[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 132 (Wednesday, September 24, 2003)]
[House]
[Pages H8495-H8500]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    WAIVING POINTS OF ORDER AGAINST CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 2555, 
        DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2004

  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the 
Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 374 and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 374

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider the conference report to accompany 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. All points of order against the 
     conference report and against its consideration are waived. 
     The conference report shall be considered as read.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Duncan). The gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Lincoln Diaz-Balart) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of 
debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
New York (Ms. Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I 
may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded 
is for the purpose of debate only.
  (Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida asked and was given permission to 
revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 374 
is a rule that provides for the consideration of the conference report 
for the fiscal year 2004 Department of Homeland Security Appropriations 
Act. This is a standard rule for a conference report, providing for 1 
hour of general debate, evenly divided and controlled by the chairman 
and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations.
  As we continue the 2004 appropriations cycle, Mr. Speaker, it is 
fitting that the first appropriations bill, and now the first 
conference report this House considers, is the Homeland Security 
Appropriations Act. It has been over 2 years since the Nation was 
savagely attacked by a group of cowardly terrorists on September 11, 
2001. Appropriate, decisive, and necessary steps in our defense and 
foreign policy have been evident under the leadership of President Bush 
through successful efforts to eliminate al Qaeda from its government-
sponsored haven of Afghanistan, the elimination of the Taliban regime 
and, recently, to remove the ruthless dictator Saddam Hussein in Iraq, 
and operations throughout the world in furtherance of U.S. national 
security.
  The U.S. military has performed and succeeded with distinction each 
and every time we have called upon their gallant services. But much 
more work has to be accomplished in the homeland; and this legislation, 
Mr. Speaker, provides communities the necessary tools to effect 
necessary security efforts.
  In this conference report, Congress is providing almost $30 billion 
to protect the homeland, $1 billion above the President's request.
  The legislation provides $4.2 billion to the Office of Domestic 
Preparedness. I have seen firsthand the work of Federal dollars when 
supplemented with State and local funding to make our communities safe. 
In south Florida, the local governments and municipalities have taken 
extensive steps to ensure the safety of airports, seaports, utilities, 
and water supplies; but they still require the supplemental funding and 
grants that this legislation provides. With over 7,500 miles of land 
borders and 361 seaports, local authorities will always be the 
frontline of defense.
  First responders are the key to the effective protection of our 
communities. In addition to many other programs, this conference report 
provides $1.7 billion for basic formula grants under the Office of 
Domestic Preparedness; $500 million for State and local enforcement 
terrorism prevention grants; $750 million for firefighter grants, and 
$725 million for high-threat, high-density urban areas.
  To further ensure the safety of the American people, we have 
instituted very clear guidelines for grant eligibility. Local and State 
officials must create a multiyear homeland security plan. This will 
ensure that we are not just throwing money at the problem, but we are 
working to find comprehensive, long-term solutions to problems.
  The Department of Homeland Security is also working hard to protect 
our ports of entry. There is $62 million in this bill for the Container 
Security Initiative. It is our belief that security at our ports should 
be the last line of defense, not a first.
  Through the Container Security Initiative, the Bureau of Customs and 
Border Protection is working with the world's largest ports to screen 
cargo before it leaves for the United States. We now require 24-hour 
advanced notice for manifests of any cargo ship heading to the United 
States. This allows the Department of Homeland Security to see what is 
on a ship before it gets anywhere near the coasts of the United States. 
Through a sophisticated database screening system and ground personnel 
working with host countries, the Department is creating a frontline of 
defense hundreds, sometimes even thousands of miles away.

