[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 132 (Wednesday, September 24, 2003)]
[House]
[Pages H8793-H8802]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 2555, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2004
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Madam Speaker, pursuant to the rule, I call
up the conference report on 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.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 374, the
conference report is considered as having been read.
(For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of
September 23, 2003, at page H 8425.)
The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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).
{time} 1145
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Madam Speaker, this is an historic day, consideration of the very
first appropriations bill for the new Department of Homeland Security,
which was stood up only March of this spring. This subcommittee was
only stood up in March of this year, and I am very pleased with the
work of our subcommittee, the committee and the Congress in bringing
this bill from nowhere, no staff, offices, nothing, all the
[[Page H8794]]
way through the hearings and to be the very first conference to take
place of all 13 bills and the very first considered by the House and on
the floor at this moment. It is a record that the Congress can be proud
of. It is a record that the administration can be proud of in proposing
the Congress respond to the creation at the outset of a new Department
of Homeland Security.
This conference agreement, Madam Speaker, will provide $29.4 billion
for the new Department. That is an increase of $1 billion over what the
President requested, and it is $535 million over what we are spending
in the current fiscal year.
In the interest of time, I do not intend to list specific amounts
proposed for the many programs and activities in the Department by the
bill, but I do want to take note, Madam Speaker, of the substantial
amounts of money that we have provided for homeland defense since the
Nation was confronted with the ugly face of terrorism a little more
than 2 years ago. I also believe it is important for us to take note of
where these funds have gone.
Since September 11, 2001, governmentwide, the Congress has provided
$75.8 billion for homeland security, including $43.9 billion to date
just for the Department of Homeland Security. This bill provides an
additional $29.4 billion, bringing the total appropriated since 9/11 to
$105.2 billion governmentwide, $73.3 billion of that for just those
agencies that now we include in the Department of Homeland Security.
This does not include funding, Madam Speaker, that will be provided
in the other 12 appropriations bills, which could provide an additional
$17.5 billion, but I want to talk just about the Department of Homeland
Security and this bill.
Since September 11, here is what has been provided by the Congress
for the following things: $513 million to secure our critical port
facilities, including the $125 million that is in this bill; since
September 11, 2001, $388 million for technology, such as radiation
detectors for our ports and nonintrusive inspection technologies for
cargo screening, including the $125 million in this bill for that
purpose. These technologies have been deployed at our busiest land and
seaports, including such places as Miami, Los Angeles and Newark.
$122 million since 9/11 has been provided for what has been called
the Container Security Initiative, CSI, $62 million of that in this
bill. CSI targets high-threat cargo before it comes to our ports. It
has been fully funded since its inception. It is now in the process of
being implemented in nearly all of the major foreign megaports so that
we can search those containers before they reach America's shores.
Something I am very proud of, Madam Speaker, is the aid that we are
providing for our State and local governments, the so-called first
responders, our firefighters, our emergency technicians, our police and
law enforcement people and the others, $20.5 billion, including the
$4.2 billion that is in this bill in assistance to those people.
Madam Speaker, when we talk of homeland security, you cannot talk of
that subject without talking about our hometown security, and this
money is the biggest portion of the monies we appropriate for homeland
defense.
Transportation security, of course, a continuing concern, but since
September 11, 2001, we have provided a total of $15.7 billion, $5.2
billion in this bill, for passenger safety through the Transportation
Security Administration, which was transferred to the new Department,
including passenger baggage and cargo screening and the Federal Air
Marshals program. $1.9 billion, including $400 million in this bill,
has been spent on explosive and trace detection systems, including
development, procurement and installation. This bill includes an
additional $85 million just for air cargo safety, principally cargo
shipped on passenger planes.
On the subject of cargo security, we dealt with a very difficult
issue in conference, and that is air cargo on passenger planes. The
House-passed bill included a provision that would have immediately
banned airlines from carrying cargo. I would point out that 22 percent
of all air cargo is shipped on passenger aircraft.
But we modified that provision in the conference and in the
conference report that is before us today. In short, we do not prohibit
airlines from carrying cargo. That would be an economic disaster for
them. It is a $3 billion or $4-billion-a-year business for them, which
would have meant, in my judgment, the death of the airlines. And we did
not establish artificial deadlines that we knew could not be met.
Instead, we faced the problem head on with the reality in mind. We
adopted language that directed the Secretary to immediately research,
develop, procure and install certified systems that can screen cargo
being placed on passenger planes at the earliest possible date. That
machinery does not exist today. It has to be developed. No one knows
how long that will take, but we direct the Secretary to immediately go
at it without any delay and to do it at the earliest possible time.
In the meantime, this conference report requires that the Secretary
of the Department enhance what is known as the known shipper program
which is currently in place that prohibits high-risk cargo from being
placed on passenger planes. It requires the Department to immediately
issue requests for proposals on potential technologies to screen cargo,
it requires the Department to conduct background checks on employees
who handle cargo prior to being placed on the aircraft, and it requires
the Department to launch a pilot program to use explosive detection
machines in select locations to screen high-risk cargo.
I know that we will have additional debate on this issue during this
debate and on the motion to recommit the bill. In the interim, I would
hope that Members would actually read the conference report as it
relates to cargo security. I want to read that portion of the bill. It
is short and sweet and direct. I do not know how it could be more
strong. We tried to find language that would be as directive and as
clear as we could make it. Let me quote you the section, 521, from the
conference report:
``The Secretary of Homeland Security is directed to research,
develop, and procure certified systems to inspect and screen air cargo
on passenger aircraft at the earliest date possible. Provided, That
until such technology is procured and installed, the Secretary shall
take all possible actions to enhance the known shipper program to
prohibit high-risk cargo from being transported on passenger
aircraft.''
