Congressional Record, Volume 150 Issue 85 (Friday, June 18, 2004)

[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 85 (Friday, June 18, 2004)]
[House]
[Pages H4510-H4560]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2005

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 675 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill,
H.R. 4567.

{time} 0913

In the Committee of the Whole

Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of
the bill (H.R. 4567) making appropriations for the Department of
Homeland Security for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2005, and
for other purposes, with Mr. Gillmor in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole House rose on the
legislative day of Thursday, June 17, 2004, amendment No. 3 by the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney) had been disposed of and the bill
was open for amendment from page 22, line 22, through page 25, line 20.
Are there further amendments to this portion of the bill?

Amendment Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas:
Page 22, line 25, after the dollar amount in each place,
insert ``(increased by $20,000,000)''.

Page 29, line 1, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $20,000,000)''.

{time} 0915

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I am proposing an opportunity
for really securing the homeland and, that is, my amendment proposes to
re-fund the Citizen Corps where H.R. 4568 purported to create a
shortfall in the amount of almost $19 million. The President of the
United States proposed that that amount would be at least $40 million.
In order to account for this proposed shortfall, I have increased this
appropriation by $20 million.
The Citizen Corps program was launched by President George W. Bush
during the 2002 State of the Union address as part of the USA Freedom
Corps Initiative to engage Americans in volunteer service. In only 2
years, nearly 1,000 communities around the country encompassing 40
percent of the U.S. population established Citizen Corps Councils to
help inform and train citizens in emergency preparedness and to
coordinate and expand opportunities for citizen volunteers to
participate in homeland security efforts and to make our communities
safe. Fifty-two States and territories also formed state-level Citizen
Corps Councils to support local efforts.
I would say, Mr. Chairman, that that is not enough. Supporting the
Citizen

[[Page H4511]]

Corps concept, a recent opinion poll shows that Americans are
interested in volunteering to help their local community emergency
service providers such as law enforcement, fire, emergency medical
services, or with organizations that focus on community safety such as
the American Red Cross or Neighborhood Watch. Forty percent of those
polled answered that they would be willing to volunteer. In addition,
nearly two-thirds of respondents believed it is important for
neighborhoods to have a way to work together on emergency preparedness.
Mr. Chairman, in our authorizing committee, the Select Committee on
Homeland Security, we have discussed, and I have discussed, and amended
several of our legislative initiatives to include reinforcing and
expanding our Citizen Corps. If we really want to secure the homeland
and if we really believe that the homeland is outside our parameters,
going into rural areas, going into villages, going into small
communities as well as urban centers, then Citizen Corps is the way to
do it. It establishes a base in which to encourage and educate and
prepare our citizens for any terrorist act that may occur.
I have heard many individuals say that the way to secure the homeland
is to keep the terrorists out, and they are absolutely correct. But no
proposition has 100 percent protection and no proposition is 100
percent correct. I certainly agree in securing the homeland by keeping
the terrorists out before they even arrive on our shores; but clearly
in order to have a truly secure homeland, we must secure our neighbors
and neighborhoods. Our families need to be aware of the threats that
exist from abroad. Homeland security is a very important issue that we
may not think about in our daily lives.
I am reminded of Houston, maybe not unlike many cities in the United
States on 9/11, not knowing what might occur, poised for the worst. In
the instance of Houston, Texas, for example, there were rumors that
planes were headed to the city of Houston because of its refineries. As
I called down to the mayor of the city of Houston on that day to find
out if the city, in essence, was okay, knowing that my family was there
and others of my neighbors and constituents, as other Congress Members
were concerned about their neighborhoods and cities and towns, I was
told that there was, in essence, confusion as there was in every city,
what to do with school children, whether parents should come and get
them or not, whether people should stay in place, whether downtown
Houston should close down, what should be done in our refinery areas
and oil-producing areas.
We need to respect the local needs and what our families need, but we
also need to educate our community. I along with fellow Democratic
members of the committee worked to introduce a bill entitled Preparing
America to Respond Effectively Act of 2003, or the PREPARE Act. This
bill was a comprehensive attempt to prepare our local first responders
for potential acts of terrorism.
Among the provisions are those that are proposed to improve funding
mechanisms, bolster information sharing, enhance threat warnings,
communications and equipment interoperability, and to integrate private
companies and the public into distinct response plans. The main
provisions of the PREPARE Act were incorporated into a larger bill from
the entire committee, H.R. 3266, the Faster and Smarter Funding for
First Responders Act of 2003, which was reported favorably out of the
House select committee and was just reported favorably out of the
Committee on the Judiciary today.
Also incorporated in the bill under section 8 is an amendment that I
offered that deals with the mobilization and utilization of a Citizen
Corps that will allow families to get information and terror threat
directives in a timely fashion without having to go through layers of
administration. The Houston branch of the Citizen Corps Council is
headquartered in Harris County, which is in southeastern Texas. The key
element, of course, however, is to ensure that all local communities
are safe. My example is due to its close proximity to the Gulf of
Mexico; this legislation is needed.
Let me just conclude, Mr. Chairman, by saying that I would hope that
we would support securing our citizens by providing these resources for
them in this appropriation. I ask my colleagues to support this
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to discuss the base bill, H.R. 4567, and to
offer an amendment. I understand that the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS), ``in an effort to streamline funding and to enhance the
coordination and administration'' of 3 programs that include the
Citizen Corps Program, has conglomerated the State Homeland Security
Program (SHSP), the Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program
(LETPP), and the Citizen Corps Program into one application.
However, I also understand from the committee reports of this
Subcommittee (page 70 of report 108-51) that H.R. 4567 proposes to
decrease the Citizen Corps Program by $19,764,000. Therefore, it seems
that the ``conglomeration'' effort by DHS has facilitated the weakening
of a lifeline for our local community forces.
The Jackson-Lee Amendment (JACKSO.224) proposes to re-fund the
Citizen Corps where H.R. 4567 purported to create a shortfall from the
amounts provided in FY 2004 and $30,000,000 below the President's
request.
In order to account for this proposed shortfall, the Jackson-Lee
amendment increases the State and Local Programs account found in Title
III, Preparedness and Recovery (page 22, line 25) by $20,000,000 and
decreases the National Pre-Disaster Mitigation Fund, also found in
Title III (page 22, line 25) by the same amount.
The Citizen Corps program was launched by President George W. Bush
himself, during the 2002 State of the Union address as part of the USA
Freedom Corps initiative to engage Americans in volunteer service.
In only 2 years, nearly 1,000 communities around the country,
encompassing 40 percent of the U.S. population established Citizen
Corps Councils to help inform and train citizens in emergency
preparedness and to coordinate and expand opportunities for citizen
volunteers to participate in homeland security efforts and make our
communities safer. Fifty-two states and territories also formed State
level Citizen Corps Councils to support local efforts.
Supporting the Citizen Corps concept, a recent opinion poll shows
that Americans are interested in volunteering to help their local
community emergency service providers, such as law enforcement, fire,
or emergency medical services, or with organizations that focus on
community safety, such as the American Red Cross or Neighborhood Watch.
Forty percent of those polled answered that they would be willing to
volunteer. In addition, nearly two thirds of respondents (63 percent)
believe it is important for neighborhoods to have a way to work
together on emergency preparedness.
Our families need to be aware of the threats that exist from abroad.
Homeland Security is a very important issue that we may not think about
in our daily lives.
With respect to our local needs and what our families need to think
about in the very immediate future, I have worked in the House Select
Committee on Homeland Security to craft legislation that aims at
strengthening the first responders. I, along with my fellow Democrat
Members of the Committee, worked to introduce a bill entitled the
``Preparing America To Respond Effectively Act of 2003,'' or the
``PREPARE Act.'' This bill was a comprehensive attempt to prepare our
local first responders for potential acts of terrorism. Among the
provisions are those that propose to improve funding mechanisms,
bolster information sharing, enhance threat warnings, communications,
and equipment interoperability, and to integrate private companies and
the public into distinct response plans.
The main provisions of the PREPARE Act were incorporated into a
larger bill from the entire Committee, H.R. 3266, the ``Faster and
Smarter Funding for First Responders Act of 2003,'' which reported
favorably out of the House Select Committee and just reported favorably
out of the Judiciary Committee today. Also incorporated in the bill
under section 8 (page 51, as reported by the Select Committee on
Homeland Security) is an amendment that I offered that deals with the
mobilization and utilization of a ``Citizens Corps'' that will allow
families to get information and terror threat directives in a timely
fashion and without having to go through layers of administration.

The Houston branch of the Citizen Corps Council is headquartered in
my Congressional District, Harris County, which is in southeastern
Texas, comprises 1,779 square miles, and encompasses the city of
Houston, 32 additional smaller cities, and is the home for nearly
4,000,000 residents. Harris County is the third most populous county in
the United States and one of the most culturally diverse.
Due to its close proximity to the Gulf of Mexico and its topography,
Harris County is prone to flooding and ongoing hurricane and tropical
storm threats. In June 2001, Harris County was pummeled by tropical
storm

[[Page H4512]]

Allison's tidal surge and the 20 inches of rain she dropped on Harris
and neighboring counties. The storm took 22 lives and caused an
estimated $5 billion in damage.
Harris County is also home to numerous potential terrorist targets:

The Port of Houston, which ranks first in the United States
in foreign waterborne commerce, is the leading domestic and
international center for almost every segment of the oil and
gas industry and houses almost half of the Nation's
petrochemicals manufacturing capacity;
The Texas Medical Center, with 42 member institutions,
provides leading medical care to people from all over the
world and is the world's largest medical complex serving more
than 70,000 daily;
The Johnson Space Center, home of NASA's manned space
program;
The fourth largest airport system in the country, with more
than 43,000,000 passengers traveling through its three area
airports to domestic and international destinations;
Three national sport arenas hosting thousands of fans for
popular events; and
A nuclear power plant located approximately 70 miles from
the county.

Due to the early attention to defining roles and responsibilities,
the Harris County Citizen Corps Council has the full support of the
area's first responders and has expanded their coordination of
volunteer and first responder services through the Houston-Galveston
Area Council, a 13-county regional planning organization.
As a result of this close collaboration, the Harris County Fire
Marshall's Office and the Harris County Health Department were able to
plan and execute full-scale disaster response drills that tested the
skills and preparedness levels of the entire Harris County emergency
medical response community.
The Citizen Corps and the Citizen Corps Council clearly serves a
vital role for our local communities. Underfunding it in the
appropriations process or cutting it out will serve to impede progress
that has been made to make our communities safer and more prepared for
terrorist attack.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, this is simple. It takes $20 million out of a very
important program that cannot afford it and gives it to a program that
does not need it. The $20 million the gentlewoman would put in the
Citizen Corps comes from the Flood Map Modernization Fund, a program
that is critical to our communities and our individuals. These moneys
are for a 5-year, $1 billion program to update and modernize the
100,000 aging flood maps nationwide which affects hundreds of thousands
of people. It is already underfunded. So we cannot afford to take money
out of that.
We include in the bill $20 million for the Citizen Corps. However,
Mr. Chairman, they have got $51 million laying around unused which is
way more than they need. There is $51 million in the pipeline all the
way back to 2003 that has not been used, and so there is plenty of
money there, and we do not want to take the money from the Flood Map
Modernization Fund that is critical to so many people in this country.
I oppose the amendment and urge Members to oppose it.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I rise in
opposition to the amendment. The amendment is well-intentioned.
However, one of the problems we have in this bill constantly is that
while we call it homeland security, it incorporates many pre-existing
programs that provide very crucial and important services in this
country. One of the things that we have been involved with for a long,
long time through FEMA is dealing with floods. The mapping program is
already reduced from last year's level, and this would be another $20
million reduction in that very important program. I think while the
amendment is well-intentioned, where the money comes from does not make
sense to me.
Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
requisite number of words.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. I yield to the gentlewoman from
Texas.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I thank the distinguished gentlewoman for
yielding, and I appreciate the comments of the ranking member and the
chairman.
Mr. Chairman, let me just note that the money for flood mapping which
is coming from Harris County and coming from Houston to my county
governments and my city governments, I am fully aware of the
importance. That funding is at $151 million. I would just ask my county
and my cities who may be concerned about the $20 million to remember
that this request goes to Citizen Corps groups and first responders, to
help secure their local areas.
These dollars can be utilized in enhancing volunteer fire-fighting
departments and other support services that the Citizen Corps might
desire in order to enhance the security. An informed public, an
organized public, a ready public is a crucial part of securing the
homeland. I truly believe that the mapping question is important. Who
better than those who are in the flood areas, if you will, like Houston
which is 50 feet below sea level understand those questions. Many
jurisdictions are working on those issues on their own. I would
encourage the county governments and city governments who may be
concerned to work with me on this. But I would just say to my
colleagues that this is an important initiative for the Citizen Corps
effort and to be able to strengthen this commitment for our
neighborhoods.
I would ask my colleagues to support this amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
The amendment was rejected.

Amendment Offered by Ms. Loretta Sanchez of California

Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Ms. Loretta Sanchez of California:
Page 23, line 14, before the semicolon insert the
following: ``: Provided further, That the Office for State
and Local Government Coordination and Preparedness shall
ensure that States disburse grant funds obligated to a local
government by not later than 15 days after receipt of an
invoice for an authorized outlay by the local government''.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order. We
have not seen the amendment. We have no idea what this is.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Kentucky reserves a point of order.
Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to
introduce a very important amendment to H.R. 4567. My amendment would
make sure that our firefighters, law enforcement officers, and
emergency medical personnel or other first responders are actually
receiving the terrorism preparedness grant money that the Department of
Homeland Security promises to them. The amendment would require States
to distribute the already-approved grant money to those first
responders no more than 15 days after the States receive the receipts
for equipment, training or the other purchases approved under the
grants from the local first responders.
The homeland security appropriations bill in its current form would
allocate $1.25 billion for formula-based grants. Yet the bill does not
spell out the requirements for making sure that the money gets down to
our first responders, to our police officers, to our firefighters, to
our hospitals and emergency medical personnel.
As we all know, these first responders are not receiving their
promised funds to fulfill their mandate to protect our homeland. In
some cases, the State is holding tight onto the money. In other cases
the local responders do not understand the very complicated process
that has been set up for actually receiving those grant dollars from
the States. I believe that we need to have a system to verify that
critical homeland security money is making its way through the
pipeline. That is the biggest criticism that I have heard, that the
money is not getting down to the people who have already spent their
own money and are supposed to be reimbursed from the Federal
Government. My amendment would make such a system possible.

Point of Order

The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman insist upon his point of order?
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I do, Mr. Chairman.
I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to
change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriation
bill in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI which states, in pertinent
part: ``An amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in
order if changing existing law by imposing additional duties.''

[[Page H4513]]

I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
The CHAIRMAN. Does anyone else wish to be heard on the point of
order?
Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Chairman, I am willing to
withdraw my amendment, but I think this is a very important point. I
just held for all of the membership here about 10 days ago a meeting
with first responders. The answer is always the same. The money is
taking too long to come down into the local hands.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Regular order, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the gentlewoman's withdrawing the
amendment? Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

firefighter assistance grants

For necessary expenses for programs authorized by section
33 of the Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act of 1974 (15
U.S.C. 2229), $600,000,000, to remain available until
September 30, 2006: Provided, That not to exceed 5 percent of
this amount shall be available for program administration.

Counterterrorism Fund

For necessary expenses, as determined by the Secretary of
Homeland Security, to reimburse any Federal agency for the
costs of providing support to counter, investigate, or
respond to unexpected threats or acts of terrorism, including
payment of rewards in connection with these activities,
$10,000,000, to remain available until expended: Provided,
That the Secretary shall notify the Committees on
Appropriations of the Senate and the House of Representatives
15 days prior to the obligation of any amount of these funds
in accordance with section 503 of this Act.

Emergency Preparedness and Response

office of the under secretary for emergency preparedness and response

For necessary expenses for the Office of the Under
Secretary for Emergency Preparedness and Response, as
authorized by section 502 of the Homeland Security Act of
2002 (6 U.S.C. 312), $4,211,000.

preparedness, mitigation, response, and recovery

For necessary expenses for preparedness, mitigation,
response, and recovery activities of the Emergency
Preparedness and Response Directorate, $210,499,000,
including activities authorized by the National Flood
Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4011 et seq.), the Flood
Disaster Protection Act of 1973 (42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.), the
Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance
Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.), the Earthquake Hazards
Reduction Act of 1977 (42 U.S.C. 7701 et seq.), the Federal
Fire Prevention and Control Act of 1974 (15 U.S.C. 2201 et
seq.), the Defense Production Act of 1950 (50 U.S.C. App.
2061 et seq.), sections 107 and 303 of the National Security
Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 404, 405, 411), Reorganization Plan
No. 3 of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App.), and the Homeland Security Act
of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 101 et seq.).

administrative and regional operations

For necessary expenses for administrative and regional
operations of the Emergency Preparedness and Response
Directorate, $203,939,000, including activities authorized by
the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4011 et
seq.), the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 (42 U.S.C.
4001 et seq.), the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.), the
Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977 (42 U.S.C. 7701 et
seq.), the Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act of 1974
(15 U.S.C. 2201 et seq.), the Defense Production Act of 1950
(50 U.S.C. App. 2061 et seq.), sections 107 and 303 of the
National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 404, 405, 411),
Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App.), and the
Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 101 et seq.):
Provided, That not to exceed $4,000 shall be for official
reception and representation expenses.

public health programs

For necessary expenses for countering potential biological,
disease, and chemical threats to civilian populations,
$34,000,000.

disaster relief

For necessary expenses in carrying out the Robert T.
Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42
U.S.C. 5121 et seq.), $2,042,380,000, to remain available
until expended.

disaster assistance direct loan program account

For administrative expenses to carry out the direct loan
program, as authorized by section 319 of the Robert T.
Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42
U.S.C. 5162), $567,000: Provided, That gross obligations for
the principal amount of direct loans shall not exceed
$25,000,000: Provided further, That the cost of modifying
such loans shall be as defined in section 502 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 661a).

flood map modernization fund

For necessary expenses pursuant to section 1360 of the
National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4101),
$150,000,000, and such additional sums as may be provided by
State and local governments or other political subdivisions
for cost-shared mapping activities under section 1360(f)(2)
of such Act, to remain available until expended: Provided,
That total administrative costs shall not exceed 3 percent of
the total appropriation.

radiological emergency preparedness program

The aggregate charges assessed during fiscal year 2005, as
authorized by the Energy and Water Development Appropriations
Act, 2001 (as enacted into law by Public Law 106-377), shall
not be less than 100 percent of the amounts anticipated by
the Department of Homeland Security necessary for its
radiological emergency preparedness program for the next
fiscal year: Provided, That the methodology for assessment
and collection of fees shall be fair and equitable and shall
reflect costs of providing such services, including
administrative costs of collecting such fees: Provided
further, That fees received under this heading shall be
deposited in this account as offsetting collections and will
become available for authorized purposes on October 1, 2005,
and remain available until expended.

national flood insurance fund

(including transfer of funds)

For activities under the National Flood Insurance Act of
1968 (42 U.S.C. 4011 et seq.), and the Flood Disaster
Protection Act of 1973 (42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.), not to
exceed $33,336,000 for salaries and expenses associated with
flood mitigation and flood insurance operations; and not to
exceed $79,257,000 for flood hazard mitigation, to remain
available until September 30, 2006, including up to
$20,000,000 for expenses under section 1366 of the National
Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4104c), which amount
shall be available for transfer to the National Flood
Mitigation Fund until September 30, 2006, and which amount
shall be derived from offsetting collections assessed and
collected pursuant to section 1307 of that Act (42 U.S.C.
4014), and shall be retained and used for necessary expenses
under this heading: Provided, That in fiscal year 2005, no
funds in excess of: (1) $55,000,000 for operating expenses;
(2) $562,881,000 for agents' commissions and taxes; and (3)
$30,000,000 for interest on Treasury borrowings shall be
available from the National Flood Insurance Fund.

national flood mitigation fund

(including transfer of funds)

Notwithstanding subparagraphs (B) and (C) of subsection
(b)(3), and subsection (f), of section 1366 of the National
Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4104c), $20,000,000,
to remain available until September 30, 2006, for activities
designed to reduce the risk of flood damage to structures
pursuant to such Act, of which $20,000,000 shall be derived
from the National Flood Insurance Fund.

national pre-disaster mitigation fund

For a pre-disaster mitigation grant program pursuant to
title II of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5131 et seq.),
$100,000,000, to remain available until expended: Provided,
That grants made for pre-disaster mitigation shall be awarded
on a competitive basis subject to the criteria in section
203(g) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 5133(g)): Provided further,
That, notwithstanding section 203(f) of such Act (42 U.S.C.
5133(f)), grant awards shall be made without reference to
State allocations, quotas, or other formula-based allocation
of funds: Provided further, That total administrative costs
shall not exceed 3 percent of the total appropriation.

{time} 0930

Point of Order

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against Page
31, Line 11, beginning with the words ``provided further'' through the
word ``funds'' on Line 15.
This section violates clause 2 of rule XXI. It changes existing law,
therefore constitutes legislating on an appropriations bill in
violation of the House rules.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there other Members wishing to be heard on the
point of order?
If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
The Chair finds that the proviso explicitly supersedes existing law.
The proviso, therefore, constitutes legislation in violation of clause
2 of rule XXI.
The point of order is sustained, and the proviso is stricken from the
bill.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

emergency food and shelter

To carry out an emergency food and shelter program pursuant
to title III of the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance
Act (42 U.S.C. 11331 et seq.), $153,000,000, to remain
available until expended: Provided, That total administrative
costs shall not exceed 3.5 percent of the total
appropriation.

TITLE IV--RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, TRAINING, ASSESSMENTS, AND SERVICES

Citizenship and Immigration Services

For necessary expenses for citizenship and immigration
services, $160,000,000.

[[Page H4514]]

Federal Law Enforcement Training Center

salaries and expenses

For necessary expenses of the Federal Law Enforcement
Training Center, including materials and support costs of
Federal law enforcement basic training; purchase of not to
exceed 117 vehicles for police-type use and hire of passenger
motor vehicles; expenses for student athletic and related
activities; the conduct of and participation in firearms
matches and presentation of awards; public awareness and
enhancement of community support of law enforcement training;
room and board for student interns; a flat monthly
reimbursement to employees authorized to use personal cell
phones for official duties; and services as authorized by
section 3109 of title 5, United States Code, $183,440,000, of
which up to $36,174,000 for materials and support costs of
Federal law enforcement basic training shall remain available
until September 30, 2006; and of which not to exceed $12,000
shall be for official reception and representation expenses:
Provided, That the Center is authorized to obligate funds in
anticipation of reimbursements from agencies receiving
training sponsored by the Center, except that total
obligations at the end of the fiscal year shall not exceed
total budgetary resources available at the end of the fiscal
year.

acquisition, construction, improvements, and related expenses

For acquisition of necessary additional real property and
facilities, construction, and ongoing maintenance, facility
improvements, and related expenses of the Federal Law
Enforcement Training Center, $37,917,000, to remain available
until expended: Provided, That the Center is authorized to
accept reimbursement to this appropriation from government
agencies requesting the construction of special use
facilities.

Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection

management and administration

For salaries and expenses of the immediate Office of the
Under Secretary for Information Analysis and Infrastructure
Protection and for management and administration of programs
and activities, as authorized by title II of the Homeland
Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 121 et seq.), $132,064,000:
Provided, That not to exceed $5,000 shall be for official
reception and representation expenses.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Sabo

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Sabo:
Page 33, line 26, insert before the period the following:

: Provided further, That of the total amount provided under
this heading, $5,000,000 shall be for the Under Secretary to
prepare an analysis of requiring key resources and critical
infrastructure to provide information related to actual and
potential vulnerabilities to ensure that the Department has
timely and efficient access to such information, as
authorized by section 201(d) of such Act (6 U.S.C. 121(d))

Mr. SABO (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent
that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the Record.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Minnesota?
There was no objection.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, this amendment provides $5 million for the
Department of Homeland Security to analyze whether critical
infrastructure facilities should be required to provide information
about their security vulnerabilities to the Department.
These resources are needed because the Bush administration is not
working aggressively enough with the owners of critical infrastructure
such as chemical plants to identify and address security issues. This
modest amount of money to focus the analysis on vulnerable facilities
could save us countless lives and resources in the future.
The Department currently lacks meaningful security information on
these facilities and is in no hurry to collect it or require it to be
provided. Under its current plan, the Department will take years to
gather information for all of the 30,000 entities classified as
critical infrastructure. In fact, this year DHS only plans again to
gather information on 4,000 such entities.
For one sector of the U.S. critical infrastructure, chemical
facilities, the General Accounting Office found that no comprehensive
information exists on the industry's security vulnerabilities, and many
facilities have neither assessed their vulnerabilities nor improved
their security.
This is the state we are in today, despite years of warnings from
experts and the FBI having identified chemical facilities as clear
terrorist targets. According to GAO, there are 709 chemical facilities
in the U.S. where a ``worst case'' release would affect 100,000 or more
Americans.
Members may want to take a close look at this map to see where these
facilities are located in their States. There are about 2,300 more
facilities where a ``worst case'' chemical release could affect over
10,000 people and about 15,000 chemical facilities that use or store at
least one of 140 hazardous chemicals.
In an appropriations hearing this spring, the Under Secretary
responsible for infrastructure protection described what the Department
has been doing to address security concerns. He said: ``When we visited
in the first round, we were first about helping them assess the
situation . . . we have returned in personal visits or in a conference
call and attempted to start to develop plans, what I call operational
plans, to truly improve the security of the facility.''
Conference calls to develop security plans? Are we really serious?
More than 2\1/2\ years after 9/11 the Bush administration still thinks
that improved chemical facility and critical infrastructure security
can be controlled.
I think that the Department should be reviewing vulnerability
assessment, not conducting them. That is the heart of what we are
saying here. The Department should be reviewing vulnerability
assessments done by the plants, not conducting them. They should be
reviewing security plans, not making them. They should be checking on
facilities to make sure that the security improvements identified in
the plans are made.
Is this something unique, something new? No. The fact is the Federal
Government already requires such security measures for ports, water
utilities, and, believe it or not, chemical facilities that have water
access. So if their chemical plant has water access, the requirements
to do vulnerability assessments exists; if they are not on a waterway,
then it does not exist. For some reason unknown to me, we do not
require them for these other critical infrastructures.
While I prefer to offer an amendment that requires such assessments
and security plans to be provided for Department review, it would not
be in order. However, at a minimum the Department should seriously
evaluate the path it takes in gathering this critical infrastructure
information. I urge the Members to support this crucial amendment.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Sabo
amendment.
Coming from an area where chemical plants and facilities are
proliferating and are long-time existing, the whole question of
analysis and threat assessment is extremely important, and I would ask
my colleagues to support the Sabo amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas:
Page 33, line 24, after the dollar amount insert the
following: ``(reduced by $10,000,000)''.
Page 34, line 22, after the dollar amount insert the
following: ``(increased by $10,000,000)''.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I really hope my colleagues
will understand that homeland security is rooted in our communities,
and this amendment encompasses universities, colleges, and rural
communities where local community colleges are placed.
This bill embraces historically black colleges and Hispanic-serving
institutions to be able to be on the frontlines of homeland security.
This amendment takes simply $10 million from the Information Analysis
and Infrastructure Protection, the IAIP. It adds these moneys to allow
historically black colleges and Hispanic-serving institutions to be
able to assist their rural and local communities in securing the
homeland in training first responders, in training those individuals on
the frontline.
As a letter coming from our community college system says, the tragic
events of 9/11 have placed a tremendous demand on these institutions to
train individuals and to do research as it relates to first responder
roles and first

[[Page H4515]]

responder responsibilities. The students aspire to serve in this
capacity and help to serve their communities by protecting the
homeland. Training those first responders as well as researching the
area of the homeland security can be valuable to these older students
and these students who may not have an opportunity but yet live in poor
communities and rural communities.
A letter from the National Association of Historically Black
Colleges, NAFEO, says that the Jackson-Lee amendment provides and can
help to serve as the epicenter for their communities, many of which are
distressed and underserved, and that is historically black colleges.
This amendment ``will afford HBCUs, HISs and community colleges an
opportunity to play an important and valuable role in the mission to
keep America safe.''
This would increase the Research, Development, Acquisition and
Operations account, as I indicated, by a very mere amount. To offset
this proposed increase, this moneys, as I said, would be taken from an
account that deals with salaries and expenses. These colleges then
would be able to be on the frontline.
Recently Texas A&M University was awarded a $20 million to fund its
National Response and Rescue Training Center under the ``Centers for
Excellence'' program. While I believe this is very important, I am also
aware that these colleges offer the same opportunity. Research
laboratories, training, information technology, publishing and
dissemination can be part of the resources utilized for HBCUs and HISs
and community college systems to ensure that they too will be able to
be a resource for their neighborhoods and their cities and their county
government to train and to send students out proficient in the efforts
of homeland security.
The community college systems are able to be close to the
neighborhoods and close to the cities and close to the population. They
can engage in EMT training. They can engage in firefighting training.
They can engage in the training for various public health clinics that
would then be on the frontlines in case of a smallpox outbreak.
We noticed that older neighborhoods, older communities, poor
communities are as vulnerable as would be our large areas. These
community colleges and historically black colleges will provide the
opportunity in the community to assess threat, to work with our Federal
Government on threat assessment and to work with our cities again and
our neighborhoods.
In Houston, for example, there are what we call neighborhood
organizations that are trying to organize and educate communities about
safety. Community colleges placed all over the country would be well
placed to train neighborhoods in safety procedures, far more better
equipped than doing this in Washington, DC.
So the idea of this amendment is to bring homeland security closer to
our communities and ensure that colleges around the Nation, and what we
call community colleges, one of the most local systems of education in
our Nation, our local community colleges would have the ability to be
able to participate in homeland security.

{time} 0945

Let me conclude by saying one of the important components to homeland
security would be our county officials and our city officials and the
officials in our villages and rural areas. This amendment allows those
colleges, well-situated throughout the South, for example, throughout
the Midwest, to be able to interface with our county and our city
officials, helping to devise threat assessment plans, helping to devise
training plans, helping to devise research plans and interfacing with
our Federal Government, providing more training for our first
responders.
This amendment with its small amount puts homeland security on the
frontlines with our colleges and our Historically Black Colleges and
Hispanic-serving Universities. I ask my colleagues to support the
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to discuss the base bill, H.R. 4567 and to
offer an amendment. The Jackson-Lee Amendment would increase the
Research, Development, Acquisition and Operations account under Title
IV, Research and Development, Training, Assessments, and Services by
10,000,000 to assert the need to give Historically Black Colleges and
Universities (HBCU's), Hispanic Serving Institutions (HIS's), and
community colleges an opportunity to support and enhance the efforts of
the Department of Homeland Security on a more fair scale.
To offset this proposed increase, the Information Analysis and
Infrastructure Protection Management and Administration account under
the same title (line 24) would be reduced by the same amount.
America's 110 HBCUs, 242 HISs, and 1,166 Nationwide community
college systems have a unique and important role in serving our
communities, especially in the area of research and development of
homeland security-related programs and services.
Recently, Texas A&M University was awarded a $20 million award to
fund its National Response and Rescue Training Center under the
``Centers for Excellence'' program. TAMU is part of the National
Domestic Preparedness Consortium which is scheduled to receive $80
million in funding for homeland security programs nationwide under this
bill. TAMU will receive one quarter of these total funds!
While I congratulate TAMU on this success, I contrast this with the
fact that I have not seen similar awards made to the HBCUs, HISs, and
community college systems.
When I visited Doha, Qatar, TAMU opened it's engineering school
under the ``Education City'' umbrella. Unfortunately, no HBCUs, HISs,
or community college made it under that umbrella. This amendment today
seeks to try to address this problem and to encourage the participation
of these schools.
These institutions have unique capabilities designed to serve as
local, State and regional centers for the delivery of technical,
logical, and support services, including, but not limited to the
following:
Training and Conference Facilities--Conference management;
Research Laboratories--Assessment/evaluation, Systems architecture
and engineering, Project assessment, Strategic planning;
Information Technology--Wireless connectivity, Software development,
Technical, logistical and support services;
Dormitory Facilities--Emergency housing;
Publishing and Dissemination--Materials development, Document
preparation.
Regional funding for HBCUs, HISs, and community college systems can
ensure equipment compatibility through the development of common
standards, provide access to local, State and regional training sites,
standardize training material and workshop content, assist with
response plan development and updating, create information sharing
networks, design or redesign software and related technologies, and
assist with the strategic planning process and information
dissemination.
In collaboration, with state and local governments, the HBCUs, HISs,
and community colleges would establish specific, flexible and
measurable terrorism preparedness capabilities. Areas of funding could
include examination of the availability and competence of emergency
personnel, planning, training and/or equipment.
Example projects could include a rapidly deployable regional
wireless pilot system that provides interoperable with existing
infrastructures; development of a chain of custody model for our food
supply from the grower to the consumer with monitoring technology; and
develop a scalable pilot nationwide command control system that can
interface with existing public and private infrastructure.
The Houston Community College (HCC) System in Houston, Texas
requested $16 million from this Committee to fund the construction of
its Houston Community College Public Safety Institute (PSI). That has
not been responded to, however this would help with programs at these
colleges regarding homeland security. To help meet Houston's Homeland
Security needs, HCC currently trains over 250 EMTs, 300 firefighting
cadets, and 200 police cadets annually. HCC facilities are currently
used to train an additional 1,000 police and firefighters, and the PSI
would serve an additional 2,000 local police, firefighter, and EMT
personnel. The proposed $40 million, 25-acre complex will represent the
cooperative relationship between Federal, State, and local law
enforcement needed to ensure the Nation's domestic security.
Houston is currently the only city in America that meets each of the
15 Federal threat criteria for a terrorist attack. Therefore, the model
for a coordinated public safety system is extremely important.
In order to further advocate this important cause, I plan to offer a
proposal to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) authorization
bill that will put an overall initiative in motion to really utilize
the vast resources, skills, energy, and creativity that is to be found
in our HBCUs, HISs, and community colleges.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to this amendment. This amendment earmarks
$10 million within the Science

[[Page H4516]]

and Technology account for specific institutions of higher learning.
Mr. Chairman, we have studiously and steadfastly avoided all earmarks
in this bill. There are none. This would be an earmark. For that
reason, I have to oppose it. The University Centers of Excellence
awards are made on a competitive basis and should stay that way.
All universities and colleges in the United States can apply,
including Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Hispanic-
serving institutions and community colleges. Universities and colleges
can apply singly or together as part of a consortium, pooling the
talents of several higher-learning institutions. The recent Center of
Excellence award on agroterrorism to the University of Minnesota
includes Tuskegee University, a Historically Black University, as one
of its partners.
The S&T university program has been proactive in reaching out to
minorities. S&T encourages the Center of Excellence competitors to
partner with minority institutions. They are setting up a program for
partnering university minority faculty with national labs for
fellowships and internships. A new Center of Excellence award on
emergency preparedness and response will be targeted to the urban
community, with the intent of reaching more institutions with minority
populations. This center will focus on training for emergency
preparedness.
The competition element, Mr. Chairman, is critical to bring together
the Nation's best experts and focus its most talented researchers on
science and technology solutions to combat terrorist threats against
this Nation from wherever they come.
It is absolutely critical to the security of the country that the
Department of Homeland Security is able to utilize the best science
that the Nation has to offer, be it private sector technology, national
labs, or our great universities and colleges. The best way to identify
that talent is through open competition, not earmarks, which this
amendment would do. For that reason, I urge Members to reject the
amendment.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, having heard the chairman's explanation, I was
wondering if the gentlewoman from Texas could respond.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished
gentleman from Virginia. I am prepared to respond.
I thank the distinguished chairman, because I know that the ranking
member and the chairman have worked very hard. But it is well known
that it is very difficult for the Historically Black Colleges and
Hispanic-serving colleges to be competitive in the process he just
enunciated. This is expanding the pot in a very narrow way. Frankly,
what it does is it says we all comprehensively are valued in the
homeland security effort.
You will note that Historically Black Colleges, 242 of them, are
located in heavily rural areas. The impact that they have is far-
reaching. I heard a colleague on the House say not to leave out the
rural areas as it relates to homeland security, not to leave out the
agricultural chain, if you will, in homeland security.
Many of our Historically Black Colleges, such as the colleges in
Mississippi and Alabama and Georgia, are located many times in rural
areas and deal as their basis of research and training in the
agriculture industry. Their participation in an effort to secure the
homeland where they can participate in the fullest manner, I think, is
not too much to ask of my colleagues on the floor of the House today.
This also impacts Hispanic-serving institutions. One of the issues
that is key in securing the homeland is responding to our diverse
population. Hispanic-serving institutions would have the better ability
by language to be able to communicate with those individuals by
training, by research, by investment, those individuals who may speak
at this time a different language.
So I would respectfully suggest that the funding that has been placed
in this bill, though it is certainly responsible and respectful, it
does not go to those who have had a very difficult time competing in
the large sphere against major universities and institutions far larger
than them.
I think if we look at the grant assessment or the grant awarding and
balance it alongside of the major institutions in many of our
communities, we are respectful of many of those institutions in our
communities. The large ones we are very knowledgeable about. We call
them the multiplex or multinational universities. They are by far able
to surpass some of these Historically Black Colleges.
I have a letter of support on this amendment from the national
association of organizations dealing with black colleges, NAFEO, that
welcomes the opportunity to participate, 118 historically and
predominantly black colleges, along with the representatives from the
community college sector. What they simply say is, we are the little
guy.
Let us help out the little guys. The little guys need help. This is
not to say that this is a handout, because we know that homeland
security is too serious for that, but in fact because it is needed and
because these individual colleges, small colleges, Historically Black,
Hispanic-serving, can serve in the community, work on homeland security
and really do what we are trying to do on the floor of the House today,
which is to ensure that we have a strong Citizen Corps, to ensure that
we have the first responder system. This can be worked out of this,
giving them greater assistance by helping to secure the homeland, by
training first responders right in the neighborhood, and working on
research opportunities and training opportunities.
I thank the distinguished gentleman for yielding. I ask my colleagues
to support this amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-
Lee) will be postponed.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

assessments and evaluations

For necessary expenses for information analysis and
infrastructure protection, as authorized by title II of the
Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 121 et seq.),
$722,512,000, to remain available until September 30, 2006.

