not kept pace with the booming traffic volume, and
travelers frequently encounter delays and congestion at the border.
SENTRI is an innovative program. It integrates security with
efficiency. In this program we have a model of best practices that
enhance national security and facilitate legitimate traffic. Why would
we not direct resources to this program? Why would we not take every
advantage, every opportunity to increase security?
To some extent SENTRI has become a victim of its own success.
Enrollment increased, as we know, by more than 100 percent after
September 11 and currently prospective applicants must wait several
months. Next March, SENTRI will certainly need funding to handle the
heavy processing demands caused by both renewals and new enrollees. Our
agents at the border shoulder an enormous responsibility every single
day. We owe them the appropriate resources and support they need to
carry out their duties. We must also think about the technology and
equipment needs of a program like SENTRI. This type of investment in
our ports of entry results in greater border security and better trade
flow.
Supporting this amendment, Mr. Chairman, would not only allow agents
to reduce the SENTRI application backlog but means that the Bureau of
Customs and Border Protection could do more background checks and
improve national security. The ability to control our border is
national security. It is trade and it is commerce for our region. It is
an investment in the future of our ports of entry. It is communities
seeking solutions to address our border management issues.
I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting the Filner amendment.
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. DAVIS of California. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. FILNER. I just would like to point out in furtherance of both our
arguments and before the gentleman from Texas speaks, that there may be
a rather slow hiring at the Department and thus carryover funding may
be more than anticipated. With this really small amount of money from
that account, it should not influence in a negative fashion anything
about the hiring for this Homeland Security Department. I would again
reinforce what she was saying, that the money is there, it is just a
question of saying that it is going to be available and thus everybody
at the border knows what is going on and we will have a more efficient
border.
Mrs. DAVIS of California. I thank the Member for pointing out the
fact that this is a phased-in process, and it is true that we will be
doing it in a gradual way. But it gives people a sense of hope, a sense
of knowledge, a sense of commitment that they and their businesses will
be cared for as they move forward and as they try and increase commerce
along the border, the good commerce that we all look forward to.
Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, the vast majority of border crossings are made for
legitimate purposes. As we seek to secure our borders, we cannot afford
to strangle them. With 22 percent of our Nation's exports and imports
crossing our land borders, we need to have adequate systems in place to
ensure that legitimate trade and travel are not unduly impaired. SENTRI
is one such system that has been used successfully in my district of El
Paso, Texas, in putting together dedicated commuter lanes. These lanes
reduce waiting times at the border for prescreened, low-risk, frequent
border crossers.
The Filner amendment would provide needed funds to reduce the backlog
of people applying to enroll in the SENTRI program. In my own district,
we need some of these very same funds to replace equipment in our
enrollment centers that often break down and other legitimate purposes
to increase the legitimate flow of traffic back and forth between our
borders. The sooner we can screen people out who pose no threat to our
security, the more we will be able to concentrate our limited resources
on those that may pose a threat to our national security.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I rise this morning to urge my colleagues to
join me in voting ``yes'' on the Filner amendment.
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I want to express my appreciation to the gentleman from
Kentucky as well as the gentleman from Minnesota for the hard work that
they have done on this bill under very difficult circumstances. Part of
the problem is that there does not seem to be enough money to deal with
the problems of domestic security at a time when this Nation appears to
be under threat. At least that is what the administration would lead us
to believe. Every other week we are going up to the orange alert code.
Local governments around the Nation are responding to that. So if we
are under threat, we need to be providing for the people at the local
level who have to deal with that threat. This bill for all the care
that has been put into fashioning it does not deal with that problem
adequately. The problem seems to be that there is not enough money. I
have heard people come to the floor here,
[[Page H5756]]
even today, and talk about the fact that this is the appropriations
process, it is not the budget process. But nothing here happens in
isolation. This is all of a piece. If you are going to cut taxes, if
you are going to take money out of the Treasury, do not be surprised if
a little while later you do not have enough money to pay for your
domestic security programs. That is the situation that we are
confronting in the context of this bill.
Let me be even a bit more specific. Last year, we appropriated $2.9
billion of grants to State and local governments to help them prepare
for and defend against terrorist attacks.
{time} 1500
Eight hundred million dollars or about 30 percent of that was
directed to high-threat areas. Some people would argue that 30 percent
is not enough to be directed toward high-threat areas. They ought to
have more than that. But we are getting even less in this particular
bill. Seventy percent in last year's appropriation went to other places
across the country. That number under this piece of legislation goes up
to 83 percent, and the effective cut for areas under high threat goes
from $800 million to $500 million, and that has to be spread all across
the country in areas that constitute areas of high threat. Secretary
Ridge himself has said that the $800 million is not enough. Certainly
the $500 million is not enough.
We are not providing for the kind of national security that the
administration talks about and Members of this Congress take this floor
to talk about. It is one thing to express one's understanding of the
need to deal with the problems of domestic threat. It is another to
face up to those domestic threats and provide the resources so that the
people out there on the firing line, the local government officials,
the police, the firemen, emergency medical services personnel and
others are able to contend with the problem when they express
themselves and almost certainly they will.
So for all the care that the chairman and the ranking member have put
into this bill, it remains deficient overall in the amount of money
that we are spending on national security. No fault of theirs. They
have been restricted in the amount of money they have to work with.
There is not enough money allocated by this Congress or by the
administration to deal with this problem. There is a lot of money for
tax cuts. There is $80 billion to fight the war in Iraq, but there is
not enough money to provide for domestic security. And on top of that
in the context of this bill, we are cutting back on the amount of money
that is allocated to high-threat areas specifically. That is foolish
and we need to correct it.
We are beginning a process with this appropriation bill here today,
and it is my hope that we will all work together constructively so that
in the final analysis when we pass the final appropriation measure, we
will have a bill that adequately provides funding for our domestic
security needs and also takes into consideration those additional
specific security needs that exist in areas of high threat across the
country.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words, and I rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, the gentleman that just spoke made some comments that I
feel must be responded to. It is not really relevant to this amendment,
but I will try to make it so, and that is whether or not we are
providing enough funding for our State and local responders. I hear it
every day. We hear it every day. Most people are uninformed or
misinformed about how much money is going out there. In this bill we
provide over $4 billion, and added to the moneys that we put in the
2002 bill and the 2003 bill, we will have appropriated some $20.8
billion just for State and local first responders. The money is going
out in different sorts of grants. There are eight or 10 different sorts
of grants, one of which goes to the high-threat urban areas such as New
York, Washington, L.A., other places, and those go out at the
discretion and in the decision of the Secretary.
Last year, the current year 2003, we provided $800 million for just
the high-threat/high-density urban areas. The administration in the
2004 request did not request any funds in that account. We put $500
million back in that account, and that is in the bill as we speak.
However, in the other grant accounts we have increased the grants for
State and local first responders by over $1 billion. We do not hear
that talked about, but it is there. There is over $1 billion more in
those grant programs this year and next year than this year, $203
million above what we gave this year and $1 billion over what the
President requested.
So I want to ask where is the beef? Where is the beef?
Those moneys are going out under competitive and discretionary grant
programs to our States. Under this bill our States are required by law
to give that money, 80 percent of it, to the locals within 60 days. The
States have got to set up their own machinery for processing these
applications. They have not done that yet. New York's application was
almost tardy. We are just now getting the applications. And yet then we
are saying you are not giving us the money. The money is there when you
qualify and will be there during this year, but we have increased the
amounts of money that go to State and local first responders $203
million above what they have now and $1 billion more than was requested
by the President.
If the administration wants to submit a change in their budget
request that changes these grants in some fashion, I am sure they will
send us the supplement to their budget and we will give it due
consideration. But, Mr. Chairman, I want to be sure that Members
understand the State and local first responder grant moneys are there
more than last year, $1 billion more than the President requested. If
the States will get their committees together and do their paperwork
and apply for these moneys, they will be there, and if there are any
delays in the pipeline, it is mainly because the States and localities
have not applied for the money.
So Mr. Chairman, I rest my case.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Filner).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner)
will be postponed.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Counterterrorism Fund
For necessary expenses, as determined by the Secretary of
Homeland Security, $20,000,000, to remain available until
expended, to reimburse any Federal agency for the costs of
providing support to counter, investigate, or prosecute
unexpected threats or acts of terrorism, including payment of
rewards in connection with these activities: Provided, That
the Secretary shall notify the Committees on Appropriations
15 days prior to the obligation of any amount of these funds
in accordance with section 503 of this Act.
Department-Wide Technology Investments
For development and acquisition of information technology
equipment, software, services, and related activities for the
Department of Homeland Security, and for the costs of
conversion to narrowband communications, including the cost
for operation of the Land Mobile Radio legacy systems,
$206,000,000, to remain available until expended: Provided,
That none of the funds appropriated shall be used to support
or supplement the appropriations provided for the United
States Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology
system and the Automated Commercial Environment.
Office of the Inspector General
salaries and expenses
(including transfer of funds)
For necessary expenses for the Office of the Inspector
General in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector
General Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App.), $58,118,000; of which
not to exceed $1,000,000 may be used for unforeseen
emergencies of a confidential nature, to be allocated under
the direction of the Inspector General of the Department of
Homeland Security: Provided, That in addition, $22,000,000
shall be derived by transfer from the Emergency Preparedness
and Response Disaster Relief Fund.
[[Page H5757]]
TITLE II--BORDER AND TRANSPORTATION SECURITY
CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION
Bureau of Customs and Border Protection
salaries and expenses
(including transfer of funds)
For necessary expenses of the Bureau of Customs and Border
Protection for enforcement of laws relating to border
security, immigration, customs, and agricultural inspections
and regulatory activities related to plant and animal
imports, including planning, construction, and necessary
related activities of buildings and facilities,
$4,584,600,000; of which not to exceed $25,000 shall be for
official reception and representation expenses; of which not
to exceed $129,000,000 to remain available until September
30, 2005, shall be for inspection technology; of which such
sums as become available in the Customs User Fee Account,
except sums subject to section 13021(f)(3) of the
Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (19
U.S.C. 58c(f)(3)), shall be derived from that account; and of
which not to exceed $5,000,000 shall be for payments or
advances arising out of contractual or reimbursable
agreements with State and local law enforcement agencies
while engaged in cooperative activities related to
immigration: Provided, That none of the funds available to
the Directorate of Border and Transportation Security may be
used to pay any employee overtime pay in an amount in excess
of $30,000 during the calendar year beginning January 1,
2004, except that the Commissioner of Customs and Border
Protection may exceed such limitation as necessary for
national security purposes and in cases of immigration
emergencies: Provided further, That uniforms may be purchased
without regard to the general purchase price limitation for
the current fiscal year: Provided further, That no funds
shall be available for the site acquisition, design, or
construction of any Border Patrol checkpoint in the Tucson
sector: Provided further, That the Border Patrol shall
relocate its checkpoints in the Tucson sector at least once
every 7 days in a manner designed to prevent persons subject
to inspection from predicting the location of any such
checkpoint.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Obey
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Obey:
In title II, in the item relating to ``Bureau of Customs
and Border Protection--salaries and expenses'', after the
aggregate dollar amount, insert ``(increased by
$100,000,000)''.
In title II, in the item relating to ``Bureau of
Immigration and Customs Enforcement--salaries and expenses'',
after the aggregate dollar amount, insert ``(increased by
$200,000,000)''.
In title II, in the item relating to ``TRANSPORTATION
SECURITY ADMINISTRATION--Aviation Security''--
(1) after the aggregate dollar amount, insert ``(increased
by $150,000,000)''; and
(2) insert before the period at the end the following:
: Provided further, That of the total amount provided under
this heading, $75,000,000 shall be available only for grants
to airports for perimeter security improvements, $50,000,000
shall be available only to screen cargo carried on passenger
aircraft, and $25,000,000 shall be available only to ensure
that overseas aircraft maintenance facilities that service
United States aircraft comply with United States security
standards
In title II, in the item relating to ``TRANSPORTATION
SECURITY ADMINISTRATION--Maritime and Land Security'', after
each of the dollar amounts, insert ``(increased by
$400,000,000)''.
In title IV, in the item relating to ``UNITED STATES COAST
GUARD--Operating Expenses''--
(1) after the aggregate dollar amount, insert ``(increased
by $100,000,000)''; and
(2) insert before the period at the end the following:
: Provided further, That of the total amount provided under
this heading, $100,000,000 shall be for implementation of all
of the requirements of the Maritime Transportation Security
Act of 2002 (Pub. L. 107-295)
In title IV, in the item relating to ``INFORMATION ANALYSIS
AND INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION--Operating Expenses'', after
the aggregate dollar amount, insert ``(increased by
$50,000,000)''.
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. ____. In the case of taxpayers with adjusted gross
income in excess of $1,000,000 for the tax year beginning in
2003, the amount of tax reduction resulting from enactment of
the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003
(Pub. L. 108-27) shall be reduced by 5.66 percent.
Mr. OBEY. (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent
that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the Record.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Wisconsin?
There was no objection.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, this amendment attempts to do six things. It
would add $400 million for port facility security grants. The Coast
Guard says that we need more than $4.5 billion over time to secure
those operations. At the committee rate of only an additional $100
million per year, it would take 20 years for us to get halfway to the
task that is defined for us by the Coast Guard. I do not think that is
fast enough. We would also add $100 million for the Coast Guard to
implement the Maritime Transportation Security Act, which passed this
Congress last November, which is aimed at strengthening our ability to
analyze vessel threat information.
We need simply look at the newspaper headlines yesterday about
explosives bound for Sudan that were picked up by the Greek government,
680 tons of explosives and 8,000 detonators in the ship Baltic Sky,
which the inspectors described as being tantamount to the power of an
atomic bomb. I think that makes eminently clear why we need to protect
our own ports to a greater extent.
Thirdly, we would add $100 million to increase the inspections of
containers that are being shipped to this country. Right now we inspect
only 2 percent. We would add 1,300 more inspectors. We are just
scratching the surface in terms of what we need.
Fourth, we would add $200 million to improve northern border
security. That border is 5,500 miles long. It is highly vulnerable. I
referred earlier to the some 60 aircraft that flew across that border
unannounced and unflagged over the past year.
We would then add $150 million for aviation security to secure
airport perimeters and to strengthen our ability to screen cargo on
passenger planes. It is kind of strange to provide screening for
passengers if we do not provide it for cargo.
Lastly, we would add $50 million for the Information Analysis and
Infrastructure Protection Division in the new agency that is supposed
to be the nerve center, the brain, of that agency in targeting what our
biggest vulnerabilities are. We would pay for that by reducing the size
of the tax cut that was passed by this Congress. We would reduce the
size of the tax cut for taxpayers who earn more than $1 million a year.
They are scheduled to get an $88,000 tax cut. We would reduce that tax
cut to $83,000. So instead of getting $17.7 billion next year, they
would only get $16.6 billion in tax reduction. I hardly think that is
laying a scratch on them.
Mr. Chairman, the purpose of the Budget Act was to try to force the
Congress to recognize the choices and the trade-offs that are attendant
to any budget. The problem is that the way the budget process has been
used, we have a situation in which we have a huge disconnect between
actions on the tax bill and the consequences that flow in terms of
reduced services and reduced security for the country. So I would
simply ask that we recognize that this amendment meets essential
services. It provides essential services, and it also has the added
feature of demonstrating that there is a price to pay for tax cuts
primarily aimed at such high-income people, especially when it means
and requires that by the time we finish our action on the tax side of
the ledger, we have only table scraps left to provide needed services
not just for homeland security for that matter but for education,
health care, and a number of other crucial items.
For those who say we are invading the jurisdiction of another
committee, we did that at the expressed request of the House leadership
just a few months ago on the omnibus appropriations bill. So this is
nothing new, and I would urge support for the amendment, Mr. Chairman.
Point of Order
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) insist on
his point of order?
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against
the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and
constitutes legislation in an appropriations bill and therefore
violates clause 2 of rule XXI, which states, in part, an amendment to a
general appropriations bill shall not be in order if changing existing
law, and I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
The CHAIRMAN. Does any other Member desire to be heard on the point
of order? The gentleman from Wisconsin.
[[Page H5758]]
Parliamentary Inquiries
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I do and I would first raise a parliamentary
inquiry. Could the Chair tell us what rules were waived by the
Committee on Rules for consideration of the majority committee bill and
its provisions?
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will read the pertinent portion of House
Resolution 293, the rule providing for consideration of this bill in
Committee of the Whole, and that portion is: ``Points of order against
provisions in the bill for failure to comply with section 501 of House
Concurrent Resolution 95 and clause 2 of rule XXI are waived except as
follows: sections 514, 521, and 522.''
{time} 1515
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I have a further parliamentary inquiry.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. OBEY. Is it not true that the selective waiving of the rules as
cited by the Chair make clear that the DeLauro amendment and the Sabo
amendment, which were offered in committee, were not protected by the
rule? That is the practical effect of that language, as I understand
it.
The CHAIRMAN. The sections specified in the rule, 514, 521, and 522,
are not protected.
Mr. OBEY. So my understanding is that that means that the DeLauro
language on corporate expatriates and the Sabo amendment with respect
to CAPPS were both precluded from being considered by the House.
Would the Chair answer one other parliamentary inquiry, please. What
rules are waived to enable my amendment to be offered on behalf of the
minority?
The CHAIRMAN. The rule does not speak to amendments to the bill.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, then let me simply raise a further
parliamentary inquiry.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman may state it.
Mr. OBEY. Because what I think the Chair just said is that the
Committee on Rules, in contrast to the way it handled majority
provisions, that the Committee on Rules did not make in order a waiver
for our side of the aisle.
But let me ask the Chair as a parliamentary inquiry, is it not
correct that on the omnibus appropriations bill just a few months ago
that we amended the Medicare Act not once, but in two separate areas,
to provide a 6 percent increase in funding for providers under the
Medicare Act, even though that was considered invading another
committee's jurisdiction?
Is it also not true that on that omnibus legislation the committee
was allowed to increase payments under division N, section 401(b) of
the Medicare Act for rural hospitals? Is it not true that we waived the
rules to allow the U.S. Customs Service to conduct vehicle inspections
on the Canadian side of the U.S.-Canada border? And is it not also true
that during the tumultuous debate about what to do about the dilemma of
the airlines, that we waived rules again to allow the committee to
include in its appropriation bill the bailout for the airlines as well
as the extension of unemployment benefits to those in that industry?
The CHAIRMAN. As the Chair stated on June 26, 2002, the Chair cannot
place issues into historical context; and, therefore, the gentleman has
not stated a proper parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. OBEY. Well then, Mr. Chairman, I would simply say that I would
urge the Chair to uphold my right to offer this amendment, because I
cannot believe that the majority leadership would want to be so unfair
as to waive provisions of our rules for the majority party's bill, but
to not extend the same opportunity to those of us on the minority side,
and to point out that I have just recited four instances where, just a
few months ago, the majority leadership insisted that we provide these
waivers for these nonappropriated purposes.
The CHAIRMAN. Do further Members wish to speak on the point of order?
If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
The gentleman from Kentucky makes a point of order that the amendment
proposes to change existing law in violation of clause 2(c) of rule
XXI.
The amendment, in pertinent part, proposes to increase budget
authority to be offset by a change in certain tax statutes under the
Internal Revenue Code.
As the Chair previously ruled on September 8, 1999, and July 26,
2001, an amendment to a general appropriation bill addressing tax-rate
reduction under the Internal Revenue Code constitutes legislation in
violation of clause 2(c) of rule XXI; and, therefore, the point of
order is sustained.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, on that I most reluctantly and respectfully
move to appeal the ruling of the Chair.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is, Shall the decision of the Chair stand
as the judgment of the committee?
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 222,
noes 200, not voting 12, as follows:
[Roll No. 305]
AYES--222
Aderholt
Akin
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole
Collins
Cox
Crane
Crenshaw
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Emerson
English
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gillmor
Gingrey
Goode
Goodlatte
Goss
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Janklow
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
McCotter
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Turner (OH)
Upton
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (FL)
NOES--200
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Ballance
Becerra
Bell
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Case
Clay
Clyburn
Cooper
Costello
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley (CA)
Doyle
Edwards
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Grijalva
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Kleczka
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lynch
[[Page H5759]]
Majette
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Sandlin
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sherman
Skelton
Slaughter
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Turner (TX)
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOT VOTING--12
Baird
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Camp
Conyers
Cubin
Garrett (NJ)
Gephardt
Gilchrest
Gutierrez
Paul
Smith (WA)
Young (AK)
Announcement by the Chairman
The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised that there are
less than 2 minutes remaining in this vote.
{time} 1541
Mr. PASCRELL changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no''.
Mr. HEFLEY changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye''.
So the decision of the Chair stands as the judgment of the Committee.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to this paragraph? If not,
the Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
In addition, for administrative expenses related to the
collection of the Harbor Maintenance Fee, pursuant to Public
Law 103-182, and notwithstanding section 1511(e)(1) of Public
Law 107-296, $3,000,000 to be derived from the Harbor
Maintenance Trust Fund and to be transferred to and merged
with this account.
Automation Modernization
For expenses not otherwise provided for Bureau of Customs
and Border Protection automated systems, $493,727,000, to
remain available until expended, of which not less than
$318,690,000 shall be for the development of the Automated
Commercial Environment: Provided, That none of the funds
appropriated under this heading may be obligated for the
Automated Commercial Environment until the Bureau of Customs
and Border Protection prepares and submits to the Committees
on Appropriations a plan for expenditure that (1) meets the
capital planning and investment control review requirements
established by the Office of Management and Budget, including
OMB Circular A-11, part 3; (2) complies with the Bureau of
Customs and Border Protection's Enterprise Information
Systems Architecture; (3) complies with the acquisition
rules, requirements, guidelines, and systems acquisition
management practices of the Federal Government; (4) is
reviewed and approved by the Bureau of Customs and Border
Protection Investment Review Board, the Department of
Homeland Security, and the Office of Management and Budget;
and (5) is reviewed by the General Accounting Office:
Provided further, That none of the funds appropriated under
this heading may be obligated for the Automated Commercial
Environment until such expenditure plan has been approved by
the Committees on Appropriations.
IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT
Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement
salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses of the Bureau of Immigration and
Customs Enforcement for enforcement of immigration and
customs laws, detention and removals, investigations,
including planning, construction, and necessary related
activities of buildings and facilities, $2,030,000,000; of
which not to exceed $5,000,000, to remain available until
expended, shall be for conducting special operations pursuant
to Public Law 99-570 (19 U.S.C. 2081); of which not to exceed
$15,000 shall be for official reception and representation
expenses; of which not less than $100,000 shall be for
promotion of public awareness of the child pornography
tipline; and of which not less than $200,000 shall be for
Project Alert: Provided, That none of the funds available to
the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement may be used
to pay any employee overtime pay in an amount in excess of
$30,000 during the calendar year beginning January 1, 2004,
except that the Assistant Secretary of the Bureau of
Immigration and Customs Enforcement may exceed such
limitation as necessary for national security purposes and in
cases of immigration emergencies: Provided further, That of
the total amount of funds made available for activities to
enforce laws against forced child labor in fiscal year 2004,
not to exceed $5,000,000 shall remain available until
expended for support of such activities: Provided further,
That uniforms may be purchased without regard to the general
purchase price limitation for the current fiscal year.
Federal Protective Service
(including transfer of funds)
For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for the
operations of the Federal Protective Service, $424,211,000
shall be transferred from the revenues and collections in the
General Services Administration, Federal Buildings Fund.
Automation and Infrastructure Modernization
For expenses not otherwise provided for Bureau of
Immigration and Customs Enforcement automated systems,
$367,605,000, to remain available until expended, of which
not less than $350,000,000 shall be for the development of
the United States Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator
Technology system (US VISIT): Provided, That none of the
funds appropriated under this heading may be obligated for US
VISIT until the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement
prepares and submits to the Committees on Appropriations a
plan for expenditure that (1) meets the capital planning and
investment control review requirements established by the
Office of Management and Budget, including OMB Circular A-11,
part 3; (2) complies with the Bureau of Immigration and
Customs Enforcement Enterprise Information Systems
Architecture; (3) complies with the acquisition rules,
requirements, guidelines, and systems acquisition management
practices of the Federal Government; (4) is reviewed and
approved by the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement
Investment Review Board, the Department of Homeland Security,
and the Office of Management and Budget; and (5) is reviewed
by the General Accounting Office: Provided further, That none
of the funds appropriated under this heading may be obligated
for US VISIT until such expenditure plan has been approved by
the Committees on Appropriations.
Air and Marine Interdiction
For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for the
operation, maintenance and procurement of marine vessels,
aircraft, and other related equipment of the Office of Air
and Marine Interdiction of the Bureau of Immigration and
Customs Enforcement, including operational training and
mission-related travel, and rental payments for facilities
occupied by the air or marine interdiction and demand
reduction programs, the operations of which include the
following: conducting homeland security operations;
interdiction of narcotics and other illegal substances or
items; the provision of support to Department of Homeland
Security and other Federal, State, and local agencies in the
enforcement or administration of laws enforced by the Bureau
of Immigration and Customs Enforcement; and, at the
discretion of the Under Secretary for Border and
Transportation Security, the provision of assistance to
Federal, State, and local agencies in other law enforcement
and emergency humanitarian efforts, $175,000,000, which shall
remain available until expended: Provided, That no aircraft
or other related equipment, with the exception of aircraft
that are one of a kind and have been identified as excess to
Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement requirements
and aircraft that have been damaged beyond repair, shall be
transferred to any other Federal agency, department, or
office outside of the Department of Homeland Security, during
fiscal year 2004 without the prior approval of the Committees
on Appropriations.
Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. LoBiondo
Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 7 offered by Mr. LoBiondo:
In title II, in the item ``IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS
ENFORCEMENT--Air and Marine Interdiction'', after the dollar
amount insert ``(reduced by $5,000,000)''.
In title II, in the item ``TRANSPORTATION SECURITY
ADMINISTRATION--Aviation Security''--
(1) after the first dollar amount insert ``(reduced by
$10,000,000)''; and
(2) after the fourth dollar mount insert ``(reduced by
$10,000,000)''.
In title II, in the item ``TRANSPORTATION SECURITY
ADMINISTRATION--Administration'', after the dollar amount
insert ``(reduced by $36,000,000)''.
In title IV, in the item ``CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
SERVICES--Operating Expenses'', after the dollar amount
insert ``(reduced by $12,000,000)''.
In title IV, in the item ``UNITED STATES COAST GUARD--
Operating Expenses'', after the first dollar amount insert
``(increased by $35,000,000)''.
In title IV, in the item ``UNITED STATES COAST GUARD--
Acquisitions, Construction, and Improvements''--
(1) after the first dollar amount insert ``(increased by
$75,000,000)''; and
(2) after the sixth dollar amount insert ``(increased by
$75,000,000)''.
[[Page H5760]]
In title IV, in the item ``SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY--
Research, Development, Acquisition, and Operations'', after
the dollar amount insert ``(reduced by $47,000,000)''.
Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment that
continues my campaign and the campaign of many others to ensure that
our maritime security efforts have as much resources available to
defend against the potential disaster of an attack at one or more of
our ports. My amendment would increase funding for the Coast Guard by
$110 million; $35 million would go to fund the congressionally mandated
review and approval of approximately 10,000 facilities and vessel
security plans that owners and operators must submit to the Coast Guard
next year; and $75 million to help get the critically needed Deep Water
Acquisition Program back on track.
My amendment would provide roughly half of what has been requested
for support by the Coast Guard for these programs.
{time} 1545
Tomorrow in the full Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
session, we will be marking up the 2004 Coast Guard Authorization Act,
which provides the funding for these important programs at the level
requested and supported by the Coast Guard.
I would add that over 85 Members of the House have sent the
appropriators a letter in support of our authorized level of funding.
At a May 22 hearing before my subcommittee, the commandant of the
Coast Guard explained that the Coast Guard would need an additional $70
million to fund 150 full-time personnel to review and approve of the
Vessel and Facility Security Plans mandated by the MTSA. If these plans
are not reviewed and approved by the Coast Guard within a year of its
submission, the owners will not be allowed to operate their vessels in
U.S. waters, and noncompliant port facilities would be shut down.
With 95 percent of our Nation's trade entering and leaving our ports,
this will have a chilling effect on our economy. Moreover, without
additional funding to meet this congressionally imposed mandate, the
Coast Guard will have to divert precious resources and personnel from
other traditional missions, including search and rescue, drug
interdiction, and fisheries enforcement. My amendment would provide $35
million for this purpose, half of what is needed.
At a June 3 hearing before my subcommittee, the commandant announced
his support for the $702 million in funding for Deepwater. This level
of funding represents what is needed to counteract 3 years of
underfunding and would get the program back on track.
The Coast Guard operates the second oldest naval fleet in the world,
and some assets have been commissioned since World War II. Nearly half
of the 110-foot Patrol Boat Fleet is in immediate need of repair for
structural deterioration and has cost over 6 months of lost patrol days
on the west coast. On average, the High Endurance Cutter Fleet is
having a fire in their main engineering spaces on every patrol, and the
fleet's main search and rescue helicopter is equipped with radar
designed and installed nearly 20 years ago. Therefore, the successful
and timely implementation of Deepwater would ensure that the Coast
Guard would have the modern assets necessary to respond to any threats
necessary.
Mr. Chairman, I understand the very difficult decision-making process
that confronted the appropriators in drafting this bill. I commend the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr.