  This conference report also provides $236 million for immigration 
services, $80 million of which is dedicated to alleviating the current 
unsatisfactory backlog of immigration applications. Under President 
Bush's Blueprint for New Beginnings, Director Aduardo Aguirre of the 
Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services is committed to 
achieving a maximum term of 6 months for immigration applications 
between the time of application and the time of swearing in, including 
for citizenship, specifically. Some parts of our Nation have seen the 
wait for citizenship applications grow and grow to the point that now 
it is not anywhere near 6 months, but rather years, in many instances. 
Effective funding to eliminate this backlog and streamline the process 
is essential, as is congressional oversight; and I want to thank

[[Page H8496]]

the gentleman from Kentucky (Chairman Rogers) who, in the Committee on 
Rules yesterday evening, again committed to continuing forceful 
oversight to make sure that this goal of the President and of the 
director really is achieved. Six months, 6 months should be the maximum 
time between an application for citizenship and the swearing in of a 
new American.
  Easing the backlog will enhance national security by ensuring that 
those who should be in the country are given their citizenship papers 
and those who have goals other than enjoying American prosperity and 
freedom and may seek to potentially harm America are quickly removed 
from the consideration process and dealt with appropriately.
  We must also allow those with a desire to enter the United States 
legally to do so without undue burden. Again, Mr. Speaker, I look 
forward to working with the chairman and the administration to ensure 
that, with necessary security, the borders of this country remain open 
to those who seek freedom and prosperity.
  Again, I would like to thank the gentleman from Kentucky (Chairman 
Rogers) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Ranking Member Sabo) for 
their important bipartisan work on this very important appropriations 
bill which I think, appropriately, is the first one that we bring in 
final form before our colleagues.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2555 is good legislation essential to our continued 
commitment to the security and safety of all of the citizens and the 
residents of the United States, the well-being of the homeland. I urge 
my colleagues to support both the rule and the underlying legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for 
yielding me the customary half hour, and I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  (Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
her remarks.)
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, this legislation has been described as 
historic because it is the first bill appropriating funds for the new 
Department of Homeland Security. But because of an economy that 
continues to lag and the largest deficit in history, and the mounting 
costs of rebuilding Iraq, this government is in bad fiscal shape. 
Nonetheless, we have to do whatever is required to secure the country. 
Does this bill provide enough money for aviation security, for safety 
around the perimeter of the Nation's airports, for security at our 
economically-vital ports, and for the Coast Guard to fulfill its 
previous and additional duties? This body agreed that all cargo 
traveling on passenger planes would be fully screened, but that 
security measure was dropped from the bill; and full screening of cargo 
on passenger planes will not be required.
  Are we providing enough money to prepare our first responders, the 
local police departments and emergency medical agencies? Recently, the 
Council on Foreign Relations issued a comprehensive report on the 
status of America's first responders. The council found that its 
dedicated police officers, firefighters, and emergency personnel are 
underfunded and underresourced. In fact, it determined that the first 
responders need an additional $98.4 billion to meet their needs. We 
know, Mr. Speaker, that regardless of whether or not we train them 
adequately or provide them with the equipment that they need, when 
called upon, they will go. But surely they deserve from this government 
a chance to increase their odds to the greatest extent possible.
  Are we dedicating enough resources to secure our northern border? I 
represent the second biggest gateway between the United States and 
Canada, and I see the need to increase the resources along the over 
4,000-mile border between the United States and Canada. For years, we 
did not need to pay attention to our northern border because our 
Canadian friends and the United States were such good, compatible 
friends. In fact, it was the largest unguarded border in the world. But 
if we are going to maintain the $1.5 million trade between the United 
States and Canada every single day and still maintain the United 
States' and Canada's safety and security, we have to provide enough 
resources to do it.
  In conference, an additional $1.25 billion for airport and seaport 
security for first responders and for more Customs officials on the 
northern border was sought. But, unfortunately, the proposal was 
refused.
  Mr. Speaker, the creation of the Department of Homeland Security was 
also a historic event. The Department was recently described as the 
``government's hobbled giant.'' Will DHS be known for its 
disorganization? Will the Department be able to use effectively and 
efficiently this nearly-$30 billion investment in homeland security? 
Will the Department perform a complete national threat assessment, 
which has been required for 2 years and we still do not have, but is a 
necessity to develop and implement a comprehensive homeland security 
plan? Will the Department develop the criteria for the evaluation of 
our preparedness so that local and State governments are able to 
determine the readiness and needs of first responders? And will the 
Department quickly get the grant money to the local first responders?