Science and Technology

management and administration

For salaries and expenses of the immediate Office of the
Under Secretary for Science and Technology and for management
and administration of programs and activities, as authorized
by title III of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C.
181 et seq.), $68,586,000: Provided, That not to exceed
$3,000 shall be for official reception and representation
expenses.

research, development, acquisition and operations

For necessary expenses for science and technology research,
including advanced research projects; development; test and
evaluation; acquisition; and operations; as authorized by
title III of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 181
et seq.), $1,063,713,000, to remain available until expended.

TITLE V--GENERAL PROVISIONS

(including transfers of funds)

Sec. 501. No part of any appropriation contained in this
Act shall remain available for obligation beyond the current
fiscal year unless expressly so provided herein.
Sec. 502. Subject to the requirements of section 503 of
this Act, the unexpended balances of prior appropriations
provided for activities in this Act may be transferred to
appropriation accounts for such activities established
pursuant to this Act: Provided, That balances so transferred
may be merged with funds in the applicable established
accounts and thereafter may be accounted for as one fund for
the same time period as originally enacted.
Sec. 503 (a) None of the funds provided by this Act,
provided by previous appropriation Acts to the agencies in or
transferred to the Department of Homeland Security that
remain available for obligation or expenditure in fiscal year
2005, or provided from any accounts in the Treasury of the
United States derived by the collection of fees available to
the agencies funded by this Act, shall be available for
obligation or expenditure through a reprogramming of funds
that: (1)

[[Page H4517]]

creates a new program; (2) eliminates a program, project, or
activity; (3) increases funds for any program, project, or
activity for which funds have been denied or restricted by
the Congress; or (4) proposes to use funds directed for a
specific activity by either the House or Senate Committees on
Appropriations for a different purpose; unless both
Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the House of
Representatives are notified 15 days in advance of such
reprogramming of funds.
(b) None of the funds provided by this Act, provided by
previous appropriation Acts to the agencies in or transferred
to the Department of Homeland Security that remain available
for obligation or expenditure in fiscal year 2005, or
provided from any accounts in the Treasury of the United
States derived by the collection of fees available to the
agencies funded by this Act, shall be available for
obligation or expenditure for programs, projects, or
activities through a reprogramming of funds in excess of
$5,000,000 or 10 percent, whichever is less, that: (1)
augments existing programs, projects, or activities; (2)
reduces by 10 percent funding for any existing program,
project, or activity, or numbers of personnel by 10 percent
as approved by the Congress; or (3) results from any general
savings from a reduction in personnel that would result in a
change in existing programs, projects, or activities as
approved by the Congress; unless the Committees on
Appropriations of the Senate and the House of Representatives
are notified 15 days in advance of such reprogramming of
funds.
(c) Not to exceed 5 percent of any appropriation made
available for the current fiscal year for the Department of
Homeland Security by this Act or provided by previous
appropriation Acts may be transferred between such
appropriations, but no such appropriation, except as
otherwise specifically provided, shall be increased by more
than 10 percent by such transfers: Provided, That any
transfer under this subsection shall be treated as a
reprogramming of funds under subsection (b) and shall not be
available for obligation unless the Committees on
Appropriations of the Senate and the House of Representatives
are notified 15 days in advance of such transfer.
Sec. 504. Except as otherwise specifically provided by law,
not to exceed 50 percent of unobligated balances remaining
available at the end of fiscal year 2005 from appropriations
for salaries and expenses for fiscal year 2005 in this Act
shall remain available through September 30, 2006, in the
account and for the purposes for which the appropriations
were provided: Provided, That prior to the obligation of such
funds, a request shall be submitted to the Committees on
Appropriations of the Senate and the House of Representatives
for approval in accordance with section 503 of this Act.
Sec. 505. Funds made available by this Act for intelligence
activities are deemed to be specifically authorized by the
Congress for purposes of section 504 of the National Security
Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 414) during fiscal year 2005 until the
enactment of an Act authorizing intelligence activities for
fiscal year 2005.
Sec. 506. The Federal Law Enforcement Training Center shall
establish an accrediting body, to include representatives
from the Federal law enforcement community and non-Federal
accreditation experts involved in law enforcement training,
to establish standards for measuring and assessing the
quality and effectiveness of Federal law enforcement training
programs, facilities, and instructors.
Sec. 507. None of the funds in this Act may be used to make
a grant unless the Secretary of Homeland Security notifies
the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the House
of Representatives not less than 3 full business days before
any grant allocation, discretionary grant award, or letter of
intent totaling $1,000,000 or more is announced by the
Department or its directorates from: (1) any discretionary or
formula-based grant program of the Office for State and Local
Government Coordination and Preparedness; (2) any letter of
intent from the Transportation Security Administration; (3)
any port security grant; or (4) awards for Homeland Security
Centers of Excellence: Provided, That no notification shall
involve funds that are not available for obligation.
Sec. 508. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no
agency shall purchase, construct, or lease any additional
facilities, except within or contiguous to existing
locations, to be used for the purpose of conducting Federal
law enforcement training without the advance approval of the
Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the House of
Representatives, except that the Federal Law Enforcement
Training Center is authorized to obtain the temporary use of
additional facilities by lease, contract, or other agreement
for training which cannot be accommodated in existing Center
facilities.
Sec. 509. The Director of the Federal Law Enforcement
Training Center shall ensure that all training facilities
under the control of the Center are operated at optimal
capacity throughout the fiscal year.
Sec. 510. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available by this Act may be used for expenses of any
construction, repair, alteration, and acquisition project for
which a prospectus, if required by the Public Buildings Act
of 1959, has not been approved, except that necessary funds
may be expended for each project for required expenses for
the development of a proposed prospectus.
Sec. 511. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available by this Act shall be used to pursue or adopt
guidelines or regulations requiring airport sponsors to
provide to the Transportation Security Administration without
cost building construction, maintenance, utilities and
expenses, or space in airport sponsor-owned buildings for
services relating to aviation security: Provided, That the
prohibition of funds in this section does not apply to--
(1) negotiations between the agency and airport sponsors to
achieve agreement on ``below-market'' rates for these items;
or
(2) space for necessary security checkpoints.
Sec. 512. (a) None of the funds in this Act may be used in
contravention of the applicable provisions of the Buy
American Act (41 U.S.C. 10a et seq.).
(b) None of the funds in this Act may be used to procure
articles, materials, or supplies for public use, or to enter
into a contract for the construction, alteration, or repair
of a public building or public work, pursuant to an exception
set forth in section 2 of section 3 of the Buy American Act
(41 U.S.C. 10a et seq.) until--
(1) a notification of the intent to apply such exception is
submitted to the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate
and the House of Representatives; and
(2) a period of 15 days has expired after the date on which
such notification is so submitted.
(c) The Inspector General of the Department of Homeland
Security shall conduct audits of contracts entered into by
the Department of Homeland Security during a fiscal year for
purposes of determining compliance with the Buy American Act
(41 U.S.C. 10a et seq.). The Inspector General shall submit
to the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the
House of Representatives an annual report on the results of
the audit. The report shall be submitted at the same time the
President submits to Congress the budget for a fiscal year
and shall cover the same fiscal year. The first report under
this subsection shall be submitted with for fiscal year 2006.
Sec. 513. 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:
Provided further, That the Secretary shall amend Security
Directives and programs in effect on the date of enactment of
this Act to, at a minimum, double the percentage of cargo
inspected on passenger aircraft.
Sec. 514. Notwithstanding sections 524, 571, and 572 of
title 40, United States Code, the Secretary of Homeland
Security may sell the Bolingbrook family housing area in
Bolingbrook, Illinois, the Prairie View family housing area
in Prairie View, Illinois, the Chapel Hill Rear Range Light
in Leonardo, New Jersey, and the Richmond Heights housing
complex in Miami, Florida: Provided, That to the extent the
sale proceeds exceed the 10 year statistical average of
proceeds from Coast Guard property sales as determined by the
Office of Management and Budget, the sale proceeds in excess
of that average shall be credited to an account of the Coast
Guard and be available for the Coast Guard.
Sec. 515. (a) Establishment of Chief Procurement Officer.--
The Homeland Security Act of 2002 is amended as follows:
(1) In section 103(d) (6 U.S.C. 113(d)), by redesignating
paragraph (5) as paragraph (6) and inserting after paragraph
(4) the following:
``(5) A Chief Procurement Officer.''.
(2) By redesignating sections 705 through 706 (6 U.S.C.
345-346) in order as sections 706 through 707, and by
inserting after section 704 the following:

``SEC. 705. CHIEF PROCUREMENT OFFICER.

``The Chief Procurement Officer appointed under section
103(d)(5) shall report to the Secretary.''.
(3) In the table of contents in section 1(b), by striking
the items relating to sections 705 through 706 and inserting
the following:

``Sec. 705. Chief Procurement Officer.
``Sec. 706. Establishment of Officer for Civil Rights and Civil
Liberties.
``Sec. 707. Consolidation and co-location of offices.''.
(b) Reporting by Chief Financial Officer and Chief
Information Officer.--Sections 702 and 703 of the Homeland
Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 342, 343) are amended by
striking ``, or to another official of the Department, as the
Secretary may direct'' each place it appears.
Sec. 516. The Commandant of the Coast Guard shall provide
to the Congress each year, at the time that the President's
budget is submitted under section 1105(a) of title 31, United
States Code, a list of approved but unfunded Coast Guard
priorities and the funds needed for each such priority in the
same manner and with the same contents as the unfunded
priorities lists submitted by the chiefs of other Armed
Services.
Sec. 517. (a) In General.--Chapter 449 of title 49, United
States Code, is amended by inserting after section 44944 the
following new section:

``Sec. 44945. Disposition of unclaimed money

``Notwithstanding section 3302 of title 31, unclaimed money
recovered at any airport

[[Page H4518]]

security checkpoint shall be retained by the Transportation
Security Administration and shall remain available until
expended for the purpose of providing civil aviation security
as required in this chapter.''.
(b) Annual Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date
of enactment of this Act and annually thereafter, the
Administrator of the Transportation Security Administration
shall transmit to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure of the House of Representatives, the Committee
on Appropriations of the House of Representatives, the
Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation of the
Senate and the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate, a
report that contains a detailed description of the amount of
unclaimed money recovered in total and at each individual
airport, and specifically how the unclaimed money is being
used to provide civil aviation security.
(c) Clerical Amendment.--The analysis for chapter 449 of
title 49, United States Code, is amended by adding the
following new item after the item relating to section 44944:

``44945. Disposition of unclaimed money.''.

Sec. 518. Notwithstanding section 3302 of title 31, United
States Code, the Administrator of the Transportation Security
Administration may impose a reasonable charge for the lease
of real and personal property to Transportation Security
Administration employees and for the lease of real and
personal property for use by Transportation Security
Administration employees and may credit amounts received to
the appropriation or fund initially charged for operating and
maintaining the property, which amounts shall be available,
without fiscal year limitation, for expenditure for property
management, operation, protection, construction, repair,
alteration, and related activities.
Sec. 519. The acquisition management system of the
Transportation Security Administration shall apply to the
acquisition of services, as well as equipment, supplies, and
materials.
Sec. 520. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the
authority of the Office of Personnel Management to conduct
personnel security and suitability background investigations,
update investigations, and periodic reinvestigations of
applicants for, or appointees in, competitive service
positions within the Department of Homeland Security is
transferred to the Department of Homeland Security: Provided,
That on request of the Department of Homeland Security, the
Office of Personnel Management shall cooperate with and
assist the Department in any investigation or reinvestigation
under this section.
Sec. 521. Section 312(g) of the Homeland Security Act of
2002 (6 U.S.C. 192(g)) is amended to read as follows:
``(g) Termination.--The Homeland Security Institute shall
terminate 5 years after its establishment.''.
Sec. 522. Section 311(c)(2) of the Homeland Security Act of
2002 (6 U.S.C. 191(c)(2)) is amended to read as follows:
``(2) Original appointments.--The original members of the
Advisory Committee shall be appointed to three classes. One
class of six shall have a term of 1 year, one class of seven
a term of 2 years, and one class of seven a term of 3
years.''.
Sec. 523. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, funds
appropriated under paragraphs (1) and (2) of the State and
Local Programs heading under title III of this Act are exempt
from section 6503(a) of title 31, United States Code.
Sec. 524. None of the funds in this or previous
Appropriations Acts may be obligated for deployment or
implementation, on other than a test basis, of the Computer
Assisted Passenger Prescreening System (CAPPS II) until the
Secretary of Homeland Security has certified that the
requirements of paragraphs (1) through (8) of subsection (a),
and the requirements of subsection (b), of section 519 of
Public Law 108-90 have been met and the General Accounting
Office has reviewed such certification: Provided, That the
Secretarial certification and General Accounting Office
review shall explicitly include the efficacy and accuracy of
any algorithms contained within CAPPS II to predict the
likelihood of a passenger's association with terrorists:
Provided further, That the Secretarial certification is not
delegable.
Sec. 525. None of the funds appropriated in this or any
other Act may be used by the Undersecretary for Management,
the Chief Financial Officer, or the Office of Management and
Budget for the purpose of reviewing or altering any report
directed to be submitted to the Committees on Appropriations
in this Act and its accompanying report. This section shall
only apply to those reports related to the operations,
programs, and activities of the Department of Homeland
Security.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask
unanimous consent that the remainder of the bill through page 47, line
22, be considered as read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment
at any point.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Kentucky?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there any points of order to this portion of the
bill?

Point of Order

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against section 524.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against page 47,
line 6, beginning with ``and the'' through line 13.
This provision violates clause 2 of rule XXI . It changes existing
law, and therefore constitutes legislating on an appropriations bill in
violation of House rules.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there other Members desiring to be heard on the
point of order?
Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, this is a provision that fundamentally
continues what is existing law that is applied for this. I think it is
unfortunate that the point of order is raised. I think this amendment
deals with some of the most sensitive privacy issues that are involved
with the Department of Homeland Security. On the other hand, I
understand that this is legislation in the bill, and, unfortunately, it
is being struck.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there further discussion on the point of order?
If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
The Chair finds that the specified portion of the section imposes new
duties and therefore constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2
of rule XXI.
The point of order is sustained, and that portion of the section is
stricken from the bill.

Point of Order

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I raise points of order
against section 512, subsections (b) and (c), section 514 and section
525 on the grounds that these provisions change existing law in
violation of clause 2(b) of House rule XXI and therefore are
legislation included in a general appropriation bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there further discussion on the points of order?
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I will only make a brief
statement in regards to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp), who
serves on our subcommittee, who has been so active on this issue. He
has been a leader in the whole Congress on Buy-America issues through
diligent efforts on his part to make sure that companies that
manufacture goods and supplies must comply with the Buy-America Act.
I regret that this provision is being probably stricken from the
bill, but the work of the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp) on this
issue must go as noted, because it certainly has been a labor of love
on his part, and a very effective one.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I have discussed this with
the gentleman from Tennessee. We are uncomfortable, as the gentleman
knows, with the reporting requirements just through appropriations. We
would want to include the committee which has jurisdiction over Buy-
America, which is ours. We cannot rewrite this, but I pledge to work
with the gentleman as we move forward on these issues.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there further discussion on the point of order?
If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
The Chair finds that sections 512(b) and (c) impose new duties on the
Inspector General of the Department of Homeland Security, that section
514 explicitly supersedes existing law, and that section 525 addresses
funds in other acts. Therefore, each of the provisions constitutes
legislation in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI. The points of order
are sustained and the provisions are stricken from the bill.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

Sec. 526. (a) Clarification of Prohibition on Contracting
With Foreign Incorporated Entities.--Section 835 of the
Homeland Security Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-296; 6 U.S.C.
395) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by inserting before the period ``,
or any subsidiary of such an entity'';
(2) in subsection (b)(1), by inserting ``before, on, or''
after the ``completes'';
(3) in subsection (c)(1)(B), by striking ``which is after
the date of enactment of this Act and''; and
(4) in subsection (d), by striking ``homeland'' and
inserting ``national''.
(b) Prohibition on Orders Under Task and Delivery Order
Contracts.--Section 835 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002
(Public Law 107-296; 6 U.S.C. 395) is further amended by
adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(e) Task and Delivery Orders.--After the date of the
enactment of this subsection,

[[Page H4519]]

no order may be issued under a task and delivery order
contract entered into by the Department of Homeland Security
before, on, or after the date of the enactment of this Act if
the contractor for such contract is treated as an inverted
domestic corporation under subsection (b).''.

Point of Order

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order
against section 526(b) of H.R. 4567 on the grounds that this provision
changes existing law in violation of clause 2(b) of House rule XXI, and
therefore is legislation included in a general appropriations bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there further discussion on the point of order?
If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.

{time} 1000

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, it is section 526(b).
The CHAIRMAN. Is there any further discussion on the point of order?
If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
The Chair finds that the subsection directly amends the Homeland
Security Act of 2002. The subsection, therefore, constitutes
legislation in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI.
The point of order is sustained, and the subsection is stricken from
the bill.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I greatly regret the action that has just taken place.
Both political parties are posing for political holy pictures on the
issue of exporting jobs, and both parties have done it for quite some
time.
This language that was just stricken represents the second attempt
over a 2-year period for a number of us on this side of the aisle to
try to eliminate rewards that our government provides to corporations
who, for tax purposes, decide to claim citizenship of another country,
thereby adding to the tax burden of the American citizens who remain in
this country.
This language was meant to prevent Accenture from getting a contract
from the Homeland Security Department that could be worth up to $10
billion.
Now, I do not think that the American public minds spending any money
that we need to appropriate to protect the homeland, but I do think
they feel it is particularly absurd in this case, because this contract
involves a contract to establish a process by which we track the
activities of people as they cross our borders. And it is ironic that
the company who will be given that juicy contract is a company that in
itself has determined that it would rather locate for tax purposes in
Bermuda rather than the United States.
Now, what was stricken, or as a result of the language that was
stricken, the prohibition on future contracts remains, as I understand
it, but the countermanding of the contract to Accenture is eliminated
by the action just taken. I just find that amazing. I recognize that
the gentleman had the technical right to do so.
We will hear that oh, Accenture pays a higher rate of taxes than the
other companies that were competitive for this contract. But that is
measuring only the percentage of taxes that they pay on reported
income, and a large portion of that company's income is exempt under
the way they have it structured. If we take a look at the filings of
that company with the Federal Trade Commission, we will see by their
own admission that they decided to locate in Bermuda in order to escape
tax burden. Now, by definition, that means they are shoving that tax
burden on the remaining taxpayers who stay in this country and do not
try to engage in these clever games.
This is the second year in a row that language like this has been
eliminated after it was adopted on a bipartisan basis by a 2-to-1 vote
in our committee. It seems to me that rather than eliminating this
language, this Congress should have taken action to strengthen it
across the board. Until we do, with a great many taxpayers, Uncle Sam
is going to be known as Uncle Sucker.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the action by the gentleman from Virginia,
the chairman of the Committee on Government Reform, in raising a point
of order against section 514 in which the Coast Guard would have been
granted authority to waive certain provisions of the McKinney-Vento
Homelessness Act, but I want to make clear, and I think this is the
case for all of us who had a jurisdictional problem here, part of that
amendment would allow the Coast Guard to keep the proceeds of any sale
it is able to make, rather than having it put in the general fund. That
is not an authorizing matter, that is an appropriations matter. If that
is all it said, I would not have had any objection, and I do not know
that anyone else would. What we objected to, I believe, was the
provision that would have waived the substantive rules regarding a
right of first refusal for groups interested in housing.
So I would just say to my colleagues on the Committee on
Appropriations, if in fact this bill comes back from further points in
the process with language simply making clear that the Coast Guard can
keep the proceeds rather than putting them in the general fund, I
certainly would have no objection as the ranking member of the
authorizing committee. The important point is to preserve the policy
involved in not selling off the property until we first see whether it
is available for housing.
Now, it was appropriate to do what the gentleman from Virginia did
and strike the whole section, because these were intermingled in the
wording, but if it came back simply dealing with what happens to the
funding after the properties are sold, I do not think that would be a
problem.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's
remarks, and I agree with them.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from
Virginia.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
Let me just respond to my friend from Wisconsin who has raised this
issue.
I have struck for the second year in a row these so-called corporate
inversion amendments. The appropriate time to take this up in my
opinion would have been before the procurement moved forward. Several
committees of this House held hearings on the US-VISIT contract. I
think if this had been part of the initial contract, then we would not
have gone through this process, companies would not have spent millions
of dollars, and we could have addressed this earlier in the process.
The difficulty now is that we would delay this process up to 2 years
further, and I think it is a needed program.
We have kept the language in section (a) under this going forward for
future contracts in the spirit of compromise with the gentleman, but I
understand his concerns. I have other substantive concerns with what
the gentleman has said, but I think in the spirit of compromise we have
tried to get an appropriate balance and allow the contract to move
forward.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I greatly respect the gentleman and
understand the argument that he makes. I would simply say that this
Congress has had a long time. If the Congress had not eliminated the
language that we offered last year, that was stricken by a point of
order, we would not be in this situation of having to look back.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I
understand the gentleman's concern. The issue has been addressed in
other tax laws, but I understand the gentleman's concerns on this and I
look forward to working with him.
Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to
offer an amendment to a section that has passed.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
California?
There was no objection.

Amendment Offered by Ms. Millender-McDonald

Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Ms. Millender-McDonald:
At the end of title III add the following:

Alteration of Dollar Amounts

The amounts otherwise provided by this title are revised by
increasing the amount

[[Page H4520]]

made available for ``Office for State and Local Government
Coordination and Preparedness--State and local programs'', by
increasing the amount allocated under that heading for port
security grants, and by reducing the amount made available
for ``Emergency Preparedness and Response--disaster relief'',
by $275,000,000, respectively.

Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer this amendment
that has strong bipartisan support. This amendment will provide more
funding for our Nation's seaports. This is a measure that is long
overdue.
I will put it simply: my amendment will transfer $275 million from
the Disaster Relief program to the Port Security Grant program, which
will provide a total of $400 million for fiscal year 2005 funding for
our Nation's seaports.
The choices that we have to make in light of this budget are very
difficult. Our needs are much greater than our resources. Therefore,
transferring funds from the Disaster Relief program seems to be a way
of providing more funding for a very critical issue and a national
security issue.
This year, the Disaster Relief program is being funded at $2 million,
a $242 million increase from the fiscal year 2004 level of $1.8
million. There is $500 million of unexpended funding from last year's
Disaster Relief program. Combine the two and we have an excess of $742
million. Subtract $275 million from the $742 million access in Disaster
Relief, and the program still has a surplus of $467 million, while the
Port Security Grant program will be funded at $400 million, the very
minimum that the Coast Guard has recommended to secure our ports.
The question has to be asked, can we use some of this access funding
to secure our Nation's ports and address a very important homeland
security issue? This additional funding will help secure our Nation's
361 ports and the many, many communities that surround them. Our
Nation's coastline is our longest border, which is a 95,000-mile coast
that includes the Great Lakes and inland waterways.
Protecting America's seaports is also critical to the Nation's
economic growth, vitality, and security. Whether my colleagues have a
seaport in their district or not, our Nation's seaports touch
communities across this country and fuel our national economy. Seaports
handle 95 percent of our Nation's overseas trade by volume, support the
mobilization and deployment of U.S. armed forces, and serve as a
transit point for millions of cruise and ferry passengers. Maritime
industries contribute $742 billion per year to the U.S. Gross National
Product.
By supporting this amendment, my colleagues will be providing the
minimum amount that the Coast Guard has recommended. For example, the
Coast Guard has recommended that the minimum investment in securing our
Nation's seaports are $1.1 billion first-year investment, $5.4 billion
over the next 10 years, and that is a total of upwards of $6.5 billion.
These recommendations were made over 2 years ago. The price will only
go up if we wait any longer. To date, only $517 million has been
allocated for port security funding.
In contrast, this Congress provided upwards of $11 billion to
aviation security after 9/11. We have acted as a unified body in the
past in addressing our Nation's overarching security needs. We need to
do that again in port security. My amendment will address some of our
Nation's most glaring vulnerabilities instead of after the fact.
We have a Coast Guard recommendation. We have the blueprint of how to
secure our seaports. Now we must make a concerted effort to get the
most out of how we invest the people's money. My amendment does just
that.
Finally, we have a precedent of the impact our ports have on our
economy if they were to be shut down. As we remember, back in 2002,
during the West Coast lockout, our western ports were closed for 10
days. The impact to the national economy was estimated at $1 billion
per day. That is a total of $10 billion.
I am passionate about this issue. Today we have an opportunity to
provide leadership and guidance for the present and future security of
our Nation and our economy. The administration has only put in $47
million. That is underfunding our ports, which are critically
vulnerable at this state.
Mr. Chairman, we have an opportunity before us to assure the American
people that we as Members of Congress are addressing the security needs
of our Nation.

{time} 1015

We have created the Department of Homeland Security to shepherd us
into the post-9/11 era. Although Congress and the administration have
provided resources, they are too little to address this homeland
security threat. This funding is still woefully inadequate. Now we must
provide guidance and leadership on this national security issue.
Let us use the tools that we have to focus on a very important
national security issue. We owe it to our communities to lead and not
react.
Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this
amendment. I understand that the sponsor has said that she may withdraw
this amendment, but it is an important issue to draw attention to. I
rise as a co-chair and a co-founder of the Port Security Caucus in this
House.
I come from the State of New Jersey, and we have one of the major
shipping ports in our Nation just outside the reaches of my
congressional district in New Jersey. I had an opportunity to visit
there about a month ago, and I spent the day with the Coast Guard
traveling around the harbor. I had an opportunity to walk through the
screening procedures with the customs agents and others who are charged
with the enormous task of screening and making sure that the millions
of cargo containers that come in through Port Elizabeth/Port Newark,
through that particular port, are safe and are not going to put our
families and communities in danger.
It is clear if you travel and are familiar with the ports of our
country, like that major port in New Jersey, that our ports are open
doors to world commerce. Ports create jobs, they facilitate trade, and
they are absolutely vital to our economy. That is why port security is
critically important to the security of our Nation and to the overall
health of our economy. Port security and economic security are tied
together hand in hand. They are one and the same.
The horrific events of 9/11 have shown us how vulnerable we are to
terrorists who are bent on disrupting and destroying our way of life in
America. Unfortunately, our ports, a gateway to commerce into our
country, can also be seen as open doors into our Nation by these
terrorists and those who seek to do us harm.
The U.S. Coast Guard estimates that a 1-month closure of a major port
in our country will cost our national economy $60 billion. That is why
we must fund the Port Security Grants Program to at least the $400
million level prescribed by the American Association of Port
Authorities. The Coast Guard estimates that addressing terrorist
threats at port facilities will cost $5.4 billion over the course of
the next 10 years, with $1.125 billion of that amount required in the
first year for purchasing equipment and hiring and training security
officers and preparing paperwork.
Without significant Federal support in fiscal year 2005, these new
Federal requirements are likely to become unfunded Federal mandates and
large financial burdens on our port facilities all across the country.
Significant homeland security funds are needed to speed the protection
of our open doors of commerce. Even though Congress has provided
funding for port security in past appropriation cycles, this year is
especially critical because this is the year when the new mandates will
go into effect.
The U.S. Coast Guard's first year cost estimate of over a billion
dollars is consistent with the amount of need shown in each of the
application rounds for the grants. Port facilities have requested
nearly a billion dollars in each round for the Port Security Grant
Program. Federal funds have been available to pay for only 13 to 17
percent of these needs. We need the Port Security Grants Program to be
funded at the $400 million level next year.
While this is significantly higher than last year's appropriations,
it represents only 36 percent of the projected cost of facilities
improvements. Compared to the billions allocated to airports and first
responders and science

[[Page H4521]]

and technology, this is a modest investment in our Nation's security
infrastructure.
Mr. Chairman, the FBI testified earlier this year that ports are a
key vulnerability that has attracted interest from terrorist and
terrorist organizations. We must do all we can to support securing our
Nation's ports. Communities, neighboring ports, as well as the entire
Nation depend on the steady and uninterrupted flow of commerce via our
ports. It would be a mistake to ignore this threat any longer.
I will close by just reiterating that I serve as the chairman of the
Port Security Caucus in this body. We have learned an enormous amount
about our vulnerabilities in the post-9/11 world; and clearly, port
security is one of the areas where we are still at great risk and at
great vulnerability.
I ask the chairman of the subcommittee and the ranking member of the
subcommittee as they go to conference to please look to see if there
are ways to bump up the level of funding that has been included in the
bill, and I certainly appreciate their hard and very dedicated efforts.
As I said last night, this is perhaps one of the most important bills
we will pass this year, and I thank the chairman for his great work on
this bill.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the Millender-McDonald/Ferguson/
Pascrell/Nadler amendment to increase funding for port security. This
amendment will transfer $275 million from the Disaster Relief Program
to the Port Security Grant Program, which will then provide a total of
$400 million for our Nation's seaports. Of course, I support increasing
funding by much more than this $400 million, but this amendment is an
extremely modest approach to begin doing something feasible right now
to protect our Nation, and I firmly support the amendment.
The Coast Guard has said the amount in this amendment is the absolute
minimum that is needed. Remember, we are at war. It is time to begin
acting like it. We all know an attack can come at any time, and we must
do all that we can do to stop it. That means investing more money in
port security.
Frankly, this is a drop in the ocean. The fact is 2 percent of the
containers of the 6 million containers that come into our ports every
year are inspected; 98 percent could have an atomic bomb in them, or
radiological bomb, or anything else, and we do not know about it. The
fact is we should insist, and this amendment does not do it but it is a
step in the right direction, and an amendment to do the right thing
would be ruled out of order, the right thing would be to insist that no
container gets put on a ship bound for the United States in a foreign
port until that container is inspected by an American team in the
foreign port. It is a little late to be discovering in New York or Los
Angeles that there is a nuclear weapon in a container. And if a foreign
country does not want an American team in their port, that is fine,
they are sovereign, but they do not ship anything to the United States.
That ought to be our policy.
We ought to spend the several billion dollars a year. If we are
serious about protecting our people, we ought to spend the several
billion dollars a year to inspect every container before it is put on a
ship in a foreign port. We are at war, and this is serious business.
Last year on this floor I engaged in a colloquy on this subject, and
a distinguished gentleman on the other side of the aisle said well, we
will inspect the high-risk containers. And I said, so, well, the
terrorists will put the weapons in the low-risk containers.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. NADLER. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman may be referring
to another section of the bill. This is about port security, not
container or cargo security. It is about the security of the port
itself.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I am aware of that. And
I am aware that if I offered an amendment to do what we ought to do, it
would be ruled out of order, as it was last year, so I am using this
opportunity to talk about this amendment, to talk about what we really
ought to do, which the majority would rule out of order if we attempted
to do it.
So the fact is what we really ought to do is inspect every container
in a foreign port. We cannot do that because the administration does
not take the war being waged against us seriously enough. They think
the tax cuts are more important for the American people. They will not
let us spend that money; the majority will not let us spend that kind
of money, so we are reduced to doing what we are talking about in this
amendment, which is a very modest step to increase to $400 million the
total for port security because maybe we will catch in our ports here
what we elect to put in containers abroad because we did not inspect
them when they should be inspected.
So I support the Millender-McDonald amendment as a very modest first
step. The vote on this amendment will tell whether the Members voting
take the security of the American people seriously or not. I urge
Members to take the security of the American people seriously and vote
for this amendment as a very modest first step.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. My colleagues, the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Schrock), the gentlewoman from Virginia
(Mrs. Jo Ann Davis), the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Forbes), the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor) and I represent the Richmond and
Hampton Roads area of Virginia. Richmond is the home of the Port of
Richmond. Hampton Roads is not only the home of the Port of Hampton
Roads, but also the home of the world's largest Navy base and other
strategic military installations, a nuclear power plant, and an oil
refinery. It is considered one of the most target-rich areas of the
Nation for terrorist attack. Each year over 2,500 commercial vessels
enter the Port of Hampton Roads alone, so adequate funding for port
security is a significant issue for those of us who live in Richmond
and Hampton Roads.
To guard against vulnerabilities, such as cargo containers being used
to smuggle chemical, biological or nuclear weapons, or the ships
themselves being used as weapons, the Coast Guard has estimated it will
cost approximately $1.1 billion to properly protect our ports from
terrorism.
Congress has taken the lead in supporting port security grants by
appropriating a little over $500 million since 9/11. This bill contains
another $125 million but still leaves us almost $500 million short of
the Coast Guard analysis. The amendment offered by the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Millender-McDonald) would close the gap by an
additional $275 million. These funds will ensure that ports will be
able to pay for adequate security measures to protect all Americans
against terrorist attacks from our seaports.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Millender-McDonald) for her detailed analysis that she
has provided us which shows that even after the transfer, FEMA will
have more money than it had last year even though it ran a surplus last
year of over $500 million.
Furthermore, I want to thank the gentlewoman for pointing out that
the $400 million is a small portion of the $16 billion in customs fees
generated by the maritime industry. This bipartisan amendment is
supported by the American Association of Port Authorities and the Port
Security Council of America. I ask that we support the amendment.
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman speaks from the East Coast, I
would like to add support for the gentleman's remarks from the West
Coast. And thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-
McDonald) for her leadership on this amendment.
I represent San Diego, California--a large Navy port. I used to say
we are the biggest Navy port in the world, but the gentleman says it is
in Virginia, so we will have to fight over that later.
We have three nuclear reactor aircraft carriers sitting in our harbor
and a nuclear submarine base right there. I think it is generally
acknowledged that port security is the weakest link

[[Page H4522]]

that we have in our system right now and where the lowest amount of
resources relative to need has been put. We simply have got to do a
better job.
The gentleman from New York was talking about containers, and the
chairman of the subcommittee said we are talking about port security. I
would note that in most of the ports of the United States there are
millions of empty containers sitting around and we have no idea what is
really in them. We call them empties because they supposedly have been
unloaded, but according to the experts on this, and that is the dock
workers and the longshoremen of America, the potential for these
containers to be security risks are very great. It seems to me that we
should incorporate the inspection of these into our notion of port
security and give the power to do this to our Coast Guard or other port
security officials.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, we can talk about container
security if Members want, but this amendment is about port security. We
have a great container security program. Every high-risk container is
searched offshore. We are going to be in 47 foreign ports doing that.