Rogers) for their work, and at this point I would indicate my
willingness to withdraw my amendment if the gentleman from Kentucky
(Mr. Rogers) would be willing to enter into a colloquy with me.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the amendment.
Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Chairman, will the chairman enter into a colloquy
with me on this subject?
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I certainly will.
Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Chairman, as I have said, I am willing to withdraw
my amendment if the gentleman agrees to work with me as the bill moves
forward to increase funding for the Deepwater program and provide
additional funding for the review and approval of the Vessel and
Facility Security Plans.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I thank the gentleman for his advocacy on
behalf of the Coast Guard, and he has been a champion at that for his
entire career in the Congress.
While I cannot support his amendment, I do recognize the need to
provide additional funding for Deepwater and for the administrative
costs associated with the review and approval of the congressionally
mandated facility and vessels security plans. I look forward to
continuing to work with the gentleman from New Jersey to ensure
adequate resources are made for these priorities in fiscal 2004.
Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his leadership
on this issue and recognize the very difficult decision-making process
he was confronted with in development of this bill.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
New Jersey?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The amendment is withdrawn.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, as Members of Congress, our first responsibility set
forth in the preamble to the Constitution is to provide for the common
defense. In our time, the common defense means protecting our homeland
from terrorists, as well as from traditional military threats to our
interests at home and abroad.
The consideration of the first-ever appropriations bill for the
Department of Homeland Security could have been a historic opportunity
to demonstrate our commitment to the common defense by addressing some
of the most glaring deficiencies in our Nation's security. Sadly, it is
yet another missed opportunity.
The Republican's Homeland Security bill does not provide the
resources necessary to do the job. The Republican bill does not meet
the broad needs of our ports, our borders, our air transportation
system, and other critical parts of our infrastructure.
In determining the Nation's priorities, the Republican majority has
chosen to cut taxes for those who need it least, while shortchanging
the homeland security needs of everyday Americans. The gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the Committee on Appropriations ranking member,
showed great leadership with an amendment to provide for America's
security, to provide for the common defense, to protect the homeland.
The amendment would have provided an additional $1 billion to improve
homeland security by adding $500 million to port security, everyone
recognizes that is the minimum figure that is needed to protect our
ports; $100 million to assist in the development of an automated vessel
tracking system; $200 million to pay either for a year-round air and
marine interdiction program at our northern border or to increase to
6,900 the number of agents patrolling the northern border by the end of
fiscal year 2004; $150 million in security grants to airports and
overseas maintenance facilities; and, finally, $50 million for
vulnerable assessments at critical infrastructure locations.
Where would this $1 billion come from? The Obey amendment would be
paid for by rolling back the tax cut for millionaires, that is, people
making $1 million per year. People making $1 million a year or more
would have their tax cut cut from $88,326 to $83,326. For that $5,000,
for the 200,000 people making over $1 million a year, by reducing their
tax cut from $88,000 to $83,000, America can be much safer.
What would my colleagues choose, to protect the American people or to
give $5,000 more to people making $1 million a year or more?
Mr. Chairman, success in both the war on terrorism and the effort to
better protect our Nation and its people will require a sustained
effort and a resolve lasting many years. This bill should have been a
testament to that resolve; but sadly, it is not. We need to act now to
protect the American people.
[[Page H5761]]
Recent history suggests that our security could be tested anytime and
any place. We know what our exposure is, what our vulnerabilities are.
The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) addressed them in his
amendment. We must take every step to be ready. We have that
responsibility.
Providing for the common defense is enshrined in our Constitution as
one of our highest responsibilities. Its importance as a national
priority is not reflected in this bill.
I want to commend the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) for his
leadership, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo) for his as well,
and it is with the highest regard for the chairman of the subcommittee
who has served in this House with great dignity that I regret opposing
what has been put forth by the Republican leadership on the floor
today. It again misses an opportunity for the American people.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter into a colloquy with the
distinguished gentleman from Kentucky. I would like to address the
issue of how our national emergency preparedness and response plan
addresses older Americans, the disabled, and others with special needs.
Our experience with the horrible attacks of September 11, 2001,
exposed gaps in our response plan as many elderly and disabled people
living near the World Trade Center were trapped for days before
receiving assistance. Successive evaluations have identified particular
problems, including lack of coordination in city-wide community
services, lack of a system to identify and locate older and disabled
people, and lack of access to necessary public information both before
and after an emergency.
I believe this issue is of great importance in the event of a future
terrorist attack and I look forward to working with the gentleman in
addressing this great need.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the
distinguished gentleman for his very thoughtful comments and agree that
the needs of older Americans and those with special needs should be
addressed. I look forward to working with the gentleman on this
important issue.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his comments.
Ms. McCARTHY of Missouri. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
(Ms. McCARTHY of Missouri asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Ms. McCARTHY of Missouri. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend both the
majority and the minority members and the appropriations staff for
their hard work on this first homeland security appropriations bill. I
realize that this has been a formidable task.
Never the less, I am concerned that we have not given enough debate
to issues raised by our state and local government officials and our
local first responders.
For instance, fire fighters in Kansas City have told me that we must
develop and fund an infrastructure to communicate effectively with
agencies in the same community as well as surrounding communities
during times of crisis.
Moreover, our local public health officials must have the necessary
resources to be adequately prepared to cope with emergencies,
particularly bioterroist attacks.
As the ranking member of the subcommittee on intelligence and
counterterrorism of the select committee on homeland security, I
question the Department of Homeland Security's ability to provide
accurate and timely intelligence assessments, including bioterrorism
threats to this country with the limited resources provided in H.R.
2555.
I thank the chair for the opportunity to address these important
issues, and hope that in conference the additional funds called for by
the ranking member, Mr. Obey (the gentleman from Wisconsin) will be
included.
The American people deserve such protection. Our first responders
deserve such resources to assure the protection of the people they
serve.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
Aviation Security
For necessary expenses of the Transportation Security
Administration related to providing civil aviation security
services pursuant to Public Law 107-71, $3,679,200,000, to
remain available until expended, of which not to exceed
$3,000 shall be for official reception and representation
expenses: Provided, That of such total amount, not to exceed
$1,672,700,000 shall be for passenger screening activities;
not to exceed $1,284,800,000 shall be for baggage screening
activities; and not to exceed $721,700,000 shall be for
airport support and enforcement presence: Provided further,
That security service fees authorized under section 44940 of
title 49, United States Code, shall be credited to this
appropriation as offsetting collections and used for
providing civil aviation security services authorized by that
section: Provided further, That the sum herein appropriated
from the General Fund shall be reduced on a dollar-for-dollar
basis as such offsetting collections are received during
fiscal year 2004, so as to result in a final fiscal year
appropriation from the General Fund estimated at not more
than $1,609,200,000: Provided further, That any security
service fees collected in excess of the amount appropriated
under this heading shall be treated as offsetting collections
in fiscal year 2005: Provided further, That none of the funds
in this Act shall be used to recruit or hire personnel into
the Transportation Security Administration which would cause
the agency to exceed a staffing level of 45,000 full-time
equivalent screeners: Provided further, That of the total
amount provided herein, $235,000,000 shall be available only
for physical modification of commercial service airports for
the purpose of installing checked baggage explosive detection
systems and $100,000,000 shall be available only for
procurement of checked baggage explosive detection systems.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Terry
Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Terry:
Page 11, line 12, insert after the dollar amount the
following: ``(reduced by $20,000,000)''.
Page 16, line 23, insert after the dollar amount the
following: ``(increased by $10,000,000)''.
Page 17, line 3, insert after the dollar amount the
following: ``(increased by $10,000,000)''.
Page 22, line 1, insert after the dollar amount the
following: ``(increased by $10,000,000)''.
Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is simple in the sense that
what it does is it provides 20 million additional dollars for our first
responders, and it takes it from a flush, although well-improved,
Transportation Security Agency.
I want to start off by complimenting the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr.
Rogers), the chairman of the subcommittee. Most of the time when an
amendment is offered, it is because that person has disagreed
philosophically with the direction of that particular appropriation. I
am here to compliment the chairman and say that I agree with his
priorities, Mr. Chairman, and two of those priorities that he has
provided are an extra $1 billion of funding for our first responders
above the President's request. He has also decreased to bring down the
number of TSA agents in our airports, and I greatly appreciate both of
those.
My goal here today is to improve on what the gentleman has already
done, Mr. Chairman. I would like us to take an even bigger step in
helping our first responders.
When we look at our homeland security today, we rely a great deal on
our fire, police and emergency services; and while we talk about a new
Homeland Security Department and funding that Department, most of the
people receive a vision of a top-down system that comes from
Washington, D.C., down to the local levels. But the reality is when an
emergency occurs, when a terrorist attack occurs, whether it is in
Oklahoma City or Omaha or New York City or Washington, D.C., the first
people on the scene, to take control of the scene, to rescue those that
have been injured or killed in the security area are our first
responders.
{time} 1600
I do not think we can do enough to provide them the proper training
and the proper equipment. I have talked to our police officers, who
call themselves blue canaries, because they know that when an emergency
occurs, when they run into those buildings to secure the areas, they
say they know it is biological or chemical or deadly when they keel
over. Well, I think when we have a national security policy, a homeland
security policy that relies on them, I would like to provide them
additional dollars.
Now, why the TSA? I think most of us that go through airports can
tell of personal examples with what appears
[[Page H5762]]
to be a very flush budget in the respect of seeing the number of white
shirts with patches standing around. In fact, at my airport in Eppley,
just a few months ago, there was an extremely long line, as there was
on Monday morning, but they only had one of the stations open. And I
asked the person why there was only one security station open when
there were as many as 10 twelve white shirts standing around, and I was
told, quote-unquote, they are on break. I called our new security
administrator for Eppley and he told me it was broken down. Now, the
people on the scene had a different opinion. But that is just one
example.
Unfortunately, over the last few months what we have also seen is not
only the vast number of employees standing around but the vast number
of passengers standing in extremely long passenger lines. Last week, at
Reagan National, it literally went out the door. It literally went out
the door, yet there were many employees there working. How does that
happen, when there is more employees than there were before and the
lines are two or three times longer? We are having record numbers of
people standing in lines and a number of complaints coming into our
office about our own airport.
Now, I go through a lot of airports, and I have talked, Mr. Chairman,
to several people in charge of these airports. I get really extremely
harsh critique of TSA from airport administrators. In fact, one told me
that he wanted to find out the background of the security administrator
appointed to their airport to see if this person had any experience
with civil airports. TSA denied the request, so a Freedom of
Information Act was filed and that was denied on PATRIOT Act grounds.
So we do not even know if the people being appointed have any
experience in providing security.
At least in Omaha, Nebraska, I know there were two or three people
that would have been grade-A-plus in security, yet they were denied for
someone we do not even know the background of. And how many of us have
similar experiences to tell?
So, Mr. Chairman, I understand your position and I respect it, but I
stand by my amendment to help our first responders.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
Let me say, Mr. Chairman, I reluctantly, very reluctantly rise to
oppose this amendment. The gentleman is a good Member, and he has
expressed heartfelt thoughts here. And, goodness knows, I have
expressed very serious and long-standing reservations about the number
of screeners that TSA has deployed in airports throughout the country.
But in the bill before us we already reduce the number of screeners by
another 4,600 in fiscal 2004, and that is on top of the 6,000 screeners
that will be laid off between now and September of this year. That
would be a reduction from current levels, roughly, of some 10,600 less
than we have now.
In the 2002 bill, when it was in Transportation, we capped the number
of screeners at 45,000. This cut the gentleman would make would take us
well below that cap. This further reduction of $20 million from the
screener fund would require them to lay off another 500 to 1,000
screeners on top of what I just mentioned. That would take us well
below the 45,000 level that we had set now for the 2 or 3 years in the
Congress as the maximum level at TSA.
The monies the gentleman would take from TSA he would give to the
first responders, and heavens knows we want to give them all we can,
but in this bill, as the gentleman mentioned, we are already $1 billion
for first responders above what the President requested, and some $200
million plus above what the current level of spending for first
responders is. So I just think that it would be unwise to adopt this
amendment, as much as I sympathize with the gentleman's philosophy in
offering it.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I would join the chairman in opposing the
amendment. The committee and the chairman have been very tough task
masters of TSA when it comes to the number of screeners. We have been
urging them for a long time to use more part-time people and to make
more efficient use of their personnel. On the other hand, if we get too
harsh, there may be imbalance around the country in terms of where
there are vacancies and where there are an overabundance. So if we get
too tough, we can be very counterproductive.
I agree with the chairman that first responder money is important,
but the committee has been very disciplined in dealing with TSA, and I
would join the chairman in opposing this additional cut.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I thank the
gentleman. I would rather that we let the TSA absorb these cuts that we
already have in place, which will cut 10,600 screeners by the end of
2004. Let us do that before we take further steps. We can assess it at
that time. If we still have a problem, I would be supportive of the
gentleman's amendment. But for the moment, I think we have done just
about enough.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry).
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I was intending to offer an amendment to this title of
the bill, but the amendment is to increase the appropriation in the
bill by $5 billion for the purpose of stationing American inspectors in
every foreign port from where ships leave for the United States in
order to inspect every container before it is put on a ship bound for
the United States. Unfortunately, I could not find a $5 billion offset
in this bill. What I wanted to do, obviously, was to reduce the tax
cuts, the hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars of tax cuts, by
$5 billion to offset this. But the rules of the House do not permit
that, so my hands are tied.
Let me address for a moment the necessity of this amendment, if not
in this bill then elsewhere. The greatest danger this Nation faces,
which we are not addressing in any real shape or form, is that some
foreign terrorist group, al-Qaeda, whoever, or some rogue nation, will
get hold of a nuclear bomb and attack the United States. We are
spending about $100 billion on an anti-ballistic missile system
ostensibly to meet that threat. But think about it a minute. The leader
of any rogue nation who had a few atomic bombs and wanted to attack the
United States would not put them on a missile, because a missile has a
return address. We would know from where the missile came, if God
forbid someone attacked American cities. That leader would know that if
he launched nuclear-tipped missiles at American cities, his country
would cease to exist, along with his regime and him, would cease to
exist a half-hour later. So he would not put the atomic bombs on a
missile, he would put them in a ship.
Mr. Chairman, six million shipping containers come into this country
per year. We inspect less than 2 percent of them. Ninety-eight percent
of those six million containers, for all we know, have atomic bombs in
them. It does not do any good to inspect them in Newark or New York or
Los Angeles where they night explode. I know Secretary Ridge and others
are saying we are going to set aside a few hundred million dollars and
send some inspectors to foreign ports to look at some high-risk
containers. High risk? Well, if we look at the high-risk containers,
the bombs will be in the low-risk containers, or at least those that
used to be low risk.
Mr. Chairman, the catastrophe that could be caused from one atomic
bomb in an American city would make 9/11 look like child's play. That
catastrophe would cost half a million lives immediately, probably
trillions, trillions in economic damage. We cannot afford to risk one
nuclear explosion in an American city. President Bush said, when he was
trying to motivate a war with Iraq, that we could not wait for the
mushroom cloud. Well, I am not so sure the facts justified that
reference with respect to Iraq, but they most certainly justify that
reference with respect to six million shipping containers coming into
this country with God knows what inside.
So, Mr. Chairman, my amendment that I would have offered, if the
majority did not prevent me from offering this amendment, would have
appropriated $5 billion, which is little
[[Page H5763]]
enough for this purpose, and would have sufficed to enable an American
inspection team to see to it that no container, not one container, is
put on any ship bound for the United States in a foreign port until
that container is searched and sealed and certified by an American
inspection team in the foreign port to say there is no weapon of mass
destruction on board that.
Mr. Chairman, if we do not do this, during the war that we are
engaged in now and maybe for the next 10, 20, 30, or 40 years with the
terrorists, then we ought to have our collective heads examined. Any
American city could be destroyed, millions of lives lost by one atomic
bomb in any container in any ship. We cannot afford not to spend the
money to search and inspect every single container, whether our
intelligence people think it is a high-risk or a low-risk container,
every container in a foreign port with an American inspection team to
make sure there is no weapon of mass destruction on board that
container.
For $5 billion, Mr. Chairman, we could do that. Five billion dollars
a year. Compare that to trillions of dollars in tax cuts that we have
passed in these last 2 years. Where does the risk lie for the American
people? I would urge, and I would challenge the Bush administration to
make the $5 billion a year available and to institute this and to say
to foreign countries that no container gets put on a ship in their port
without being inspected first by an American inspection team.
And, by the way, if they did not want an American inspection team in
their ports, that is fine, they are sovereign, but they cannot ship
anything to the United States. We must hermetically seal this country
from nuclear bombs possibly contained in ships, and this is the only
way to do it. The failure of this Congress and of the administration to
deal with this subject seriously is one that I hope will not result in
cataclysmic catastrophe for the American people.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I could not let the gentleman's statement go
unanswered. We cannot talk in this forum about all that we are doing at
our ports in searching container freight and other freight. I would be
happy to talk to any Member privately about it, but we cannot talk
about all that we are doing in a public forum because it is sensitive
information.
However, the Customs and Border Protection Agency tells me that they
are inspecting 100 percent of all high-risk cargo based on collecting
advanced information such as manifests, intelligence, and targeting
systems. I have had the experience of going to some of those ports
myself and watching the operation. Watching as we use the equipment on
these containers that we do search and then the ones that we physically
search.
The 2003 spending bill had monies in it for a thing called the
Container Security Initiative, essentially operating at about 20
megaports and several smaller ports all over the world. The idea is to
push the perimeter of defense off of our shores. We all know if a bad
container gets to us, it is too late. If you catch it only when it
comes to your port, it is too late. So we have moved offshore to 20
megaports now, places like Rotterdam, Singapore, and the like, and
inspecting and searching and securing containers before they ever sail
for America.
{time} 1615
Mr. Chairman, the bill provides $62 million to expand that to 30
megaports around the world and especially those in very sensitive parts
of the world.
Now we already have in place $165 million from the wartime
supplemental that we passed for additional inspectors, agents,
technology and $129 million for additional inspection technology in
this bill. Those monies will be used to push the border out to these 30
foreign seaports through the Container Security Initiative, but there
is also $12 million for government-private partnerships to tighten
security in private facilities and $3 million to continue what is
called the Operation Safe Commerce to make smart containers and our
supply chain even more secure.
I want Members to know that we are focusing exactly on what the
gentleman has talked about, and that is container freight. There are
more than 17 million containers a year, there is 17 million a year; 7
million comes by sea, 12 million by land across our borders with Mexico
and Canada. It is a huge problem to deal with.
However, if we stop and search physically every single container
regardless of whether or not it looks to be suspicious for some reason,
we would absolutely shut down commerce in the world. So much of our
commerce depends on the container freight business. I think we are
going about it the sensible way. I am convinced after having visited
several ports, spending a lot of time with the folks that are doing
this, looking at the machinery and the results and how they go about
doing it, that we are doing as good as we can in the span of time that
we have had. Obviously it is going to get better. We are going to keep
pushing at it. That is the reason we have loaded this bill down with
money for that very purpose. I thank the gentleman for bringing this
issue to us so we can discuss it.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
last word.
Mr. Chairman, I wanted to pick up where the last two speakers spoke,
and that is the question of port security and what we know or do not
know about the 20 million containers that come across America's borders
every year, come by truck and train traffic, and the rest through
ports.
I have to say that I appreciate that the committee is doing a lot.
The question is when will the committee be done doing its work, and
when will the Nation say that it knows enough about the containers
coming into its ports. I am not sure that we can inspect every port,
but what is very clear is the amount of information that we have to
have about these containers from the point of origin to the time that
they embark for the United States is incomplete. Even the effort to go
into the megaports, which I think is important since some 80 percent of
the commerce is shipped through those ports, that does not tell us,
that does not give us the kind of information about the containers even
coming to the megaports. That is what has to be established. A system,
a credible system has to be established so those individuals
responsible for the security of this Nation and the movement of those
containers across the borders of this Nation are able to make an
assessment as to the security of this Nation posed by those individual
containers.
We are not going to be able to inspect every one of them because
commerce is not going to allow us to do that. It would break down the
system. But we can require a great deal more information about the
contents of that container, the sealing of that container, the movement
of that container, through electronic locks, through GPS systems, so we
can start to trace that. Then we can make our decision upon risk. But
by the time that container gets into the port of Hamburg or Hong Kong
or Long Beach or Oakland, California, it is too late. If one of these
container goes up with a dirty bomb, you will shut down the globalized
container system in this world because we then will have to inspect
every container. That is too late. That is far too late.
The terrorist does not just have to strike. As we saw, terrorists now
understand that beyond the initial act are the economic consequences.
They now see what that means. But if they are going to come to the
United States and they want to do our people harm, they put in a
nuclear device, they put in a dirty bomb, inspecting it in the Port of
New York, the Port of Long Beach or the Port of Oakland is far too
late. It does not matter if it goes up on the ship once it comes
through the Golden Gate, if it goes up on the port property, or it goes
up on the railroad train, that is too late. Of those, we are inspecting
2-4 percent of the containers.
At some point we have to establish a deadline so that people will
know, as the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) said, if they want to
engage in commerce in the United States, an inspection system has to be
in place going back to the point of origin to follow that container all
of the way.
We did this in the oil spill liability provisions after the Exxon
Valdez. We said in 25 years if you want to continue to have access and
ship petroleum products to the United States, you will do it in double-
hulled ships. We should
[[Page H5764]]
be saying to the shippers, to international commerce, by 2004 or 2005
if you want to continue to have access, you have to provide for this
monitoring of cargo, for the transparency of the system and the
monitoring of the ships.
We have some 40,000 ships roaming around the world with containers on
them. This is the kind of system that the American public is entitled
to, and why so. As the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) pointed
out, many of the experts which have been briefing Congress since
September 11, 2001, have been telling us we are more likely to have a
dirty bomb come into this country by way of container than we will ever
have the risk of it coming in by way of missile. That is the threat to
the home front. That is the major threat.
What we see here, while we are taking these incremental steps and I
applaud many of them, we do not have a plan for deciding at what point
this is going to be a secure system. We have to start putting deadlines
on the transparency of this system, on the security of this system, and
access to the American markets. That is how we are going to get unified
system.
The gentleman from New York is right. The Container Security
Initiative, the Operation Safe Commerce, the Customs Trade Partnership
Against Terrorism are all important initiatives, but they are taking
too long. They are taking too long. What is the price of security? What
is the price of the home front? What is the price of a secure port
system and a secure transportation system? Those are the questions we
have to start asking ourselves, not whether we have put in another $100
million or $200 million; is the system secure. Right now we cannot tell
the American public that in the foreseeable future that our system is
secure.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there any further amendments to this paragraph?
If not, the Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Federal Air Marshals
For necessary expenses of the Federal air marshals,
$634,600,000, to remain available until expended.
Maritime and Land Security
For necessary expenses of the Transportation Security
Administration related to maritime and land transportation
security grants and services pursuant to Public Law 107-71,
$231,700,000, to remain available until expended: Provided,
That of such amount, $100,000,000 shall be available only to
make port security grants, which shall be distributed under
the same terms and conditions as provided for under Public
Law 107-117.
Intelligence
For necessary expenses of the Transportation Security
Administration related to transportation security
intelligence activities, $13,700,000, to remain available
until expended.
Research and Development
For necessary expenses of the Transportation Security
Administration for research and development related to
transportation security, $125,700,000, to remain available
until expended.
Administration
For necessary expenses of the Transportation Security
Administration for administrative activities, including
headquarters and field support, training, and information
technology, $487,100,000, to remain available until September
30, 2005.
FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT TRAINING CENTER
Salaries and Expenses
For the necessary expenses of the Federal Law Enforcement
Training Center, $136,629,000, of which $26,635,000 shall be
for material and support costs of Federal law enforcement
basic training and shall remain available until September 30,
2006, and of which not to exceed $12,000 shall be for
official reception and representation expenses: Provided,
That notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Center
is authorized to expend appropriations for the purchase of
police-type pursuit vehicles without regard to the general
purchase price limitation; student athletic and related
recreational activities; conducting and participating in
firearms matches and the presentation of awards for such
matches; public awareness and enhancing community support of
law enforcement training, including the advertisement and
marketing of available law enforcement training programs;
room and board for student interns; short-term medical
services for students undergoing training at Center training
facilities; travel expenses of non-Federal personnel
attending course development meetings; services authorized by
section 3109 of title 5, United States Code; support of
Federal law enforcement accreditation; and a flat monthly
reimbursement to employees authorized to use personal cell
phones for official duties: Provided further, That (1) funds
appropriated to this account may be used at the discretion of
the Center's Director to train United States Postal Service
law enforcement personnel, State and local law enforcement
personnel, foreign law enforcement personnel, and private
security personnel; (2) with the exception of private
security personnel, the Center's Director is authorized to
fully fund the cost of this training, including the cost of
non-Federal travel, or to seek full or partial reimbursement
for this training; and (3) such reimbursements shall be
deposited in this appropriation: Provided further, That the
Center is authorized to obligate funds in anticipation of
reimbursements from agencies receiving training at the
Center, except that total obligations at the end of the
fiscal year shall not exceed total budgetary resources
available at the end of the fiscal year: Provided further,
That the Center is authorized to accept and use gifts of
property, real and personnel, and to accept services, for
authorized purposes: Provided further, That the Center is
authorized to harvest timber and use the proceeds from timber
sales to supplement the Center's forest management and
environmental programs: Provided further, That
notwithstanding any other provision of law, students
attending training at any Center site shall reside in on-
center or center-provided housing, to the extent available
and in accordance with Center policy.
Acquisition, Construction, Improvements, and Related Expenses
For expansion of the Federal Law Enforcement Training
Center, for acquisition of necessary additional real property
and facilities, and for ongoing maintenance, facility
improvements, and related expenses, $32,323,000, to remain
available until expended: Provided, That the Federal Law
Enforcement Training Center is authorized to accept
reimbursement to this appropriation from government agencies
requesting the construction of special use facilities on
training centers operated by the Federal Law Enforcement
Training Center: Provided further, That notwithstanding any
other provision of law, all facilities shall remain under the
control of the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, which
shall be responsible for scheduling, use, maintenance, and
support.
OFFICE FOR DOMESTIC PREPAREDNESS
Domestic Preparedness
For grants, contracts, cooperative agreements, and other
activities of the Office for Domestic Preparedness, as
authorized by the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (Public Law
107-296) and the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 (Public Law 107-56),
$3,503,000,000, to remain available until expended: Provided,
That of the amount provided under this heading--
(1) $1,900,000,000 shall be for basic formula grants;
(2) $500,000,000 shall be for grants to State and local law
enforcement for terrorism prevention activities;
(3) $200,000,000 shall be for critical infrastructure
grants;
(4) $500,000,000 shall be for discretionary grants for use
in high-density urban areas and high-threat areas; and
(5) $35,000,000 shall be for grants for Centers for
Emergency Preparedness:
Provided further, That the application for grants
appropriated in subsections (1), (2), and (3) under this
heading shall be made available to States within 30 days of
enactment of this Act; States shall submit applications
within 30 days of the grant announcement; and the Office for
Domestic Preparedness shall act on each application within 15
days of receipt: Provided further, That 80 percent of the
funds appropriated in subsections (1), (2), (3), and (4)
under this heading to any State shall be allocated by the
State to units of local governments and shall be distributed
by the State within 60 days of the receipt of funds: Provided
further, That section 1014(c)(3) of Public Law 107-56 shall
not apply to funds appropriated in subsections (4) and (5)
under this heading: Provided further, That none of the funds
appropriated under this heading shall be used for
construction or renovation of facilities: Provided further,
That funds appropriated in subsections (3) and (4) under this
heading shall be available for operational costs, including
personnel overtime as needed.
Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mrs. Maloney
Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment No. 2 offered by Mrs. Maloney:
In title II, in the item ``OFFICE FOR DOMESTIC
PREPAREDNESS--Domestic Preparedness'', in paragraph (4) after
the dollar amount insert ``(increased by $300,000,000)''.
In title III, in the item ``Disaster Relief (including
transfer of funds)'', after the first dollar amount insert
``(reduced by $300,000,000)''.
Mrs. MALONEY (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the
Record.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman
from New York?
There was no objection.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) reserves a
point of order.
[[Page H5765]]
Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, the al Qaeda has not gone away, and we
know al Qaeda does not choose its targets at random, it chooses targets
to inflict the greatest numbers of casualties, to do the greatest
damage economically, and to get the most publicity. Just last week, we
were reminded that New York is still a target when the Attorney General
announced that an al Qaeda terrorist was targeting the Brooklyn Bridge.
He was deterred from attacking the bridge by the efforts of the New
York Police Department.
This is just one example of how since 9/11 a large share of the
burden of providing for the national defense has fallen on our cities.
In Congress we have provided some funds to help. We even sent part of
the money to where the need is. In fiscal year 2003, we provided $2.9
billion for grants to State and local governments to help them prepare
for and defend against terrorist attacks. We even said that $800
million of that should be directed to where the threat is greatest.
That is about 30 percent. The rest of the fund went out under a formula
that is entirely unrelated to where the terror threat is.
Under this bill as it is currently drafted for the next fiscal year,
that 70 percent will increase to nearly 83 percent. Our effort to
protect the most likely targets of terrorism is moving backwards. We
are cutting the funds to the Nation's most threatened cities by almost
40 percent, by $300 million, from $800 million to $500 million, and we
are increasing the percentage that will go under the formula that is
unrelated to potential threat, a formula that Secretary Ridge has
repeatedly said is inappropriate and must be changed.