There is language in the statement of managers that backs that up and
requires the Secretary to immediately forthwith issue a request for
proposals from the industry and the private sector to come forward with
proposals to secure that equipment. The best we can do until the
equipment is here, Madam Speaker, is to be sure we know who is shipping
cargo on passenger planes, and if we do not know who they are, and they
do not have a record of being secure, then we search every piece that
is going on today, and we encourage the continuance of that. All high-
risk cargo is screened for security.
Now, Madam Speaker, I want to conclude these remarks by noting that
some of our colleagues here believe we should add more money to this
bill. I suspect that for some, no matter how much we spend, no matter
how much we add in the name of homeland security, it will never be
enough. We could spend every penny we could beg, borrow or steal around
the world and spend it in the name of homeland security, and it would
never please some people.
I would just state my firm belief that throwing dollars at homeland
security will not necessarily add to our security. What we need is a
sensible plan that spends sensible sums of money on the establishment
and operation of a comprehensive and complete system for protecting our
Nation, and I believe this conference report is such a sensible plan.
It provides resources for the legacy functions of agencies
transferred to the Department such as Customs inspections, Border
Patrol, Immigration, Presidential protection, Secret Service funding,
Coast Guard spending for small-boat rescue systems, buoy research and
protection, fishing rights enforcement and the like. We continue
spending on those things that are not directly related to homeland
security.
But we continue our commitment, Madam Speaker, to first responders.
[[Page H8795]]
We support innovative technologies in this bill and capital investments
for transportation security, for maritime safety, for the protection of
critical infrastructure in the country.
In short, Madam Speaker, this conference agreement is a very good
step toward a comprehensive plan for homeland security that spends
sensible amounts of money. It moves us forward in leaps and bounds as
we seek ways to defend the homeland and prevent future terrorist
attacks.
So, Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the conference
report and to reject any motions to recommit it.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SABO. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, when it comes to homeland security, the rhetoric flies
fast and furious. Everyone wants a safer, better-prepared America
against both terror threats and natural events like Hurricane Isabel.
But our actions do not always match rhetoric. In most respects, this
conference report does a responsible job of allocating funds within the
budget constraints we face.
{time} 1200
I commend the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) and the staff for
their hard work and the many thoughtful decisions that are reflected in
this bill. It is a clear and substantial improvement over the
administration's request. I suppose one of the things Chairman Rogers
mentioned was funding for port security. And I think it is obvious that
we could spend more there, but every penny that has been appropriated
by Congress was money not asked for by the administration.
Let me also pay particular respect to the hardworking staff. They are
hardworking, they are professional, they are competent. From the
minority staff, Beth Pheto; from our committee staff, Marjorie Duske;
from my personal staff, Michelle Mrdeza, Jeannie Wilson, Stephanie
Gupta, Jeff Ashford, Tom MacLemore, Tammy Hughes, and Brian Dunlop.
They have had a big job to do, and they have done it in a professional
manner.
It is a simple fact, however, that the United States is not as well
prepared as we can and should be to meet our homeland security
challenges. We should do more.
Mr. Speaker, at the end of the debate I will offer a motion to
recommit that is very similar to the motion to instruct conferees that
this House passed overwhelmingly 2 weeks ago. By a vote of 347 to 74,
the House instructed conferees to insist on the highest possible
funding levels for each homeland security preparedness and disaster
response program and to require screening of cargo on passenger
airplanes.
This conference agreement does not do that. One troubling shortfall
is first responder funding which would remain flat at the 2003 level.
The House bill would have provided a 4.5 percent increase, which is
$200 million more. We know from our fire chiefs, police, and other
first responders that more resources for equipment and training are
urgently needed. The Council on Foreign Relations independently
documented these needs in its recent report, ``First Responders:
Dangerously Unprepared, Drastically Underfunded.''
I might add that adding money for such things as first responders is
not simply throwing money at the problem. It is a substantial need, and
we need to deal with it.
But homeland security preparedness is not just about more money.
Across the board we need better management at the Department of
Homeland Security. We need better plans. And in some areas we need more
aggressive security goals. I put screening of cargo carried on
passenger planes at the top of that list.
Mr. Speaker, 374 Members voted to instruct conferees to insist on the
House amendment to require the immediate screening of cargo carried on
passenger planes. This conference agreement comes up short in that
respect. Instead, the agreement directs Secretary Ridge to research,
develop, and procure systems to screen cargo on passenger aircraft at
the earliest possible date. I do not think that is strong enough. The
Department shows no eagerness to address the cargo problem. We should
give them a deadline to act.
I might add that I sensed no particular interest, even, in this
problem by the Department until the House passed its original
amendment.
Mr. Speaker, my motion to recommit would set a deadline of October
31, 2004, for the Department to implement screening of cargo on
passenger planes. We know who flies on passenger planes, but we still
do not trust them. We still screen their bags. The same should be done
with cargo shipped on these planes.
Airlines and others have argued that screening air cargo is a
technical challenge that requires much more time to develop. This
argument is similar to those made prior to 9/11 about screening
passenger baggage: it cannot be done. How quickly we seem to have
reworked old ways of thinking.
The motion I will offer will give the Department of Homeland Security
13 months to develop and implement a plan to screen cargo carried on
passenger planes. Some may argue that is not enough time. I question
how long we should make the American people wait.
I would also point out that this requirement would not affect every
airport. The FAA tells us that 95 percent of all cargo carried on
passenger aircraft is loaded at only 44 airports.
The lack of screening of cargo on passenger planes is not the only
homeland security gap that exists today, but it is a huge one. Unless
we make steady progress in closing these gaps, they will exist for
years to come.
Let me add that the known-shipper program is probably better than not
having anything, but I might remind Members that the gentleman who
shipped himself in an air cargo crate was working for a known-shipper.
The Department's oversight of this program today basically consists
of a few inspectors checking paperwork at airports. It is not a serious
screening program today.