{time} 1030

But please, can we talk about port security? If we want to talk about
container security, we can do that, but not on this amendment.
Mr. FILNER. I understand what the chairman is saying. I would argue
with great respect that the so-called empty containers lying around the
ports are part of our port weakness. Container security is port
security. Longshoremen have shown that the way that we inspect, for
example, ``an empty container'' is through an optical system that
leaves almost one-third of the container completely invisible to the
so-called inspection. In addition, most of the inspection techniques do
not allow us to really know what is inside.
I was going to do a press conference that would show, after an
inspection of an empty container, a longshoreman jumping out with an
Uzi and showing that we can actually bring in weapons of mass
destruction in these seemingly empty, innocent things.
So we have got to do a better job. The amendment of the gentlewoman
from California (Ms. Millender-McDonald) ought to be supported, and I
appreciate the comments of the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, port security obviously is terribly important, and that
is why we have provided in this bill $125 million, which is $79 million
more than was requested and more than the 2004 level. So we are putting
heavy emphasis on port security in the country.
Is that enough money? Of course not. There is not enough money in the
world to perfectly protect everything in America, but we think we have
on balance provided plenty of money in the bill for port security.
Number two, I have to oppose this amendment for a second reason, and
that is probably the most important one. And that is that this would
dangerously deplete the disaster relief fund, which concerns me
greatly, and we are just now getting into the heavy part of the
disaster season. So if there were another offset, this might be more
attractive to me, but to take the money out of disaster relief is just
a dangerous thing.
So I oppose the amendment. I would hope the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Millender-McDonald) would consider withdrawing the
amendment, and we will address this issue, I guarantee in the
conference with the Senate, the other body, as we go along during the
year. But I appreciate very much the gentlewoman from California (Ms.
Millender-McDonald), and those who have been speaking with her, in
bringing up this very, very important issue, and I assure them it is on
my mind and on the mind of the subcommittee.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I will not take the 5 minutes, but I do want to
challenge something my friend, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers)
just said. He indicated that every container in foreign ports was
inspected. That, as I understand it, is far from the facts.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I did not say every container. I said every
high-risk container.
Mr. OBEY. Let me simply suggest that that gives me no comfort. The
fact is that we have two basic problems with container inspection. The
idea behind the new system that the administration is talking about is
to see to it that cargo is inspected before it ever leaves the foreign
port headed for this country. The problem is that of the major ports
that are considered potentially dangerous, we are covering only half of
those ports right now with our own inspection personnel in any
effective program.
And I would point out further that the personnel that we have in
these ports are assigned largely on the basis of 6-month temporary duty
jobs. That means that just about the time they get to understand the
ports that they are working in, they go home. No foreign country is
going to waste any time, invest any effort getting to set up a working
relationship with people who are going to be gone in 6 months. It would
be like us hiring somebody on our staffs and then firing them every 6
months and having to break in a new person. It is a pretty dumb way to
do business.
So while I have great misgivings about the source of money of the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-McDonald) and I agree with
the chairman on that point, I do believe that we need to understand
there are massive problems associated with port security, and if we do
not do a whole lot more than the budget resolution allows us to do,
some day we are going to regret it very much.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
requisite number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I recognize the comments of the distinguished chairman,
but I appreciate the comments made by the ranking member, the gentleman
from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
I would just commend my colleagues to visualizing ports. For those of
us who have ports in our communities, and those of us who serve on the
Select Committee on Homeland Security had an opportunity to see a
number of working ports around the country, the acreage is huge, and I
will not upset the chairman. I will not mention containers, because
this is a question of securing ports.
The acreage, in and of itself, is massive; and I know that the good
work that has been done by many of our ports, along with the Coast
Guard, there have been great strides toward homeland security.
I would like to cite the Houston Port Authority for its improvement
on securing its acreage.
But the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) is right. The employees
in many instances are temporary. In many instances, they are from many
foreign ports. Sometimes they come on shore and are not able to leave
the area. We think mostly of ports from the water side, if you will,
but in many ways, there is a lot of influx of traffic, trucking traffic
that may not be regulated.
This investment is minor compared to the largeness of the question.
The gentlewoman takes $400 million from a $2 billion allotment. This,
of course, responds to the fact that $500 million were unexpended in
disaster relief. I know that you cannot predict a disaster and a
disaster may occur at any time. But in viewing ports from very
different perspectives and different regions of our country, I can
assure my colleagues that there is nothing probably more important and
more forgotten even in the good work that the ranking member of this
appropriations subcommittee and the chairman have done than seeing what
is going on in our ports. We face a situation in our community where
the key was not so much the water side of the port; but it was a dry
side, if I might, the exit and entry of people coming on the grounds
for a variety of reasons. There was a private security company, and
there was not the kind of tight security that was necessary. Much havoc
can be done

[[Page H4523]]

on the port on dry land as there is a large degree of unloading and
containers remain on the dry side, if you will, for a period of time
until they are sent off the grounds. There is a lot of ingress and
egress problems.
I would just simply say that the Coast Guard who we asked to rise to
the occasion after 9/11 did that without the immediate resources by
being in our waterways both in terms of their civilian work and their
military work. We just lost our first Coast Guard personnel in the Iraq
war just recently, a couple of weeks ago, a couple of months ago maybe;
but this amendment, I think, responds to the fact that it is a great
challenge to secure these ports. I would ask my colleagues to consider
this, but I also would hope that the chairman and ranking member would
consider this amendment in conference.
Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, as a member of the Select Committee on Homeland
Security, I am very proud to cosponsor this port security amendment
which would more than triple the Federal funding for security
enhancements in our ports. I believe that the chairman, I do not say
this in a condescending way at all, and the ranking member of the
subcommittee have done an outstanding job with insufficient allocation.
That is my position. When everything is a priority, nothing is a
priority. We have to establish priorities based upon assessment, risk
assessment.
Mr. Chairman, we do not have a national assessment of our most
vulnerable areas. We have asked for this 2 years ago, we asked for this
1 year ago, because I think this amendment would not be on the floor.
Our assessment as laymen indicates that this should be a priority. It
is our weakest point. One glaring need in this bill begs for more
resources and that is port security. I fear that providing the same
level as last year will not suffice. There is a legitimate threat that
maritime transportation will be used to smuggle people, to smuggle
weapons or other materials into the United States for the purpose of
terrorist attacks. We know that. We know that from the intelligence.
The FBI testified earlier this year that ports suffer from an acute
vulnerability. How could we allow this to continue in a time of
heightened risk?
In the wake of 9/11, Congress passed the Maritime Transportation and
Security Act. That act required, among other things, the establishment
of a maritime security committee and security plans for facilities and
vessels. The deadline of July 1 for this mandate is only a few weeks
off. I hope everyone in the Chamber understands that in 2 weeks that
mandate about our port security must go into effect. Or shall it be
like all the other mandates we have had, for instance, dealing with
airlines?
To meet these mandates, the MTSA authorized a grant program to help
pay for security investments and enhancements. While the committee
improved upon the disturbingly insufficient funds requested by this
administration, here we go again, Democrats and Republicans from both
sides of the aisle are not accepting what the administration has put
forth. Thank goodness. We talk about security out of one side of our
mouth, and then we provide the proposals that do not meet these
priorities. That is a fact of life. The Coast Guard estimates that the
first year of cost compliance with the Maritime Transportation Security
Act will be $1.2 billion. Demand from the ports is far outweighing the
supply of assistance. The Coast Guard, remember that forgotten branch
of our service, is now a prominent part of security in America.
In the first 3 rounds of grant awards, and I would ask the gentleman
from Kentucky to please heed this, this is a priority, this is serious
business, and I know he takes it seriously, the DHS funded less than 20
percent of the submitted applications. How can we stand on the floor of
the House and say that this is now sufficient money to deal with what
we have all considered to be and deemed such a priority when only 20
percent of the applications have been responded to? Many deserving
applications to help install access controls to our ports, surveillance
equipment, communications upgrades, really lacking, and physical
enhancement at ports around the Nation had to be denied because of a
lack of funds.
We are not asking to put more money into this particular part of the
budget. We are saying, let us shift some dollars from this part of the
budget to that part of the budget. When everything is a priority,
nothing is a priority.
The Port of New York and New Jersey, the largest on the east coast,
generates 229,000 jobs and $14.6 billion in gross domestic product. It
is a major economic driver for the metropolitan area. I would say that
we could obviously duplicate this throughout the entire country.
I ask the chairman to please address this. I appreciate all that he
and the ranking member have done in this area.
Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, I am withdrawing this
amendment. I thank the indulgence of the chairman and the ranking
member and do urge them to try to find funding for this very critical
national security issue.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). Without objection, the
amendment is withdrawn.
There was no objection.

{time} 1045

Amendment Offered by Ms. DeLauro

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Ms. DeLauro:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following new section:
Sec. __. None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be
used to issue an order under a task and delivery order
contract to entities not in compliance with section 835 of
Public Law 107-296.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, the American people should be outraged by
the actions on this floor just a short time ago, actions that would
allow the Department of Homeland Security to move forward with a $10
billion contract for a corporate expatriate. A corporate expatriate, a
company that goes offshore, Bermuda, Cayman Islands, other places, sets
up a shell corporation all for the purpose of diminishing their tax
liability; that is, not paying the taxes that they should be paying to
the United States of America.
The Republican leadership has finally after 18 months relented on
their opposition to closing the loopholes in the ban on Department of
Homeland Security contracts to corporate expatriates, but as so often
happens with the Republican House leadership, they have said yes on the
one hand and no on the other. They agree that it is wrong for the
government to contract with companies who go offshore in order to avoid
their tax liability, but at the first possible chance they grant an
exemption to this ban by allowing the largest Homeland Security
contract to date to go to one of the worst offenders, Accenture of
Bermuda.
That is why I am offering this amendment with the gentleman from
Arkansas (Mr. Berry), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal), and the gentlewoman from New
York (Ms. Slaughter).
Our amendment will prohibit the Department of Homeland Security from
spending any appropriated funds to carry out any contracts with an
entity which qualifies as an inverted company or partnership under the
law. The underlying bill will close loopholes that allow companies
which have already incorporated in Bermuda and their domestic
subsidiaries to receive contracts, loopholes that essentially gutted a
ban that this House passed in July of 2002 by a vote of 318 to 100. But
at the same time, without this amendment we will allow the Department
of Homeland Security to move forward on a $10 billion contract to just
such a company.
Accenture claims they were never an American company. Let us look at
the facts. They were a part of Arthur Andersen until 2000. They
incorporated in Bermuda in 2001. Their chief executive officer is based
in Dallas, Texas. Their stock is traded on the New York Stock Exchange.
More importantly, let us look at numbers. Even as Accenture reported
that its American earnings increased by over $319 million in 2003, its
U.S. tax liability decreased by almost $240 million. Simply stated,
their revenues are going up; their tax liability is going down.
Accenture, this is a company which has set up an elaborate corporate
structure ranging from Bermuda to Luxembourg to Switzerland so

[[Page H4524]]

that they can shift income overseas and reduce their overall U.S. tax
burden.
What is the result? Good corporate citizens loyal to the United
States, companies that live up to their responsibilities like the two
who were underbid in this contract, they are put at a competitive
disadvantage. These are other bidders, and it has been said that we
would not be able to move quickly. There were two other bidders in this
effort. We can move quickly on getting this task done.
Stanley Works is a Connecticut company, which considered incorporated
in Bermuda, reconsidered, and they have said: Not only are we
disadvantaged against our foreign competitors, but two of our major
U.S. competitors have a significant advantage over Stanley Works
because they are already incorporated in Bermuda.
Our Tax Code should not reward companies for moving overseas. It
should reward them for staying here, for contributing to our economy,
for creating good jobs. And by giving lucrative government contracts to
companies setting up a post office box in Bermuda, Mr. Chairman, we are
making matters worse.
The fact is we are in a time of war. We have troops serving overseas.
They are in harm's way every single day to protect this great country.
We are struggling to fully equip, as this bill points out, our first
responders, ensure the safety of our ports and our air transit. We
simply cannot afford to reward companies that accept the benefits of
American citizenship without living up to their responsibilities. We
are talking about $5 billion in revenues. Such behavior is wrong. It
offends our values as Americans.
Very quickly, I might add, some will say that we are going to be
wound up in lawsuits if we do not go forward. Not true. It is untrue.
All of the legal research has concluded that the government would have
little liability beyond the $10 billion contract minimum even if that
work has been performed. So do not let them get up and talk about
spurious argument. The fact of the matter is this is a company that has
gone offshore not to pay its taxes, and they are getting a $10 billion
reward. We should level the playing field and help good corporate
citizens.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
The gentlewoman is entitled to her strong opinion but not her own
facts. She notes that troops overseas need help. The reality is if her
amendment passes, this will have to be recompeted and it will push back
protecting our borders another 2 years.
A lot of companies invested money in this. Homeland Security invested
money in going through these. This will have to start again. The bids
of the losers in this particular case will be made public. Everyone
will have a starting place. This pushes the outcome to protect our
homeland 2 years. So this does not do anything to protect the homeland,
number one.
Number two, Accenture, to my understanding, pays an effective tax
rate for fiscal year 2004 of 34.8 percent. The two competitors in this
pay, in their recent 10-K filings, 31.3 percent and 28 percent
respectively.
I ask the gentlewoman where is the tax advantage if they are paying a
higher percentage of their taxes? Does she know?
There is no tax advantage.
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, what the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom
Davis) is saying is that they pay that effective tax rate on their
profits. Right?
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Yes.
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, so does the gentleman know how much of
their income has been stripped out by their use of this foreign
approach of setting up their corporation abroad? In other words, he is
just talking about their tax rate on the little bit of income they
leave here, not on the $100 million that they shifted out on which they
pay practically nothing.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time,
obviously it is the usual subterfuge on this. As a primer, they pay
taxes on profits. They do not pay taxes on their losses.
But we are talking here about an effective tax rate, not the tax rate
itself, which of course would be equal for U.S. income.
All work performed on this contract is performed in the United
States. They were awarded this contract and the experts, the career
civil servants who looked at this, decided this was the best
procurement to protect the homeland. What they would have us do, the
author of this would say let us not take the best defense we can get
for the homeland, let us take something else. Let us pay a little more,
let us get a little bit less because we want to settle the score
because the parent company of the U.S.-based company that won this
procurement somehow should be punished, even though all the work will
be performed in the United States. And Accenture LLP led the SMART
Border Alliance, which represents 31 U.S. companies employing 330,000
people in 50 States. Again, the US-VISIT program led the source of
selection process here and chose this as the most effective means, not
just cost effective but technically effective means, to protect the
homeland, and they want to throw that out the window and say we will
take second best for some other reason.
The time to address this, frankly, was at the time of the
procurement. Congress held hearings on this. We had an opportunity on
this procurement before it was let to do something on that in the
hearings.
As I noted before, they do not receive a competitive advantage on
this. Accenture is not a corporate inversion. This was a global
partnership and all of their U.S.-based work of course they pay taxes
on in the United States.
The thing I worry about most, though, is retaliation. Right now in
information technology we are running an $8 billion trade surplus. This
jeopardizes that surplus by inviting retaliation from other countries
in the globe where we currently maintain a trade surplus with
retaliation against U.S. companies doing business in those different
countries, and I think that would be a disaster for the U.S. economy,
something that my district in Northern Virginia knows something about,
being one of the leaders in this. I do not think we should reduce the
safety and security of the U.S. to settle a political score in this
particular case.
Why should U.S. taxpayers pay more money and take, in the opinion of
the career civil servants, a secondary technical solution to protect
our homeland?
I also want to note no jobs are being outsourced. All the work on
this contract is being performed in the United States. Accenture I do
not even believe has any employees in Bermuda. Every cent of taxes that
is earned on this will be paid here. The CEO of Accenture lives in
Texas. Their Chief Financial Officer lives in Texas. And the idea that
somehow they are not employing Americans or these jobs are going
offshore or any intimation of that is patently false.
Let us take a look at the procurement itself because I think it is
important. It is creating a nationwide entry and exit tracking system
for foreign nationals visiting the United States. This amendment delays
that for 2 years. I do not think our homeland needs that. I do not
think the security in this country needs that. I urge defeating the
amendment.
Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on
this amendment and all amendments thereto close in 40 minutes and that
the time be equally divided.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Iowa?
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, let me explain
to the Members what is happening here.
We have been in negotiations about overall budget issues for the last
day and a half trying to reach accommodation between both sides. Until
agreement was reached or until it appeared that agreement would be
reached, we have been unable to agree to any time limits. Now it
appears there is some progress being made, and we would like to
facilitate that by trying to take measures which would enable us to
finish this bill today so that Members can go home before 10 o'clock
tonight. So we checked to find out how many speakers were on each side,
and I thought that with this 20 minutes on each side, there would be
enough for every speaker who had indicated a desire to speak.

[[Page H4525]]

So the gentleman is making a good-faith effort to limit the timetable
based on discussions that he has had with us. And unless someone has
real heartburn about it, I would appreciate if the gentleman's motion
would be agreed to.
Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.
Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I think we could expedite, also, time
limits. I think there is a paper that we are waiting for over here, and
if we could expedite that, I think we can come to an agreement.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, it is clear that 20 minutes would be
controlled by the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) and 20
minutes by someone else on the other side.
Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.
Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom
Davis), yes.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Let me restate the unanimous consent
request by the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham). Forty minutes equally
divided by a proponent and opponent, divided and controlled, and on
this amendment the time will be controlled by the gentlewoman from
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom
Davis).
Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Iowa?
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, and subject
to my reservation, if I could just ask for clarification. This will be
20 minutes per side on this amendment. The gentleman does not envision
any other amendments to the amendment being offered? Is that correct?
Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DOGGETT. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.
Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, this unanimous consent would say this
amendment and all amendments thereto.
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, further reserving the right to object,
does the gentleman anticipate any amendments to this amendment?
Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DOGGETT. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.
Mr. LATHAM. No, Mr. Chairman. We do not at this time anticipate any
further amendments to this amendment.
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman be willing to modify
his 20 minutes to a side then on this amendment, 20 minutes to a side?
Because if someone were to come forward with an amendment to this
amendment, I am confident it would require additional time on our part.

{time} 1100

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DOGGETT. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Perhaps
we could handle it by simply saying that if after the assurances of the
gentleman that no additional amendment would be offered, if one is
offered, there will be no further agreements on time limits today.
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). Without objection, the
request of the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham) is agreed to.
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Arkansas (Mr. Berry).
Mr. BERRY. Mr. Chairman, we can handle this quicker than 20 minutes.
Just accept the amendment. Just do a unanimous consent and accept this
amendment, and we are out of here.
I cannot believe the discussion I have heard on homeland security
funding. Anybody watching this debate would have to conclude that the
integrity and the honor and what America stands for throughout the
world and throughout history is all about money. That is all that
matters. Nothing else matters.
We are talking about giving to a company that has renounced its U.S.
citizenship a $10 billion contract and putting them in charge of border
security. What a ridiculous idea. A foreign company in charge of our
borders, rewarding a company that said, We don't want to be an American
company anymore. That is not important to us. What is important to us
is money. Give us more money.
This company has a great history of just being interested in money.
They have demonstrated throughout the time that they have been in
existence all they care about is money. Being an American is not
important.
I think this absolutely desecrates the Declaration of Independence
and those great men and women, or the great men that signed it, women
would have if they had been allowed to, and especially that last
sentence that says: ``In support of this declaration, we mutually
pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.''
Is the security of this Nation and the future of this country not any
more important to those that would vote against this amendment than to
say it is about money? Throughout history this country has been willing
to pay any price, we have been willing to sacrifice whatever we had, to
keep this country great, to keep it strong, to do what was necessary to
preserve freedom and liberty and the pursuit of happiness and
opportunity for everybody.
Yet, you come to this floor, and I hope I would get to be there for
those of you who will vote against this amendment, so you can explain
to your children and grandchildren, Son, granddaughter, it is not about
being an American, it is not in your heart, it is not about what you
have to do to make this place what it is. It is about money. And we
failed. We failed because we did not want anybody to have to sacrifice
just a little bit. We made it possible for companies to put themselves
together, move offshore and cheat good, honest, hard-working taxpayers,
and take advantage of them.
How can you face those men and women that are going to come back from
the Middle East and that put their lives on the line, and they are
going to have to go to work and pay taxes? How are you going to face
them when you say, Well, I thought it was a good idea to take care of
this bunch of shysters that put this company together and went offshore
and cheated you out of a few hundred million dollars. I think that is a
great idea, and I wanted to support that.
If you want to support it, that is the thing for you to do. Stand up
today and be counted. Say it is not about integrity, it is not about
honor, it is not about that great spirit that lives in the hearts of
all Americans. It is about money, and we are going to make sure that
all of the rich people we can find, we are going to give them all the
money they can get.
You are going to keep doing this, and you are going to destroy this
great Nation. Anybody that could watch this debate can only conclude
that the people that are in charge of this House care about only one
thing, making their rich friends richer. And if you can vote for this,
God help you.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, let me just say this is about the best technology to
defend the borders. I have a letter from the Chamber of Commerce of the
United States made up of American companies in opposition to this
amendment. I have a letter from the Professional Services Council made
up of American companies in opposition to this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr.
Kolbe).
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time,
and I rise in strong opposition to this amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Connecticut, as I did the other day in the committee.
Let me say, first of all, as the gentleman from Virginia has
indicated, this is about a 2-year delay in awarding the contract. So
when the gentleman from Arkansas asks how are you going

[[Page H4526]]

to explain to American soldiers coming back, I am going to tell them it
is about their security, it is about getting a contract out there so we
can get this program in place. It is about security, and that is what
this issue is really about.
The gentleman also talked about honor and integrity. Yes, it is about
honor and integrity. We happen to enter into lawful agreements with
other countries, it is called the World Trade Organization, they are
called trade agreements, and we are the biggest beneficiaries of the
government procurement part of those agreements.
The United States has a huge trade surplus in the services sector
thanks in part to U.S. firms winning government procurement overseeas.
What the gentlewoman is talking about on this amendment is cutting
off our nose to spite ourselves, because, of course, there would be
retaliation against U.S. firms and workers who export services
overseas.
Is the gentlewoman suggesting that Daimler-Chrysler should not be
allowed to bid on any contracts here in the United States? Similarly,
should we not want to be able to bid on contracts for building an
airport in Paris or in Tokyo or some other place? Of course we want to.
We have to abide by our agreements, and you do not just do it by doing
it this way.
Let me just say about the issue of Accenture itself, all this talk
about the taxes here. Those charges are erroneous. The effective rate
of taxation paid by Accenture is 34.8 percent. The other companies that
bid on this pay much less taxes. In fact, Lockheed Martin paid 31.3
percent effective tax, and Computer Sciences Corporation, the other
bidder on this, paid 28 percent. So this is a company paying its taxes
in the United States on the business it does here in the United States.
That is what this really is all about. All the work is being done in
this country; all the jobs are going to be here; and all the taxes are
going to be paid on the business here.
This is one of those things that comes up on the floor every once in
a while, where people want to feel good, beat their breast, go home to
their constituents. But it is bad public policy, it is terrible public
policy, it violates all of our agreements, it is bad policy; and we
ought to defeat this bill.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KOLBE. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, there are 330,000 American
jobs in the contract that is currently being let to Accenture and its
American corporate subsidiaries. But the other side would just delay
those jobs at least 2 years and the creation of those jobs as they
rebid this contract and recompete this contract and keep our borders
less safe.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the gentleman is
correct, and that is why we should not delay that.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Neal), who has been battling on this issue for the
last several years.
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, this last bizarre argument that was made
that this amendment would somehow violate our world trade obligations,
does the gentleman understand that argument to be that we are forced to
outsource our national security and our homeland security to China or
France, which are WTO members? That seemed to be the logical extension
of this bizarre new argument.
Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, there
are two things to remember: Bermuda is not part of the WTO; and,
secondly, President Bush said he would never check with another country
before deciding about American national security.
Mr. Chairman, I want to say something to the gentleman who spoke a
moment ago about the ``beating on your chest'' about this issue. I have
brought this issue up now in the Committee on Ways and Means
consistently for 3 years. We cannot even get a vote on it. This is not
an appropriations issue in the end; this is really a tax issue.
The gentleman from Virginia said a moment ago there are no employees
from Accenture in Bermuda. That is the point. That is precisely the
point. It is merely a post office box rented for $27,000. Does anybody
believe that Tyco is a Bermuda-based company?
Why are we here today debating this issue? Joint Tax has said, and
listen to this carefully, $5 billion would come to the American
Treasury if we would simply send these folks their tax bill.
I want to ask Members of this body today this question as you vote:
What would the IRS do to you next Monday if you renounced your
citizenship and said you were really a citizen of Bermuda?
This is not an argument about patriotism. This is an argument about
that woman on Wall Street who said, ``Maybe it is time that patriotism
took a back seat to profits.'' Tell that to the moms and dads of
134,000 kids in Iraq, 20,000 kids in Afghanistan, troops committed to
Haiti and Bosnia as well. And these people do not want to pay their
corporate taxes? They are protected by these men and women, these
soldiers who serve honorably and with distinction every day.
You know what this argument is about, because the American people
know what this argument is about, it is about money. That is all it is
about, money.
Then the argument becomes, well, let us give those who left, went to
Bermuda, moved money to the Cayman Islands, and Luxembourg, let us give
them a permanent advantage competitively over those who have chosen to
stay, like Stanley Works in Connecticut, and ask them to compete in a
bidding process where one side does not have to worry about corporate
taxes.
This is indeed an argument about patriotism, and it is an argument
about the fact that these companies do not have, and I repeat, do not
have employees in Bermuda. They have instead a post office box. $27,000
is what it costs to open a post office box in Bermuda and avoid
millions in U.S. taxes. It is indeed about money.
We ought to have the backbone here to stand up and say, once and for
all, very simply, like the American people who send their sons and
daughters off to war, either you are in or you are out. That is what
this argument is about. It is not about the WTO and the bidding
process. Bermuda is not in the WTO.
But I know this: when the sun sets on this argument today, the
Committee on Ways and Means still will not take this issue up. And I
would say this to the people that are on the other side on this issue,
put this question in front of this body in an open, fair vote with an
opportunity for all of us to express ourselves, and I will tell you
what: I will eat the piece of paper it is on if we do not get 350 votes
to end this practice. And you know it, and you stop it from coming to
the floor time and again.
You can do something about this today with a small start and then do
something about it permanently.
When I hear these folks say this is not about patriotism, tell that
to the moms and dads of those kids who are over in Afghanistan and Iraq
that these companies do not want to pay their corporate taxes to
support them and give them the best equipment they need.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman has been very
eloquent, but let me just say this to him: make it clear, this is not
about the people of Bermuda, probably friends of ours, probably people
who served with us, working very hard, working in the corporate
structure. This is about homeland security.
I serve on the Subcommittee on Immigration. Let me tell you, we have
the opportunity to delay this for 2 years, to rebid this for American
companies that will create those same 330,000 jobs. I just want the
gentleman, if he would, to accede to that point, that we can recreate
these jobs by rebidding.
Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, there is
no question. This is about the failure of Congress.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as
I may consume.

[[Page H4527]]

Mr. Chairman, let me correct a couple of statements made. First of
all, this is not a company that ever left America. This is a global
partnership at one point that as they looked at the new business model,
they looked at a place globally in the partnership that had worked
across the world.
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. I will yield on your time. Do you have the
time, or are you just trying to interrupt me so I cannot get a stream
of thought? You have ample opportunity to rebut me on the time allotted
to you.
So they were never an American company, and this is not a corporate
inversion under the current law, and the gentleman knows that, and the
author of this amendment knows that.
Secondly, Bermuda is a British territory. Britain is a member of the
World Trade Organization. To say they are not is fallacious, and I
think we ought to at least keep this on a factual level. We have
differing opinions, which I respect on this; but let us at least argue
from the same basis of facts.
Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

{time} 1115

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I listened to my friends who are
advancing this amendment, and there are a number of things that I agree
with them on. I would be happy to have a debate on this floor about
corporate inversion and about tax policy. I am troubled by some of the
outsourcing of our activities in this country. I think that there are a
number of valid points that have been raised. I am concerned, though,
about how we are mixing them.
First of all, this is not, as has been referenced, a Stanley Works;
this is a spin-off. I have been following this for a number of years,
because the gentleman that I started in the political process with some
30 years ago founded the Arthur Andersen office in Portland, Oregon. He
has been a close friend. He has not been associated with Arthur
Andersen for some 20 years, but we have had many discussions about the
travail of that once great accounting firm.
Accenture is a result of a spin-off that was brewing between the
consulting wing and the accounting wing, and this finally was
formalized in 1987.
Accenture has never been a United States corporation, a United States
partnership. Never, not once. I have had this conversation with my
friend, I have exchanged documents, I have requested information from
them, and I have yet to receive, and I will welcome clarification on my
colleague's time, anything that suggests what we are saying is not
true. Never a United States corporation, not a United States
partnership, spun off 15 years ago. I will enter into the Record the
Notes To Consolidated Financial Statements from Accenture, LTD, that
talks about the amount of tax that this entity pays on United States
income.
My friend, the gentleman from Arizona, pointed out the effective tax
rate was actually higher than that of the competitors that were
involved here. We are talking about almost a third of 1 million
American jobs, including some in many of our districts. I am troubled
that we mix apples and oranges here, that we are having a rhetorical
flourish and driving home some important points and mixing it in the
only vehicle that is available. I think my friends on the majority side
actually invite this sort of debate because we so seldom have a chance
to kick it around in an open and honest and direct way, but this is not
the vehicle.
Let me give one example in my community where I had to push back with
friends on both sides of the aisle. I have the most productive truck
manufacturing company in the world, Freightliner, headquartered in
Portland, Oregon. There were people who wanted to push back against the
purchase of the finest trucks in the world for our troops in Iraq
because the ownership of this company that has been headquartered in my
community for 50 years, employing union machinists, union teamsters and
painters, was purchased by Daimler-Benz, a German company, and the
Germans were not our friends in Iraq for a while. Now the Germans are
our friends, because people find out we need them. But there was an
attempt to punish a foreign corporation by making it impossible for my
employees in my district to be able to bid on a contract.
I would suggest the analogy is exactly the same. I pushed back to
protect those jobs. I think we err if we mix apples and oranges and try
and throw this contract out.