This formula sends the money where the threat is not. Just yesterday
Secretary Ridge himself said of the high threat money and I quote, ``I
would like to see the number significantly higher than $500 million.''
He went on to say, ``At the end of the day, I do believe that there are
some communities and regions that need more money.''
My amendment will simply follow Secretary Ridge's advice and restore
funding for high-threat cities. I understand that this approach is
subject to a point of order. I originally had wanted to shift money
from another account, but the fact is this bill severely underfunds our
security needs. Resources are too scarce to shift between accounts, but
our cities need more funding. New York City spent more than $200
million over the last year on counterterrorism. The grants so far
amount to $220 million for New York, but very little of that can offset
the personnel costs that the city has identified at more than $900
million.
The assistance provided after the September 11 attacks paid for
cleanup and replacement of equipment. It did not cover the security
costs. This is not just an issue for New York and Washington, but it is
a high-priority issue for many cities, including L.A., Chicago, San
Francisco, New Orleans, Kansas City, Cincinnati, Houston and any city
with a port or a mass transit system.
Mr. Chairman, it is our responsibility to appropriate the funds
needed to protect the American people and this bill falls dangerously
short. Respecting the request of the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Sweeney), who has worked very hard in a bipartisan way for New York
City and State, I am withdrawing my amendment, also at the request of
the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), and I appreciate the
commitment from the New York delegation, the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Hinchey), the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), and the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano) along with help from the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo) and the gentleman from Wisconsin
(Mr. Obey) to restore this in conference.
{time} 1630
I appreciate very much the leadership of the gentleman from Minnesota
(Mr. Sabo) and the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers).
Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
There was no objection.
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, first of all I want to quote Secretary of Homeland
Security Ridge from an Associated Press article yesterday. This is what
he said:
``At the end of the day, ladies and gentlemen, if you take a look at
the population, the density of population, the critical infrastructure
and the threat, there's one city that no matter how you move those
factors around or weigh those factors, there's one city at the top of
the list and it's New York City.''
I want to associate myself with the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs.
Maloney), the things that she said. We will have other people from the
New York delegation speaking about this as well, because we feel very,
very strongly about getting the money for homeland security for New
York City which is obviously, as Secretary Ridge said, the number one
threat.
In fiscal year 2003, we provided $2.9 billion for grants to State and
local governments to help them prepare for and defend against terrorist
attacks. $800 million, or about 30 percent of that, was directed to
high-threat areas. The rest of the fund went out under a formula that
is entirely unrelated to where the terror threat is. Under this bill,
as it is currently drafted for the next fiscal year, the 70 percent
that is not related to high-threat areas will increase to nearly 83
percent. I believe that that is wrong.
Just last week a plot was uncovered, as my colleague said, to blow up
the Brooklyn Bridge. Our intelligence agencies continue to say that New
York remains a top target for terrorists and common sense would tell
anybody the same thing. New York has been hit twice by radical
terrorists. Thousands have died. We continue to rebuild; but to better
ensure our safety and the safety of the world's financial capital, we
need to better spend Federal tax dollars. When New York is hit by
attacks, all Americans are hurt. The economic impact is all over the
country. People in Montana, Oklahoma and Oregon, it affects everyone in
this country when New York is hit by attacks.
I also had intended to offer an amendment to move $500 million from
the State grant program to the high-threat program. I will not do that
because I understand that there are needs across the country for
assistance. Thus, it is obvious that this bill is not adequate to our
needs as a Nation. I hope that we can somehow get around to the fact
that we desperately need more money for high-threat areas. I would hope
that in the negotiations between us and the other body that we would
rectify this.
Why is this bill underfunded in my opinion? The answer is simple
math. We have cut our revenues by trillions of dollars to pay for tax
cuts. There is a trade-off, I believe, tax cuts or security. We believe
that security is more important. My friend from Wisconsin wants to add
an amendment to limit the tax cut for millionaires to just over $83,000
this year instead of the $88,000 they are set to get. I do not think it
is too much to ask that people who have benefited the most in this
great Nation pay $4,000 more for the security of all of us.
Mr. Chairman, I again hope that when we have our negotiations, when
we have our conferences that we will be able to put more money where it
belongs to protect high-threat areas like New York City.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
I am compelled again to talk about New York. All of us here are
sympathetic, understanding, we want to help; but I feel compelled to
lay out some facts that have not been laid out here. The fiscal year
2003 bill, we gave $800 million in that bill for the high-threat, high-
density urban area grants and the discretion of the Secretary. $100
million of that was in the omnibus; $700 million was in the
supplemental. However, that money has not been spent. There is $800
million laying there. Why? Because the grant application deadline for
that first $100 million just ended on June 16, a couple of weeks ago,
and has not been processed. The application deadline for the $700
million that was in the supplemental is not up until July 7. We have
not processed the applications yet. Those moneys will be going out
there, to New York and the other cities.
In addition to that, what I am saying is, I guess, have a little
patience. Number two, when the President's request
[[Page H5766]]
came up to us for fiscal year 2004, there was no request for high
threat, high-density urban grant moneys. Zero. The subcommittee worked
on it, and we put in $500 million. Now people call that a cut. Boy,
that is a strange use of the word. We increased it $500 million. If the
Secretary thinks we ought to change that, then he needs to send us a
budget supplemental and amend his request and we will consider it.
However, all of the other grant programs, and there are six or seven
of them, there are basic formula grants, there are law enforcement
terrorism prevention grants, there are critical infrastructure grants,
there are firefighter assistance grants, there are emergency management
performance grants, there are emergency operations centers grants, all
of which New York is eligible to apply for. We increased those funds
over what the President wanted us to by $1 billion. So that now there
is $4.04 billion available in those grant programs immediately. I would
guess just by the odds and by the importance of New York that when you
apply for those grants with the increased numbers there, all of these
grants, you are probably going to wind up with more money than you got
this year. But, please, have patience and understand that the rest of
the country is interested in this as well. We want to help you, but I
ask for your patience and understanding.
Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendments offered by the
Members from New York. While it is true that we do not know where the
next attack may be and that the entire Nation is vulnerable, I believe
that it is important to recognize those areas considered as high-threat
and high-density. The gentleman mentioned that there are other cities
involved and, of course, we know that. Take my own city of San Diego as
an example. San Diego is home to nearly 3 million residents and hosts
millions of tourists annually. It is one of the regions that I believe
Secretary Ridge has spoken about. In fact, he voiced those concerns
when he visited San Diego recently. We have an international border and
ports of entry, a coastline, a seaport, a busy airport, several major
highways, a mass transit system, large public venues such as SeaWorld
and Qualcomm Stadium, site of the Super Bowl. We have numerous military
bases and military housing areas, and even a nuclear power plant.
Protecting such an extensive list of vulnerable areas requires
significant resources. Yes, we are applying for a lot of that money. We
are trying. We are doing our best.
Like all of my colleagues, I have heard from my first responders,
from the sheriff's department, the police department, the fire
department, the Coast Guard, the port authority, the Navy, the Marines
and others about their struggle to protect our critical infrastructure.
I believe that they are doing a fabulous job. But they need more, and
they need our help. This is an important amendment. I urge my
colleagues to support it.
amendment offered by mr. brady of texas
Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Brady of Texas:
In title II in the item ``OFFICE FOR DOMESTIC
PREPAREDNESS--Domestic Preparedness''--
(1) in paragraph (1), after the dollar amount insert
``(reduced $200,000,000)''; and
(2) in paragraph (4), after the dollar amount insert
``(increased by $200,000,000)''.
Mr. BRADY of Texas (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask
unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed
in the Record.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Texas?
There was no objection.
Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I would first like to commend the
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) and the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Young) for their leadership and hard work on homeland security. I
rise today in support of the Weiner-Brady-Fossella amendment to make
our homeland security budget smarter and more targeted to high-threat
areas. We are at war in this war on terrorism. In war, there are likely
targets and there are less likely targets. You protect them both. I
know that Chairman Rogers and Chairman Young have fought hard to make
sure we do exactly right, protect both likely targets and less likely
targets.
What this amendment does is focus on those communities, on those
States that will likely be and have been identified as high-threat,
high-density urban areas. The States that have these high-threat
communities include much of our country, New York and California, Texas
and Illinois, Arizona and Colorado, Florida, Hawaii and Georgia,
Massachusetts and Maryland, Michigan and Missouri, New Jersey, Ohio and
Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Washington and the District of
Columbia, all States that are host to urban areas that are at high risk
and high threat of a terrorist attack. This amendment targets $200
million and shifts it to the high-threat, high-density urban area
funding. Part of the community that I represent, Houston, Texas, is on
that list of top 10 communities. It is, I would imagine, as a result of
both communications from al Qaeda terrorists, from information received
from interviews with al Qaeda operatives and Houston is, of course, the
energy capital of the world. It is home to more than 50 percent of the
oil and gas refining in this country. If you chose to target America's
energy supplies, if you chose to bring this country down by taking down
our energy pipelines or our oil and gas facilities, this is where you
would start. But we are not the only community at high risk and high
threat of a terrorist attack. There are many throughout this country.
What we seek from this amendment is making sure that these
communities have a pool of money with that threat. More importantly, we
make sure that when other communities are added to this list, when they
suddenly become at high threat and a high-risk community, that when
they come to the Federal Government for help, they are not told, we're
sorry, we sent this money to other regions, less likely, less at risk,
but that was the money we had. Unfortunately for all our efforts, and I
know our government moves so slowly, even with the best intentions, I
am afraid our communities do not understand our grant application
process. I do not think they understand our time line. I think our
communities are at risk today. We offer this amendment in good faith,
recognizing just how diligent our chairman is in trying to protect
communities of all size and all risk.
Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I want to
thank the gentleman from Texas, the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Fossella), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), and others with
whom we have consulted on trying to come up with a way to answer some
of the fundamental questions. First of all, I think that we can be of
agreement because, frankly, every Member, including the distinguished
chairman and ranking member, have said that yes, the total number of
dollars is probably not enough and this is going to be an ongoing
process to see to it that we do allocate enough money to this because,
frankly, we have no choice.
I want to thank the gentleman from Kentucky, the gentleman from
Minnesota, the gentleman from Wisconsin, and others who have worked so
hard to get that number as high as we can get it. There also, I
believe, can be no other answer but yes to the question, do some areas
have greater costs than others? Are there greater costs in ports of
California, in States like New York? I will give Members an example. It
is costing New York City $13 million a week to deal with the needs of
homeland security. A week. If you drive over the Brooklyn Bridge at 3
o'clock in the morning on a weekday morning, you will find both lanes
inside closest to the stanchion with a fixed patrol car sitting there
all day, all night, because of the national security threat that
exists. That is more police man-hours than many police departments, and
that is something that New York is absorbing because of these risks.
Another question that is a little tougher to answer, but I know how I
would answer it, is who should decide how homeland security funds get
divided? Should it be my distinguished colleagues on the Committee on
Appropriations and those of us in this body,
[[Page H5767]]
or should it be Secretary Ridge and the administration? I vote for the
gentleman from Kentucky and the gentleman from Minnesota and others
here in this body, but I think we should keep in mind what Secretary
Ridge has said.
{time} 1645
Secretary Ridge has said very clearly, in fact, just within the last
24 hours, that he believes that the present way we are distributing the
money should be changed. He said ``distributing those dollars according
to the old formula, I don't believe we get maximum security for the
dollars that are expended at the national level.''
This is continuing the quote: ``I'd like to see the numbers
significantly higher than $500 million.''
He goes on to say, ``I think every State should be given a certain
amount of money,'' a sentiment that I agree with, ``but at the end of
the day, I do believe that there are some communities and regions that
need more money.''
Continuing the quote: ``I have concerns about the distribution
formula, [where] We just basically send out dollars to States and
localities on a formula that doesn't consider infrastructure, doesn't
consider anything other than population.'' I do not believe that is
where are we at this House, and frankly I do have great confidence in
my colleagues deciding how to distribute the money, but we do have to
recognize that this is not just a New York City issue, as the chairman
alluded to previously. This is an issue that affects about 30 different
States and localities all around the country. The gentleman from Texas
articulated the needs of his district. Others have come to this floor
and talked about their cities and States. The fact remains that there
are certain places that unfortunately are more likely today to be
targets of terrorist attack than others and have to take steps that
cannot be avoided. If for no other reason, many of the trials that are
being held of those that are accused of terrorism are being held in New
York City. Just the enforcement costs in Washington, D.C. and suburban
Virginia, in New York City, in Chicago, Illinois in one case, just
those costs are much higher than they are elsewhere. There has been a
large increase in the overall basic formula grant, and I think the
committee deserves great credit for this. What this amendment seeks to
do is take the $700 million that was allocated last year, increase the
$500 million to that $700 million. That still provides a $700 million
increase in the basic formula grant, and I believe that that is a
healthy step.
I, however, want to say in closing, I want to close the way I began,
I do believe that the chairman in his colloquy that he entered into
earlier has clearly articulated his desire to get the money where it
needs to go. I do believe that this is an amendment that gets the
chairman and gets our House to that place.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words, and I rise in opposition to the amendment.
I would like to ask the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) a
question.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SABO. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to answer a
question.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, did I just hear correctly a little while ago
that the Secretary's request of our committee for the high-threat urban
grant was zero?
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. That is correct.
Mr. SABO. And our committee has recommended what?
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Five hundred million.
Mr. SABO. Five hundred million. And this goes to a limited number of
communities in the country?
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. It goes to the so-called high-threat/high-
density urban areas of the country, and I think they are talking
probably of 20 cities or less, in the complete discretion of the
Secretary.
Mr. SABO. Which criteria that many of us have trouble understanding
yet. The balance of the money flows by formula to the States, including
the States that are eligible for this additional $500 million?
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. That is correct.
Mr. SABO. Reclaiming my time, for those of us who come from the
heartland of the country, we are having discussion over how much money
should go to ports. We have allocated a significant amount, and others
would like to allocate more. My assumption is most of that goes along
the coast.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I would guess so. But there are not many
ocean ports in Minneapolis, I do not think.
Mr. SABO. No. We do have a river one but fairly small. So I think it
would be fair to say we made a special effort to try to allocate more
money to ports, that that will go to a limited part of the country.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. That is correct.
Mr. SABO. But we find that when we raise threat levels in this
country, the law enforcement and local responders are expected to
respond throughout the country and they have the same problem over
time, training, teaching people how to use new equipment, wondering
what it means, increasing pressure on local law enforcement. What I
hear from all of them is that their expenditures exceed whatever
revenue they are getting from the Federal Government. I expect the
gentleman hears the same thing.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I hear the same thing every day.
Mr. SABO. And this amendment, as I understand it, would take some of
this little money that we distribute throughout the country and say we
are going to cut that from everyone. Where they are working, trying to
coordinate expenditures to make most efficient use of it, take it from
that and give them to a few areas where we have already increased the
administration's budget by $500 million; am I right?
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. That is the way I understand the amendment.
It would take $200 million away from all the States in order to beef up
this cap from $500 million to $700 million just for the high-density/
high-urban area grants.
Mr. SABO. Reclaiming my time, and this is money that local responders
can use for buying new equipment in a coordinated fashion, in a State
plan or for training to have them become equipped to meet the threats
that may occur in this country?
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. The gentleman is correct. In addition to
that, as we have previously said, the subcommittee increased the amount
of money for all of the grant programs of which there are seven, for
firefighter grants and for infrastructure grants, emergency management
grants, formula grants to States and cities and the like. All those
grant programs, we increased by $1 billion above what the President
wanted and $203 million more than the 2003 levels. So all of the States
that have these high-density urban areas that would be eligible for the
high-density grants will also be eligible for very larger pots of money
that everyone else is trying to share with, and yet this amendment
would take from that moneys and put it into the high-density/high-urban
areas. We have gone through this in our subcommittee and in our full
committee and we have labored with it and wrestled with it with the
gentleman and in a bipartisan fashion from big cities and small, big
States and small, and this was the best we could do. We think it is a
fair way to do it. And to take the moneys from one area now and give it
to another would open us up to an ugliness that I do not think we need
to see in this battle.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his comments, and I
think he has given good advice to the body.
Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, in spite of the wonderful exchange, I rise in support
of the amendment, and I have great respect for the Members here on both
sides and what they go through in this process. It is a difficult one
to question and constantly evaluating and balancing priorities.
My number one priority, as far as I am concerned, is to protect the
American people. I think everybody in this Chamber supports that
proposition. The question is how you would do that
[[Page H5768]]
the best way? We could do it in a lot of different ways. We can root
out the terrorists overseas as our great brave men and women are doing
in Iraq and Afghanistan and around the globe. That is one way. We have
great local police departments and Federal law enforcement officials,
intelligence officials who try to root out evil before it pops its
head, and we can allocate funding to the places that need it the most.
And I know there may be a fundamental difference as to where that money
should go, and that is okay. But if the Members asked me how I stand up
here and proclaim that not just New York City but those areas that we
have defined as high-threat areas should get a disproportionate amount
of this money, Exhibit A is September 11. Exhibit A demonstrates that
the terrorists sought out places like New York City. Why? Because it is
the capital of finance, the capital of the world in some people's
minds, and, indeed, as we hope and pray they are not, but, indeed, they
are out there trying to do the same thing right now. So if the Members
ask me why we are here to try to shift the money to what we think is a
priority, I think I would say I do not ever want to see something like
September 11 happen again. And with all due respect to the towns and
villages around the country that wrestle with this problem every day, I
think it is common sense to suggest that some areas could be more
targeted than others. I do not think there is an American who would not
say every town is equal in that respect. So I would hope, and I take
the chairman at his word because I have immense respect for him, for
the people who he has around him, to work with us to ensure that not
just New York City, but those urban areas full of American citizens get
that funding they need.
It has been brought up before what Secretary Ridge says. I am not
going to rehash it. I will submit it for the Record. New York City,
counterterrorism, intelligence and public safety, $200 million;
training for first responders, police, fire, $99 million; security
enhancement for facilities, $187 million; emergency preparation
response equipment, $189 million; communications and information
technology, $223 million. Total loan, $900 million.
The gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner) and the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Brady), who offered this, the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Nadler), and I know the gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney) has
worked hard. He mentioned the Brooklyn Bridge. Go to any bridge in New
York City, any tunnel, 24 hours a day, people scanning cars, checking
cars, checking trucks. Why? So that anybody coming into the city can
feel more free and secure. That is what this debate is about. And I am
hopeful that the good chairman once again, and I believe him, will
follow through and use all existing systems to ensure that these cities
and urban areas get what they deserve and get what they need.
Tom Ridge. Well first of all, I share both the Governor's
and the Mayor's concern to reduce distributing those dollars.
According to the old formula, I don't believe we would be at
maximum security with the dollars that are being expended at
the federal level. We are going to work to get that number as
high as possible. Having been a member of Congress for twelve
years, that's the beginning of the process. The House has had
a number in mind. They've passed that and we'll be working
with the Senate. There's still a long way to go, but I would
like to see the number risen, significantly higher than the
$500 million.
Reporter. Mr. Secretary, have you given the Governor and
the Mayor a specific limit, a specific amount of money?
Tom Ridge. No, I think we are all in agreement that it
would have been a nice place to start with the 750. If we can
get the Congress to restore that quarter of a billion
dollars, that would be a great place to start. To finish
there, that would be at least preserving the status quo. As
for the supplemental, we got about $700 million and I think
at least preserving what we are able to distribute before. At
the end of the day ladies and gentlemen, if you take a look
at the population, the density of the population, the
equivocal infrastructure and the threat, there is one city
that no matter how you move those factors around and weigh
those factors it ends up at the top of the list and its New
York City. I think every state should be given a certain
amount of money and they build up a capacity to protect the
infrastructure, and the capacity to respond, and the capacity
to prevent a terrorist attack. But at the end of the day, I
do believe there are some communities and regions that need
more money because of the multitude of factors, not just
population.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate, as do other speakers, the hard work of
the members of the Committee on Appropriations and of the chairman and
ranking member of the Appropriations subcommittee. The bill before us
provides $500 million for 47 high-threat/high-density areas, 47 cities.
People are talking about New York. We are talking about 47 cities that
are high-risk areas, $500 million. The bill also provides, as I
understand it, $1.9 billion for the rest of the country. Low risk or
less than high-risk areas. The amendment would change that somewhat to
make it $700 million for the 47 high-risk areas, $700 million for all
47 high-risk areas combined, and $1.7 billion the low-risk areas or
less-than-high-risk areas in the rest of the country. By way of
comparison, just keeping police officers on duty costs the City of New
York, one high-risk area, $676 million a year. This amendment would
make $700 million available to all 47 high-risk areas. So we are
talking about a small fraction of what any of these high-risk areas are
spending.
There is not enough being allocated, there is not enough that we
could allocate, for all the high-risk areas and the rest of the areas.
All some of us are saying here for New York, for Pennsylvania, for
Illinois, for Houston, for Texas, for other high-risk areas is that we
should be a little more rational in allocating the funds a little more
on the basis of where the heavier expenditures are necessary because of
where the risks are and how much it costs to guard against those risks
and a little less on the uniform geographic basis which is the other
half of this allocation.
{time} 1700
Now, I understand, of course, that in the end the committee and the
conference committee are going to make this allocation. What we are
saying now is we want to bring to the attention of the body some of the
considerations that say that there should be a little more rationale,
rationality, to put a little more of the money for high-risk areas
where so much more is necessary.
I appreciate the work that has been done by the committee and the
work that will be done. I hope the committee will see its way clear to
balancing this a little better, not for New York alone, but for the
other 46 high-risk areas which have billions of dollars that have to be
spent on this, not hundreds of millions.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
I would simply like to observe one fact, Mr. Chairman. I understand
that one of the reasons why so many members of the New York delegation
are exercised on this issue today is because Mr. Ridge, who is the head
of the Homeland Security agency, was quoted in the newspapers saying
that, yes, it was absolutely true, there ought to be more money for
high-threat areas. That is very nice to hear him say that.
The problem is, his budget, the budget presented by the President on
behalf of his agency, had not one dime in for that purpose, and this
committee put in $500 million. It was $700 million that was put in in
the omnibus just a few months ago.
So I appreciate the sentiments being voiced here today, but I would
point out that since this House passed a tax package which has taken
away this committee's ability to provide funding that we ought to be
providing for this and other high-priority areas in this bill, it seems
to me that at this point, rather than asking this committee to get a
double hernia trying to do something which is fiscally impossible,
given the budget caps that we have been provided, it seems to me what
he ought to do is march down to the White House and tell the President
to amend his budget and his tax bill so we can afford his legitimate
request. Without that, to me, at this point, we are just flap-jawing
and we are not going to have any real opportunity to help the areas of
the country you are talking about, except by hurting other areas of the
country.
The Republican tax package which my colleagues voted for on that side
of the aisle has put us in this position
[[Page H5769]]
where, if we are going to deal with problems in one section of the
country, we have to beggar thy neighbor. I am not very enthused about
that. I think New York and other high-impact areas deserve this money,
but I think the rural areas do too; and I would simply say that short
as this bill is on this item, it does a whole lot better by that part
of the country than the President's recommendation.
So the first thing I would say to Mr. Ridge is, go back to Washington
and lobby your President, to ask him to put in the money that you told
the New York folks was necessary.
Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I am going to probably not take the full 5 minutes
because, in part, I am going to reiterate some things that have already
been said here on the floor: in part, the colloquy that the chairman of
the subcommittee engaged in and, in part, in reflection of the last two
amendments in particular, which I think point out the real difficult
task this subcommittee, this chairman, and the ranking member faced in
the course of putting together this plan.
In stating the obvious, I will agree with the ranking member of the
overall committee. It is quite clear that there apparently has been a
change at the administration; that the current plan or the current
structure of the plan that was sent forward has changed significantly,
certainly overnight, and it is somewhat reflective in the fact that my
colleagues in the New York delegation have come to the floor and have
argued vehemently. But they are not new to that argument. We have all
been making the case that we are not quite sure whether there is enough
money in high-risk, high-density funding in this particular program.
But I can tell my colleagues that not anyone, Mr. Chairman, in this
Chamber, in this House, and in this Nation can tell us whether we have
appropriated enough at this point in time. That is exactly the point,
exactly the point that I think the chairman of the subcommittee has
been making.
Given the information we have now, given the money that has been
appropriated and flowed out, given what we know in terms of the
expenses, and we talked about it in that colloquy earlier, we are
trying to meet those needs, that this House has recognized that needs
exist in specific areas that rise to a certain level above what the
rest of the community is, and that it is somewhat grossly unfair for us
to have to make those determinations on where exactly all of this goes,
taking possibly from one area unequally and giving to another area.
But it is absurd to make the point or argue that there is not enough
money there. We have appropriated billions and billions of dollars, and
what we see here in place is a work in progress.
I would say to my friends from New York especially, but to those from
other parts of the country who have introduced the last couple of
amendments who would like to see us take from one fund to the other,
that that is not the appropriate course at this time, given the
information that we have. I actually trust the notion that when we go
to conference, the very people who created the high-risk, high-density
fund, the gentleman from Kentucky (Chairman Rogers), this subcommittee,
are in the best place to determine what that appropriate funding is
going to be; and I have every bit of confidence that we are going to be
able to meet that need.
There has been an acknowledgment on this floor by the chairman, by
this committee, that the work is incomplete; that there are needs that
are going to be met. It is not just here in high-risk; it is in a lot
of other places. But given the opportunity to examine that, I hear the
call from the chairman, and I have every bit of confidence that we are
going to be able to do that, equally covering the needs of the rest of
the communities in our Nation to ensure the safety of the American
people.
Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SWEENEY. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Chairman, based upon the gentleman's
comments, the hard work that the gentleman has done, and I know that
this is a key issue and I appreciate the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Weiner) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Fossella) and others who
are involved in this, and I also appreciate the strong leadership of
our chairman, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers); and based upon
this discussion today, based upon the hard work, because we all try to
raise the level of funding for our communities, I ask unanimous consent
to withdraw my amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Texas?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
TITLE III--EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS AND RESPONSE
Administrative and Regional Operations
For necessary expenses for administrative and regional
operations of the Emergency Preparedness and Response
Directorate, $168,589,000, including activities authorized by
the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4001 et
seq.), the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 (42 U.S.C.
4001 et seq.), the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.), the
Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977 (42 U.S.C. 7701 et
seq.), the Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act of 1974
(15 U.S.C. 2201 et seq.), the Defense Production Act of 1950
(50 U.S.C. App. 2061 et seq.), sections 107 and 303 of the
National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 404-405),
Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978, and the Homeland Security
Act of 2002; of which not to exceed $3,000 shall be for
official reception and representation expenses.
Preparedness, Mitigation, Response, and Recovery
For necessary expenses for preparedness, mitigation,
response, and recovery activities of the Emergency
Preparedness and Response Directorate, $363,339,000,
including activities authorized by the National Flood
Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.), the Flood
Disaster Protection Act of 1973 (42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.), the
Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance
Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.), the Earthquake Hazards
Reduction Act of 1977 (42 U.S.C. 7701 et seq.), the Federal
Fire Prevention and Control Act of 1974 (15 U.S.C. 2201 et
seq.), the Defense Production Act of 1950 (50 U.S.C. App.
2061 et seq.), sections 107 and 303 of the National Security
Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 404-405), Reorganization Plan No. 3 of
1978, and the Homeland Security Act of 2002; of which
$25,000,000 shall be for emergency operations centers grants:
Provided, That the aggregate charges assessed during fiscal
year 2004, as authorized by Public Law 106-377, shall not be
less than 100 percent of the amounts anticipated by the
Department of Homeland Security necessary for its
radiological emergency preparedness program for the next
fiscal year: Provided further, That the methodology for
assessment and collection of fees shall be fair and
equitable, and shall reflect costs of providing such
services, including administrative costs of collecting such
fees: Provided further, That fees received pursuant to this
section shall be deposited in this account as offsetting
collections, shall become available for authorized purposes
on October 1, 2004, and shall remain available until
expended.
Public Health Programs
For necessary expenses for countering potential biological,
disease, and chemical threats to civilian populations,
$484,000,000, including $400,000,000, to remain available
until expended, for the Strategic National Stockpile.
Biodefense Countermeasures
For necessary expenses for securing medical countermeasures
against biological terror attacks, $5,593,000,000, to remain
available until September 30, 2013: Provided, That not to
exceed $3,418,000,000 may be obligated during fiscal years
2004 through 2008, of which not to exceed $890,000,000 may be
obligated during fiscal year 2004.
Grant Programs
For activities designed to reduce the risk of flood damage
to structures pursuant to the National Flood Insurance Act of
1968 (42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.), notwithstanding sections
1366(b)(3) (B)-(C) and 1366(f) of such Act, and for a pre-
disaster mitigation grant program pursuant to title II of the
Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance
Act (42 U.S.C. 5131 et seq.), $200,000,000, to remain
available until expended, of which $20,000,000 shall be
derived from the National Flood Insurance Fund, and shall
remain available until September 30, 2005: Provided, That
grants made for pre-disaster mitigation shall be awarded on a
competitive basis subject to the criteria in section 203(g)
of such title II (42 U.S.C. 5133(g)): Provided further, That
notwithstanding section 203(f) of such title II (42 U.S.C.
5133(f)), grant awards shall be made without reference to
State allocations, quotas, or other formula-based allocation
of funds.
Emergency Food and Shelter
To carry out an emergency food and shelter program pursuant
to title III of Public Law 100-77 (42 U.S.C. 11331 et seq.),
$153,000,000, to remain available until expended: Provided,
That total administrative costs shall not exceed 3\1/2\
percent of the total appropriation.