                              {time}  1030

  The testimony that we have had at our hearings recently does not give 
us much hope.
  Also, Mr. Speaker, it must be noted that next week is the end of the 
current fiscal year. And, in fact, fiscal year 2004 begins one week 
from today. However, Congress has not sent any bills making 
appropriations for fiscal year 2004 to the President's desk for his 
signature. If we are lucky, we might have three of the 13 
appropriations bills ready to become law by October 1.
  Mr. Speaker, finishing only 23 percent of our work on time is not 
acceptable, and we can and should do better for the people of this 
great and wonderful country.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such 
time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I am very proud of the fact that all of the 
appropriations bills, all 13, have been promptly completed by this 
House. And I think that it stands as a testament to the hard work of 
the leadership of this House and especially of that very hard-working 
Committee on Appropriations under the leadership of Chairman Young and 
the subcommittee chairs.
  We obviously can, working hard, fulfill our responsibilities as the 
Committee on Appropriations has done in this House. We do not control 
the other House. We wish that they would also complete their work in a 
timely fashion as this House has.
  Now, this is the first appropriations bill that is finalized in the 
sense of a conference, the final product. We are looking forward to 
many others being able to be sent shortly to the President for his 
signature. But I feel very proud of the work of this House and 
especially the Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. 
Slaughter) for her leadership on this bill along with the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo).
  We cannot be debating a more important issue to our homeland security 
than how much money the Federal Government is going to spend over the 
next year to secure the people of our country. The President has been 
able to find a way to spend $87 billion in Iraq to protect American 
security on top of an additional $65 billion which we have already 
spent, but this administration can only find an additional 2 percent 
for homeland security. And after inflation, that pretty much gobbles it 
up.
  While this theory that somehow or other al Qaeda is going to be 
attacking us 5,000 miles away and not here on our own shore belies the 
reality of where the threat is to the American people which is in their 
homes, in their places of work.
  Now, just a couple of months ago on this House floor, we passed an 
amendment by a vote of 278 to 146. That amendment required that in 
addition to each of us who are passengers on planes in America having 
to take off

[[Page H8497]]