So I urge the adoption of the motion to recommit.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SABO. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's elaboration of
what this bill does and what it does not do. I would say to the
gentleman, I have a concern. As the gentleman knows, when someone who
has been very much involved in the fire grant program, and focused on
the fire service, not just as it relates to terrorism, but as it
relates to safety in our neighborhoods and the safety of our
firefighters and emergency medical response teams, am I correct that
unlike the House-passed bill, we have now shifted from the fire
administration, the fire grant program, into the Office of Domestic
Preparedness?
Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is accurate.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield for another
question, is the gentleman confident that having done that, that the
fire grant program will not be adversely affected in terms of its focus
on firefighting, firefighter safety, and emergency response
capabilities?
Mr. SABO. No. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I was not an advocate
of the position in the conference committee. I thought we made a
mistake in changing it. To be fair, the language in the bill retains
some money as a separate line item, and there is language indicating
the fire chiefs and the people involved in fire should be involved in
the grant-making process.
I personally have questions about taking a program that was well run
where it was and shifting it to another agency. I have a concern that
what will develop are people who do not know much about the program
making the grants.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would further yield, I thank
the gentleman for his observation. I have had an opportunity to discuss
this briefly with the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from
Kentucky (Mr. Rogers); and I would hope that the committee, having
accepted the Senate's position, which I do not share, as I share the
gentleman's view on this, will ensure that this committee program, not
just for our response to terrorist activity, but in response to making
sure that our firefighters and emergency medical response teams can be
effective, that we can also keep them safe in the normal
[[Page H8796]]
day-to-day, but risky, activities in which they undertake. I thank the
gentleman.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his concern. We
clearly need continuing strong oversight of this program.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
Mr. Speaker, we agreed to move the firefighter assistance grants, but
not the emergency management performance grants over to the Office for
Domestic Preparedness. But, and this is a very important but, I would
say to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), we include language
that the fire grants have to continue to be administered ``in a manner
identical to the current fiscal year''; and that means grants directly
to those local fire departments, not through the States. We continue
the peer review process of 300 firefighters from the new recruits to
the fire chiefs, gathering to review the 15,000-plus annual
applications for those monies; and we include the U.S. Fire
Administration during the grant process.
We received a letter of support of that from the International
Association of Fire Chiefs for the manner in which we moved those
firefighter assistance grants over to ODP. So I think we have solved
the problem.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his observations.
And I want to say that, although I would have agreed with the position
of the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo) that it ought not to be
shifted, I believe the gentleman is correct that he has tried to build
in protections so that this program is not undermined. I appreciate
those actions which I think certainly make this switch a more positive
one than it otherwise would have been, and I thank the gentleman.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may
consume to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the chairman of the
full committee, and the gentleman who had the courage and the vision at
the outset to take the lead in the Congress, both bodies, to create the
new Subcommittee on Homeland Security of the Committee on
Appropriations, on which the other body then followed through. That is
the vision of this leader.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from
Kentucky (Chairman Rogers) for yielding me this time.
I wanted to, number one, congratulate him on doing a tremendous job
in presenting this conference report, along with his partner, the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo), the ranking member. I know there
are some differences here, but the fact of the matter is this is a good
bill. This is the first real homeland security appropriations bill that
the Congress has considered.
Once it became evident that our homeland was no longer totally secure
from terrorism, the Congress moved quickly to establish the Department
of Homeland Security, and the Congress moved quickly to establish a
Select Committee on Homeland Security. But when we follow the money,
which is where things happen, it was the gentleman from Kentucky
(Chairman Rogers) who brought the pieces together, who brought together
all of those agencies that had control of homeland security-type
responsibilities. He did just a tremendous job in identifying the needs
and providing the support. He worked this bill through. It was one of
the first bills that passed in the House. It is one of the first bills;
in fact, it is the second bill that comes before us as a conference
report. He has done a really good job. While there will be some, as the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo) pointed out, differences here, the
fact of the matter is that this subcommittee can be very proud of the
job that it has done.
I was able to appoint the gentleman from Kentucky (Chairman Rogers)
as chairman of this subcommittee, and I am proud of that decision. He
has made the House look good. And I know that the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) is very proud of his appointment of the gentleman
from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo) as the ranking member because he has also
made the House look good. They have done a good job, and I hope that we
can expeditiously pass this conference report, get it to the Senate,
and get it on the President's desk.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking Democrat on the Committee on
Appropriations.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Kentucky, the chairman of
the subcommittee, indicated that this bill needed ``sensible'' amounts
of money. I would say that I would agree with that, except for one
thing: terrorists are not ``sensible,'' and that means that we may have
to spend more money than we would like to spend in order to stop
nonsensible people from terrorizing the world.
I think we need to understand exactly what this bill does, cutting
through the rhetoric. This homeland security conference bill is 2.3
percent above last year's legislation. That does not even equal
inflation. When the President addressed the Nation on September 7, he
said, ``We will do what is necessary, we will spend what is necessary
to achieve this essential victory in the war on terror to protect
freedom and to make our own Nation more secure.''
{time} 1215
Regrettably, Mr. Speaker, this conference report before us today does
not live up to that promise made by the President just 2 weeks ago and
neither do some of the President's actions. Let me give a few examples.
First, the conference report provides no funding to improve security
at the perimeters or backsides of the airports.
Secondly, the conference report does not provide sufficient funding
to secure ports in anything less than 20 years. Only $125 million is
provided to port security grants in the conference report.
Third, this conference report does not increase funding for first
responders above that provided in the previous year.
Fourth, the conference report does not provide sufficient funding to
screen all cargo carried on passenger aircraft in anything close to a
year. And with all due respect, the proposed conference report provides
$85 million for cargo security conference. TSA Administrator Loy said
he may need as much as $500 million to implement a cargo screen
program.
