[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 10]
[House]
[Pages 12920-12961]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




        DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2005

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). 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 
consideration of the bill, H.R. 4567.

                              {time}  1923


                     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 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. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having 
been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from Kentucky. (Mr. Rogers) and the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers).
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to be here to present to the body the 
fiscal year 2005 Homeland Security Appropriations bill, the second such 
bill ever

[[Page 12921]]

written by the Committee on Appropriations.
  The bill before us provides $32 billion for the Department of 
Homeland Security. That is $1.1 billion above the current year, and 
$496 million above the President's request.
  Mr. Chairman, it is very hard to believe that the Department was 
created just a year ago. There have been growing pains, but tremendous 
progress has been made. This is not an easy task to get our arms 
around, but I think the Department is succeeding, and their success is 
significant.
  In just one year, for example, the Department has inventoried the 
Nation's critical infrastructure to include more than 33,000 
facilities. The Department is identifying and reducing vulnerabilities 
at chemical facilities, nuclear power plants, national monuments, 
subway and light rail systems, and commercial sites. The Department has 
streamlined the process used to get the money out to first responders, 
setting up a one-stop shop. They continue to work with State and local 
governments to identify choke points so that money can flow quickly and 
get where it is needed. The Department regularly communicates threat 
information with State and local officials. Last year, the Department 
issued 41 warnings and advisory notices to State and local entities.
  The Department established a two-way communications system with State 
and local homeland security personnel. This system was recently used in 
Kentucky when there was a smallpox scare in the small rural town of 
London. The information was quickly passed on to the Department and 
other Federal officials and appropriate action was immediately taken. 
The system works.
  The Department has increased their presence to more than 38 ports in 
18 different countries, prescreening all high-risk cargo before it 
reaches our shores. The Department has established three Homeland 
Security Centers of Excellence, created standards for first responder 
equipment, and installed and operated sensor systems in 30 high-risk 
cities to detect biohazards. Those are just some things that they are 
doing.
  There is no doubt, Mr. Chairman, that more work needs to be done, but 
the Department is clearly on the right track, identifying our 
vulnerabilities, matching them to threats, and putting out specific 
guidance on ways to protect our homeland.
  Fiscal year 2005 will be the second full year of operation for the 
Department. This bill continues the successes of the past year and 
includes initiatives to move us closer to our goals of prevention, 
preparedness, and response.
  The bill provides $4.1 billion for our first responders, the first 
line of defense. These brave men and women are the first on the scene 
whenever there might be a problem. They are the backbone of our 
communities.
  Since 9/11, this Congress has provided $26.7 billion for these first 
responders. Those dollars have helped train more than 285,000 police, 
fire, and emergency medical personnel around the Nation to respond to 
acts of terrorism, including weapons of mass destruction. No community 
in America, whether urban or rural, is immune from acts of terrorism. 
This bill strikes a balance between funding high-risk communities and 
providing support for States and localities, striving to achieve and 
maintain minimum levels of preparedness. For 2005 we propose an 
additional $1.175 billion to improve security in our urban and most 
populated areas.
  The United States is the most open nation in the world. Our borders 
are the gateway for billions of dollars in commercial trade and 
millions of visitors. However, these same borders are potential entry 
points for terrorists and weapons of mass destruction. This 2005 bill 
provides $9.8 billion for border protection and related activities. 
This funding will continue our efforts to create smart borders that 
keep terrorists out of America without stemming the flow of commerce or 
legitimate travel. Funding will be used to operate and expand the 
container security initiative. Funding will be used to design and to 
identify, target, and search high-risk cargo before it enters our 
ports. We also fund advanced inspection technologies, including 
personal radiation monitors and detectors.
  This legislation fully supports security for all modes of 
transportation, providing $5.7 billion to the Transportation Security 
Administration and Federal Air Marshals.
  Since September 11, Congress has provided $14.3 billion for aviation 
security. Funding has been used for a host of purposes, including 
securing all of the cockpit doors on commercial flights, installing new 
technically advanced metal detectors at the airports, searching checked 
bags for explosives, and federalizing the screener workforce. We 
continue our commitment to aviation security in 2005 and fully fund the 
baggage and passenger screening efforts, as well as new technology to 
improve screening procedures at America's airports and giving Federal 
Air Marshals the funds they need to cover high-threat domestic and 
international flights.
  The bill also includes $118 million for air cargo screening which 
will support the hiring of 100 new air cargo inspectors, development of 
new cargo screening technology, and expansion of canine enforcement 
teams. The bill also requires TSA to double the number of cargo 
inspections on passenger aircraft.
  The bill funds several initiatives for rail security, providing $111 
million for grants to high-threat systems, technology to screen 
passengers and baggage, and furthering intelligence-related activities.

                              {time}  1930

  Security assessments for the 14 subway systems and 278 light rail 
systems have been completed. And this will continue in 2005.
  Additional funds are also provided for radiological, political, 
chemical and high explosives countermeasures to both rail and transit 
systems. There is $1.1 billion, Mr. Chairman, for the science and 
technology directorate. We are targeting funds for research, 
development, and the discovery of new technologies that can and are 
being used in our cities and towns today, including environmental 
sensors to detect biohazards and nuclear detection technology for 
cargo.
  We also continue to fully fund research and development for 
antimissile devices for commercial aircraft, the so-called ``man 
pads.'' The bill includes $855 million for information analysis and 
infrastructure protection. These funds will be used to complete an 
inventory of critical infrastructure, enhance current communication 
between Federal, State and local homeland security personnel, and 
assist local communities as they put protective measures in place. 
Funds will be used to train State homeland security advisors and local 
law enforcement on best practices for protecting their critical sites.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, this bill fully supports the traditional 
missions and operations of agencies that were merged into the 
Department including the Coast Guard, the Secret Service, and, of 
course, disaster relief. I believe, Mr. Chairman, we have produced the 
right mix for this Department. It builds upon the progress of the past 
year and furthers the protection of our beloved homeland.
                                         House of Representatives,


                                  Committee on Appropriations,

                                    Washington, DC, June 15, 2004.
     Hon. Bill Thomas,
     Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Thomas: Thank you for your letter regarding 
     H.R. 4567, the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations 
     Act for fiscal year 2005. As you have noted, the bill is 
     scheduled for floor consideration on Wednesday, June 16, 
     2004. I appreciate your agreement to expedite the passage of 
     this legislation although it contains a provision involving 
     overtime pay that falls within the Committee's jurisdiction. 
     I appreciate your decision to forgo further action on the 
     bill and acknowledge that it will not prejudice the Committee 
     on Ways and Means with respect to its jurisdictional 
     prerogatives on this or similar legislation.
       Our committees have worked closely together on this 
     important initiative, and I am very pleased we are continuing 
     that cooperation. I appreciate your helping us to move this 
     legislation quickly to the floor. Finally, I will include in 
     the Congressional Record a

[[Page 12922]]

     copy of our exchange of letters on this matter. Thank you for 
     your assistance and cooperation. We look forward to working 
     with you in the future.
           Best regards,
                                                    Harold Rogers,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

                                         House of Representatives,


                                  Commiteee on Ways and Means,

                                    Washington, DC, June 15, 2004.
     Hon. Harold Rogers,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on Homeland Security,
     Committee on Appropriations, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Rogers: I am writing concerning H.R. 4567, 
     the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act for 
     Fiscal Year 2005 which is scheduled for floor consideration 
     on Wednesday, June 16, 2004.
       As you know, the Committee on Ways and Means has 
     jurisdiction over matters concerning customs and Title 19, 
     U.S.C. 267(c)(1). There is a provision within the bill which 
     involves overtime pay for U.S. Customs and Border Protection 
     employees and thus falls within the jurisdiction of the 
     Committee on Ways and Means.
       However, in order to expedite this legislation for floor 
     consideration, the Committee will forgo action on this bill. 
     This is being done with the understanding that it does not in 
     any way prejudice the Committee with respect to exercising 
     its jurisdictional prerogatives on this or similar 
     legislation.
       I would appreciate your response to this letter, confirming 
     this understanding with respect to H.R. 4567 and would ask 
     that a copy of our exchange of letters on this matter be 
     included in the Congressional Record during floor 
     consideration.
           Best regards,
                                                      Bill Thomas,
                                                         Chairman.

[[Page 12923]]

     TH17JN04.001
     


[[Page 12924]]

     TH17JN04.002
     


[[Page 12925]]

     TH17JN04.003
     


[[Page 12926]]

     TH17JN04.004
     


[[Page 12927]]

  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I thank the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) and his staff for 
their hard work in producing the legislation we have today. President 
Bush's 2005 homeland security budget request fell far short; and while 
this bill is an improvement, and that it is, I am concerned that it 
does not go far enough to close troubling homeland security gaps.
  The committee followed a logical plan in distributing the $32 billion 
allocation. However, this measure does not provide the resources needed 
to significantly improve our ability to detect terrorist activities or 
to respond to an attack. The committee was forced to make trade-offs 
among programs to improve disaster preparedness and response, 
immigration services, and programs to stop terrorists. As a result, we 
have some worrisome gaps.
  The first responder funding cuts, this funding cut for local fire, 
police, and emergency personnel, is one of my biggest concerns. With 
cuts in fire grants and deep cuts in formula funds to most States, 
overall the bill provides $327 million less for first responders than 
was enacted in 2004. While funding to certain high-threat urban areas 
is increased, the fact is that this increase comes at the expense of 
the rest of the country. If these cuts hold, next year most States and 
localities will end up with less homeland security funding than they 
have today.
  This bill comes just weeks after the American people saw live 
television coverage of the Attorney General and the FBI Director giving 
us alarming warnings of imminent terrorist attacks. At their press 
conference, Mr. Ashcroft said that our own intelligence and al Qaeda 
public statements indicated that it is almost ready to attack the 
United States and that they intend to hit us hard. This week an alleged 
al Qaeda operative was indicted for plotting to blow up a shopping mall 
in Ohio.
  If terrorists attack us again, our local police, firefighters, and 
emergency workers will be the first on the scene. It frustrates me that 
there is little sense of urgency to ensure that these first responders 
have the tools that they need to do their jobs. This legislation also 
fails to address other critical homeland security issues.
  Two of my chief concerns are the inadequate inspection of cargo 
carried on passenger planes and the lax Federal oversight of chemical 
plant security practices. Unlike passenger baggage, the cargo on 
passenger aircraft is not rigorously inspected, even though it is 
carried in the same hold. Furthermore, cargo carried on all cargo 
aircraft is not inspected at all. I am also troubled that the 
administration continues to have inadequate chemical plant security 
policies. For the most part, vulnerability assessments and security 
plans are left to the plant owners' consciences.
  Last, I would like to point out a bill provision concerning the 
CAPPS2 air passenger prescreening system that TSA is developing and may 
be testing later this year. This provision updates last year's bill by 
requiring the Secretary to certify, and the General Accounting Office 
to review, the certification that all eight security and privacy 
criteria are met before the passenger profiling system can be deployed. 
In its first review in February, the GAO found that TSA had met only 
one of the eight criteria.
  The new language also specifically mandates that GAO review the 
CAPPS2 methodology that is intended to predict whether a passenger 
could be a terrorist. This element is the most sensitive aspect of 
CAPPS2 with broad implications for Americans' privacy and civil 
liberties.
  In closing, I am concerned that this bill continues, does not do more 
to close the troubling homeland security gaps. The American people 
demand our best efforts to protect the country from those who would do 
us harm, and the Congress should be more aggressive in challenging the 
administration where it falls short.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham), a very hardworking member of this 
subcommittee.
  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to rise in strong support of H.R. 4567, and I 
want to commend the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) who has shown 
tremendous leadership on this bill, a very, very difficult bill, and 
the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo) and all the staff on both sides 
of the aisle doing an outstanding job of moving this homeland security 
appropriations bill to the floor under a very tight fiscal 
circumstance.
  We received a tremendous number of specific requests, and each of us 
has had to say no many more times than we would have liked to. I know 
that all Members of this Chamber have specific accounts they believe 
should have increased funding or areas for which they want to include 
language. There are particular programs that need more direction and 
money.
  Most, if not all, of our colleagues care deeply about homeland 
security. We want it done right, and we want tangible results. However, 
at some point we need to focus on the possible and the reasonable 
knowing that none of us are going to be fully satisfied. I am not 
satisfied with the level of funding for the State formula grant, but 
given all of the factors that must be considered when addressing the 
various risks in each congressional district, the number for this 
program is not unreasonable; particularly when one considers that is a 
half a billion dollars over the administration's request.
  We should also remember that there are hundreds of millions of 
dollars out there in our States that have yet to be obligated for 
homeland security. I am not satisfied with what I believe is less than 
adequate attention devoted to the threat of agroterrorism, particularly 
as it relates to prevention activities and needed work to advance 
animal vaccines; and I openly criticized the people in the Department 
who have been shortsighted in this area. I intend to be an advocate for 
protecting our agriculture economy from terrorism.
  The potential cost of agroterrorism to rural economy is hard to 
imagine, yet alone the cost as far as food safety.
  For those who want to score easy political points, this is a great 
bill for you. I will be one of those first who worry about funding 
levels. But none of us holds the answers to what truly defines adequate 
funding for homeland security.
  As we debate this appropriations bill, I challenge the critics today 
to be honest with the American people. This is not an easy bill to 
write, and the most complex and the most demanding homeland security 
functions make easy targets for those who claim to be an authority on 
what is the best way to spend our homeland security dollars.
  As the chairman has said, we can all think of more ways to spend 
money on homeland security, and there is no end to what we could spend. 
Nobody can argue that. And the issue is how well we shepherd our 
limited resources. In my view, this is one of the most important 
spending measures we will consider this year. We all know what the 
budget situation is; but we have crafted a very, very good bill.
  I urge the Members to support this bill, keep the debate honest, and 
pass it quickly because it is so important to our constituents and to 
this Nation.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member of the full committee.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I remember being here during the first and 
second energy crisis in 1973 and again in 1977 under President Ford and 
then President Carter. And when we realized what a bind we were in on 
energy, we had a bunch of new actions taken. We took action to support 
new investments in technology. We supported new investments in energy 
conservation. We supported new investments in alternative fuels.
  And then slowly but surely during the Reagan years and afterwards, 
the Congress lost its interest, it lost its

