[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 12]
[House]
[Pages 15807-15816]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




   PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2555, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 
                   SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2004

  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the 
Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 293 and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 293

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 2555) making appropriations for the Department 
     of Homeland Security for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
     2004, and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill 
     shall be dispensed with. All points of order against 
     consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be 
     confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally 
     divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Appropriations. After general 
     debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the 
     five-minute rule. Points of order against provisions in the 
     bill for failure to comply with section 501 of House 
     Concurrent Resolution 95 and clause 2 of rule XXI are waived 
     except as follows: sections 514, 521, and 522. During 
     consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chairman of the 
     Committee of the Whole may accord priority in recognition on 
     the basis of whether the Member offering an amendment has 
     caused it to be printed in the portion of the Congressional 
     Record designated for that purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII. 
     Amendments so printed shall be considered as read. At the 
     conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the 
     Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with 
     such amendments as may have been adopted. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and 
     amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln 
Diaz-Balart) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of 
debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), ranking member, pending which I yield 
myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this 
resolution, all time is yielded for the purposes of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 293 is an open rule that provides for 
the consideration of H.R. 2555, the Fiscal Year 2004 Department of 
Homeland Security Appropriations Act. The rule provides 1 hour of 
general debate evenly divided and controlled by the chairman and 
ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations.
  As we begin the cycle, the 2004 appropriations cycle, I think it is 
fitting that the first bill that the House considers will be the 
Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act. It has been now 
approaching 2 years since the Nation was severely hurt by the cowardly 
attacks of September 11, 2001. Appropriate decisive and necessary steps 
in our defense and our foreign policy have been evident under the 
leadership of President Bush through successful efforts to rid 
Afghanistan of al Qaeda and the oppressive Taliban regime and recently 
to remove a ruthless dictator from power in Iraq. The United States 
military has performed and succeeded with extraordinary distinction 
each and every time that it has been called upon.
  Now I look forward to the fair debate that is provided under this 
rule and the eventual passage of this legislation so that we can 
continue to act as well on local, State and Federal levels to reinforce 
the security of the United States of America. Funding from this 
Congress to protect the homeland in this legislation, the underlying 
legislation, is $29.4 billion, $1 billion over President Bush's 
request, and this legislation will provide $4.4 billion to the Office 
of Domestic Preparedness.
  I have seen firsthand the work of Federal dollars when supplemented 
with State and local funding to make our communities safer. In south 
Florida the local governments and municipalities have taken extensive 
steps to secure the safety of airports and seaports, utilities and 
water supplies, but they certainly need the supplemental funding and 
grants that this bill makes available. With over 7,500 miles of land 
border and 361 seaports, the local authorities obviously, Mr. Speaker, 
will always be the front line of defense. First responders are the key 
to the effective protection of our communities. The Office of Domestic 
Preparedness has seen an increase in grants and aid of 1,400 percent 
since September 11, 2001. Through fiscal year 2004, this Congress has 
enacted or proposed over $17 billion in funding for local emergency 
work. Although much of the funding

[[Page 15808]]

goes through State governments for distribution, of those funds 80 
percent must be sent, passed on to the local municipalities by the 
States within 45 days.