Fifth, the conference report provides no funding for Customs to
substantially increase the checking of cargo entering through our ports
for weapons of mass destruction. GAO has said that the current low
inspection rate makes container shipments a prime target for
terrorists. Also, the screening requirement carried in the House bill
for cargo carried on passenger aircraft has been weakened in the
proposed conference to such an extent that it has no real meaning
despite efforts of several speakers today to try to imply that
something meaningful was done on this issue.
I support the gentleman from Minnesota's (Mr. Sabo) pending
recommittal motion because I think it is in the interest of national
security to pass it.
I would also make one other observation. Words are funny things. They
can be used either to clarify or obscure. The subcommittee chairman
indicated in a ``Dear Colleague'' letter and again made reference on
the floor today to the large amounts of money that we are supposedly
spending for homeland security. He suggests, for instance, that we
spent more than $75 billion since September 11. That masks the true
fact that that assessment includes all of the base funding that existed
before 9/11. If you are looking at the additional funding that we have
provided since that time, that figure would be $33 billion, not $75
billion.
Secondly, it is not true that we provided $29 billion in additional
homeland security efforts in 2004. If you subtract the base from that
figure, the real figure is more like $18 billion additional funding.
That is a lot of money, but given the threat, in my judgment, it is not
enough.
It has also been suggested that Congress will provide an additional
$8.4 billion for border and port security in 2004. Again, that figure
includes the base funding that existed prior to 9/11. That is not going
to help much to deal with the increased threat.
[[Page H8797]]
And then we are told by the chairman very often that we could spend
every single dollar of the Federal budget and some of us would argue we
were not spending enough. I would strongly dispute that, and I would
simply ask why should we be spending more in Iraq on a per capita basis
than we are spending here at home to defend our homeland from threats
such as cross-border threats?
I would urge support for the Sabo recommittal motion. I think that we
need every dollar contained in that motion if we are to provide
adequate security to this country.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp), a very hard-working and productive
member of this subcommittee.
(Mr. Wamp asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. WAMP. Mr. Speaker, first of all, the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Young) could not have selected a better person to chair this historic
Subcommittee on Homeland Security of the Committee on Appropriations
than the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) who is as tough as nails,
very diligent, thorough, knowledgeable. I served under him on the
Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State, Judiciary and Related
Agencies of the Committee on Appropriations, and he is the right man
for this task. He could not have selected a better professional staff
to carry out these most important responsibilities.
We have had incredible cooperation, despite the gentleman from
Wisconsin's (Mr. Obey) words, and some of those are very well-taken and
well-spoken. This is for the most part a bipartisan product where there
is widespread agreement on most of the issues. We are going to differ
today on some substantive issues, but we have worked together very
well. And the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo) and his professional
staff have done an excellent job.
This is really a great work product. When you consider the Container
Security Initiative, Project Bio-Shield, some of the brand new programs
that are so critical to program ramp up quickly for our homeland
security needs and extend, frankly, the proverbial borders of our
country around the world to protect us before it is too late, before
things do come in and happen. We have made great strides very quickly.
I do not think the President could have selected a better Secretary
than Tom Ridge for Homeland Security, also tough as nails, very
thorough. We have had multiple hearings and done a lot of good work
together. So while we differ today a little, we need to stick together
in a bipartisan way to do the work of the country. This is just like
national security, a whole new frontier.
Let me also say one other thing. In national security, there is the
Berry amendment that says we have got to buy American products and use
American vendors for these things. I want to do more. And I want it
said today that we need to do more on homeland security. We need
domestic producers, American manufacturers for pharmaceuticals for Bio-
Shield to protect our interests. We need American companies in our
manufacturing base to expand to provide the technologies and the
equipment that we need to protect Americans first.
So as we move forward, let us say beginning today we will do more to
strengthen this and have an amendment just like the Berry amendment, so
that we can guarantee Americans that American people will be used to
carry out the homeland security needs.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on each side?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Isakson). The gentleman from Minnesota
(Mr. Sabo) has 15 minutes. The gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) has
10 minutes.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Nadler).
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I agree that this is, generally, a good
bill. The distinguished chairman talked about containers being searched
in Newark and Los Angeles. He said the Container Security Initiative
will target high-threat cargo before it reaches U.S. shores.
Mr. Speaker, it only takes one weapon of mass destruction, in one
container, to destroy an American city.
Mr. Speaker, this country will not be safe until every container is
searched and sealed and certified by an American inspection team before
it is put on a ship in a foreign port. This country will not be safe
until no container can be put on that ship before it is searched and
sealed by the American team in the foreign port, every container, not
just the high-threat ones.
The terrorists know we will inspect the high-threat containers; so
they will put the bomb in the low-threat container. We cannot depend on
the good guys, that we know who the good guys are who are, long-time
shippers to us. How do we know that some terrorist is not an employee
of a good-guy shipper? We must spend the 6 or 7 or $8 billion a year
that it will take to put an American inspection team to search every
container before it is sent to our shore and the additional money to
electronically go around every ship 100 miles off our shore before it
is allowed into American territory or waters to make sure that there is
no plutonium or enriched uranium onboard that ship. We can do that
scientifically.
But until then we will not be safe. We are just nibbling at the edges
with everything we are doing.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Green).
Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise both in support of the
conference committee report and thank both the chairman and the ranking
member for putting this together.
Obviously, we need more money. I want to raise an issue that some of
my colleagues in the Harris County delegation will talk about,
including the functioning of the Customs and Border Protection at Bush
Intercontinental Airport in Houston.
We have problems with our wait times for our passengers up to 2
hours. It is causing many international passengers to miss their
connection. The Houston Chronicle has reported twice on the growing
anger of people waiting in line to clear Customs and Border Protection.
Missed flights are a major problem because of the wait time. For
example, one airline had over 1,000 people miss connections in one day
this summer.
We need additional inspectors at Intercontinental Airport, a
commitment to maintaining 100 percent the utilization of the number of
authorized positions, including overtime for the inspectors who are
there to cover the problem.