[[Page 12928]]

zeal, so did the administrations. And little by little those 
initiatives were just sort of slowly drained out of the budget, and we 
wound up getting in real terms back to about just where we were in 
terms of making those investments before we were hit by the energy 
crises.
  Unfortunately, I think that is what has happened with respect to the 
homeland security issues after 9/11. I remember after 9/11 going down 
to the White House, talking to the President with my good friend, the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young).
  We presented to the President a bipartisan list of initiatives which 
we had been told by the President's own security people were essential 
to try to protect us from future attacks. And I remember that instead 
of being met with a willingness to sit down and listen to what people 
had to say, the President essentially said, ``Folks, if you appropriate 
one dollar more than I have asked for, I will veto the bill.'' And 
there was no receptiveness at all.
  Then in the next year, the President vetoed or pocket-vetoed about a 
billion and a half dollars in additional actions for homeland security. 
This bill pretty much continues the status quo since that time. We 
have, it is true, over time increased our investments in homeland 
security by about two-tenths of 1 percent of our gross national 
product, but because the majority party has concluded that their number 
one priority is tax breaks, there is not enough room left for any 
significant new initiatives on the homeland security front, and I think 
that is highly dangerous for the country.
  As the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo) has indicated, if you 
compare the challenges with the resources being applied to those 
challenges, we are falling woefully short. I do not think the public 
understands that only a tiny percentage of air cargo on passenger 
planes is being inspected these days for explosives.

                              {time}  1945

  I do not think they understand that this bill is 8 percent below 
where we were told by the President initially that we should be in 
terms of the number of sky marshals.
  I do not think the public understands how little is being done to 
secure our ports against dirty bombs and other weapons of mass 
destruction.
  I do not think the public understands that of the 45 major ports who 
ship to this country, only 20 of them have a decent customs inspection 
operation. I do not think the public understands that the inspectors we 
have in those ports are there on temporary, 6-month duty and, 
therefore, do not learn the territory well enough to really do their 
jobs as well as they otherwise could.
  I do not think the public understands that on the northern border the 
PATRIOT Act required us to have 2000 more inspectors than we have 
today.
  I do not think the public understands that only 13 percent of our 
fire departments are equipped to handle a full-fledged HAZMAT 
challenge. I do not think the public understands that we have fewer 
firefighters in our localities today than we had at the time of 9/11.
  I do not think the public understands that within the homeland 
security agency itself, that of the 500 career slots in that agency 
there are 171 vacancies. The agency itself still does not have a phone 
directory, and one-quarter of the slots at Homeland Security are filled 
by political appointees.
  So I think we have a long way to go in fixing these home security 
problems, and while I appreciate everything that the chairman has tried 
to do, he has not been given the resources with which to do a truly 
comprehensive job.
  Mr. Speaker, that is why I will attempt, despite the adoption of the 
rule, I will attempt to offer an amendment which adds about $1.5 
billion for first responders, which will add $120 million for cargo 
security, for additional screening and canine detection; $300 million 
for more explosive detection equipment; $550 million more for 
strengthening our border and a variety of other initiatives.
  I think that if we can provide $25 billion in the Defense bill to 
defend the country, if we can provide that on an emergency basis, I 
think we need to do the same thing with respect to defending the 
homeland close to our own homes. So I would urge that, despite the fact 
that the rule allows a point of order to be lodged against that 
amendment, I would urge that no one make that point of order because 
this country needs investments which this bill does not permit us to 
make, and we will all be safer, certainly our constituents will be 
safer, if the amendment passes than they will if it does not.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the 
very distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney), who has been 
on the subcommittee and a very valuable Member.
  Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in general support. I really want to acknowledge 
the very difficult and great work by the gentleman from Kentucky 
(Chairman Rogers) and the ranking member, and as a member of this 
subcommittee, as a member of the Select Committee on Homeland Security, 
this is a tough, tough, tough piece of work to put together, and I rise 
to acknowledge that. Everybody knows where I come from. I come from the 
State that absorbed one of the greatest hits in the history of this 
country. So there are real challenges here that have real life 
consequences.
  The gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) is one who has gotten that, 
and I wanted to recognize and I think he in this bill has attempted to 
bring and indeed has brought as balanced an approach as we could expect 
in this process, and as he said, this is an evolving process, and we 
may have some honest disagreements among friends, but we are united on 
the general principles. This bill does do an awful lot of accomplishing 
some of the things that we need.
  I rise for the purpose of engaging in a colloquy with the chairman as 
well. I want to thank him for participating in that, and I want to 
address a significant issue related to the Department of Homeland 
Security. That is the geospatial management issue which is a critical 
tool in providing homeland security.
  Mr. Chairman, I applaud the gentleman's work, the committee's work 
and the administration in providing due attention to geospatial 
technologies.
  Satellite imagery, aerial photography and other geospatial 
technologies provide data to quickly visualize activity patterns, map 
location and provide information to conduct analyses to help prevent or 
lessen the impact from an emergency situation.
  Mr. Chairman, there is no single office in DHS responsible for 
geospatial management and, therefore, no corresponding budget. In the 
present structure, the geospatial information officer does not have the 
authority to compel DHS directorates to cooperate.
  Geospatial coordination will help end duplication of geospatial 
activities.
  A geospatial management office needs to be created and codified 
within DHS under the Chief Information Officer.
  I am pleased to see report language stating clear and concise policy 
direction is needed for geospatial information and technology efforts.
  Under the gentleman from Kentucky's (Chairman Rogers) leadership, 
this committee supports the Department's request of $5 million to 
create a Department-wide geographic information system capability under 
the direction of the Chief Information Officer.
  I would like to personally thank the gentleman for that and many 
other efforts in this bill and for the last several years and for his 
support and assistance.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SWEENEY. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Sweeney) for bringing this important matter to the attention 
of the committee and the Congress. As overseers of homeland defense and 
security, I believe the committee acted responsibly in supporting the 
Department's request to make certain geospatial information management 
falls under the direction of the Chief Information Officer.

[[Page 12929]]


  Mr. SWEENEY. I thank the gentleman from Kentucky (Chairman Rogers). 
As this process continues, I hope a geospatial information office is 
created, with a corresponding budget, at DHS.
  Would the gentleman agree to work with me during conference to 
strengthen report language to direct the Secretary to create the Office 
of Geospatial Management within the CIO's office to oversee the 
geospatial activities?
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would continue 
to yield, I look forward to working with the gentleman as we move 
forward and will certainly work to strengthen the report language in 
conference as events dictate.
  Mr. SWEENEY. I thank the chairman for all of his work, and let me 
just say, this is a tough, tough bit of work we have to do, an 
important debate, and we have one of the best at the helm, leading us 
in it.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North 
Carolina (Mr. Price), a distinguished member of our committee, and 
friend.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I am grateful to the 
gentleman from Kentucky and the gentleman from Minnesota for their 
conscientious and cooperative efforts reflected in this bill.
  The bill directs much-needed resources to transportation security, 
Customs, and border protection, and it funds the BioShield program that 
will play a vital role in our preparation for bioterrorist attacks.
  Given the very limited funds that the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. 
Rogers) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo) were allocated, 
theirs was not an easy or enviable task, and I fear the final result 
does reflect the poor hand our subcommittee was dealt.
  During recent funding debates, we have often heard Republican leaders 
say that there are simply no funds available to provide what is needed. 
I suspect we will hear it again tonight.
  What we will not hear them say is that since 9/11 we have spent 22 
times as much on tax cuts as we have on protecting the American people 
from terrorist attacks. That is 22 times as much, for tax cuts mainly 
aimed at the most privileged people in America.
  Look at the numbers. State formula grants, the bread and butter of 
first responder funding, have been cut by over 25 percent. Fire grants 
have been cut by 20 percent. Grants to our police and law enforcement 
have been hit hard, too. These programs were a critical source of 
funding for first responders long before 9/11. By cutting them, we are 
in effect deciding that our police and firefighters need less funding 
in the post-9/11 era, not more.
  Listen to how FEMA describes the bleakness of this situation: A new 
study shows that more than two-thirds of fire departments in this 
country operate with staffing levels that do not meet the minimum safe 
staffing levels required by OSHA and the National Fire Protection 
Association.
  Not only are our first responders ill-equipped and understaffed to 
handle potential attacks, they are also struggling to respond to the 
everyday disasters of crime and accidents and fires and hurricanes and 
floods.
  It is true, Mr. Chairman, that this bill increases funding for the 
urban area security initiative. That is terrific news for a handful of 
big cities, and it does make sense, but first responders in rural and 
suburban areas and in smaller cities need support, too. Increases for 
this initiative are no match for the Draconian cuts in overall State 
grants.
  Mr. Chairman, the House leadership and the President have shown 
incredible willpower and resolve in ramming trillion dollar tax cuts 
through this Congress. Yet when it comes to protecting our homeland and 
supporting our first responders, they say their hands are tied. They 
claim to be tough on terror, but talk is cheap and, unfortunately, so 
are Congress and this administration when it comes to supporting our 
first responders.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp), a very hardworking member of the 
subcommittee.
  Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for the time. I 
appreciate not only the gentleman yielding me time but just his 
extraordinary time over this last year and a half since we began this 
new subcommittee here in the House.
  The gentleman who just spoke is a very thoughtful, well-educated and 
very energetic member of the subcommittee, and as we have worked 
through all these issues over the last year and a half he has been very 
helpful, but what he just said is drivel, drivel.
  The fact is tax cuts are one issue that helps the economy. It is a 
policy matter that was made by the Congress. This is homeland security, 
where we have spent billions of dollars and done extraordinary work. It 
is nonsense to bring up the tax issue while we are talking about 
appropriating the money for homeland security. That is a fact. That is 
a different debate for a different day, but this is also not cost 
sharing with local government from the Federal Government. We cannot do 
everything, and for a lot of people on this side we cannot appropriate 
enough money. It does not matter what the level is, they will want 
more, and they will play politics with this issue because they think it 
can resonate, and this is unfortunate because the best work here is 
when we get together and we do what is right, and that is what we are 
trying to do on this side of the aisle.
  The chairman and his staff have done an extraordinary job. Now I am 
not totally happy with the Department of Homeland Security at all, and 
my colleagues know that at the hearings I have been very hard on the 
Homeland Security Department, particularly in the Science and 
Technology Directorate, and they need to hear us long, loud and clear. 
They need to do a better job, but overall, I have to tell my 
colleagues, this subcommittee has done extraordinary work.
  Our intelligence work is dramatically better than after September 11. 
We are allocating the money to the best of our ability, but it is not a 
bottomless pit, and when my colleague talks about reports that show 
that firefighting organizations around the country do not have 
everything they want or need, there are 55,000 local law enforcement 
and firefighting organizations in this country, and the Federal 
Government cannot fund them all with everything they need. The 
responsibility still lies at the local and the State level, and this 
subcommittee has done an extraordinary job, and the Congress has a 
balanced approach, and this is not a bottomless pit.
  I just want to say that we are at a critical juncture going into the 
next several months in this country with events that are very 
important, and I think it is important that we pull together. I hope 
this subcommittee can stay above some of the mindless kinds of rhetoric 
that comes to the floor when we pass important appropriations bills, 
and I hate to hear some of the most educated and informed Members dumb 
this down to a debate over tax cuts versus necessary spending.
  This is necessary spending, and we are meeting those needs. I want to 
applaud the leadership. Our chairman and his staff have done an 
excellent job. Secretary Ridge is doing an excellent job. We still have 
miles to go before we get there, but we are on our way.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 seconds to my friend the gentleman 
from North Carolina (Mr. Price).
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I regret that the 
gentleman from Tennessee would not yield for a question, but let me 
just say a couple of things.
  One is that no matter how heated this debate gets I will never call 
his comments drivel, and if my tongue happened to slip and I used that 
term, I assure him I would apologize.
  Secondly, I want to note that the gentleman's notion that the budget 
allocation, which is what I was talking about, the budget allocation 
given the Homeland Security subcommittee, is not related to revenue 
policy, is a noval concept. You do not have to have a whole lot of 
education to understand