                              {time}  1145

  To further ensure the safety of the American people, we have 
instituted very clear guidelines for grant eligibility. Local and State 
officials must create a multiyear Homeland Security Plan. This will 
ensure that Congress is not just throwing money at the problem, but 
working to find a forum in which State and local governments can find 
comprehensive, long-term solutions.
  The Department of Homeland Security is also working diligently to 
protect our ports of entry. There is $61.7 million in this bill for the 
Container Security Initiative known as CSI. It is our belief that 
security at the ports of the United States should really be the last 
line of defense, if possible, and not the first.
  Through the Container Security Initiative, the Bureau of Customs and 
Border Protection is working with the world's largest ports to secure 
and screen cargo before it leaves for the United States. We now require 
24-hour advanced notice for manifests of cargo ships heading to the 
United States. This allows the Department of Homeland Security to see 
what is on a ship before it gets near the coasts of the United States. 
Through a sophisticated database screening system and ground personnel 
working with other countries, the Department of Homeland Security is 
creating a frontline of defense hundreds, and, in many instances, 
thousands of miles from the United States.
  H.R. 2555 also continues funding for the Transportation Security 
Administration at over $5 billion, $5.172 billion to be exact, $360 
million over the President's request, as we continue to work to ensure 
that airplane travel is as safe as possible.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, this bill addresses the creation of Project 
Bioshield. In a speech to the Bio 2003 Convention Center and Exhibition 
yesterday, President George W. Bush stated, ``Project Bioshield will 
give our scientific leaders greater authority and more flexibility in 
decisions that may affect our national security. Our labs will be able 
to hire the right experts, to buy the right equipment, and to speed the 
construction of the right facilities to accelerate urgently needed 
discoveries.''
  Mr. Speaker, I believe that Project Bioshield is truly one of the 
most important programs created as a direct result of the threats to 
the homeland of the United States. Similar to the space race during the 
decade of the 1960s, the Nation faces a time when it must rely on the 
great innovations of science and research, in this instance, to keep 
our communities safe. I am confident that this legislation addresses 
those needs by providing Project Bioshield with nearly $6 billion over 
the next 10 years.
  H.R. 2555, Mr. Speaker, is very important legislation. It is 
important that we bring it forth today. I am proud to be able to do so. 
It is essential to the continued commitment by this Congress for the 
security and safety of all citizens and residents of the United States 
and, in fact, to the well-being of our homeland. We bring it forth 
under a fair and open rule. The legislation was reported out of the 
Committee on Appropriations by a voice vote. I think it is very 
appropriate to thank, and I do so, the gentleman from Florida (Chairman 
Young) and the gentleman from Kentucky (Chairman Rogers) for their 
leadership on this important issue; and I urge my colleagues to support 
both the rule and the underlying legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I supported the Department of Homeland Security back 
when most Republicans still opposed it, and I served on the Select 
Committee that created the new Department last year, so I expect to 
vote for this bill to fund the Department on final passage.
  But before we get to that point, Members will have the chance to 
address several serious weaknesses in America's homeland defense 
system.
  First, we need to pass the amendment of the gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Obey), the ranking member of the committee, to increase security 
at our ports, our airports, and our northern border, and to meet other 
vital security needs identified by the Bush administration. As it 
stands, the base bill does not address major holes in homeland defense, 
and the Obey amendment would plug some of those. And to do it, all we 
have to do is ask millionaires to take slightly smaller tax breaks than 
they are already getting next year. It is a reasonable trade: about 
200,000 millionaires would give up just $5,000 of the over-$88,000 in 
tax breaks they are getting next year, and all Americans would get 
critical homeland security investments.
  Unfortunately, the Republican leadership is not willing to ask 
millionaires to accept an $83,000 tax break next year rather than an 
$88,000 tax break, so they blocked the Obey amendment.
  Fortunately, Mr. Speaker, addressing the second issue does not cost a 
dime, but it is fundamental to the success of the new Department of 
Homeland Security. As my colleagues will recall, when the Congress 
created this powerful new domestic security agency last year, several 
Members, Republicans as well as Democrats, expressed concern that its 
powers could be abused and turned against law-abiding American 
citizens. The former House majority leader, Dick Armey of Texas, was 
particularly outspoken on this issue.
  Unfortunately, we have already seen an example of the danger that 
concerned Mr. Armey.
  And that is why it is absolutely critical that the House act to 
protect the Department of Homeland Security from ever again being used 
as the Department of Political Security, as happened just last month.
  Mr. Speaker, the Department of Homeland Security became involved in a 
partisan political dispute last month when it helped Texas Republicans 
hunt down law-abiding Democratic State legislators. Specifically, the 
Homeland Security agency charged with tracking terrorists was enlisted 
to help Texas Republicans trying to track Democratic lawmakers who had 
stood up to the Republican leadership in Austin. These Democratic 
legislators violated neither State nor Federal law. They simply used a 
legal parliamentary tactic, breaking a quorum, in a legislative battle 
to stop an unprecedented bill to unnecessarily redraw Texas's 
congressional districts. They employed a legitimate parliamentary 
tactic that Republicans have used at other times and in other places.
  But when Abraham Lincoln broke a quorum in the Illinois legislature 
in 1839, his political opponents did not have the option of using the 
Department of Homeland Security to track him down. Neither did the 
officers of the U.S. Senate in 1988 when Senate Republicans tried to 
break a quorum.
  Today, however, the Department of Homeland Security has enormous 
domestic intelligence powers. And somehow, on May 12, 2003, America's 
homeland security resources were employed to help Texas Republicans 
against their political rivals.
  There is really no disputing this, Mr. Speaker. According to a report 
by the Department's own Inspector General, the Homeland Security 
Department's Air and Marine Interdiction Coordination Center spent its 
resources helping the Texas State police and the Texas Republican 
leaders directing the manhunt trying to find the plane of former Texas 
Speaker Pete Laney, a Democratic legislature who had flown to Oklahoma, 
to break the quorum. Many of my colleagues will remember Mr. Laney as 
the Democrat who introduced George W. Bush to the Nation on the night 
that he was declared President by the Supreme Court.
  If my colleagues can believe it, Mr. Speaker, Homeland Security 
officials maintain that the 40 minutes they spent assisting in the 
Texas Republican's manhunt was only a ``minimal'' amount of work. That 
is a troubling excuse.
  If the Department of Homeland Security spent just 1 minute in a 
domestic

[[Page 15809]]

political dispute, then it was 1 minute too long. But they spent 40 
minutes, which is longer than it took for terrorists to carry out their 
September 11 attack on the World Trade Center.
  Even the office of a Republican Member, Representative Ken Calvert, 
who represents the Riverside area where the AMICC is based, called to 
express shock at their involvement, at the Homeland Security 
Department's involvement in this political matter.
  Mr. Speaker, Homeland Security officials also contend that they were 
tricked into getting involved. The report issued by the Department's 
Inspector General indicates that ``several individuals'' were 
instructing the Texas State police officer who got homeland security 
involved in the manhunt. According to a partial and heavily blacked-out 
transcript released by the Homeland Security officials, the officer was 
taking direct orders from a ``State representative.''
  The Texas State police refused to identify who was directing them, 
and they quickly destroyed most of the documents relating to the 
episode. As a result, Homeland Security referred this case to the 
Federal Bureau of Investigation, but the FBI says it has no interest in 
investigating.
  Fortunately, some Texas State police field notes survived the 
document purge and they indicate that Texas Republicans, Governor Rick 
Perry, State House Speaker Tom Craddick and others, personally 
instructed the State police during much of the manhunt which was run 
out of Speaker Craddick's office.
  So as my colleagues can see, Mr. Speaker, a lot of disturbing 
questions remain unanswered about how homeland security resources were 
used to help the Texas Republicans track their political rivals.
  Mr. Speaker, let me be clear: my goal here today is to protect the 
Department of Homeland Security. Its mission, safeguarding Americans 
against the threat of terrorism, is too important to risk undermining 
its credibility with the public.
  But even if homeland security officials were misled, and the 
available facts do not clearly support that excuse, the entire episode 
still reveals the Department of Homeland Security's dangerous 
vulnerability to abuse.
  Unfortunately, Homeland Security officials have refused to even 
acknowledge the Department's vulnerability or the threat it poses to 
their mission. Secretary Ridge has refused to release the complete 
tapes of the Department's communications with Texas officials or anyone 
else involved in this episode, despite legitimate requests from 
numerous Members of Congress, including the ranking members of the 
House and Senate committees that oversee the Department.
  And the Department's Inspector General declared that its own agency's 
actions were ``appropriate.''
  Mr. Speaker, that is so wrong that it is frightening. It is never 
appropriate to use homeland resources for partisan purposes, no matter 
how many minutes Homeland Security officials spend helping one 
political party, or which party they help. On the contrary, it is a 
dangerous abuse of power, one that threatens the liberties of all 
Americans, and one that risks public support for the Department of 
Homeland Security.
  That is why the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards), a member of the 
Committee on Appropriations, and the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. 
Jackson-Lee), a member of the Select Committee on Homeland Security, 
submitted amendments to the Committee on Rules last night to ensure 
that the Department of Homeland Security never again finds itself being 
used for partisan purposes.
  Republicans on the Committee on Rules, however, seem not to 
understand the seriousness of the Department's vulnerability or the 
importance of closing this loophole immediately, because they blocked 
both amendments.
  As a result, there is only one way to protect the Department of 
Homeland Security against political abuse: by opposing the important 
procedural vote known as the previous question. If we defeat the 
previous question, I will amend the rule to allow the House to consider 
these two amendments to restore public trust in America's homeland 
security officials.
  Mr. Speaker, this should not be a partisan issue. I urge my 
colleagues to put politics aside and oppose the previous question.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
Sabo), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Homeland Security of 
the Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, and I rise in opposition to the rule for the fiscal year 2004 
Homeland Security appropriations bill. The rule should be opposed for 
several reasons. I will raise two of them.
  First, the rule does not protect an amendment I offered that was 
adopted in committee which concerns the Transportation Security 
Administration's new computerized airline passenger profile system 
called CAPPS2.
  As proposed, CAPPS2 potentially represents the largest-ever intrusion 
of the Federal Government into our personal lives. Under it, a Federal 
agency would mine sensitive personnel data on millions of people for 
the routine event of flying on an airplane. The privacy and due process 
concerns are immense. The administration has been working on CAPPS2 
since late last year.