ACCENTURE LTD--NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
[In thousands of U.S. dollars except share and per share amounts or as otherwise disclose]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2003 2002 2001
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current taxes:......................................... $191,464 $98,193 $300,000
U.S. federal....................................... 142,941 241,228 382,690
U.S. state and local............................... 20,420 34,461 66,080
Non-U.S............................................ 322,971 358,055 330,590
--------------------------------------------------------
Total current tax expense........................ 486,332 633,744 779,360
========================================================
Deferred taxes:
U.S. federal....................................... 48,523 (143,035) (85,520)
U.S. state and local............................... 6,932 (20,434) (19,612)
Non-U.S............................................ 24,312 20,796 (171,612)
--------------------------------------------------------
Total deferred tax expense (benefit)............. 79,767 (142,673) (276,744)
========================================================
Total.......................................... 566,099 491,071 502,616
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Deferred income tax expenses (benefits) related to the
additional minimum pension liability were ($71,920) in fiscal
2003 and were recorded in Accumulated other comprehensive
income in the Consolidated Balance Sheet.
Income before taxes from U.S. sources was $566,896 and
$247,271 in fiscal 2003 and fiscal 2002, respectively. Income
before taxes from non-U.S. sources was $1,045,921 and
$820,287 in fiscal 2003 and fiscal 2002, respectively.
A reconciliation of the U.S. federal statutory income tax
rate to Accenture's effective income tax rate is set forth
below:

[In percent]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2003 2002 2001
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. federal statutory income tax rate................. 35.0 35.0 35.0
U.S. state and local taxes, net........................ 1.6 1.2 1.0
Non-deductible investment losses....................... 11.7 0.2
Non-U.S. operations.................................... (2.0) 0.4 1.6
Rate benefit for partnership period.................... (49.0)
Revaluation of deferred tax liabilities \1\............ 13.6
Cost of transition to a corporate structure............ 59.6
Other.................................................. 0.5 (2.3) 1.2
--------------------------------------------------------
Effective income tax rate.......................... 35.1 46.0 63.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The revaluation of deferred tax liabilities upon change in tax status is a deferred tax expense recognized
upon Accenture's change in tax status from partnership to corporate form.

[[Page H4528]]

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from
New York (Ms. Slaughter).
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, before I begin, I just want to say I am
perplexed by the notion that we should leave this contract in place
because Accenture will hire Americans to do the work. My assumption is
that the two American companies who stay here and pay taxes would do
the very same.
I thank the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) for offering
this amendment to stop this $10 billion government contract to
Accenture. I do not have to explain to anybody in this room why this
practice that we have here I think makes no sense at all. A lot of the
American companies have decided to evade their Federal tax
responsibilities. If you follow this debate, maybe they should all go.
It seems it is trying to give us some idea that that is better for us.
But adding insult to injury, this Federal Government turns around and
gives billions of dollars worth of contracts to those very companies
who will not pay their share.
Corporate expatriates, as my colleagues know, cost us the $5 billion.
And when they got this contract, as a member of the Committee on
Homeland Security, I was both outraged and flabbergasted to learn that
they were going to be responsible for launching the US-VISIT program at
our 50 busiest land borders. One of them is just outside my district,
in Buffalo, the Peace Bridge.
What do you think my constituents said to me when they learned the
company responsible for securing the border, a company funded by their
tax dollars, does not pay taxes itself? That the very company that was
going to have the important responsibility of tracking foreign visitors
is in itself a foreign visitor?
Not only is the contract an insult, it flew in the face of
congressional intent. In July of 2002, the House passed an amendment
sponsored by the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) to prohibit
the Department from awarding contracts to corporate expatriates.
Unfortunately, it could not block the companies already moving to
Bermuda, but we have been trying to close those loopholes.
Last year, I offered an amendment to Project BioShield that would
have barred expatriate corporations from receiving $5 billion worth of
contracts with the Department of Homeland Security, but it was voted
down along party lines. But this week we achieve a partial victory.
The House Committee on Rules of which I am a member granted
protection to part of the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) and the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry)
that would close the loopholes in homeland security contracting ban,
and the amendment easily passed the Committee on Appropriations.
As a long-time member of the Committee on Rules, I can tell my
colleagues that is no small feat. As many of us joke, we should
probably put a sign above the door to the Committee on Rules room like
that hung above the gates of hell in ``Dante's Inferno'' that says,
``All hope abandon, ye who enter here!''
It is no secret that the Committee on Rules is used by the
Republicans to kill amendments before they can reach the floor for
debate and to substantially restrict debate on legislation having a
vast impact on this public.
But 2 days ago a miracle occurred, and we were able to protect the
loophole provision on the Delauro-Berry amendment, but this fight is
not over.
It does not make any sense, and America knows it. What in the world
are we doing here? We are reading every day of the giveaway contract,
the no-bid contract to Halliburton that is causing us so much harm and
delivering no goods in Iraq, and then we sit here in this Congress and
protect the giving of a contract to a corporation that has refused to
pay its American taxes. Will my colleagues think about that? They bid
against two companies staying here, good corporate American citizens
who are at a disadvantage because the company who got the contract does
not have to pay those taxes.
It is an outrage, and I think that today we will show that this House
of Representatives believes that it is an outrage. I agree with what my
colleagues said before: if this bill would ever be allowed by the
Committee on Rules to come here for a full debate and vote, we would
really show America that most people in this Congress do not like what
the leadership is foisting on us.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).
(Mr. MORAN of Virginia asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I agree in principle with my
good friends on the other side of this issue. I agree with my good
friend, the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), that it was
wrong what Stanley Works did to leave Connecticut, to save some tax
money, and to relocate their corporate headquarters in Bermuda, and
move much of its production operations overseas. I agree that we ought
to amend the Tax Code to punish firms that deliberately relocate to
take advantage of foreign tax shelters.
But while I agree in principle with what is driving this discussion,
I think we all understand that while we are entitled to our own
opinions, we are not entitled to our own set of facts. And I would say
to my friends on the other side, it is the facts that get in the way of
this debate.
The facts are that Accenture is not a corporate inversion. The
General Accounting Office said that. In fact, Accenture is a U.S.
business. It is a partnership in Illinois; it employs more than 25,000
people, virtually all of them are Americans. The fact is that this is
an American team of companies that we are talking about. It is a good
team of major American firms, firms like Raytheon, Dell, AT&T, Sprint.
Mr. Chairman, 330,000 U.S. jobs are involved in this team, 35,000 in
Texas, 30,000 in California, 16,000 in Virginia, 14,000 in Florida,
13,000 in Massachusetts, I would tell my very good friend from
Massachusetts. These are American jobs, and all of the work is going to
be done in the United States. All of the profit is going to be subject
to Federal income taxes. Thirty-eight percent is going to go to small
businesses. The same kind of small businesses that we have been trying
to help.
Mr. Chairman, all we are talking about is the executive branch trying
to do what we required them to do. We required them by law to go ahead
and to find a way to secure the 50 largest border entries by the end of
this year, and to secure the ports by the end of next year. And they
found that there were three of the very best teams who could accomplish
this objective by being willing to hire the best American employees and
invest millions of dollars to do it right.
Lockheed and CSC are terrific teams. They are not complaining about
this, because they know it was completely legitimate, this competitive
bidding process. They are not complaining because they know they lost
fair and square. The reason why this team won is because they had the
ability to best match what the Congress required them to do. They spent
millions, they pulled together the best technical people, and they came
up with the most innovative concept, the best price, the best quality,
the best likelihood of performance in meeting the Congress'
requirements. That is why they got the contract. Steve Pearlstein of
the Washington Post described how they legitimately won this contract.
Now, imagine the precedent. DHS awarded this contract completely
legitimately, the Congress comes in and says, oh, wait a minute, we are
going to pull it back. We are not going to let them get this contract.
Obviously we are going to get sued. Obviously it is going to take
months in the courts. Obviously, we cannot have a fair bidding process
now because the other two competitors now know exactly what the Federal
Government was looking for, they know exactly what the cost structure
needs to be, they know exactly all the innovative concepts that the
company put together.
The fact is, this is good for the United States and its workforce.
These are American firms. Now, sure, we live in a global environment,
but this is an American business. They are doing good work. If we set
this precedent, it will come back to haunt us for generations.

[[Page H4529]]

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).
(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this
amendment.
We have had facts put out by my friend from Virginia, both of my
friends from Virginia and others, and I would like to take a moment to
look philosophically at this. Building on what the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Moran) just said, this really is about the cause of
freedom and ensuring that we have access to the best quality product at
the lowest possible price. We just this week passed the American Jobs
Creation Act. One of the reasons I was so proud of that measure is that
rather than constantly pointing the finger outward, it led us to look
at ourselves. What is it that encourages the flow of capital and
products and services across borders?
The fact of the matter is, we in the United States of America have a
tax and a regulatory burden which creates great challenges. I believe
that we need to realize that as Americans. The patriotic thing to do, I
would say to my friend from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal), the patriotic
thing that we should do is to continue to do everything that we can to
encourage greater freedom. That is why this measure which counters,
counters completely a decision that was made, hurts the United States
of America, hurts the cause of our homeland security by, in fact,
saying to the American taxpayer, you cannot have access to the best
possible quality at the lowest possible price.

{time} 1130

I urge a ``no'' vote on the DeLauro amendment.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Dooley).
(Mr. DOOLEY of California asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition
to this amendment, and I want to once again restate some of the facts
because I think there has been a lot of false allegations here.
Accenture is a U.S.-based partnership. Accenture was never an
inversion corporation that moved from the U.S. to offshore. Accenture
will be paying taxes on all the income that is going to be generated by
this contract. And, in fact, if you look at recent history at the tax
rate, the Federal tax rate that Accenture has paid in the past few
years has been greater than that of the other competitors on this.
Accenture is a U.S. partnership that employs 25,000 U.S. employees. All
those employees that are going to be benefiting in this contract with a
team and a partnership that will comprise 330,000 U.S. workers will be
paying U.S. income taxes.
I am very concerned about the precedent we will be setting if we
adopt an amendment that is being offered today that a company has to be
solely incorporated in the United States in order to compete for a
government contract. If we adopt that standard and that standard was
adopted by the European countries of Germany and France or Japan or
China, we would be saying to the workers of IBM in the United States,
the workers of Boeing, the workers of Cisco, the workers in Microsoft
that you cannot compete for a contract that is being offered by the
governments of Japan, Germany, France, Italy, Great Britain. That would
be an injustice, and it would ensure that we would be adopting a policy
emulated by those other countries which would hurt U.S. companies and
would hurt U.S. workers.
This is a precedent that could cause great harm to this country, and
I hope we reject it.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo).
Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, this is a debate on the provision of the
Department of Homeland Security. That is what we are supposed to be
talking about here, the security of the Nation.
The tax obligations of this company are really irrelevant to whether
or not this contract provides for the United States of America some
greater degree of security. No one has argued, in fact, that it does
not. No one has argued that it is not the best company, Accenture in
this case, to provide the service we need and the technology behind it.
No one has denied the fact that if we do not do this, if we change the
rules at this point in time, that in fact now we will have to go back
to the drawing board. It will be another couple of years before we can
help secure the borders now, the U.S. VISIT program, and implement it.
So because this is a national security issue debated in the homeland
security bill, I urge that this amendment be defeated.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, although I am defending the
committee's position in this particular case, my understanding is I do
not have the right to close because I am not a member of the committee.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). The gentlewoman from
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), because she is a member of committee, has
the right to close.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, does the gentlewoman have
any additional speakers?
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I have one additional speaker to close.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have
remaining?
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis)
has 3\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance
of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I think this amendment is unfortunate. First of all,
you are picking on only one homeland security contract where there are
literally dozens, more than that, that go to companies that are foreign
based. They have singled out one. Perhaps there is a bidder in their
State that did not get it. But retaliation on Federal contracting is
really not a good thing to be doing on the House floor.
Secondly, we need to be aware that this will cost the government
additional money in termination costs, and they are likely to go
through this, and delay implementation of this procurement for up to 2
years which means that securing our border and getting the U.S. VISIT
program up and running will be delayed. This is a homeland security
bill. This is an anti-homeland security amendment in that case.
It is important, once again, to note that the winner of the contract
is an American corporation, but their parent is a global company that
has a headquarters in Bermuda. They were a global partnership prior to
doing that. Although the majority of their stock, I understand, is
American-owned, certainly the bulk of their employees are here. But
they are global in nature as are so many companies in a changing global
economic world, a fact of the matter that some of my colleagues do not
want to face up to.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, may I ask the gentleman, he was
a counsel to a contractor at one point in his life. Can he imagine how
we would ever rebid this to either of the other two bidders now that
they know all of the specifications that the government was looking
for?
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Well, this throws the procurement
basically up in the air and out the window and delays it, I think, at a
minimum a couple of years. Worst of all, we know under this contract,
Texas gets 35,000 jobs. Those jobs, if this amendment becomes law, are
out the window. They may get some back. They may not get any back. We
know, for example, in Massachusetts 13,000 jobs come under this. Those
jobs are out the windows if this is it. Maybe they will get it under
some other bidding, but there is no assurance of that at all.
We know for example in Florida, 14,000 jobs; California, 30,000 jobs;
Illinois, 11,000; Arizona, 12,000, on and on; 330,000 jobs at a time
when people profess to want job creation. Basically what they are
saying is let us put these jobs off 2 years because we do not like the
headquarters where the parent company that is putting this together of
the winning company, which is an American company, lives. Even though
all of the jobs will be performed in the United States, appropriate
security clearances will be cleared by American citizens to perform
this work.
I would note once again, there are literally dozens, if not hundreds,
of

[[Page H4530]]

companies around the globe that are doing business with the Defense
Department, Department of Homeland Security, that are foreign based. If
we cut this off, we are indeed, as one speaker noted, cutting off our
nose to spite our face. Because, after all, this is a global economy;
and after all, in this particular area we are running an $8 billion
trade surplus, trade surplus. And what the proponents of this amendment
would do is say, we do not care about a trade surplus in this
particular area. We want to settle some other scores. We do not like
the global economy. We want to use American dollars only to compete
with American companies, only to use American companies even if it may
be an inferior technology, even if it may cost taxpayers more.
That is what they are saying, and it is very poor precedent, in my
opinion, for protecting the homeland.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. If, for example, this amendment passed, can
the gentleman see any legal way that you can turn around and award the
bid to either of the other two competitor companies?
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. It clearly has to be recompeted, and we
will be wrought with protests.
I urge that this amendment be soundly defeated and we send the signal
here that we want to protect the homeland first. This is a homeland
security bill. It ought to stay that way.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms.
DeLauro) has 6\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).
Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DOGGETT. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Virginia
(Mr. Moran) was the mayor of Alexandria, Virginia. Did the gentleman
ever void a contract that had been competitively bid?
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Not after it was competitively bid when all of
the factors were legitimately considered.
Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. How about when they were not all
legitimately considered?
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. There is no question that it was not
legitimate. This was a legal bid.
Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Across this country every day mayors void
contracts.
Mr. DOGGETT. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, the indifference of
the Administration to the outsourcing of American jobs is well known to
the American people. But now as incredible as it will seem to most
Americans, the Administration and House Republican leadership are
intent on actually outsourcing our national security. A foreign-
controlled corporation has received a $10 billion contract, billion
with a ``B'', to implement a major element of the Administration's
border security initiative. And that is what this debate is about.
As usual, the House Republican leadership has this week blessed this
outsourcing of our national security, even though this action is
directly in defiance of the will of a strong bipartisan majority of
this House. With Accenture, the accent is on tax dodging; and with this
Republican leadership, since the first time we offered an amendment to
deal with this, the accent has been on protecting and enabling abusive
corporate tax dodgers.
Now, the Republican leadership wants to reward those like Accenture.
It wants to reward those who flee America to fleece America. Not only
saying, do not worry about paying your fair share of taxes, but it is
okay to come and get your competitors' share of taxes too. The money
hardworking people pay in to the Treasury, their money is going to be
taken and given to a corporation that has fled America.
What makes this Republican leadership's actions particularly shameful
is their refusal to hold the wealthy tax-dodging few accountable while
others sacrifice so very much, sometimes everything that they have.
We know about the young American men and women around the globe who
are dying for America. We know of the billions of dollars that American
taxpayers must expend when this Administration calls on Americans to do
most all the paying for its adventures around the world. The sacrifice
that our military is making is measured in blood and the sacrifice of
the middle-class taxpayers is measured in dollars. But some
corporations have decided that they do not have to pay their fair share
of our security.
Through this amendment we now can demand that they pay their fair
share. This is a fair-share amendment. When this measure came up under
the leadership of the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) in
July of 2002, 318 Members of this House voted to impose the same
restrictions that we are asking for today. And Accenture began hiring
lobbyists right and left to weaken that amendment. So the gentlewoman
from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) came back with a bipartisan majority 35
to 17 in the Committee on Appropriations to approve this restriction.
Then the Committee on Rules, recognizing that it was violating the
will of the House, has approved language in this bill that says
Accenture, despite all these wonderful arguments we have heard this
morning, is not going to get any more contracts. We are just going to
give it a $10 billion contract. We are going to give it the big pie it
has already been rewarded, but it will just not get any crumbs down the
way. This is an admission that there is strong merit to the arguments
in favor of the gentlewoman's amendment.
Let us go through one by one the arguments that have been advanced.
It is difficult to do that because they can talk about getting their
facts straight, then not get their argument straight. One of those who
opposes this amendment has been at this podium declaring that Accenture
has never been a U.S. company, followed by another speaker who insists
that Accenture is a U.S. company with jobs all over America.
Well, on that I have to yield to Accenture. If you turn to their Web
site, you will see that they declare they have never been a U.S.
company. The Department of Homeland Security has outsourced this
contract to a foreign company. But what of the argument that they did
not leave America after they formed here? No, the answer is they got
there first and they have set an example for other corporations about
incorporating abroad. Indeed, this month's issues of Corporate
Executive Magazine has an ad from Accenture: ``To accomplish more,
sometimes you need to receive less.''
And, in fact, in their case, pay less in taxes. And they offer advice
on, among other things, outsourcing jobs.
What of the argument that Accenture pays its taxes, everything that
is legally due? They claim that they pay a higher tax rate than their
American competitors. Well, I guess it all depends on whether you are
paying taxes on all your income or part of your income because you are
able to send some of your income abroad. Indeed, the name Accenture
will be new to many people because it is a new name. The name Accenture
did not exist a few years ago. The name Accenture, strangely enough, is
owned by a foreign corporation and the U.S. company pays hefty
royalties to this foreign company to use that name in the U.S. What
Accenture has done is to strip its U.S. earnings out of the country so
that it can say, we pay taxes on our earnings more than our
competitors. We just do not pay U.S. taxes on about $200 million of our
other earnings.
Let me just say that it used to be that, if you cleaned out a bank
vault, you would be put on the government's ``most wanted'' list and
imprisoned. But under this Administration, when you drain the Federal
Treasury by dodging taxes, you are placed on a ``most wanted'' list for
government contractors.
This is wrong. The American people know it is wrong. It is
indefensible, and there is no good argument in favor of doing this.
Vote for the DeLauro amendment.
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to explain my ``no'' vote on the
amendment offered by Ms. DeLauro. I support the principle embodied in
the amendment: to deny the benefit of large government contracts to
U.S. companies that purposefully locate offshore to avoid U.S. taxes.

[[Page H4531]]

But in this case, Accenture did not do this. Accenture is a
combination of foreign and U.S. companies and claims it chose Bermuda,
in 2001, as a neutral location.
The USVISIT contract is with the U.S. subsidiaries of Accenture, and
with many other U.S.-located companies, all of whom employ Americans
and pay U.S. taxes. We should not interfere with it and disrupt this
important program.

{time} 1145

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). All time having expired, the
question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending
that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) will be postponed.
The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.

Amendment No. 1 Offered by Ms. Roybal-Allard

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Chairman pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 1 offered by Ms. Roybal-Allard:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following new section:
Sec. __. None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be
used to process or approve a competition under Office of
Management and Budget Circular A-76 for services provided as
of June 1, 2004, by employees (including employees serving on
a temporary or term basis) of the Bureau of Citizenship and
Immigration Services of the Department of Homeland Security
who are known as of that date as Immigration Information
Officers, Contact Representatives, or Investigative
Assistants.

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, let me begin by thanking the
gentleman from Kentucky (Chairman Rogers) and the gentleman from
Minnesota (Ranking Member Sabo) for their hard work on this very
important bill.
Mr. Chairman, my amendment would prohibit the Citizenship and
Immigration Service under the Department of Homeland Security from
needlessly and dangerously contracting out work that is inherently
governmental in nature and essential to maintaining our national
security. This work is performed by immigration information officers,
contact representatives and investigative assistants who are well-
trained to understand our country's complex immigration laws and
regulations. In the course of performing their duties, they often use
highly classified information to prevent immigration fraud and ensure
terrorists do not exploit our immigration laws.
The Office of Management and Budget, OMB, will argue that privatizing
immigration officers will save taxpayers and the Federal Government
money. The General Accounting Office, however, has challenged OMB's
estimated savings derived from privatization. The Comptroller General
recently stated that GAO cannot verify OMB's claims because government
agencies do not have accounting systems to provide reliable tracking of
costs and savings, but even if savings could be realized, the fact
remains that the bottom line should never take precedent over our
national security.
We need to have reliable, well-trained and experienced immigration
personnel, employees who are directly accountable to the Department of
Homeland Security and not motivated by production quotas set by profit-
oriented contract employers with an historically high rate of turnover.
Of greater concern, however, is the Department of Homeland Security's
inability to protect sensitive information and maintain quality control
of contract workers. This danger is highlighted in a July 2003 GAO
report that found that the Immigration Service did not have the basic
infrastructure, including the oversight information and workforce, to
ensure that its contracting activities were effective.
Furthermore, in a December 2003 report and in a March 2004 follow-up
report, the Inspector General of the Department of Homeland Security
listed contracting procedures as a major management challenge for the
Department.
Of equal concern is information in memos from the Department of
Homeland Security that I received from Senator Lieberman's office.
These memos contain evidence that Immigration Service management tried
for months to discourage Homeland Security leadership from implementing
the privatization review.
Let me quote two passages from a document prepared by consultants
from Grant Thornton and PEC Solutions for Immigration Service
officials. The first passage reads, ``Accomplishing the A-76 study
under present scope will not achieve the A-76 program's overarching
operational efficiency objectives, and also will not address the
current extensive customer service problems.''
The second passage reads, ``Moving forward with an A-76 competition
based on business processes limits the agency's ability to implement
substantial organizational and operational improvements.''
Clearly, Mr. Chairman, contracting out of immigration provisions has
every potential of endangering our country's ability to meet our goals
of having a Department of Homeland Security that is well-armed to
protect our country from those who would do it harm.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, my amendment does not attempt to address
the overall issue of contracting out Federal jobs. My amendment is
narrowly drafted to ensure that the work of immigration officers, which
is inherently governmental in nature and critical to our national
security, continues to remain the responsibility of trained and
experienced Federal employees directly accountable to the Department of
Homeland Security and not to the bottom line of a private company.
I urge my colleagues to support this very important national security
amendment.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this
amendment. I agree with the gentlewoman from California, who by the way
is a very hardworking member of our subcommittee and a very valued
member. I agree with her that CIS should meet the highest standards in
evaluating petitions for naturalization or immigration benefits, but I
do not believe her proposal is justified.
CIS is in the midst of a critical effort to reduce its very large
case backlog, while ensuring that it screens applicants for the
privilege of living here or acquiring citizenship. Our bill demands a
high degree of accountability from this agency, and we will exercise
significant oversight into how it achieves the elimination of its
backlog.
In the meantime, I believe that the Department deserves some latitude
to explore new ways of getting this job done and the backlog reduced,
to include privatizing some functions that may be just as easily
performed outside of the government, and allows the agency to
concentrate internally on its core government functions.
The argument that the positions up for competition are
``governmental'' begs the question: Immigrants need information and
help getting through this system, but such service is not inherently
governmental; and, two, the requirement to have specialized subject
matter expertise also does not uniquely limit the work to government
officials.
So I think the amendment is not necessary. I believe the Department
should have some leeway in getting this backlog reduced, and so I,
therefore, ask my colleagues to support us in rejecting this amendment.
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment
offered by my friend from California. One of the most important
functions of any sovereign nation is determining who can enter the
country and who cannot.
In our country we balance many important values in making this
decision. We have always been an open society that has been enriched by
new citizens, by visitors and by those who come here to contribute to
the great dynamism of the American economy.
At the same time, we cannot be a country that has a welcome mat out

[[Page H4532]]

for everyone in the world because it would suffocate the very dynamism
of that economy. There obviously are security concerns. Most people in
the world are very welcome in America because they are people who love
peace and contribute. There are a few who are most definitely not
welcome in America because they are security risks.
Just as our country has to sort this problem out every day, on
individual cases this problem must be sorted out every day. The people
who begin the process of sorting this balance out are immigration
information officers. I can think of no more public function, no more
core public function than exercising the constitutional responsibility
of controlling our borders, and the idea that this function would be
delegated to someone who works for a for-profit firm strikes me as well
beyond the realm of reason.
When someone presents his or her papers to begin the process of
getting into the country, all kinds of questions have to be asked. Are
the papers true or fraudulent? This is what these officers deal with
every day. Are the intentions of the person trying to enter the country
munificent or harmful? This is a judgment that these officers have to
make every day.
The information people present to gain access to the country is very
often private and important only to them, and respecting the privacy of
the person who tries to get into the country is an important value that
has to be protected every day.
If questions arise about the veracity of someone's application, the
officer needs to go to law enforcement or to intelligence agencies to
figure out whether the person is whom he or she says they are. Are
these functions we want performed by someone who is hired out?
Can we exercise the degree of accountability for control of our
borders that we need to exercise if the people who are exercising these
functions are here this year but may not be here next year when a new
contract is let? Can we be sure that the training that is necessary to
balance these many competing concerns is going to be adequately given
to officers who are not sworn employees of the United States? I do not
think so.
I understand the debate on privatization is over whether something is
a core government function or not. I can scarcely think of a function
that is more an example of a core governmental function than
controlling access to our borders. Frankly, if controlling access to
our borders is not a core governmental function, then running the Navy
is not a core governmental function or conducting foreign intelligence
is not a core governmental function or perhaps we should privatize
diplomats, and instead of having ambassadors appointed by the President
we should hire diplomatic arbitration services because it seems to me
to be equally the case that it is a core governmental function.
One could argue all one wants about efficiency, but there is a higher
value here than efficiency, and that value is accountability in the
discharge of our constitutional function in controlling our borders.
This is not an area where the managers of the Department should have
discretion because this is a clear case.
The constitutional responsibility of controlling our borders is a
pure public function, and it should be carried out by sworn employees
who are men and women who are responsible to the public voters,
responsible to this Congress and responsible for the future discharge
of their responsibilities.
So I thank my friend from California for offering her amendment. I
think it is an excellent idea. I would urge Members from both sides to
enthusiastically support the amendment.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, in the interest of attempting
to save time and to get us out of here today on this bill, I want to
engage my ranking member and ask his and others unanimous consent that
all debate on this amendment and all amendments thereto be limited to
40 minutes, the time to be equally divided between myself and the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo).
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Kentucky?
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I have no problem with that, with the
exception that the time on our side should be controlled by the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Roybal-Allard), who is authoring the
amendment.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I so amend my request.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. If the gentlemen will suspend, the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) raised a point of objection and
needs to be heard on his reserving his right to object.
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, it seems
that there are a number of people on our side here who are prepared to
speak to this, and I think that before we agree to a unanimous consent,
it would be good to poll to see how many Members we have so we are not
going to be denied an opportunity to present our concerns about this
and our support for this amendment.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KUCINICH. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. SABO. I think that has been done.

{time} 1200

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, we have a growing list of Members who want to
give speeches, and I ask the gentleman to withdraw the request for 1
minute.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I would point out there is a
growing list of Members who want to get out of here tonight.
Mr. Chairman, I withdraw the unanimous consent request.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). The unanimous consent request
is withdrawn.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
requisite number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I wish we could decipher our commitment to creating
jobs from the important responsibility of homeland security. Whenever
we see these two goals hitting up against each other, the idea of
privatizing and creating jobs in America versus taking jobs away from
the government, we would think that job creation has a truly bipartisan
premise, but my good friends keep utilizing it in the wrong way.
Homeland security needs accountability. Homeland security clearly
dictates, if you will, assuredness, preciseness and oversight. It is
very difficult to ever see homeland security being privatized. In this
instance many of these employees, although they are dealing with the
benefits side of homeland security under the immigration benefits
section, they often use highly classified information to prevent
immigration fraud and to ensure that terrorists do not exploit the
immigration laws.
More importantly, there are people who are standing in line,
thousands of them for years, who count on Federal employees with the
kind of interest and commitment and integrity to ensure that the
process works. Yes, we have a backlog and in fact our committee, the
Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims of the Committee on the
Judiciary, just heard from the Director of the Bureau of Citizens and
Immigration Services that in fact he is presenting the President's plan
on decreasing that backlog.
There was nothing in that representation that would suggest that it
could not be done without the employees present other than the fact
that I raised the question that we might need more resources to add
Federal employees who are under oath, who are hired under certain
conditions to do the job. I cannot imagine that we would argue to
privatize this very serious and very important task of the Department
of Homeland Security. It does not make sense. For the Office of
Management and Budget whose only responsibility is to crunch the
numbers and find where they can allegedly save money and not make the
good judgments what is responsible legislation, which is to provide
secure employees to do secured work, the General Accounting Office
could not even document that what OMB represents to be a saving would
be true. The General Accounting Office challenged the OMB's estimated
savings derived from privatization, and the Comptroller General
recently stated that GAO cannot verify OMB's claims because government
agencies do

[[Page H4533]]

not have those kinds of reliable accounting systems.
I say to the chairman and the ranking member, and I again cite them
for their good work, there is no documentation that we can save work,
but there is documentation that if we privatize this we have no
oversight into the mishaps, confusion and the absolute inability to
help us bring down the backlog, at least with adding the resources
necessary to those Federal hires, those Federal employees, and I thank
the gentlewoman for this excellent amendment, and for pinpointing a
weak point, and that is privatization of important services utilized by
the Department of Homeland Security.
I would argue vigorously in support of this amendment, but I caution
my colleagues to realize that these are important and secure matters:
One, on behalf of those who are standing in line to access
legalization, which we want them to do; and two, indicating and
securing the fact that no one can abuse the service; and lastly, I
would say the oversight of this Congress would be undermined by
privatizing this very important responsibility. I ask my colleagues to
support the amendment.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that
all debate on this amendment and all amendments thereto be limited to
30 minutes, that the time be equally divided between myself and the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Roybal-Allard).
Mr. BERRY. Mr. Chairman, I object.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Objection is heard.
Mr. BERRY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BERRY. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, could we not have agreement on
the limitation? I think it is agreed to by the ranking member and all
parties on the subcommittee of which the gentleman is a member. Could
we not have a unanimous consent to limit the debate time?
Mr. BERRY. Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, I do not think there
is anything more important than the debate we are having today. I think
that those that have something more important to do, I think it is
perfectly all right for them to go ahead and do it.
Mr. Chairman, we are having this debate. We are making decisions that
are going to affect the future of this country. This is a very serious
matter. We have gotten ourselves, this administration has gotten this
country in a terrible mess, and one of the things they have done to
cause this to happen is to outsource, to take jobs that belong, that
should be done by the government and contract them to somebody else.
I am beginning to wonder if we are going to see a resolution on this
floor that says all government functions will be contracted to
Halliburton with a sole source contract agreement, and to ask this
House to approve such a ridiculous thing.
We have a serious problem on our borders. It needs to be handled by
serious people. We have gotten in trouble in Iraq because we have hired
people to do what should have been a military function or a function of
the government and turned it over to something else, to somebody that
had no accountability, somebody that does not have to prove that they
have done it right. We need to have this debate.
This administration just simply does not understand the difference in
getting the job done for the American people and a good excuse when
they fail. That is where we are right now. And the generations that
come after us are going to have a terrible mess on their hands to deal
with. It is all because we have not been responsible in seeing that the
job got done, and it is time for this body to uphold its responsibility
and hold these people that are running the government accountable. This
amendment will make it possible for us to do that.
I urge the Members of this House to take this bill and what it means
in this amendment very seriously. We know that when Americans are given
the task that they will do the job and do it well. When we start
contracting out these responsibilities of our agencies like this
amendment prohibits, we do not have any way of knowing what is going to
happen. We are going to just turn it out. My goodness alive, I cannot
imagine what kind of ridiculous things might pop up after what we have
already seen that this administration is willing to do. It is time for
this body to exercise oversight that we are responsible for using.
Mr. MORAN of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I am not going to take 5 minutes and I trust my
colleagues are not going to either, but I do want to express my support
for this amendment. It is a very important issue, a principle upon
which I could not agree more with the author of the amendment because
the functions that are going to be contracted out, if this amendment
does not pass, are in fact inherently governmental.
We are talking about approximately 1,400 professionals, experienced
people, who have to apply judgment. They need to determine whether law
enforcement agencies need to be notified, they need to determine who
should come into this country, who should be deported, who should be
arrested. This is not something you want to contract out to private
firms who may be very well intentioned, but the fact is that ultimately
it is a profit incentive that motivates them to compete for this
contract.
These are governmental jobs that need to continue to be governmental.
If this goes through, it is like contracting out income tax collection.
I cannot imagine many more jobs that could be more important that could
not be more inherently governmental than this. If this amendment does
not pass, it jeopardizes the safety and security of the American
people; and certainly it is a slap in the face of the extraordinarily
good, professional work that is done by the vast, vast majority of
people working for the Customs and Immigration Services.
Please support the Roybal-Allard amendment, and let us do the right
thing by a government that we have every reason to be proud of.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I take this time to try to ask the indulgence of all
Members on both sides. We had extended debate yesterday on the Interior
bill, and we have a lot of amendments on this bill. We have been
negotiating for 2 days trying to reach an overall understanding between
the parties about how we will proceed on all of the remaining
appropriation bills between now and August. We are trying to work out
an arrangement which will allow those bills to proceed in an orderly
civil manner with minimum of ying and yang, leaving full room for
Members to offer whatever amendments they want to offer.
To facilitate that, we are trying to help move this bill along. We
are getting calls from Members from both sides of the aisle every 10 to
15 minutes asking when they are going to be able to go home today. I do
not want to shut off any Member. Every Member has a perfect right to
address whatever issue concerns them, but I would ask if we do have
offers of unanimous consent to reach time limits on some of these
amendments, I would appreciate it if Members would talk to the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo) or the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr.
Rogers), depending on which party, to at least talk with us so we
understand what your concerns are and Members understand what the
committee is trying to do because we cannot do opposite things at the
same time.
If we are to facilitate Members getting out of here today, we need to
have reasonable limits on time. Nobody is trying to be arbitrary. The
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) has been most cooperative, as has
been the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo). I would ask Members to
please give us the benefit of the doubt. If we cannot reach reasonable
time agreement, there is not a prayer that we will get out of here
before 7 or 8 tonight. Knowing the way this place works, some of the
very same people who object to time limits at 3:00 will be squawking at
us at 7:00 because they have not been able to get out of here. I would
ask Members to work with us. We are trying not to surprise people, and
we would appreciate the same from other Members.
Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.