our shoes, having to put our cell phones through security, having to 
put our computers through security, having to put our carry-on bags 
through security, having to put our luggage, if it is too big, down and 
under the plane through security, that the cargo which goes on those 
very same passenger planes is also screened.
  Believe it or not, although 22 percent of all air cargo in the United 
States is placed on passenger planes that we all fly on, there is no 
screening program. So as we all sit up in the passenger seats now, 
thinking that everyone who is seated with us in the passenger section 
has also been screened, and thereby we are safe because there are two 
air marshals, there is a double-reinforced steel door on the pilot's 
cabin, the pilot may have a gun, every passenger may be looking to see 
how they may respond if al Qaeda jumps up on that plane as to how they 
will tackle al Qaeda, but in the cargo bin of that very same plane, a 
package just this size, the same size as your luggage goes on that 
plane without being screened. Cargo.
  Now, there is something wrong when your luggage, which is this size, 
gets screened but a piece of cargo does not get screened. Al Qaeda, not 
even flying on that plane, not even flying on that plane, can send 
cargo on that same plane unscreened, unseen, that destroys that plane. 
And the consequence would be another half-a-trillion or trillion-dollar 
hit to our economy.
  So here is the bizarre situation in which we now see ourselves as the 
Republicans bring this bill out on the House floor, we, the average 
American, will have to go through airport security doing whatever it is 
that those screeners ask us to do. And we do not mind, we want security 
for our families, for our country, but going around the screening is 
the cargo on the very same plane.
  By the way, with those people who put the cargo on the plane not 
flying on it, unless, if you followed this a couple of weeks ago, there 
was a young man who actually shipped himself across the country. Thank 
God that young man was a tourist and not a terrorist. That is where we 
are.
  You can get a bomb onto a plane without a boarding pass. You can go 
right around the whole system that all of us have to go through to get 
on that passenger plane. So in this bill, rather than accepting the 
amendment which passed here on the House floor, which would require the 
TSA to construct a plan to ensure that there is a screening for cargo 
which goes on passenger planes, instead they removed it on a partisan, 
Republican-Democrat, vote in the conference committee, party line.
  So while the passengers are having their nail clippers taken away 
from them because it may pose a threat to security on the plane, a 
piece of cargo can go on without any screening whatsoever. Now, that is 
just wrong. At Logan Airport, which I represent, 2 years ago, 10 al 
Qaeda, who had a sleeper cell in our city, got on 2 planes and 
terrorized our country and the world by then destroying the lives of 
not only the passengers on that plane from New England, but also 3,000 
additional lives in New York City and a good chunk of our economy. We 
cannot run the risk on those very same planes taking off today, that al 
Qaeda could put cargo on the very same passenger flights without any 
screening. And I do not think the American people want to fly on planes 
that do not have cargo which is screened.
  This provision, which has been deleted, has been endorsed by 
Coalition of Airline Pilots Association. All the airline pilots in 
America endorse the provision.
  Let me read what the victims of Pan Am Flight 103 have to say about 
this provision. Here is what they say in a letter to us: ``The victims 
of Pan Am Flight 103 Organization is dedicated to and strives for 
passenger planes to be as secure as possible. Our goal is to have 100 
percent physical screening of passengers, crew, luggage and cargo. 
Trading lives or dollars is totally unacceptable to the families who 
have paid the price of ineffective security.''
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to 
the distinguished gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), the chairman of 
the subcommittee.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me time.
  I had not intended to speak on the rule. I was going to wait and 
present the material that I have on the debate on the conference report 
itself, but I cannot let the gentleman's remarks go unresponded to at 
this point in time.
  It is just not so that anyone can place cargo on a passenger plane 
without it being checked and screened. That is incorrect. We have a 
very sophisticated system in place today that verifies whether or not 
you are a known and trusted shipper. If you are not so certified by the 
government after having been investigated and your background checked 
and all of those procedures, if you are not a known shipper, they will 
search your packages you put on the passenger plane.
  The gentleman is incorrect, and I do not want it to be said nor heard 
around the world that you can get by with the things he said. You 
cannot. Today you cannot. And yet in this bill, in the conference 
report, we direct the Secretary to research, procure and install 
machinery that can x-ray all this cargo going on passenger planes. We 
do not have the equipment today to do that, and so we rely upon the 
known shipper program; and if you are not a known shipper, we 
personally inspect your cargo.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I must say the gentleman's 
comments are very, very appropriate. I am taking a group of 16 Members 
over to Iraq this weekend to begin to try to lay the foundation for a 
better understanding of what is happening there by Americans; but to 
have this kind of outrageous presentation on the floor, which could 
very well tempt kooks in the world to do things that otherwise they 
would never think of doing, is absolutely not acceptable. And the House 
should react the same way the gentleman is reacting. I appreciate the 
chairman yielding me time.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his 
comments. I am not characterizing the comment of the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey). All I am saying is do not be overly 
alarmed, for goodness sakes.
  There is a program in place while we get the machinery to actually x-
ray the cargo that goes on passenger planes. We do not have it now, and 
it is going to take some time to develop, but in the meantime we are 
doing the next best thing, and that is certifying who it is we are 
receiving cargo from to put on those planes and directing the Secretary 
to proceed forthwith at the earliest date possible to secure the 
machinery to make that happen.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, today I rise to express my respect for both the 
gentleman from Kentucky (Chairman Rogers) and the ranking member, the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo) for their work on H.R. 2555, the 
conference report on fiscal year 2004 Homeland Security appropriations.
  I think it is important that we raise some of the questions that we 
are hearing from our constituents back home and from the people who are 
operating security at some of our airports.