                              {time}  1200

  But there remains many unanswered questions about it. It deserves far 
more scrutiny than has been paid so far. I am concerned that TSA may 
not currently possess the expertise to design a fair and effective 
passenger screening system, one that catches the people who mean us 
harm, while protecting those who do not.
  I am concerned for law abiding people, especially those with common 
names and those who move residences often or who do not have well-
established credit histories like college students and older Americans. 
I worry that these honest people will be singled out for further TSA 
screening, not based on risk but simply because the system is not well 
designed.
  I am concerned that while TSA may set up a mediator to deal with 
passenger problems, it may be a mediator in name only. There may be no 
adequate process for passengers to get problems fully resolved because 
TSA will not control all the data bases it plans to use. If so, once 
red flagged, will law abiding people be needlessly hassled every time 
they fly? And to make matters worse, would such mistaken red flags of 
people who pose no risk cause the passenger and baggage screening 
systems to become overburdened, thereby raising the risk of lowering 
it?
  My amendment, the CAPPS2 provision in the bill, requires the GAO to 
review CAPPS2 as it exists today before funding can be obligated on a 
planned pilot program.
  GAO's review would mirror the recommendations put forth by the 
Secretary of Defense and the Attorney General in the report they 
submitted on May 20 on DOD's Terrorism Information Awareness Program. 
It is unclear how many of these recommendations, if any, have been 
filed by the TSA or by the Department of Homeland Security. I suspect 
none.
  The CAPPS2 provisions in the bill are reasonable and should have been 
protected in the rule from points of order.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to 
the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence), truly one of the most 
thoughtful and really an extraordinary leader in this House.
  Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I was here, as you were, and as most of us in this 
institution were on the day September 11, 2001. It was a sunny day, 
just really very much like today. All of us were busy about our 
business, breakfast meetings of that Tuesday, when we received word of 
what happened in New York and then happened again and then happened 
within a proximity of these buildings that is still jarring to the

[[Page 15810]]