[[Page 12930]]

that the size of tax cuts determines how much money there is to 
allocate.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

                              {time}  2000

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, let me simply say that the idea that how much 
money is allocated to tax cuts is totally unrelated to how much money 
is left for homeland security or education or health care, the idea 
that those things are unrelated is absurd and preposterous. The fact is 
that unless the deficit is totally meaningless, and I do not think it 
is, then if you put all of your eggs into the tax cut basket, 
especially if you provide so much of them to people who make over 
$200,000 a year, then that indeed does have an effect on what is 
available for port security, what is available for the northern border 
security, what is available for first responders, and if the gentleman 
does not understand that, then I think we need to set up a new grade 
school on Capitol Hill.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Let me say to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp), I think I know 
a little bit about budgets, having spent some time doing that, at a 
time when we passed budgets that reduced the deficit and we had some 
tough requirements on spending, and raised revenues to make the 
deficits go down.
  The reality is that the most important decision in a budget 
resolution is the total amount set for discretionary spending. That 
then governs the decisions we have to make on this bill and the other 
12 bills that we have before the Congress. If that budget resolution 
has an unrealistic number for the total discretionary spending, it 
limits every option we have.
  I think I and others have been clear that this bill represents an 
improvement over what the President asked for, that it has reasonable 
choices within the dollar allotment that this committee has given. I 
think the chairman has done an excellent job. I would not share his 
enthusiasm for how good the Department is going, but he is also tough 
on them at many times.
  But there is also one other thing that we do, and that is we say 
there are certain expenditures that are emergencies and go above and 
beyond the normal budget process. Since 9/11, we have appropriated 
billions of dollars as emergency expenditures for our friends in New 
York, for operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, I think with unanimity on 
the expenditures in Afghanistan, division over our operation in Iraq, 
but then again significant support for our troops whether we agreed or 
disagreed with that policy.
  Just the other day in appropriations, we appropriated $25 billion 
more of emergency spending beyond the normal defense appropriation for 
next year for operations in the Middle East, and we know that number is 
going to increase. What some of us are saying is that there are 
significant security gaps that we should deal with in this country and 
we should have a modest amount as emergency spending.
  The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) asked for $3 billion for 
rational things to do, disciplined things to do, in comparison to the 
billions and billions we are spending outside this country. That is 
legitimate debate. It is legitimate options that we could do, and some 
are choosing not to do that. If we declared it emergency and 
appropriated that $3 billion, it could not be spent unless the 
President decided to spend it.
  So what we are talking about here is not irrelevant, it is important 
and there are distinct differences; and those differences do not 
diminish our respect for the quality of work done by the chairman and 
the subcommittee.
  I would just suggest do not belittle the opinions of lots of people 
in this place that there are significant security gaps in domestic 
security, echoed by all kinds of experts outside this institution that 
we are not dealing with.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Fossella).
  Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman and friend from 
Kentucky for yielding me this time, and commends him and all for 
crafting an overall good bill.
  It was brought up earlier how in this comprehensive bill there is 
time for honest disagreement, and I think later on this evening we will 
try to have a good conversation about that honest disagreement, and it 
relates to essentially how funding goes to what we will call high-
threat areas as opposed to minimal guarantees for States and funding 
that some of us believe could be better spent in areas that can use it 
more and more effectively, like New York City.
  By way of example, if we were to talk about enhancing our national 
security, and some Member suggested putting an aircraft carrier in the 
Great Salt Lake, somebody would probably think that is a little 
ludicrous, and we would say let us put the money where it is needed 
most.
  While we are here trying to advocate more funding, bluntly for places 
like New York City, because that is where the funding is needed the 
most, Exhibit A for that clearly was September 11, and the Congress and 
the President and all united to help New York recover, but it still 
represents the terrorists' number one threat. The Federal intelligence 
community has confirmed this fact.
  I think the President's budget also recognizes the need to prioritize 
funding in these areas by calling for $1.4 billion in the urban 
security initiative, $450 million more than the House bill. September 
11 is not unique in New York. The first bombing of the Trade Center 
occurred in 1993. In between there was a conspiracy to destroy the 
Holland and Lincoln Tunnels, the George Washington Bridge, the United 
Nations and the Federal Building in Lower Manhattan, as well as a plot 
to bomb the subway.
  Attacks in high-threat, high-density areas have great national 
economic impact in those areas as well. A Milken Institute study 
concluded, ``Disaster in New York affects business confidence in every 
major city,'' unlike events elsewhere. The study estimates a GDP 
decline of 1 percent and a loss of 1.6 million jobs nationwide because 
of the September 11 attacks on New York. For example, the financial 
service industry lost 96,000 jobs nationwide due to the attacks in New 
York, home to most the industry's headquarters, but two-thirds of those 
losses occurred throughout the country.
  Our areas require intensive police coverage. New York City has 1,000 
police officers dedicated solely to homeland security missions. The 
police department spent $200 million last year for these efforts. 
Despite the large sum, the police department alone has identified an 
additional $261 million in training needs, equipment and supplies 
directly related to counter-terrorism.
  Given the vital needs, we would argue for more funds because that is 
where it is needed the most. Let me underscore, and this is not to take 
away from the great work of all people and their considerations, but 
homeland security, this is one home, not 50 different homes but one, 
and we are talking about security and we just appreciate a little more 
funding where it is needed in New York and elsewhere.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Olver), a member of the full committee.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, it is 33 months past now since 9/11 and it 
is time for this Congress to coldly examine our progress in reducing 
the threat of terrorist attack. Even though we are spending a lot more 
money 33 months after 9/11, only a minimal percentage of cargo on 
passenger flights are screened for explosives. We do not require 
chemical plant vulnerability assessment and security plans as we do 
require for nuclear plants.
  We will have 20 percent fewer sky marshals in the air than 2 years 
ago. Thirteen million Americans use passenger rail systems each day, 
yet we have not taken appropriate steps to strengthen rail security. We 
have only hired two-thirds of the people that the PATRIOT Act mandated 
for protecting the northern border. We have invested only one-tenth of 
what is needed to

[[Page 12931]]

protect our ports, and our first responders still lack the valuable 
tools they need to save lives.
  The agencies entrusted with protecting our great Nation seem to be in 
bureaucratic chaos. Just a couple weeks ago, Attorney General John 
Ashcroft of the Department of Justice surprised the Department of 
Homeland Security by announcing that a terrorist attack is likely 
during the next few months. It turns out they had not communicated with 
the Department of Homeland Security, and in fact did not have any 
particular new evidence for such an assertion. Problems like this keep 
coming up and they will simply not work themselves out.
  It is time for this body to determine the most critical security 
needs based on comprehensive terrorist threat analysis. We must fund 
those most critical needs properly and put an end to this haphazard, 
seat-of-the-pants approach to our domestic security policy.
  The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member, offered 
an excellent amendment during markup in the full committee, and he will 
offer a similar amendment on the floor today to add $1.5 billion to 
specific, seriously underfunded accounts in this bill. The Obey 
amendment will move us part way, but only a small part way toward 
properly funding our homeland security needs. Given what is at stake 
with this issue, we cannot afford to be funding homeland security on 
the cheap.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson), a very hard-working member of 
this subcommittee.
  Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of this bill, and 
I really want to thank the chairman for doing an exceptionally good job 
in putting this bill together, for lots of reasons, but primarily 
because the basic formula grants have been raised by $550 million, 
$36.7 million of which goes to the State of Missouri.
  Because I represent a very rural district, 28 counties, I have no 
large cities, the largest city in my district is 33,000 people, it is 
the premier agricultural district in Missouri. It is one in which, if I 
was a terrorist, I would want to take advantage of the psychological 
fear that I could use to impact the entire population of rural America.
  We have heard time and again that hundreds of U.S. Department of 
Agriculture documents have been found in abandoned al Qaeda caves. It 
is also reported that a significant part of the al Qaeda training 
manual is devoted to agricultural terrorism. This is a frightening fact 
when Members recall the purported terrorist interest in crop dusters, 
and there are probably 150 crop dusters running every single day in my 
district during this particular season.
  Our food supply comes from rural areas and that is one big reason to 
make sure that our rural areas continue receiving some level of 
homeland security funding. Nobody is immune from terrorism. While I 
think it is so very important and critical to protect our high-density 
urban areas, just remember that the food supply is something that is 
important for every single person in this country. We rely on that food 
supply to be safe and secure. It is very easy, it is very much easier 
to disrupt a food supply than it would be to cause an incident 
oftentimes in a high-density area.
  I think of the Mississippi River. That is my eastern border. We have 
millions of tons of chemicals and fertilizer moving up and down the 
river on barges. Not only does that present a clear danger and threat 
if tampered with, but it is just important. I think that the chairman 
has put together a very balanced bill, one that recognizes the needs of 
rural America as well as our urban cities. I ask all of my colleagues 
to support this bill. I thank the chairman for really treating all of 
the country fairly.

                              {time}  2015

  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Turner) who has done an outstanding job as the ranking member of 
the Select Committee on Homeland Security.
  Mr. TURNER of Texas. I thank the ranking member for yielding me this 
time, and I appreciate the work that the chairman and the ranking 
member have done on this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, all of us in this Chamber know that we have to work 
together in a bipartisan way to make the homeland as safe as it needs 
to be from the threat of terrorism. We also know that we are a country 
at war against al Qaeda and related groups. It is a war that demands we 
fight the terrorists wherever they exist. It is a war that demands we 
commit ourselves through our actions abroad to prevent the rise of 
future terrorists. And it is a war that requires us to ensure that our 
homeland is fully protected.
  This cannot be business as usual. We must act with the same sense of 
urgency that we all had after September 11. As we look at these 
appropriations for the next year, our actions will demonstrate to the 
American people whether we are moving with the degree of speed that we 
need and the sense of purpose that we must have to protect our country.
  The proposed increase for the Department of about $1 billion above 
the President's request is important and necessary, but we must put 
that $1 billion in perspective. We spend $1 billion a week in Iraq. We 
have committed our troops to winning that war. But we must also win the 
war against terrorism here at home. The cost of failure here at home 
would far exceed the investments we should be making to ensure that 
America is as secure as it needs to be.
  Annual spending on homeland security still amounts to less than one-
half of 1 percent of the gross domestic product. Since 9/11, we have 
increased the level of annual spending on the agencies that now make up 
the Department of Homeland Security by about $15 billion. During that 
same period, the annual increase in our defense budget has been about 
$100 billion. We must devote the resources we need to win the war on 
terror abroad, but we must also invest in the homeland security needs 
we have here at home.
  The truth is, Mr. Chairman, the President's request, and this 
appropriations bill, will not close critical security gaps that we 
continue to face. For example:
  This bill fails to provide the additional $200 million needed to 
ensure that nuclear materials and dirty bombs can be detected at all of 
our seaports and border crossings by next year;
  It fails to provide sufficient funding--at least $1 billion--to 
improve the security of our rail and public transit systems;
  It fails to provide over $400 million that the Coast Guard says it 
needs to protect our Nation's ports.
  It does not provide sufficient funds for airports across the country 
to upgrade or install explosive detection systems;
  It does not provide the $100 million needed to increase the number of 
personnel who guard our Nation's northern and southern borders; and
  It fails to provide the needed communications, equipment and training 
for our Nation's first responders.
  Later today, we will consider an amendment by Mr. Obey of the 
Appropriations Committee that seeks to add $3 billion in additional 
resources to correct these and other shortfalls. I strongly urge all of 
my colleagues to support this amendment.
  In the war against al Qaeda, we must provide ALL the resources 
required to protect the homeland. We cannot fail on any front. However, 
the total amount proposed for the Department of Homeland Security for 
next fiscal year will not meet our constitutional responsibility to 
provide for the common defense.
  Mr. Chairman, the limitations imposed on our homeland security 
efforts is a direct function of choices that we make. If we want to 
take faster and stronger action to close the security gaps we face, we 
could do so. The American people are watching the choices we make and 
if the terrorists strike again and we are not ready we will be held 
accountable.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Green).
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank both the chairman of the 
committee and the ranking member for doing a job that is very tough. I 
rise tonight to address a problem that is important for first responder 
training in very urban areas. I represent a district in Houston, in 
Houston's energy and port complex, a supercritical infrastructure for 
our Nation's economy.