We have looked at the numbers in other parts of the country at
international ports of entry, and we know we are lower than other
areas. So we need to make sure that Customs and Border Protection makes
that adjustment.
The Members from the Houston area, the nine Members will meet
tomorrow again with Customs and Border Protection, and hopefully they
will understand that we need to have parity and not the wait time that
we are seeing for our the international passengers coming into the
Houston Intercontinental Airport.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, let me take a few minutes to talk about another
provision in the bill which I think is important and it relates to the
CAPPS2 system.
TSA has been working on this system for almost a year, but there
remains many unanswered questions about it. I am concerned particularly
that those people who move residences a lot or do not have phone or
other bills in their name, like children and some older Americans, will
be singled out for further TSA screening, not based on risk, but simply
because of these two factors.
I am also concerned that TSA will have no real system where
passengers can correct incorrect information. The provision in the
bill, which I originally offered and strongly support, requires GAO to
review CAPPS2 as it exists today before funding can be obligated on a
planned pilot program. TSA is allowed to test the system while GAO's
review is being conducted.
The GAO's review would mirror the recommendations put forth by the
Secretary of Defense and the Attorney General in the report they
submitted
[[Page H8798]]
on May 20 on DOD's Terrorism Information Awareness Program.
It is unclear how many of these recommendations, if any, have been
followed by the TSA or by the Department of Homeland Security. I
suspect none. Those recommendations include testing the search tools
and security of the architecture, ensuring that the system is secure
from hackers, and that the proper policies and processes of the system
are in place.
Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that the passenger profiling system we
are using today is a sophisticated or good one. However, we as a Nation
need to be very careful as we proceed.
We recently heard about further problems about the TIA where a test
conducted with Jet Blue, unknown to its passengers, matched up
passengers and Social Security information and allowed some of this
information to become public. We need to prevent this and any aviation
passenger profiling system TSA develops, and that is what this
provision in the bill seeks to do.
The bill has good language, and I hope it is fully implemented and
followed by TSA.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham), one of the hardest working members of
our subcommittee.
Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this conference agreement and urge
my colleagues to do the same. I want to commend the gentleman from
Kentucky (Chairman Rogers) who has done such an outstanding job in
putting together this first ever Homeland Security appropriations bill,
the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo), and all the subcommittee staff
for the tremendous work on this bill.
The process of structuring a new appropriations bill to address the
operational needs of the 22 agencies and departments under the new
Homeland Security Department has not been easy this year. It will not
be easy next year either because we have to make changes to accommodate
the lessons that we are going to learn.
Having watched and participated in this process, I have come to the
conclusion that our approach to funding Homeland Security has been
measured and judicious. We have not thrown good money after bad, but
have made difficult choices in funding the different functions of this
new department.
All along, I felt that the worst mistake we could make in funding
this new department would be to get into a bidding war in the Congress
over what faction could spend the most money on individual activities
and facilities before we have a full picture of needs and capabilities.
{time} 1230
There are some in this House who want to put more money in that
bureau or that agency. Some of those Members are well-intentioned,
while others simply want to create a political issue by forcing Members
to make a choice between spending more money on one hand or appearing
to be less than responsible on homeland security issues on the other.
This political game is played by throwing arbitrary numbers into the
public arena and then questioning the commitment to homeland security
on the part of some in this body.
The time for games is over. It is time to get serious. At the end of
the day, there is much room remaining for an honest debate, but not one
of our constituents is served well by gaming the debate.
As we go forward in this new area of homeland security, we will make
progress in sorting out priorities. In the process, we will have the
benefit of the ideas and knowledge of the State and local officials
from our districts around the country. That collective wisdom will
serve us well.
Knowing that we have the opportunity to improve this bill over time
is a good reason to be measured in the way we appropriate these funds,
and again, I want to commend the chairman and ranking member and urge
the Members to support this conference report.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Minnesota for his
excellent work and, too, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
This is a critically important bill. We are debating, we are
discussing the security of the American people at home. The President
says that the security of the American people at home can be enhanced
by spending $5.7 billion to rebuild Iraq's electricity grid; that our
security is enhanced by spending $3.7 billion to expand access to safe
drinking water for Iraqis; $875 million to restore marshlands in Iraq,
that helps our security; $20 million for political consultants to the
Afghan Government, that helps our security; $856 million to the Iraqis
for their airports, that helps our security.
But when it comes to screening cargo that goes on the passenger
planes, that every American flies on, nothing. Under existing law that
this administration and the Republican leadership are going to pass, we
all, Americans, we have to go through security, take off everything we
have got on if necessary, put our carry-on bags through, our computers,
our cell phones to prove that we are not threatening that passenger
plane, but on the very same plane, that cargo goes on unscreened.
We are told by the Republican leadership that we cannot afford to do
it, that the technology does not exist to do it. Let me ask this: If a
person's carry-on can be taken on a plane this size and be put through
a device that ensures that it does not have a bomb on it, why cannot
this package of cargo go through the very same screening device? What
do my colleagues mean the screening device does not exist? Put this
through the screening device. It is going on the same plane, except a
person is going to be on the plane with their baggage. The terrorist
will not be on the plane with the cargo.
What about this 16-ounce package? Not only does it not get screened
if it is cargo, but there is no paperwork required. Why cannot this go
through the same screening device we go through if it is going into the
belly of the plane? What do my colleagues mean the screening device
does not exist?
I will tell my colleagues what does not exist. The screeners do not
exist. The Republican administration has laid off 6,000 screeners who
could be putting this cargo through the screening device to make sure
that, as it goes on the passenger planes, that the people of America,
every person that flew here to Washington, D.C., to visit the Capitol,
who are flying back on a plane with cargo on it that has not been
screened, that has not been put through the same machine that their
bags are put there.
So if you are al Qaeda, are you going to try to get through that
screening device, through the two air marshals, through the metal door
of the pilot's cabin, past the pilot with a gun, past all the
passengers who are going to jump you if you get up in the aisle, or are
you just going to go right around this machine and put your bomb on the
plane unscreened because they do not want to pay to put it through that
device?