[[Page H4534]]

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Roybal-
Allard) for offering this amendment.

{time} 1215

The amendment prevents the Department of Homeland Security
Citizenship and Immigration Services from outsourcing work to
contractors. The work performed by immigration information officers and
their colleagues is not only a critical responsibility; it is a
critical governmental responsibility.
Our Nation depends on CIS to review immigration applications in a
timely and judicious manner. Our Nation depends on CIS to discern
questionable applications and possible threats to our public safety.
Our Nation depends on CIS to protect our immigration process and to be
accountable.
In fact, the General Accounting Office has argued that INS does not
currently have the infrastructure to contract its work out and still be
able to ensure success. INS has such a tremendous backlog that full
entitlements through citizenship are being denied to hundreds of
thousands of people in this country today because of that backlog. Let
us give the INS the resources they need to accomplish their tasks, as
opposed to outsourcing their jobs.
This work is too important to our government, to the people of our
Nation. It is too important to all of us to not be done well and not to
be done properly.
Clearly, such a governmental responsibility must remain with the
government. I urge an ``aye'' vote on this amendment.
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment of the gentlewoman
from California (Ms. Roybal-Allard). The Department of Homeland
Security should be prevented from undertaking its privatization review
of the investigation and adjudication of applications for immigration
rights and benefits. It is simplistic to assume that privatization
automatically leads to savings and efficiency. Sometimes it does not,
and this case is one that clearly does not. Consider that.
The Department of Homeland Security, that part of the Department of
Homeland Security which is formally known as the Immigration and
Naturalization Service, does not keep track of its existing
contractors, according to the General Accounting Office.
Specifically, GAO said the INS, which is now the Department of
Homeland Security Citizenship and Immigration Services, does not have
the basic infrastructure, including oversight, information and an
acquisition workforce in place to ensure that its contracting activity
is effective. INS has not consistently ensured that acquisition
personnel are adequately trained to do their jobs, and this is from a
GAO report less than a year ago.
Number two, independent parties report that the Department's recent
contract for similar, but much simpler, work has had disastrous
results. According to dozens of civil rights advocates, recent
experience with the national customer service center offers another
example of the negative impacts of contracting out immigration
functions and the differences that result from using an outside
contractor rather than a trained CIS employee. The contrast has been
profound, and the resulting problems ranging from the frustrating and
time-wasting, to truly damaging errors.
Before the June changeover, existing government personnel readily
solved the majority of these problems. Operators who now answer the
calls know nothing about the subject of the call and rarely provide
assistance. So much for contracting out. These operators who work from
scripts frequently cannot even identify which script they should be
using and are rarely able to provide meaningful assistance. In fact,
they often provide answers that convey a clear misunderstanding of the
subject matter with which they are dealing.
Number three, the Department, according to internal documents, has
failed to heed warnings from its own staff and consultants that this
particular privatization review is ill advised, because it is poorly
structured, unlikely to generate efficiencies, and inspired in order to
meet a privatization quota that has been prohibited by Congress and
repudiated by the administration.
I have some familiarity with an example of privatization through the
A-76 process and would like to share it with my colleagues. During
2000, the Defense Finance and Accounting Service conducted an A-76
competition for its Military Retired and Annuitant Pay functions, most
of which are performed in my district in Cleveland. A private
contractor, ACS Government Solutions Group, was awarded the contract on
the basis of a very small cost advantage, over $1.9 million over the
entire 10-year contract period.
In March of 2003, the Inspector General of the Department of Defense
reviewed this A-76 award. It determined that the award to a private
contractor in 2001 was erroneous. According to the IG, an error
committed by the private company hired by DFAS to prepare its in-house
bid resulted in an erroneous high bid by the government. The error was
compounded by the audit division of the DoD IG, which served as the
independent review officer and which failed to discover the error. As a
result, the higher bidder actually won the competition.
Now, in spite of these findings, DFAS has renewed its contract in
each succeeding year with the higher bidder. Now, what is the lesson we
should learn?
First, privatization does not necessarily equal efficiency. Second,
privatization does not necessarily lead to savings in cost, and third,
privatization wastes taxpayers' funds and degrades the performance of
government work. Vote ``yes'' on the amendment of the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Roybal-Allard) and prevent a waste of taxpayer funds.
Mr. TURNER of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Roybal-Allard amendment to
stop the privatization of immigration information officer positions. As
the ranking member on the Select Committee on Homeland Security, I have
serious concerns about the impact this privatization initiative will
have on our Nation's security. Immigration information officers and
contact representatives interview immigrants, they review their
documents for fraudulent and illegal activities, and they perform
criminal background checks.
In order to do their jobs, these employees must acquire a large body
of information and knowledge about our ever-changing and incredibly
complicated immigration laws. To abandon the years of accumulated
expertise of this group of Federal employees places our Nation at risk.
In the war on terror, there is no room for error.
At a time when we must be focusing on security at our borders, we
should not create the turmoil that is inherent in competition for these
security-related jobs. After September 11, this Congress determined
that giving the critical task of securing passengers and their baggage
at airports should not be awarded to the lowest bidder, and we
federalized the TSA screening force. Why would we give an even more
critical and complex task of reviewing whether a passenger may be a
terrorist to the lowest bidder? I urge adoption of the amendment of the
gentlewoman from California.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, this Member wishes to express his support
for the Roybal-Allard Amendment to prevent the A-76 privatization
attempt of the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services (BCIS) at
the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
The Department of Homeland Security mission statement reads as
follows: ``We will lead the unified national effort to secure America.
We will prevent and deter terrorist attacks and protect against and
respond to threats and hazards to the nation. We will ensure safe and
secure borders, welcome lawful immigrants and visitors, and promote the
free-flow of commerce.''
The outsourcing of the positions of Immigration Information Officers
(IIO), Contact Representatives (CR), and Investigative Assistants (IA)
is harmful to the DHS mission because these jobs and their functions
are inherently governmental and vital to national security. Any job
that requires the officer's knowledge and application of U.S.
immigration laws and regulations is inherently governmental and crucial
in determining who is eligible for immigration benefits, as well as
identifying potential terrorists and national security threats.
Therefore, these jobs should not be offered to contract providers
outside of the Federal Government.

[[Page H4535]]

One of my constituents recently wrote to this Member, voicing his
opposition to the outsourcing plan. This constituent is an
Investigative Assistant within the BCIS. He writes, ``Given the current
political climate of heightened security among all federal law
enforcement agencies, any decision to outsource CIS positions would be
detrimental to the country. It is imperative for Americans to have
faith in our government's ability to protect our country. Having
government workers doing a job of such significance gives the people of
this nation the confidence and sense of security that is needed in
these volatile times.''
He is absolutely right, and this constituent certainly is not alone
in his views. In the state of Nebraska, the jobs of 115 full-time
employees within the BCIS are at risk. This number is only behind those
projected statistics in California and New York. In this Member's
district alone, 112 jobs are inappropriately at risk due to the A-76
proposal.
Now, this Member does not in concept or principle oppose A-76
privatization. Indeed, this Member has accepted the legitimacy of
applying A-76 for various other Federal employment positions in his
District. But obviously this process is badly flawed with suggested
applications of this procedure in the kind of job positions addressed
by the Amendment of the distinguished gentlewoman from California, Mrs.
Roybal-Allard. Its application to described positions in DHS jeopardize
national security and the proper accomplishments of the mission of the
agency.
In closing, Mr. Chairman this Member encourages his colleagues to
support this Amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). The question is on the
amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Roybal-
Allard).
The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California
(Ms. Roybal-Allard) will be postponed.

Amendment No. 23 Offered by Mr. Ryun of Kansas

Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Chairman pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 23 offered by Mr. Ryun of Kansas:
At the end of the bill (before the short title) insert the
following new section:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to amend the oath of allegiance required by section
337 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1448).

Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, the oath of allegiance has served
as the gateway to American citizenship for over 200 years. When
immigrants speak its forceful words, they pledge their unfettered
allegiance to America, to the Constitution, and to our laws. This
important symbol of American citizenship is not specified by law,
however; and it can be changed on the whim of a government agency. In
fact, such a change has recently been attempted and would transform the
absolute commitment to our Constitution into a conditional statement,
thereby weakening our citizenship.
The proposed changes would eliminate certain forceful words and
phrases, substantially weakening the charge to uphold and be faithful
to the Constitution and the laws of the United States. Specifically, it
eliminates the call to bear true faith and allegiance to the
Constitution. In addition, the oath of allegiance currently calls on
Americans to renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any
foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty while the proposed
oath renounces allegiance only to foreign states.
We should continue to welcome legal immigrants into our country. Yet
as we continue to fight the war on terror, we must maintain a forceful
and uncompromising oath of allegiance. Many of our terror threats are
not from organized geopolitical states, but rather from groups like al
Qaeda led by the likes of Osama bin Laden. On March 11 in Madrid, we
were reminded of the very real presence of organized, nonstate-
sponsored terrorism aimed at the United States and our allies who are
committed to eliminating global terrorism.
The threat of terror and the attempts to infiltrate American society
have not passed, nor has the need for a strong renunciation against any
foreign sovereignty. Now is not the time to water down the words of
commitment necessary to becoming a citizen of the United States. That
is why I am offering this amendment, which would restrict the U.S.
Citizenship and Immigration Services from using funds to change the
oath of allegiance.
Throughout our history, our Nation has been strengthened by
immigrants who came here to pursue the American dream. Keeping the
strong, meaningful text of the oath would remind all Americans that
pursuing that dream also requires a full-time commitment to
citizenship, a commitment not unlike what Thomas Paine once called the
summer soldier and the sunshine patriot, that shrank from the service
of his country in times of crisis. The oath should continue to support
freedom, democracy, and our constitutional rights. I encourage my
colleagues to vote for this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman from Kentucky if he has any
reservation about my amendment.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. RYUN of Kansas. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. If there are no further speakers on the
amendment, I will agree to it. If there are further speakers, I will
oppose it.
I think it is a wonderful amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by
the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Ryun).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Tancredo

Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Tancredo:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. ___. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used in contravention of section 642(a) of the Illegal
Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996
(8 U.S.C. 1373(a)).
Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A point of order is reserved.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, in the interest of time, I ask
unanimous consent that all debate on this amendment and all amendments
thereto close in 24 minutes and that the time be equally divided
between me and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo).
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Kentucky?
There was no objection.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo).
Mr. TANCREDO. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, the purpose of the amendment is to prevent the use of
Federal funds by governments who adopt sanctuary policies. These are
laws that prohibit State or local government entities or officials from
sending to or receiving from the Bureau of Immigration and Customs
Enforcement information regarding an individual's citizenship or
immigration status.
I assume considering the fact that we have had this amendment on the
floor before and I recall the kind of debate that we had, a great
amount of that debate will center around the actual law that is on the
books and not my amendment. I want to stress the fact that there is a
law. It has been on the books for 10 years. It is section 642(a) of the
Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigration Responsibility Act of 1996.
That law is there.
This amendment does not change the law, it does not repeal the law,
it does not add anything to the law. That is the law that is on the
books. It says States and local governments essentially cannot impede
the flow of information to the Department and/or stop the flow from the
Department.
The problem, of course, is that States and localities around the
country, a relatively small number but nonetheless a growing number,
are disregarding that provision of the law. They do not care. They are,
in fact, adopting things that we consider to be certainly problematic
and certainly fly in the face of the law. By enacting

[[Page H4536]]

these misguided and illegal sanctuary policies, a handful of local
governments have put the rest of the country at risk.

{time} 1230

In addition, the refusal of these governments to share information
with Federal immigration authorities inevitably results in a local law
enforcement arresting and then releasing criminal aliens who may then
move on to commit other crimes in the country rather than being
deported. The Washington Times, for example, reported in June of last
year that in December there was a rape of a woman in New York, a
particularly brutal rape and battery. Four of the five men charged in
the case were illegal immigrants, and three had are prior convictions
that, in keeping with Federal law, would have allowed their deportation
had that information been originally provided to the Federal
authorities.
As a result of the great amount of public clamor about this
particular incident, the City of New York has, as I understand it,
repealed that particular provision of their law so that that is what
needs to happen, of course, I think, throughout the country.
In order to prevent these kinds of resolving-door injustices from
occurring, we must create a financial disincentive for cities and
States that choose to violate the law. Since September 11 Members of
both sides of the aisle have bestowed the virtues of intergovernmental
cooperation between State, local, and Federal law enforcement
authorities to prevent future terrorist attacks. State and local
governments should not be able to unilaterally prevent this kind of
cooperation by disregarding the Federal law and jeopardizing
antiterrorism efforts.
A message that continued subversion of Federal immigration law will
not be tolerated must be sent loud and clear, and the prohibition on
the expenditure of those funds will prevent this.
We have a very difficult time. The Federal Government has an
enormously challenging responsibility in trying to both adopt and
enforce immigration policy. It is made even more difficult, the
problems are exacerbated a thousand times, when cities and localities
and States around the Nation decide to enter into this arena and decide
to begin adopting their own immigration policies. We cannot have
hundreds of immigration policies developing throughout the country,
State by State, city by city.
Once again, I reiterate, my amendment has nothing to do with the law
that is presently on the books, and I know that there will be a lot of
discussion about the law, and if someone wants to introduce legislation
to repeal that law, that is of course their right to do so. But that is
not what this is about. This is about essentially trying to provide
some sort of disincentive for people who do violate that law.

Point of Order

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, continuing to reserve a point of order
against the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). The gentleman is recognized.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I am trying to find out whether I should
pursue the point of order or not, and I get different interpretations
of the gentleman's amendment and what it is intended to do. If it does
not do much or anything, then I think the amendment is in order. On the
other hand, the rules say we cannot legislate on an appropriation bill,
and if it does something, then it seems to me it may not be in order.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, if I could speak on the point
of order, as I read the amendment, it says no funds may be used to
violate the law, and I am prepared to accept that.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, so the gentleman's judgment is the amendment
does not do anything?
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, it says Federal funds cannot be
used to violate the law. I agree with that. Does the gentleman not?
Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I know we have Members' concerned and who
want to discuss this issue. But the amendment has left me confused. But
I do recall a year ago I was confused by an amendment and after some
discussion, the House voted the amendment down. And so I am still
trying to sort out if it does something or does not do something.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, that amendment last year was
altogether different. As I read this amendment, it is fairly simple. It
has been modified, obviously, and now just says no funds may be used in
contravention of section 642(a) of the Act, and I find it to be
innocuous, frankly.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman from Colorado agree?
Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I would agree with the gentleman from
Kentucky's (Chairman Rogers) definition of an analysis of this
amendment.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of a point of order
and reserve my time.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Menendez).
(Mr. MENENDEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, as the late Ronald Reagan said, here we
go again. The gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) offered this ill-
conceived amendment last year, and it was soundly defeated by a vote of
322 to 102 with all Democrats who voted voting against and a majority
of the Republican conference also voting against.
And if I were to listen to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr.
Tancredo), he says, well, this does not really do anything to the law.
Then why do we need it? The reality is the words may be modified, but
the purpose is the same.
Number one, this says none of the funds, no funds, will go to any
municipality, any State entity, any governmental entity for any
homeland security purpose if they have chosen in a totally legitimate
way not to violate the privacy laws, not to give information about
someone's citizenship, like mine, or anyone else's, because that is the
way the gentleman's amendment originally read. He just scratched it
out. And that is in essence what he is seeking to do, and it is in
essence what it does.
We all know the gentleman from Colorado's (Mr. Tancredo) stated
intention. He wants all of us who look a certain way, who have certain
names and speak a certain way to have Big Brother filter us out.
Secondly, this is a coercive action against any State, municipality,
or other entity to say to that State, municipality, or other entity
they must do a series of things, including giving information on a
person's citizenship status, like my citizenship, which I was born in
this country, to the INS.
So much for State rights. So much for the local municipalities know
best. So much for all I have listened to in the last decade from my
Republican colleagues speaking of State rights, of local rules, of
States knowing best. And imagine denying critical dollars to protect
all citizens of a State, county, or local government of homeland
security funds, funds for police, fire, emergency management and
preparedness. Not only would that public entity be directly hurt, but
the Nation itself might be hurt if that State, city, or country is a
portal, a gateway, into America and having had the funds denied, not
being able to protect itself and that portal into the rest of the
country.
The gentleman from Colorado's (Mr. Tancredo) obsession could very
well risk the national security of the United States, and this is an
unfunded mandate on all of those government entities trying to be make
it an extension of what is the INS. This is the real intent, to make
every police department, every sheriff, and every law enforcement
entity an arm of the INS. They have rejected those views. That is why
we keep hearing this as Hispanic outreach. We do not need it. Reject
the amendment.

Point of Order

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order.
I would like to inquire of whether or not if someone makes an
allegation against a former Member that race is being taken into
consideration by his decisions, whether or not that is, in fact,
calling another Member a racist and whether or not that is just what
our colleague just did to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo).
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Chair would respond that it is against
the House rules to engage in personality toward other Members.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, so if our colleague just indicated to

[[Page H4537]]

that the gentleman from Colorado's (Mr. Tancredo) consideration was
because of the way people look and their race, that is a reason to have
our colleague's words taken down? Is that right?
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Chair would advise all Members to
refrain from impugning the motives of other Members in the debate and
discussions on amendments and legislation.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth).
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the Subcommittee
on Homeland Security of the Committee on Appropriations for yielding me
this time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Tancredo amendment because
facts are stubborn things. Allegations, no matter how offensive, no
matter how predictable from some in this House, have a way of being
displaced by facts. The fact is federalism is dynamic because
constitutionally there are responsibilities reserved to the States and
localities, but more importantly, there are responsibilities
constitutionally delineated to the Congress of the United States.
I would remind my colleagues and specifically the preceding speaker
that Congress, not States or cities, has the sole authority to draft
and enact immigration policies. By permitting States and localities to
flaunt Federal law enacting sanctionary policies, Congress is
effectively allowing local governments to set up their own patchwork of
individual immigration systems.
Mr. Chairman, national security is synonymous with border security.
Congress must act to put an end to these policies that allow this
patchwork of different immigration policies based on whatever the whim
of a certain locality or a certain State may be. We must do that if we
are to maintain an orderly immigration system and to ensure that
Federal antiterrorism efforts are successful.
In contrast to those who would come with tiresome and objectionable
notions that this is based on race, this is nothing of the sort. This
is based on national security and understanding that we must know who
comes into the country. Certainly there should be effective, consistent
enforcement across the board. That is why I rise in support of this
amendment and ask the Members to join me in this support.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Hinojosa).
(Mr. HINOJOSA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Chairman, I rise today, as I did a year ago, in
strong opposition to the gentleman from Colorado's (Mr. Tancredo)
amendment. I hope that the Tancredo amendment will be ruled nongermane.
I felt obligated as an American to come to the House floor to remind
this body of what America stands for as well as to question why anyone
in the House of Representatives is offering such an amendment instead
of focusing on the immigration reform measures such as ``The SOLVE
Act,'' H.R. 4262, the brainchild of the gentleman from Chicago,
Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez). The SOLVE Act would provide for earned
adjustment to reward hard work, reunify families, establish a temporary
worker program that protects the United States and foreign workers and
strengthens national security under the immigration laws of the United
States.
The Gutierrez legislation is constructive while, on the other hand,
the gentleman from Colorado's (Mr. Tancredo) amendment fails to promote
improvement or development.
As is inscribed in the Statue of Liberty, we need to remember here in
Congress the generous invitation that the United States has always sent
to the world. I quote from that inscription.
``Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to
breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these,
the homeless, tempest-tossed to me. I lift my lamp beside the golden
door.''

{time} 1245

It does not ask to shut our doors completely from the outside world
and become an insular, protectionist, racist Nation. This amendment, as
well as the other one that the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo)
might offer, are contrary to American values.
Here we truly have forgotten the all-American dream inscribed on the
Statue of Liberty. We need a responsible immigration policy that
enhances our security. This Tancredo amendment is decisive and will
actually endanger our communities. Law enforcement officials throughout
the country oppose it, and I urge my colleagues to also oppose the
Tancredo amendment.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, we have a monstrous threat to our
well-being, and it is not just the terrorism that comes in forms of
people flying airplanes into buildings. We have millions, millions of
people crossing our borders illegally; and if we do not come to grips
with this challenge, with this threat to our people, it will
dramatically decrease and hurt the standard of living of our own
American people. We know that. There is no doubt about it.
We are proud to be a Nation where we allow more legal immigration
into our society than all the other nations of the world combined. But
illegal immigration in the form of millions of people coming into our
society, consuming resources for education and health care, making a
mockery of our judicial system and tearing down the police protection
that we have got for our own citizens is damaging the well-being of the
people of the United States. It is out of control; and unless we do
something about it, our people are going to suffer. They are suffering
right now in California. Their children are not getting as good an
education and health care available.
This amendment simply says that the law needs to be enforced, and
that all Americans, all Americans, especially those in law enforcement
in local communities and throughout the country, have an obligation to
enforce the law.
This has nothing to do with legal immigrants. It has everything to do
with people who have broken the law. If people were robbing stores
throughout the country and the police were not enforcing the law
because local city councils were in league with the criminals, we would
say that the local police have to enforce the law.
I will tell you this much: the billions of dollars being drained out
of our health care system, the billions of dollars being drained out of
our education system to take care of people who have not contributed,
not contributed because they come over and in the same year they are on
those social benefit programs, this is the same kind of crime; and it
is a crime against the people of the United States. All people involved
in law enforcement should be enforcing that law.
Mr. Chairman, I support the Tancredo amendment.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Crowley).
Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the
amendment being offered by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo).
These amendments, in my opinion, are not only mean-spirited, but I
believe they are also dangerous to America's national security. These
amendments, all of them, force State and local police officers into
positions of Federal immigration agents. If they do not assume this
responsibility, America's cities and towns will lose their anti-terror
Federal dollars.
This is an amendment, in my opinion, that would make Osama bin Laden
proud. It weakens our national security, further burdens our overworked
police departments * * *
Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, my colleague has been warned about that
kind of language in the past. I ask that my colleague's words be taken
down.
Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I am talking about people who may be
Irish. I am not talking about people of any race.
Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I request that my colleague's words be
taken down.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). The Clerk will report the
words.

[[Page H4538]]

{time} 1255

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my words, and I would state for
the Record it was never my intention to impugn the sponsor of this
amendment in any way, shape, or form.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). Is there objection?
Without objection, the words are withdrawn. The gentleman from New
York (Mr. Crowley) is now recognized on the remainder of his time, 2
minutes remaining.
Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman. I would, though, draw the attention to the
amendment itself, which does not take into account the fact that many
people who are immigrants in this country come in different shapes,
sizes, colors, and races, and this bill does not take that into
account.
The amendment would take away any State and local government's
ability to decide which policies allow them to best serve and protect
our communities. Yet, that is precisely what all of us desperately need
them to do.
State and local police officers are often our first responders in
times of terrorist attacks. Their jobs are already incredibly difficult
and incredibly critical. To threaten them with reduced resources is not
only offensive to the work that they do, it is also dangerous to the
communities that they strive to protect.
I find it interesting that the Republican Party is always out there
praising America's police department, especially New York City's Police
Department after 9/11. But in a Dear Colleague that was sent around, an
example of New York City was used as a place that would lose police
funding if this amendment passed. Yes, it is actually advocating
slashing Federal dollars for New York City Police Department.
This amendment is not only wrong-headed, I just think it is wrong.
First the Republicans try to slam a bill down our throats to make
doctors INS agents, now they are doing it with our local police forces.
This amendment is a direct slap at the New York City Police
Department, and I believe it is demonstrated in this Dear Colleague. I
urge everyone to not only vote against this Draconian amendment that
will leave our cities even more vulnerable to al Qaeda and other
terrorists, but to actively speak out against this amendment in their
constituencies.
I am also told that the GOP is reaching out to Latinos and other
groups for political benefits. I say to those Latino communities to
examine that the Republicans say one thing, but their mean-spirited
legislation speaks louder than any of their words.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Doggett).
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, over a century ago, my great-grandfather
came from Sweden to chop sugarcane in Louisiana. He came for the same
reason that so many people come to this country from Mexico today--to
take on some of our society's most difficult jobs, to create a better
life. And when an illegal entry occurs, it is not the result of the
policy of the City of Pharr, Roma or McAllen, but they have to cope
with the consequences of a Federal policy they do not control. If
undocumented workers, who are too often the victims of crime, hesitate
to report crime because they fear the police, then our entire community
loses.
Austin Assistant Police Chief Rudy Landeros has made the Austin
Police Department a leader in building confidence with immigrants and
working with them, giving them the respect crime victims deserve,
because the Austin Police Department and so many others recognize it is
essential to fulfilling the mission of public safety.
The Tancredo amendment would destroy such pragmatic local initiatives
and would endanger all of our families. It must be rejected.
Our police departments have a difficult mission, and we do not need
congressional interference at this critical time as they fulfill that
mission.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this
amendment. I agree with the position made from the other side of the
aisle when they make reference to a statement on the Statue of Liberty
that we are a nation of immigrants and we have an obligation to welcome
immigrants to this Nation in the past, in the present, and in the
future. But this amendment does not change that at all.
I would ask the other side who says that we should not be thwarting
municipalities, counties, or State governments with their own decisions
and their own prerogatives on these areas when it is under the
Constitution the prerogative of Congress to set immigration policy.
Would the other side of the aisle say that we should allow the
municipalities to do the reverse? Some municipalities want to set up
sanctuaries. Should we allow other municipalities to thwart all
immigration into their town altogether? If we are going to let
municipalities rule immigration, I guess you would say that they should
have that authority.
What rule of law then should we allow municipalities to decide on
their own where Congress has the obligation? Should we allow the Civil
Rights Act of the 1960s to be decided by the municipalities and be
rewarded by the municipalities if they were to thwart those, even
though Congress has clearly set down what the delineations of the Civil
Rights Act is? I say no.
The Constitution clearly says immigration is the authority of
Congress to set forth. We have set forth in the past, and we shall in
the future, and the municipalities shall not thwart them.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of the time, which I
think is 30 seconds, to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished
ranking member. I rise to vigorously oppose this amendment. This would
create a torturous relationship between communities, police, and the
immigrant community that has often been the key to solving crime
problems as well as problems that may impact the security of this
Nation. How would you like to live in a community where your local
police were charged with the responsibility of raiding your community?
We need to let Federal laws impact Federal laws. We need not have local
individuals dealing with Federal laws. The laws are right as they are,
and we should not deny those who are protecting the community needed
resources that they need to have.
Let us oppose this amendment. This is a torturous and destructive
relationship for our cities and the people that live there.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to Representative Tom Tancredo's
amendment to the Homeland Security Appropriations Act, H.R. 4567. The
effect of this amendment would be to enact a provision from the CLEAR
Act (H.R. 2671) and its Senate counterpart (S. 1906). These bills
compel state and local police officers to become federal immigration
agents by denying them access to federal funds they are already
receiving if they refuse these additional duties. Specifically, the
Tancredo amendment would deny funds to any state or local government
that limits disclosure of immigration status.
We count on state and local governments and law enforcement
authorities as first responders when national security is threatened.
Since 9/11, they have taken on significant new duties and are facing
dwindling resources. Further cutting their resources is not going to
help enhance national security, and, in fact, the Tancredo provision
could make our communities less safe.
In immigrant communities, it is particularly difficult for the police
to establish the relationships that are the foundations for successful
police work. Many immigrants come from countries in which people are
afraid of police, who may be corrupt or even violent, and the prospect
of being reported to the immigration service would be further reason
for distrusting the police.
In some cities, criminals have exploited the fear that immigrant
communities have of all law enforcement officials. For instance in
Durham, North Carolina, thieves told their victims--in a community of
migrant workers and new immigrants--that if they called the police they
would be deported. Local police officers have found that people are
being robbed multiple times and are not reporting the crimes because of
such fear instilled by robbers. These immigrants are left vulnerable to
crimes of all sorts, not just robbery.
Many communities find it difficult financially to support a police
force with the personnel and equipment necessary to perform regular
police work. Having state and local police forces report immigration
status to the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement

[[Page H4539]]

(ICE) would be a misuse of these limited resources.
ICE also has limited resources. It does not have the resources it
needs to deport dangerous criminal aliens, prevent persons from
unlawfully entering or remaining in the United States, and enforce
immigration laws in the interior of the country. Responding to every
state and local police officer's report of someone who appears to be an
illegal alien would prevent ICE from properly prioritizing its efforts.
Local police can and should report immigrants to the immigration
service in some situations. The decision to contact the immigration
service, however, should be a matter of police discretion.
I urge you to vote against this amendment.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of the time
to the sponsor of the amendment, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr.
Tancredo).
Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
this time.
I have oftentimes of course been on this floor in the debate
revolving around immigration issues. We have tried desperately to keep
that debate focused on the issue itself and away from innuendo and
slur. That was the purpose I had in originally asking that the
gentleman's words be taken down, to avoid that kind of thing, and I
appreciate that the gentleman, in fact, withdrew his remarks. Remarks
like those are not only an insult to the people to whom they are made,
they are demeaning to the maker.
It is also important to understand that this debate has gone on now
and has been centered on the other side on whether or not we should, in
fact, uphold the law. Again, what a peculiar thing to be talking about
here. It certainly has nothing to do with the Statue of Liberty or
anything that is written on it.
The fact is there is a law. It is on the books. It has been there for
10 years. It says that cities must provide information about
immigration and they cannot stop the flow of information from the
Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement. That is what it says.
They are doing it.
Now, if we do not like the law, then, of course, as I said in my
opening remarks, introduce a bill to repeal it. But it is there. And to
stand on the floor of the House of Representatives and suggest that
people should, in fact, disregard it, that cities and localities should
ignore it, and that we should even reward them for doing so by
providing them Federal dollars does seem, to say the least, peculiar.
But that is the debate here. It has nothing to do with immigrants, with
people from various countries, with the help that they can provide in
various services. We are talking about simply not providing some
disincentive for cities and localities who break the law.
I ask my colleagues to please think beyond the rhetoric. All of it is
used to obfuscate the issue. It is just about the law. I ask for the
adoption of the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). All time for
debate has expired.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Colorado (Mr. Tancredo).
The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado
(Mr. Tancredo) will be postponed.
Are there further amendments?

Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mrs. Maloney

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 9 offered by Mrs. Maloney:
At the end of the bill (before the short title) add the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available in title III for
discretionary grants for use in high-threat, high density
urban areas and for rail and transit security, under the
heading ``Office for State and Local Government Coordination
and Preparedness_State and local programs'', may be used for
more than 80 grants.

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman and the ranking
member for all of their hard work on this truly important bill.
The Maloney-Rangel-Weiner amendment would limit the number of grants
made under the Urban Area Security Initiative to 80 total grants. This
is the same number of grants that were distributed by the Department of
Homeland Security this year.
Since the Sweeney amendment was not adopted that would increase
funding to the high-threat level the President requested, capping the
number of grants to this year's number is the best way to ensure that
the same places that are targeted by terrorists are targeted by the
aid. This amendment will ensure that high-threat money goes to high-
threat communities.
As every terrorist expert will tell us, we need to secure the high-
profile areas targeted by terrorists. Yet, it seems that since the
program started, we are more concerned with expanding the number of
grants than securing the most vulnerable areas.
We first started with 7 grants to cities. We then grew to 30. Now we
are at 80 total grants, 50 to cities and 30 to transit authorities. We
are in danger of losing our focus on the core mission of most
effectively protecting ourselves with the limited resources we have.
Over the first 2 years of the program, we have seen an increase in
the number of grants, but we have cut the funding levels from $800
million in 2003 to $725 million in 2004. The result of the rapidly
expanding list of entities eligible for high-threat monies was a
dramatic cut for some of the highest threat cities.
For example, last year, New York got $150 million of Federal high-
threat aid. This year, it shrunk by 69 percent to $47 million. The DC
area suffered a reduction of 52 percent of high-threat money. Chicago
was cut by 17 percent of their funding. But believe me, DC, Chicago,
New York, Houston, Seattle, they have not seen a decrease in their
threat levels or a decrease in the amount of money that their local
governments are forced to spend on the protection of their people.
One positive step that this bill takes today is a general increase in
high-threat money, from $725 million this year to $1 billion. But I am
concerned that if this trend continues, the number of grants will
continue to increase, and the aid to the areas under the greatest
threat will continue to see their aid decrease.
At a time when the administration tells us terrorists are eager to
attack, we need to make sure that high-threat grants actually go to
where the high threat is. That is what this amendment attempts to do.
This high-threat grant program and list cannot become another
pipeline for general spending for other needs. We have to uphold it as
one way to actually give the cities at risk the help that they need.
Targeting money to these high-threat areas is not sending money to
prevent some hypothetical threat. The cities on the high-threat list
either have been the victim of a terrorist attack or, at the very
least, have been talked about by the terrorists as a target area.
We know how the al Qaeda thinks: If at first you do not succeed, try,
try again. They viewed their first attack on the World Trade Center as
a disaster, as a failure, so they came back with a vengeance on
September 11.
There have been several other planned attacks in New York City that
have been foiled. If we take a look at terrorist attacks or known plots
over the last number of years, there is one thing in common: they are
all on the list of high-threat cities.
We can point to the millennium plot in Seattle, Washington. Plans to
attack the Los Angeles International Airport, the September 11 attacks
against New York and Washington, DC, and just this week, the Attorney
General told us that there was a plot on a shopping mall in Columbus,
Ohio. Seattle, Columbus, LA, New York, DC, they are all on the current
list of 80 high-threat entities.
By including 80 entities, we allow the Department of Homeland
Security to cast a pretty wide net, while making sure it is not too
wide to be effective. We need to target the aid to the terrorist
targets in our country. That is the purpose of the high-threat aid
formula, and that is what my amendment does.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment.