memory of most Americans, the causality and the horrific tragedy at the 
Pentagon.
  So this business of homeland security is a very serious and near-to-
the-heart business for me. While I am not a member of the Committee on 
Appropriations that crafted the critical legislation upon which this 
rule is based, I am a member of the House Committee on the Judiciary's 
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security; and I was 
compelled to come to the floor today, Mr. Speaker, and speak about what 
it is that we are doing in the majority for homeland security. And 
because there is much in the national debate and much in the debate on 
this blue and gold carpet that suggests that we are not doing our part. 
And I am duty-bound to come here today and say that I believe we are. 
In fact, I helped to draft the legislation that created the new 
Department of Homeland Security.
  And the first priority of that new department, the first of its kind 
in decades, is to protect our Nation against further terrorist attack. 
Our first priority, Mr. Speaker, is to ensure the Department is 
properly funded to fulfill its mission. And I believe the gentleman 
from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) and the members of the subcommittee who 
prepared this critical appropriations legislation in the area of 
homeland security have crafted a balanced bill that will keep our 
homeland safer in an age of growing terrorist threats, will meet those 
needs of first providers.
  The bill recognizes the need for coordination at every level of 
homeland security. Here are a few examples: We do support State and 
local first responders, $1.9 billion for an Office of Domestic 
Preparedness basic formula grants; $500 million for State and local law 
enforcement terrorism prevention grants; $750 million for firefighters 
grants; $168 million for emergency management performance grants.
  Also, this legislation today will do much to strengthen and protect 
our borders, porous as they have been, threatening our national 
security. This bill will provide $9 billion for border protection and 
related activities, including $129 million for inspection technologies 
for vehicles and cargo; $61.7 million for container security, and $12.1 
million for Customs Trade Partnership Against Terrorism.
  We also are enhancing the transportation security, $1.6 billion for 
passenger screening, $1.2 billion for baggage screening efforts, and 
the list goes on and on and on.
  Mr. Speaker, much will be said today as we proceed through this rule, 
debate, and through general debate that the majority has not done 
enough. But there are literally billions and billions of dollars 
carefully crafted in the area of first responders, protecting our 
borders, transportation security that argue eloquently and forcefully 
otherwise.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Homeland Security Appropriations 
Act and this rule. I believe it strikes a balance perfectly between the 
missions previously under the umbrella of other agencies that now find 
themselves under this new department.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Doggett).
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, Austin, Texas is the proud capital of the 
Lone Star State. And we say rather modestly there that we are the live 
music capital of the world. We do so because of an immense amount of 
talent and a great interest in music in our community. But of late 
there has been music of a different type.
  We have had the Republican majority leader, the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. DeLay) trying to call the tune and forcing the leaders of our 
State to dance to his tune. Indeed, he has spent so much time in Austin 
arm twisting and cajoling State legislators, huddling a week ago today 
with the Governor, Lieutenant Governor, and Speaker of Texas House, 
that just this past Friday he was named by Texas Monthly as one of the 
10 worst members of the Texas legislature, not of the United States 
Congress. It is difficult to determine for which body he is devoting 
the most time.
  Against that backdrop, we consider this legislation. The problem that 
we face today is that no matter how much we appropriate for homeland 
security to protect us against terrorism, if its resources are being 
diverted to political purposes, such as fulfilling the desires of the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), then we will not have the protections 
that the American people deserve. We know that the Department allocated 
some of its resources to searching for Texas legislators who were 
involved in legitimate opposition to the DeLay Redistricting Plan.
  The Department first assigned a former Republican Congressional 
candidate from Texas as the Inspector General to conduct an 
``independent'' investigation to decide whether the resources had been 
misallocated. When that gentleman, after his biased and partisan 
background on this matter was exposed, recused himself, and then 
another person was appointed, we were assured that she, as an Inspector 
General at the Department of Homeland Security, would get to the bottom 
of this.
  She assured us she would explore all aspects of the misuse of the 
Department of Homeland Security, but then produced a report that only 
looked at the sole issue of the Department's inability to find a cotton 
farmer from Plainview and where his plane had gone. I hope they are 
able to do a better job with terrorism than they did in locating an 
airplane of a former Democratic Speaker of the Texas House. She did 
not, as promised, conduct a broad examination of misuse of any 
resources in any part of the Department. Though she told us she would 
get to the bottom of who required that this investigation be 
undertaken, she did not do that and her report is silent on whether any 
federal office holders or their employees were involved.
  As with the Department of Justice, the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation, the United States Attorneys Office, the U.S. Marshals 
Service, we have received no information in response to repeated 
requests about how they may have been misused by the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. DeLay) or others in this investigation in the State of 
Texas. In fact, we have a stone wall and we have asked the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. DeLay), well known as ``the hammer'' to tear down that 
stone wall. To date we have nothing but silence and excuses and 
stonewalling with reference to these matters.
  What relevance does that have to today's appropriations request? All 
the relevance in the world. If the Department of Homeland Security, the 
U.S. Marshals Service or the Department of Justice can be used for 
partisan political purposes like this and all it takes is a call from 
someone with a badge, what is there to prevent a sheriff somewhere in 
America who wants the Department of Homeland Security to help with a 
divorce investigation to involve them in this? If there is a local 
police chief who wants to do some opposition research on the opponent 
of a local mayor who is up for reelection, who will prevent the 
Department of Homeland Security from getting involved in that? If you 
have a local police officer who is suspicious of a political or 
religious group, what is there to prevent the Department of Homeland 
Security from responding to his request.
  Well, from what we have learned in ``Texasgate'' so far, one would 
say there is very little and that this episode only reinforces the 
concerns of many Americans that this Department, well intentioned as it 
may be, would bring us a new America in which the watchword is ``spy on 
our neighbors.'' There is very real concern about government resources 
that should be dedicated to protecting American families and instead 
could be misused for personal or political gain.
  Until we get a full and complete disclosure from all the participants 
in this scandal, we will not have a complete answer as to whether 
Americans are adequately protected, and that is the purpose of 
defeating this motion for the previous question on this rule. In this 
way, we can attempt to get to the bottom of this and to ensure that the 
resources are not diverted from where they should be to protect our 
families, into protecting some political

[[Page 15811]]

partisan who is trying to reshape America in his image.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member on the full Committee on 
Appropriations.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, will the Chair notify me when I have used 5 
minutes?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The Chair will.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, this bill should not even be here at this 
time. The Committee on Appropriations chairman, the gentleman from 
Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), knows his stuff. And he demonstrated that last 
year when he did very heavy oversight of the Transportation Security 
Administration, which was totally screwed up at the time.
  The problem we have with this bill being before us today is that this 
new agency was extremely reluctant to provide useful information to 
this Congress so that we could make intelligent judgments about how to 
allocate money to this new agency. And we have a specific problem, 
because the reorganization bill that passed with much ballyhoo last 
year is not what it is cracked up to be. Before the passage of that 
legislation we had 133 agencies that had something to do with homeland 
security. And what the bill finally did was to take 22 of those 
agencies, not including the FBI and the CIA, the two gut agencies in 
our fight against terrorism, so they took 22 agencies, put them in the 
department that they called ``Homeland Security,'' and we are supposed 
to stand up and sing Hosannas. The problem is that left 111 other 
agencies uncoordinated, outside the tent.
  So we had that basic confusion to begin with, and now we have even 
more confusion at the agency. This new agency, for instance, we are 
told still has not prepared a telephone directory for its employees so 
people can reach who they are supposed to reach if they have a problem.
  Now, there is nothing wrong with this bill if you think it is 
perfectly okay to proceed on the status quo, because this bill provides 
a meager 1.8 percent increase over last year's budget for the agencies 
meant to protect us against terrorism. But because of inflation that 
means there will be on a per capita basis less security provided to 
each and every citizen of this country this year than was the case last 
year. And yet we hear many stories about deficiencies in securing this 
country.