We cannot spend $87 billion on top of 65 billion other dollars that
we have already spent to provide security for Americans in Iraq and
then say we are not going to ensure that the packages which go on
passenger planes in America, that our cargo are screened.
It is at the top of the al Qaeda terrorist list. We know that the
four planes that they brought down were only a small part of what their
plot was, a small part of how many planes they wanted to bring down.
They know what it does to the psyche of the American people, to the
economy of our country. That is what terrorism is all about. It
paralyzes a country. It has paralyzed us, and we have come out of it,
to the credit of the American people, but we cannot allow it to happen
again because we know what they are targeting.
Laying off 6,000 screeners and saying that technology does not exist
is not accurate. We can put these packages through the very same
screening devices. How can it consume more time to put all of us
through the screening device, human beings, than it does to just put a
package through? In fact, it would take less time to ensure that that
cargo is screened, but the industry does not want to pay for it, cargo
or airline. The Bush administration says
[[Page H8799]]
we do not have any money for that domestically, even though we have $87
billion for Iraqi security.
It is wrong. This bill must be defeated. We must ensure that every
person flying in our country is not subject to this threat.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney), a very hard-working member of
the subcommittee.
Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me the
time.
The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo) said earlier that rhetoric as
it relates to homeland security flies fast and furious, and indeed it
does, and I guess that is just reflective of what this process is and
system is, and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), who is a
great friend of mine and serves on the Select Committee on Homeland
Security, just made some statements that I think are great examples of
that rhetoric flying fast and furious. And if the motivation is derived
from frustration that we want to do more and we want to do it sooner,
because indeed we do want to protect every American citizen, then I
applaud him, and I think in large part that is true.
But unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, I think in large part it is not true.
It is not true because it belies many of the facts that many of us have
seen both on this important committee and on the Select Committee on
Homeland Security as it relates to what we can do today, what
technology indeed exists. And the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
Markey) makes the point that if every American passenger has to pass
through a metal detector on their way to an airplane, that we ought to
be sending cargo through that metal detector as a means of securing
that some sort of explosive device does not exist, and that is not
true.
That technology, those machines, the technology applied to current
passengers is distinctly different than what is needed to ensure that
cargo transportation is fully inspected. The best known package system
being used now currently is the best process we have available.
This bill is an important bill to support because we put in it
funding that specifically moves forward the process to develop the
kinds of technology that will get us where we all want to be, and to
say that we can simply do that today by spending more money is
incorrect and misleading, and I do not think it is a service to what we
really want to accomplish here.
If indeed we say those things to motivate DHS, the Federal Government
and this government to get its priorities more focused, then that is a
good thing, but let us not mislead the American people as we do that.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss), the very distinguished chairman of
the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
(Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support, and I wish to
escalate and join in the very deep appreciation to the gentleman from
Florida (Chairman Young) and the gentleman from Kentucky (Chairman
Rogers) for the remarkable job they have done on a huge task in a very
tough time constraint situation. This is a remarkable piece of
legislation in what it accomplishes.
There is an awful lot of attention being paid to first responders in
this legislation, and rightly so. That is a good thing. However, we
need to make sure it is not done at the expense of good information
acquisition, analysis, dissemination in a timely manner to people on
the front lines, because this is our best weapon, preventing tragic
terrorist attacks and the attendant tragedy that happens to Americans
at home and abroad.
Good information, good information will keep our first responders out
of harm's way, in fact, and reduce the chances that we will actually
need to call into action. I would like to hope that the day will come
when our first responders should be treated the same way as the Maytag
men and women of our country. We do not have to call them because we
have good information to head off trouble before it starts.
Getting good intelligence is a low-cost, high-return investment, and
that is a piece that we have not completed yet. We have a foreign
intelligence program. It is against the law to use it domestically.
Americans do not spy on Americans. We have a new Department of Homeland
Security, which this bill does a remarkable job of providing for. We
now need a policy and implementing mechanics and funding to how best to
deal with domestic intelligence information. That is a task that is
now, it is urgent, it is for the future, it has got to be done.
I commit the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence to work with
the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) and others who are interested
in this task. If we do not do this, we are going to have a problem.
I certainly agree that the people who are dealing with the prevention
and defense part of this are excellent, extraordinary Americans taking
huge risks. If we can give them good information, we reduce their risk
and allow them to have a higher success rate. That is worth the
investment.
I appreciate the time.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady).
Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise to make two points: one, to
be in strong support of this conference report.
Homeland security in this country is a massive challenge. This is a
huge Nation, with so many risks. Yet we have put billions of dollars,
unprecedented dollars, toward those risks. There is no question we are
safer, we are, or more prepared, more focused on homeland security than
ever before, and I support the chairman's efforts, which have just been
dedicated to making our country safer. This bill moves that forward.
My second point is in support of that raised by my colleague from
Houston (Mr. Green). We are having a serious problem of understaffing
of the port of entry at the Bush Intercontinental Airport. It is not
simply inconvenient. It is an intolerable line through Customs. It is a
disruption of trade. We are losing jobs and business in the region as a
result. This bill helps provide the resources.
I thank the chairman for the help to address those problems. We are
meeting with the agency again tomorrow to focus their attention on this
important need. We are hopeful they will listen carefully.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this well-
crafted, bipartisan legislation, and congratulate the gentleman from
Kentucky (Chairman Rogers) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Ranking
Member Sabo) for a job well done.
During this debate it should be evident to everyone that the cost of
securing our country is going to be astronomical. Later today I will
propose an amendment to H.R. 2557, the Water Resources Development Act,
which will help us raise some money for our own security needs from
outside, from foreign sources. My amendment will permit us to establish
a container fee on containers coming into our ports, which, of course,
those fees will be paid by the overseas manufacturers, that will then
be part of a fund that we can use for our own security, for some of the
costs that this legislation is appropriating money for.