[[Page H4540]]

Mr. Chairman, the amendment seeks to cap the number of high-threat,
high-density urban area grants and rail and transit security grants to
the 80 presently awarded in 2004.
Mr. Chairman, the whole concept of giving monies on top of the
regular distribution of funds across the country, to give extra money
to certain cities in the country, the whole concept was we need to
protect those cities that we know are targets from the threat
information we receive from time to time, because they have extra
needs.

{time} 1315

And so that was the very concept of the urban area grant program
which was added on top of all of the other grant programs. But threats
change.
Anyone who is privy to intelligence knows that yesterday it is
Columbus, Ohio. It is New York. It is Washington. It is LA. It is
Chicago. But then it is Albuquerque, and who knows where. And the
Secretary needs to have wide latitude. We do not need to use this pot
of money as pork. This needs to go where the needs are. We do not know
where the needs are until we hear the intelligence of the moment. And
that is why we leave great discretion in this bill with this pot of
money as with most of the others with the Secretary and the
intelligence community to make these grants based on real intelligence.
Not what I think or what some Member of this body thinks, but what are
the real facts, what information do we have that we need to respond to.
And that is why it needs to be a flexible fund.
Next year there may be 20 cities that are in that list, or it may be
10, or it may be 60. I do not know. But the funds are there for that
purpose, to protect the large urban centers of high-density, high-
threat urban areas. To restrict this amount, to restrict the number of
cities, to say that these are these and no more, we will protect these
cities and the rest of you can fend on your own, that is not right, is
it?
Are we to say to a certain segment of America, you do not matter. You
do not count. I do not think so. I think this Congress should say these
monies are to protect Americans wherever the threat is and wherever the
risk is. And we should not be monkeying around with this type of thing.
Please do not try to earmark in this bill, and this is an earmark in
reverse. I oppose the amendment.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment. I think
that some of the remarks that were made in the last couple of minutes
seem to indicate that not everyone understands what this amendment
does. This amendment does not limit the discretion of the Department of
Homeland Security to say that next year the same 80 cities or 50 cities
and 30 transit organizations that have grants now have to get grants
again. It simply says that no more than 80 may get grants, that we
cannot dilute it further.
Now, the threat may change, as the distinguished chairman as said, in
which case, the Department retains the ability, the discretion to
change where the grants go. What this amendment does, however, is to
say that the threat is not diluted. The threat is not getting wider and
wider and wider. We may have more intelligence that this city is a
bigger threat as opposed to that city this year, and the Department
would retain the full discretion to shift its funding based on that.
What this amendments says is, look, the Urban Area Security
Initiative is the one homeland security program specifically designed
to assist the cities that need help the most, the ones that are at the
highest threat for terrorist attack. Yet last night, some of us said we
should take other funds for homeland security and concentrate them
more. This body decided otherwise.
We have certain money guaranteed for every State. But this vote says
this pot of money goes only to the cities where the threat is highest,
which makes sense. But if the threat is highest, in how many cities can
the threat be highest? Seven, 30, 80, 200? It makes the designation of
the threat being highest meaningless.
Once you have gotten to distributing the money so widely, then nobody
gets very much money. Two years ago, in fiscal 2003, New York City
received $150 million from this pot of money. No one thinks the threat
has diminished from New York City, and yet this year it received $47
million, a cut of 69 percent. The national capital region's share, the
cut was 52 percent.
What we are saying is from this pot of money which is directed,
intended for highest-threat areas, keep it for the highest-threat
areas. It is almost meaningless when you say the 80 highest-threat
areas. It probably should be the 10 or 12, but certainly no more than
80.
Why 80? Because that is what they have diluted it to now. We probably
should restrict it further. But to say that the pot of money that goes
to the highest-threat areas should go to the 80 highest-threat areas,
no more. Whichever the Department decides are the highest-threat areas,
that discretion remains, is simply a statement of saying this pot of
money really is for high-threat areas, not generally to be distributed.
If we are serious again about protecting our people, we should have
some money that is directed at the highest-threat areas based on
however we decide the Department decides the highest threat is by
whatever the intelligence is. That is what this pot of money is
intended to do. To dilute it past 80 different entities makes it
meaningless. Therefore, I urge the adoption of this amendment.
Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of this
amendment and I thank my colleagues for their diligent efforts to bring
this amendment to the floor.
I have always said that governing is about setting priorities. With
more needs than resources, leaders must prioritize when it comes to the
business of problem solving. This is particularly true in the area of
public safety, which has only become more critical since the events of
September 11. The federal government is responsible for protecting all
Americans from the East Coast to the West Coast and everything in
between. That is a vital and daunting mission, and the reality that
security has a price tag means we must make thoughtful priority funding
decisions based on risk and threat assessments. This amendment
recognizes that reality and ensures that the most likely terrorist
targets will be given the priority funding they so desperately need.
Federal money is not drawn from a bottomless well. There is a fixed
amount available to go around for many needs including homeland
security, military/defense, transportation, education and so on. And
there is a fixed amount available within each of those needs. Homeland
security money is not unlimited and once again--the needs exceed the
resources. When the urban area grants were first created, we
prioritized the cities with the highest threats and most critical
needs. The first seven grant recipients included New York, the National
Capital Region, Los Angeles, Seattle, Chicago, San Francisco, and
Houston. Given the recent news reports of failed attack plans in the
past, we know these priorities were absolutely correct.
Since those first grants, the program has increased to 80 grants for
50 high threat cities and transit systems. Out of the same fixed amount
of money, we have gone from 7 grants to 80 and we believe this is
appropriate given the current known threats and risks our nation faces.
Our concern, however, is that we can not dilute that fixed amount of
urban area threat money by increasing the number of grants further.
Perhaps we will decide at a later date we will need to do that, but now
is simply not the time.
This amendment will limit the number of grants DHS can make under
this program to 80, the same number made by the department last year.
This amendment will not dictate who receives the 80 grants or how much
money each grant recipient gets. It simply acknowledges that we must
prioritize how we disperse these limited federal funds.
As the Congressman for the Maryland 2nd Congressional District, this
problem is very close to home for me. My district includes the Port of
Baltimore, BWI Airport, NSA, Ft. Meade, Aberdeen Proving Grounds, and
approximately 90 percent of the chemical facilities in the State of
Maryland. That is quite a lot of critical infrastructure. I believe
protecting these national assets is both important for my district and
for the country as a whole. In addition to the tragedy of human loss in
the event of another attack, we must also consider the crippling impact
of environmental, commercial, economic, and infrastructure disasters.
We must do all we can to protect our people, our nation, and our way of
life.
I support this amendment because I believe it is a responsible and
common sense approach to tackling these enormous problems.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The question
is on the amendment offered by the

[[Page H4541]]

gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).
The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York
(Mrs. Maloney) will be postponed.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Sabo

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Sabo:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:

Sec. __. For the Privacy Officer of the Department of
Homeland Security to conduct privacy impact assessments of
proposed rules as authorized by section 222 of the Homeland
Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 142), hereby derived from the
amount provided in this Act for ``Aviation Security'',
$2,000,000.

Mr. SABO (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent
the amendment be considered as read and printed in the Record.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Minnesota?
There was no objection.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, this was an amendment that I was not planning
to offer unless the language we had in the bill relating to CAPPS2 was
stricken. And, unfortunately, there was a point of order raised on the
CAPPS2 language and some very important language relating to privacy
was stricken from the bill.
This is a rather simple amendment. The fact is the Department's
privacy office has huge responsibilities and a limited budget. The
amendment increases funding for the Department's privacy office by $2
million. The charge of the Department's privacy office has grown far
beyond what was originally envisioned in the Department's budget
projection.
The Secretary delegated Freedom of Information Act oversight to this
office in addition to its privacy duties. The privacy issues at the
Department are huge, particularly with the TSA, CAPPS2, and
transportation worker identification cards programs, and MATRIX. The
privacy office will also be the last point of passenger appeals.
Because we eliminated the Capps language which required GAO to do a
review of the Department's efforts to put CAPPS2 in place, and because
there are new requirements being issued by the Department and how they
are going to put their CAPPS2 list together, again we have a
requirement in the Capps amendments that GAO review that process. That
was deleted from this bill. Because of this vacuum by what we did
because of a point of order, there is increased sensitivity and
responsibility for this office to deal with some of what I think are
the most crucial privacy issues that are involved in the Department of
Transportation security.
So I think they are going to have significant additional, they were
going to have significant increase in work load before the elimination
of the TSA language. That simply increases their job responsibilities
and some sensitivity of what they have to do.
I urge adoption of this amendment. The $2 million comes from aviation
security which is a fund of over $4 billion. This clearly is a very
important expenditure for aviation security, and I urge adoption of the
amendment.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, with respect to my colleague, I have to oppose the
amendment. The bill provides $2,270,000 for the Office of Privacy in
2005, which is $1.5 million above the level enacted for the current
year. And the Department of Homeland Security continues to be slow in
hiring. The current vacancy rate in the Office of the Secretary, which
includes the Office of Privacy, the vacancy rate is over 30 percent. A
lot of that is due to the slow process of clearing people for these
jobs. And we do address that in the bill in another section.
So we hope to allow them to hire people and get them on the job
quicker. However, the money in the bill already allows the Office of
Privacy to hire eight new staff, and I do not think they can get that
many hired anyway. This amendment would increase funding even more, and
it is just not needed.
So I would hope that the Members would reject this amendment. It is
not needed. We have got more money there than we can use.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by
the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo).
The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that, I
make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Minnesota
(Mr. Sabo) will be postponed.
The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, we have some Members that have amendments and they are
on their way. I know the ranking member of the full committee has an
important amendment, and I know there are a couple of others, but we
are getting close.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Filner

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Filner:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. ____. Section 212(d)(4) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(4)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``(4)'' and inserting ``(4)(A)'';
(2) by redesignating subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) as
clauses (i), (ii), and (iii), respectively; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(B)(i) Upon application by an alien who is citizen or
national of Mexico, and who is applying for admission as a
visitor under section 101(a)(15)(B) from Mexico, the
Department of Homeland Security official in charge at a port
of entry may, in the exercise of his or her discretion, on a
case-by-case basis, waive either or both of the documentary
requirements of section 212(a)(7)(B)(i), if satisfied that
the alien is in possession of proper identification, as
provided under clause (ii), and--
``(I) is a child coming for a regular medical appointment
(as evidenced by proof such as a letter from the medical
professional concerned), or is the parent (or other adult
chaperone) accompanying such a child, except that the number
of adults admitted under this subclause shall not exceed one
per child;
``(II) is a child coming with a student group to
participate in an educational or cultural event (such as an
athletic or academic event, a concert or other artistic
performance, or a visit to a recreational, touristic, or
historical site) for not more than 1 day (as evidenced by
proof such as a letter of invitation issued to the group), or
is an adult chaperone, such as a teacher, coach, or parent,
accompanying such a group, except that the number of
chaperones admitted under this subclause shall not exceed
that sufficient to supervise the group involved; or
``(III) is a child coming to participate in a special
community event that traditionally has been attended by
individuals from both sides of the border (as evidenced by
proof such as a public letter of invitation issued by the
community concerned), or is a parent or other adult relative
accompanying such a child.
``(ii)(I) For purposes of this subparagraph, in the case of
a child, proper identification shall include a passport,
birth certificate, or other proof of citizenship or
nationality.
``(II) In the case of an adult, proper identification shall
include a passport, birth certificate, or other proof of
citizenship or nationality, and a government-issued driver's
license, or similar document issued for the purpose of
identification, that contains personal identifying
information and a photograph.
``(iii) For purposes of this subparagraph--
``(I) the term `child' means an unmarried person under 16
years of age; and
``(II) the term `adult' means any person who is not a
child.''.

Mr. FILNER (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the
Record.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from California?
There was no objection.

Point of Order

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against
the amendment because it proposes to change existing laws and
constitutes legislation in an appropriations bill and therefore
violates clause 2 of rule XXI which states in pertinent part: ``An
amendment to a general appropriations bill shall not be in order if
changing existing law.''

[[Page H4542]]

This directly amends existing law.
Mr. Chairman, I ask for a ruling.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does any Member wish to be heard on the
point of order?
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I would concede the point of order.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The point of order is conceded.
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, although this amendment is not in order, and I
recognize that, I would just like to tell the chairman that I have
proposed it out of frustration with what is going on at the border
between California and Mexico.
I represent that total border, and I would say that in our rush after
September 11 to secure the border and protect the homeland, we have
made very many important steps, many necessary steps; but we also made
some wrong decisions, decisions which in fact harm our national
security, harm our close relationships with Mexico, and in fact set us
back in our attempt to be secure.
I refer specifically today to the practice that has been abolished at
the border of giving discretion to port directors to allow children for
either medical or humanitarian or cultural reasons to cross the border
on a 1-day visa; to grant a waiver to the normal visa requirements, a
waiver of normal requirements where we are beyond the reach of many
poor people in Mexico.
They cross the border for important reasons. For example, in my
district in the city of Calexico, there is a clinic called the Valley
Orthopedic Clinic. For over 40 years it has treated poor children for
deformities and birth defects, which gives them a future; and, in fact,
they have treated over 125,000 low-income children from Mexico.

{time} 1330

The practice had been for decades to allow the port director the
discretion to grant this 1-day visa, a 1-day humanitarian waiver to
allow that child to get treatment, to correct a cleft palate or a
clubbed foot or a pinky that was not there at birth, to give children
who could not afford it in their homeland an opportunity for a future.
After September 11, that authority, discretionary authority for
humanitarian waivers, was taken away from the port director. And so
children in need of medical help, school children who would march with
their counterparts in America on Christmas parades, visit the world
famous San Diego Zoo, go to other cultural events with American
counterparts, that was taken away. That has not helped the security of
our Nation.
These children are not terrorists. These children are, in fact,
engaging in diplomatic relationships that strengthen our two countries'
relationships, strengthen our border and give us more security; and yet
we have denied now that authority to the port director under the name
of homeland security.
So all my amendment would do, and I am sorry we cannot talk about it
today, would have said the port directors at the seven or eight ports
of entry in my district, others in Texas, New Mexico and Arizona, would
have the authority to grant these humanitarian waivers. The amendment
would not make it easier for terrorists that come to the country. The
amendment would not affect the number of legal or illegal immigrants
living in our country. The amendment would not force immigration
officials to offer waivers.
So I hope as we go through our appropriations and our authorization
process for homeland security we take a rational approach, we do not go
overboard in taking away discretionary authority from our border
officials in the name of homeland security, which actually sets us
back.
So I hope that this body will take that issue up in the future. I
thank the body for giving me a few minutes to talk about what is going
on at the border, and I hope that we can do things that really
strengthen our security and not weaken it in the future.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Obey

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Obey:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following new title:

TITLE VI--ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATIONS

Contingent Emergency Reserve

For additional expenses, not otherwise provided for,
necessary to support operations to improve the security of
our homeland due to the global war on terrorism,
$3,000,000,000, to remain available until expended: Provided,
That such amount is designated as an emergency requirement
pursuant to section 402 of S. Con. Res. 95 (108th Congress),
as made applicable to the House of Representatives by H. Res.
649 (108th Congress): Provided further, That the funds made
available under this heading shall be available only to the
extent that an official budget request for all of the funds
is transmitted by the President to the Congress and includes
designation of the amount of that request as an emergency and
essential to support homeland security activities: Provided
further, That funds made available under this heading may be
available for transfer for the following activities:
(1) up to $1,200,000,000 for ``Office for State and Local
Government Coordination and Preparedness, State and Local
Programs'';
(2) up to $200,000,000 for ``Office for State and Local
Government Coordination and Preparedness, Firefighter
Assistance Grants'';
(3) up to $450,000,000 for ``Transportation Security
Administration, Aviation Security'';
(4) up to $50,000,000 for ``Transportation Security
Administration, Maritime and Land Security'';
(5) up to $550,000,000 for ``Customs and Border Protection,
Salaries and Expenses'';
(6) up to $100,000,000 for ``Immigration and Customs
Enforcement, Air and Marine Interdiction, Operations,
Maintenance, and Procurement'';
(7) up to $50,000,000 for ``Immigration and Customs
Enforcement, Federal Air Marshals'';
(8) up to $100,000,000 for ``Immigration and Customs
Enforcement, Salaries and Expenses''; and
(9) up to $300,000,000 for bioterrorism preparedness
activities throughout the Federal Government:

Provided further, That the Secretary of Homeland Security
shall notify the Committees on Appropriations 15 days prior
to the transfer of funds made available under the previous
proviso: Provided further, That the transfer authority
provided under this heading is in addition to any other
transfer authority available to the Department of Homeland
Security.

Mr. OBEY (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent
that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the Record.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). Is there
objection to the request of the gentleman from Wisconsin?
There was no objection.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Kentucky reserves a
point of order.
The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for reserving.
Mr. Chairman, I have told the House twice now that while I think this
bill is an improvement over the budget presented by the President, in
fact, it leaves this country seriously exposed to a whole variety of
vulnerabilities from terrorist attacks.
This bill attempts to try to close some of those gaps. This amendment
would provide $1.4 billion more than the bill contains to address port
transit and local first responder needs. It will provide a State
formula grant increase of $350 million, urban area grant increase of
$500 million, port security grant increase of $100 million, fire grant
increase of $200 million, et cetera.
I know that is a lot of money, but the fact is the Hart-Rudman
Commission estimated there is a $90 billion need in order to protect
our local communities, and so far we have only invested about $15
billion. We cannot buy that kind of security on the cheap.
Secondly, this amendment would provide $550 million more to address
aviation security. It would improve the cargo security situation. Right
now, there is a huge percentage of cargo that is shipped on passenger
airplanes that is not inspected for explosives. It would provide $333
million in additional funding for explosive detection systems at
airports. It would increase funding for air marshals by $50 million
because right now we are some 8 percent below where the President said
we should be.
It would provide $750 million dollars more to address border
security. We have 2,000 fewer people patrolling the northern border
than the PATRIOT Act indicated that we ought to have.
We provide an additional $86 million for the Container Security
Initiative so that we do not have to rely on part-time, short-term
employees to inspect those operations; and it provides a variety of
other initiatives.

[[Page H4543]]

Now, I know that because the Committee on Rules chose not to allow
this amendment to be offered that any Member of this House has an
opportunity to raise a point of order which will prevent the House from
even voting on this proposition. I would simply make one point in
urging that Members not exercise that prerogative.
We are going to be providing next week $25 billion in additional
funding through the Defense bill to pay for the costs of our war in
Iraq. That cost will eventually rise for a full year to over $70
billion. It seems to me, if we are going to spend that much money on an
emergency basis, then we can provide $3 billion on a contingent
emergency basis to try to solve some of these home security problems.
By providing it on a contingency basis, what that means is that the
President may eliminate any item he chooses. So if the President thinks
it is unessential, he cannot spend the money and the money will not
flow.
I think this is an eminently reasonable amendment. If it is true that
the number one priority of the House and the number one priority of the
President is to defend the homeland, if that is true, then we would not
see this amendment stricken on a point of order.
The problem we have, and I know some people resent it when I say so,
but the fact of the matter is that because the majority party has
chosen to make tax cuts its number one priority, it means that we are
squeezed on education; it means we are squeezed on health care; and,
yes, it means that we are squeezed on homeland security. And we are
prevented from meeting the security needs of the country by funding
these activities.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I would urge a ``yes'' vote on the amendment
in the event that the gentleman from Kentucky decides not to offer the
point of order.

point of order

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr.
Rogers) insist on his point of order?
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I really hate to disappoint the
ranking member, but I do raise a point of order against the amendment
under clause 2 of rule XXI.
The provision designates an amount as emergency spending for purposes
of the concurrent resolution on the budget. As stated in the House
Rules and Manual, such a designation is ``fundamentally legislative in
character.''
Mr. Chairman, I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Do others wish to be heard on the point of
order?
Mr. OBEY. I do, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) is
recognized.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, while I reluctantly concede that under the
rule adopted by the House this amendment cannot be offered, so we
cannot even get a vote on it, so I reluctantly concede the point of
order, this is not in order under the rule, it ought to be.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman concedes the point or order.
Accordingly, the point of order is sustained. The amendment is not in
order.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, one issue that is partially dealt with in this bill,
but not to the degree that I think it should be, is the whole question
of the screening of cargo on passenger aircraft.
Last year, the House passed by an overwhelming margin a provision
requiring all cargo on passenger planes to be screened. Then that did
not survive conference. We continued to do some work in that area. A
very limited amount of cargo is being screened. This bill says it
should be doubled, but doubling a small number still leaves us very
little cargo being screened. I think it is one of the most vulnerable
parts of airline security. I think most of the people in this country
have no sense that most of the cargo going into the passenger plane
that they are flying is not screened. We clearly have the potential and
the capability to do more. At times we have gone to heightened security
alert in this country, and the screening has gone up substantially. It
is an area where we should be moving aggressively and increasing the
screening.
I offered a committee amendment that would have called for a fivefold
increase in the amount of cargo to be screened. I thought it was
doable. Unfortunately, that amendment was defeated.
So I just want to express my concern that this is one area which
clearly has been a target of terrorists for a long time, the aviation
industry, where we remain very, very vulnerable; and I just think it is
urgent that the agency and the Congress pay much more attention to the
question of cargo screening on passenger planes than we have done and
an area where we need much more aggressive action in the future.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
I am following after two actions, the ranking member having spoken on
the question of screening of cargo that is carried on passenger planes,
and after the point of order that had been raised by the chairman of
the subcommittee in regard to the full committee's ranking member point
of order on the contingent reserve.
Mr. Chairman, I think that what has just happened in regards to Mr.
Obey's amendment is deeply regrettable. Mr. Obey's amendment focused on
port and transportation and local first responder needs. It would have
addressed the very thing that the ranking member of the subcommittee
just spoke about. It would have increased the funding for screening of
cargo that is carried on passenger flights by $117 million so that
additional cargo could be inspected at a time when it is pretty well
understood that we are screening, at most, 10 percent at the present
time of the cargo that is being carried by our passenger flights; and I
think everybody has a good deal of concern about that. The Chairman's
funding for that is increased already, but this funding would allow a
more substantial increase than what is provided by the legislation.
The gentleman from Wisconsin's (Mr. Obey) amendment would have
increased port security grants by $100 million, and I remember in the
debate here over the last day and a half that several Members have
identified the issue of port security as opposed to cargo container
port-type work as being an account that is most underfunded in this.
Clearly, in this instance, we are funding less than 10 percent of the
need that is in the area of port security. If it is not the most
underfunded, it is certainly one of the top three most underfunded
areas in this legislation.
The Coast Guard itself says that our unmet needs are something like
$6 billion to do the kind of port security that is necessary.
The gentleman from Wisconsin's (Mr. Obey) amendment would have
increased the funding for border agents and inspectors by $214 million
to plug the leaks in the northern border which have been shown where
the attempts at entering into the United States have come, where we at
the present time only have about two-thirds of the goal on the part of
the Department of Homeland Security of what their goal is for those
very borders.

{time} 1345

The Obey amendment would have provided $300 million to address
bioterrorism preparedness, giving the Department of Homeland Security
the power to utilize where it was needed on this contingency fund.
Among other things, it would have provided additional money, about $86
million, into the Container Security Initiative to provide for
increased staff to cover those very ports which are still risky ports,
which the chairman has indicated that we are covering, are largest and
most risky, but we have others that are of considerable importance in
getting at the screening of cargo at the source before it comes into
our own ports from across the ocean.
So all of this funding would have been provided by a contingency
reserve that was involved in the Obey amendment.
Mr. Chairman, we should not be putting a price on the security of
American citizens as close cut as we are, and yet this leadership has
done exactly that by ruling the Obey amendment out of order.
Mr. Chairman, we simply are not going to be able to provide adequate
security on the cheap. I think that the amendment of the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) would have given

[[Page H4544]]

us a good bit of reserve in this year when we are told there may be
other attacks.
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
I come to the floor today to speak to the problems that we are having
in south Florida with regard to the allocation of the anti-terrorism
aid that is supposed to flow into our part of the State of Florida. We
are in one area with Palm Beach, Broward, Miami-Dade and Monroe County.
The United States Department of Homeland Security put the City of Miami
in charge of dividing this money earmarked to help metropolitan areas
viewed as the highest risk for attack. Miami was designated a high-risk
area because of its downtown, airport, seaport and large population,
but it was required under the grant to coordinate how this money is
spent over the entire area.
As a result, the City of Miami retained 90 percent of the money and
has allowed approximately 10 percent to come to Broward, has given
Monroe County nothing, and has given Palm Beach County nothing.
Let us take a look at this. Miami was designated because of the
downtown area. Palm Beach, West Palm Beach is a large metropolitan
area. So is Fort Lauderdale. Both Broward and Palm Beach County have
airports, several airports, and both have seaports. And the Port
Everglades, which is in Broward County, supplies all of the petroleum
for south Florida, including the Miami airport, including all of the
automobiles that run throughout Miami-Dade County and that part of the
area, and is very vulnerable. And there is a seaport in Palm Beach
County.
Speaking of large populations, the combined population of Broward and
Palm Beach County is larger than Miami-Dade County. Something has to be
done here.
The Department of Homeland Security has clearly, in my opinion, been
betrayed by the City of Miami. So Palm Beach and Broward County are
speaking with one voice and asking to separate themselves from Miami-
Dade. This could not be done if we are limited to the status quo in the
number of metropolitan areas that we presently have as one of the
amendments that we will soon be voting on does provide for.
I would ask that we not strap ourselves into that single position.
The only response that we get from there, and I am quoting from the Sun
Sentinel newspaper, it says, ``The politics involved here are directly
detracting from putting these Federal dollars to use to reduce the
risk, and that is a shame,'' and that comment was made by a fellow
named Joe Fernandez, who is a Miami assistant fire chief in that area.
This is not politics, this is an absolute outrage.
So again, Palm Beach County, Broward County, we want to separate
ourselves from Miami and Miami-Dade County because of the outrageous
manner in which this money has been hoarded and held onto by the City
of Miami.

Amendment No. 22 Offered by Mr. Turner of Texas

Mr. TURNER of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Chairman pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). The Clerk will designate the
amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 22 offered by Mr. Turner of Texas:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. For additional expenses, not otherwise provided
for, necessary to procure, install, and operate radiation
portal monitoring technology to improve the security of our
homeland due to the global war on terrorism, $200,000,000 to
remain available until expended: Provided that the entire
amount is designated an emergency requirement pursuant to
section 402(a) of the conference report to accompany
S.Con.Res. 95 (108th Congress): Provided further, That the
funds made available only to the extent that an official
budget request for all of the funds is transmitted by the
President to the Congress and includes designation of the
amount of that request as an emergency and essential to
support homeland security activities: Provided further, That
the funds made available under this heading shall be
available for Customs and Border Protection salaries and
expenses: Provided further, That the Secretary of Homeland
Security shall notify the Committees on Appropriations
fifteen days prior to the transfer of funds made available
under the previous proviso: Provided further, That the
transfer authority provided under this heading is in addition
to any other transfer authority available to the Department
of Homeland Security.

point of order

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order
against the amendment under clause 2 of rule XXI. The provision
designates an amount as emergency spending for purposes of the
concurrent resolution on the budget. As stated in the House rules and
manual, such a designation is fundamentally legislative in character.
Mr. Chairman, I would reserve raising the point of order and yield 2
minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner) to explain.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The gentleman
may reserve his point of order but not yield time. The gentleman from
Texas is recognized for five minutes.
Mr. TURNER of Texas. Mr. Chairman, the amendment that I wanted to
offer which is subject to a point of order would try to remedy a
problem which I think we all understand exists, and that is we are
continuing to be under the threat that some terrorist group will ship
into the United States in a cargo container or by truck a nuclear
device or a dirty bomb.
I want to commend the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) and the
committee for adding money to this item over and above what the
President requested. The committee added $50 million to help purchase
radiation portal monitors. But unfortunately, as the committee's own
report states, the President's request includes 165 additional
radiation portal monitors, and the committee is aware of the need for
1,000.
What I was attempting to do by this amendment is to increase the
funding for radiation portal devices so this next fiscal year we could
fully deploy radiation portal monitors in all of our ports to be sure
that we are prepared to defend against the possibility of a terrorist
group putting in a container some nuclear device or dirty bomb. I
recognize it is a significant increase, but I believe in light of the
urgency that it is the right thing to do rather than continue on what
would probably be a 2- to 3-year program to fully deploy.

point of order

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr.
Rogers) insist on his point of order?
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I do, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does any other Member wish to be heard on
the point of order?
If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
The Chair finds that this amendment includes an emergency designation
under section 402 of Senate Concurrent Resolution 95 as made applicable
to the House by section 2 of House Resolution 649. The amendment
therefore constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI.
The point of order is sustained and the amendment is not in order.

Amendment No. 10 Offered by Mr. Markey

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Chairman pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 10 offered by Mr. Markey:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:

Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to approve, renew, or implement any aviation cargo
security plan that permits the transporting of unscreened or
uninspected cargo on passenger planes.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that
all debate on this amendment and all amendments thereto be limited to
40 minutes and that the time be equally divided between myself and the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Kentucky?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) for 20 minutes.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, every time we fly we wait in security lines. We empty
our pockets, we remove our shoes. Sleeping babies are taken out of
their baby carriers. We have to walk through metal

[[Page H4545]]

detectors, we have to have our baggage inspected. Even grandma with her
walker needs to be physically inspected at security checkpoints.
We do not complain much as Americans because we all know this is all
aimed at improving the security of every single flying passenger in our
country. But what people do not realize is that right next to our
baggage, right underneath our now-screened shoes, cargo is placed which
has not been screened at all.
For example, if a passenger were carrying onto a plane a package this
size, it is going to get screened. It is going through the metal
detector. It is going to be looked at. But if it is shipped as cargo
and it is 16 ounces or less, it automatically does not get screened at
all. They think this is not dangerous if it comes as cargo. But if a
passenger carries it onto that very same plane, it is going to be
checked. The only difference is if you are carrying it, you are on the
plane with it. But if someone sends it as cargo, they are not on that
plane.
What is dangerous about that? What is dangerous about it is that the
Pan Am flight over Lockerbie was brought down by a package this size.
That is what is wrong. We should not have passengers on American planes
that have this kind of danger that al Qaeda could exploit that could
wind up with a catastrophe which shocks the world.
Moreover, cargo which is this size, which is not too much bigger than
a lot of people's traveling bags for the summer, this does not get
screened except in very rare instances. It goes right into the belly of
the plane, the same way that your baggage goes there but without the
screening. So that is a loophole, unfortunately, that al Qaeda could
exploit and we know that al Qaeda continues to say and our Bush
administration security officials confirm that al Qaeda continues to
put passenger aircraft at the very top of their terrorist target list.
So the amendment which we are making here today, the gentleman from
Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and myself, is the same amendment which we made
last year to this bill which passed on the House floor 278-146. The
reason it passed is obvious, it makes no sense to put all of the
families in our country, especially as vacation time is arriving, on
planes that have all of these packages that are unscreened even as
they, the American families, have been put through the toughest
possible screening possible.
So our amendment calls for the screening of this cargo, that it
should not go onto the planes unless it is screened. Why should bags in
the bay of a passenger plane be screened, that is the bags of the
passengers, but the other half not be screened even though the people
who put those packages on are not even flying on the plane? This is
something that in our opinion makes no sense whatsoever.
We continue to see data on the number of planes. It turns out that al
Qaeda was targeting 10 planes for hijacking. We know they are obsessed
with them and we know that we are obsessed with the planes that are the
passenger planes. Let us not allow our people in our country, our
passengers, and yes, yes, we are talking about the American family
here. That is what we are talking about. We are talking about the
people who are in the galleries today who flew here to Washington. It
was on their planes, and as they fly out of Washington today, as they
fly anywhere in America today, it is the baggage on their planes that
had cargo on it. These people deserve protection.
That is the simple heart of our argument; that it is just plain wrong
to put Americans on planes with unscreened cargo, especially since the
technology is already there. The vast majority of cargo could be
screened with the existing technology that already screens our bags. It
is the same size as our bags or smaller. How can they escape being
screened?
Mr. Chairman, I ask for Members' support. The gentleman from
Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and I will make the argument over the next 30
minutes or so and we hope that we once again send a strong message that
we want to have all of this baggage screened.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

{time} 1400

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 6 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, we agree that 100 percent of all cargo on passenger
planes should be screened. We are together on the goal. It is just that
we do not have the capability now. We cannot do it this year. It is
going to take a little bit longer. The machinery does not exist,
contrary to what the gentleman from Massachusetts says. That big box is
too big for the machines that we check our bags through that x-rays
packages. The machinery does not exist at this time. We have effective
means in place at the moment to reduce the risk to acceptable levels
without shutting down air cargo and bankrupting airlines, as this
amendment would surely do.
We are aggressively tackling this problem of cargo on passenger
planes. This bill that we have before you requires at a minimum that
the TSA double the percentage of air cargo screened, actually screened.
We appropriate $118.5 million for air cargo security, which is $33.5
million above what we put in the bill last year for this and as
requested by the President, including $75 million for developing
screening technologies, the R&D to develop the machines that would
accommodate palletized cargo on airlines and the larger packages; $10.5
million to hire an additional 100 air cargo inspectors; $20 million to
make further enhancements to the known-shipper program and implement a
new cargo rule; and $3 million to expand the canine teams deployed to
inspect air cargo.
We are getting there, and we are a long way there. We cannot get
there 100 percent at the moment. However, with this funding, TSA will
continue an aggressive R&D program to examine technologies, to improve
the capability to screen the high-risk cargo, including new
technologies for screening palletized cargo and containerized cargo for
explosives. A number of vendors have been tentatively selected for
laboratory evaluation of these kinds of products. TSA is enhancing the
known-shipper program.
What is the known-shipper program? It means that you cannot ship
cargo on a passenger plane unless you have been certified by the
Federal Government; and they look at you very, very carefully. You have
got to be a certified known shipper before your cargo can be placed on
a passenger plane. If you are not a known shipper, you have got to put
it on a truck or on an all-cargo plane or what have you, but not a
passenger plane. We do not allow it. So you have got to be a known
shipper, and you have got to be certified by the Federal Government
before you can become a known shipper. Known shippers go through a very
rigorous and thorough process to obtain their status: verification of
their legitimacy by way of a comprehensive database, random
inspections, recertifications on a yearly basis.
This bill includes language requiring at a minimum to double the
percentage of air cargo that is currently screened. That is an
incremental approach. We are headed toward 100 percent when we can get
there, but we simply cannot get there at this minute.
Screening technologies to inspect air cargo are not ready yet, in
spite of what anyone says. The latest information that we have is that
there is no machine at this moment in time able to see explosives. You
can x-ray a package looking for drugs or contraband, but you cannot see
explosives with that kind of a machine. That is the distinction the
gentleman from Massachusetts fails to see. We are looking for
explosives in passenger planes, not contraband; and the x-ray machines,
of course, are designed for contraband.
If this amendment passes and airlines are not allowed to accept air
cargo, it means that they will go bankrupt. That is it. You shut off
air cargo; you close down the airlines. I am not going to vote for
that. The TSA tells me that it would take 9,000 screeners at a cost of
over $700 million next year to inspect every cargo at the top 135
airports that handle about 95 percent of all cargo on passenger craft.
The economy of this country relies on just-in-time delivery by
airplanes, whether it is fresh produce and meats for grocery stores,
mechanical parts for manufacturers, medical supplies for hospitals and
clinics and the like. Cargo transported on passenger aircraft typically
arrives about 30 minutes before flight time. If you shut off