                              {time}  1045

  I think that the questions that were raised by my colleague from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) are appropriate, but those are the same 
issues that are raised to us when we tour some of the airports in our 
districts and in our States. But I want to add my voice to the growing 
concern that a number of people have, that the Federal Government is 
cutting back dramatically on our commitment to our Nation's airports at 
a very critically important time. Just now the American traveling 
public is beginning to regain confidence in flying since the horrific 
terrorist attacks of September 11, and we must continue to reward that 
confidence by funding the necessary number of baggage screeners at our 
Nation's airports.

[[Page H8498]]

  Earlier this week I had the privilege to tour Logan International 
Airport in Boston, Massachusetts, with the CEO of the Massachusetts 
Port Authority, the airport operator and the airport's Federal security 
director. Regrettably, Logan is remembered by many as the airport from 
which both planes that hit the World Trade Center Towers were hijacked. 
What is not as well known is that no other airport in the country has 
moved more quickly and aggressively to address passenger security than 
Logan.
  Massport and the TSA at Logan enjoy a tremendous cooperative 
relationship reinforced by daily meetings 7 days a week. Logan has the 
Nation's only fully automated 100 percent bag screening system at a 
major airport, and unlike airline hub airports where many passengers 
are connecting from one gate to another and never pass a security 
checkpoint or have their luggage screened, 90 percent of Logan's 
departing passengers will go through a checkpoint, and most of those 
will check at least one bag.
  Despite these challenges, the screeners at Logan have done a 
tremendous job in protecting the 11 million passengers that depart that 
airport every year. These screeners do an incredible job. It is hard 
work. These people who work to screen baggage and do other things to 
enhance the security at that airport do tremendous work. And they do 
not get the gratitude, quite frankly, they deserve.
  The TSA at Logan will never compromise safety, but their staffing 
levels at Logan have been steadily decreasing this year, and this 
inevitably will result in longer lines at checkpoints and delays. At a 
time when we are trying to help the commercial airline industry do 
better, it seems to me that we need to be sensitive to the fact that 
without proper staffing we will see longer and longer lines.
  There are currently 100 fewer screeners at Logan than when the 
Federal Government took over. That is unimaginable. We cannot continue 
to bail out airlines without first meeting our commitment to our 
Nation's airports.
  This whole procedure, this conference report, began with providing 
56,000 screeners. Then it went to 49,000, and now this bill caps 
screeners at 45,000. With all due respect to the great work that the 
chairman and others have done, I think we need to do better, and I hope 
that at some point in this process we will find a way to do that.
  I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Turner), who is the ranking member on the Select Committee 
on Homeland Security.
  Mr. TURNER of Texas. Mr. Speaker, we all know it is the first duty of 
this Congress to protect and provide for the defense of the American 
people. In the first days of the 21st century, this means that we have 
to do everything we can to protect America from terrorist attack.
  After September 11, the question that each of us must answer is are 
we doing all we can to protect America. With only 3 percent of our 
cargo containers being checked as they enter American ports, can we say 
that we are doing enough to close that security gap?
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TURNER of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, is the gentleman not aware of 
the container security initiative where we are checking these 
containers at 24 megaports around the world, even as I speak?
  Mr. TURNER of Texas. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I am very much 
aware of it. I am just convinced that we are not doing it enough, and 
we are not providing the essential security that we need.
  I participated just yesterday in an exercise out at the National 
Defense University, went through a simulation of a terrorist attack 
utilizing container cargo. The estimates of the devastation to our 