[[Page 12932]]

Houston is currently the only city in America that meets all 15 Federal 
threat criteria for a terrorist attack, and as such a coordinated 
public safety effort in the Houston area is critical.
  Houston Community College, a Historically Black and Hispanic Serving 
Institution, has planned a public safety institute that would help in 
coordinating the training of all our local first responders, both city, 
county, fire, police, everyone, port security. The public safety 
institute would do a great deal in providing that uniformity of 
training from local and regional police and EMTs, private sector, port, 
trains, even Federal agencies such as the Coast Guard, FBI and Border 
Patrol.
  Houston Community College is hoping some day to have 40 percent 
Federal funding with a 60 percent State and local and private match. I 
know there is no construction funding in this bill except for Federal 
law enforcement centers, but I would hope we would see something like 
this cooperative effort, particularly in a city in an industrial area 
like Houston.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. I first want to thank the chairman and ranking 
member for their leadership on this issue and say that I fully support 
their efforts to make our Nation more secure. The gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Green) has been a champion of the public safety institute. I fully 
support this effort. I hope the chairman will take this great idea into 
consideration.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. King).
  Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Chairman, there is probably no issue that 
we will be debating in this session which has more significance to me 
or the other members of the New York delegation than the entire issue 
of funding for homeland security. In my district and in adjoining 
communities, we lost hundreds and hundreds of people on September 11. 
We have to do all we can to make sure that that never occurs again.
  I commend the chairman for the work he has put into this bill; but 
later this evening, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney), the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Fossella), and I will be offering the 
point and making the case why we believe more money should be allocated 
to high-threat areas such as New York. New York City, the downstate 
areas, and the entire State are running up well over $1 billion in 
expenses related entirely and just to homeland security and 
counterterrorism. This is a threat which must be met, and it is an 
issue which is going to be discussed later this evening. I look forward 
to that opportunity. I thank the chairman for giving me the opportunity 
to raise these points at this time.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon 
(Mr. DeFazio), a member of the authorizing committee for a significant 
part of this bill.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, in response to the earlier debate, there is a 
relationship between everything we do here and everybody knows that. We 
have to make tough choices every day. We have to choose between budgets 
and priorities. Plain and simple, this administration and the 
Republicans on that side of the aisle have said that tax cuts for the 
wealthy are a higher priority than adequate funding for first 
responders. My first responders are crying out for interoperable 
communications. What was the response of the Bush administration? Zero. 
They zeroed it out of the budget this year. I cannot even try and add 
money back into it because it does not exist anymore in the Federal 
budget. That is the number one priority of the police and fire in my 
State.
  Who are we going to call? Who are going to be the first people there? 
Not the Army, not the military, not any Federal agencies. It is going 
to be our local responders. And they are not even going to be able to 
communicate among one another, let alone with State or Federal 
authorities. This bill does not have enough money to meet the homeland 
security needs of this country.
  In addition, there is another choice. We are going to spend twice as 
much money on the Star Wars fantasy, a weapons system that does not 
work, as we are going to spend on all the border and port security for 
the United States of America. There are tough choices, and you are 
making the wrong decisions.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I thank the ranking member for the work 
done and the chairman.
  Mr. Chairman, I know this is a hard task. As a member of the 
authorizing committee, the Select Committee on Homeland Security, I 
would just simply say that the greatest challenge is to secure the 
homeland; and in the backdrop of the 9/11 Commission reports, we find 
out that the FAA did not readily have the ability to contact the United 
States military when the airplanes were in the air. But I think what is 
most important is that we secure homelands outside of the Beltway. We 
need more money for a citizen corps, to establish them in our 
neighborhoods, which is an amendment that I have. The Houston Community 
College, which I support, my colleague from Texas wants and needs more 
money for training of first responders. I think it is imperative that 
we engage historically black colleges and community colleges that serve 
Hispanics and African Americans to train them in these issues. And I 
think it is clearly vital for us to realize that with a number of 
border initiatives, there needs to be more resources utilized not only 
for the idea of protecting the border but when you have them under 
adjudication. And so I believe that we need more money, frankly, and we 
need more money for threat assessment for these larger communities.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to discuss the Homeland Security Appropriation 
Act of 2005, H.R. 4567, and express important concerns on this 
important funding.
  It is imperative that this body provide the $16 million necessary for 
the construction of the Houston Community College Public Safety 
Institute. I want to take this opportunity to thank Congressman Gene 
Green in particular on taking the lead on this vital issue. It was 
through his leadership that this request was originally made to the 
Subcommittee on Homeland Security on the Appropriations Committee.
  I also want to commend Subcommittee Chairman Harold Rogers, Ranking 
Member Martin Sabo and all the Members of the Subcommittee for the work 
and effort they put in to make sure that our Homeland Security efforts 
are properly funded. However, if we are to demonstrate to the American 
people that after the horrendous attacks of September 11th that the 
American government is truly taking a comprehensive approach to 
Homeland Security then initiatives such as the Public Safety Institute 
(PSI) must be undertaken.
  It is vitally important that facilities and services at the local 
level be properly prepared to deal with emerging Homeland Security 
needs. In this vein, Community Colleges and HBCUs can serve as perhaps 
the ultimate ground for protection of local communities. These 
educational facilities have campuses and the facilities necessary to 
help train and incorporate first responders, who are crucial in the 
area of Homeland Security.
  While we take many measures on the Federal and State level to ensure 
Homeland Security, we must also make certain that the security needs at 
the local level are met. It is with this knowledge in mind that the 
Houston Community College (HCC) seeks to construct the PSI both for the 
Homeland Security needs of the city of Houston and as a model for 
effective vigilance at the local level.
  In the city of Houston, one of the largest, most populated, and most 
active cities in America, there is no doubt that the PSI is necessary. 
In fact, Houston is the only city in America that meets each of the 15 
Federal threat criteria for a terrorist attack. We cannot allow the 
people of Houston or any major city in America to have their public 
safety compromised.
  In a judiciary markup of the First Responder bill, H.R. 3266, I 
intended to offer an amendment to better assure that States fulfill 
their responsibilities to provide Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI) 
funds to local entities, governments, and first responders in a timely 
manner.

[[Page 12933]]

  Based on recent experience with the rounds of UASI funding that has 
passed through States, many UASI designees have experienced great 
difficulty in accessing and spending their funding.
  For example, the Houston metropolitan area still is awaiting its 
Round 2 UASI sub-recipient agreement from Texas. Without that State 
action, the city and counties cannot finalize their bids and execute 
contracts for equipment and training already identified and approved in 
their regional strategic plan. That is nearly $20 million being held up 
in the pipeline for expenditure, Mr. Chairman.
  It is ludicrous that H.R. 4567 proposes to appropriate only $1 
billion for discretionary grants for use in ``high-threat, high-
density'' urban areas and for rail and transit security.
  The PSI will serve a needed function in the city of Houston, which 
while being ethnically diverse is also very diverse in terms of its 
geography and makeup. These sets of circumstances require specialized 
training, the kind of training that only a facility like the PSI can 
provide. The $16 million Federal appropriation would assist the Houston 
Community College (HCC) with the development and construction of a 
training complex to house the PSI, an expanded, technologically 
sophisticated regional training center. In particular, the PSI will 
include classrooms, a firing range, a simulated skills village, a burn 
building, and a hazardous materials center. Additionally, the PSI will 
include a driving track physical education center command center and 
dive pond. These facilities will serve local and regional police, fire 
and EMT departments, the Port of Houston, the city's airports and 
railroads, Houston's chemical and petroleum industries, as well as 
Federal agencies including Coast Guard, FBT, Border Patrol, Customs and 
Disaster Recovery. At this point I would hope that it is abundantly 
clear the need for the PSI facility in the city of Houston.
  Currently, HCC trains over 250 EMTs, 300 fire-fighting cadets and 200 
police cadets annually in order to meet Houston's Homeland Security 
needs. The current HCC facilities are 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. Let me be clear, the PSI 
is not an experimental exercise for possible Homeland Security needs. 
The PSI is in fact the kind of facility that can help public safety 
officials prevent terrorist attacks both now and in the future. This 
$40 million, 25-acre complex will represent the cooperative 
relationship between Federal, State, and local law enforcement that was 
missing in the time before September 11th. In so much as this is an 
effort that affects the Federal, State and local levels, HCC has 
requested support from the city of Houston, Harris County, the State of 
Texas, as well as private contributors, to fund the $24 million non-
Federal share of the project.
  Mr. Chairman, I hope everyone in this body will recognize the need 
for this facility. The people of Houston and indeed the people of the 
United States deserve to know that all necessary measures are being 
taken to protect their well being and the future of this Nation.


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would like to remind the Members that out of 
courtesy to our colleagues, we operate under time limits. It is only 
courteous to make a good-faith effort to adhere to those time limits.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon), a member of the Select 
Committee on Homeland Security, the authorizing committee.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of 
this legislation and praise both parties for their outstanding work on 
homeland security. The chairman has done an absolutely fantastic job in 
bringing together the appropriations necessary to fund our homeland 
security operations, and I appreciate the work of the ranking member as 
well.
  Mr. Chairman, prior to 2000, there was not a dime of Federal money 
for the Nation's first responders for firefighters. Not a dime. In 
2000, 1 year before 9/11, it was this body that began that funding 
through the Assistance to Firefighter grant program. It was this body 
who did that. In the past 3 years, this committee has appropriated $2.1 
billion to 17,000 out of 32,000 fire and EMS departments nationwide. 
Large and small, they have applied directly. There is no middle person. 
There is no agency. They evaluate the grants themselves. There is no 
politics in it. It is the most successful program that Congress runs 
today because it works.
  In the area of interoperability, it is the number one priority. In 
this bill, the chairman has money, the Congress, that Chairman Ridge is 
authorizing so that cities and States across the country are now 
implementing interoperable plans. It is a priority. There is funding 
going for that purpose. Every fire department in America, all 32,000, 
look at the work that has been done by this Congress with pride. 
Granted we may not have all the money that everyone wants, but no 
committee in this Congress, especially on the appropriations side, has 
begun to address local needs the way this subcommittee has. I applaud 
the chairman for that, and I applaud the ranking member. It has been a 
bipartisan effort. On behalf of the firefighters of America, I say to 
all of you, thank you. Keep up the good work.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Wynn).
  Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, the praise that we heap upon our brave first 
responders and firefighters is no substitute for adequate funding. That 
is why I am appalled that after more than 2 years this bill comes to 
the floor and cuts first responder formula-based grants by $440 
million. It also cuts firefighter assistance by $146 million, a 20 
percent cut. This is not about some Democratic wish list. The Council 
on Foreign Relations report indicates that local first responders need 
about $98 billion to meet our country's needs.
  It is my view that as the majority party, the Republicans control the 
purse strings and set the priorities, and they are responsible for 
making sure we have adequate funding. The Washington metropolitan area 
is a key target. My district in the suburbs has first responders that 
will have to come to the aid of our citizens in the event of an attack. 
But suburban communities such as Prince George's need millions for 
radio communications, training for first responders, $15 million for 
emergency response centers. In Montgomery County, we need funding for 
urban search and rescue teams, teams that responded on September 11. 
But this bill cuts $57 million out of urban grants for urban search and 
rescue teams.
  The point is we can do better. This is about homeland security. This 
should be a major priority. And, yes, tax cuts for the very wealthy do 
relate back to the fact that we have not put enough money into our 
homeland security funding. And so what I am here to say is I think both 
the chairman and, of course, the ranking member are well-intentioned, 
but we need to put more money in this bill to protect our homeland.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 1\1/
4\ minutes.