[[Page H5770]]
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
Mr. Chairman, I want to, first of all, before I enter into a colloquy
with the distinguished chairman, thank the chairman of the
subcommittee. Even before it was created, the leaders on this
subcommittee were instrumental in helping our first responders.
There has been a lot of rhetoric about this Congress not doing enough
for the first responders. Let me say to my colleagues in this body that
before 9-11 occurred there was no program to assist our first
responders nationwide, nothing. And Congress has, over the past years,
had plenty of opportunities, but never saw fit. And disasters were not
new. We had them all during the history of this country.
It was this Congress in 2000, with the leadership of the
distinguished chairman of the full committee and the distinguished
chairman of this subcommittee, who saw fit to create a grant program
for our 32,000 fire and EMS departments in America. That was created in
2000, the year before 9-11. Initially, it was funded at $100 million.
It went to $300 million, and this year, because of the leadership of
the distinguished chairman from Kentucky and the support of the ranking
member, the support for our firefighter grant program is at $715
million.
Many of our colleagues have said it is the most popular and most
successful program that Congress has created. We are doing good work on
behalf of the Nation's first responders. I want to applaud this
subcommittee for their outstanding efforts and let them know, as the
founder and chairman of the Fire Caucus and a former fire chief myself,
they have done outstanding work; and it is paying dividends all over
the country.
So, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Ranking Member, thank you for your strong
support of the Nation's first responders.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today to engage in a colloquy with my colleague,
the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), the distinguished chairman of
this subcommittee, regarding a very important program called FIRESAT.
Mr. Chairman, one need not look further than the news reports of the
destructive and violent wildfires in Arizona. In 2000, over 8 million
acres of pristine wilderness burned, and Federal agencies expended more
than $1.3 billion in fire suppression costs. Last year, in 2002,
wildfires scorched over 7 million acres. Hundreds of homes were
destroyed and firefighters gave their lives.
FIRESAT is a satellite system that is able to detect wildfires in
their early stages while they are still less than 1 acre in size. While
the tools are at our disposal to save lives and billions of dollars,
the equipment for this program remains boxed in offices in Reston,
Virginia. This project can be fully activated with the necessary
security upgrades and software upgrades in time for the fire season
this year for $7.5 million. In relation to the billions of dollars lost
in these wild land fires every year, this is truly a smart investment.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, we have the technology and the means to do
something about this.
FIRESAT was originally labeled the Hazard Support System and
developed by Ratheon with funds which I obtained from the Department of
Defense in 1997. The system was subsequently transferred to the U.S.
Geological Survey and NOAA who, for unknown reasons, did not request
funds for the program in their budget. At the request last year of Joe
Albaugh, the director of FEMA, we successfully transferred the system,
now named FIRESAT, within the Homeland Security Act to the Department
of Homeland Security's Directorate for Emergency Preparedness and
Response.
Today is our opportunity to install a commonsense solution to the
annual wildfires that wreck havoc to communities and forests all over
America and place countless firefighters in danger. I hope that under
the leadership of the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) an
opportunity will present itself to fund this economical and much-needed
program.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding.
Let me return the thanks. The gentleman from Pennsylvania has been
our leader in the Congress for first responders, not just firefighters,
but first responders in general; and he brings an expertise to this job
not just from an educational point of view, but he is back there with
them. So I want to thank the gentleman for his leadership on these
issues and for bringing this very timely subject to our attention.
Considering the devastation that wildfires cause to our Nation each
year, I look forward to working with the gentleman during conference so
that we can address this important matter.
Mr. BELL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, the House is set to pass a Homeland Security
appropriations bill that falls well short of where our country needs to
be to effectively combat our greatest vulnerability: the threat to our
Nation's port facilities.
Today, in the Democratic Caucus Task Force on Homeland Security, we
had the opportunity to hear from Rand Beers, who recently resigned from
President Bush's National Security Council because he said that ``the
administration wasn't matching its deeds to its words in the war on
terrorism. They are making us less secure, not more secure.''
He told us that our Nation's port facilities are crying out for
protection and that the administration's neglect of the issue was a
cause of great concern and puzzlement for him.
The Coast Guard says that the cost of infrastructure improvements to
secure our ports for fiscal year 2004 would run around $963 million.
This bill only appropriates $100 million. Welcome funding, yes, but far
short of where we need to be.
The Coast Guard also says that it will need $70 million to evaluate
the security plans for ports across America by the July 2004 deadline
mandated by the Maritime Transportation and Security Act. This bill
does not provide any of the $70 million the Coast Guard says it needs.
The Obey amendment would address these and many others needs, yet we
cannot consider the Obey amendment here today.
Why is it that we continue to neglect port security funding when the
CIA tells us we are more likely to be attacked by a weapon of mass
destruction smuggled aboard a ship than we are by an intercontinental
ballistic missile? The fact that our ports are threatened might come as
a surprise to millions of Americans who watched as Secretary Ridge
announced that the Department of Homeland Security was releasing
millions of dollars in port security grants.
{time} 1715
But it does not come as a surprise to those of us in Congress who
listened as administration officials told us that those scant few
dollars appropriated for port security grant programs and Operation
Safe Commerce would probably be rerouted to aviation security.
Mr. Chairman, in light of recent world events, this is simply
unacceptable. We are not giving port security the funding it needs just
weeks after an Egyptian sailor attempted to smuggle anthrax aboard a
ship bound for North America. We are not giving port security the
funding it needs the day after 600 tons of explosives were discovered
aboard a ship bound for a fictitious company in Sudan. And we are not
funding port security the same day my hometown paper, the Houston
Chronicle, says that al Qaeda might be targeting oil and port
facilities in Houston during the Fourth of July holiday.
We cannot afford to ignore the Obey amendment. Like Rand Beers said,
``America's ports are crying out for protection.''
Mr. Chairman, it is about time we start listening.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments?
If not, the Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Firefighter Assistance Grants
(including transfer of funds)
For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, for
programs as authorized by section 33 of the Federal Fire
Prevention and Control Act of 1974 (15 U.S.C. 2201 et seq.),
$750,000,000 to remain available through September 30, 2005:
Provided, That up to 5 percent of this amount shall be
transferred to
[[Page H5771]]
``Preparedness, Mitigation, Response, and Recovery'' for
program administration.
Disaster Relief
(including transfer of funds)
For necessary expenses in carrying out the Robert T.
Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42
U.S.C. 5121 et seq.), $1,800,000,000 and, notwithstanding 42
U.S.C. 5203, to remain available until expended, of which not
to exceed $22,000,000 may be transferred to the Office of
Inspector General for audits and investigations.
Flood Map Modernization Fund
For necessary expenses pursuant to section 1360 of the
National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, $200,000,000, and such
additional sums as may be provided by State and local
governments or other political subdivisions for cost-shared
mapping activities under section 1360(f)(2) of such Act; to
remain available until expended.
National Flood Insurance Fund
(including transfer of funds)
For activities under the National Flood Insurance Act of
1968, and the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, not to
exceed $32,761,000 for salaries and expenses associated with
flood mitigation and flood insurance operations, and not to
exceed $77,809,000 for flood mitigation, to remain available
until September 30, 2005, including up to $20,000,000 for
expenses under section 1366 of such Act of 1968, which amount
shall be available for transfer to Grant Programs until
September 30, 2005, and which amounts shall be derived from
offsetting collections assessed and collected pursuant to 42
U.S.C. 4014, and shall be retained and used for necessary
expenses under this heading: Provided, That no funds, in
excess of $55,000,000 for operating expenses; $565,897,000
for agents' commissions and taxes; and $40,000,000 for
interest on Treasury borrowings, shall be available from the
National Flood Insurance Fund without prior notice to the
Committees on Appropriations.
Disaster Assistance Direct Loan Program Account
For direct loans, as authorized by section 319 of the
Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance
Act: Provided, That these funds are available to subsidize
gross obligations for the principal amount of direct loans
not to exceed $25,000,000: Provided further, That the cost of
modifying such loans shall be as defined in section 502 of
the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. In addition, for
administrative expenses to carry out the direct loan program,
$558,000.
TITLE IV--OTHER DEPARTMENTAL ACTIVITIES
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES
Operating Expenses
For necessary expenses for citizenship and immigration
services, including international services, $248,500,000.
UNITED STATES COAST GUARD
Operating Expenses
For necessary expenses for the operation and maintenance of
the Coast Guard, not otherwise provided for; payments
pursuant to section 156 of Public Law 97-377 (42 U.S.C. 402
note); and recreation and welfare; $4,703,530,000, of which
$1,300,000,000 shall be for defense-related activities; of
which $25,000,000 shall be derived from the Oil Spill
Liability Trust Fund; and of which not to exceed $3,000 shall
be for official reception and representation expenses:
Provided, That none of the funds appropriated in this or any
other Act shall be available for pay of administrative
expenses in connection with shipping commissioners in the
United States: Provided further, That none of the funds
provided in this Act shall be available for expenses incurred
for yacht documentation under section 12109 of title 46,
United States Code, except to the extent fees are collected
from yacht owners and credited to this appropriation.
Environmental Compliance and Restoration
For necessary expenses to carry out the Coast Guard's
environmental compliance and restoration functions under
chapter 19 of title 14, United States Code, $17,000,000, to
remain available until expended.
Reserve Training
For all necessary expenses of the Coast Guard Reserve, as
authorized by law; maintenance and operation of facilities;
and supplies, equipment, and services; $94,051,000.
Acquisitions, Construction, and Improvements
For necessary expenses of acquisition, construction,
renovation, and improvement of aids to navigation, shore
facilities, vessels, and aircraft, including equipment
related thereto, $805,000,000, of which $23,500,000 shall be
derived from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund; of which
$66,500,000 shall be available until September 30, 2008 to
acquire, repair, renovate, or improve vessels, small boats,
and related equipment; $138,500,000 shall be available until
September 30, 2006 for other equipment; $70,000,000 shall be
available until September 30, 2005 for personnel compensation
and benefits and related costs; and $530,000,000 shall be
available until September 30, 2008 for the Integrated
Deepwater Systems program: Provided, That the Commandant of
the Coast Guard is authorized to dispose of surplus real
property, by sale or lease, and the proceeds shall be
credited to this appropriation as offsetting collections and
shall be available until September 30, 2006 only for Rescue
21 (the National Distress and Response System Modernization
program): Provided further, That upon initial submission to
the Congress of the fiscal year 2005 President's budget, the
Secretary of Homeland Security shall transmit to the Congress
a comprehensive capital investment plan for the United States
Coast Guard that includes funding for each budget line item
for fiscal years 2005 through 2009, with total funding for
each year of the plan constrained to the funding targets for
those years as estimated and approved by the Office of
Management and Budget.
Alteration of Bridges
For necessary expenses for alteration or removal of
obstructive bridges, $19,500,000, to remain available until
expended.
Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation
For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, for
applied scientific research, development, test, and
evaluation; and maintenance, rehabilitation, lease and
operation of facilities and equipment, as authorized by law;
$22,000,000, to remain available until expended, of which
$3,500,000 shall be derived from the Oil Spill Liability
Trust Fund: Provided, That there may be credited to and used
for the purposes of this appropriation funds received from
State and local governments, other public authorities,
private sources, and foreign countries, for expenses incurred
for research, development, testing, and evaluation.
Retired Pay
For retired pay, including the payment of obligations
therefor otherwise chargeable to lapsed appropriations for
this purpose, payments under the Retired Serviceman's Family
Protection and Survivor Benefits Plans, payment for career
status bonuses under the National Defense Authorization Act,
and for payments for medical care of retired personnel and
their dependents under the Dependents Medical Care Act (10
U.S.C. ch. 55), $1,020,000,000.
INFORMATION ANALYSIS AND INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION
Operating Expenses
For necessary expenses of the Directorate of Information
Analysis and Infrastructure Protection of the Department of
Homeland Security as authorized by law, $776,000,000, to
remain available until September 30, 2005.
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Research, Development, Acquisition, and Operations
For necessary expenses of activities of the Department of
Homeland Security in carrying out the purposes of title III
of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-296),
for basic and applied research, development, test and
evaluation, construction, procurement, production,
modification and modernization of systems, subsystems, spare
parts, accessories, training devices, operation of the
Science and Technology Directorate and its organizations and
activities, including the Homeland Security Advanced Research
Projects Agency, for cooperative programs with States and
local governments to enable the detection, destruction,
disposal, or mitigation of the effects of weapons of mass
destruction and other terrorist weapons, and for the
construction, maintenance, rehabilitation, lease, and
operation of buildings and other facilities, and equipment,
necessary for the activities of the Directorate,
$900,360,000, to remain available until September 30, 2006.
UNITED STATES SECRET SERVICE
Salaries and Expenses
For necessary expenses of the United States Secret Service,
$1,148,700,000, including purchase of American-made side-car
compatible motorcycles; hire of aircraft; services of expert
witnesses at such rates as may be determined by the Director;
rental of buildings in the District of Columbia, and fencing,
lighting, guard booths, and other facilities on private or
other property not in Government ownership or control, as may
be necessary to perform protective functions; for payment of
per diem and subsistence allowances to employees where a
protective assignment during the actual day or days of the
visit of a protectee require an employee to work 16 hours per
day or to remain overnight at his or her post of duty; the
conducting of and participating in firearms matches;
presentation of awards; for travel of Secret Service
employees on protective missions without regard to the
limitation on such expenditures in this or any other Act; for
research and development; for making grants to conduct
behavioral research in support of protective research and
operations; not to exceed $25,000 for official reception and
representation expenses; not to exceed $100,000 to provide
technical assistance and equipment to foreign law enforcement
organizations in counterfeit investigations; for payment in
advance for commercial accommodations as may be necessary to
perform protective functions; and for uniforms without regard
to the general purchase limitation for the current fiscal
year: Provided, That $1,633,000 shall be available for
forensic and related support of investigations of missing and
exploited children: Provided further, That $4,783,000 shall
be available as a grant for activities related to the
investigations of exploited children and shall remain
available until expended: Provided further, That up to
$18,000,000 for protective travel shall remain
[[Page H5772]]
available until September 30, 2005: Provided further, That
subject to the reimbursement of actual costs to this account,
funds appropriated in this account shall be available, at the
discretion of the Director, for the following: training
United States Postal Service law enforcement personnel and
Postal police officers, training Federal law enforcement
officers, training State and local government law enforcement
officers on a space-available basis, and training private
sector security officials on a space-available basis:
Provided further, That the United States Secret Service is
authorized to obligate funds in anticipation of
reimbursements from agencies and entities, as defined in
section 105 of title 5, United States Code, receiving
training sponsored by the James J. Rowley Training Center,
except that total obligations at the end of the fiscal year
shall not exceed total budgetary resources available under
this heading at the end of the fiscal year: Provided further,
That the James J. Rowley Training Center is authorized to
provide short-term medical services for students undergoing
training at the Center.
Mr. LATHAM (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the remainder of the bill through page 37, line 13 be
considered as read, printed in the Record and open to amendment at any
point.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Iowa?
There was no objection.
The text of the bill from page 31, line 6, through page 37, line 13,
is as follows:
Acquisition, Construction, Improvements, and Related Expenses
For necessary expenses of construction, repair, alteration,
and improvement of facilities, $3,579,000, to remain
available until expended.
TITLE V--GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 501. No part of any appropriation contained in this
Act shall remain available for obligation beyond the current
fiscal year unless expressly so provided herein.
(TRANSFERS OF UNEXPENDED BALANCES)
Sec. 502. Subject to the requirements of section 503 of
this Act, the unexpended balances of prior appropriations
provided for activities in this Act may be transferred to
appropriation accounts for such activities established
pursuant to this Act. Balances so transferred may be merged
with funds in the applicable established accounts and
thereafter may be accounted for as one fund for the same time
period as originally enacted.
(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)
Sec. 503. (a) None of the funds provided by this Act,
provided by previous appropriation Acts to the agencies in or
transferred to the Department of Homeland Security that
remain available for obligation or expenditure in fiscal year
2004, or provided from any accounts in the Treasury of the
United States derived by the collection of fees available to
the agencies funded by this Act, shall be available for
obligation or expenditure through a reprogramming of funds
that: (1) creates a new program; (2) eliminates a program,
project, or activity; (3) increases funds for any program,
project, or activity for which funds have been denied or
restricted by the Congress; or (4) proposes to use funds
directed for a specific activity by either the House or
Senate Committees on Appropriations for a different purpose,
unless both Committees on Appropriations are notified 15 days
in advance of such reprogramming of funds.
(b) None of the funds provided by this Act, provided by
previous appropriation Acts to the agencies in or transferred
to the Department of Homeland Security that remain available
for obligation or expenditure in fiscal year 2004, or
provided from any accounts in the Treasury of the United
States derived by the collection of fees available to the
agencies funded by this Act, shall be available for
obligation or expenditure for programs, projects, or
activities through a reprogramming of funds in excess of
$5,000,000 or 10 percent, whichever is less, that (1)
augments existing programs, projects, or activities; (2)
reduces by 10 percent funding for any existing program,
project, or activity, or numbers of personnel by 10 percent
as approved by the Congress; or (3) results from any general
savings from a reduction in personnel that would result in a
change in existing programs, projects, or activities, as
approved by the Congress; unless the Committees on
Appropriations are notified 15 days in advance of such
reprogramming of funds.
(c) Not to exceed 5 percent of any appropriation made
available for the current fiscal year for the Department of
Homeland Security in this Act or provided in previous
appropriation Acts may be transferred between such
appropriations, but no such appropriation, except as
otherwise specifically provided, shall be increased by more
than 10 percent by such transfers: Provided, That any
transfer pursuant to this section shall be treated as a
reprogramming of funds and shall not be available for
obligation unless the Committees on Appropriations are
notified 15 days in advance of such transfer.
Sec. 504. Except as otherwise specifically provided by law,
not to exceed 50 percent of unobligated balances remaining
available at the end of fiscal year 2004 from appropriations
made available for salaries and expenses for fiscal year 2004
in this Act, shall remain available through September 30,
2005, for each such account for the purposes authorized:
Provided, That a request shall be submitted to the Committees
on Appropriations for approval prior to the expenditure of
such funds: Provided further, That these requests shall be
made in compliance with reprogramming guidelines.
Sec. 505. Except as otherwise provided in this Act, funds
may be used for hire and purchase of motor vehicles as
authorized by section 1343 of title 31, United States Code:
Provided, That purchase for police-type use of passenger
vehicles may be made without regard to the general purchase
price limitation for the current fiscal year.
Sec. 506. The Federal Emergency Management Agency ``Working
Capital Fund'' shall be available to the Department of
Homeland Security, as authorized by sections 503 and 1517 of
the Homeland Security Act of 2002, for expenses and equipment
necessary for maintenance and operations of such
administrative services as the Secretary of Homeland Security
determines may be performed more advantageously as central
services. Such fund shall hereafter be known as the
``Department of Homeland Security Working Capital Fund''.
Sec. 507. The Federal Emergency Management Agency
``Bequests and Gifts'' account shall be available to the
Department of Homeland Security, as authorized by sections
503 and 1517 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, for the
Secretary of Homeland Security to accept, hold, administer,
and utilize gifts and bequests, including property, to
facilitate the work of the Department of Homeland Security:
Provided, That such fund shall hereafter be known as
``Department of Homeland Security, Gifts and Donations'':
Provided further, That any gift or bequest shall be used in
accordance with the terms of that gift or bequest to the
greatest extent practicable.
Sec. 508. Funds made available by this Act for intelligence
activities are deemed to be specifically authorized by the
Congress for purposes of section 504 of the National Security
Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 414) during fiscal year 2004 until the
enactment of the Intelligence Authorization Act for fiscal
year 2004.
Sec. 509. The Federal Law Enforcement Training Center is
directed to establish an accrediting body that will include
representatives from the Federal law enforcement community,
as well as non-Federal accreditation experts involved in law
enforcement training. The purpose of this body will be to
establish standards for measuring and assessing the quality
and effectiveness of Federal law enforcement training
programs, facilities, and instructors.
Sec. 510. None of the funds in this Act shall be available
to plan, finalize, or implement regulations that would
establish a vessel traffic safety fairway less than 5 miles
wide between the Santa Barbara Traffic Separation Scheme and
the San Francisco Traffic Separation Scheme.
Sec. 511. None of the funds in this Act may be used to make
a grant unless the Secretary of Homeland Security notifies
the Committees on Appropriations not less than 3 full
business days before any grant allocation, discretionary
grant award, or letter of intent totaling $1,000,000 or more
is announced by the department or its directorates from (1)
any discretionary or formula-based grant program of the
Office of Domestic Preparedness; (2) any letter of intent
from the Transportation Security Administration; or (3) any
port security grant: Provided, That no notification shall
involve funds that are not available for obligation.
Sec. 512. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no
agency shall purchase, construct, and/or lease any additional
facilities, except within or contiguous to existing
locations, to be used for the purpose of conducting Federal
law enforcement training without the advance approval of the
Committees on Appropriations, except that the Federal Law
Enforcement Training Center is authorized to obtain the
temporary use of additional facilities by lease, contract, or
other agreement for training which cannot be accommodated in
existing Center facilities.
Sec. 513. The Federal Law Enforcement Training Center is
directed to ensure that all of the training centers under its
control are operated at their highest potential capacity
efficiency throughout the fiscal year. In order to facilitate
this direction, the Director is authorized to schedule basic
and advanced law enforcement training at any site the Federal
Law Enforcement Training Center determines is warranted in
the interests of the Government to ensure the best
utilization of the Center's total capacity for training,
notwithstanding legislative prohibitions.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Sec. 514. Section 114 of title 49, United States Code, is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(t) Fee Authority for Transportation Credentials.--
``(1) Subject to the provisions of this subsection, the
Secretary of Homeland Security may impose reasonable fees and
charges on an individual or an individual's employer, where
such an individual requires a credential or background
records check under Federal law for an activity in the field
of transportation, to cover the costs of providing the
credential or performing the backgrounds records check,
including--
``(A) conducting or obtaining a criminal history records
check and a review of available law enforcement databases and
records
[[Page H5773]]
of other governmental and international agencies;
``(B) review and adjudication of requests for waiver and
appeals of agency decisions with respect to providing the
credential, performing the background records check, and
denials of requests for waiver and appeals; and
``(C) any other costs of the Transportation Security
Administration related to providing the credential or
performing the backgrounds records check.
``(2) The Secretary shall ensure that the fees are
reasonably related to the costs of the Transportation
Security Administration for providing services rendered. The
amount of costs imposed under this subsection shall be
determined by the Secretary and shall not be subject to
judicial review.
``(3) Notwithstanding section 9701 of title 31 and the
procedural requirements of section 553 of title 5, the
Secretary may impose a fee under this subsection through the
publication of notice in the Federal Register.
``(4) Notwithstanding section 3302 of title 31, any fee
collected under this section--
``(A) shall be credited as an offsetting collection to the
account in the Treasury from which the expenses were incurred
and are available to the Secretary for these expenses; and
``(B) shall remain available until expended.''.
Point of Order
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against section 514.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against section 514
on page 37, line 14 through page 39, line 10. This particular section
violates clause 2 of rule XXI. It changes existing law and therefore
constitutes legislating on an appropriations bill in violation of the
House rules.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there other Members desiring to be heard on the
point of order?
If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
The Chair finds that section 514 proposes directly to change existing
law, to wit: section 114 of title 49, United States Code, and as such
it constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2(b) of rule 21, and
the point of order is sustained. Section 514 is stricken from the bill.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Sec. 515. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used for the production of customs declarations that do
not inquire whether the passenger has been in the proximity
of livestock.
Sec. 516. None of the funds made available by this Act
shall be available for any activity or for paying the salary
of any Government employee where funding an activity or
paying a salary to a Government employee would result in a
determination, regulation, or policy that would prohibit the
enforcement of section 307 of the Tariff Act of 1930.
Sec. 517. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to allow--
(1) the importation into the United States of any good,
ware, article, or merchandise mined, produced, or
manufactured by forced or indentured child labor, as
determined pursuant to section 307 of the Tariff Act of 1930
(19 U.S.C. 1307); or
(2) the release into the United States of any good, ware,
article, or merchandise on which there is in effect a
detention order, pursuant to such section 307, on the basis
that the good, ware, article, or merchandise may have been
mined, produced, or manufactured by forced or indentured
child labor.
Sec. 518. Appropriations to the Department of Homeland
Security in this Act shall be available for purchase of
insurance for official motor vehicles operated in foreign
countries; purchase of motor vehicles without regard to the
general purchase price limitations for vehicles purchased and
used overseas for the current fiscal year; entering into
contracts with the Department of State for the furnishing of
health and medical services to employees and their dependents
serving in foreign countries; and services authorized by
section 3109 of title 5, United States Code.
Sec. 519. None of the funds appropriated in this Act may be
used for expenses of any construction, repair, alteration,
and acquisition project for which a prospectus, if required
by the Public Buildings Act of 1959, has not been approved,
except that necessary funds may be expended for each project
for required expenses for the development of a proposed
prospectus.
Sec. 520. None of the funds in this Act shall be used to
pursue or adopt guidelines or regulations requiring airport
sponsors to provide to the Transportation Security
Administration without cost building construction,
maintenance, utilities and expenses, or space in airport
sponsor-owned buildings for services relating to aviation
security: Provided, That the prohibition of funds in this
section does not apply to--
(1) negotiations between the agency and airport sponsors to
achieve agreement on ``below-market'' rates for these items,
or
(2) space for necessary security checkpoints.
Sec. 521. Section 835 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002
(Public Law 107-296; 6 U.S.C. 395) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by inserting before the period ``,
or any subsidiary of such an entity'';
(2) in subsection (b)(1), by inserting ``before, on, or''
after the ``completes'';
(3) in subsection (e)(1)(B), by striking ``which is after
the date of enactment of this Act and''; and
(4) in subsection (d) by striking all after ``in the
interest of'' and inserting ``national security.''.
Point of Order
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against section 521
on page 41, line 15 through line 25, of H.R. 2555 on the grounds that
this provision changes existing law in violation of clause 2(b) of the
House rule 21 and therefore is legislation included in a general
appropriations bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Do further Members desire to be heard on the point of
order?
The gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I wish to be heard on the point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Connecticut may proceed.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I want to express my serious opposition to
this point of order and point out the hypocrisy of what my friends on
the other side of the aisle are doing here.
I offered this amendment during the Committee on Appropriations
consideration of this bill. It was accepted by the chairman and it was
passed on a voice vote. Yet, today they use a technical excuse to
justify stripping it from the bill. Just another gimmick.
This amendment would do nothing more than restore the law to the form
it held when 318 Members of this House voted for a motion to recommit
that I offered to prohibit the Department of Homeland Security from
contracting with corporate expatriates on July 26, 2002. But before
that bill became law, loopholes were added that exempted most of the
expatriate companies from the provision.
Expatriate companies are those that go offshore solely for the
purposes of not paying taxes in the United States. At the time the
majority leadership said publicly that those loopholes would be closed.
Last November 19 the former leader of the other body told reporters
that he had received a commitment from the Speaker and the majority
leader that this would be fixed. Unfortunately, we have yet to do that.
We have an obligation to address this issue. American companies,
particularly those contracting with our government, ought to be paying
American taxes just like every citizen and corporation in this country.
By this action, the Republican majority is demonstrating that they do
not hold those same values. Since the majority leadership has failed to
act, I offered an amendment in the Committee on Appropriations to close
those loopholes added to the law last summer. Let me stress again that
this amendment was accepted by the chairman of the subcommittee and
passed on a voice vote.
The amendment would simply prohibit Federal agencies from contracting
with a domestic subsidiary of any company that has moved overseas. This
will prevent corporations from setting up a shell company overseas but
then continue to exploit the tax loophole by obtaining government
contracts here at home.
One high ranking Republican member of the Committee on Ways and Means
said about closing this loophole that ``business does not like that.''
Is that how we decide how to solve our problem? This amendment would
further make the contract ban retroactive so it applies to existing
corporate expatriates.
Finally, the amendment includes a waiver solely for the purposes of
national security, which is what was included in the original ban
passed on the floor. That waiver was unnecessarily expanded last year
for all intents and purposes, making the entire provision meaningless.
Evidence shows that corporate expatriates cost our government about
$4 billion in revenue, funds that we sorely need. Yet they continue to
receive $2.7 billion in government contracts after they have abdicated
their most basic responsibility as citizens. We should not reward these
companies with contracts from the very department that
[[Page H5774]]
is charged with safeguarding our homeland security.
We should not use procedural sleight of hands to disguise the fact
that some in this body want to condone that very practice. I am not
calling for a vote at this time, but I would hope that the House
leadership will seriously revisit this issue. It is wrong. It is un-
American, and it is a travesty to think about these companies who
refuse to pay taxes to this country and yet want to be the
beneficiaries of the dollars and the contracts in order to deal with
homeland security. Let us live up to the commitment that 318 of us made
last year.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there further Members desiring to be heard on the
point of order?
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, the DeLauro amendment adopted by the
Committee on Appropriations as part of the Homeland Security
Appropriations Bill is in fact a significant change in the procurement
policy of the United States, a subject clearly within the jurisdiction
of the Committee on Government Reform under House Rule 10.
The DeLauro amendment calls for a broad sweeping contracting ban for
so-called inverted domestic corporations and is clearly a change in
existing law. As such, this section is in clear violation of clause
2(b) of House Rule 21, providing that no provision changing existing
law shall be reported in any general appropriations bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there Members wishing to be heard on the point of
order?