We need to make sure that the American people are not the only ones
who bear the burden of having secure ports in our country when overseas
manufacturers use them as well.
So I rise in strong support of this legislation and would ask my
colleagues to consider my amendment in the upcoming legislation.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time.
First, let me indicate my strong agreement with the statement of the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) that getting good information and
getting it accurately out to our local units of government is
incredibly important. We focus on homeland security in this bill, but
clearly, some of the most important work, even more important than
anything we do in this bill, is the work that is done by the
Intelligence Community and the FBI to gather appropriate information.
[[Page H8800]]
{time} 1245
And I think we are still sorting out how we get that information,
even to us in Congress and to local units of government; and that
remains and should remain very high on our priority list.
Mr. Speaker, I urge people to vote for the motion to recommit. Under
the process of the House, there will be no separate debate on that
motion after the debate concludes on this bill.
Our motion is a reasonable one. It is a problem that exists. I think
we all understand that what goes into the belly of the plane is really
a problem. From the earliest days of discussion of airplane security
following 9/11, my initial response was that the biggest problem was
not what went in the plane itself but what went into the belly of the
plane.
Frankly, at one time I was not aware of the amount of cargo that was
being carried. Baggage we are screening; cargo we are not. We have
technology that we can use. The problem is how we put packages together
and we prepackage into big containers. That gives us some trouble. We
could prescreen before we repackage everything.
The Department is planning pilot projects, and clearly there is
technology they are going to use. They need a prod and a push. They
have basically ignored the problem. There has been no interest in the
industry, no real initiative from the administration and from the
Department. I do not know any other way to get their attention than by
putting a deadline in a bill.
We would have had a little more time frame within a motion I offered
in conference for planning and then implementation, but I could not
offer that same motion here because of the limits of germaneness. So we
have an amendment that is reasonable, gives them over a year to put a
plan in place and to implement it. If there are problems that are real,
they can come talk to us. It is after the start of the next fiscal
year.
If we want to deal with the issue of cargo security and cargo
screening on airplanes, the only way we are going to get action from
this agency is to put a real prod to them, and that is by adopting the
motion to recommit and setting a time frame for when they have to have
it done.
Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Isakson). The time of gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Sabo) has expired.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have
remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) has
2 minutes.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
This is a good bill. As I said before, what we are after is sensible
spending on a sensible plan. We are spending a lot of money on homeland
security. This bill is $29.4 billion. Is it enough? I think it is
enough for the plan that we have, and I would urge the Members to
support the conference report.
Now, on this issue of cargo on passenger planes, it has been beaten
to death today; and there have been some irresponsible statements made,
in my judgment, about it. Here are the essential facts.
Technology does not exist to x-ray the cargo going on passenger
planes in those large pallets. It just does not exist. We are directing
the Secretary and giving him the money immediately to go out and begin
procuring that information and that kind of machinery. The money is
there, and the direction is there; and we are telling him to do it
posthaste, at the earliest possible date. I do not know how much more
direct we could be.
In the meantime, we say we do not want any cargo going on a passenger
plane from somebody we do not know about. The gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) said he could send that package as a
terrorist on a plane and walk away, and it would be shipped and the
passenger would not be on the plane. That is not so. If you are an
unknown shipper, your package does not go on the plane until we search
it; actually search it. Under the known-shipper program, no cargo goes
on a plane that we do not know who it is from and where it is going and
all about it. That is the essential fact.
In the bill we say to enhance that system until we can get the x-ray
machines in place to actually x-ray the cargo. It is the best we can
do, Mr. Speaker. It is the best we can do. And we are directing the
Secretary to move posthaste to get the machinery in place.
I ask my colleagues to support the bill. Before closing, I want to
thank my ranking member for his great work and all the members of the
subcommittee, and especially the staff, who have carried us this far. I
urge adoption of the conference report and defeat the motion to
recommit.
Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the funding prices for
first responders put forward by both the House and the Senate in the
Homeland Security Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2004.
I feel especially gratified knowing that both chambers and the
Administration have prioritized for this critical need by allocating
resources in H.R. 2555 to solve the communication problems facing our
first responders.
Already, our region has prepared the ``Puget Sound Interoperable
Communications Program'' that will test and deploy new and emerging
interoperability technolgies in and around the Ports of Seattle and
Tacoma. This innovative program will significantly enhance the Puget
Sound region's local, State and Federal first responder communication
capabilities.
This particular geographic region was chosen because of its high-
density population, presence of critical infrastructure, high threat
areas, disparate communication systems and diverse user base. The
project will be implemented throughout portions of the City of Seattle,
City of Tacoma, City of Tukwila, Port of Seattle and the Port of
Tacoma. This implementation will also integrate with other responder
initiatives in the State.
This project will create a shared infrastructure architecture
utilizing the latest advances in technology that ties public and
private networks and multiple communication devices together in a
secure interoperable environment.
This implementation will demonstrate that a cost effective, secure
interoperability solution can be achieved by using existing equipment
and off-the-shelf mobile devices. Over time, this project will be
incrementally expanded and become part of the Statewide Public Safety
Interoperability Program.
My colleagues and I look forward to working with the Administration
and the Department of Homeland Security to help make this important
program a success.
Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Speaker, this is an important bill in order to
maintain the integrity of progress in developing a system of homeland
security. The Homeland Security Appropriations Act particularly does so
by ensuring that in the future, when our national capacities reach
requisite levels, we will be able to meet national needs and secure the
requisite funding.
It has been said fast and furious rhetoric surrounds homeland
security issues. I agree. It has been further stated by some that
actions do not match their words. Let me suggest the disagreement is
not over whether or not we should do more. I think we all agree moving
forward is important. We disagree in what is doable now.