country and our economy that something coming through on cargo 
containers would do to this Nation is shocking, and I think it is very 
important that we do even more than we are doing today.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield 
briefly on that point, I agree with the gentleman, we should do all we 
can. However, it is inaccurate to say we are only checking 3 percent of 
these container pieces. We are doing a lot more than that.
  Mr. TURNER of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I do agree we are doing more than 
we were. The question is are we doing enough to protect America?
  When we look at what we are doing to protect our borders, we have yet 
to meet the levels that we mandated in the PATRIOT Act for border 
security guards, and we clearly do not know today who comes into this 
country and who leaves this country, and that is without dispute. We 
also know that we have got 12 incompatible terrorist watch lists, and 
it has been 2 years since we all knew that we had to have a common 
single watch list to be sure that all agencies of government knew who 
was on the terrorist watch list. We know the Coast Guard struggles with 
outdated equipment, equipment that needs to be upgraded. The list could 
go on and on and on.
  The Council on Foreign Relations issued a report just about a month 
ago entitled Emergency Responders Drastically Underfunded, Dangerously 
Unprepared, a bipartisan report issued by a bipartisan group chaired by 
Warren Rudman, former Republican Senator.
  There seems to be no question, Mr. Speaker, that we must do more to 
protect the security of America, and when we look at it in the context 
of the priorities, what we see is the increase in the Homeland Security 
budget provided by this conference report is only 2\1/2\ percent above 
what it was last year. That is a $535 million increase in funding for 
Homeland Security, and keep in mind, this Homeland Security budget 
funds all these 22 agencies that we had in existence before we combined 
them into one agency. So we are really paying for a whole lot in this 
bill that we were already doing, and the total increase is about the 
rate of inflation.
  In terms of priority, the President has requested that we spend 
approximately $20 billion additional to rebuild Iraq, and it is 
probably just a down payment. We are spending only 2\1/2\ percent 
additional on homeland security, 2\1/2\ percent of that $20 billion 
here at home to protect America. When we look at the total size of this 
increase, $535 million, that is just one one-thousandth of the size of 
the deficit that we have this year.
  So in terms of priorities, there should be no debate that we are not 
doing enough to protect America, to protect America from chemical 
attack, from biological attack, from nuclear attack, from traditional 
explosives. This is what the war on terror is all about, and we must 
wake up and be prepared to defend America against the terrorist enemies 
that we know are plotting as we speak to harm America and American 
citizens here and around the world.
  So I say, Mr. Speaker, that it is time for us to be real about what 
our needs are in the area of homeland security. I will be the first to 
tell my colleagues that we also need to get smarter about how we spend 
our money. That is why the Democrats on the Select Committee on 
Homeland Security, joined by most of the Democratic Caucus, will 
introduce legislation today to create a task force that will be a 
grassroots group of local responders that will advise the Department of 
Homeland Security as to what the legitimate essential needs are of 
every community in America, because today we do not pass out money on 
any rational basis.
  Let us get smarter, let us get real, and let us be honest about the 
security needs of this country.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Neal).
  Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, as we debate a bill to ensure 
that our homeland is secure, while we struggle to reconcile another $87 
billion of war expenses, this Congress has once again provided a 
special benefit to a handful of financial traitors who have literally 
skipped out on paying the bill.
  The House Committee on Appropriations unanimously passed an amendment 
to prohibit lucrative Federal contracts from being awarded to 
corporations who run offshore to avoid U.S. income taxes. Then the 
Committee on Rules struck it out. Then the Senate passed an amendment 
on the floor to prohibit these contracts with tax

[[Page H8499]]