The Chair is prepared to rule and will so rule.
The Chair finds that section 521 proposes directly to change existing
law, to wit: section 835 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, and as
such it constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2(b) of rule 21,
and the point of order is sustained. Section 521 is stricken from the
bill.
Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
Mr. Chairman, for the better part of 2 years now we have been
promised a vote on closing the Bermuda loophole, an effort to amend
this process on the floor where the Republican leadership has accepted
by a margin so lopsided that it rivals any vote that we will take in
any given legislative year. I believe 318 members of this House voted
to do something about these corporate expatriates who not only leave
the United States to avoid paying taxes but then have the unmitigated
gall to bid on defense work in homeland security legislation. Ingersoll
Rand, TYCO, these companies are avoiding billions of dollars in taxes,
joint taxes estimated that we would garner, an additional $5 billion if
we would simply close the Bermuda tax loophole.
Now, I know what the talking points of the Republican Party are on
this. It is the corporate tax structure that is at fault. Well, if that
is the case after 9 years why have not we done something about it? It
is unbelievable where we had a chairman of the Committee on Ways and
Means who used to say he was going to pull the Tax Code up by its
roots. Well, America tonight knows that that tax system is more
complicated and more unfair than ever.
We were going to drive a stake through the heart of the Tax Code. We
were going to have tax simplicity. You know what we have had? We have
had the rewarding of rich friends by our failure to address this issue.
For the Americans that are viewing this evening, I would ask you what
would happen if you moved to Bermuda and declared that by renting a
post office box you had taken citizenship on that island nation.
{time} 1730
The IRS would be after you the next day. There would be no avenue of
retreat, no opportunity to do what these corporations are doing. We
have got 150,000 troops in Iraq tonight; and we talk about patriotism,
while these guys renounce their citizenship and everybody knows that
they continue to do substantial business and have their real corporate
addresses here in the United States? And yet we cannot get a vote in
this House of Representatives on that matter.
Two years ago, David Rogers in the Wall Street Journal was promised
by the leadership of this House ``there would have to be a vote on the
Bermuda tax loophole.'' We are no closer to doing that this evening
than we were 2 years ago; and that argument, again it galls everybody.
It is the corporate tax structure that is at fault, not these folks
moving offshore to avoid their responsibilities to live in this great
Nation. That is patriotic, to pay our taxes and the $82 billion that
Iraq is costing and $42 billion for homeland security.
We define patriotism by allowing these guys to move their corporate
address to Bermuda for one exclusive purpose, to avoid taxes. What does
that say about this great Nation and our principles? Yet the
intransigence of the leadership on the majority side month after month
after month is to do nothing about it. Put that question on the floor
here about whether or not these folks should pay their taxes and I tell
my colleagues what we would get, 350 votes for it and everybody knows
it.
Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today with my friend, the gentleman from
Tennessee (Mr. Wamp), in support of providing domestic sourcing
preferences for the Department of Homeland Security. As we take steps
to protect our homeland security, an integral part of the process is
strengthening our national and economic security. Through applying
provisions that support the American industrial defense base to the
Department of Homeland Security we can help ensure that American
companies are able to provide the crucial goods needed by the agency to
promote homeland security.
The American taxpayer provides the dollars which Congress then
appropriates. It is only right that those same dollars are reinvested
back into our economy. These dollars are reinvested back into our
companies and workers and not those of a foreign country who could be
an opponent or, at worst, a non-ally.
It is wise to provide for the livelihood of American citizens while
funding government agencies. Homeland security starts at home, just as
the name implies, in the homes and paychecks of American families. One
of the most frequent questions I am asked by constituents is how they
can sell their products or goods to the U.S. Government.
Today we have the ability to ensure that U.S. companies will be able
to pursue and win contracts with the Federal Government. We have the
opportunity to safeguard our economic security and keep America strong
while providing necessary funds for America's homeland security.
My top two priorities are economic security and national security.
Strengthening our homeland security is something that we are all
working hard to do. There is no reason that the Department of Homeland
Security should not do everything they can within reason to buy
American goods.
A few years back we had an unfortunate episode where the U.S. Army
purchased over 1 million black berets for U.S. soldiers. The problem
was that a majority of those berets were made in China, and I think we
all can agree that is ridiculous.
We need to take steps to ensure that government agencies not only
improve our homeland security, but we have also got to take advantage
of every opportunity we can to strengthen and promote jobs here at
home.
I urge adoption of this crucial provision and would like to thank the
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) and his staff for working with me
to provide American companies every opportunity to contract with the
Department of Homeland Security and keep America strong.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I move to strike the last
word.
Mr. Chairman, it is obvious that the ranking member of the full
committee and the chairman of the full committee, as well as the
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) and the gentleman from Minnesota
(Mr. Sabo), respectively the chairman and ranking member of the
Subcommittee on Homeland Security, are making every effort to work as
diligently as they can on addressing the question of homeland security.
Mr. Chairman, I think it is important to address the question of
neighborhood security, and I believe that in the
[[Page H5775]]
course of the debate on the floor of the House many Members have come
to debate questions and offer amendments not to be frivolous, but to
ensure that our duty and responsibility to the American people are
carried out.
I rise in support of an amendment, recognizing that the offerers have
withdrawn it, but I rise to explain to my colleagues the importance of
the concept offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady) and the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner). I came back from field hearings
not in my district but in Long Beach, California, and Los Angeles,
California; and I think it is important to note that there is no
attempt here to diminish anyone's need for security in any part of the
country. In fact, I am a very strong advocate for focusing on urban and
rural areas because no one ever knows where a terrorist will attack,
but I think this concept of delivering moneys only on the basis of
population and not having a formula that responds to the high-targeted
areas, let me share with my colleagues from the Houston Chronicle a
comment noted that, with Texas as the target, officials are especially
concerned about oil or gas facilities and pipelines because al Qaeda
terrorists in the past have talked about attacking the energy sector as
a way of damaging America's economy, officials said.
Mr. Chairman, even on 9-11 as we were trying to find out what was
happening, rumors abounded that Houston was one of the cities because
of its oil interests and its oil facilities that might be on the list
of the terrorists that were now in the United States and tragically and
horribly had struck the World Towers. It is important to recognize
reality, and this idea of the formula is to make sense out of a simple
process that gives moneys on the basis of population.
I believe, for example, we would take one State that might get $33 a
person because of its population that is less than the State of Texas
with its high density and its problems with oil refineries and other
oil interests, and they would only get $3 or $4 a person. I know as we
visited Long Beach and Los Angeles, and I use them only as an example,
that the issue that was being made by those first responders was the
need for resources in their hands.
Another point that was made was the need for resources to utilize the
personnel, Mr. Chairman, not just for equipment, and this is one of the
things that I believe we should openly discuss, that the formula that
is presently utilized gives money only for equipment to our first
responders. They need money for personnel. One can have the highest
degree of equipment; but if they do not have personnel in the law
enforcement, police departments, if they do not have personnel in the
fire department, specifically the hazardous materials unit, that
usually four people or five people or six people, it is key, Mr.
Chairman, that we look at this not from the position of indictment,
that we are accusatory or that we are not in sync with the mission that
we are going forward on, but at the same time we should look for it in
improvement.
Let me share with my colleagues the words of Secretary Ridge and
paraphrase him, that generally speaking, the way that we have been
distributing funds of old does not help the present situation. The very
fact that each State should get the same amount of money does not help
us fight terrorism. Some States should get more money than others
because they have been elevated to a higher risk of terrorism.
So the reason why I believe it was worthy to have the debate that
provided us the opportunity to discuss a different formula change is
because, Mr. Chairman, it is crucial that this body does the right
thing in securing the American people, and changing the formula would
help us do the right thing. Getting the moneys in the hands of those
first responders and others helps us do the right thing; and I would
hope as our colleagues see this bill move forward, giving us more
money, as the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has suggested that we
do, in the right and fair way would help do the right thing.
I ask my colleagues to consider these elements as we move forward.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. McHugh). The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Sec. 522. (a) None of the funds provided in this or
previous appropriation Acts may be obligated for testing
(other than simulations), deployment, or implementation of
CAPPS2, the Computer Assisted Passenger Pre-screening System
that the Transportation Security Administration (``TSA'')
plans to utilize to screen aviation passengers, until the
General Accounting Office has reported to the Committees on
Appropriations that--
(1) a system of due process exists whereby aviation
passengers determined to pose a threat and either delayed or
prohibited from boarding their scheduled flights by the TSA
may appeal such decision and correct incorrect information
contained in CAPPS2;
(2) the underlying error rate of the government and private
data bases that will be used both to establish identity and
assign a risk level to a passenger will not produce a large
number of false positives that will result in a significant
number of passengers being treated mistakenly or security
resources being diverted;
(3) the TSA has stress-tested and demonstrated the efficacy
and accuracy of all search tools in CAPPS2 and has
demonstrated that CAPPS2 can make an accurate predictive
assessment of those passengers who would constitute a threat
to aviation;
(4) the Secretary of Homeland Security has established an
internal oversight board to oversee and monitor the manner in
which CAPPS2 is being developed and prepared;
(5) the TSA has built in sufficient operational safeguards
to reduce the opportunities for abuse;
(6) substantial security measures are in place to protect
CAPPS2 from unauthorized access by hackers or other
intruders;
(7) the TSA has adopted policies establishing effective
oversight of the use and operation of the system; and
(8) there are no specific privacy concerns with the
technological architecture of the system.
(b) Not later than December 31, 2003, the National Academy
of Sciences shall submit a report to the Committees on
Appropriations that assesses the likely impact of the CAPPS2
system on privacy and civil liberties and includes
recommendations for practices, procedures, regulations, or
legislation to eliminate or minimize adverse effect of such
system on privacy, discrimination, and other civil liberties.
Point of Order
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order against section 522.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman will state his point of
order.
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against section 522
on page 42, line 1, through page 43, line 24. This section violates
clause 2 of rule XXI. It, in fact, changes existing law and, therefore,
constitutes legislating on an appropriations bill in violation of the
House rules.
Furthermore, Mr. Chairman, I have assured the sponsor of this
original provision, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo), that the
House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure will be adding a
similar provision to our aviation security bill, H.R. 2144, during full
committee markup tomorrow, Wednesday, and we will have similar
language, and we do have the authority to authorize this language.
Unfortunately, his language is authorizing on an appropriations
measure; and therefore I raise that point of order.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does any Member wish to be heard on the
point of order?
Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I do.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Minnesota is recognized.
Mr. SABO. It is sort of strange. Would the gentleman from Florida
yield?
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I would be glad to yield.
Mr. SABO. In discussion of his point of order, we are trying to
figure out how----
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Chair notes to the gentleman from
Minnesota that under the rules of the House, debate on a point of order
must be directed to the Chair, who hears each Member separately.
Mr. SABO. Okay. Let me see if I figure out how we do this, Mr.
Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. I would note, just to help the gentleman
with his dilemma, that others may be heard on it on their own time.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I think I understand what the gentleman from
Florida is saying is that he is raising a point of order against this
provision because it is legislation on an appropriation bill. However,
he is also telling me that the authorizing committee is meeting
tomorrow and it is their intent to adopt provisions that are similar in
substance to what is contained in
[[Page H5776]]
the language of the appropriations bill, which will then be amended in
another bill.
The gentleman from Minnesota would observe that, as he has read what
is intended to be offered tomorrow, that in many ways it is similar and
if that bill were before us we would not be subject to a point of
order. However, the gentleman from Minnesota has also observed that
some of the enforcement techniques within the proposed language are
significantly weaker.
I would observe that the proposal that the committee will be
considering tomorrow leaves the responsibility for reviewing CAPPS2
proposal internally in the Department while the language in question,
which is subject to a point of order now, gives that responsibility to
the GAO; and I would hope the gentleman from Florida would consider
such language because frankly one of my concerns is the Department may
not be equipped to make a good judgment.
We, frankly, have watched an agency that has had a problem trying to
figure out which of their own employees do or do not have criminal
backgrounds, and we think it might be a significant advantage to have
the GAO look at their proposed plans before they are implemented rather
than waiting until a year after deployment and development of these
plans to have a GAO study.
{time} 1745
So I would urge the gentleman from Florida, as he ponders whether he
should continue to press this point of order, that they might well
consider expanding at an earlier stage the review of GAO of the pending
plans of the agency.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. McHugh). Does any other Member wish to
be heard?
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, again, I think that the point of order that I
raised clearly does demonstrate, in fact if we look at the language
before us, that there is authorization language contained by the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo), which is excellent language and
directive language but it does authorize on an appropriations measure,
which is not allowed under the rules of the House.
The gentleman has raised issues about the substance of what is
proposed in the full committee markup, and we will address some of
those, but we do have a provision and we clearly have under our charter
the responsibility for legislating the procedure which is followed. We
will have the Under Secretary directed to not implement, other than on
a test basis, the CAPPS2 program until the Under Secretary provides to
Congress a certification that certain steps are taken. And later on we
will have, of course, a GAO review required under our measure.
So we have the authority to the point of order clearly under the
charter within the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. This
is going to be considered under the FAA AIR-21 reauthorization. The
security measure which is being considered, H.R. 2144, will be marked
up tomorrow and blended into legislation which has already passed the
House and, again, clearly under our authority as authorizers.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. If no other Member wishes to be heard on
the point of order, the Chair is prepared to rule.
The Chair finds that section 522 proposes explicitly to supersede
existing law, most immediately by proposing to restrict funds that were
appropriated in other acts. As such, it constitutes legislation in
violation of clause 2(b) of rule XXI, and the point of order is
sustained. Section 522 is stricken from the bill.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Hayes
Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Hayes:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec.____. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used in contravention of the applicable provisions of the
Buy American Act (41 U.S.C. 10a-10c).
Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, I have spoken as to my support for this
amendment, and if he so desires I would yield to my friend and
cosponsor, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp).
Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HAYES. I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee.
Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me, and
I certainly appreciate the privilege of having my name associated with
anything that the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hayes) does here.
The Buy American provisions that we have talked about a lot in the
past on this floor are very germane to this debate. I appreciate the
fact that we can offer this amendment, hopefully without anyone raising
a point of order against it, because it is essential that in this
appropriations bill, as we prioritize the homeland security needs of
the future, that we put all the language we can in the bill to
encourage United States business and enterprise to produce and provide
the goods and services that we need to secure our homeland.
Let me give an example, one very large example. In this bill we
actually fund into the future a program called BioShield, where the
administration leads and we scrub and fund and hold the hearings on an
effort to provide the stockpiles for vaccines and immunizations in the
event that we are attacked. Companies all around the world make these
products. But when we are talking about chelating agents that would
actually provide relief and support to those people affected that we
may stockpile in a dozen locations around the country in very large
quantities, I want a United States manufacturer, if at all possible, to
make those products, and I want those products stockpiled here in the
United States, if at all possible.
That is all that this language says, is that wherever we can we buy
American for these products and services. And on this BioShield
initiative in this bill, it is $5.6 billion over the next 10 years,
including a 2004 appropriation, the coming year appropriation of $890
million. That is a lot of money. It is a lot of procurement. It is very
important that wherever we can we look to United States companies.
Mr. Chairman, there are countries around the world that have not been
particularly supportive of us in recent years that have the advanced
capabilities of providing these products and services and goods from
time to time. And we do not want to respond in a punitive way
whatsoever. If they have the products, and we need them, and we have
good relations, that is great. But what we want to say is there are
businesses and workers and interests in this country that support our
country with their taxes. We want to support them wherever we possibly
can.
That is the intent. That is the reality of this legislation. Many
have come before us and attached Buy American amendments to a host of
legislative matters, some big, some small, but I have to say, as we
begin this new Department of Homeland Security, as we properly resource
it, I cannot think of a more important issue that we attach Buy
American provisions to than securing our homeland, to make sure that we
actually control as much as possible what these products actually are,
to make sure that they are what they say they are, and that we know
what we are getting if an event happens once again.
So, Mr. Chairman, I applaud the author, he and I are going in the
same direction, and we have teamed up on this amendment.
Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman
for his remarks, I thank the chairman, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr.
Rogers), and I urge the support of others to keep America strong and to
support our industrial defense base.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by
the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hayes).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Markey
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Markey:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert
the following:
Sec. ____. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to approve, renew, or implement any aviation cargo
security plan that permits the transporting of unscreened or
uninspected cargo on passenger planes.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I bring a very important subject to the
attention of the Members of the House. Each
[[Page H5777]]
one of us, justifiably so, and every American, more than 100 million,
who get onto planes in our country every year are now required to take
their shoes off as they go through a process in an airport to ensure
that no danger will befall the other passengers on that plane. Now,
that is completely justifiable, and I think all Americans, well, almost
all Americans, accept that now as part of the process of getting on any
airplane in America since September 11.
We in Boston, at Logan Airport, know the consequences, because two of
the planes that were hijacked came from Boston, came from Logan
Airport, and came from within five miles of my home. So my amendment
today deals with the reality that after everyone's shoes have been
inspected, bags have gone through security, and this is what the
Transportation Security Administration now requires, after the booties
of babies are taken off and inspected, underneath, on the same plane,
on the same day, with the same passengers on board, with their shoes
now back on after having been screened underneath the cargo, the cargo
has not been screened.
My amendment would require that the cargo that goes on the passenger
planes that more than 100 million Americans each year fly is screened
as well as the passengers themselves, as well as grandma, as well as
the babies with their booties, because it is unfair to every American
who gets on a plane to be put in danger that the cargo on that plane
has not been screened.
Now, what do we mean by screening? We mean the same level of physical
inspection of passenger plane cargo as is applied to passenger plane
luggage and to the passengers themselves. What do we not mean? We do
not mean the Known Shipper Program, which is the current excuse for
allowing commercial cargo to be carried on passenger planes without
physical screening. And which technology will we use? We will use the
same technology that American air carriers use to screen cargo in
international airports every single day of the week all day long. Who
will do the screening? The same screeners who are now being laid off,
3,000 of them, 6,000 of them who are trained to do this job. We cannot
allow this to go on any longer.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MARKEY. I yield to the gentleman from Connecticut.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, may I ask how much time the gentleman has
left?
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment,
which will require the Transportation Security Administration, TSA, to
develop a plan to screen or inspect all cargo that is carried on
passenger planes.
To me, it blows me away that we would allow any freight to go in the
belly of an aircraft that has not been inspected. And at the very least
the public has the right to know that basically 20 percent of the cargo
in the belly of an aircraft is totally unscreened. Its cargo is
unscreened. We could have not one, not two, not three, but we could
have a number of planes knocked out of the sky at any one time simply
because we are not inspecting the freight cargo that is in the belly of
an aircraft.
Mr. Chairman, with that, I will yield back to my colleague and thank
him for his amendment. I cannot think of a stronger and more important
amendment.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman
and I urge support of the full House on as important an amendment as we
are going to be called on to vote on this year in Congress.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition. TSA
currently screens cargo based on the Known Shipper Program and
identifies potentially troublesome cargo by additional screening. By
law, they are required to ensure adequate cargo security measures, but
not 100 percent screening of air cargo. In essence, this amendment
would stop airlines from loading cargo onto passenger aircraft until
TSA can screen or inspect each individual piece.
Now, in the bill, we already provide $50 million for the security of
air cargo. This funding will do the following: It will develop an air
cargo security program for domestic and foreign air cargo carriers. It
will promote the development and implementation of a risk-based freight
screening system that will identify pieces of cargo that require closer
scrutiny and participation in the Known Shipper Program, including
linkages with other databases to verify shipper information that is
provided. We provide for development of state-of-the-art detection
technologies that will screen cargo and also research and test devices
that exist now and procedures to be applied to air cargo.
{time} 1800
Right now, Mr. Chairman, it is not humanly possible to inspect every
piece of cargo that goes onto the aircraft. TSA does not have the staff
or technologies in place to do that. For example, airport screeners
screen passengers and baggage using explosive detection and trace
machines. These machines are not certified to screen cargo, nor can
they handle the large pallets that cargo is typically shipped in. In
these cases, the pallets would need to be broken apart and screened by
hand. That is very time-consuming and labor intensive.
In addition, in many cases cargo is sorted and prepared onto pallets
at airport warehouses nowhere near the airports; and to implement this
amendment, the cargo would need to be screened at these off-site
locations. According to an analysis prepared by Battelle just prior to
9-11, 100 percent screening of all cargo on passenger carriers would
require at least $500 million in the first year alone. That includes
procurement of equipment, installation, training, and staffing. It
would require 7,800 employees, which would include 6,600 screeners and
1,100 supervisors. If we adopt this amendment, TSA would need to hire a
substantial number of new staff to inspect cargo and install new
technologies at all of these warehouses.
Even if there was sufficient funding in the bill, which there is not,
it is not logistically possible to have all of these screeners and
technologies in place by the beginning of the fiscal year. TSA is
currently in compliance with the Transportation Security Act, which
requires TSA to provide adequate security measures for air cargo. The
law does not require every piece to be screened or inspected, as this
amendment would. We do not require every piece of cargo that goes onto
a ship be screened when it is loaded onto a ship or before it is off-
loaded. Instead, DHS targets what cargo pieces need to be more closely
inspected based on intelligence and innovations such as the advanced
manifests that we now require.
By adopting this amendment, TSA would have to refuse to allow
airlines to transport any cargo until all of it can be screened, and I
would point out that the money-strapped airlines would be sorely tried
trying to do this, and it would greatly impact their bottom line.
Currently, the only cargo airlines can ship on passenger planes is
from a known shipper. They cannot, for example, ship any mail above 16
ounces because the shippers may not be known.
So, Mr. Chairman, I understand the obvious meaning of the amendment.
I appreciate the concern the gentleman has. We have tried to address
that in the bill with $50 million to begin to address the problem. To
adopt this kind of a drop-dead provision would mean chaos in the
airlines. It would not substantially increase the security that is now
ongoing in loading cargo onto planes. The Known Shipper Program is
reliable. It is working, and while we spend the $50 million this coming
year to begin to try to get the machines and technology in place to be
able to screen, as we do, container freight in most cases, this money
should be sufficient for that purpose. So I would urge defeat of the
amendment.
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak on the Markey amendment, and that issue
is the glaring hole that remains in our airline security. It is a
shocking realization for most Americans to learn that almost fully half
of the cargo that is in the hold of an air passenger plane when they
get on a plane to go on vacation or work travel, that almost half of
that cargo is commercial cargo that is
[[Page H5778]]
never screened by anyone for explosives.
That is a massive failure in our airline security. Some months ago I
introduced the Airline Cargo Security Act modeled after legislation by
Senators Feinstein and Hutchison which would require the TSA to adopt
comprehensive measures to inspect airline cargo. It gives the TSA
flexibility to use a variety of different methods to accomplish this,
from new technologies to blast-proof containers, to a database of known
shippers; but it requires that the job get done. The airline industry
is hanging by a slender thread. Terrorists do not have to hijack our
airplanes any more to wreak chaos on this industry and wreak
devastation on this country and our economy. They just have to blow a
plane out of the sky. Given the fact that so much of the cargo is not
screened for anything, this is tragically too easy to accomplish. This
has to change. This has to change.
It is hard to overstate the significance and the disparity of this
security problem. All of us have had the experience of going through
the airport now and having to take our belt and shoes off and remove
the toenail clippers from our carry-on luggage, but imagine the fact
that in the hold of that plane are huge containers which have not been
inspected by anyone. And when we consider the security lapses in
shipping that cargo, the opportunities when that freight is forwarded
to include explosive or other dangerous materials in that cargo, it is
extraordinary.
Indeed, I think most Americans would find it baffling that we go
through these personally intrusive measures when we go to the airport,
but our cargo goes through nothing. We cannot fight the last battle; we
cannot simply predict that terrorists are going to use the same
technique they used before. We have to be forward-thinking and
recognize that there are wholesale gaps in what we are doing to protect
the American people. I applaud my colleague for raising this issue in
this legislation. I want to urge my colleagues both here today and in
the future to address the issue of cargo security. Let us not wait for
a tragedy to awaken us to this problem.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I simply want to note in the Obey amendment, which the
House was not allowed to vote on today, we would have added $150
million for airline security, including an additional $50 million for
this very project, doubling what the committee has in its bill.
The problem that we have is that the known-shipper system is simply a
trust-the-luck system based on what we know about shippers and the
people who work for them. Our concern is about what we do not know. We
have just seen that TSA had a very difficult time in doing the
background screening for criminal activity before they hired a number
of people, and those people had to be let go. We really do not have any
way of knowing what is happening within the businesses of the people
who are shipping. It just seems to me that this amendment is eminently
prudent and should be adopted.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, first let me say, and I do not say this out of
formality but because I believe it deeply, that the chairman of the
subcommittee has crafted a good bill, and this is the first bill on
homeland security, and I applaud the gentleman for his tremendous
efforts and work; but he has given us an opportunity to discuss
something which has troubled me deeply.
I chair the Subcommittee on National Security of the Committee on
Government Reform. We learned clearly before September 11 of the
terrorist threat. We knew it was a new threat, and we knew that we
needed to develop a strategy to confront it and to reorganize our
government; and we are in that process. But what blew me away when we
debated the Aviation Security Act was the fact that I had always
thought that we screened all of the luggage put in the belly of the
airplane by passengers.
We put an amendment on the bill in 2001 that said by the end of 2003
we would have to search all baggage. We finally got it included in the
bill, even though the Inslee amendment was not made in order. It was
put in as a manager's amendment, but people said we could not do it by
the end of 2003. Then when the bill came back from the Senate and we
had our conference bill, it said by the end of 2002.
I thought, ``If we could not do it then by 2003, how can we do it by
the end of 2002?'' And what I was told was that we really do not want
people to know that we cannot secure the aircraft from explosives, so
that is what they did. We had to amend the bill eventually and say we
would have adequate security measures.
Mr. Chairman, the definition of adequate security measures includes
machinery we do not have yet, dogs that we are using, swabs on the
outside of luggage, and then hand searches. The bottom line is even the
passenger baggage on aircraft is not fully checked for explosives. And
then we learn to compound that, we have the cargo holds. Cargo that is
put in the belly of a passenger aircraft is not checked, and it is just
wrong.
We cannot say that we have adequate security measures to inspect
cargo. We do not. It is a fraud. Maybe the chairman is right that this
is an amendment that is going to be a problem, and maybe when we get to
conference we will have to find a better way to deal with it, but we
have to send a message.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SHAYS. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I respect the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr.
Rogers), and I know it is a difficult job that he has; but there are
two programs in America. One is the known-tripper program. We are all
part of the known-tripper program. Every American that gets on a plane
is part of a known-tripper program. They want to know who you are. You
have to show your ID. They are going to check you if you are
suspicious. They are going to go through your bags. They do now care
who you are, baby or grandmother.
The known-shipper program for cargo, on the other hand, going onto
the very same place, only requires a piece of paper. They do not know
what warehouse it really came from.
That al Qaeda operative that just got arrested last week ran a cargo
firm. When he was interviewed, he said he was working with other
people. He said the name of the firm was Kashmir, Kashmir Service. It
was his own trucking company, a cargo firm. That is something we cannot
run the risk of happening in this country. They have to go through the
same screening for biological, chemical, and nuclear material that
would go on a plane as every one of us on a known-tripper program has
to go through. The gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) is right, we
cannot afford not to pay the price. It might cost us some money, but
America cannot afford not to pay it. It cannot be allowed to occur.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, the bottom line is a plane could be blown
out of the sky from explosives in the belly of an aircraft because
someone shipping cargo is simply able to get it on the airplane. We
have learned from the terrorists there is no line they will not cross.
I hope this amendment is passed; and then if we have to change the
amendment, we can do that in conference.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment, which will
require the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) to develop a
plan to screen or inspect all cargo that is carried on passenger
planes.
Since September 11, our nation's homeland defenses have undergone
tremendous improvements. I truly believe we are safer today than we
were prior to these heinous attacks, but we don't feel safer because we
had a false sense of security that was cruelly lifted.
In 2001, when Congress was considering the Aviation Security Act, I
was shocked to learn that less than 10 percent of checked baggage on
domestic flights was being screened. I worked with Congressman Jay
Inslee to add a provision to the bill requiring all checked baggage to
be screened for explosives.
During a recent hearing of the Select Committee on Homeland Security,
I was equally surprised to learn that air, which accounts for
approximately 22 percent of all baggage on passenger flights, is not
being screened for explosives. If we are not screening all the baggage
and cargo on passenger planes, then we are once again giving the
American people a false sense of security.
The bottom line is as long as cargo and baggage screening is
incomplete, there are
[[Page H5779]]
gaps in aviation security that are unacceptable. TSA must come to grips
with this challenge, which continues to leave too many air travelers at
risk.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this common-
sense amendment.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
requisite number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I think all of us have made it very clear that our
efforts are to support the work of this appropriations subcommittee.
But, Mr. Chairman, I rise in tribute, in remembrance of the many lives
that have been lost through terrorist acts in the United States. It
precedes the horrific tragedy of 9-11. I am particularly cognizant of
the 1988 Pan Am 103 plane crash where an interline bag was the cause of
that horrific tragedy where so many families lost their loved ones.
We know that we have come a long way from that tragedy. Our bags are
in fact screened and unaccompanied bags are screened. But when we began
this journey and we began to tell our airports and our airlines that
they were going to have to haul in this enormous equipment and make
sure that every bag was screened, what an uproar. Nobody thought it
could happen. Nobody thought we would be successful. It would take too
long. There would be backlogs.