                              {time}  1215

  Example, we had over 60 uncleared aircraft that flew from Canada into 
the United States last year. We have no assurance about what was in 
those planes or who was in those planes. We have $4 billion that the 
Coast Guard has told us that we need to provide over time to our port 
facilities for security purposes. We are only inspecting 2 percent of 
all of the cargoes that come into our national ports; and we have what 
was supposed to be the brain of the agency, the information analysis 
division, having a terrible time getting off the ground after the 
reorganization.
  So I want to put the House on notice now. I intend to offer an 
amendment that would add $1 billion to key security functions. I would 
add $400 million for port security grants. The Coast Guard has told us 
that we need $4.4 billion, and this will speed up that timetable a bit. 
My amendment would also bring to 25 percent the Federal contribution of 
port facility security needs. That leaves a huge percentage of the bill 
still in local hands. If we do not do this, it will take close to 20 
years before we are providing half the cost of meeting that security. 
That is a little bit too long to wait, I think.
  Thirdly, we would add $100 million to the Coast Guard to effectively 
implement the Maritime Security Administration Act, which was created 
in order to improve our ability to analyze vessel threat information. 
And my amendment would also provide $100 million to increase the number 
of Customs inspectors now inspecting container ships into the United 
States. This would allow 1,300 additional Customs inspectors to be 
brought on. That is still a drop in the bucket in comparison to what 
they need.
  We would also provide $200 million to improve security on the 
northern borders, some 5,500 miles long; and we have virtually no 
capacity to cover large sections of it. During Operation Liberty 
Shield, there were 10 aircraft that came across that border without a 
clearance, even though that border was being patrolled by air for 30 
straight days. I would say that is a problem.
  People will say how do we intend to pay for this amendment. We would 
intend to pay for the amendment by reducing the size of the tax cut 
that this Congress just provided for people who make over $1 million a 
year. We would reduce that average tax cut from $88,300 to $83,300. 
That is hardly crippling the most well-off people in this country, but 
that tiny adjustment in their windfall would enable us to significantly 
enhance the security of the United States. It would inure to their 
benefit as well as citizens who do not get that fat a tax cut. I think 
it is perfectly rational.
  I know some people will say, ``Oh my goodness, you must not do that 
because you will be invading the jurisdiction of another committee.'' I 
would point out that if you go back just a few months ago on the 
omnibus appropriation bill, we had a whole slew of proposals that the 
House leadership insisted that we put into that appropriation bill. 
Most of those items were under the jurisdiction of the Committee on 
Ways and Means. So all we are doing is what the leadership of this 
House itself did last year, and it seems to me that we ought to put the 
welfare of the country, ahead of what Dick Bolling, my mentor from 
Missouri, described years ago as being jurisdictional dung hill 
politics. We should not worry about jurisdiction. We should worry about 
what kind of a job we do on the substantive level.
  So basically, Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Rules did not allow my 
amendment to be made in order. What is happening is this: when the 
budget resolution process was first established by the Congress, the 
purpose was to make Congress face up to choices and to recognize what 
the trade-offs would be when you made those choices; but the way the 
House leadership is running the budget process today, they are 
guaranteeing that there is never any linkage between actions and 
consequences.
  What this House did on the budget resolution, what this House did on 
the tax bill has now dictated to this committee the limitations under 
which we bring this bill to the floor, and that is why this bill is 
woefully inadequate in terms of meeting the security interests and 
needs of the United States.
  So I make no apology for trying to do something a little different in 
order to try to get more resources into this area. I think any American 
concerned with our security would understand why we do it; and I think 
it is about time that we demonstrate that there are costs, there are 
costs to the tax action that was just taken in Congress. Those costs 
mean that we have less money available to make the crucial investments 
we need in homeland security and, for that matter, also health care, 
education, science, you name it.
  What I am trying to do is to demonstrate what those real trade-offs 
are, even though it is apparent that the majority leadership in the 
House wants to hide those trade-offs from the American people. I think 
the public has a right to know what services they are going to be 
denied on the security front because of that tax action.
  I thank the gentleman for his time.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to 
my good friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton).
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding 
me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I really did not plan to speak on this bill, but some of 
my good friends on the minority side from Texas have been up talking 
about alleged abuse of funding or power in terms of homeland security 
officials attempting to find some missing State legislators who went 
down to Austin

[[Page 15812]]