cheats. Then the conference committee struck it out.
  Sound familiar? I feel like Bill Murray in Groundhog Day. No matter 
how hard we try, we keep hitting it from every angle, but nothing seems 
to work to get these companies to come back to the United States and 
pay their fair share of taxes. It seems that there are some in this 
Congress who are intent on protecting the new Bermuda citizenship of 
these companies. We end up where we started at the beginning, with 
corporate expatriates avoiding $5 billion, listen to that, $5 billion 
in taxes, and yet they win $2 billion annually in lucrative Federal 
contracts with the United States Government, 70 percent of which are in 
defense and homeland security.
  By a whopping vote of 318 to 110, this House last year voted to 
prohibit these corporate expatriates from sharing in the increase of 
contracts with the new Homeland Security Department. Senator Wellstone 
added similar language during the Senate debate, but after Wellstone's 
death and after the election was over, the bill came back, and guess 
what, we got rid of the provision.
  Despite a promise from House and Senate leadership during a close 
vote to three Republican Senators that this contract ban, and two other 
controversial provisions, would be fixed in later legislation, no ban 
has been enacted.
  These corporations benefit from America's defense and homeland 
security, but they are not willing to help pay for it. With 150,000 
soldiers in Iraq today willing to give their lives for this great 
Nation, Congress should ensure that the resources exist to support that 
effort. If the tide of corporations flowing offshore for tax avoidance 
continues, those resources are put at serious risk. It is shameful that 
this year we have nothing again to show for our efforts.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the 
time.
  Let me go through this once again. If you are on a passenger plane, 
and this is the size of your carry-on luggage, you have to put that 
luggage through screening, each person in America, no exceptions; 
Members of Congress, no exception. We are known trippers. They do not 
say to Members of Congress, oh, we know who you are, you are a known 
tripper, just bring that bag right around security. They do not say to 
businessmen who fly between New York and Boston every day, you are a 
known tripper, come right around security, we are only going to check 
these people who do not fly that often. No. Every single one of our 
carry-on pieces of luggage gets screened, and that is the way it should 
be, no exceptions for Members of Congress, no exceptions for business 
people, no exceptions for anybody.
  But if you have got a piece of cargo, and they say you are a known 
shipper, they do not put it through any screening on the same plane 
that we are on.
  But listen to this: If it is under 16 ounces, and, by the way, 
Richard Reid, who had explosive plastic material in his shoes had less 
than this, this does not get screened. There is no paperwork required. 
There is no known shipper program. Nothing, if it is 16 ounces and 
under to go on passenger planes if it is cargo.
  Now, that is a huge loophole. Why can we not screen this? What is so 
complicated about screening this going onto passenger planes?

                              {time}  1100

  Why is there no equipment to do this? If you can screen a huge bag 
which we are all taking on our vacation for 10 days, how can a cargo 
shipper who is putting this on a plane not have it screened; does not 
even require paperwork, if we know an explosive could be put in it? It 
is wrong, and this bill should be defeated.
  We owe the passengers of America the knowledge that as they put their 
families on planes to fly around this country that this package is 
being screened; that there is paperwork that is attached to it; that we 
know what is in it as we are putting it on a passenger plane. This bill 
says no, we are not going to have a requirement. We are not going to 
make that a part of the compact which we have with American people for 
homeland security.
  We know there is no uranium or nuclear weapons in Iraq. We now know 
that. But we know that al Qaeda is still in our country trying to 
figure out ways of targeting the airline industry. Give them the right 
to know that their families are safe. Vote ``no'' on this homeland 
security bill until they give every American family that level of 
protection.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to 
the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), the chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Homeland Security of the Committee on Appropriations, 
who along with the rest of the subcommittee has been working long and 
hard, and not with empty shoeboxes but for the security of the American 
people, actually getting things done.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I shall not take that time.
  I cannot believe the gentleman from Massachusetts would stand before 
the body and make the statements, as he did, without knowing the facts. 
The 16-ounce package the gentleman held before us and said this is not 
searched, this is not searched, this is not searched, all packages 
under 16 ounces are checked by canine teams. And I would trust the 
canine teams more than the gentleman from Massachusetts on this point.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
  Mr. MARKEY. First of all, Madam Speaker, all packages 16 ounces and 
under are not checked by canine. They have a pilot project to check 
some of the packages 16 ounces and under. They do not have every 16-
ounce package checked by canine.
  Moreover, why in the world should everyone in these galleries, every 
American have to take off their shoes, put through their computer, put 
all of their packages through screening and then have a dog sniff 
however many packages the cargo shipper or the airlines feel like they 
should sniff? Why should those packages not get the same screening? Why 
should there be any risk of mistake?
  They do not screen us by sniffing dogs. They do not have dogs 
sniffing our bags or our packages. They want to make sure that it is 
absolutely guaranteed that no one is getting on to the passenger 
section of a plane with an explosive. It is just wrong. It makes no 
sense, in fact. Why make people take off their shoes if someone can put 
it on in the belly of the same plane without the same screening? It 
makes no sense.
  We should have a known-tripper program, then. Let 98 percent of all 
Americans get on with no screening because we know they are not a big 
risk. We do not say it that way. We say we are not taking any chances 
with the lives and safety of Americans on planes. We are going to have 
everyone go through. Regardless of status, regardless of income, 
everyone goes through. And I think it is reassuring to other Americans 
when they see Members of Congress taking off their shoes, putting their 
own carry-ons through. I think they know that we are serious about it. 
But they know we cannot possibly be serious when their nail clippers 
are being confiscated and they bite their own nails while they watch 
the cargo go onto the same plane with no physical screening at all.
  Vote ``no.'' It is just not a good enough bill on the issue that we 
know al Qaeda still puts at the very top of their list the airlines of 
our country with passengers on them. We owe those people better 2 years 
after what happened on September 11.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.
  I am proud to be a member of the Select Committee on Homeland 
Security; but having attended all the hearings that we have had, I have 
been struck by the fact that, basically, in 2 years, we have not 
achieved a great deal. The watch list is one item that particularly 
concerns me, and I do not think we are paying enough attention to what 
I would like to call the enemy within.
  I was struck this week by the two men who were charged with espionage 
who worked at Guantanamo, one a chaplain, the other working for the 
United States Government. And as we work to make America safe, if we do 
all our concentrations and spend all of our money on securing the 
borders from people coming in and forget and do not put adequate 
emphasis on the people who are here already, then I