{time} 1815
Yes, it is an inconvenience; but we have done it, and every airport
to a certain extent is working toward that goal. At our large airports
we have these huge machines that our bags must go through. Why, then,
Mr. Chairman, can we do any less or should we do any less for cargo,
because as we have determined in our field visits, the same kind of
activity is occurring in our ports, where in many instances we are
checking paperwork and we are looking at paperwork given to us by
foreign entities. Oh, yes, we do have criteria. Our intelligence
gathering has improved. We are looking at different marks that staff
and personnel can check off. When one mark does not come up, they say,
this is suspicious and they put them in a different category. We are
doing a better job. But I think this amendment of the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) and the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr.
Shays) is a sensible, reasonable approach that may be inconvenient, may
seem like a high mountain to climb; but in the long run we will be able
to not only pay tribute and mourn the loss of those who over the years
have died in terrorist attacks and in particular the Pan Am 103, which
in my community we lost an endeared family member, we will be able to
assure that we have done as much as we could do in that area.
That is why I think this is an important amendment, recognizing the
hard work of this committee and the efforts that have already been
made, but I clearly believe that our work is not complete. We mourn the
loss of the Pan Am 103 and other tragic acts. Pan Am 103 was a suitcase
that was unaccompanied, before our knowledge reached the sophistication
of terrorists. Now we cannot speculate what cargo might contribute to
some unfortunate and tragic act. Let us be proactive and get in front
of this question and help the committee in the way that we could and
can help it, and, that is, to look favorably on the amendment offered
by the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number
of words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to support this amendment. But what I want to
say more than anything else is that I think that those of us who serve
in this Chamber deserve to tell the American people the truth. I
believe that most moms and dads who get on an airplane and this summer
when they take their families on vacations and they get on an airplane,
they believe that those of us who serve in this Chamber have taken the
necessary steps to see that they are not blown out of the sky as a
result of a bomb being placed in cargo that is on that plane. I think
most Americans think we are already doing this.
We want the airlines to succeed. We have given billions of dollars in
aid to the airline industry. Can you imagine what will happen to
passenger travel in this country if an airplane is blown out of our sky
this summer with vacationers, travelers, businesspeople on it? This is
something that we have got to face up to.
The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) and I and others stood on
this floor months ago when we argued night after night after night that
there needed to be complete screening and inspection of everything that
went onto an airplane. The American people heard that, and I think most
of them agreed with us. But for us to say we cannot do it because we do
not have the money is a hollow argument. We find money around here for
everything we think is important. Everything that we truly believe is
important, that is of value to us, we fund. It ought to be a value to
make sure that those who travel on our aircraft can do so with the
confidence that we have done everything humanly possible to protect
them.
It is beyond me why we would not embrace this amendment. It is just
beyond me. I hope we do not have to stand here in this Chamber at some
time in the future and talk in somber tones about those who have lost
their lives to a terrorist act when we could have taken an action that
prevented that terrible tragedy from happening.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, this amendment prohibits any funds
from the Homeland Security appropriation from being used to approve a
security plan that permits the transporting of unscreened or
uninspected cargo on passenger planes.
Air cargo is a potential area of vulnerability in our aviation
security system.
In the Aviation and Transportation Security Act, Congress moved to
ensure that all checked baggage was screened for explosives. But carry-
on baggage and air cargo is still not screened for bombs, at least not
the plastic explosives that terrorists tend to use. However, carry-on
baggage is screened by x-ray, and air cargo is screened by the ``known
shipper program.'' In both areas, we could do better and I appreciate
the efforts of the gentleman from Massachusetts to do so.
I am concerned that this amendment could be misinterpreted as
requiring that all air cargo be put through an explosive detection
system or be opened and physically inspected. If the plain language of
the amendment required that, I would oppose it. That is clearly
impractical, if not impossible. Currently, there are no machines large
enough and quick enough to screen all air cargo in this way. And
physical inspection is so cumbersome that it would grind our economy to
a halt. This would be a particular problem in my State of Alaska, where
the people are especially dependent on air cargo for obtaining
necessary goods and service.
However, the amendment simply prohibits any funds from being spent to
approve an airline security plan unless that plan provides that air
cargo will be screened. Such screening is currently being done through
the known shipper program and I would expect that to continue. Over
time, new technology may enable us to improve air cargo screening and I
would support the use of such technology as long as it would not impede
the flow of air commerce.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
Markey) will be postponed.
Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Manzullo
Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Manzullo:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec.____. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used by the Secretary of Homeland Security to enter into a
contract for the procurement of manufactured articles,
materials, or supplies unless section 2 of the Buy American
Act (41 U.S.C. 10a) is applied to such procurement by
substituting ``at least 65 percent'' for ``substantially
all''.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order
against the gentleman's amendment because it proposes to impose new
duties and constitutes legislation on an appropriations bill and
therefore violates clause 2(c) of House rule XXI.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia raises a point of order. Is
[[Page H5780]]
there further discussion on the point of order?
Mr. MANZULLO. My understanding is that the gentleman was going to
reserve a point of order so I could get my point across.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. I reserve the point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia reserves the point of
order.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would also reserve a point of order on the
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin also reserves a point of
order.
Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, the American economy is in the midst of a
manufacturing crisis. Over the past 3 years, we have lost 2.6 million
manufacturing jobs. In the past 12 months, 53,000 manufacturing jobs
each month have been lost in this country. These are good-paying jobs.
Small business manufacturers pay on average 20 percent more to their
employees than other small businesses and provide a vast majority of
the basic products such as tools, dies and molds that are essential to
our national security and essential to our defense industrial base.
In 1981, Rockford, Illinois, my district's largest city, had an
unemployment rate of 24.9 percent, the highest in the Nation. Today it
is around 11 percent. I do not want to see a recurrence of what
happened in 1981. But we are losing our industrial base in this
country. Unlike the past when factories were closed during an economic
downturn but reopened when times improved, today a too-frequent outcome
is the permanent closure of the factory. The jobs leave forever. Young
people entering the workforce do not have a manufacturing career choice
left open to them as they did in the past.
Since 1933, the Buy American Act has safeguarded the interests of
American manufacturers by requiring the Federal Government to purchase
domestically produced products. But that only means 50.001 percent has
to be American goods. The Department of Labor's May employment report
showed again the 34th consecutive month of loss of manufacturing jobs.
Let me tell my colleagues what happened in Rockford, Illinois. After
112 years in business, Ingersoll Milling ceased operations. The
Rockford machine tool maker was one of only two companies to make
machines to shape radar absorbent composites into the skin of stealthy
warplanes. In bankruptcy, a Chinese state-owned enterprise is trying to
buy Ingersoll. The only plant that is left in the United States is in
Kentucky and that is Cincinnati Machine. They have just downsized from
750 people to 350 people. We are losing the ability to have
manufacturing facilities to defend the United States. The purpose of
this amendment is to build that manufacturing core to say, wake up,
Washington, wake up, America, the manufacturing jobs are gone, the
security of our Nation is being imperiled.
This amendment simply increases the Buy American content from 50
percent to 65 percent. It is so simple. The money that is being used to
protect America, we are only asking 65 cents of that be used to buy
American products. This is a very simple amendment. We would ask that
this body take its part in restoring American manufacturing in this
country. I would urge my colleagues, urge them, beg them, beseech them,
to adopt this amendment to help the restoration of our manufacturing
base.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
Actually, this amendment would radically change the current
application of the Buy American Act from 50 percent to include products
made in America even if most of the cost of the components, up to 65
percent, are produced domestically. This substantially increases the 50
percent test as provided in the current regulations.
Some companies have responded to the current Buy American Act
restrictions by establishing costly, labor-intensive product-tracking
systems that are not needed in the commercial business to ensure that
the products are being sold to government. In a few cases, companies
have simply stopped selling certain products in the Federal
marketplace. This denies our government access to some of the latest,
most cost-effective products in our fight against terrorism and
preserving homeland security. This radical Buy American Act if it were
allowed to be part of this legislation would impose financial and legal
burdens on taxpayers and the commercial companies that sell to the
Department.
I would, therefore, insist on my point of order.
Point of Order
The CHAIRMAN. Do the gentleman from Virginia and the gentleman from
Wisconsin insist upon their points of order?
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would simply agree with the point of order
lodged by the gentleman. I do not happen to have much of a problem with
the substance; but it seems to me that if the rules are to be applied
around here, they ought to be applied to everybody on both sides of the
aisle.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there any other Members desiring recognition?
Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak to the point of
order.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman may proceed for five minutes. The point
of order is reserved.
Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Chairman, the Raleigh News & Observer headline
this past Sunday said, ``North Carolina's Trade Deficit Soars:
Manufacturing Slide Continues Despite Decline in Dollar.'' One in four
North Carolinians employed in manufacturing have lost their jobs during
the past 5 years. Plants across the State are closing their doors
entirely, and other firms are moving jobs offshore, truthfully mostly
to China.
North Carolina's 10th Congressional District has a disproportionately
large percentage of local economies built on manufacturing. So the
communities I represent are struggling even more due to this
manufacturing recession. The National Association of Manufacturers
reports that job losses will continue as long as U.S. imports from
China are six times as large as exports to China. These statistics
highlight why I have become a strong proponent of the newly formed
Defense Industrial Base Caucus.
The U.S. cannot be reliant on foreign manufacturers of military or
homeland security systems and equipment. We have got to invest in
critical industries where we do not have the capacity for self-
sufficiency and purchase goods from those United States sectors that
are the best in the world. A recent admission from the Pentagon
underscores the need for the U.S. to regain its manufacturing self-
sufficiency. The Swiss Government's refusal to provide crucial bomb
components during Operation Iraqi Freedom could have hampered our
efforts in the fight effectively if the war had lasted a little longer.
We cannot afford to be hamstrung by countries that disagree with our
intentions and our goals as we defend the homeland.
The U.S. makes the best products in the world. We have got to provide
jobs for the American people. There is no better place to demonstrate
that commitment than providing our first responders with American-made
products, procured with taxpayers' dollars.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there any other Members seeking recognition?
Mr. McCOTTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise to address the point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's point of order is reserved. The
gentleman is recognized for five minutes.
Mr. McCOTTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise to address the point of order and
in support of the amendment. My concern is that the American Government
be as concerned about homeland security as we should be about household
security. When tax dollars are taken from the American people, from the
entrepreneurs and the people who create wealth in this country, those
tax dollars should not be used by their government to put them out of
work or to decimate our manufacturing base. I believe that this is a
reasonable amendment, and I wholeheartedly support it.
The CHAIRMAN. Will the gentleman from Virginia advise if he insists
upon his point of order and state the grounds for his point of order?
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. I do, Mr. Chairman.
Again, I make the point of order because it proposes to impose new
duties and constitutes legislation on an appropriations bill and
violates clause 2(c) of House rule XXI.
[[Page H5781]]
{time} 1830
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is prepared to rule. The Chair finds that
this amendment explicitly supersedes existing law and the amendment
therefore constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI.
Therefore, the point of order is sustained and the amendment is not in
order.
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I would challenge the ruling of the Chair.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I move to table.
The CHAIRMAN. The motion to table is not available in the Committee
of the Whole.
The question is, Shall the decision of the Chair stand as the
judgment of the Committee?
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman may state his parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, is this motion debatable?
The CHAIRMAN. The question is debatable under the five-minute rule.
Mr. OBEY. Then could I move to strike the last word?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would simply urge the gentleman to withdraw
his motion. I know of no one who disagrees with the ruling of the
Chair, and I do not see why we should impose on the House when we
already have seen another amendment dealt with on the subject in a
proper manner. This amendment clearly was not. Everyone knew it was not
in order, and there is no doubt in my mind the Chair's ruling is
correct.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is, Shall the decision of the Chair stand
as the judgment of the Committee?
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 385,
noes 28, not voting 21, as follows:
[Roll No. 306]
AYES--385
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Allen
Andrews
Bachus
Baker
Baldwin
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Becerra
Bell
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boucher
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Burgess
Burns
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Carter
Case
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Clay
Clyburn
Coble
Cole
Collins
Cooper
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Crowley
Culberson
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
DeMint
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Doggett
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Everett
Farr
Fattah
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall
Harman
Harris
Hart
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hill
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Inslee
Isakson
Israel
Issa
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Janklow
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Lynch
Majette
Maloney
Manzullo
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCotter
McCrery
McGovern
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Mica
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Nethercutt
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pearce
Pelosi
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reynolds
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sandlin
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrock
Scott (GA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Snyder
Solis
Souder
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Toomey
Turner (OH)
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Visclosky
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Wu
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOES--28
Alexander
Baca
Baird
Ballance
Boswell
Costello
Etheridge
Filner
Green (TX)
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Kucinich
McDermott
Menendez
Nadler
Oberstar
Owens
Pastor
Sanders
Scott (VA)
Tanner
Taylor (MS)
Towns
Turner (TX)
Velazquez
Waters
Woolsey
NOT VOTING--21
Bonilla
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burr
Conyers
Cox
Cubin
Dingell
Dooley (CA)
Doyle
English
Gephardt
Hunter
Hyde
Keller
Kleczka
Moran (KS)
Paul
Reyes
Skelton
Smith (WA)
Wynn
Announcement by the Chairman
The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). There are 2 minutes remaining on this
vote.
{time} 1858
Messrs. SANDERS, BACA, TOWNS, and GREEN of Texas changed their vote
from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Ms. HART, Ms. HARMAN, Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD, and Messrs. INSLEE,
ACKERMAN and HAYES changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the decision of the Chair stands as the judgment of the Committee.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
{time} 1900
Amendment Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas:
At the end of the bill (preceding the short title), insert
the following:
Sec. . The Secretary of Homeland Security shall develop
measures to simplify and expedite the grant allocation
process of the Department of Homeland Security so that a
percentage of funds is provided directly to fire departments
in urban and rural areas, police departments, law enforcement
agencies, hazardous materials teams, emergency medical staff,
and other first responders, hospital districts, school
districts, city and county governments, non-profit
organizations, port and airport security, and citizen corps
groups in the 10 cities most vulnerable to terrorist attacks,
without the funds being first allocated to State government
agencies.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask
unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed
in the Record.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman
from Texas?
There was no objection.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on
the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman reserves a point of order.
[[Page H5782]]
The gentlewoman from Texas is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, as we have been proceeding
with this debate, I think we have been on common ground that the
security of America's homeland has to be our first priority. Many of us
have agreed with the leadership of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Obey), that a billion dollars needed to be added to the Homeland
Security appropriations to be able to give and free the hands of the
appropriators on the many, many needs that are facing our Nation. But
there is another issue, Mr. Chairman, that I think is crucial for us to
be able to address directly: The needs of our neighborhoods, and let me
share them with you.
Mr. Chairman, my amendment specifically and particularly isolates the
crux of the problems that I have heard from many, many local
communities. In fact, Mr. Chairman, in a hearing with Secretary Brown,
an Assistant Secretary under the Homeland Security Department, in his
energetic testimony he acknowledged the importance of involving the
local community in their own security.
I do not know if many of my colleagues are aware that in the Homeland
Security authorizing legislation there are the concepts called citizen
corps. These are organizations that are resident in our respective
communities, engaging neighborhoods, towns, cities and rural areas in
their own security. But yet there is no funding for those particular
entities. This amendment simplifies or asks that the process of getting
funds to our local entities be expedited so that a percentage of funds
be provided directly to fire departments in urban and rural areas,
police departments, law enforcement agencies, hazardous material teams,
emergency medical staff, and other first responders, hospital
districts, school districts, city and county governments, nonprofit
organizations, port and airport security and citizen corps groups in
the 10 cities most vulnerable to terrorist acts.
Let me share with you, Mr. Chairman, testimony from Noel Cunningham
in our field hearing just this past weekend, the Chief of the Port
Police of the Port of Los Angeles. His words can apply to ports all
over the Nation, but also to communities all over the Nation.
Since 9/11 we have spent approximately $6 million of our own funds to
enhance port security. We have added staffing and equipment resources
for our port police. What they actually need, Mr. Chairman, is they
need resources to help us, if you will, for their personnel. That is
one of the things that we heard, that buying equipment, which is some
of the limiting requirements of grants, is not their only need. They
need it for personnel and we have not been able to provide monies for
personnel.
As a central component to the Nation's economic engine, we need to
receive a reasonable and appropriate share of the Federal port security
funding. That is another comment from Chief Cunningham. So my amendment
would simply provide an expedited way to get monies into homeland
security.
I had another amendment, Mr. Chairman, that I had discussed in the
rules, and that is to make sure that no monies are spent as an abuse of
power at the Homeland Security Department. That is, of course, whether
you think it is humorous that 55 Democrats in Texas ran away to avoid a
quorum, they used their constitutional rights. I am sorry that that
amendment could not be brought up today, and that is an amendment that
says we limit the use of the Homeland Security funds for any
surveillance or tracking of individuals not related to homeland
security. I am going to continue to work on that issue because it is a
crucial issue.
But on this matter I would like to pose a question to the chairman of
the committee, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), as it relates
to the question of working with local communities to get resources
directly in their hands, first responders, port and airport security,
the citizen corps group, though we know that they are not necessarily
funded but working with civic clubs on getting resources, when I say
civic clubs, civic communities, county and city governments to get
funds directly in their hands so that neighborhoods and communities can
be safe.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for
yielding.
We have provisions in this bill that requires that the State to whom
we give the money must send the money on to the localities within 30
days, and then 80 percent of the monies that we give to those States
must be passed on to local units of government within 60 days. Those
are provisions in our bill that we added in an attempt to force the
money quickly to the community.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Reclaiming my time, I appreciate the
gentleman's response.
What I would like to be able to say to this body is that even as we
give those instructions to the State, what I am finding out by our
local responders, and I use that term broadly, but our community, local
community interests who have the responsibility for securing the
neighborhoods, the neighborhoods that are around ports, the
neighborhoods that are around refineries, the neighborhoods that are in
dangerous high terrorist vulnerable areas is that the processes are so
difficult.
I hope that this body can work through the process that we will be
able to provide a less complicated process and expedite the application
process so that our local communities, civic clubs and all will be able
to have the resources they need.
Mr. Chairman, I propose this amendment to H.R. 2555, the Department
of Homeland Security appropriations bill and I urge my colleagues to
support my amendment.
The purpose of this amendment is to expedite and simplify the grant
application process so that needed homeland security funds go directly
to first responders, local districts, and local government agencies,
without first going to the States.
The efforts to secure our homeland will occur at the local level.
City and county fire departments, police departments, hazardous
materials teams, and other first responders will need to be well-
equipped to protect American citizens from terrorist attacks. In our
efforts to fund our local first responders Congress has authorized and
appropriated hundreds of millions of dollars. However, few of those
dollars have made it to the hands of local first responders.
I participated in two hearings last week with representatives of
government agencies who confirmed that funds are not getting to
America's local first responders. First, at a hearing of the full
Select Committee on Homeland Security, Undersecretary Mike Brown of the
Federal Emergency Management Agency and the Department of Homeland
Security said that delays getting funds to local first responders and
civic groups persist. During on-site reviews last weekend, Chief
Cunningham of the Los Angeles Port Authority confirmed that few, if
any, federal homeland security dollars are reaching first responders.
One reason for the delay is that often funds appropriated to city and
county agencies for homeland security initiatives, through a lengthy
application process, must first be disbursed to the States. State
governments then have their own grant application process for funds
disbursed by the Department of Homeland Security. This unnecessary
application process preventing local communities from finalizing the
preparations for dealing with terrorist attacks and is endangering our
citizens.
I propose this amendment to the Department of Homeland Security
appropriations bill to disburse a percentage of the funds directly to
local homeland security organizations in those cities, including
Houston, that were deemed more vulnerable to a terrorist attack by
Secretary Tom Ridge. This amendment will allow local organizations
engaged in homeland security to get funds now.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment will enable many communities to prepare
for terrorist attack without further unnecessary delay. This amendment
protects America's citizens and I urge my colleagues to support this
amendment.
Amendment to Homeland Security Appropriations Bill, 2004 Offered by Ms.
Jackson-Lee of Texas
At the end of the bill (preceding the short title) insert
the following:
Sec. ____. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used for political purposes or any other purpose not
related to protecting homeland security, including for--
(1) use of the surveillance powers of the Department of
Homeland Security, for a purpose not related to protecting
homeland security, to--
(A) tap personal or business telephones; or
(B) otherwise monitor or record conversations or activity
in any home, office, or other location; or
[[Page H5783]]
(2) use of the investigative powers of the Department of
Homeland Security, for a purpose not related to protecting
homeland security, to track automobiles, airplanes, or other
modes of transportation.
Mr. Chairman, I propose this amendment to H.R. 2555, The Department
of Homeland Security appropriations bill and I urge my colleagues to
support my amendment.
This amendment prohibits the use of funds made available to the
Department of Homeland Security through this act from being used for
political purposes, or other purposes not related to protecting
homeland security.
In the course of the recent redistricting controversy in Texas,
several allegations of misuse of resources of the Department of
Homeland Security surfaced. Specifically, there were reports that the
Air and Marine Interdiction Coordination Center, which is staffed by
employees of the Department of Homeland Security, received a telephone
call asking the Coordination Center to locate a particular aircraft
that belonged to former Texas House Speaker Pete Laney. There were also
allegations that surveillance was conducted on private and business
phones, and that the Department of Homeland Security was involved with
the Texas Department of Public Safety in the destruction of documents
related to the redistricting controversy.
The use of Department of Homeland Security resources for political
purposes endangers the lives of American citizens. While hundreds of
millions of dollars are authorized and appropriated to protect our
homeland, every one of those dollars is needed if America is to be
protected from terrorist attacks. The police departments, fire
departments, emergency medical staffs, hazardous materials teams, and
other first responders across the country are in dire need of equipment
and operational funds. Every available dollar appropriated for Homeland
Security should be used for homeland security initiatives.
My amendment to the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations
bill will insure that funds are not misused for political purposes or
other purposes not related to homeland security. My amendment will also
ensure that the wasteful, political use of funds that occurred in Texas
last month does not occur in other cities.
Mr. Chairman, my amendment is a non-partisan proposal that will
protect the constituents of every member of this committee, and every
Member of the House of Representatives. I urge my colleagues to support
my amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman insist upon his point of order?
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I do, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. Will the gentleman state his point of order?
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Does the gentlewoman have a statement she
would care to make in regard to the amendment?
The CHAIRMAN. Are there any Members wishing to be heard on the point
of order?
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I will withdraw this
amendment, but let me just simply say very briefly that our
responsibility is to ensure the homeland, and I, in my advocacy,
believe that is the neighborhood.
I would like to work with the chairman in respect of this point of
order on getting rid of the red tape that is also bogging down the
State system so that monies can get, as I said, to the hazardous
material teams, the emergency medical staff, the first responders,
hospital districts, school districts in a fast and efficient way.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, that we can manage to unstrap these local
communities from using these funds for equipment only but can use it
for personnel. I hope that we can work together to ensure that.
Mr. Chairman, I am going to withdraw this particular amendment as it
is subject to a point of order at this time.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman asks to withdraw her amendment.
Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman from Texas?
There was no objection.
Amendment No. 6 Offered by Ms. Baldwin
Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 6 offered by Ms. Baldwin:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec.____. None of the funds made available in this Act
shall be used to enter into any contract to develop, lease,
or procure Coast Guard vessels in the National Security
Cutter class or Offshore Patrol Cutter class unless the main
propulsion diesel engines are manufactured in the United
States by a domestically operated entity. The Secretary of
Homeland Security may waive the restriction in the preceding
sentence on a case-by-case basis by certifying in writing to
the Committees on Appropriations of the House of
Representatives and the Senate that--
(1) adequate amounts of such components are not available
from a domestically operated entity to meet requirements on a
timely basis;
(2) such a contract is necessary to acquire capability for
national security purposes; or
(3) there exists a significant cost or quality difference
between components manufactured in the United States and
components manufactured outside the United States.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order
against the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman reserves a point of order against the
amendment.
The gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin) is recognized for 5
minutes on her amendment.
Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is simple. It would prohibit
funds from being used to enter into any contract to develop, lease or
procure Coast Guard vessels in the National Security Cutter Class or
Offshore Patrol Cutter Class of ships unless the main diesel engines
are manufactured in the United States.
The Coast Guard's Deepwater program is a large acquisition effort to
replace and modernize the aging fleet of the Coast Guard ships. I fully
support this program. However, when procuring the most critical
components of these ships, the main propulsion engines, I believe the
Coast Guard should contract with American firms that make the engines
here in the United States.
The Department of Defense in many instances already must contract
with firms that produce their components here in America. Because the
Coast Guard was previously under the Department of Transportation and
is now under the Department of Homeland Security, it has not been
subject to these domestic manufactured provisions for components. I
believe our government should contract with American firms whenever
possible. The Federal Government is one of the largest customers in the
world. Using American labor can help get our economy back on track. But
in particular, in matters of national security, we should ensure that
American workers build what we need to keep America safe.
After September 11, we tragically learned that Americans were not as
safe, even on our own soil, as we had once thought. The Coast Guard's
mission has increased exponentially since that awful day. In this
uncertain time and as we have experienced shifting global alliance, it
makes no sense to allow foreign nations to build critical component for
large Coast Guard vessels. After all, the Coast Guard is now in the
Department of Homeland Security, and is not keeping capable, hard
working Americans working the essence of homeland security?
I have a firm in my district that produces these engines. They were
ready to start filling orders tomorrow. They competed in the first
round of Deepwater engine contracts awarded earlier this year. Even
though they can prove that their engines would cost less in total
operating costs, the Coast Guard gave the contract to a German firm
that will now build engines in their homeland. And so that Members
understand that this is not strictly a local issue for me, there are
several other firms in the United States that stand ready to compete
for these contracts and are perfectly capable of producing quality
American-made engines for the Coast Guard.
I have often visited the employees of the plant in my district. They
are confused and frustrated. They do not understand why a branch of the
Armed Services would choose to give a major contract to a foreign
competitor. Although their plant is operational, there are many workers
who are currently laid off. The workers that I talk to are not only
worried for themselves and their families, they are desperately worried
about their buddies who are waiting, waiting for the call that tells
them to come back to work so they will be able to support their
families once again.
Mr. Chairman, we are bleeding good-paying, family-supporting
manufacturing jobs in this country. When manufacturing jobs go away,
our history shows us that it is very hard to get
[[Page H5784]]
them back. My amendment is a small but needed change to the current
Coast Guard procurement process.
The gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), the chairman of the
subcommittee, has reserved a point of order against this amendment. The
gentleman has a choice. He can insist and press on with his point of
order and continue funneling good paying jobs overseas or he can allow
this amendment to go forward as we just did a short while ago with the
amendment presented by the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hayes). I
hope that he has the best interest of America's working families at
heart.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman has yielded back.
Does the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) insist upon his point
of order?
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the point of order.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I speak in opposition to the amendment which I believe
is nothing more than a blatant attempt to use the legislative process
to give one American company an unfair competitive advantage over
another American company. It is wrong and should be defeated.
The amendment seems innocent enough. No funds should be used to
procure Coast Guard vessels in the National Security Cutter Class or
Offshore Patrol Cutter Class unless the main propulsion diesel engines
are manufactured in the U.S. by a domestically operated entity.
Now, that sounds just like a restatement of the Buy American Act, but
it is not. The Buy American Act does not consider the nationality of
the contractor when determining if a product is of domestic origin.
Manufactured articles are considered domestic if they have been
manufactured in the U.S. from components ``substantially all,'' quote,
of which have been mined, produced or manufactured in the U.S.
{time} 1915
``Substantially all'' means that the cost of foreign components does
not exceed 50 percent of the cost of components.
Now, when the Coast Guard wants to purchase diesel engines for its
ships, it has two options, Detroit Diesel in Michigan, Utah, Kansas and
I believe Ohio, and Fairbanks Morse Engine in Wisconsin. Both are fine
companies that manufacture their engines in the U.S. with components,
substantially all of which come from the U.S. as well. They both comply
with the Buy American Act, creating a healthy competition for the Coast
Guard's contracts, which I think we would all agree is a good thing;
but it seems that some people do not want competition.
Detroit Diesel is a subsidiary of that German company Daimler
Chrysler, which is based in Germany, while Fairbanks Morse Engine is
based in the U.S. and notably I believe only in Wisconsin.
The current procurement program for the Coast Guard Deepwater
program, for which these engines will be built, is already under way.
If this amendment were to be signed into law, Detroit Diesel will no
longer be eligible for Coast Guard contracts because it is not a
domestically operated entity.
Fairbanks Morse Engine will corner the market, not because it builds
better diesel engines than Detroit Diesel, but because it found a way
to shut out the competition; and it will have done so by changing the
rules in the middle of the game.
There are 5,000 Americans working in those four States for Detroit
Diesel. They build diesel engines that the current law says are
American products. These Americans should not be penalized because
their parent company is based in another country. Congress should not
even be involved in this issue.
This amendment is frankly outrageous. It is not our job to give one
American company a competitive advantage over another, and I obviously
implore my colleagues to not be fooled by what seems to be an innocuous
amendment, but there are 5,000 Americans who work for Detroit Diesel
who are waiting and depending on us and the Members of this body.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
I rise in support of the gentleman's point of order. This amendment
would apply a radical domestic source restriction to the acquisition of
main propulsion diesel engines for use in Coast Guard vessels, and my
friend from Michigan just said, in the middle of the game. It could
delay this procurement.