and then left Austin and went up to Ardmore, Oklahoma, hung out at the 
Holiday Inn for a couple of days while the Texas legislature was 
considering a redistricting bill for Congress.
  The Inspector General of the homeland security has done an 
investigation of this allegation and found no substance to it, no 
merit. As it turns out, the information in terms of the tail number and 
things like that are available to any citizen in this country who 
wishes to call the FAA. If they have a tail number, and if that 
airplane is in the air, FAA will tell a person where that particular 
airplane is. That is public information unless they have changed the 
protocol in the last 2 or 3 weeks, and is available to anybody who 
wishes to try to track where somebody is, that is, if they have the 
tail number.
  What happened down in Austin was that the Texas House was going to 
move a bill to rectify past gerrymanders of the congressional lines 
that go back over 30 years, and some of the Democratic State 
legislators decided that they did not want to be part of it; and under 
the Texas Constitution, it requires a two-thirds vote to have a quorum. 
Enough legislators left town on an organized basis, went up to Oklahoma 
and hung out until the legislature session had ended. Well, that is 
according to the rules and may be good press, but it is not going to 
work in the long term because the Governor called a special session 
that is going to start in a couple of weeks, and the lines are going to 
be redrawn to verify the voting wishes of the people of Texas, not of 
some of the political polls in the minority party.
  So I just wanted to come over and set the record straight. There has 
been no abuse of power. There has been no illegal use of funds. There 
has been nothing like that.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Austin, briefly.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, is the gentleman aware that the Inspector 
General of the Department of Homeland Security has not reported on any 
aspect of whether homeland security resources were used other than the 
aircraft and has specifically declined to report on which individuals 
may have asked that homeland security resources be diverted for this 
purpose? In other words, the investigation is incomplete.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my good friend from 
Austin raising that question.
  My information is that the Inspector General has done an 
investigation. There is not an issue there. I think some State 
officials when this, what I would call a ``bug out'' to Ardmore, the 
gentleman may have a different term for it, he might call it something 
differently, but when that happened, the Governor and the Speaker of 
the House, as is their authority under the Texas law, sought to bring 
the recalcitrant lawmakers back to the legislature so there would be a 
quorum; and they touched bases with a number of State and Federal 
officials, and some of the Federal officials made a couple of phone 
calls, but there was no abuse of power and nothing illegal that has 
happened, and this is what the investigation has said.
  Again, I am here as a Republican, a Member of the majority party. I 
have got no problem if in Austin certain legislators do not want to 
report for a quorum. That is something that we have the authority to do 
here; and as my colleague knows, the Texas constitution requires a two-
thirds membership present if there is a question of the quorum. So we 
do not have a problem with that, but I think the State officials in 
Austin had every right to try to find where those legislators went and 
try to get them back if they could get them back so there would be a 
quorum, and there is nothing illegal about that, and there is nothing 
unethical about that, and there is nothing improper about that.
  So I just kind of wanted to set the record straight. It may be good 
political theater, but there is no illegality that has gone on and the 
Inspector General said that.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining on each side?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Frost) has 6 minutes remaining. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln 
Diaz-Balart) has 13 minutes remaining.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Doggett).
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, just to complete the record, it is very 
clear that the office of Inspector General did not explore anything 
other than one aircraft. They did not explore the other misuse of the 
response of the Department of Homeland Security; and, second, it is 
clear that they failed to provide or even pursue evidence on the 
question of which Federal officials may have asked for this 
misappropriation of resources. Finally, to complete the record, history 
shows that it was Abraham Lincoln who was among the first to use this 
tactic of defeating a quorum.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to 
the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth), my good friend.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Florida for 
yielding me this time, and I would rise in support of this rule.
  It has been interesting to hear the debate, if we could characterize 
it as that, thus far. We hear about an internal redistricting dispute 
within the State of Texas. We have the other friends predictably come 
to this well and somehow try to trot out the shop-worn thesis that the 
people's economic security at home should be invalidated by command and 
control spending here in Washington; and undergirding all this, Mr. 
Speaker, is this simple proposition for the left: it is never enough.
  Indeed, if we take the debate and the dispute as it is here and in so 
many different areas, our same friends who come to us time and again on 
different issues and would have the American people believe that they 
are the champions of eliminating the deficit, that they are for fiscal 
responsibility, when it comes to spending programs, and perhaps this 
one especially, they begin from the thesis that there is never enough 
spending, not that the considerable resources that we will bring to 
bear in this appropriation, billions of dollars, can be utilized in 
judicious, concentrated fashion to bring about the desired ends. No, 
no.
  Mr. Speaker, the resounding chorus from the left is, it is never 
enough, with an interesting variation. If one succeeds in America, they 
are to be singled out for punishment for succeeding, for paying their 
taxes; we want to reinstitute taxes on them because their economic 
security or the economic security they provide to workers they hire in 
small business should be invalidated for the class warfare scenario 
that states somehow they are unworthy because they succeed.
  So my friends will offer an amendment, I suppose, later when we move 
this on to raise taxes; and I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, to this House 
and to my colleagues, in so doing, they are denying what is obvious and 
that is that there is a link between economic security for all 
Americans and homeland security for all Americans.
  Just as we understand the best social program on Earth is a job, we 
get there not from the command and control of the left who believe the 
answer is always in bureaucratically driven jobs. We get there by 
allowing people to use their money to save, spend and invest to create 
new jobs in the private sector; and yes, we maintain a judicious and 
concentrated use of funds to protect our homeland and to protect the 
American people.

                              {time}  1230

  But again, Mr. Speaker, remember what the resounding chorus will be 
from the left: It is never enough. And there are myriad uses for your 
money over and beyond the saving, spending and investing of same in 
your family's economic security.
  You see, I do not believe, Mr. Speaker, these two goals are mutually 
exclusive. I believe the American people need to keep more of their 
hard-earned money to save, spend, and invest, because I believe it will 
lead to higher

[[Page 15813]]