[[Page H4546]]

air cargo, you are shutting off just-in-time delivery in this very
sensitive area in this country in manufacturing.
In this bill, Mr. Chairman, we are going all out to develop the
technology to screen all cargo. We have in place the known-shipper
program, canine searches, and other practices; and we will double the
percentage of personal inspections in this bill. I urge Members to vote
``no'' on Markey.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), the cosponsor of my amendment.
Mr. SHAYS. I thank the gentleman for yielding time.
Mr. Chairman, I do not want to take a lot of time in this first pass
but just to say, when I hear the presentation of both the gentleman
from Massachusetts and our very distinguished chairman, it scares the
heck out of me, because the bottom line is we are being told, and it is
true, you can get explosives on a passenger airplane; and then we are
being told we cannot do anything about it because it is impractical, we
do not have the equipment, and so on. I think the story is somewhere in
between.
The bottom line is we have people on passenger airplanes who believe
that we check the baggage that is in the cargo of those airplanes. I
think maybe at a minimum we should at least give them a little notice
when they step on that airplane because it is the truth, that would say
that when you go on this airplane, all the baggage brought on by
passengers is screened, but the cargo that is on this airplane is not
screened for explosives.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SHAYS. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, the simple fact is if this
amendment passes, there will not be any planes for them to get on in
the first place.
Mr. SHAYS. I do not believe that. With all due respect, I do not
believe it. I do not believe that the passenger aircraft are dependent
on cargo in order to be able to take passengers. I just do not buy it.
I at least think, though, that the American people deserve the truth,
whatever the truth is. This is a debate we need to have, and frankly it
needs to be a debate that is more than 40 minutes. The American people
are entitled to the truth, whatever that is.
When we started out talking about the baggage on passenger aircraft,
the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) came in with an amendment in
2002, and he asked me to cosponsor it. He said, We do not check
baggage. We check some, but we do not check all of it. I said, You have
got to be kidding me. He said, We do not. And we have no time line.
So we offered an amendment that said by the end of 2004 we would
check, and everyone opposed the amendment because they said we could
not check by the end of 2004. They said, we do not have the equipment,
we do not have the money, it is too costly and the passenger aircraft
would just simply not be able to fly. That is what we were told. That
is what the record said.
Our amendment passed, and an interesting thing happened. When it came
back from the conference committee, instead of the end of 2004 that we
would check for baggage, it said the end of 2003. I went up to one of
the members and said, How come if we could not do it by the end of
2004, we could do it by the end of 2003? What I was told was, We did
not want to put in writing that we could not check until the end of
2004 and we put the end of 2003 and we did not quite make that
deadline, we met it sometime a little later in 2004, but we met it
before the end of 2004. We did it because it mattered and the American
people would not fly if they did not think the baggage was checked.
But what we at least need to say, I will say it as often as I can, 23
percent of what is in the belly of an aircraft is cargo. It for the
most part is unchecked. Saying that we check because we have a known
shipper is simply to say that we know who shipped it. It does not mean
that we check the baggage. It amazes me that somehow we say that that
is a protective system.
So for me, it is quite simple. We have got to give them a target. We
have got to give them a deadline. We have got to be willing to spend
the money. If six planes are blown out of the sky a week from now or 2
weeks from now, are all of us supposed to go back into our district and
say, we could not afford to do it? I cannot do that. I cannot look my
constituents in the eye and say, we could not afford to do it.
When we vote, I want every Member to know what we are saying. If you
vote for the Markey amendment, you are voting to say we have got to
have this stuff checked. And when it comes back from the conference
committee, maybe we will come back with a deadline or something that
you feel is more realistic, but we have got to have something better
than what we have now. I feel strongly about that. I feel as strongly
about that as I have ever felt about anything. I have had 50 hearings
on terrorist issues on my subcommittee, and this of anything that we
have looked at scares me the most.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), chairman of the Subcommittee on
Aviation of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. This
amendment is simply unnecessary and unworkable. Some of our colleagues
have said, and I think wrongly believe, that air cargo is a hole in our
aviation security system and that extreme measures must be taken
immediately. I am sensitive to those misconceptions, but believe that
serious efforts are being made by the Transportation Security
Administration and the aviation industry; the airline industry are
taking appropriate steps to address cargo security needs. TSA is
currently developing new and more comprehensive standards for air cargo
security which should be finalized soon, and TSA has also issued air
cargo security directives recently.
Let me just respond, also, to a couple of things that have been said
here. First, people are speaking without information. We heard the
gentleman from Massachusetts say that we are putting our families
through the utmost possible screening. That is not true. Some of the
Members should take time to see the classified results of what we are
putting them through and the holes in the current system. Putting
explosives on a plane through cargo is a small risk at this point.
Having a passenger walk through 1950 metal detectors is a great risk
because those metal detectors do not detect explosives. That is how a
plane will be taken down if a plane is taken down. This amendment
actually can do a great deal of damage. In contrast to what the
gentleman from Connecticut said, in the Congress we put a provision in
that said 2003 instead of 2004. Those bags still are not being
screened. We have only done 14 airports inline. That is because the
Congress might say something, but they are not funding this.
Look at R&D. I put $50 million in the original TSA bill to fund
research and development. One of our friends from the State of
Washington in the other body took $30 million of the $50 million for
R&D the first year, and that is why we do not have the technology to
determine what equipment can be used to effectively detect explosives.
And then again we can stand up here and ask the cow to jump over the
Moon; but unless you provide the money and the technology and the means
to do that, it is not going to happen.
The next year you took the money and you did not fund the money, and
we had $75 million for R&D. You all waited 5 months, and the people who
are talking now are the people who delayed the appropriations. So TSA
took $63 million of $75 million out of their funds for research and
development and had to use it for personnel. So the problem is here,
and the problem is Congress making these kinds of edicts that do more
damage.
I have summed up the problem. I have identified the problem. The
problem is here, people talking about things, telling folks that we are
putting our families at risk. We must address this on a risk basis, and
we must properly fund R&D.

{time} 1415

We do not have the technology to do this now. We do not have the
technology to address our greatest risk, which is people strapping
explosives to

[[Page H4547]]

themselves and walking through a 1950 metal detector that does not
detect explosives.
So we need to address the risks. We need to do this on a logical
basis. Not something that grabs headlines but something that is
effective, that solves the problem at hand, that truly protects the
American public from a terrorist act.
So I urge the Members to defeat this amendment. It could pass 100
times, and it does not mean anything because we are not going to be
able to do it. We have $150 million this year for R&D, and that should
be spent appropriately, not in haste.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).
Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
this time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Markey-Shays-Conyers-Turner
amendment. Most importantly, I rise in support of increased security
for air travelers across this country.
Screening air cargo and passenger planes is a critical element in
protecting the public, and there is absolutely no excuse for allowing
this glaring loophole to persist. With the summer travel season upon us
and air travel nearing pre-9/11 levels, this issue gains urgency every
single day.
Every day and at every airport, unscreened cargo is loaded onto
passenger planes, placing the traveling public and airline employees
and airport workers at great risk.
We have spent billions of dollars and asked the American people to
endure long waits and countless inconveniences in order to ensure safe
air travel. The failure to inspect cargo and passenger planes flies in
the very face of these security investments and threatens to make all
of our efforts for naught. But it does not have to be this way.
The technology exists to close this security gap, but apparently the
will does not, and I cannot for the life of me understand why. It is
long past time to address this issue and stop placing millions of
travelers at risk.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to give the Markey-Shays-Conyers-
Turner amendment the resounding victory that it deserves and give the
American people the security that we have promised.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the foresight and the
vision and the leadership of Mr. Markey, Mr. Shays, and others on this
issue. It is long overdue and we need to heed the call. I am proud to
be a partner with them in this effort, and let us get it done.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Granger), a very important member of our
subcommittee.
Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose this amendment.
The Subcommittee on Homeland Security of the Committee on
Appropriations has written a sound bill that addresses the security of
air cargo shipping in a common sense way and is being honest and
realistic with the American people. This amendment threatens that
approach.
Right now many companies, like Dell and Texas Instruments, rely on
airlines to ship their goods in what is called a just and timely
fashion. Their high tech products have to get to customers in a very
short time frame. They rely on airlines, not cargo planes, to take the
goods to the customer quickly. Airlines only take passengers from known
shippers who are registered and certified like FedEx and UPS. Airlines
simply do not accept packages from anyone who is not a proven, known
shipper.
This ``known shipper program'' is a good system, and it is getting
better every day with shared databases and other upgrades. This is our
first backstop against suspicious shipments. Our second backstop is the
physical screening that is currently being done on any shipment that
raises suspicion.
This bill calls for an increase in the shipments that are physically
screened, specifically a doubling of the current screening. This is
both reasonable and also attainable.
TSA has said that going to immediate, 100 percent screening right now
at the top 135 airports requires about 9,000 screeners and cost over
$700 million in the first year alone. And the cargo would still face a
huge bottleneck because we do not have efficient screening
technologies.
New technologies for screening large amounts of cargo are on the
horizon, and this bill supports investment research for that
technology. TSA says it will have to shut down cargo shipments
altogether on passenger planes if we mandate 100 percent, and there,
poof, we will have ruined a $3 billion industry and threatened 27,000
jobs.
The fact is that we all support 100 percent screening and we want to
get there as quickly as possible and we want safety for all of our
passengers. But we want the right technology to do this in the best
possible way.
Let us face it. This talk of immediate physical screening does not
come free, but should we not work for a more dependable, more durable
technology for American travelers and air shippers? The current bill
that we are debating calls for a doubling of the amount of our air
cargo that is currently screened and inspected. That is reasonable,
that is attainable, that is being honest with the American people, and
I support this approach.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Olver).
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Markey-Shays
amendment. We hear of new homeland security threats almost daily. The
President and the Attorney General have both warned that terrorists are
likely to attack the homeland before the New Year.
Terrorist networks continue to put commercial airplanes very high on
their list of targets. And while great progress has been made in
aviation security, we are still lagging behind in screening cargo
carried on passenger flights. Currently no more than 10 percent of
cargo on passenger flights is screened or inspected for explosives or
other dangerous materials.
This is a glaring loophole in our aviation security, and the
legislation before us today provides too small an increase in screened
cargo that is carried on such passenger flights. We need to reach full
screening of cargo faster, and this amendment moves us in that
direction.
I urge a ``yes'' vote on the Markey-Shays amendment.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).
Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant opposition to
the Markey amendment. The screening he wants to impose is not possible
at this time, and technology is not developed to screen some of the
large pallets. The airlines inspect all packages now, but the current
screening technologies or pallets involve x-ray technology and not the
explosives detection. And I have watched airlines load those huge
pallets into the cargo holds of the planes, and they are much bigger
than what the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) talked about.
This may be the size of our passenger, but the ones I have watched
are the size of the Speaker's desk, and we just do not have the ability
to do that.
The fiscal year 2005 Homeland Security Appropriations Act requires 20
percent random cargo inspection for the first time. It is now set at 10
percent; so we are doubling it. But, again, with the research and
development funding in here, we will be able to get to where we can
screen those large ones. But we are also doing the ``known shipper.''
So much cargo is shipped through known shippers, whether UPS, FedEx,
DHL, name it. And they are the ones that are doing it, not unlike we
are beginning to do with passengers where they have access for
passengers that are known passengers and they go to the head of the
line or a separate line. We are doing the same thing with cargo. So
there is reasonableness to what we are doing.
The bill also provides 100 new cargo inspectors and $50 million in
cargo security R&D funding in addition to the $55 million provided last
year. So we are trying to get up to the technology level so we can do
it. And I just do not want to make sure we throw the baby out with the
bathwater that we require standards not only of the TSA but also of our
airlines that they just physically cannot do.
I also represent a seaport, and in all honesty, we have a hard time
inspecting 5 percent of containers coming into

[[Page H4548]]

our ports. I would find it amazing if we could even get the 10 percent
of our containers that come in much less the 20 percent for air cargo.
I appreciate the gentleman from Massachusetts' (Mr. Markey)
dedication and I am glad he keeps pushing us because without that maybe
we would not go further. But I know there is an effort by a lot of
Members to make sure we do go further every year.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Holt) for a colloquy.
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter into a colloquy with
the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
This is much needed legislation, and I applaud the gentleman from
Massachusetts and the gentleman from Connecticut for putting it
forward. It really makes little sense for airport security to screen
100 percent of the carry-on baggage to the point of removing nail
clippers and yet not screen all the cargo and baggage that is loaded
into the belly of a plane. This amendment is really much needed and
should be passed with strong bipartisan support, should also be
implemented with strong financial support from the Federal Government.
My question for the gentleman from Massachusetts is, does he believe
that down the road we can ensure that cargo loaded onto cargo planes
will also be screened?
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HOLT. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, it is my intention, the gentleman from
Connecticut's (Mr. Shays) intention, that once we close the loophole on
passenger planes that allow for cargo to go on unscreened, then we will
move on to the next step, which is the cargo that goes on cargo planes.
But I think the first job is to make sure that passengers are protected
and then in the next step, as the gentleman said, we will move on to do
the same for cargo planes.
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, that will be safer for the public and the
workers of the airline industry, and I thank the gentleman for his
answer.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette).
Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the
subcommittee for yielding time to me.
I was in my office listening to this debate and came rushing over
because I heard a couple of things during the debate that disturbed me.
One was from the gentleman from Connecticut, who, in response to an
observation by the chairman, said he does not believe that the
technology does not exist today to do what their amendment seeks to do.
I believe that and I believe that to be true.
The other observation was there was reference made to the folks in
the gallery who came here, and the observation was they probably do not
know that the cargo that goes into the belly of their passenger plane
is not screened. I would venture to say that most people that get on
passenger planes do not even know that they are carrying cargo. Most
people that get on passenger planes, however, also do not know that it
is the cost of the cargo, the money that the airlines make relative to
the cargo shipments, that enable them not only to have cheaper fares
but also enable them to fly to small areas.
Just citing one airline that is headquartered in Cleveland, Ohio, an
area that is near and dear to my heart, if this amendment were to pass,
I have been advised 67 jobs would be lost at that one airport by that
one airline. For that one airline, $325 million in revenue would have
to be made up in higher and additional fares. And service to smaller
communities, again the folks in the gallery, if they live in New York
or Chicago or Los Angeles, they can get home, but if they live in some
of the smaller hubs, they are not getting home because there will be no
service to those areas because their fares are subsidized by the
revenues made up as a result of cargo shipments.
I have to say, Mr. Chairman, that, again, the chairman has done a
good job in this bill. He has doubled the amount of belly cargo that is
being inspected. From where we are today, 100 new inspectors are being
added, research and development so that pilot programs going on down in
Houston and other areas can continue to go. This is a well-intended
amendment. I think we all want to get to 100 percent, but it is a
wrong-headed amendment because the technology that they seek to impose
does not exist today.
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LaTOURETTE. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, just to correct the record also, I would like
the gentleman and the other Members to know, it was said in the
beginning of this debate, also, that Pan Am 103 was brought down as a
result of this situation, explosives in cargo. That is not true. It was
explosives in luggage.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Connecticut (Mr. Shays).
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I have been listening to this debate trying
to understand what kind of contribution I can make and what kind of
things we are listening to, and I feel that three of the most respected
Members of Congress, I respect for their knowledge on this issue, are
saying things that, if true, are more shocking than what I thought was
the case. I mean we have a Member of Congress who basically has said
that it is foolish to deal with cargo admittedly for the money and the
technology, which are valid reasons that I understand, but because we
do not even really check the baggage on the belly of aircraft that we
say we do but we do not. And I do not know how to process that because
I tell my constituents that we are doing that, and I am not aware of
any request on this floor by this chairman or anyone else who has said
we need this amount of money to fulfill that act. If that is known by
some in some committee, then let us debate it on the floor.

{time} 1430

Because it is my understanding that we checked the baggage on the
belly of an aircraft for explosives, and if we do not, I think we
should say where we do not and how long it is going to take and why we
are not conforming to the law; and then all of us need to deal with
that. That is fair, but to use that as an argument for then not
checking the cargo that goes on the belly of an aircraft on a passenger
plane to me is just like a weird argument.
Now, if we cannot check big packages, then let us check small
packages. If we cannot do it this year, then let us have in the law
that it will be done by this time. Let us not just be so casual about
it that we just say, well, we went from 5 percent to 10 percent, and we
need more time to do the technology.
So what I was thinking as I was sitting here is that what I would
like to do if this amendment does not pass or if it passes and gets
lost in conference, I want to come in with an amendment, and it is
going to be truth to the passenger, and it is going to spell out to the
passenger in plain, simple language what is the risk when they fly.
In other words, I think if a plane has not been checked for
explosives in the belly of an aircraft that is baggage, then tell them;
and if that has been but we have cargo and 20 percent of this cargo or
30 percent of what is in the belly of the aircraft is cargo and has not
been checked, then tell them. I know what I know. I will not fly that
aircraft, and then I will like to know, and maybe others will, maybe we
will just have to suck it up and be brave, but I think it is not safe.
And I am living with the fact that someone in my district found out in
the middle of the day that maybe her child was on Pan Am 103, and I was
at her home at 11:30 at night when it was confirmed and this was her
best friend, her daughter.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Let me inquire of the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), is the gentleman the last speaker?
Mr. MARKEY. I will be the last remaining speaker, yes, sir.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I will yield myself the balance
of our time.
Mr. Chairman, our gentleman friend from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) I
thought needs an answer to the question he raised. What are we doing
about cargo on passenger planes? What are we doing about it, and where
are we?
Well, at the moment we physically inspect a certain percent of all
cargo

[[Page H4549]]

on passenger planes. That percentage is a law enforcement-sensitive
number, and we cannot talk about it publicly, but it is a percentage
that we actually physically inspect.
The rest cannot be put on a plane unless it has been certified by the
government to come from somebody we know, a FedEx or UPS or some other
known shipper, a Toyota, GM, where we have gone to that shipper and put
them through a rigorous examination so that we know whether or not they
are reliable and their chain of supply, their security of supply has
been checked.
We are developing machinery, however, to be able to take the place of
all of that. The machinery is just simply not there yet. It is being
developed, and in the bill we appropriate $118.5 million for air cargo
security. It is an enormous figure. That is $33.5 million more than we
spent this year or that the President requested. We topped everybody in
that respect. And $75 million of that is going to develop new
technologies.
One of these days we will have machines that will do for cargo on
passenger planes what we do for baggage on passenger planes. We simply
do not have it yet. We are working on it and working on it very
quickly.
But in this bill in the meantime we say, okay, we want to double the
number or the percentage of air cargo that is physically checked,
double it this year. We provide additional cargo inspectors for that
purpose. We provide canine teams to help with the inspection of air
cargo, and we provide $20 million more to make further enhancements to
the known-shipper program and implement a new cargo rule.
Now, if this amendment passes, I am sad to say I do not think the
airlines will make it. If we prohibit all passenger cargo, as the
gentleman from Florida (Chairman Mica) has said, we are taking away
$3.5 billion in income to the airlines that are barely hanging on now.
27,000 jobs are involved here. We do away with the capability of the
Nation's economy to have just-in-time delivery, upon which the country,
in fact the world, runs.
So I urge Members to be careful if we want to vote for this
amendment. That is the safe thing to do, of course; but the responsible
thing is to vote ``no.'' We are doing all we physically can do at the
moment, and it will not help any if we shut down the airlines.
Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote on the Markey amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, let me begin by saying that Pan Am Flight 103 over
Lockerbie did go down, but it went down because a package this size was
not screened in the baggage. We now mandate that all baggage be
screened. We closed that loophole, but the reason the Pan Am 103
families endorse the Markey-Shays amendment and have sent a letter to
Congress endorsing it is because they know that this same package in
the cargo is not screened on passenger planes. The Pan Am 103 families
endorse this amendment.
Secondly, the technology already exists. The Israelis screen cargo.
The United Kingdom screens cargo. The Netherlands screens cargo.
Australia, Singapore, Spain, Hong Kong, Italy, they already screen the
cargo which goes onto passenger planes; and there are American
companies lined up to do the job. American Science and Engineering,
Incorporated, L3 Security and Detection Systems, Raytheon Cargo Screen,
they all say they are ready to go to deploy the technology today. It is
not a question of technology. It is a question of money. The same
argument was made right after September 11: we do not have enough money
to screen the bags of every passenger going on planes.
Well, we do not have enough money not to do it, because the next
plane that goes down is going to cripple the American economy. That is
the price of leaving a loophole that could lead to an explosion on a
plane. That is the price our country is going to pay, and it is going
to look like one cent on a hundred dollars if it happens.
We cannot afford to allow this kind of loophole to exist. This known-
shipper program, it is not even certified by the Federal Government.
The Federal Government lets the airlines decide who these shippers are,
who put these packages on without even screening. It is not even a
Federal Government program; it is an airline program. That is no
security for the American flying public.
These people who fly into Washington as tourists, people going on
vacations, they should not have to be putting their families on planes
with cargo this size or this size, that has not been screened, even as
they have been forced to take their nail clippers out and have them
confiscated. It is wrong.
The Markey-Shays amendment should pass. If you want to see security
on the airlines of our country, if you want to avoid another airline
disaster in our country that will cause an economic catastrophe, vote
``aye'' on the Markey-Shays amendment.
Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Markey/Shays/
Conyers/Turner amendment. More importantly, I rise in support of
increased security for air travelers across the country. Screening air
cargo on passenger planes is a critical element in protecting the
public, and there is no excuse for allowing this glaring loophole to
persist.
With the summer travel season upon us and air travel nearing pre-9/11
levels, this issue gains urgency by the day. Every day, and at every
airport, unscreened cargo is loaded on to a passenger planes, placing
the traveling public, airline employees and airport workers at risk.
We have spent billions of dollars and asked Americans to endure long
waits and countless inconveniences in order to ensure safe air travel.
The failure to inspect cargo on passenger planes flies in the face of
these security investments and threatens to make all our efforts for
naught.
But it doesn't have to be this way. The technology exists to close
this security gap, but the will apparently does not . . . and I can't
for the life of me understand why. It is long past time to address this
issue and stop placing millions of travelers at risk.
I urge my colleagues to give the Markey/Shays/Conyers/Turner
amendment the resounding victory it deserves, and give the American
people the security we have promised.
Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to this
amendment. Let me be clear. I do not believe any law maker is against
the need to make our homeland safe. However, I have always been and
will continue to be a strong advocate for improving the security of our
homeland especially at our nation's airports, but I do not believe in
creating additional unfunded federal mandates.
I represent the Baltimore-Washington International Airport and I am
very familiar with these issues. I believe the security of aviation is
a critical component in protecting our homeland and air cargo is a
significant concern. I fully support the need to protect our airports,
the people who fly in and out of them, the people who work in the
airline industry and the goods and services that are transported by
planes. Aviation security is key to our way of life, our business and
leisure travelers, and our nation's commerce. On that point, I think we
can all agree.
We can also agree that air cargo security deserves an equal amount of
attention and problem solving to make it a safe way of doing business.
We need to ensure that air cargo is safe so business can proceed. The
air cargo industry and airports have worked hard since September 11,
2001 to recognize potential risks and threats, and to make air cargo
more secure. Have we done enough? Probably not. Do we still need to do
more? Absolutely. That is not the debate before us today.
The next question becomes what is the best solution. On this, I do
not believe this amendment is the right way to improve air cargo. I
commend my colleagues for their hard work to correct risks associated
with air cargo, but I am concerned about the creation of further
unfunded federal mandates on an industry so vital to the American
economy. There are still so many questions about the feasibility and
cost of available technology. Each airport has different challenges and
there is no one-size-fits-all solution to any homeland security issue,
including air cargo.
This amendment would effectively double the amount of air cargo to be
screened and inspected without providing any sort of financial relief
for equipment, technology, infrastructure or personnel to do so. The
aviation industry did not create the problems we face in homeland
security and I do not believe they should shoulder the entire burden of
correcting it through further unfunded mandates. Throughout my entire
political career I have stressed the need for partnerships to solve
problems and the federal government must partner with industry to
address the needs of homeland security. The Constitution tasks the
federal government with protecting Americans and we cannot fulfill that
responsibility by simply creating new mandates for the aviation
industry

[[Page H4550]]

to comply with. We need to work together in commitment and resources.
The 2005 Department of Homeland Security Appropriations bill does
recognize and address the challenge of air cargo security risks. It
substantially increases research and development funding for new
technology that will ultimately make comprehensive cargo screening
feasible. It is an important and fiscally responsible step in the right
direction to tackle an enormously complex issue. All Americans want the
safest environment we can create, but we must do it in a logical way
that does not unduly burden the aviation industry or impede national
commerce.
I believe this amendment is placing the cart before the horse and we
should let the R&D money provided for in this bill do its work. I will
continually fight to keep the Maryland 2nd Congressional District and
this nation more secure. I believe we need to do more with airport
security but I do not believe this solution is the right one.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). The question is on the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) will be postponed.

Amendment Offered by Mr. King of Iowa

Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. King of Iowa:
At the end of the bill (before the short title) add the
following:
Sec. __. Appropriations made in this Act are hereby reduced
in the amount of $895,476,000.

Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, first of all I want to congratulate
the chairman of the committee and all of the committee members for
their hard work on this bill and the many improvements that have been
put in for homeland security. We are getting better at this. We are
just not as good at it as we need to be.
My amendment reduces the appropriation by $895,476,000. That is the
President's number, the President's request.
I point out that the President has been our lead warrior on the war
on terror. He came out and identified our enemy the first week after
September 11, he set forward a path on how to go about addressing al
Qaeda and the terrorists around the world, he sent troops into
Afghanistan, he sent troops into Iraq. We have over 50 million people
that are free today. America is a safer place.
Our question that is before this Congress today is the question of do
you spend your resources on the tip of the spear, or do you spend your
resources back here at home? Do you spend your resources on ambulances,
fire trucks, metal detectors and do you spend them also on training
facilities for emergency responders? Or do you put that money in a
proactive way and preempt the terrorists attacks that are bound to
come. To find that balance is what we are seeking to do.
The waste that is in the budget, I can identify a significant amount
of dollars there are tied up in the bureaucratic regions of the
Department. It is hard to get to this through a Waste Watchers program.
It is hard to identify it and say we are going to ding your budget by
$5 billion or $10 billion or $86 million or $895 million, as this
amendment does. But the way you do that is you reduce the spending and
the bureaucrats have to go and find that.
So the question is, are we going to clean up after the disaster, or
are we going to spend the money preventing the disaster? Is it going to
be the clean up crew that will be the tip of the spear?
We have seen this budget grow from 2003 to 2004 by 30 percent. Now we
see it grow again from 2004 to 2005 by 9.4 percent.
This is the President's budget. The President has been leading us in
the war on terror, and I believe we can have confidence that he has the
ability to set this budget and provide adequate resources.
Mr. Chairman, having made my statement, I ask unanimous consent to
withdraw this amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Iowa?
There was no objection.

Amendment No. 13 Offered by Mr. Sherman

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Chairman pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 13 offered by Mr. Sherman:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used for processing the importation of any article which
is the product of Iran.

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan reserves a
point of order against the amendment.
The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would prohibit Customs and
APHIS from expending any funds to process any import from the Islamic
Republic of Iran into the United States. The amendment would
effectively reverse a decision made in the year 2000 by a Clinton
administration order, which partially lifted what was then our total
embargo on Iranian imports.
This has created a circumstance where we import from the Islamic
Republic of Iran roughly $150 million of goods. We do not import any
oil or other petroleum or energy products from Iran. That is prohibited
by existing law. Instead, we import caviar and carpets. So the question
before us now is whether we wish to put economic and symbolic pressure
on the government in Tehran.
Well, let us examine that government's behavior. It is developing
nuclear weapons. It is only a couple of years away, perhaps, from
having an atomic bomb. Its cooperation with the IAEA was found
inadequate by the IAEA Board. Even its so-called reformist leaders have
decided to support this nuclear program.
Why? Because they know that they can move forward with their nuclear
weapons program without paying any economic cost, and they are able to
go in a complex political situation to the people of Iran and say,
Don't worry that we are developing nuclear weapons. We will suffer no
economic cost.

{time} 1445

We will be part of the world community, and they are able to point to
the fact that even the United States imports from Iran as proof that
they pay no economic price for their behavior.
In addition, the government in Iran has been identified by the State
Department in its Patterns of Global Terrorism Report as the number one
state sponsor of terror. Iranian agents are working to kill our people
in Iraq. Iran is harboring al Qaeda senior officials, including one of
bin Laden's sons. Iranian agents, along with al Qaeda, working in
tandem, are responsible for the 1996 Khobar Towers bombings that killed
19 Americans.
What more does the government of Iran have to do? Cooperate with al
Qaeda, shelter al Qaeda, kill Americans. It is still not enough for us
to stop importing their goods. And what are these goods that are so
critical to us? Caviar and carpets.
It is time for us to use the levers we have to put pressure on this
regime. It is time to go to the Iranian people that are growing weary
of rule by the mullahs and say they are costing you something: your
ability to do business with the world is being impaired.
These foreign policy adventures are a domestic issue to the people of
Iran because they are foreclosing trade. Only when we cut off imports
from Iran will we then be able to turn to our European and Japanese
friends and urge them to do the same, at least until the government in
Iran changes its behavior in these two critical areas: the development
of atomic weapons and terrorism.
Keep in mind that terrorism will continue if we do nothing. Keep in
mind, those atomic weapons can be smuggled into our country; they are
no larger than a person. And then the government in Iran can make that
phone call and tell us that they have an atomic bomb in this apartment
building or that one.

[[Page H4551]]

Let us do something. This is the only time this year that this
Congress will be able to stand and say, we want to put some pressure on
the government of Iran. This is the only policy available to the United
States short of invasion, which is not in the cards, to say that we
want to do what can be done to convince the people and government of
Iran that they pay a cost for supporting terrorism and that they pay a
cost for their failure to cooperate with the IAEA.
So make your decision: should we continue to have business as usual
with a government that is killing us and that is building the devices
to kill us by the millions?

Point of Order

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against the Sherman
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). The gentleman will state his
point of order.
Mr. CAMP. I raise a point of order against the Sherman amendment to
this bill, H.R. 4567, on the grounds that this amendment violates
clause 5(a)(2) of House Rule XXI because it is an amendment proposing a
limitation on funds in a general appropriation bill for the
administration of a tax or tariff. Specifically, this amendment would
prohibit the use of funds provided by the act for processing the
importation of any articles from Iran. Processing imports is part of
administering a tariff. Therefore, this amendment would limit the funds
in a general appropriations bill for the administration of a tax or
tariff in violation of clause 5(a)(2) of rule XXI.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Are there any other Members wanting to be
heard on the point of order?
If not, the Chair will rule.
The gentleman from Michigan raises a point of order against the
amendment offered by the gentleman from California on the grounds that
it violates clause 5(a) of rule XXI.
In prior Congresses, clause 5(a) of rule XXI provided a point of
order against carrying a tax or tariff measure on a bill not reported
by a committee having such jurisdiction. At the beginning of the 108th
Congress, clause 5(a) was amended to particularize its application to
an amendment in the form of a limitation on funds in a general
appropriation bill for the administration of a tax or tariff.
The Chair is of the opinion that the change in clause 5(a) affects
today's proceedings in one significant way:
The new version of clause 5(a) enables a point of order against
limitation amendments addressing the administration of a tariff whether
or not the maker of the point of order can demonstrate a necessary and
inevitable change in tariff statuses or liabilities or in revenue
collection. More on that matter can be found in section 1066 of the
House Rules and Manual.
In the present case, the chief impetus for the processing of imports
from Iran is tariff law. The Chair therefore holds that the limitation
on funds to process imports from Iran is necessarily a limitation on
funds for the administration of a tax or tariff within the meaning of
clause 5(a) of rule XXI.
The point of order is sustained, and the amendment is not in order.

Amendment Offered by Ms. Velazquez

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Ms. Velazquez:
At the end of the bill insert the following section:

SEC. __. PROHIBITION AGAINST USE OF FUNDS TO ENTER INTO
STATEWIDE CONTRACTS FOR SECURITY GUARD
SERVICES.

None of the funds in this Act may be used by the Federal
Protective Service to replace any existing contract for
security guard services with statewide contracts for security
guard services.