This could have a devastating effect on the Coast Guard's ability to
buy the best propulsion engines at reasonable cost to support its
critical antiterror missions because it takes competition out of the
picture. Restrictive provisions such as these run counter to efforts to
create an open, flexible, responsive, and impartial competitive
acquisition system that will enable all government agencies, including
the Coast Guard, to acquire from the world market the best products
available at fair and reasonable prices. Indeed, we owe our taxpayers
nothing less than to get the best value for the taxpayer dollar as we
buy these, and this amendment abrogates that Buy America Act provisions
apply here.
It has been reiterated here by the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr.
Hayes) that this amendment would impose substantially new duties on the
Department, and because of that I believe it also violates House rule
XXI; and I want to applaud the gentleman for raising the point of order
and support it.
Point of Order
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against
the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and
constitutes legislation in an appropriations bill and, therefore,
violates clause 2 of rule XXI which states in pertinent part, an
amendment to a general appropriations bill shall not be in order if
changing existing law. The amendment gives affirmative direction in
effect.
I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
The CHAIRMAN. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point of
order against the Baldwin amendment? If not, the Chair is prepared to
rule.
The Chair finds that this amendment does include language conferring
authority; and, therefore, the amendment constitutes legislation in
violation of clause 2 of rule XXI, and the point of order is sustained,
and the amendment is not in order.
Amendment Offered by Ms. Waters
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Ms. Waters:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. ____. (a) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall
conduct a review of the proposed project for construction of
a remote passenger check-in facility at Los Angeles
International Airport to determine whether the project as
designed will protect the safety of air passengers and the
general public.
(b) Upon completion of the review and not later than the
end of fiscal year 2004, the Secretary shall transmit to
Congress and the Administrator of the Federal Aviation
Administration a report containing the results of the review.
Ms. WATERS (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the
Record.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman
from California?
There was no objection.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on
the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman from Wisconsin's (Mr.
Obey) amendment had been accepted, there would be no need for my
amendment. His amendment did what I think needed to be done in order to
make our Homeland Security Department real.
The gentleman from Wisconsin's (Mr. Obey) amendment would have shored
up what we say we want to do by appropriating $1 billion to improve
aviation security, maritime security, infrastructure security, and
border security and port security.
Now, it seems to me if this administration was serious about homeland
security, we would not hear these weak arguments that we are hearing on
the floor tonight. It is absolutely amazing that the people on the
other side of the aisle, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle
can get up and defend against needing more money to make
[[Page H5785]]
our homeland secure. It is really not to be understood how they can
defend contracts going to foreign companies when we have Members on
this floor begging for the opportunity to have these contracts in their
districts to do something about this unemployment that was created by
this administration.
Mr. Chairman, the day is over for flashlights and duct tape and
plastic material. This is about some serious business. Some of us
really do take this seriously. We want to fight terrorism. We want to
spend the money on it. We want to have real homeland security, and I am
absolutely amazed that my friends on the other side of the aisle do not
understand that.
I come because I have got a problem in Los Angeles. The Los Angeles
International Airport, which is located in my congressional district,
is the third largest airport in the United States with a capacity to
serve 78 million air passengers per year. On July 2, 2002, Los Angeles
Mayor Jim Hahn proposed a plan to expand LAX by constructing a remote
passenger check-in facility. The mayor estimated that this project
would cost 9 to $10 billion. The environmental impact report on this
project is due to be released in the near future.
Supporters of this proposed project to construct a remote passenger
check-in facility claim that the facility is necessary to improve the
safety and security of LAX and prevent terrorist attacks at LAX.
However, it is even more likely that the concentration of passengers in
a remote passenger check-in facility could actually reduce the safety
and security of LAX.
The Rand Corporation conducted a security study of the proposed
remote passenger check-in facility, which was released on May 14, 2003.
The study concluded that the proposed project would not improve the
security of LAX. The study also concluded that concentrating passengers
in the proposed remote passenger check-in facility would make the
check-in facility the likely target of a terrorist attack. The study
even suggested that concentrating passengers in the remote passenger
check-in facility could exacerbate the effects of an attack on airport
operations.
The Rand study did conclude that limiting the capacity of the airport
could reduce the overall vulnerability of LAX to terrorist attacks.
However, this could be accomplished by maintaining LAX at its existing
capacity, with no additional airport construction projects.
My amendment would require the Secretary of Homeland Security to
review the proposed project to construct a remote passenger check-in
facility at LAX to determine whether the project will protect the
safety of air passengers and the general public. The Secretary will be
required to transmit to Congress and the Federal Aviation
Administration a report containing the results of the review.
Mr. Chairman, I am simply saying homeland security, look at this,
review it, give us an assessment. If we are about the business of
securing the homeland, this is a very simple request. If, in fact, my
airport, which is already identified as one of the highest security
risks in the United States, is attacked because we are concentrating
passengers, I have been to the Committee on Rules twice. I am on this
floor, and if I cannot get support for a simple review to talk about
whether or not this would be safe, then something's wrong with those
who purport to want homeland security.
Mr. Chairman, I am here today to say that again the gentleman from
Wisconsin's (Mr. Obey) amendment should have been accepted because this
amendment will ensure that we have a real emphasis on homeland security
in fighting this terrorism. Without it, we are just joking; we are
playing games. We do not really mean that we want to support terrorism.
Point of Order
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against
the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and
constitutes legislation in an appropriations bill and, therefore,
violates clause 2 of rule XXI which states in part, an amendment to a
general appropriations bill shall not be in order if changing existing
law. The amendment imposes additional duties and, therefore, violates
the rule.
I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there further Members desiring to be heard on the
point of order? If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
The Chair finds that this amendment does include language imparting
direction. The amendment, therefore, constitutes legislation in
violation of clause 2 of rule XXI, and the point of order is sustained
and the amendment is not in order.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Tancredo
Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Tancredo:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. ______. None of the funds made available in this Act
may be used to provide assistance to any State or local
government entity or official that restricts any government
entity or official from sending to, or receiving from, the
Department of Homeland Security information regarding an
individual's citizenship or immigration status, as prohibited
under section 642(a) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and
Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1373(a)).
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) is
recognized for 5 minutes on his amendment.
Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, as was indicated in 1996, this body did,
in fact, pass the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigration
Responsibility Act. One provision of that act states notwithstanding
any other provision of Federal, State or local law, a Federal, State or
local government entity or official may not prohibit or in any other
way restrict any government entity or official from sending to or
receiving from the Immigration and Naturalization Service information
regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of
any individual.
It is a good provision of law. I am glad that we passed it. One
problem with it is that there are no provisions for any sort of
sanction should a State, local, or any other agency choose to violate
the law.
It was indicated earlier there was some degree of indignation that
was identified as appropriate by some of my colleagues on the other
side when we have corporations, they say, who have fled from the United
States, sought some sort of tax haven off the coasts of America, yet
would make application for funds under this act. They were indignant
and outraged; and I, by the way, share that feeling of indignation.
It is also, I think, somewhat outrageous to have cities apply for
funds under this act when they pass legislation, which has been done in
several cities around the country, that actually prevents the law
enforcement agencies in those cities from sharing information or
obtaining information from the Immigration and Naturalization Service,
or the Bureau of Immigration and Customs as it is now known.
So this is a very simple amendment. It just says a person cannot
obtain funds under this act if they are, in fact, one of those cities
that have done as I have just described.
{time} 1930
Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I was trying to listen to the gentleman from Colorado
as he explained his amendment. I have read the amendment several times
and I, frankly, have to admit I do not understand it.
Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SABO. I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.
Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to explain it again. The
purpose of the amendment is to restrict the ability of cities,
counties, and local entities that have violated provisions of the 1996
act which are word for word what we have described in this amendment.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, we now have a new
department. It could not have existed in 1996.
Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield,
I would note that the law, and as I understand the law subsequent to
that time, has indicated the term INS can be used interchangeably with
Homeland Security, or the Bureau of Immigration and Customs.
Mr. SABO. So it applied to the INS, the existing law?
[[Page H5786]]
Mr. TANCREDO. If the gentleman will continue yielding, the original
law in 1996, yes, it did.
Mr. SABO. Would it now apply to all parts of the Department of
Homeland Security, so it would also apply to TSA?
Mr. TANCREDO. The law applies as it applied before. It does not
change the application of the law, it simply provides some enforcement
mechanism.
Mr. SABO. But does it expand who the law applies to?
Mr. TANCREDO. If the gentleman is continuing to yield, it does not.
It is exactly the same wording of the 1996 act. The only thing we are
doing is adding some sort of sanction for its violation.
Mr. SABO. Are there new and different grants that could be
restricted?
Mr. TANCREDO. Grants under the provisions of this act.
Mr. SABO. I am trying to understand, again, Mr. Chairman. Can the
gentleman tell me who the original law applied to, in what form?
Mr. TANCREDO. Shall I read the law again? Does the gentleman wish me
to read the law?
Mr. SABO. Yes.
Mr. TANCREDO. Notwithstanding any other provision of Federal, State
or local law, a Federal, State, or local government entity or official
may not prohibit or in any other way restrict any government entity or
official from sending to or receiving from the Immigration and
Naturalization Service information regarding the citizenship or
immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual.
As I say, this amendment does not change anything except it adds a
sanction for any one of those entities that in fact violate the law.
Mr. SABO. But, Mr. Chairman, what I am trying to get at, I guess, is
my understanding that you are saying that the old law applied to the
INS; this law now applies to the Department of Homeland Security, which
is 22 agencies rather than one agency.
Mr. TANCREDO. The gentleman is correct that this act, the act that we
are amending, does in fact include TSA, Coast Guard, Secret Service,
and First Responders, and the amendment would apply to all of those
agencies also.
Mr. SABO. So it would be a significant expansion in the scope of what
the current law is?
Mr. TANCREDO. I suppose under that interpretation that is true.
Mr. SABO. I thank the gentleman.
Point of Order
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Wisconsin insist on
his point of order?
Mr. OBEY. Yes, I do. I think the gentleman's last words indicate the
validity of the point of order.
As I understand it, under the gentleman's amendment, if States
prohibit information from going to the Homeland Security agency, then
the State can get no dollars under this act. My understanding of
current law is that it only prohibits States from providing information
to the INS. But Homeland Security, as the gentleman from Minnesota has
indicated, includes TSA, it includes the Coast Guard, it includes
Secret Service, FEMA, and a number of other agencies.
To me, this amendment substantially expands the scope of the coverage
and, therefore, I think is legislation on an appropriations bill and
not in order under the House rules.
The CHAIRMAN. Do any other Members desire to be heard on the point of
order? If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
The Chair notes that the limitation addresses a broader segment of
the Executive than is addressed by the cited statute. As such, the
amendment is susceptible to the construction that it attempts to apply
the cited statute in cases where it is not otherwise applicable.
Because the proponent of the amendment has not carried the burden of
persuading the Chair that the amendment is solely a negative
restriction on funds in the bill without changing the application of
existing law, the Chair is constrained to sustain the point of order.
The amendment is not in order.
Amendment Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas:
At the end of the bill (preceding the short title), insert
the following:
Sec. . In addition to the amounts provided elsewhere in
this Act, the amount of $3,000,000 is hereby appropriated to
the Secretary of Homeland Security for a grant to the
University of Texas Center for Biosecurity to establish a
homeland security training capacity in Houston, Texas, with
strong academic and community partners.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on
the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Kentucky reserves a point of order
on the amendment; and the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) is
recognized for 5 minutes on her amendment.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I recognize that this
amendment that I intend to discuss would be considered an earmark. I
would like to think that the reason I am bringing this amendment to the
floor goes to the earlier debate that we had on the question of
expediting funds to those who are in the fight against terrorism.
Mr. Chairman, there is a desperation out there, Mr. Chairman, and,
frankly, this particular program is a program that has a very important
mission. In a few days the Select Committee on Homeland Security will
be marking up the BioShield legislation that is to provide, in essence,
a shield around the United States against bioterrorism. The mission of
this center is to educate the front line public health work force,
medical and emergency responders, key leaders, and other professionals
to respond to threats such as bioterrorism and other emergencies that
affect our communities. The center responds to the unique challenges in
Texas to which regional campuses, including three sites along the
critical U.S.-Mexican border, and through its urban campuses located in
San Antonio, Dallas, and Houston.
Mr. Chairman, this is not a request because it happens to be in my
area, but it is a request because Texas is listed as one of the most
vulnerable areas for terrorism. This center will work nationally. The
center works with academic institutions, governmental agencies, and
relief organizations to promote our health security programs.
This amendment I am offering is representative of a number of
amendments that I have offered on the basis that there is desperation
out there. Another amendment that is not part of this but I want to
make mention of, Mr. Chairman, is an amendment for $1 million to the
University of Texas Health Science Center and Charity Productions to
develop community-based homeland security preparedness. This, I hope,
will educate my colleagues, along with other Members interested, to the
fact that we must ensure the protection of the neighborhoods.
This particular proposal coming from the University of Texas Health
Science Center and Charity Productions is to provide for an emergency
preparedness education program for community residents. Charity
Productions is also developing an emergency preparedness education
program in conjunction with the University of Texas. The civic
organization collaborates with human service organizations, such as the
Red Cross and the NAACP. To date, this civic coalition has held several
emergency and disaster citizen workshops.
The goals of the partnership between the University of Texas Health
Science Center and Charity Productions is to train neighborhood
stakeholders, provide a comprehensive rage of opportunities to ensure
neighborhood safety, and to facilitate full participation for all
community residents, whether or not their active language is English,
to increase community partnerships and to work with governmental
programs to provide the support and training necessary at the grass
roots level. The value of these collaborative efforts in the event of a
terrorist attack is immeasurable.
The question always has to be that when we try to secure the homeland
we have to secure the neighborhoods. These earmarks that I am
suggesting are clearly to bring to the attention of this floor that we
must expedite the funds to these local communities.
My other amendment, that again I will simply discuss, has to do with
resources to the Houston Bureau of Immigration Customs Enforcement, and
the grounds are basically the same;
[[Page H5787]]
that in fighting terrorism there are some places that have a higher
ranking. Houston was ranked number seven on the list of cities most
vulnerable to a terrorist attack by Secretary Tom Ridge of the
Department of Homeland Security. Certainly we need effective
immigration controls necessary to add to the safety of the region.
Mr. Chairman, it is crucial as we move through this process that we
realize that all of this cannot be done in Washington. It has to be
done on the homefront. Again, I remind my colleagues of the overview
that many of us took this past weekend when we could clearly see
neighborhoods within yards, within blocks of very dangerous or
potentially dangerous areas, meaning they were vulnerable to terrorist
attacks. While I was in California, there was a train derailment that
wound up going into a local crowded residential area.
Mr. Chairman, desperation causes us to want to move the Department
faster, to want to move the funds faster, to want to simplify the
process to ensure that monies are gotten directly to those who are
doing research.
I also want to add, Mr. Chairman, the importance of including
Hispanic serving institutions in research, which is what this BioShield
effort will do and these monies will do, historically black colleges,
Native American institutions, Asian Pacific so we can expand the reach
to culturally diverse communities. So though we may not be able to move
forward today, we clearly should be moving forward to be of greater
assistance to those who are securing the homeland.
Mr. Chairman, I propose this amendment to H.R. 2555, the Department
of Homeland Security appropriations bill, and I urge my colleagues to
support my amendment.
The purpose of this amendment is to appropriate funds to the
University of Texas--Center for Biosecurity, in conjunction with
academic and community partners, to establish training programs for
dealing with biological terrorist attacks in the Houston area.
Protecting America's homeland will be accomplished at the local
level. To adequately prepare local police departments, fire
departments, hazardous materials teams and other first responders will
require expert training and education. Additionally, preparing
community-based nonprofit organizations and civic corps will require
guidance on how members of the community can help government agencies
in the event of a terrorist attack. The University of Texas--Center for
Biosecurity's training initiative will not only prepare the Houston
area to deal with a terrorist attack, it will provide a training model
for other cities across the country.
The University of Texas--Center for Biosecurity is located within the
School of Public Health of The University of Texas Health Science
Center at Houston. The mission of this center is to educate the
frontline public health workforce, medical and emergency responders,
key leaders, and other professionals to respond to threats such as
bioterrorism, and other emergencies that affect our communities. The
center responds to the unique challenges in Texas through its regional
campuses, including three sites along the critical United States-Mexico
border and through its urban campuses located in San Antonio, Dallas,
and Houston. Nationally, the center works with academic institutions,
governmental agencies, and relief organizations to promote our health
security program objectives. The Center for Biosecurity is organized
into four main homeland security cores to conduct its programs:
training and education, research, integrated response, and community
service.
The Training and Education component provides an integrated forum to
bring critical community responders together under the philosophy of
``training together to respond together.'' This endeavor includes both
short-term targeted programs of instruction, as well as longer term
opportunities for more specialized education culminating in master's
and doctoral degrees.
The research component focuses on emerging public health and safety
issues to provide analysis, evaluation, and technology solutions for
homeland security health threats that endanger the community and those
who must respond to preserve their health. The center also strives to
translate new ideas into effective solutions that address State-based
health security needs.
The Integrated Response component works with public health, medical,
and affiliated first responders to identify training needs to improve
our Nation's health security. In addition, we strive to provide the
tools for preparedness and response where active collaboration between
vital emergency response sectors will be critical to achieve the best
health outcomes for the population. Lessons from the military are
integrated into civilian practice.
The Community Service component provides expertise for planning,
training exercises, executive leadership, public health, and hospital
preparedness in both domestic and international settings. Partners in
vulnerable communities are critical to this preparedness effort. Local
partners integral to this center include Texas Southern University on
issues related to providing mass medical prophylaxis to underserved
populations, and Prairie View A&M on issues related to public health
outreach and nursing.
Mr. Chairman, the University of Texas--Center for Biosecurity is a
critical program for preparing the Houston area for a terrorist attack.
My amendment will provide needed funding for this pilot program. I urge
my colleagues to support my amendment.
Amendment to H.R. 2555, As Reported Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas
At the end of the bill (preceding the short title), insert
the following:
Sec. . In addition to the amounts provided elsewhere in
this Act, the amount of $3,000,000 is hereby appropriated to
the Secretary of Homeland Security for a grant to the
University of Texas Center for Biosecurity to establish a
homeland security training capacity in Houston, Texas, with
strong academic and community partners.
Mr. Chairman, I propose this amendment to H.R. 2555, the Department
of Homeland Security Appropriations bill and I urge my colleagues to
support my amendment.
This amendment requests that $1,000,000 in Department of Homeland
Security funds be appropriated for the University of Texas Health
Science Center and Charity Productions to develop community-based
homeland security preparedness measures.
Securing America's homeland must be accomplished at the local level.
It is imperative that community-based organizations work in conjunction
with state and local government officials, first responders, and
medical personnel to ensure that needed services are provided to the
community in the event of a terrorist attack, and needed information
only available to members of the community gets to public officials.
The partnership between University of Texas Health Science Center and
Charity Productions seeks to develop and implement programs to assist
local community officials in their homeland security preparedness
efforts.
The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston embraces a
mission to advance the health of the people of the State of Texas, the
Nation, and our global community through educating compassionate health
care professionals and innovative scientists. The University of Texas
Health Science Center at Houston supports its mission by working with
the community organizations to meet the needs of local residents.
Charity Productions is a nonprofit organization dedicated to providing
innovative programs and workshops for community groups, school
districts, parents, youths, law enforcement agencies, and various other
service providers.
Charity Productions has developed a prototype community activism
initiative designed to reach underserved communities and get them
active in homeland security efforts through civic clubs. The local
focus of the charity allows members of the community to work directly
with health care, fire, and police officials to prepare for terrorist
attacks. The University of Texas Health Science Center brings
technical, medical and emergency expertise to the partnership. One of
the goals of MNP is to develop and implement an Emergency Preparedness
Education Program (EPEP) for community residents. Charity Productions
is also developing EPEP in conjunction with the University of Texas.
The Civic Organization Collaborates with human service organizations
such as the Red Cross, and NAACP. To date the Civic Coalition has held
several Emergency and Disaster Citizens Workshops.
The goals of the partnership between University of Texas Health
Science Center and Charity Productions are: to train neighborhood
stakeholders; provide a comprehensive range of opportunities to insure
neighborhood safety; to facilitate full participation for all community
residents whether or not their active language is English; to increase
community partnerships; and to work with governmental programs to
provide the support and training necessary at the grassroots level. The
value of these collaborative efforts in the event of a terrorist attack
is immeasurable.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment requests funds to implement a program
that will provide safety to the citizens of the Houston area, and will
provide a model for local communities across the country in their
homeland security preparedness efforts. I urge my colleagues to support
my amendment.
Amendment to H.R. 2555, As Reported Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas
At the end of the bill (preceding the short title), insert
the following:
Sec. . In addition to the amounts provided elsewhere in
this Act, the amount of
[[Page H5788]]
$1,000,000 is hereby appropriated to the Secretary of
Homeland Security for a grant to the University of Texas
Health Science Center and Charity Productions to develop
community-based homeland security preparedness initiatives in
the Houston area.
Mr. Chairman, I propose this amendment to H.R. 2555, the Department
of Homeland Security Appropriations bill and I urge my colleagues to
support my amendment.
My amendment seeks a $1,000,000 appropriation for the Houston Bureau
of Immigration and Customs Enforcement for homeland security related
immigration and customs enforcement measures.
The events of September 11 have illustrated the importance of strict
enforcement of immigration laws and regulations. Likewise, the events
in the aftermath of September 11, from terrorism profiling to illegal
detentions, have illustrated that our immigration efforts related to
fighting terrorism must be refined. My amendment allocates funds to the
Houston Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement to make the
necessary changes to immigration enforcement procedures in regards to
fighting terrorism.
Houston was ranked number seven on the list of cities most vulnerable
to a terrorist attack by Tom Ridge, the Secretary of the Department of
Homeland Security. As such, effective immigration controls are
necessary to protect Houston from terrorist attacks. The homeland
security/immigration enforcement component of Houston's Bureau of
Immigration and Customs Enforcement will promote public safety and
local security by deterring illegal migration, preventing immigration-
related crimes regarding terrorism, and removing individuals,
especially criminals, who are unlawfully present in the Houston area.
This mandate is carried out by the Immigration Investigations,
Detention and Removal, and Intelligence Departments.
The Immigration Investigation Department, and their staff of field
agents, investigates violations of the criminal and administrative
provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act. The Detention and
Removal Department is responsible for the supervision, detention, and
removal of aliens who are in the Houston area and United States
unlawfully or who are found to be deportable or inadmissible. Finally,
the Intelligence Department analyzes and implements intelligence
received from the National Office, and collects and analyzes
immigration intelligence for the Houston area.
The funds will be used to finance existing immigration enforcement
programs, and to develop new programs to improve immigration
enforcement and reduce the likelihood of terrorist attacks in the
Houston area.
Mr. Chairman, if terrorists are unable to breach the borders of the
United States their ability to perform terrorist acts will be all but
eliminated. I propose my amendment to fund the immigration control
efforts in the city of Houston. I urge my colleagues to support my
amendment.
Amendment to H.R. 2555, As Reported Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas
At the end of the bill (preceding the short title), insert
the following:
Sec. . In addition to the amounts provided elsewhere in
this Act, the amount of $1,000,000 is hereby appropriated to
the Secretary of Homeland Security for use by the Houston,
Texas, Office of the Bureau of Immigration and Customs
Enforcement for homeland security related immigration and
customs enforcement in the Houston area.
Point of Order
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Kentucky insist upon his point
of order?
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I do, Mr. Chairman. I make a point of order
against the amendment because it provides an appropriation for an
unauthorized program, therefore it violates clause 2 of rule XXI which
states, in pertinent part, an appropriation may not be in order as an
amendment for an expenditure not previously authorized by law.
Mr. Chairman, the authorization for this program has not been signed
into law. The amendment, therefore, violates clause 2 of rule XXI, and
I respectfully ask for a ruling.
The CHAIRMAN. Do other Members desire to be heard on the point of
order?
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I said this earlier today. We
are working as best we can, but I would argue that while Rome is
burning we are standing on this issue of waiving points of order and,
therefore, those who are in great need of resources to protect America
and to protect neighborhoods are without those resources.
This amendment was offered in desperation, the need to move forward
on funding the opportunities for neighborhoods to secure themselves,
that school districts can provide safe places in the community for our
neighbors, to educate our neighbors about homeland security, to provide
personnel, to provide resources and to provide equipment.
What I would say, Mr. Chairman, is that in light of the point of
order, the point has been made, and I hope to work with the authorizing
committee as we move through the appropriations process to douse this
fire that Rome now is engulfed in and to be able to say to our
communities that we are expediting those funds and providing the
necessary resources.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman
from Texas?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The amendment is withdrawn.
Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to discuss the funding of the Federal Emergency
Management Agency. The bill before us includes $1.8 billion in disaster
assistance for FEMA to use in fiscal year 2004 to assist the many
communities across the country that will encounter natural disasters
such as ice storms, tornadoes, and forest fires.
Mr. Chairman, I planned to offer an amendment today that would have
given FEMA an additional $1.6 billion that it needs just to cover a
shortfall in disaster assistance for the 2003 year.
{time} 1945
But the communities that are waiting for this money cannot wait any
longer. They cannot wait for the new fiscal year to begin in October
when FEMA's coffers will be replenished. The administration has an
obligation to ask Congress immediately to provide FEMA with the money
it needs to help the communities that were promised assistance by the
President when he declared those cities and towns disaster areas. FEMA
is running so low on money right now that I understand the agency is
only fulfilling a part of its mission under the Stafford Act, parts A
and B for debris removal and emergency protection measures.
While I believe it is very important for FEMA to provide funds for
these important categories of assistance, relief under categories C
through G of the Public Assistance Program are also vitally important.
Unfortunately, I have been informed that FEMA has frozen funding for
the Public Assistance Programs that help communities rebuild roads and
bridges as well as public buildings and utilities. This is
unacceptable.
I know that the communities in the 29 counties in Ohio that the
President declared disaster areas this winter have already expended
money to rebuild the local infrastructure required to get these towns
back on their feet. In one of my counties, Monroe County, Ohio, the
county engineer has already spent so much money and has failed to be
reimbursed for it that he has had to lay off five county employees.
Five workers in Monroe County, Ohio, are unemployed tonight because
FEMA has not met its obligations.
In southern Ohio, FEMA approved 1,363 projects across 29 counties to
be funded following this winter's ice storms that occurred in my
district and districts of many other Members throughout the region,
both Republican and Democratic Members. Because of FEMA's funding
shortfall, however, 293 reconstruction projects remain to be funded.
Only 80 percent of approved projects in Ohio have been completed since
last winter's ice storm. The State is still waiting for $11 million
from FEMA to finish up the remaining 293 projects, but across this
country the situation is the same.
The National Emergency Management Association has indicated in a
letter to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert) and the gentlewoman
from California (Ms. Pelosi) that thousands of applications will go
unanswered if supplemental appropriations in the range of $1.6 billion
are not passed immediately. More than 35 States and Territories have
experienced disasters just this year and thousands of projects in those
States will go unfunded unless the administration asks Congress for
supplemental appropriations.
I am circulating a letter to Secretary Ridge today, and I ask all of
my colleagues to join me. We should ask Secretary Ridge to work with
the administration to ensure that a request for supplemental
appropriations is made
[[Page H5789]]
immediately so that the appropriations committees in the House and
Senate can begin work on a bill to provide FEMA with the money the
agency needs to continue disaster payments to the States. The States
cannot wait for the fiscal year 2004 appropriations process to run its
course. They need assistance now, as do the thousands of communities
across the country that are waiting to be reimbursed for the important
rebuilding projects that they have already begun or for the funds that
they need to begin these projects.
Mr. Chairman, I just call this issue to the attention of my
colleagues and to this House. This is a critical matter. It needs to be
addressed. As I said, I am calling upon Secretary Ridge and I hope all
of my colleagues in the House will be willing to sign a letter to the
Secretary asking that this request for supplemental funds be coming
forthwith.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I suggest to the gentleman that his comments are very
well taken and when the administration makes the request, which we do
anticipate, for FEMA and other issues, that the Committee on
Appropriations will move on it quickly and very likely apply it to the
very next appropriations bill that is in the process and ready to be
considered by the House.
Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman has made me very happy. I
appreciate the gentleman's concern and personal commitment, and we look
forward to getting this done so these communities can get the help they
so desperately need.
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I also want to talk about FEMA. FEMA is now under the
jurisdiction of the Department of Homeland Security. FEMA and the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission have a memorandum of understanding that
FEMA is in charge of certifying offsite emergency evacuation plans of
nuclear power plants. The process is still underway for the Indian
Point plant in New York in Westchester County.
I originally was going to put forth an amendment which would prevent
Federal funds from being spent by FEMA to certify any offsite emergency
evacuation plans for nuclear power plants, but I will not offer this
amendment. However, I feel it is critical that I speak about a matter
of homeland security to my constituents and the 20 million people
living near the Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant in New York.
While I am not against nuclear power, I believe it is in our Nation's
vital interest to shut down the Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant in
Buchanan, New York, right near my district of Bronx, Westchester, and
Rockland Counties. Indian Point is located 35 miles north of midtown
Manhattan. The planes that flew into the World Trade Center passed
directly over the nuclear power plant and blueprints for American
nuclear power plants were found in al Qaeda caves in Afghanistan.
The problems with Indian Point are not new. Indian Point is located
in a densely populated area, in fact the most densely populated area in
all of the United States. In fact, it is the nuclear power plant that
is the closest to any densely populated metropolitan area of the United
States, and it happens to be the major metropolitan area of the United
States.