[[Page H8500]]

think we are missing the chance to do our job adequately, nor should 
the American people feel any safer.
  I agree with what the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) said, 
this could be a better bill. I wish it could be. And certainly I want 
to reiterate what the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal) said. It 
has been one of the sorrows of my life watching the inability of 
Congress to say to corporations who have the gall to incorporate 
overseas to avoid paying Federal taxes yet are awarded Federal 
contracts. Surely, surely we can do better than that and finally at 
least stop that hemorrhage.
  It has troubled me all the way through to see some of the contractors 
out here doing the work on the Capitol itself and who are working for 
corporations that have gone to Bermuda. If they are saying to the 
United States residents, here, you go ahead and pay for the war 
yourself, we opt out, but please give us the contracts, we ought to be 
smart enough, we ought to be intelligent enough to put a stop to that.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 
such time as I may consume.
  This has been an interesting debate. I feel very proud of the work 
that the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) and his subcommittee have 
done in bringing forth this legislation, which is not only the first 
appropriation bill that is being sent to the President but one could 
say certainly one of the most important, if not the most important one.
  Many important programs are funded. I happen to have followed, and 
feel very strongly, for example, that the funding in this bill and the 
oversight that Chairman Rogers is providing to make sure that the goal 
that President Bush has set for immigrants in this country who are 
seeking the great honor of American citizenship is met; that there be 
no more than a 6-month period between the time of application and 
swearing in for immigrants in this great land. We are going to follow 
up with oversight to make sure that that goal of President Bush and 
Director Aguirre is met. It is funded in this legislation.
  Many important security initiatives are also funded. Chairman Rogers 
has stated, and I think it is important to reiterate that the Secretary 
of the Department has been instructed to forthwith devise and implement 
a system for the screening of all cargo. So in addition to the very 
important existing programs that have been improved and their funding 
has been increased to assure the security of the American people today, 
this legislation calls for the development forthwith of a program to 
screen all cargo. I thank Chairman Rogers and his committee for that 
work as well.
  So this is very important legislation that is brought forth today 
with this rule.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________