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, small businesses need opportunities.
Repeatedly, small businesses have demonstrated that they can provide
the government a superior product at an affordable cost to taxpayers.
Unfortunately, small businesses are seeing their opportunities
dwindle as agencies place expediency over job creation in our local
communities and what is best for the American taxpayers. The cost of
this is the creation of mega contracts that are so big that only big
businesses in corporate America can compete. What they are telling
American small businesses is that the $285 billion Federal marketplace
is not open to them.
When President Bush took office, he promised to change this and to
open the Federal marketplace to small businesses. Even 2 years ago,
during Small Business Week, he issued a small business agenda and made
contract bundling his top priority. Since taking office, not only has
he done nothing to change this, but this administration has failed to
meet any of the small business goals set up by Congress. This is
outrageous.
Today's legislation is a perfect example of that. This Department was
created by the President and was supposedly to do things in a new way.
What we are seeing here is business as usual. The most recent example
is this regional security contract that currently is being done by
small business securities firms across the country. Homeland Security
is currently in the process of bundling this contract so large that
probably three firms, one of them not even an American firm; so now, we
are going to turn security over to foreign companies, and none of the
small businesses will be able to provide the service. This will result
in the loss of thousands of jobs in communities across the country at a
time when job creation is still struggling.
My amendment will stop the Homeland Security from bundling contracts
that will steal opportunities from small businesses and ensure that
small businesses will continue to provide the services that they have
done so well.
I urge the adoption of this amendment.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I reluctantly rise in
opposition.
This is the first time we have seen this amendment. It is brand-new
to me. We have not had a chance to discuss the matter with the
gentlewoman.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, the problem is that I was just contacted
by one of the small business firms that has provided these services who
is going to go out of business, and he contacted me yesterday.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Well, I understand the gentlewoman, and I
appreciate the predicament that she is in on this.
It also puts us in a predicament because I do not know the
ramifications of the amendment. It could have some very significant
national unintended consequences that I have not had time to think
about. So I wish we could work with the gentlewoman. Rather than bring
this to a vote, perhaps if the gentlewoman would reconsider.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will further yield, I
am not prepared to do that at this point, because in the past, like in
Homeland Security, I introduced an amendment where 23 percent of any
monies spent by DOD in the reconstruction of Iraq will go to small
businesses. During conference it was taken out. So time and time again,
when we have an opportunity to help small businesses through the
legislative process, they are being shut out.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Well, Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, then
I have no choice but to oppose the amendment. I want to help the
gentlewoman, but if this is the attitude, then we will just have a
debate here and let the vote take place, and it will be one way or the
other and over with.
So I would hope that the gentlewoman would reconsider that.
But nevertheless, Mr. Chairman, I do not know the ramifications of
this amendment. It could be devastating around the Nation for all I
know, so I have to at the moment oppose it and oppose it vigorously.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, it is just simply outrageous that if
these securities have been performing these types of services by small
businesses, that Homeland Security, despite the goals that have been
set up by Congress, and despite the fact that the President made a
commitment to small businesses of making contract bundling his top
priority, that now Homeland Security is going to bundle this contract,
putting so many small businesses out of business.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, if the
gentlewoman would give me time to work

[[Page H4552]]

with her on this, I will be happy to do it, but this is the first I
have known about it. I do not know the ramifications of the amendment
the gentlewoman filed nationally. It could very well be very expensive
nationally; it could cost the government a lot of money. It could set a
bad precedent to predetermine the most efficient way of contracting.
How does it help? How does it hurt? I do not know. So I have to oppose
it until we know more about it.
So I would hope the Members would reject the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by
the gentlewoman from New York. (Ms. Velazquez).
The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York
will be postponed.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
This Act may be cited as the ``Department of Homeland
Security Appropriations Act, 2005''.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I do that because I think we have reached the end of
the amendment process here and are about ready to call for the votes on
the amendments that have been rolled over. But before we finish, I
wanted to take a moment to say some things.
It is a pleasure working with my colleague, the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Sabo). He works hard. He is smart. He has a good level
head. He is a reasonable person, and he is a joy to be around and a
great help in constructing this bill. It truly has been a partnership
as we built the bill. I want to give him a lot of credit for the work
that has been done. Of course, the members of our subcommittee. We have
a super bunch of people. All of them contribute. All of them
participate in the public hearings and, of course, the closed briefings
that are classified.

{time} 1500

They keep those secrets secret. So we have got a wonderful
subcommittee to work with. And I could not be more pleased to be a part
of this team, as I will call it.
Then a big part of that team too is this staff. They are just
wonderful. Michelle and all of the crew and the minority staff work
closely together; and they work long, long hours on extremely
complicated matters building a brand-new Department, breaking ground on
entirely new concepts that we are dealing with in this whole country.
This is the second bill for the whole Department of Homeland
Security, a new concept in Americans dealing with themselves and their
country and the world. So we are plowing new ground. And this staff has
just been wonderful in helping us all understand what it is we are
dealing with and trying to come out with a proper result.
I appreciate so very much this staff on both sides of the aisle who
have made this day possible.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for presiding over these proceedings as you
have. We appreciate it very, very much.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his kind comments.
Let me say he is a pleasure to work with. He is a very knowledgeable,
hardworking chairman, and he does an exceptional job as he has in
heading two other subcommittees in this House. He is a long-experienced
chairman. We do have good subcommittee members and a great staff on
both sides of the aisle. It is a pleasure working with the gentleman
and the staff and the other members of this subcommittee.
We have our differences, but I think we also have a good product. I
thank the gentleman.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.

Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). Pursuant to clause 6 of rule
XVIII, proceedings will now resume on those amendments on which further
proceedings were postponed, in the following order: amendment by the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee); the amendment by the
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro); amendment No. 1 by the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Roybal-Allard); the amendment by the
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo); amendment No. 9 by the
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney); the amendment by the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo); amendment No. 10 by the gentleman
from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey); the amendment by the gentlewoman from
New York (Ms. Velazquez).
The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic voting
after the first vote in this series.

Amendment Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The pending business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas
(Ms. Jackson-Lee) on which further proceedings were postponed and on
which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The Clerk designated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 137,
noes 269, not voting 27, as follows:

[Roll No. 267]

AYES--137

Ackerman
Alexander
Andrews
Baca
Becerra
Bell
Berkley
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Chandler
Clay
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Doggett
Edwards
Engel
Etheridge
Evans
Fattah
Filner
Forbes
Ford
Frost
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Grijalva
Harman
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Hoyer
Inslee
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kucinich
Lampson
Lantos
Larson (CT)
Lee
Lowey
Majette
Maloney
Marshall
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Moore
Nadler
Napolitano
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Sandlin
Schakowsky
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Skelton
Slaughter
Solis
Spratt
Tanner
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Turner (TX)
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson
Watt
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn

NOES--269

Abercrombie
Aderholt
Akin
Allen
Bachus
Baldwin
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boucher
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Cardoza
Carter
Case
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Dooley (CA)
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Emerson
English
Eshoo
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Foley
Fossella
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Goode
Goodlatte
Goss
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth
Hill
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Israel
Issa
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kanjorski
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston

[[Page H4553]]

Kirk
Kleczka
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Lynch
Manzullo
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCollum
McCotter
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
Meehan
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Neal (MA)
Nethercutt
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Pascrell
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Saxton
Schiff
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Snyder
Souder
Stark
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Turner (OH)
Upton
Van Hollen
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--27

Baird
Baker
Ballenger
Bereuter
Berman
Boehlert
Boehner
Collins
DeMint
Emanuel
Everett
Farr
Gerlach
Gibbons
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Hastings (FL)
Hoeffel
Isakson
John
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Menendez
Quinn
Reyes
Smith (WA)
Waxman

Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus) (during the vote). Members are
advised there are 2 minutes remaining in this vote.

{time} 1527

Mrs. TAUSCHER, and Messrs. SULLIVAN, TERRY, MORAN of Kansas, ROGERS
of Michigan, NEAL of Massachusetts, VAN HOLLEN and MATSUI changed their
vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Messrs. RANGEL, RAHALL, BLUMENAUER, MOORE of Kansas, and HOYER
changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment Offered by Ms. DeLauro

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The pending business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) on which further proceedings were postponed
and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The Clerk designated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 182,
noes 221, not voting 30, as follows:

[Roll No. 268]

AYES--182

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Bass
Becerra
Bell
Berkley
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Boucher
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Case
Chandler
Clay
Clyburn
Conyers
Costello
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duncan
Edwards
Emerson
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Goode
Green (TX)
Grijalva
Hayes
Herseth
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Kleczka
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
LoBiondo
Lowey
Lynch
Majette
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Mollohan
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Nethercutt
Northup
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Rahall
Rangel
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Sandlin
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sherman
Sherwood
Simmons
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Vitter
Wamp
Waters
Watson
Weiner
Wexler
Whitfield
Wilson (NM)
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn

NOES--221

Aderholt
Akin
Bachus
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Beauprez
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Blunt
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boswell
Boyd
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole
Cooper
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (FL)
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dooley (CA)
Doolittle
Dreier
Dunn
Ehlers
English
Etheridge
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gordon
Goss
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall
Harman
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hooley (OR)
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
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
Lofgren
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
McCotter
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Ney
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pearce
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MI)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Stenholm
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Turner (OH)
Turner (TX)
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Watt
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wicker
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--30

Baird
Baker
Ballenger
Bereuter
Berman
Boehlert
Boehner
Buyer
Collins
Crowley
DeMint
Emanuel
Everett
Farr
Gerlach
Gibbons
Goodlatte
Gutierrez
Hastings (FL)
Hoeffel
Isakson
John
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Menendez
Pence
Quinn
Reyes
Smith (WA)
Waxman

Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus) (during the vote). Members are
advised there are 2 minutes remaining in this vote.

{time} 1534

Mr. WHITFIELD changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 268, I was
physically present here in the Chamber. I voted for the bill before and
the bill after, but was not recorded on that particular vote. Had I
been recorded on that particular vote, after putting my card into the
machine and taking it out and pressing the button, it would have been
an ``aye'' vote for 268.

[[Page H4554]]

Stated against:
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 268 I was unavoidably
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Amendment No. 1 Offered By Ms. Roybal-Allard

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The pending business is the demand for a
recorded vote on amendment No. 1 offered by the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Roybal-Allard) on which further proceedings were
postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 242,
noes 163, not voting 28, as follows:

[Roll No. 269]

AYES--242

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barton (TX)
Becerra
Bell
Berkley
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Burr
Buyer
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Case
Chandler
Clay
Clyburn
Coble
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart, L.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley (CA)
Doyle
Duncan
Edwards
Emerson
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Goode
Gordon
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Grijalva
Harman
Hayworth
Hefley
Herseth
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hyde
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Kleczka
Kucinich
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lynch
Majette
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCotter
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Mica
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Osborne
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Platts
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Sandlin
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Shays
Sherman
Shimkus
Simmons
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Turner (OH)
Turner (TX)
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson
Watt
Weiner
Weldon (PA)
Wexler
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn

NOES--163

Akin
Bachus
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Bass
Beauprez
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Cole
Cox
Crane
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Deal (GA)
DeLay
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Dreier
Dunn
Ehlers
Feeney
Flake
Fossella
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Goodlatte
Goss
Granger
Graves
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Hunter
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Latham
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
McCrery
McInnis
McKeon
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Sherwood
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MI)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Tauzin
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Upton
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--28

Baird
Baker
Ballenger
Bereuter
Berman
Boehlert
Boehner
Collins
DeMint
Emanuel
Everett
Farr
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gutierrez
Hastings (FL)
Hoeffel
Isakson
John
Lipinski
Menendez
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Reyes
Smith (WA)
Thomas
Waxman
Weldon (FL)

Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised there
are two minutes left in this vote.

{time} 1542

Messrs. McCOTTER, TAYLOR of North Carolina and DUNCAN changed their
vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Tancredo

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The pending business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado
(Mr. Tancredo) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The Clerk designated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

[Roll No. 270]

AYES--148

Aderholt
Akin
Bachus
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Bass
Beauprez
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Bonilla
Bonner
Boozman
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Camp
Cantor
Carter
Chabot
Coble
Cox
Crane
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis, Jo Ann
Deal (GA)
DeLay
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Emerson
Feeney
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Franks (AZ)
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Harris
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
King (IA)
Kingston
Kline
Kolbe
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
McCotter
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Ney
Norwood
Ose
Otter
Paul
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Rehberg
Renzi
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Royce
Ryun (KS)
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MI)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Toomey
Turner (OH)
Upton
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (SC)
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOES--259

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barton (TX)
Becerra
Bell
Berkley
Berry
Biggert
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Blunt
Bono
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd

[[Page H4555]]

Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Burr
Calvert
Cannon
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Case
Castle
Chandler
Chocola
Clay
Clyburn
Cole
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Tom
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley (CA)
Doyle
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Ford
Fossella
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Gordon
Goss
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Grijalva
Hall
Harman
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hensarling
Herseth
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Houghton
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
King (NY)
Kirk
Kleczka
Knollenberg
Kucinich
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
LoBiondo
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)
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Nethercutt
Northup
Nunes
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Osborne
Owens
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pearce
Pelosi
Petri
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Rahall
Rangel
Regula
Reynolds
Rodriguez
Rogers (MI)
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Sandlin
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sherman
Sherwood
Simmons
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Sullivan
Tanner
Tauscher
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Turner (TX)
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walsh
Waters
Watson
Watt
Weiner
Weller
Wexler
Wilson (NM)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn

NOT VOTING--26

Baird
Baker
Ballenger
Bereuter
Berman
Boehlert
Boehner
Collins
DeMint
Emanuel
Everett
Farr
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gutierrez
Hastings (FL)
Hoeffel
Isakson
John
Lipinski
Menendez
Quinn
Reyes
Smith (WA)
Thomas
Waxman

Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised 2
minutes remain in this vote.

{time} 1550

Mr. BONILLA, Ms. HARRIS, and Messrs. TURNER of Ohio, GILCHREST and
OSE changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mrs. Maloney

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). The pending business is the
demand for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman
from New York (Mrs. Maloney) on which further proceedings were
postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

[Roll No. 271]

AYES--113

Ackerman
Alexander
Becerra
Bell
Berkley
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Brady (PA)
Brown, Corrine
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Chabot
Clay
Conyers
Cooper
Crowley
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Tom
Delahunt
Dooley (CA)
Doyle
Engel
Eshoo
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Ford
Fossella
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Green (TX)
Grijalva
Harman
Hinchey
Hoekstra
Holt
Houghton
Hoyer
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (NY)
Lantos
Larson (CT)
Lee
Lofgren
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McNulty
Meehan
Meeks (NY)
Millender-McDonald
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Moran (VA)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Porter
Rangel
Reynolds
Rodriguez
Rohrabacher
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sandlin
Schiff
Scott (GA)
Serrano
Shays
Sherman
Shimkus
Slaughter
Solis
Stark
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Towns
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Watson
Weiner
Woolsey

NOES--292

Abercrombie
Aderholt
Akin
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Bachus
Baldwin
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Cardoza
Carter
Case
Castle
Chandler
Chocola
Clyburn
Coble
Cole
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (AL)
Davis (FL)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
DeLay
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Emerson
English
Etheridge
Evans
Feeney
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Franks (AZ)
Frost
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth
Hill
Hinojosa
Hobson
Holden
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inslee
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
King (IA)
Kingston
Kirk
Kleczka
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Majette
Manzullo
Marshall
Matheson
McCollum
McCotter
McCrery
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
Meek (FL)
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Pastor
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Royce
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Sanders
Saxton
Schrock
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Sherwood
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Snyder
Souder
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Sullivan
Tanner
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Turner (OH)
Turner (TX)
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Visclosky
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Waters
Watt
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--28

[[Page H4556]]

Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (during the vote). Two minutes remain in
this vote.

{time} 1558

Mr. ROTHMAN changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Sabo

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The pending business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Minnesota
(Mr. Sabo) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the
noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The Clerk designated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

[Roll No. 272]

AYES--199

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Becerra
Bell
Berkley
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Case
Chabot
Chandler
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
Ehlers
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Grijalva
Harman
Herseth
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Kingston
Kleczka
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
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)
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Sandlin
Schiff
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sherman
Skelton
Slaughter
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Towns
Turner (TX)
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson
Watt
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn

NOES--205

Aderholt
Akin
Bachus
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chocola
Coble
Cole
Cox
Crane
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Emerson
English
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Goode
Goodlatte
Goss
Granger
Graves
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
McCotter
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
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--29

Baird
Baker
Ballenger
Bereuter
Berman
Boehlert
Boehner
Collins
DeMint
Emanuel
Everett
Farr
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gutierrez
Hastings (FL)
Hobson
Hoeffel
Isakson
John
Lipinski
Menendez
Quinn
Reyes
Schakowsky
Smith (WA)
Thomas
Tierney
Waxman

Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus) (during the vote). Members are
advised that 2 minutes remain in this vote.

{time} 1605

So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment No. 10 Offered by Mr. Markey

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The pending business is the demand for a
recorded vote on amendment No. 10 offered by the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) on which further proceedings were postponed
and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

[Roll No. 273]

AYES--191

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Alexander
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Bass
Becerra
Berry
Bilirakis
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boucher
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (IN)
Case
Castle
Chabot
Chandler
Conyers
Cooper
Cramer
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley (CA)
Doyle
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Fattah
Ferguson
Foley
Ford
Fossella
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gephardt
Gordon
Green (WI)
Grijalva
Harman
Hayworth
Hefley
Herseth
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jefferson
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (NC)
Kanjorski
Kelly
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
King (NY)
Kirk
Kleczka
Kucinich
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Ney
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Ose
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Pitts
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Ramstad
Rangel
Rodriguez
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Saxton
Schiff
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Shays
Sherman
Shimkus
Simmons

[[Page H4557]]

Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Tiberi
Toomey
Towns
Turner (OH)
Turner (TX)
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Vitter
Watson
Watt
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey

NOES--211

Akin
Allen
Bachus
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Beauprez
Bell
Berkley
Biggert
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boswell
Brady (TX)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Carson (OK)
Carter
Chocola
Clay
Clyburn
Coble
Cole
Costello
Cox
Crane
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Emerson
Engel
English
Feeney
Filner
Flake
Forbes
Franks (AZ)
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Goss
Granger
Graves
Green (TX)
Gutknecht
Hall
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Issa
Istook
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (OH)
Keller
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
Kingston
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Lampson
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Majette
Manzullo
Matheson
McCotter
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
Meeks (NY)
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neugebauer
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Oberstar
Osborne
Otter
Oxley
Pastor
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Platts
Pombo
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Sandlin
Schrock
Scott (GA)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Sherwood
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MI)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Stenholm
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Visclosky
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Waters
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--31

Baird
Baker
Ballenger
Bereuter
Berman
Boehlert
Boehner
Collins
DeMint
Emanuel
Everett
Farr
Gerlach
Gibbons
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Harris
Hastings (FL)
Hoeffel
Isakson
John
Kaptur
Lipinski
Menendez
Quinn
Reyes
Schakowsky
Smith (WA)
Thomas
Tierney
Waxman

Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised that
2 minutes remain in this vote.

{time} 1612

So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment Offered by Ms. Velazquez

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The pending business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York
(Ms. Velazquez) on which further proceedings were postponed and on
which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The Clerk designated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

[Roll No. 274]

AYES--201

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Becerra
Bell
Berkley
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Case
Chandler
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
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Grijalva
Harman
Herseth
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
King (NY)
Kleczka
Kucinich
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lynch
Majette
Maloney
Manzullo
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCotter
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Rodriguez
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Sandlin
Schiff
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sherman
Skelton
Slaughter
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Sweeney
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Towns
Turner (TX)
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson
Watt
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn

NOES--205

Aderholt
Akin
Bachus
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Biggert
Bilirakis
Blackburn
Blunt
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
Cox
Crane
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Emerson
English
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Goode
Goodlatte
Goss
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (OK)
McCrery
McInnis
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
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--27

Baird
Baker
Ballenger
Bereuter
Berman
Boehlert
Boehner
Collins
DeMint
Emanuel
Everett
Farr
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gutierrez
Hastings (FL)
Isakson
John
Lipinski
Menendez
Quinn
Reyes
Schakowsky
Smith (WA)
Thomas
Tierney
Waxman

Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus) (during the vote). Members

[[Page H4558]]

are advised 2 minutes remain in this vote.

{time} 1619

Mr. TANNER and Mr. KLECZKA changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R.
4567, the Homeland Security Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2005.
Specifically, Congress continues to provide significant homeland
security dollars for State and local governments, which is essential in
our ongoing global war on terror. Since September 11, 2001, Congress
has provided $26.7 billion to first responders, thus far including
training and equipment. While this is undeniably the greatest support
our Nation's police, firefighters and other responders have seen, we
continue to face challenges in distributing this funding in a fair and
appropriate manner.
Chairman Hal Rogers has accomplished a great deal by taking the helm
of this new appropriations subcommittee and all its responsibilities,
with the most recent success of streamlining the process of applying
and receiving Federal funds for local governments with a ``one-stop
shop,'' eliminating choke points and bureaucracy.
But we still have a fundamental challenge to tackle--and that is the
disparity between States in receiving the first responder block grant.
The bulk of first responder funds is distributed on a per capita basis,
leaving the largest, most vulnerable States with the least amount of
Federal resources. While we have achieved some balance with the
concentration of the high-threat urban area grants, I believe we can
and will continue to work toward even greater equity within the
formula.
I look forward to working with Chairman Rogers and all of my
colleagues from urban and rural areas to ensure that as Congress
continues to provide significant resources to our responder
communities, that we do it in an effective and efficient manner.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in respectful
opposition to the amendment offered by the distinguished gentleman from
Massachusetts, my colleague on the House Select Committee on Homeland
Security regarding the most serious issue of cargo security.
I agree with my colleague that we need to address the gaps that exist
in the airline cargo screening process. However, at this juncture,
because the complete screening of all cargo is an unfeasible
undertaking, it is preferable that we continue the screening process as
it is and instead set a deadline for airline carriers to devise an
efficient and cost-effective plan and to procure adequate equipment to
enhance the current process.
It is speculative at best that, under the text of our colleague's
amendment, our Transportation Security Administration will actually be
able to perform this tremendous undertaking. To impose a requirement to
screen every item of air cargo carried on passenger airlines would
dramatically increase costs for air cargo and eliminate cargo services
to some communities and impose additional time and burden upon our
economy and the already flailing industry.
Long term, this amendment would put some 655 jobs at risk at Bush
Intercontinental Airport (IAH). These people will have nothing to do if
100 percent cargo screening is required and will be terminated. Service
to small cities may be curtailed or even eliminated which would result
in other job loss. It would be far more difficult to get goods out of
Houston as there is not enough belly space in FedEx and UPS or on rail
or by truck to cover it all. FedEx and UPS have been lobbying with us
on this issue as they know they do not have enough space. The DHS
Appropriations Subcommittee will require 20 percent random inspection
of cargo (in the bill). H.R. 4567 provides for 100 new cargo inspectors
and increased Research and Development funding.
At IAH Airport in Houston, there has already been implemented a
costly demonstration project that involves pulse neutron analysis, so
an additional burden would not be welcome at this time.
On May 6th of this year, I joined the distinguished gentleman from
Massachusetts, along with the Ranking Member of our committee from
Texas, Mr. Turner, and Mr. Israel from New York, Member of the House
Armed Services Committee, in introducing legislation on behalf of House
Democrats to improve aviation security throughout the United States--
the Safe PLANES Act.
The bill covers areas such as strengthening the screener workforce at
the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), installing explosive
detection equipment and other technologies across the Nation where
needed, and the implementation of a plan to fully inspect all cargo on
passenger aircraft, among others. It addresses the serious gaps that we
recognize in our current aviation security plan that is currently being
administered by TSA. The nature of the vulnerabilities require
immediate changes and the implementation of improved plans to fully
screen all cargo, even-handedly install equipment and technology in all
airports, and increase the number of trained personnel where needed.
I contributed to the crafting of this legislation by drafting
paragraph (a)(5) of section 6 entitled ``Aviation Security
Technologies'' and paragraph (b) of section 7 entitled ``Inspection of
Cargo Carried Aboard Passenger Aircraft.'' Paragraph (a)(5) of the
first section calls for, in connection with a report requirement made
to accompany the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS's) fiscal year
2006 budget request, the gathering of information that reveals the
Federal and airport security personnel's capability of operating
screening equipment and technology--speaking to the question of
equipment interoperability and staff competency to operate equipment.
Paragraph (b) of the second section requires the Secretary of DHS to
transmit to Congress a summary of the system implemented to screen and
inspect air cargo in the same manner and degree as that employed to
screen and inspect passenger baggage pursuant to section 404 of this
provision. The language that I proposed seeks to uncover weaknesses in
our airport security personnel as well as to give Congress a blue print
with which it can better exercise its oversight duties with respect to
the screening and inspection of air cargo.
The Safe PLANES Act, if passed, will give us an added layer of
security for air cargo. We should work for its passage and take
legislative initiatives one step at a time in order to ensure that we
work effectively and without hurting the backbone of our economy--the
workers.
For the above reasons, Mr. Chairman, I respectfully oppose this
amendment and ask that my colleagues work to improve and pass the Safe
PLANES Act.
Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I want to discuss the bill before us today,
H.R. 4567, the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act for
2005. I particularly want to discuss how certain provisions in this
legislation would affect my district of El Paso, Texas, and the entire
southwest border region.
While the bill provides an overall funding increase of about 9
percent over last year for all homeland security activities, there are
certain areas in the bill where we must do better. For example, H.R.
4567 provides only a little more funding for customs and border
protection activities than is necessary to keep pace with inflation,
and actually provides less funding than last year for citizenship and
immigration services.
A Democratic proposal to add $3 billion to the bill for urgently
needed improvements to our homeland security was blocked in the
Appropriations Committee. This contingency fund would have given us
additional resources to strengthen our border security, provide our
first responders additional resources, and better protect against the
threat of bioterrorist attacks.
I am very pleased, however, that the amendment offered by my
colleague from Texas, Mr. Turner, was accepted. The amendment would
require an independent study to assess staffing needs at the border,
giving us reliable data to help determine the required level and
allocation of personnel at the border. It is a great step forward in
ensuring that our border security needs are adequately addressed and
funded.
Mr. Chairman, as we move forward with this legislation, it is my hope
that we will increase funding for critical homeland security programs,
to ensure that even in a time of fiscal constraints we are doing
absolutely everything possible to keep our borders, and all of America,
safe and secure.
Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Manzullo
amendment to apply the Berry amendment to homeland security
procurement. This is a common-sense and proven step to create American
jobs and reward American companies.
For 30 years, the Berry amendment has protected critical defense-
related industries in this country. It has helped to preserve
manufacturing, textile and other American jobs, allowed domestic
companies to flourish, and provided our Armed Forces with high-quality
products that keep our military prepared and equipped to be the best in
the world.
Having served America so well for defense procurement, it makes
perfect sense that the Berry amendment should now be extended to
homeland security. U.S. companies have been instrumental in ongoing
efforts to protect airports, equip first responders, deploy cutting-
edge technology to hospitals, and so much more. Rewarding their
patriotism and hard work with procurement protections is the right
thing to do.
I also want to note that the Manzullo amendment would allow waivers
of the Berry amendment when needed items cannot be procured
domestically and would not place any of our current or future homeland
security operations at risk. What it would do is say to American
companies and American workers

[[Page H4559]]

that we appreciate their efforts and welcome their partnership as we
work to protect our citizens.
The Berry amendment is a tested means of supporting domestic
businesses while they support us. I hope my colleagues will support
Congressman Manzullo's amendment and extend this important provision to
homeland security procurement as well.
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, although I have reservations about some of
the priorities reflected in this Homeland Security funding bill, it is
important legislation and I intend to support it. But, Mr. Chairman, I
understand that the appropriations process is about priorities. That
being the case, I'd like to talk about some of the priorities that, in
my view, have been overlooked in this legislation.
Like every parent, the first thought that raced through my mind on 9/
11 was of my children. Where were they? Were they safe? How could I
reach them, or they me? Given the likelihood that an emergency could
occur while our kids are at school and parents are at work, teaching
age-appropriate skills about how to respond is critical. Growing up
during the Cold War, I remember the drills, and sharing what I learned
with my parents and younger brother.
Such training is needed today. And there is a program in California,
Mr. Chairman, known as FLASH, which is specifically designed as a
public school curriculum to teach students, parents and teachers how to
prepare and respond in the event of a terrorist attack or natural
disaster.
I am very disappointed that the bill does not include modest funding
for implementation of a Federal version of FLASH. Surely, a program of
such obvious importance should be able to find a home in the Federal
Government. I hope that before the end of this Congress, my colleagues
will adjust their priorities and fund a Federal pilot-program that
mirrors California's FLASH program, along the lines of H.R.----.
Another priority of America's hometowns is providing our local
police, fire and emergency personnel with the tools they need to
protect us. One of the most important of those tools is interoperable
communications--ensuring the ability of our first responders to
communicate with one another. Interoperability is more than a public
safety issue. It's a national security issue, and to our first
responders it can be an issue of life or death. Thousands of lives are
potentially at stake. We have all heard the tragic stories of
firefighters who died in the World Trade Center on 9/11 because NYPD
helicopters circling overhead could not radio them that the towers were
glowing and beginning to collapse.
This bill falls short of meeting America's interoperability needs,
providing just $21 million for programs that help facilitate
communications for first responders. I urge my colleagues to at least
double funding for first responders in conference, and I hope we will
soon be bold enough to overcome opposition to make needed emergency
spectrum available by 2006, the date it was promised.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, it is imperative to complete the national
threat and vulnerability assessment, required by law and central to
creating one integrated strategy for homeland defense. With a real
understanding of our security needs and vulnerabilities, based upon a
comprehensive assessment, funds would naturally flow to those regions
and priorities that provide maximum security to the American people.
This bill is necessary, but it could be better. In light of the serious
threats we face, we must do better.
Ms. McCARTHY of Missouri. Mr. Chairman, I commend the members and
staff of the Appropriations Committee for their work on the FY 05
Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act. Securing the
resources we need for this country's long term war on terrorism is a
formidable task; one we must accomplish in a bipartisan manner. I
support the appropriations bill before us today, but I remain concerned
with the inadequate levels of funding for first responders,
interoperability and port security. The American people depend on
homeland security, and we must find the means to provide the resources
needed to protect our communities.
As the Ranking Member of the Intelligence and Counterterrorism
Subcommittee of the Select Committee on Homeland Security, I support
the funding needed by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to
provide accurate and timely intelligence assessments. Unfortunately,
this bill reduces funding for first responder programs at DHS from the
current $4.4 billion funding level to $4.1 billion, a cut of $327
million below the 2004 enacted level.
First responders must have the resources they need to do their jobs.
My firefighters, police and emergency workers tell me that they have
difficulty communicating with each other because of incompatible
equipment. This problem affects first responders throughout the country
and it is unacceptable. Adequate funds must be available to adequately
equip our Nation's first responders.
Missouri has the seventh largest highway system in the Nation and the
second and third largest railroad terminals in the Nation. Port and
transportation security is crucial to our Nation's economy. Six million
cargo containers enter U.S. ports every year, but only about 5 percent
of these containers are ever screened. This appropriations bill fails
to adequately fund port security and freezes funding for port security
grants at the 2004 level of $124 million.
Mr. Obey, Ranking Member on the Appropriations Committee, attempted
to counter these shortfalls with an amendment to H.R. 4567. Mr. Obey's
amendment would have created a $3 billion contingent emergency fund for
homeland security. Even though this emergency funding would be
contingent upon the President requesting it, the amendment was rejected
by Republicans on the House Rules Committee. The rejection of Mr.
Obey's amendment prevents a more secure America, and seriously weakens
the legislation.
Mr. Turner, my distinguished colleague and Ranking Member on the
Select Committee on Homeland Security, has pointed out that our annual
spending on homeland security amounts to less than one half of one
percent of our Nations Gross National Produce (GNP). He also points out
that since 9/11, we increased spending on the agencies which make up
the Department of Homeland Security by approximately $15 billion. At
the same time, our defense budget has increased by approximately $100
billion. I strongly agree with Mr. Turner that as we devote resources
to winning the war on terror abroad, we must also invest in our
homeland security needs here at home.
I urge my colleagues who will reconcile the House Appropriations Act
in joint conference with the Senate to agree to adequate funds for our
emergency responders nationwide.
Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Chairman, if I might ask the subcommittee leadership a
question related to the public health provisions in the bill.
We are all aware of the blood shortages that call our attention to
the fact that the United States does not have sufficient blood supplies
to meet the country's normal daily blood needs. What is more alarming,
however, is that in this new age of terrorism the United States does
not have sufficient blood reserves to meet the critical demand that
would occur in the event of an emergency or terrorist attack. As the
Homeland Security Appropriations legislation moves forward to a House-
Senate conference, it is important that we recognize the need to
address this pressing national security issue as well. I would ask that
the Committee leadership include language in the final measure that
would create a National Blood Reserve, based on the recent
recommendations of the Interorganizational Task Force on Domestic
Disasters and Acts of Terrorism. The recommendations would strengthen
our Nation's blood supply and ensure the health and welfare of our
citizens.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. There being no further amendments, under
the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Goodlatte) having assumed the chair, Mr. Shimkus, Chairman pro tempore
of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported
that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R.
4567) making appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security for
the fiscal year ending September 30, 2005, and for other purposes,
pursuant to House Resolution 675, he reported the bill back to the
House with sundry amendments adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment? If not, the Chair will
put them en gros.
The amendments were agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
Under clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 400,
nays 5, not voting 29, as follows:

[Roll No. 275]

YEAS--400

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Bachus
Baldwin
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Becerra
Bell
Berkley
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Blunt
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd

[[Page H4560]]

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
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Carter
Case
Castle
Chabot
Chandler
Chocola
Clay
Clyburn
Coble
Cole
Conyers
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
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley (CA)
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Emerson
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Fattah
Feeney
Ferguson
Filner
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Granger
Graves
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Grijalva
Gutknecht
Hall
Harman
Harris
Hart
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kleczka
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Lynch
Majette
Manzullo
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCotter
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Mica
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Nethercutt
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Owens
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pearce
Pelosi
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reynolds
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Sandlin
Saxton
Schiff
Schrock
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Snyder
Solis
Souder
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Towns
Turner (OH)
Turner (TX)
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Waters
Watson
Watt
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NAYS--5

Berry
Capuano
Flake
Paul
Sanchez, Linda T.

NOT VOTING--29

Baird
Baker
Ballenger
Bereuter
Berman
Boehlert
Boehner
Collins
DeMint
Emanuel
Everett
Farr
Gephardt
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gutierrez
Hastings (FL)
Isakson
John
Lipinski
Maloney
Menendez
Quinn
Reyes
Schakowsky
Smith (WA)
Thomas
Tierney
Waxman

{time} 1638

So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, I want to state that
I incorrectly voted ``no'' on H.R. 4567, the Homeland Security
Appropriations Bill. I intended to vote ``yes.''

____________________