                              {time}  2030

  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, our first line of defense against 
terrorist attacks would be our first responders, our police, our fire, 
our health care workers. They are the first on the scene. They must be 
prepared for whatever emergency arises, but despite the President's 
rhetoric supporting first responders, his 2005 budget cuts $800 million 
from first responder grants, and the bill before us tonight cuts 7 
percent of the funding for local emergency personnel. This is going in 
the wrong direction, and it is because of the tax cuts for the best off 
in the country. If we were not doing that, we would probably have 
enough money for those programs.
  While we need at least $98 billion to meet the demand for self-
contained breathing units or protective clothing or hazardous chemical 
attacks, the Federal Government is providing less than 15 percent of 
these critical funds. Who will pay for this? Local governments of 
course.
  Mr. Chairman, funding for first responders is crucial because they 
need to protect our local communities, because they are the ones that 
are first in line of defense. We are shortchanging them. They are our 
brave men and brave women. They are parts of our communities. They 
protect our communities, and we are shortchanging them while we are 
cutting

[[Page 12934]]

taxes for the very best off in this Nation. Shame on us.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak on the appropriations 
process for fiscal year 2005 and the Homeland Security appropriations 
bill in particular. The actual appropriations process commenced on May 
19, when the House agreed to a budget resolution that established an 
overall limit on appropriations for fiscal year 2005 of $821.9 billion, 
excluding emergencies. This limit was developed in the context of a 
freeze on non-defense, non-homeland security discretionary spending. 
The Interior and Homeland Security bills we are considering this week 
mark the first steps in establishing our priorities in discretionary 
spending programs within the overall limit established by the budget 
resolution.
  The budget resolution provided a total allocation for discretionary 
appropriations of $32.0 billion for Homeland Security in fiscal year 
2005, demonstrating the high priority that the House is placing on this 
vital area. This amount includes $2.5 billion in advance appropriations 
that were previously enacted for Project BioShield.
  While there has been much discussion about the other body not 
achieving an agreement on the budget for the coming year, this House 
has done its job in adopting the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget 
for fiscal year 2005, and deeming it to be in effect in the House by a 
separate vote. Now the appropriations process has begun pursuant to 
that framework.
  Today we consider the second of these appropriations bills, H.R. 
4567, the Homeland Security Appropriations Act of 2005. This is only 
the second time this chamber has considered a separate appropriation 
bill for the Department of Homeland Security, which consolidates 22 
Federal agencies and its 180,000 employees.
  The discretionary spending levels in this important measure are 
consistent with the limits in the budget resolution for fiscal year 
2005. The bill provides $32.0 billion in appropriations, an increase of 
$2.8 billion or 9.4 percent above the previous year's level. Fiscal 
year 2005 Homeland appropriations in H.R. 4567 are equal to their 
302(b) allocation, and the bill is also consistent with the budget 
resolution.
  H.R. 4567 does not contain any emergency-designed BA, which is exempt 
from budget limits. It rescinds $33 million in previously-appropriated 
BA.
  By increasing Homeland Security funding $1.1 billion above the 
President's fiscal year 2005 request, this bill demonstrates the 
House's strong commitment to win the war against terrorism. Consistent 
with the Budget Resolution, the bill provides resources in areas like 
Local First Responder funding, Border and Transportation Security, and 
Science and Technology. This bill will enhance the Nation's ability to 
secure our borders, protect lives and property, and disrupt terrorist 
financing.
  I am pleased the Appropriations Committee was able to meet a critical 
need in the fiscally responsible manner outlined in the budget 
resolution. As we enter the appropriations season, I wish Chairman 
Young and our colleagues on the Appropriations Committee the best as 
they strive to meet the needs of the American people within the 
framework established by the budget resolution.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for 
time, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment 
under the 5-minute rule.
  During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chair may accord 
priority in recognition to a Member offering an amendment that he has 
printed in the designated place in the Congressional Record. Those 
amendments will be considered read.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 4567

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the 
     following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the 
     Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the Department of 
     Homeland Security for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
     2005, and for other purposes, namely:

            TITLE I--DEPARTMENTAL MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONS

            Office of the Secretary and Executive Management

       For necessary expenses of the Office of the Secretary of 
     Homeland Security, as authorized by section 102 of the 
     Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 112), and executive 
     management of the Department of Homeland Security, as 
     authorized by law, $80,227,000: Provided, That not to exceed 
     $45,000 shall be for official reception and representation 
     expenses.

              Office of the Under Secretary for Management

       For necessary expenses of the Office of the Under Secretary 
     for Management, as authorized by sections 701-705 of the 
     Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 341-345), 
     $179,806,000: Provided, That not to exceed $5,000 shall be 
     for official reception and representation expenses: Provided 
     further, That of the total amount provided, $65,081,000 shall 
     remain available until expended for costs necessary to 
     consolidate headquarters operations at the Nebraska Avenue 
     Complex, including tenant improvements and relocation costs.


            Amendments Offered by Mr. Weldon of Pennsylvania

  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendments.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendments offered by Mr. Weldon of Pennsylvania:
       Page 2, line 16, insert after the dollar amount the 
     following: ``(reduced by $50,000,000)''.
       Page 25, line 24, insert after the dollar amount the 
     following: ``(increased by $50,000,000, which increase is 
     available for grants under section 34 of the Federal Fire 
     Prevention and Control Act of 1974 (15 U.S.C. 2229a))''.

  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask 
unanimous consent that the amendments be considered as read and printed 
in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to 
consider this amendment en bloc.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, this amendment has been 
worked carefully with the distinguished leader, the chairman of this 
committee, the ranking member, the distinguished gentleman from 
Maryland.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) will 
suspend.
  The gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, unrelated to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania's amendment, I think the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner) 
had an amendment right prior to that, and I think he was standing right 
here.
  I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner) be 
allowed to offer his amendment after the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Weldon).
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that we 
take up the Weldon amendment now, then the Turner amendment and then 
the regular order.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Kentucky?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) is 
recognized for 5 minutes on his amendment.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, this amendment I am 
offering on behalf of myself and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
Hoyer) and a number of other Members, and I want to thank the 
distinguished chairman and ranking member for their cooperation and 
support, both in the subcommittee and the full committee.
  This is a very important amendment, Mr. Chairman, that takes $50 
million out of the homeland security personnel account and transfers it 
into the SAFER program, which provides SAFER grants for the 32,000 fire 
and EMS departments across the country to deal with the issue of 
staffing.
  Mr. Chairman, as I mentioned earlier, it was this subcommittee who 
did so much to provide over $2.1 billion over the past 3 years to 
17,000 fire and EMS departments in America to allow them to purchase 
needed equipment, firefighter breathing apparatus, interoperable 
communications, apparatus and trucks and vehicles, safety training, 
training for the firefighters, a whole host of activities.
  This grant program has been so successful, and I know that every 
Member

[[Page 12935]]

of Congress understands the impact in their district, because there is 
no politics in it. The evaluations are done by firefighters themselves, 
who volunteer to come to Washington and review all the applications.
  In the first year of this program, we had over 30,000 applications 
from 32,000 departments.
  Mr. Chairman, this legislation establishes a program to deal with the 
personnel issues. It allows paid departments to hire additional 
firefighters and paramedics and allows them to phase out the Federal 
portion over 4 years and then make a commitment to pick up the cost of 
that firefighter after that time period, but unlike other programs, 
like the COPS program, this program is administered and evaluated by 
their peers. There is no process of agencies. It is done by people 
involved in the fire service.
  Mr. Chairman, why is this so important? Each year in America, we lose 
100 firefighters who are killed in the line of duty. There is no 
occupation in America that has 85 percent of those 100 people who 
volunteer who die in the course of volunteering to serve America. Our 
military personnel are paid, our police officers are paid, some of our 
firefighters are paid, but the bulk of them are volunteers.
  This program provides dollars so that volunteer fire departments can 
recruit more volunteers, so that volunteer departments who need paid 
drivers can bring in paid drivers, and so that paid fire departments 
who are woefully understaffed can finally have the beginning of the 
resources they need to properly protect their cities. This legislation 
does so much more than just provide protection for the homeland. It 
allows our emergency responders to deal with fires but also deal with 
terrorist incidents, HAZMAT incidents, all the typical concerns that we 
have across America.
  I want to thank the distinguished chairman for his cooperation. He is 
a hero to the fire service of America. I want to thank the ranking 
member and all of our colleagues, and I would ask that we get the vote 
not just for this amendment but also hopefully for the entire 
legislation with broad bipartisan support.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman has worked 
tirelessly on this effort, this amendment, and the SAFER funding, and 
the committee thinks this is a wise move. Our first responders are in 
great need, and we depend upon them, and I am happy to accept his 
amendment.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
his response.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered 
by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) and me.
  The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) and I have for many 
years had the great honor of cochairing the Fire Service Caucus, which 
is the largest caucus in this House. I notice that the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), another cochair, is on the floor as well, 
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak), the gentleman from New Jersey 
(Mr. Andrews), who has been a cochair of the Fire Service Caucus, and 
others who have been strong supporters of the fire service, the 
emergency medical response teams, and when I say the fire service, both 
the paid professionals and the volunteer professionals who do such an 
extraordinary job in our community.
  It has been said that there have been cuts in this bill to fire 
service assistance, and that is true. I know the chairman and the 
ranking member have fought very hard because the funds that they have 
available to them are limited. And I want to thank the chairman, as has 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon). I want to thank the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo), ranking member, for agreeing to 
work with us to offer this $50 million to the SAFER funding, which will 
provide additional dollars for personnel for both paid and volunteer 
departments which is so critically needed in the country today.
  So without further prolonging the debate, I want to thank the 
chairman for facilitating the adoption of this amendment.
  Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to as well applaud and acknowledge the work of 
the subcommittee chairman on this funding for the SAFER Act. It is 
something that we worked together with the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
Hoyer) and others through the subcommittee process, through the full 
committee markup. It is an important piece, an important effort. The 
$50 million is going to go a long way to maintain and preserve some 
essential services in some of the key and critical areas. And it was 
not an easy thing to do, and I think it is important. I am strongly in 
support of this.
  Last year Congress enacted a new authorization as part of fiscal year 
2004 DOD, an authorization bill known as the SAFER Act. It provided 
funds to hire up to 75,000 new firefighters. These are people 
critically needed in important places.
  When I spoke earlier, Mr. Chairman, I talked about how balanced this 
was, how tough this bill was, how there were some really tough 
decisions in it, and this is a chairman who worked hard to find the 
right balances and find the right equities, and here is an instance 
where he did that, and I want to applaud him for that.
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to commend the gentleman from Kentucky 
(Chairman Rogers) for his support of this amendment, for all the hard 
work he has put into bringing this bill to the floor, and likewise I 
want to publicly acknowledge the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Weldon) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) for the exemplary 
leadership they displayed on behalf of the firefighters and fire 
community all of these years, as well as for their tireless efforts in 
navigating the newly established SAFER program through Capitol Hill.
  Indeed, this amendment helps us fulfill our promise to the 
firefighters nationwide. The dangerous crisis of inadequate staffing in 
our Nation's fire departments must be confronted head on. This 
amendment does exactly that.
  While we all know the statistics, I think they are disturbing enough 
to warrant further discussion. Two-thirds of all fire departments 
throughout America operate with inadequate staffing, and we are talking 
about career and volunteer departments. In communities of at least 
50,000 people, 38 percent of the firefighters are regularly part of a 
response that is not sufficient to safely initiate an interior attack 
on a structure fire. Twenty-one percent of rural departments are often 
unable to deliver the four firefighters needed to safely initiate an 
interior attack. This is not acceptable.
  The firefighters whose bravery and valor protect our Nation deserve 
all that we can present here. The consequences of insufficient 
personnel levels often lead to tragic heartbreaking results, Mr. 
Chairman, and it is imperative that Congress addresses this issue.
  This amendment, which appropriates $50 million to the SAFER program 
to provide grants to help hire, recruit, retain career and volunteer 
firefighters, is vital in this regard.
  Again I would like to thank the chairman and all the members of the 
Fire Caucus for the support shown towards this amendment, and I wish to 
thank firefighters for everything that they do day in and day out.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to add my voice to personally thank the 
gentleman from Kentucky (Chairman Rogers) and the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Sabo), ranking member, for their leadership and hard 
work on this. I know that the chairman has many competing priorities, 
and I know that he has done a masterful job in accommodating this very 
important priority, and I personally thank him for that. I thank the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon), my friend

[[Page 12936]]

and neighbor, without whom none of this would have happened, the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) for his skillful legislative work 
in bringing all this together and making this happen, the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) for his energy on this issue at all 
times. I am honored to be part of it.
  Let me just make two brief comments. Two things we can be sure of: 
The first is when the next terrorist attack hits the United States the 
people who will benefit from this program will be the first ones to 
show up. They will be the first ones there, and because they are given 
these additional resources I am confident they will do an even better 
job than they already do.
  The second thing we can be sure of is that we will get every nickel's 
worth of value out of this $50 million. The paid departments, fully 
paid departments, are used to stretching every dime, and they will get 
maximum personal value out of this, and the largely volunteer 
departments, any small bit of money for people that make money by 
washing cars and running beef and beers, any bit of money is going to 
help them expand their ability to protect the community. So I am very 
grateful to the gentleman from Kentucky (Chairman Rogers) and the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo), ranking member; the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer); the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon). I 
ask enthusiastically support the amendment. I ask for a large 
bipartisan vote.

                              {time}  2045

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Let me add my appreciation as well, as I did in my earlier remarks, 
to the chairman and ranking member and as well the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), 
whom I have seen on the first lines of helping first responders and 
firefighters for all of the time I have been here.
  The first group that I met with after 9/11, after being able to get 
home to Houston, were firefighters, EMS and other first responders. 
Clearly, not only were they eager to find out how they could help 
further and establish a concrete way to be really first responders all 
the way and all the time, but they were committed to their brethren, 
their fallen brethren in New York and all around, who were then on the 
frontlines on 9/11. Their sympathy and their concern still is extended 
to those who lost their lives on that day. But they have never wavered 
from their commitment to rise to the occasion whenever they are called.
  It is clear now with the hearings that we are unfolding and the 
report of the 9/11 Commission that we will need, more than ever, the 
attitude and the appropriate resources, the appropriate attitude and 
resources for this United States Congress to share with our first 
responders around the Nation.
  Firefighters are on the frontline; and this particular legislation, 
both the authorization and now the funding, ensures, if you will, the 
continuation of our support for firefighters around this Nation.
  I simply wanted to thank the proponents of the amendment for crafting 
it such that it will pass; and, two, the ranking and chairperson of 
this appropriations bill for allowing this funding to go forward. Most 
of all I want to offer my thanks for the local community firefighters 
that I work with on a daily basis and the fact that they are still 
working.
  If I might add something, I just simply hope that we can look at our 
hazardous materials teams and reflect on the increasing needs that they 
have. No matter how much money they get, there is an increasing need.
  But my thanks go out to those who have managed to secure this funding 
on behalf of our firefighters.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment, and I am ready to vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendments offered by the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon).
  The amendments were agreed to.