Mr. Speaker, how do we best do this while ensuring that the
credibility of those expenditures are such that, as we go forward, the
American people can have confidence that we are meeting the needs of
our Nation in a thoughtful, capable and complete manner; without simple
rhetoric, and thus without increasing waste, fraud and miscalculation?
We need better planning and response. Some Democrats have said more
money is needed for first responders. The fact is we do not know the
right amount or the requisite need separated from normal expenses.
Further, already over $20 billion has already been invested in homeland
security. Before we invest more, I contend we first create a formula
based on threat, vulnerability and consequences to allocate the funds
properly.
The City of New York spends $13.5 million dollars a week, $700
million a year, on extra police protection during its current state of
alert. That amounts to more than $1 billion since 9/11. I am talking
about the net, additional amount that New York spends to protect
against terrorist attacks. One of the principle reasons many of the
terrorism prevention needs are not met by many cities is because of the
outdated formula applied to the vast majority of first responder funds.
The President supports a threat-based distribution of first responder
funds in his National Strategy for Homeland Security, and I know from
conversations I had with Homeland Security Secretary Ridge, that he
also supports this approach. I hope this Congress moves quickly to
enact a new threat-based formula to apply to first responders. I
introduced H.R. 2512, a bill to reform the first responder formula to
reflect today's reality. H.R. 2512 would
[[Page H8801]]
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 and the threat level has decreased
since then, but we must remain vigilant in our fight against terrorism,
particularly in New York.
One hundred percent screening of cargo containers is also
unattainable regardless of what we spend at this time.
Mr. Speaker, we are all frustrated and want to move forward. We have
to do so in a reasonable manner, not just blindly throwing money at the
problem. I would like to remind every one that the other body took over
one year ago to approve the bill creating the Department of Homeland
Security. I am confident this bill represents the next best step and
urge everyone's support.
Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to bring my colleagues'
attention to one provision in the Homeland Security Appropriations
Conference Report on non-intrusive inspection technology.
The conference report directs Customs and Border Protection to
accelerate its efforts to complete a field test of pulsed fast neutron
analysis (PFNA) technology at the Ysleta border crossing. This field
test is an important part of our Nation's efforts to use next-
generation technology to better secure our borders while also
facilitating the flow of legitimate trade and travel.
The Departments of Defense and Homeland Security have been working to
carry out field tests of the PFNA truck inspection system in Ysleta,
Texas. PFNA, described in a Fortune Magazine article earlier this year
as ``beyond-Superman technology,'' has the potential to enable
inspectors to detect the chemical composition of articles deeply buried
in a fully-loaded cargo truck. The use of such technology in
interdicting explosives, chemical agents and weapons, nuclear devices,
dirty bombs, drugs and other threats has the potential to prevent
destruction and the loss of life.
Earlier this month, U.S. Government screeners failed to detect, for
the second time in two years, a shipment of depleted uranium in a
container sent by ABC News from overseas. This is distressing and
frightening news. Luckily it was just a test by one of our country's
premier news organizations. However, we may not be so lucky in the
future. PFNA technology could help us interdict such shipments.
However, before such technology can be deployed, it must obviously be
tested.
This conference report recognizes the importance of these tests and
further understands that they should take place without undue delays so
that if PFNA proves successful in the field, it can be deployed at
ports of entry and protect America against terrorist threats and other
criminal activity. PFNA could be the tool that prevents a catastrophic
attack and I thank the conferees, in particular, Chairman Harold
Rogers, for prioritizing our efforts to test this and other cutting-
edge technologies.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time has expired.
Without objection, the previous question is ordered on the conference
report.
There was no objection.
Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. Sabo
Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the conference
report?
Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I am, in its current form.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Sabo moves to recommit the conference report on the
bill H.R. 2555 to the committee of conference with
instructions to the managers on the part of the House to
insist on inclusion of (1) the highest possible level of
funding for each homeland security, preparedness and disaster
response program and (2) a prohibition on the use of funds in
this Act to approve, renew, or implement any aviation cargo
security plan that permits the transportation of unscreened
or uninspected cargo on passenger planes after October 31,
2004.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for electronic voting on the
question of agreeing to the conference report.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 198,
nays 226, not voting 10, as follows:
[Roll No. 514]
YEAS--198
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
Conyers
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
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jefferson
John
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Kleczka
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lynch
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
Payne
Pelosi
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Sandlin
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Shays
Sherman
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
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
NAYS--226
Aderholt
Akin
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilirakis
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole
Collins
Cox
Crane
Crenshaw
Cubin
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
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Goode
Goodlatte
Goss
Granger
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Jackson-Lee (TX)
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
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (MN)
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)
[[Page H8802]]
Saxton
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
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 (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--10
Bishop (UT)
Gephardt
Graves
Hensarling
Kennedy (RI)
Lewis (GA)
Osborne
Pastor
Rush
Sessions
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Linder) (during the vote). Members are
advised 2 minutes remain in this vote.
{time} 1313
Mrs. CUBIN, Mr. KINGSTON, and Mr. COX changed their vote from ``yea''
to ``nay.''
Mr. HINOJOSA changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the conference report.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the conference report.
Pursuant to clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 417,
nays 8, not voting 9, as follows:
[Roll No. 515]
YEAS--417
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldwin
Ballance
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Becerra
Bell
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
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
Cubin
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
Herger
Hill
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)
Latham
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Lynch
Majette
Maloney
Manzullo
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
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
Ose
Otter
Owens
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
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
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Souder
Spratt
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 (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--8
Conyers
Flake
Hinchey
Larson (CT)
Markey
Miller, George
Paul
Stark
NOT VOTING--9
Ballenger
Bishop (UT)
Gephardt
Hensarling
LaTourette
Lewis (GA)
Osborne
Pastor
Sessions
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Linder) (during the vote). Members are
advised that there are 2 minutes remaining in this vote.
{time} 1320
So the conference report was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________