Congressional Record, Volume 149 Issue 132 (Wednesday, September 24, 2003)

[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.

____________________