                Amendment Offered by Mr. Turner of Texas

  Mr. TURNER of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Turner of Texas:
       In title I, in the item relating to ``Office of the Under 
     Secretary for Management'', insert after the first dollar 
     amount the following: ``(reduced by $450,000)''.
        In title II, in the item relating to ``Customs and Border 
     Protection--salaries and expenses'', insert after the first 
     dollar amount the following: ``(increased by $450,000)''.

  Mr. TURNER of Texas. Mr. Chairman, this amendment which I bring 
before the committee is one that has been supported by many Members, 
particularly the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes), the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Hunter), the distinguished ranking subcommittee member, 
the gentleman from (Mr. Sabo); and I want to especially thank the 
chairman, the gentleman from Kentucky (Chairman Rogers), for working 
with us on this amendment to craft it in a fashion that was acceptable.
  We all know that securing our borders while maintaining the flow of 
people and commerce is one of the central challenges of our new 
Department of Homeland Security. We are clearly investing in technology 
to achieve our goals, but we all know that technology alone can never 
do the job. It takes people.
  We know that people inspect packages and cargo coming into our 
country; people run the new programs, like the U.S. Visit Program, 
which has recently been awarded by the Department; people patrol the 
thousands of miles of our southern and northern borders; people detain 
and apprehend drug dealers and terrorists and criminal aliens.
  Since 9/11, the demands upon these border personnel have increased 
substantially. We know that the new Department of Homeland Security 
continues to fail to meet the demands of controlling our borders, as 
evidenced by the 7 to 12 million people that are estimated to be 
undocumented immigrants in our country and by the continuing reports of 
our porous southern and northern borders. The amendment we offer today 
would help address these significant security gaps.
  When inspectors from our former Customs Service and the Immigration 
and Naturalization Service and the agents from the Border Patrol were 
all merged into the new Department of Homeland Security, each former 
agency was operating under a pre-9/11 staffing model that reflected the 
missions of those agencies at that time. Since then, our frontline 
officers are working longer hours, dealing with new security threats 
and helping to implement new border security programs. The men and 
women on our frontlines are working hard to meet this new challenge, 
and we have an obligation to help them.
  This amendment supports our frontline officers by commissioning an 
independent study to try to answer the central question, how many 
people do we need on our front lines to secure our Nation's borders 
while moving people and cargo across our borders in a reasonable amount 
of time? This study would take into consideration a variety of factors: 
threat and vulnerability information, the impact of the implementation 
of new technology, and the wait times that we know exist.
  Mr. Chairman, we need to know how many people we need to have on the 
frontline. The cost of not doing this study would far outweigh the 
$450,000 set aside in this amendment, transferred from the Bureau of 
Customs and Border Protection from the Department's Headquarters 
Management Account.
  This amendment has the support of a diverse group, including the 
National Border Patrol Council, the 18,000 frontline inspectors who 
make up the National Immigration and Naturalization Service Council, 
the American Federation of Government Employees, as well as the 
American Immigration Lawyers Association.
  We must do all we can, Mr. Chairman, in this time of war against al 
Qaeda, to ensure that our borders are as secure as they need to be.
  I want to thank the gentleman from Kentucky (Chairman Rogers) for

[[Page 12937]]

working with this and supporting us on this amendment, and I appreciate 
also the language to be included as report language in support of this 
amendment.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TURNER of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman has offered what 
I consider to be a very helpful amendment. I think it is needed, and we 
are happy to agree to it. The ranking member of the Select Committee on 
Homeland Security has been very helpful to us.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TURNER of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I congratulate the gentleman on a very good 
amendment. It is a much needed study.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Stupak

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Stupak:
       Page 2, line 16, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $500,000)''.
       Page 22, line 18, after the dollar amount insert 
     ``(increased by $500,000)''.

  Mr. STUPAK (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 
Michigan?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is very straight forward. It 
would simply provide $500,000 for the Department of Homeland Security 
to conduct a thorough study on how these first responder grants have 
been spent over the past 2 fiscal years.
  In particular, we need to know how much of the $4.4 billion allocated 
for Homeland Security grant programs have been spent on upgrading local 
and State first responder communication systems.
  Why is this necessary? Because after 9/11, the Nation finally 
realized what those of us in law enforcement have known for years, that 
there is a huge gap in how we respond to natural and terrorist-related 
disasters. First responder agencies cannot talk to each other.
  Last month, the independent 9/11 Commission held hearings to examine 
the communication gaps between public safety agencies during their 
response to attacks on the World Trade Center. What the commission 
learned was that fire chiefs in the World Trade Center lobbies new 
little of the conditions upstairs. They did not hear anything about 
what the police in helicopters were seeing as they circled the 
buildings, that the towers may or would collapse.
  As we now know, Federal reports on the 9/11 Federal emergency 
response concluded that the inability of first responders from 
different agencies to talk to one another was a key factor in the 
deaths of at least 121 firefighters.
  Since then, the Federal Government has called upon the States and 
local governments to be even more vigilant and prepared for possible 
attacks of terrorism. Yet our public safety agencies continue to lack 
the ability to communicate with each other between agencies and between 
jurisdictions. Firefighters cannot talk to police, local police cannot 
talk to state police or emergency personnel, and so on and so on.
  Despite the creation of the Department of Homeland Security and grant 
programs for first responders, program funding for modernizing their 
communications system has fallen far short of the $6.8 billion that is 
needed to make the Nation's public safety agencies interoperable, in 
other words, being able to talk to each other.
  In fiscal year 2003, only $100 million was devoted to local public 
safety communications systems, and no funding at all was available in 
fiscal year 2004.
  The bottom line is there is an awful lot of talk here about 
interoperability, but no real, reliable resources to make that happen 
so agencies can talk to each other in times of catastrophic disaster or 
terrorist attacks. All we have are 2 years of grant programs within 
DHS, but none specifically for interoperability; and we do not know 
where that money is going.
  So far, neither I nor my staff can find any evidence of oversight on 
where the billions of dollars have gone after these grants have been 
sent to the States and local governments. No one can tell me how much 
of that money has gone to interoperable radio communications. I think 
we need to know how much money is being spent so we have a better idea 
on what the priorities are for our Nation's first responders.
  I know for a fact that upgrading radio equipment is a priority in my 
district, which is large, rural, and on the Canadian border, and, at 
times, unfortunately, porous, where those who do not belong can sneak 
into the United States.
  Again, my amendment takes $500,000 out of the office of the Under 
Secretary of Management, an account that receives a $50 million 
increase in this bill over fiscal year 2004. It puts that $500,000 for 
this needed study under the salaries and expenses account under title 
III, the preparedness and recovery title.
  For 30 years, I have been associated with law enforcement, 12 years 
as a police officer. For 30 years, I have been hearing that we will 
have radios so we can talk to each other and to first responders. After 
30 years and many deaths, it is time we move forward on making 
interoperability for all first responders available so we can talk to 
each other, especially in times of peril.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would remain at the desk, I really 
appreciate the gentleman bringing this issue before us, 
interoperability of communications amongst our first responders. One of 
the great lessons we learned, of course, out of 9/11--and the evidence 
has been ongoing since that time--is to go all out to try to create 
interoperability. It is a fairly complicated matter, as we now find 
out, and very expensive.
  So the gentleman's amendment that would set aside more money to 
examine how this can take place really is not necessary, because the 
Department already has an ongoing operation to collect that data from 
the States and the communities and the first responder units.
  Not all the States, of course, have decided what grant money will be 
spent on; and, of course, all the data is not yet automated. But the 
Office for Domestic Preparedness is currently building a master 
database, it is supposed to be completed in the next few months, to 
automate all state and local spending details, so we will then have 
what I think will be a fairly comprehensive inventory of where we are, 
which is what the gentleman, I think, is seeking in his amendment.
  So I would hope, perhaps, that the gentleman might withdraw the 
amendment, with my assurance that the Department is already involved in 
exactly what I think he seeks in his amendment.
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, the chairman is right, we have been trying to address 
this issue. I know, having been involved in law enforcement and worked 
with an interagency drug task force, we can bring in radio equipment so 
everyone can talk to each other no matter what frequency they are on. 
And I know through the leadership of the chairman and the ranking 
member and many Members who are concerned about this, as we heard from 
the Fire Caucus earlier, those Members, there is actually mobile 
equipment that we can bring in and help out.
  We have taken a good step forward. I want to make sure we keep moving 
in that right direction. That is why I wanted this study, as I continue 
to work in my own committee to try to

[[Page 12938]]

set up a fund to get this interoperability realistic throughout this 
country, because it is going to cost $6.8 billion; and I am concerned 
about my rural committees as well as the big cities.
  Mr. Chairman, the chairman has given me those assurances, and his 
word is always good with me. So I will withdraw my amendment, with 
those assurances. I look forward to working with the chairman and 
ranking member. I appreciate the gentleman's continued support on this 
issue and thank him for the opportunity of raising it.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Michigan?
  There was no objection.

                              {time}  2100

  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                 Office of the Chief Financial Officer

       For necessary expenses of the Office of the Chief Financial 
     Officer, as authorized by section 103 of the Homeland 
     Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 113), $13,000,000.

                Office of the Chief Procurement Officer

       For necessary expenses of the Office of the Chief 
     Procurement Officer, $7,734,000.

                Office of the Chief Information Officer

       For necessary expenses of the Office of the Chief 
     Information Officer, as authorized by section 103 of the 
     Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 113), $60,139,000.

                 Department-Wide Technology Investments

       For development and acquisition of information technology 
     equipment, software, services, and related activities for the 
     Department of Homeland Security, and for the costs of 
     conversion to narrowband communications, including the cost 
     for operation of the land mobile radio legacy systems, 
     $211,000,000, to remain available until expended: Provided, 
     That none of the funds appropriated shall be used to support 
     or supplement the appropriations provided for the United 
     States Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology 
     project or the Automated Commercial Environment.

                      Office of Inspector General

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General 
     in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector General Act 
     of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App.), $82,317,000, of which not to exceed 
     $100,000 may be used for certain confidential operational 
     expenses, including the payment of informants, to be expended 
     at the direction of the Inspector General.

          TITLE II--SECURITY, ENFORCEMENT, AND INVESTIGATIONS

  Office of the Under Secretary for Border and Transportation Security

                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Office of the Under Secretary 
     for Border and Transportation Security, as authorized by 
     subtitle A of title IV of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 
     (6 U.S.C. 201 et seq.), $10,371,000.


    united states visitor and immigrant status indicator technology

       For necessary expenses for the development of the United 
     States Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology 
     project, as authorized by section 110 of the Illegal 
     Immigration Reform and Immigration Responsibility Act of 1996 
     (8 U.S.C. 1221 note), $340,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended: Provided, That of the funds appropriated under this 
     heading, $254,000,000 may not be obligated for the United 
     States Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology 
     project until the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate 
     and the House of Representatives receive and approve a plan 
     for expenditure prepared by the Secretary of Homeland 
     Security that: (1) meets the capital planning and investment 
     control review requirements established by the Office of 
     Management and Budget, including Circular A-11, part 3; (2) 
     complies with the Department of Homeland Security enterprise 
     information systems architecture; (3) complies with the 
     acquisition rules, requirements, guidelines, and systems 
     acquisition management practices of the Federal Government; 
     (4) is reviewed and approved by the Department of Homeland 
     Security and the Office of Management and Budget; and (5) is 
     reviewed by the General Accounting Office.