employment and economic gains. But I also believe the bill we will 
consider today stands up for national security, makes a difference for 
this American Nation, and so I would ask my colleagues to join with me 
in voting in the affirmative.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I wish that this debate was 
simply about making sure that the homeland is secure. I rise in 
opposition to this rule and associate myself with the words of the 
ranking member of this committee, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Obey).
  This is not about stealing hard-earned dollars from taxpayers, it is 
about providing for the safety of Americans and taking a few thousand 
dollars from the million-dollar earners that the big tax bust this 
Republican administration has given, where those making $1 million will 
get a whopping $90,000 check almost, merely taking a few thousand from 
that paycheck and providing Americans with the kind of security they 
deserve.
  Frankly, Mr. Speaker, while we speak on this floor with two or three 
Members, Rome burns, terrorists are planning, cells that terrorists 
have are in the United States, terrorists are walking across the 
border, and terrorism is much rampant around the United States and 
around the world. Why? Because this administration is doing nothing 
about it.
  So I come to the floor today to talk about making sure that Homeland 
Security protects neighborhoods and communities and ports and cities 
and school districts.
  This is not a joke. This is not about a mere political question in 
the State of Texas where those who did not want to be struck up and 
hung by the Republican Party used their constitutional rights and left 
the floor of the House. This is about an OIG report that comes to the 
United States Congress with all these black marks in it. There is no 
truth in these reports. They are not telling us the truth. They are 
hiding the truth. And yet the people on this floor and the people who 
run these committees refuse to have an investigation to find out what 
the truth is.
  Mr. Speaker, we need an amendment that has been rejected, that simply 
tells us to make sure that no homeland security funds can be used for 
the surveillance powers of the Department of Homeland Security for 
purposes not related to protecting homeland security. That is all we 
are asking. I would say that this is a rule that should be rejected.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to 
the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Culberson).
  Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Speaker, with some personal experience, having 
served 14 years in the Texas Legislature, and having many friends who 
serve in the Texas House, and having just been elected in the 2000 
election, I felt compelled to come to the floor and offer some personal 
perspective on the, I think, highly improper and blatant partisan 
attacks that the Democrats are making that have absolutely nothing to 
do with homeland security.
  The Inspector General has already made a report on whatever 
allegations the Democrats are making. The Inspector General has already 
determined that everything that was done was properly done. The 
majority leader's office has said repeatedly, and this is confirmed by 
the Inspector General's report, that there was no contact between the 
majority leader's office and the Department of Homeland Security. This 
is an irrelevant distraction from the core important work that this 
Congress and the Nation must do in protecting our borders, in 
preventing people from coming across the border who might pose a threat 
to the security of this Nation.
  The Democrats in Texas who walked off the job in the regular session 
of the legislature did so in a way that the public in Texas, the people 
of Texas recognized was improper; that it was wrong for them to walk 
off. And in fact it is incredible to me that the Democrats who walked 
off the job did so in a way that completely defied the majority will of 
the people of Texas.
  Since Reconstruction, since 1876, the Democrats have controlled the 
State of Texas. We just elected a new Republican majority to the Texas 
House. The Texas Senate is now Republican. Our Governor is Republican. 
The Federal courts have controlled our prisons for up to 25 years. I 
led the effort to regain control over our Texas prison system from 
Federal Judge William Wayne Justice. Our State courts control our 
school finance system. Federal courts control our mental health 
hospitals in Texas. And it is entirely proper, in fact it is essential 
under our constitutional republican form of government that the people 
control their institutions, that the people control the way their 
congressional districts are drawn, and a majority of the people of 
Texas elected a Republican Legislature to pass Republican legislation.
  Now, I can attest, as the Republican whip in the Texas House, that I 
still have tread marks on my back from being run over every day by Ann 
Richards and Speaker Pete Laney. I always got right back up and dove 
into the fighting, fighting the tax increases the Democrats passed 
repeatedly in Texas, fighting Ann Richards and the Democrats' creation 
of the first income tax on businesses in Texas. I got right back up 
after they passed those new tax increases, and I did not give up and 
walk out. It is a part of the process that you make your best argument 
in the legislative body, and if you lose, that is majority rule.
  I think it is also very instructive that the Democrats chose to walk 
out to protect their own political hides. They did not walk out to 
protect some minority group or some special interest group they are so 
fond of. They walked out to protect their own political hide. It is 
very revealing for the people of the United States to see that the 
Democrats choose to pick up this kind of dust, to make this sort of 
distraction, to walk out and shut down the entire legislative process 
to protect their own political power, to protect their own political 
hides rather than to go and walk out or make this big statement in 
defense of some group or some budget cut that they might have disagreed 
with.
  I think it is entirely appropriate that the Inspector General's 
report has shown that everything that was done was done so properly. 
And also, the Speaker of the House has authority in Texas, as the 
Speaker does here, to place a call in the House and use the law 
enforcement authority at his disposal to find members, to locate them 
and bring them back on the job. This House Chamber has been locked down 
before to keep Members in the Chamber so they would do their job, and 
it has been done several times in Texas.
  In fact, while I was there, the Democrats did walk out once in 
protest over failure of the legislature to create a pre-kindergarten 
program, I think in 1991. But again, here they walked out to protect 
their own political skins. I urge the House to vote against this 
amendment.
  Mr. FROST. I would inquire as to how much time remains, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Frost) has 3\3/4\ minutes remaining and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Lincoln Diaz-Balart) has 5 minutes remaining.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Sweeney).
  Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, and I had no intention of coming to the floor and speaking on 
this rule. I am a member of the Select Committee on Homeland Security, 
and I assume there will be plenty of time this afternoon for me to give 
my appropriate comments. But I have to just say to my colleagues that I 
am quite frustrated. I am a New Yorker, I am an American, and I lost 
friends in the World Trade Center on September 11. What I would like to 
say to my friends on the other side is, let us move on. Let us not use 
any more distractions in this process.
  We waited a year, a year, to create the Department of Homeland 
Security

[[Page 15814]]

because the other body, in its leadership from the Democratic Party, 
decided a year ago that they would rather play politics than go to the 
business of the people and go to the business of creating this 
Department of Homeland Security.
  I listened to the esteemed ranking member of the Committee on 
Appropriations, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), on the floor a 
little while ago. And I have to say that I have great disagreement on 
policy, but I appreciate and respect the fact that he is coming to this 
floor and talking about the substance of this bill and the issue facing 
the American people on this most critical issue.
  Mr. Speaker, I would ask my friends, and implore upon my friends to 
allow us to move on and let us do the business of the people. That is 
what leadership is about, and that is what they expect of us.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that Members on the other side of the 
aisle and their colleagues in Texas sought to misuse Federal resources. 
Now, the Inspector General said, oh, but it was only 40 minutes, so it 
is no big deal. I would remind the gentleman on the other side of the 
aisle that the attack on the World Trade Center occurred in less than 
40 minutes, and so Republicans in Texas sought to divert homeland 
security resources for 40 minutes.
  What did they also seek to do? They also contacted the Department of 
Justice, tried to involve the FBI, tried to involve the U.S. Marshals 
Service, tried to involve the U.S. Attorney's Office in Texas. This was 
a blatant misuse of Federal resources, even if it were one minute. But 
it was not just one minute, and it was not just the Department of 
Homeland Security. It was other agencies of the Federal Government. 
They know it. It should never have happened and, hopefully, it will 
never happen again.
  I urge Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question. If the 
previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to the rule 
that will make in order two very important amendments that were 
submitted to the Committee on Rules last night and rejected by the 
Republican majority. Both of these amendments seek to protect the 
Department of Homeland Security against the type of political abuse it 
suffered when it ended up helping Texas Republicans hunt down their 
political rivals in a legislative dispute.
  The first amendment, by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards), a 
member of the Committee on Appropriations, would require the Secretary 
of the Department of Homeland Security to implement written procedures 
for the use of personnel and resources for any nonemergency use of 
homeland security services; and would prohibit the Office of Air and 
Marine Interdiction of the Bureau of Immigration and Customs 
Enforcement from supporting Federal, State or local law enforcement or 
humanitarian efforts until that is done.
  The second amendment, by the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-
Lee), a member of the Department of Homeland Security, would prohibit 
the Department from using funds for political purposes or for any other 
purpose not relating to protecting homeland security.
  I am confident that all Americans and all Members of this House 
support this sentiment expressed in these two amendments. So I urge 
Members on both sides of the aisle to vote ``no'' on the previous 
question. Let me emphasize a ``no'' vote will not stop the House from 
taking up the Homeland Security appropriations bill. It will not 
prevent other amendments from being offered under the open rule. 
However a ``yes'' vote will preclude the House from considering these 
two very important amendments that are critical to protecting the 
Department of Homeland Security's ability to protect Americans against 
terrorism.
  Also, assuming that the previous question passes, there will then be 
a vote on the rule, and I would urge Members at that point to vote 
against the rule so that the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) will 
have the opportunity to offer his amendment to put money back in this 
legislation to do the things that should have been done originally.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the 
amendment and extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the 
previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. FROST. Again, Mr. Speaker, let me emphasize that to protect the 
Department of Homeland Security against political abuse, vote ``no'' on 
the previous question.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such 
time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, we are very proud of the legislation being brought forth 
today by the Committee on Appropriations. I know that the chairman, the 
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), worked long and hard on this bill 
and deserves commendation by all of us as well as all the other Members 
that have worked so hard on this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, there are $29.4 billion in this underlying legislation 
for the Department of Homeland Security. That includes $4.4 billion for 
the Office of Domestic Preparedness. Now, the resources that the 
Congress is appropriating for the Office of Domestic Preparedness 
constitutes an increase of 1,400 percent for that critically important 
issue since September 11, 2001. The Congress is doing its job.

