[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.

                          ____________________