                     Customs and Border Protection


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses for enforcement of laws relating to 
     border security, immigration, customs, and agricultural 
     inspections and regulatory activities related to plant and 
     animal imports; acquisition, lease, maintenance and operation 
     of aircraft; purchase and lease of up to 4,500 (3,935 for 
     replacement only) police-type vehicles; and contracting with 
     individuals for personal services abroad; $4,611,911,000, of 
     which $3,000,000 shall be derived from the Harbor Maintenance 
     Trust Fund for administrative expenses related to the 
     collection of the Harbor Maintenance Fee pursuant to Public 
     Law 103-182 and notwithstanding section 1511(e)(1) of Public 
     Law 107-296; of which not to exceed $40,000 shall be for 
     official reception and representation expenses; of which not 
     to exceed $176,162,000 shall remain available until September 
     30, 2006, for inspection and surveillance technology, 
     unmanned aerial vehicles, and equipment for the Container 
     Security Initiative; of which such sums as become available 
     in the Customs User Fee Account, except sums subject to 
     section 13031(f)(3) of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget 
     Reconciliation Act of 1985 (19 U.S.C. 58c(f)(3)), shall be 
     derived from that account; of which not to exceed $150,000 
     shall be available for payment for rental space in connection 
     with preclearance operations; of which not to exceed 
     $1,000,000 shall be for awards of compensation to informants, 
     to be accounted for solely under the certificate of the Under 
     Secretary for Border and Transportation Security; and of 
     which not to exceed $5,000,000 shall be available for 
     payments or advances arising out of contractual or 
     reimbursable agreements with State and local law enforcement 
     agencies while engaged in cooperative activities related to 
     immigration: Provided, That for fiscal year 2005, the 
     aggregate overtime limitation prescribed in section 5(c)(1) 
     of the Act of February 13, 1911 (19 U.S.C. 267(c)(1)) shall 
     be $35,000; and notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     none of the funds appropriated in this Act may be available 
     to compensate any employee of U.S. Customs and Border 
     Protection for aggregate overtime and premium pay, from 
     whatever source, in an amount that exceeds such limitation, 
     except in individual cases determined by the Under Secretary 
     for Border and Transportation Security, or a designee, to be 
     necessary for national security purposes, to prevent 
     excessive costs, or in cases of immigration emergencies: 
     Provided further, That none of the funds appropriated in this 
     Act may be obligated to construct permanent Border Patrol 
     checkpoints in the U.S. Customs and Border Protection's 
     Tucson sector: Provided further, That the Commissioner, U.S. 
     Customs and Border Protection, is directed to submit to the 
     Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the House of 
     Representatives a plan for expenditure that includes 
     location, design, costs, and benefits of each proposed Tucson 
     sector permanent checkpoint: Provided further, That U.S. 
     Customs and Border Protection shall relocate its tactical 
     checkpoints in the Tucson sector at least an average of once 
     every 14 days in a manner designed to prevent persons subject 
     to inspection from predicting the location of any such 
     checkpoint.


                        automation modernization

       For expenses for customs and border protection automated 
     systems, $449,909,000, to remain available until expended, of 
     which not less than $321,690,000 shall be for the development 
     of the Automated Commercial Environment: Provided, That none 
     of the funds appropriated under this heading may be obligated 
     for the Automated Commercial Environment until the Committees 
     on Appropriations of the Senate and the House of 
     Representatives receive and approve a plan for expenditure 
     prepared by the Under Secretary for Border and Transportation 
     Security that: (1) meets the capital planning and investment 
     control review requirements established by the Office of 
     Management and Budget, including Circular A-11, part 3; (2) 
     complies with U.S. Customs and Border Protection's enterprise 
     information systems architecture; (3) complies with the 
     acquisition rules, requirements, guidelines, and systems 
     acquisition management practices of the Federal Government; 
     (4) is reviewed and approved by the U.S. Customs and Border 
     Protection Investment Review Board, the Department of 
     Homeland Security, and the Office of Management and Budget; 
     and (5) is reviewed by the General Accounting Office.


                              construction

       For necessary expenses to plan, construct, renovate, equip, 
     and maintain buildings and facilities necessary for the 
     administration and enforcement of laws relating to customs 
     and immigration, $91,718,000, to remain available until 
     expended.

                  Immigration and Customs Enforcement


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses for enforcement of immigration and 
     customs laws, detention and removals, and investigations; and 
     purchase and lease of up to 2,300 (2,000 for replacement 
     only) police-type vehicles; $2,377,006,000, of which not to 
     exceed $5,000,000 shall be available until expended for 
     conducting special operations pursuant to section 3131 of the 
     Customs Enforcement Act of 1986 (19 U.S.C. 2081); of which 
     not to exceed $15,000 shall be for official reception and 
     representation expenses; of which not to exceed $1,000,000 
     shall be for awards of compensation to informants, to be 
     accounted for solely under the certificate of the Under 
     Secretary for Border and Transportation Security; of which 
     not less than $100,000 shall be for promotion of public 
     awareness of the child pornography tipline; of which not less 
     than $200,000 shall be for Project Alert; and of which not to 
     exceed $16,216,000 shall be available to fund or reimburse 
     other Federal agencies for the costs associated with the 
     care, maintenance, and repatriation of smuggled illegal 
     aliens: Provided, That none of the

[[Page 12939]]

     funds appropriated shall be available to compensate any 
     employee for overtime in an annual amount in excess of 
     $35,000, except that the Under Secretary for Border and 
     Transportation Security may waive that amount as necessary 
     for national security purposes and in cases of immigration 
     emergencies: Provided further, That of the total amount 
     provided, $3,000,000 shall be for activities to enforce laws 
     against forced child labor in fiscal year 2005, of which not 
     to exceed $2,000,000 shall remain available until expended.


                          federal air marshals

       For necessary expenses of the Federal air marshals, 
     $662,900,000, to remain available until expended.


                       federal protective service

       The revenues and collections of security fees credited to 
     this account, not to exceed $478,000,000, shall be available 
     until expended for necessary expenses related to the 
     protection of federally-owned and leased buildings and for 
     the operations of the Federal Protective Service.


                        automation modernization

       For expenses of immigration and customs enforcement 
     automated systems, $39,605,000, to remain available until 
     expended: Provided, That none of the funds appropriated under 
     this heading may be obligated for ATLAS until the Committees 
     on Appropriations of the Senate and the House of 
     Representatives receive and approve a plan for expenditure 
     prepared by the Under Secretary for Border and Transportation 
     Security that: (1) meets the capital planning and investment 
     control review requirements established by the Office of 
     Management and Budget, including Circular A-11, part 3; (2) 
     complies with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement's 
     enterprise information systems architecture; (3) complies 
     with the acquisition rules, requirements, guidelines, and 
     systems acquisition management practices of the Federal 
     Government; (4) is reviewed and approved by the U.S. 
     Immigration and Customs Enforcement's Investment Review 
     Board, the Department of Homeland Security, and the Office of 
     Management and Budget; and (5) is reviewed by the General 
     Accounting Office.


                              construction

       For necessary expenses to plan, construct, renovate, equip, 
     and maintain buildings and facilities necessary for the 
     administration and enforcement of the laws relating to 
     customs and immigration, $26,179,000, to remain available 
     until expended.


 air and marine interdiction, operations, maintenance, and procurement

       For necessary expenses for the operations, maintenance, and 
     procurement of marine vessels, aircraft, and other related 
     equipment of the air and marine program, including 
     operational training and mission-related travel, and rental 
     payments for facilities occupied by the air or marine 
     interdiction and demand reduction programs, the operations of 
     which include the following: the interdiction of narcotics 
     and other goods; the provision of support to Federal, State, 
     and local agencies in the enforcement or administration of 
     laws enforced by U.S. Customs and Border Protection or U.S. 
     Immigration and Customs Enforcement; and at the discretion of 
     the Under Secretary for Border and Transportation Security, 
     the provision of assistance to Federal, State, and local 
     agencies in other law enforcement and emergency humanitarian 
     efforts, $257,535,000, to remain available until expended: 
     Provided, That no aircraft or other related equipment, with 
     the exception of aircraft that are one of a kind and have 
     been identified as excess to U.S. Immigration and Customs 
     Enforcement requirements and aircraft that have been damaged 
     beyond repair, shall be transferred to any other Federal 
     agency, department, or office outside of the Department of 
     Homeland Security during fiscal year 2005 without the prior 
     approval of the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate 
     and the House of Representatives.

                 Transportation Security Administration


                           aviation security

       For necessary expenses of the Transportation Security 
     Administration related to providing civil aviation security 
     services pursuant to the Aviation and Transportation Security 
     Act (Public Law 107-71), $4,270,564,000, to remain available 
     until expended, of which not to exceed $3,000 shall be for 
     official reception and representation expenses: Provided, 
     That of the total amount provided under this heading, not to 
     exceed $2,016,814,000 shall be for passenger screening 
     activities; not to exceed $1,406,460,000 shall be for baggage 
     screening activities; and not to exceed $847,290,000 shall be 
     for airport security direction and enforcement: Provided 
     further, That security service fees authorized under section 
     44940 of title 49, United States Code, shall be credited to 
     this appropriation as offsetting collections: Provided 
     further, That the sum herein appropriated from the General 
     Fund shall be reduced on a dollar-for-dollar basis as such 
     offsetting collections are received during fiscal year 2005, 
     so as to result in a final fiscal year appropriation from the 
     General Fund estimated at not more than $2,447,564,000: 
     Provided further, That any security service fees collected 
     pursuant to section 118 of Public Law 107-71 in excess of the 
     amount appropriated under this heading shall be treated as 
     offsetting collections in fiscal year 2006: Provided further, 
     That none of the funds in this Act shall be used to recruit 
     or hire personnel into the Transportation Security 
     Administration which would cause the agency to exceed a 
     staffing level of 45,000 full-time equivalent screeners: 
     Provided further, That notwithstanding section 44923 of title 
     49 United States Code, the Federal Government's share of the 
     cost of a project under any letter of intent shall be 75 
     percent for any medium or large hub airport and 90 percent 
     for any other airport, and all funding provided by subsection 
     (h) of such section, or from appropriations authorized by 
     subsection (i)(1) of such section, may be distributed in any 
     manner deemed necessary to ensure aviation security and to 
     fulfill the Federal Government's planned cost share under 
     existing letters of intent.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against page 14, line 
9, beginning with the words ``provided further'' through line 19.
  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. Does any Member desire to be heard on the point of 
order?
  If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
  The Chair finds that this 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.


                Amendment No. 17 Offered by Mr. DeFazio

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

       Amendment No. 17 offered by Mr. DeFazio:
       Page 14, strike the proviso beginning on line 5.

  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I do not rise to defend the Transportation 
Security Administration as a paragon of efficiency, although I have 
been impressed in recent meetings, hearings, closed and open door, with 
the acting head, Admiral Stone. And in particular, he seems to be 
willing to address the enduring problems with the centralized 
bureaucracy, the fact that hiring, firing, management decisions, 
scheduling decisions are all being made out of Washington, D.C. instead 
of at the local level by the local Federal Security Director.
  But I want to give him a chance to succeed. I want to make the system 
work as well as possible. And the cap that has been imposed, I think 
out of frustration by members of this committee, which is shared by 
members of the Subcommittee on Aviation and the Select Committee on 
Homeland Security, about the past problems with management of this 
agency is not the right solution.
  We talk about right sizing the TSA. Well, the way to do that would be 
to do a bottom-up assessment of what is necessary to meet the mandates 
of the Transportation Security Act, to screen the baggage, to properly 
screen the passengers.
  It is my understanding that in the near future we may hear that the 
Transportation Security Administration is going to fill the huge gap 
where individuals who work in the airport, vendors and others, 
caterers, would have to go through screening on a daily basis, which 
will increase the load. Passenger loads are coming back as people 
return to the air. But because of this arbitrary cap of 45,000, we find 
out that according to the GAO we are not meeting the mandate on 100 
percent electronic baggage screening because of staffing shortages.
  The Secretary of Transportation, Secretary Mineta, has abandoned the 
promise and the contract with the American traveling public that they 
will wait no more than 15 minutes in line. There have been lines 
reported at some airports up to 4 and 5 hours; 1 and 2 hours are 
regularly at other airports. That means the airlines are losing