                              {time}  1245

  I think all of us should and I am sure do praise the work of the 
Subcommittee on Infrastructure and Border Security, that has permitted 
them to bring forth this legislation. There is a very important 
initiative of the many new initiatives to protect the Nation that is 
being funded by this legislation, the Container Security Initiative, so 
that commerce, trade that we see in all the ports of America, those 
containers sent from abroad, that they be inspected before they leave 
the ports that they come from so that the security of the Nation is 
significantly augmented in that fashion. That Container Security 
Initiative is funded in this bill.
  There are many other reasons why we should pass this legislation. I 
feel very proud of the underlying legislation and the fact that we are 
moving forward to increase the security of the American people. I urge 
support for the underlying legislation and this totally fair, open 
rule.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Frost is as follows:

 Previous Question for H. Res. 293 Rule on H.R. 2555: Fiscal Year 2004 
                    Homeland Security Appropriations

       At the end of the resolution, add the following:
       ``Sec. 2. Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
     resolution, the amendments printed in section 3 shall be in 
     order without intervention of any point of order and before 
     any other amendment if offered by the Member designated. Each 
     amendment may be offered only in the order specified in 
     section 3. The amendments are not subject to amendment except 
     for pro forma amendments or to a demand for a division of the 
     question in the committee of the whole or in the House.
       Sec. 3. The amendments referred to in section 2 are as 
     follows:
       (1) Amendment by Representative Edward of Texas or a 
     designee:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:


 limitation on use of personnel and resources of the office of air and 
                          marine interdiction

       Sec. __. (a) Congress finds that in May 2003 personnel and 
     resources of the Office of Air and Marine Interdiction of the 
     Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement were utilized 
     in an improper manner to locate legislators of the State of 
     Texas who were not in violation of any Federal, State, or 
     local law, or in need of any emergency humanitarian 
     assistance.
       (b) None of the funds made available in this Act may be 
     used to provide personnel or resources of the Office of Air 
     and Marine Interdiction of the Bureau of Immigration and 
     Customs Enforcement to support Federal, State, or local law 
     enforcement or humanitarian efforts until the Secretary of 
     Homeland Security implements written procedures to provide 
     such personnel or resources for such purposes. The limitation 
     of

[[Page 15815]]

     the preceding sentence shall not apply with respect to the 
     use of funds for a bona fide emergency situation.
       (2) Amendment by Representative Jackson-Lee of Texas or a 
     designee:
       At the end of the bill (preceding the short title) insert 
     the following:
       Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used for political purposes or any other purpose not 
     related to protecting homeland security, including for--
       (1) use of the surveillance powers of the Department of 
     Homeland Security, for a purpose not related to protecting 
     homeland security, to--
       (A) tap personal or business telephones; or
       (B) otherwise monitor or record conversations or activity 
     in any home, office, or other location; or
       (2) use of the investigative powers of the Department of 
     Homeland Security, for a purpose not related to protecting 
     homeland security, to track automobiles, airplanes, or other 
     modes of transportation.

  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the 
balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The question is on ordering 
the previous question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  Pursuant to clauses 8 and 9 of rule XX, this 15-minute vote on 
ordering the previous question will be followed by 5-minute votes on 
adopting the resolution, if ordered, and on the motions to suspend the 
rules relating to H.R. 923 and H.R. 1460.
  The vote on H.R. 1416 will be taken later today.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 221, 
nays 196, not voting 17, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 301]

                               YEAS--221

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burr
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole
     Collins
     Cox
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Janklow
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     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
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--196

     Abercrombie
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Ballance
     Becerra
     Bell
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Case
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Cooper
     Costello
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley (CA)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley (OR)
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lynch
     Majette
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     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
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner (TX)
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--17

     Ackerman
     Boucher
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Cannon
     Cardoza
     Conyers
     Cramer
     Cubin
     Feeney
     Gephardt
     Hulshof
     Matsui
     Ryun (KS)
     Smith (WA)
     Waters
     Wicker


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

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

                              {time}  1306

  Mrs. McCARTHY of New York and Mrs. CAPPS changed their vote from 
``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, this vote 
and the remainder in this series will be conducted as 5-minute votes.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 220, 
noes 197, not voting 17, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 302]

                               AYES--220

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burr
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole
     Collins
     Cox
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly

[[Page 15816]]


     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Janklow
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     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
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--197

     Abercrombie
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Ballance
     Becerra
     Bell
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Case
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Cooper
     Costello
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley (CA)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley (OR)
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lynch
     Majette
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     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
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner (TX)
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--17

     Ackerman
     Boucher
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Carter
     Conyers
     Cramer
     Cubin
     Duncan
     Feeney
     Gephardt
     Hulshof
     Ryun (KS)
     Smith (WA)
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Wicker


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

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

                              {time}  1313

  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________