Approximately 20 million people are located within the 50-mile
emergency planning zone. The road system in the area is woefully
inadequate to meet the needs of those people living in the area making
an evacuation in the event of an emergency at Indian Point impossible.
No matter what the cause of radioactive release at Indian Point,
terrorists or accidental, the result would be the same. The 20 million
people living in the emergency planning zone would be in grave danger.
Now the emergency evacuation plan that FEMA is now considering is
fatally flawed and will not protect the public. An independent
investigation of emergency preparedness at the plant conducted by
former FEMA Director James Lee Witt and commissioned by Governor Pataki
found that ``the current radiological response system and capabilities
were not adequate to overcome their combined weight and protect the
people from an unacceptable dose of radiation in the event of a release
from Indian Point.''
Following the release of the report in early January of this year,
Governor Pataki and the four county executives from both parties within
the 10-mile emergency planning zone refused to certify the evacuation
plans. The report concluded there was no way to improve the existing
emergency plan to sufficiently meet the current security threat.
If we are to truly protect the citizens of the tri-State area of New
York, New Jersey and Connecticut, we must shut Indian Point down.
Again, I want to say I am not anti-nuclear power, but I am against
risking the lives of 20 million American people.
FEMA, despite refusing to certify the emergency evacuation plans on
February 21, saying it could not provide reasonable assurance that the
public would be protected in the event of a radioactive release from
the plant, has still not issued a final determination. As a result,
Indian Point is still operating despite the fact that no Federal agency
is protecting the safety and security of my constituents.
We all know that if built today, Indian Point would never be sited
anywhere near the New York Metropolitan Area. Furthermore, September 11
changed the equation. While I may not have been worried about the fact
that a nuclear power plant was located in my backyard before September
11, now we all know it is a potential terrorist target. We should not
allow a nuclear plant to continue to operate just simply because it
exists. FEMA must be forced to take the post-9/11 world into account
when it evaluates the offsite emergency evacuation plan.
In that case, I cannot imagine how FEMA could then provide reasonable
assurance that the public would be protected should something go wrong
at the plant. I know the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) shares
these sentiments. I think it is very important that we understand that
the Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant should be shut down.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to the bill?
If not, the Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
This Act may be cited as the ``Department of Homeland
Security Appropriations Act, 2004''.
Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings will
now resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were
postponed in the following order: The amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Filner), and the amendment offered by
the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
The first electronic vote will be conducted as a 15-minute vote. The
second electronic vote will be conducted as a 5-minute vote.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Filner
The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner)
on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes
prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The Clerk designated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 149,
noes 274, not voting 11, as follows:
[Roll No. 307]
AYES--149
Ackerman
Alexander
Baca
Baird
Ballance
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Boswell
Boyd
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Capps
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (IN)
Case
Clay
Clyburn
Costello
Crowley
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley (CA)
Doolittle
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Filner
Ford
Fossella
Frank (MA)
Gonzalez
Green (TX)
Grijalva
[[Page H5790]]
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hefley
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoekstra
Holt
Honda
Hostettler
Houghton
Hunter
Inslee
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kind
Kleczka
Kolbe
Kucinich
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Majette
Maloney
Matsui
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moran (VA)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Quinn
Renzi
Reyes
Rodriguez
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (VA)
Sherman
Shimkus
Slaughter
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Tancredo
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Walsh
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wynn
NOES--274
Abercrombie
Aderholt
Akin
Allen
Andrews
Bachus
Baker
Baldwin
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Bell
Bereuter
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boucher
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capuano
Carson (OK)
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole
Collins
Cooper
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (AL)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLauro
DeLay
DeMint
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Emanuel
Emerson
English
Everett
Fattah
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hensarling
Herger
Hill
Hoeffel
Holden
Hooley (OR)
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hyde
Isakson
Israel
Istook
Janklow
Jenkins
John
Johnson (IL)
Kanjorski
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
LaHood
Lampson
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Lynch
Manzullo
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCotter
McCrery
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
McNulty
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Nethercutt
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Obey
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Royce
Ruppersberger
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Sandlin
Saxton
Schrock
Scott (GA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Snyder
Souder
Stearns
Strickland
Stupak
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tanner
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Turner (OH)
Turner (TX)
Upton
Visclosky
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Wamp
Waters
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Wu
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--11
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Conyers
Cubin
Gephardt
Hobson
Johnson, Sam
Kilpatrick
Myrick
Skelton
Smith (WA)
Young (AK)
Announcement by the Chairman
The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised that 2 minutes
remain in this vote.
{time} 2019
Messrs. BROWN of South Carolina, BEAUPREZ, MILLER of Florida, TAYLOR
of Mississippi, BRADY of Texas, and ISRAEL, and Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of
Virginia and Ms. McCARTHY of Missouri changed their vote from ``aye''
to ``no.''
Messrs. TANCREDO, QUINN, JONES of North Carolina, BOEHLERT, HEFLEY,
WALSH, EVANS, HOLT, MATSUI, SCHIFF, FOSSELLA, SHIMKUS, RENZI, SHERMAN,
and Ms. ESHOO changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Markey
The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
Markey) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the
noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The Clerk designated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 278,
noes 146, not voting 10, as follows:
[Roll No. 308]
AYES--278
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Ballance
Becerra
Bell
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Bono
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Burr
Burton (IN)
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Case
Castle
Chabot
Clay
Clyburn
Cooper
Costello
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley (CA)
Doyle
Edwards
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Feeney
Ferguson
Filner
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Gordon
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall
Harman
Hart
Hastings (FL)
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Houghton
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Janklow
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kelly
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kind
King (NY)
Kirk
Kleczka
Kucinich
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lynch
Majette
Maloney
Manzullo
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCotter
McGovern
McIntyre
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Ney
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Ose
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pickering
Platts
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Quinn
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Reyes
Rodriguez
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Sandlin
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Shadegg
Shays
Sherman
Shimkus
Simmons
Simpson
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tiberi
Tierney
Toomey
Towns
Turner (OH)
Turner (TX)
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Wexler
Whitfield
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOES--146
Akin
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Bereuter
Biggert
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
[[Page H5791]]
Bonilla
Bonner
Boozman
Bradley (NH)
Brown (SC)
Burgess
Burns
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Carter
Chocola
Coble
Cole
Collins
Crane
Crenshaw
Culberson
Cunningham
Deal (GA)
DeLay
DeMint
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Emerson
English
Everett
Flake
Franks (AZ)
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gibbons
Gillmor
Gingrey
Goode
Goss
Granger
Graves
Harris
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Herger
Hobson
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Keller
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
Kingston
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Latham
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lucas (OK)
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
Mica
Miller, Gary
Musgrave
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neugebauer
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Osborne
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pitts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Ryun (KS)
Schrock
Sessions
Shaw
Sherwood
Shuster
Smith (MI)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Walsh
Wamp
Weller
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--10
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Conyers
Cox
Cubin
Gephardt
Kilpatrick
McDermott
Skelton
Smith (WA)
Young (AK)
Announcement by the Chairman
The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised there are 2
minutes remaining in this vote.
{time} 2028
Messrs. ROHRABACHER, LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida, KIRK, and ROYCE,
Mrs. KELLY, Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN, and Ms. HART changed their vote from
``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Tancredo
Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Tancredo:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. ______. None of the funds made available in this Act
may be used to provide assistance to any State or local
government entity or official that restricts any government
entity or official from sending to, or receiving from, the
Bureau of Immigration and Customs (assuming the
responsibility of the Immigration and Naturalization Service)
information regarding an individual's citizenship or
immigration status, as prohibited under section 642(a) of the
Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act
of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1373(a)).
{time} 2030
Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, in 1996, the House passed the Illegal
Immigration Reform and Immigration Responsibility Act, a provision of
which I have restated in this amendment. It simply says that
notwithstanding other provisions of Federal, State, or local law, that
a Federal, State, or local government entity or official may not
prohibit or in any way restrict any government entity or official from
sending to or receiving from the Immigration and Naturalization Service
information regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or
unlawful, of any individual.
That is current law. We passed that in 1996.
There was just one tiny problem with it. There are no sanctions,
there are no provisions for a penalty if localities, in fact, violate
the law. Unfortunately, there are cities in the United States that have
disregarded the law. Recently, as a matter of fact, the City of New
York rescinded an ordinance that for 20 years had prohibited police
officers from not communicating----
Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I am having
trouble following what this amendment does or does not do. It may be of
significant relevance to some people.
Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, there are several cities in the United
States that have chosen to pass legislation, pass laws that, in fact,
restrict the ability of their own police forces, in many cases, from
sharing information with the now Bureau of Immigration and Customs.
That is a violation of the law. It is a violation of the present law.
Unfortunately, there are no sanctions for that violation.
All this amendment does is to impose such sanctions by saying that no
funds made available in this act and under the provisions of
specifically the Immigration and Naturalization Service, which has now
become the Bureau of Immigration and Customs, can be forwarded to such
a city that has, in fact, violated the law. It is as simple as that.
There is nothing else to it. It was the original amendment that I made
during the discussion earlier. I have changed the language to reflect
the concerns of the Parliamentarian and the reason it was ruled out of
order.
That is the entire scope of the amendment, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. If a Member wants to reserve a point of order, it must
be done before the amendment is presented.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
I want to ask the gentleman a question. What cities would this apply
to?
Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SABO. I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.
Mr. TANCREDO. Well, there are several cities that have passed laws in
the nature I have just described, including Los Angeles; Portland,
Maine; Houston; Seattle; San Francisco; San Jose; Portland, Oregon; San
Diego; and Chicago, to name a few. I think there are others.
Mr. SABO. Houston. And do I understand correctly, because I have
tried to read this language. I am sorry, there was so much noise I
could not clearly hear what the gentleman was saying.
Under old law, under the INS, there were certain restrictions that we
passed that in some fashion applied to the transfer of funds from the
INS if a city did certain things; is that what it states?
Mr. TANCREDO. No. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, the
original law did not apply to the transfer of any funds. It was simply
a law making it illegal for any city to restrict the flow of
information to or from the Department of the Immigration and
Naturalization Service, actually.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, as I read this amendment,
this says, none of the funds can be used to provide assistance to any
State or local government, entity, or official that does certain
things. I do not quite understand the end of this, what they are or are
not doing.
My assumption is that now this would apply to FEMA funds, emergency
funds; it would apply to airports that are receiving funds under the
Transportation Security Act.
Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield, no, that is
not correct. That was the original concern the gentleman raised. The
Parliamentarian at that time ruled that because the original amendment
had the words ``Homeland Security,'' that the gentleman was correct in
his point of order. I have changed it so that it does not refer to the
Department of Homeland Security. It refers specifically to the Bureau
of Immigration and Customs, which meets the Parliamentarian's concern;
and I have reintroduced the amendment.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I am sorry, I am having
trouble again. But as I read this, none of the funds made available in
this act may be used to provide assistance to any State or local
government or official that restricts any government entity or official
from sending or receiving funds, and I am not sure what agency the
gentleman is referring to. But ``none of the funds that are used to
provide assistance'' would now include all of the funds flowing to
airports from the TSA; and it would apply to FEMA funds, I would
assume. It would apply to all of the first responder funds that are in
this bill. I would assume it would apply to all the port funds that are
in this bill.
Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SABO. I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.
Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, once again, the law that I am amending,
the provision of the law that I am addressing here is current law. The
provision of the law that we are dealing with is the part of the 1996
act.
[[Page H5792]]
All this amendment does is say that no funds can be provided through
the Bureau of Immigration and Customs to cities that have violated this
law. That is it. We are simply putting teeth into the original law.
That is all there is to it. Nothing more. It is as simple as that. And
it is through the Bureau of Immigration and Customs. It is not TSA in
particular, by the way, the one that the gentleman keeps referring to.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I will let someone else maybe try and figure
it out. I remain confused. It just seems to go farther to me than what
the gentleman has indicated.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
requisite number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to strike the last word in an effort to
understand the first few words.
The gentleman from Colorado said to the gentleman from Minnesota that
the only funds involved were funds under the Illegal Immigration Reform
and Immigrant Responsibility Act, but that is not what it says. The
amendment says ``none of the funds made available in this act.'' The
reference to the Immigration Responsibility jaw-breaker does not come
until the bottom. What it says is that if you violate the Illegal
Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, then you get no
funds under this act.
I know we debated what ``is'' is, but I thought we were pretty clear
on what ``this'' is. This is this. This is the act. It says ``none of
the funds made available in this act.''
So the question is, in line 2 of the gentleman's amendment, when it
says ``none of the funds made available in this act,'' what act is he
talking about? And it would appear to be the act that we are now about
to enact.
I wanted to ask the question precisely. I would ask the gentleman
when it says in line 1, none of the funds made available, and in line
2, this act, in line 2, what do the words ``this act'' refer to?
I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.
Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, the amendment goes on to further define
it, and it is defined: through the money that is provided to the Bureau
of Immigration and Customs.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, no, it
does not. The gentleman has not read his own amendment, much less
written it.
What this says is, you do not get any funds under this act if you
violate the Illegal Immigration Act. It does not say that the funds
come under the act; it is a 2-part amendment. It says, first, you do
not get any funds under this act. It does not define this act later on;
it defines what forfeits money under this act. What causes you to
forfeit money under this act is a violation of the Immigration Act. It
does not say in here that you lose money under the Immigration Act; it
says you lose money under this appropriation if you violate that act.
I will yield again.
Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I must admit I do not believe that the
gentleman is really confused about the purpose of the amendment or the
words that are printed here. It is, in fact, quite clear.
We have run it around the horn here several times, including with the
Parliamentarians. The issue that the gentleman brought up earlier
dealing with an expansion of the original law has been dealt with by
this new amendment. We are speaking specifically of the Bureau of
Immigration and Customs.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would
say to the gentleman, I understand his concern with making clear, and I
have heard him say this in other contexts, that English is the official
language, and I would urge him to work on that, because English is what
it states here, and it says, in English, this is in English now, the
only language I speak being a typical American; it says in English,
``none of the funds made available in this act may be used to provide
assistance to any State that violates the Illegal Immigration Reform
and Immigrant Act.''
So it is very clear. It is this act to which the funds refer. The act
that was passed in 1996 triggers the loss of funds under this act. And
it seems to me it is a far harsher penalty for the violation and the
very fact that the gentleman offers the amendment in one form and then
explains it in another is, I think, an indication of its weakness.
{time} 2045
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, the gentleman who is offering this amendment has just
said that what he is doing is to apply to existing law with respect to
the Immigration Act as a new set of sanctions. And what that means is
that none of the funds provided in this bill can go to any locality
that is violating that law which means they get no fire grants, they
get no port security money, they get no money for their Office of
Domestic Preparedness.
It applies to FEMA. How many of you want to have a disaster and find
out because of some technicality your State is not eligible for any
money? How would you like that if it happened to fire funds, for
instance?
So I would say that it is very clear, you are making a very big
change in what localities can receive under this bill. Now, State and
localities are already being short-changed and should have received far
more than they did in the tax bill because of their budget crunch. This
will simply add to their woes and will do so inadvertently if they were
simply in violation because of a technicality.
It is obvious to me that we are going to have a vote on this bill. As
far as I am concerned, we might as well get on with the vote and get
out of here.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I am not going to speak for 5 minutes. I just want to
say what this amendment does, to be blunt, is it says that if any city
in the country, and according to the gentleman who read a list of most
of the large cities in the country, if they are in violation of a
particular provision of the Immigration Act which now has no sanction,
this will put a sanction on the city, on all the large cities, and the
sanction will be that we will leave them open and naked to the
terrorists. That is what it says.
No funds can go to those cities to protect their ports, no funds made
available in this act. This act makes available funds for fire, for
police, for emergency responses, for protection against terrorists.
Now, I know we want to get to a vote but this is about as important an
amendment as we have taken up here in a long time. Because whether the
people understand it or not, what this amendment will do, and maybe we
should do something about non-enforcement about the immigration
provision, maybe the Committee on the Judiciary should hold hearings on
that, but in fact what this amendment does is say most of the large
cities in the country because they are not in compliance with a
specific provision of the immigration law will gets no funds to use to
protect themselves against the terrorists. No funds for port security,
no funds for airport security, no funds for fire and emergency
response. That, I submit, makes no sense.
It says to all the citizens in all those large cities, we will hold
you hostage so that the terrorists have a free hand at you if your city
violates the immigration law. That is not the way to enforce the
immigration law. I urge a no vote.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number
of words.
Mr. Chairman, I hope the public is paying attention to this debate.
If we had major cities throughout this country, they are refusing to
cooperate with the INS and other people who are trying to protect us
from illegal aliens that may be coming in to do terrorist acts, they
should not be getting funds from this government. We are trying to ask
them to comply to protect our citizens when we are given that type of a
description.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo)
to give him a chance to answer some of these absurd charges.
Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, at least the gentleman from the other
side who spoke a minute ago did reflect accurately, I think, the
purpose of the amendment. It is to do exactly that. It is to restrict
funds to those cities
[[Page H5793]]
which have decided to restrict their police or other agencies from
sharing information with the Bureau of Immigration and Customs. That is
accurate and that is the first time it was described accurately by
anybody on the other side. That is exactly what I want to do. Because,
Mr. Chairman, there are in fact cities that are violating that law. We
passed it in 1996. There has got to be some way for us to impose some
sort of sanction or repeal the law with or if it is on the books, let
us have in some teeth in that.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Reclaiming my time, the purpose of this amendment is
clear. We are trying to have cooperation throughout the country in a
matter that is vital to our national security and the safety of our
people. If there are people in those governments, in those cities that
are refusing to cooperate with us, refusing to permit those who are
responsible for protecting our borders to get assistance, they should
not be getting funds. This is how we will encourage them to get
involved and to help protect America.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, three quick points.
Number one is this says none of the funds, no funds will go to any
municipality, any State entity, any governmental entity for any
homeland security purpose if they have chosen in a totally legitimate
way not to give information about someone's citizenship like mine or
anyone else's because that is what the gentleman's amendment reads.
This is a coercive action against any State, municipal or other
entity to say to that State, municipality or other entity, you must do
a series of things, including giving information on a person's
citizenship status, like my citizenship status, to the INS. So much for
State rights, so much for the local municipalities know best. So much
for all I have listened to for the last decade.
This is an unfunded mandate on all of those governmental entities
making it an extension of what was the INS. That is what you really
want to do.
Lastly, you can keep taking lessons in Spanish, but if this is your
Hispanic outreach we want none of it. I urge a no vote.
Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
requisite number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I am not a lawyer but in spite of that I think I
understand the intent of this amendment. As I understand it, we have a
law that has been in effect now for 7 years which is really being
violated by a number of cities. The Mayor of San Francisco, for
example, told her police not to give information to INS. This is a
clear violation of the law.
No evil thing is going to happen to any city or any jurisdiction if
they just follow the law. When you do not follow the law, you end up in
jail if you are an ordinary citizen. These cities and jurisdictions
that are violating this law need to understand that the law needs to be
kept.
All this amendment says is if they do not follow the law which has
now been in effect for 7 years, they are not going to get any money,
and I think that is a very reasonable thing. I do not think there will
be any violations of the law because they clearly want the money. And I
just do not think there is anything sinister in this. We have a law
that is grossly violated. There are no penalties in the law. All this
does is put in reasonable penalties. The only penalties you can put in
this bill is simply denying them funding under this bill. Nobody will
get hurt. All they have to do is follow the law and they will get all
the money they should get.
Mr. Chairman, I think this is very simple. It should not be necessary
to discuss this any longer. It could not be simpler. They are breaking
the law. This puts some teeth in the law. If they continue to break the
law, they will not get money. If they do not get money, they will not
continue to break the law.
Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I think the discussion that we are having tonight is
really a discussion about immigration and the immigration policy of our
country. And we might want to cloak it in national security but it is
what it is.
Our Supreme Court has stated that when you matriculate a child in
school, you do not ask the immigration status of that child or that
child's parents. That is the Supreme Court decision. That is the law of
this land. Children born here in the United States of America, they are
citizens by constitutional right. When their parents go to enroll them
in school, they must feel free to enroll them in school. Indeed, there
are hundreds of thousands of children in our public school systems in
this country whose parents do not have a legal status in this country.
They do. They are the citizens of this great Nation of ours. We should
allow those educational systems to continue to work.
There are police departments, over 400 of them in the Nation, that
have made a decision that they want crime reported. That is a very
local decision. And we should not be substituting it with a national
policy by passing this amendment. I think the police chief of LA, the
police chief of New York, the police chief of Chicago and the employees
that work under them should be given the respect that this institution
should give to them because they are on the front line fighting crime
each and every day. And they should make the decisions about how best
they can protect the welfare of the citizens of those cities.
We have talked a lot about the localities and making sure that
everything works better back home. Well, this is an instance where
things are working better back home and we should leave it alone. And
we can have a debate all night, but I think clearly what is going to be
read in the papers tomorrow and the evaluation that is going to be made
of this vote is going to be that those that care to say that immigrants
are bad to this country, and those that care to extol the virtues of
immigrants are going to take different sides on this debate. But this
is really a debate about immigration.
Let me end with this: I think that the President of the United States
of America acknowledged that we have to do something about undocumented
workers in this country. That is just a fact. There are 8 to 10 million
undocumented workers and that is what this is really all about, and
this is an attempt to deny them education and to deny their children
education and to deny the police to protect them. That is what this is
really all about.
The President of the United States sat down with the President of
Mexico for one to try to work out some reasonable immigration policy.
We should allow them and the Secretaries of State of those countries to
bring back, to come to a reasonable solution. Listen, this is not going
to get rid of one undocumented worker, as long as in the State of
Washington 70 percent of the agricultural workers are undocumented. We
know that we eat their apples. We eat the grapes from California. We
eat the oranges from Florida. We know who picked those fruits in this
Nation. We know who does some of the hardest work in this country each
and every day.
So let us have a debate on immigration. Let us have a debate on
immigration. Let us have a broad debate on immigration, and let us try
to figure out how we streamline new immigrants to this country as we
integrate those that are working hard, paying taxes and following the
law of this land. Let us not have a debate here tonight where one
person can go and put a claim, I got the immigrants today. I feel so
proud.
America has a proud tradition in this country of respecting the work
and the wealth of the contributions of immigrants, whether they be
Italian or Irish or Polish. That is what has made this Nation so great.
Let us not belittle those contributions here with this debate
tonight. Let us vote no on this amendment.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike
the requisite number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I will just say the following: The topic of immigration
is a very much sensitive topic and it is emotional. It is perceived
with a lot of emotion in the immigrant communities in this country. And
so what I would ask is that we have the opportunity to review this
amendment. I asked my friend, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr.
Tancredo) for a copy, and he said that the only copy is on the desk, so
I have not had an opportunity to even read this amendment.
[[Page H5794]]
{time} 2100
What I do know is the following, that this is a sensitive issue; that
it requires that this House deliberate on it, and if it is an amendment
that we have not even had an opportunity to read, then my suggestion
would be to my friend that he give an opportunity to this House,
through the regular process, for this to be studied; and if he will
not, then I will vote against this amendment. I say so because this is
a sensitive issue. This is an issue of extraordinary sensitivity to the
immigrant communities in this country; and so I ask both sides of the
aisle, if the amendment is not withdrawn, to vote it down.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
requisite number of words.
I hope that we can listen to my good friend from Florida; and for
those who are still trying to struggle with their own conscience, let
me just simply say that this is a sensitive issue, but what it does
capture is our fear of politics, and I just want my colleagues to think
of a local hamlet or rural area that inadvertently, inadvertently does
not provide information. They too will lose their fund.
The other aspect of this amendment that the gentleman from Colorado
(Mr. Tancredo) has not spoken to is that they will make the teachers,
doctors, nurses and others hunting down those they believe to be
violators of the immigration laws and they will begin to approach not
those who may be undocumented, but they will approach citizens who are,
in fact, documented. It will be a politics of fear because our local
communities will be fearful of losing the dollars that they are going
to get.
Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Florida has made a very good
proposition. This House, the committees have not had an opportunity to
review this amendment, nor have they had a full opportunity to review
how we wish to go forward on immigration policy.
My question to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) would be,
is the administration in support of this amendment? Is President Bush
in support of this amendment? Is this an administration proposition? If
it is, then we need to have a policy statement, a letter from the
administration suggesting that this is an amendment that they support;
and frankly, I believe, Mr. Chairman, that this is an amendment that
will take us down that very thorny path of seeking out citizens who
happen to have a foreign name, wherever they might be, because our
cities and local governments, rural areas will be fearful that the long
hand of the government will snatch their money away from them.
This is a bad amendment, and I hope that it goes down the tube; but I
hope the gentleman will withdraw the amendment or vote it down.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 102,
noes 322, not voting 10, as follows:
[Roll No. 309]
AYES--102
Aderholt
Akin
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Blackburn
Boozman
Brady (TX)
Burns
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Cantor
Carter
Chabot
Coble
Collins
Cox
Crane
Culberson
Davis, Jo Ann
Deal (GA)
DeLay
DeMint
Doolittle
Duncan
Emerson
Everett
Feeney
Flake
Forbes
Franks (AZ)
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gingrey
Goode
Goodlatte
Graves
Gutknecht
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
King (IA)
Kingston
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
McInnis
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Norwood
Otter
Paul
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Putnam
Ramstad
Rehberg
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Royce
Ryun (KS)
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shays
Shimkus
Shuster
Smith (MI)
Smith (TX)
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Taylor (NC)
Tiahrt
Toomey
Vitter
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (SC)
NOES--322
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Ballance
Ballenger
Bass
Beauprez
Becerra
Bell
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Burgess
Burr
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Case
Castle
Chocola
Clay
Clyburn
Cole
Cooper
Costello
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Tom
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley (CA)
Doyle
Dreier
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Emanuel
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Fletcher
Foley
Ford
Fossella
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gonzalez
Gordon
Goss
Granger
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall
Harman
Harris
Hart
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hensarling
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Houghton
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Janklow
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
King (NY)
Kirk
Kleczka
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lynch
Majette
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCotter
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Nunes
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Osborne
Ose
Owens
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pearce
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pickering
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Rangel
Regula
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rodriguez
Rogers (MI)
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Sandlin
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Shaw
Sherman
Sherwood
Simmons
Simpson
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Snyder
Solis
Souder
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Sweeney
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Turner (OH)
Turner (TX)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Weller
Wexler
Wilson (NM)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--10
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Conyers
Cubin
Gephardt
John
Skelton
Smith (WA)
Udall (CO)
Weldon (PA)
Young (AK)
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). There 2 minutes remaining in this
vote.
{time} 2120
Mr. GIBBONS changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California changed his vote from ``no'' to
``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I was inadvertently detained and
did not arrive in the Chamber in time to vote on rollcall number 309,
the Tancredo amendment to H.R. 2555, the Homeland Security
appropriations bill. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, as we wrap up debate on this bill, this historic bill,
the very
[[Page H5795]]
first appropriations bill that this Congress has taken up to fund the
new Department of Homeland Security, truly a historic day, I want to
say just briefly how much I appreciate all of the help that the members
of the subcommittee gave to us as we crafted this bill in a bipartisan
way, and for all of the Members who have conducted the debate today, I
think, in a very high-minded way.
I want to especially thank my colleague, my ranking member, the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo), who has been of immense help as we
constructed the bill, and all the members of the subcommittee and of
the full committee.
I want to especially single out the vice chairman of the
subcommittee, the full committee chairman, the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Young), who was helpful in the drafting of this bill, but also,
most importantly, had the courage back in the wintertime to have the
Subcommittee on Homeland Security created in the full committee. It was
courageous. The other body followed suit. Otherwise, this Department
would be appropriated by seven or eight different subcommittees on the
House and Senate side. So I want to thank Chairman Young for doing a
great job and having the courage to be a leader.
And lastly, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the very excellent staff
that we have had the good fortune to work with for only 3\1/2\ months
since this subcommittee has existed. Just a short time, but this staff
pulled together a bill from whole cloth and nurtured it through the
process, and we owe a lot to this excellent staff on both sides of the
aisle who put this very first bill together.
Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleagues for allowing me to thank these
people for doing a great job.
The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Shimkus) having assumed the chair, Mr. Gillmor, Chairman of the
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 2555)
making appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 2004, and for other purposes, pursuant
to House Resolution 293, he reported the bill back to the House with
sundry amendments adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment? If not, the Chair will
put them en gros.
The amendments were agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time and was
read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
Pursuant to clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
Pursuant to clause 8 and 9 of rule XX, this 15-minute vote on passage
will be followed by a 5-minute vote on suspending the rules and passing
H.R. 1416.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 425,
nays 2, not voting 7, as follows:
[Roll No. 310]
YEAS--425
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldwin
Ballance
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Becerra
Bell
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Carter
Case
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Clay
Clyburn
Coble
Cole
Collins
Cooper
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Crowley
Culberson
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
DeMint
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley (CA)
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Farr
Fattah
Feeney
Ferguson
Filner
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Granger
Graves
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall
Harman
Harris
Hart
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inslee
Isakson
Israel
Issa
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Janklow
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kleczka
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Lynch
Majette
Maloney
Manzullo
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCotter
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Mica
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Nethercutt
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Owens
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pearce
Pelosi
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Sandlin
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrock
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Snyder
Solis
Souder
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Toomey
Towns
Turner (OH)
Turner (TX)
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (FL)
NAYS--2
Flake
Paul
NOT VOTING--7
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Conyers
Cubin
Gephardt
Skelton
Smith (WA)
Young (AK)
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus) (during the vote). Members are
advised 2 minutes remain in this vote.
{time} 2141
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________