[[Page 12940]]

more and more of their business travelers, which is causing the 
industry tremendous problems.
  We need predictability when business travelers and others go to the 
airport. We need some assurances that they will be able to get through 
expeditiously and quickly. And even more than that, we need assurances 
that they will be properly screened and that their baggage will be 
properly screened. I believe because of this cap we are not meeting any 
of those charges.
  A number of the largest airports in the United States, 22 of the 25 
focus airports that the Transportation Security Administration deems to 
be at high risk of delays this summer; these are 22 of the 25 airports 
at high risk of travel delays this summer, the Transportation Security 
Administration, because of the cap, has reduced screener staffing 
resources by the equivalent of 3,100 full-time screeners over the last 
year, about 20 percent of those airports. That means that many 
Americans are going to be waiting in line for half an hour or an hour 
or more because of these arbitrary caps.
  I do not think this is the way to get at the management problems of 
the TSA. It would be better for the committee to mandate that the 
agency, prior to the start of the next fiscal year, go through an 
assessment, and they claim they are doing this, but mandate it perhaps, 
that they would decide from the ground up, from every position in the 
agency how many people they need at each airport and set a performance 
standard, a standard both in terms of security that has to be met and a 
standard in terms of how long it is going to take people to get through 
those airports.
  It is not fair to the public to say, well, you are paying this 
additional tax for security and you are paying all of these other 
taxes, a very large part of the ticket, but we cannot afford enough 
people to get you through here in less than 3 hours. That is not right.
  I know many of my colleagues have experienced this firsthand, and 
they certainly have received complaints from their constituents, 
particularly in a number of these 25 focus airports around the country.
  I do not do this out of some sort of very parochial need, because my 
own local airport is doing quite well. But I do it out of a general 
concern for the industry, the traveling public, safety, security, and 
convenience, and the proper management of the TSA, and wanting to give 
the new acting director a chance to make it work right by removing this 
cap, admitting that there were mistakes made in the past, and we expect 
that they will not be repeated in the future.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, since 2002, we have included language in either the 
Transportation bill that preceded Homeland Security, and then the 
Homeland Security bill in 2004, language that limits the number of 
screeners to no more than 45,000 full-time equivalents. In my judgment, 
that language is necessary to force TSA to use taxpayer dollars 
reasonably and efficiently.
  When TSA was first organized, it overhired and mismanaged millions of 
dollars. When they first came to the Congress when it was a part of the 
Transportation Department, they said we think we can get by with 30,000 
screeners. They came back later and said no, we think it is going to be 
35,000. Then they came back later and said 40,000, then 45,000, then 
50,000, then 55,000. Finally, I said ``Time. Let us talk. What is going 
on here?'' And others did the same thing.
  And so we went through their needs and we were careful to determine 
the optimum amount of people that would be necessary to screen our 
customers at the airports.
  During this zealous hiring phase at the outset, many airports, 
particularly small ones, had TSA employees screening a couple of 
passengers a day. For example, Clinton County Airport in New York, and 
I do not want to pick out examples necessarily, but there is no other 
way to do it; Clinton County Airport in New York had 20 screeners. How 
many passengers a day did they have? Twelve. Twenty screeners for 12 
passengers a day.
  Other airports, Massena and Adirondack, both in New York had the same 
number of screeners as daily passengers. What we had at that time, and 
people said so, is that TSA was an acronym for Thousands Standing 
Around, waiting for a passenger that needed to be screened.
  Over the last 2 years, this cap has forced TSA to reshape that 
workforce so that more screeners have now been assigned in high-traffic 
airports and fewer in small airports, while still maintaining high 
levels of security. TSA has also begun to hire part-time screeners to 
work just during the peak hours, and the rest of the day when we do not 
need them they are not there. TSA recently created a summer plan to 
mitigate the anticipated effects of a busy travel season, given the 
size of the screener workforce. They are right sizing even as we speak.
  TSA needs to do more. The agency is still too focused on screeners. 
It is doing a poor job of phasing in new technologies that would reduce 
our dependence on screeners.
  Here are two examples of cost-savings that can result from using 
technology: Lexington, Kentucky, an airport I fly in and out of each 
week, invested just $3.5 million to install explosive detection 
machines in-line, with the conveyor belt, which allowed TSA to use 4 
screeners per shift, rather than the 30 that would have been required 
using explosive trace detection equipment in the lobby. Not only that, 
people move through quicker.
  There are even bigger savings in larger airports. San Francisco 
predicts that by having a complete in-line explosive detection system, 
it will require 100 less screeners, saving about $5 million in salaries 
and compensation each year.
  Deleting this cap would be very premature. Instead of forcing TSA to 
continue to restructure its workforce to handle high-traffic levels at 
some airports, and to procure new equipment that could greatly reduce 
our reliance on screeners, this amendment would permit TSA to request 
an exemption from this cap and return to the days of ``thousands 
standing around.''
  If we delete this cap, Mr. Chairman, 5 years from now I am convinced 
we will have 70,000-plus screeners and no new technology in place, and 
we are back to where we were.

                              {time}  2115

  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.
  I can agree with the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) on much of 
what he has said. Deployment and manpower must work hand in hand. So 
you have in some airports too few screeners. You have other airports, 
as the gentleman has described it, too many. However, when you look at 
the attrition rate, and I would ask the chairman to look at this 
please, there is so much of a turnover, that that is causing, as the 
numbers that I have studied, an insufficient amount of screeners many 
times at many airports. And that is why I support the DeFazio 
amendment.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PASCRELL. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. The gentleman makes a very good point. The 
TSA is still operating under the system where they hire nationally. So 
that when there is a vacancy in San Francisco or New Jersey or where 
have you, that has to work its way up to the national headquarters, and 
it is a very inefficient way for TSA to replace people who have quit 
their job. We are trying to force the Department to at least 
regionalize the hiring process, and I would like to see it even 
localized so that we can replace people quickly, but the gentleman 
makes a good point.
  Mr. PASCRELL. Reclaiming my time, I agree with what the chairman is 
saying, but many times we put the cart before the horse. We do not have 
a universal vulnerability and risk assessment, and perhaps we are 
spending money in the wrong places. This is a problem. A better method 
would be a bottom-up approach. Security decisions should be made by 
evaluating

[[Page 12941]]

what each airport needs, what each airport needs to screen passengers 
and baggage effectively and efficiently. It would seem that should be 
our priority.
  The reason why I believe the threshold should be taken away and not 
suggesting another number to take its place is that you have a very 
difficult period in air travel coming up, Mr. Chairman. The summer 
travel season gets busier and busier. People are going to wonder why 
lines are getting longer and longer. I do not know if the TSA is 
prepared to act accordingly and quickly, to be very honest. Because of 
the provision that this amendment addresses, the TSA simply does not 
have the manpower to do the job.
  The federalization of airport passenger screeners has been a rocky 
road, but this cap has only added to the problems. It has hurt the 
ability of the TSA to manage the problem areas such as the mile-long 
lines at Atlanta's Hartfield Airport. The Congress has mandated 100 
percent electronic screening of checked baggage at several airports 
this year; the electronic baggage mandate was not met due to a glaring 
lack of screeners.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PASCRELL. I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, the other point is the chairman talked 
about the fact that we need to replace the screeners with technology. I 
agree 100 percent as does the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica). 
Unfortunately, this budget does not contain this money. It is $231 
million less than we authorized for that kind of technology.
  Mr. PASCRELL. Reclaiming my time, I witnessed the screener cap issue 
firsthand when there were media reports that Newark International 
Airport was not meeting the baggage screening mandate. At one point 
this past year, Newark was dangerously understaffed to the point where 
the EDS machines, and we know how sensitive they are; we know how much 
effort we have put into this, thanks to the Committee on Transportation 
and Infrastructure, thanks to homeland security, they were sitting 
idle. No one was there to operate them despite high passenger traffic.
  The airport is now meeting its mandates, but only with the temporary 
assignment of an extra 150 screeners to deal with the summer months. 
Come the fall, we may be short-staffed again. So what is actually 
needed is clearly more than the arbitrary level set in the bill. That 
is what I am addressing, Mr. Chairman, through the Chair, and that is, 
I believe the 45,000 number is arbitrary. And I would ask the gentleman 
in his capacity as the chairman, and he has looked at this and the 
sensitivities that exist in all of these amendments and issues, to 
please look at this, what has happened to these EDS machines that are 
on-line but there is no one to staff them.
  I think that the 45,000 figure, that cap, that threshold is not 
realistic. I have looked at the data. I have examined the small 
airports, the large airports. I agree with everything that you have 
said in terms of the ridiculousness of many screeners standing around 
all day doing nothing. We know that there needs to be a deployment 
change. I am simply asking, we should not have this threshold number 
unless we have the data to support it. And I would ask the gentleman to 
reconsider that, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to also thank the committee Chair, the gentleman 
from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), for his leadership on this issue, the great 
job he is doing on homeland security. The gentleman from Oregon (Mr. 
DeFazio) and I have the honor and privilege of serving with him as the 
ranking member of the Subcommittee on Aviation. I understand the 
frustration of the gentleman. Both the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. 
DeFazio) and me are very frustrated with the operation of TSA. However, 
I rise in opposition to eliminating the screening cap of 45,000 that 
the Committee on Appropriations has placed on TSA.
  I did not coordinate my remarks with the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. 
Rogers), but ironically he got up and said we were promised in the 
beginning, it took, they said, maybe 26,000 it would take the private 
sector to add fewer screeners; and we can debate the merits and or 
demerits of what they did. And then we were told 30,000; and then we 
were told 35,000 would do the job; and then 40,000 would do the job. 
Only give us 50,000; and one day we woke up and there were 60,000 TSA 
employees.
  Now, they did a job that was mandated by Congress, and they put all 
those folks out there. But at some point it got to be exactly what the 
chairman described. Thousands standing around. It became a joke. And 
what we had to do was right-size that agency. We got something in 
place; and it was, no question, overstaffed.
  One of the problems with this is that a defect in the organization of 
TSA, and this is no offense to TSA, Congress organized it. But we 
created basically, and I have said this publicly before, a Soviet-style 
Moscow-centered, in this case Washington-centered, bureaucracy.
  The Chair just described the process of hiring a person, a vacancy in 
San Francisco and then waiting days and weeks. We just waited 6 months 
for TSA to finalize its most recent screener allocations. They just 
released them. I am the chairman. I represent Orlando International 
Airport at one of the busiest tourist destinations in the United 
States. We needed 124 part-time positions before Christmas. I still do 
not have the part-time screeners that we need there. They cannot get it 
right.
  Please do not believe that bigger government, just give us 10,000 
more, 20,000 more, will solve this. It will not. It has to be 
decentralized. It has to be localized. And that is what we intend to 
do.
  We do have 14 airports that have automated inline screening systems, 
and you heard the reduction in personnel, just at one example; and more 
will come online, so we actually need fewer screeners.
  The performance rate of even the screeners we have, I hate to say 
this, I invite every Member of Congress to receive the classified 
results. The Inspector General testified before us publicly; we had 
Federal screening and five demonstration public screening operations 
compared with all Federal screening operations, and the Inspector 
General described the results that they performed equally poorly.
  I say that TSA is mostly a mirage. We are fortunate that we have 
secured cockpit doors, that we have armed air marshals, that we in fact 
have pilots that have been armed. That gives us this protection, not 
this mirage you see. A bigger mirage is not going to solve it. What is 
going to solve it is decentralization of the process and then better 
technology. Go to New Jersey. You do not need an invitation. See our 
test center. See equipment that will detect weapons, will detect 
explosives. That is what we need in place.
  I will say, no matter how hard they try and how many employees they 
get, 40, 50, 60,000, they will never get it right from Washington in 
this bureaucratized, centralized operation. It will never be able to 
service the needs, the requirements of 440 airports with different 
schedules.
  Think of Dulles out here. They are going to have Independence Air 
with 300 additional flights. Well, that is not in the allocation that 
they just took 6 months to get. It will take them months and months to 
get it right. So we need to vote down this amendment and correct the 
deficiencies in TSA.
  Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to strongly support the DeFazio amendment 
to eliminate the 45,000-person cap on the number of TSA screeners.
  When Congress created the Transportation Security Administration and 
tasked them with protecting our aviation, rail and transit systems, it 
was expected that Congress would provide the agency with the necessary 
resources. However, Congress has not done its job.
  Last year, a cap of 45,000 was placed on the number of Federal 
screeners at our Nation's airports. This number is

[[Page 12942]]

not only an arbitrary figure; it does not give our airports enough 
personnel necessary to screen passengers. We have an obligation to 
enable the TSA to hire the number of people needed to ensure the 
security of the flying public in the safest and most efficient way.
  Now, I cannot speak for the airport in Clinton, New York; but I can 
speak for the airport in Las Vegas, Nevada. Officials at McCarran 
Airport in Las Vegas have struggled to manage the long lines as a 
result of inadequate personnel. In January, departing passengers stood 
in line for up to 4 hours after attending one of our largest 
conventions. This is absolutely unacceptable for a community that 
depends on its airport to deliver tens of millions of annual visitors.
  Not only does this cause passenger frustration; it poses additional 
security risks. Thousands of people jammed into a small area could 
create yet another potential terrorist target.
  In our attempts to secure one aspect of our aviation system, we 
should not expose another flank to potential attack. TSA has worked 
with the Nevada delegation to temporarily reduce wait times by giving 
the Federal security director more flexibility and personnel. But 
McCarran screeners are working over 50 hours a week to meet the demand. 
We cannot expect them to continue to work these hours. At some point, 
they are either going to quit their jobs or their efficiency and 
effectiveness will be compromised, which in turn will impact on 
passenger safety. We must find a long-term solution.
  McCarran International Airport is the life blood of the Las Vegas 
Valley. Last year, nearly 36 million people came to Las Vegas; 46 
percent of them arrived by air. Passenger traffic at McCarran has grown 
15 percent just this year alone, and this growth is expected to 
continue. New airlines have added service and established airlines 
continue to expand their existing networks to include more flights to 
southern Nevada.
  Officials at McCarran and local FSD have worked tirelessly to 
improving the screening process for passengers. This summer, seven new 
checkpoints will be opened by next fall and an inline baggage screening 
system will be operational. We have at McCarran the latest technology, 
but it is time for Congress to do our part.
  Instead of mandating a cap on a screener workforce, let us give the 
TSA the resources it needs to secure our skies. Give the TSA the 
ability to hire the screeners it needs to achieve its mission, keeping 
the flying public safe.
  This is about more than aviation security. This is about national 
security. We cannot cut corners or attempt to play politics with 
something as important as the lives of our pilots, our crew members, 
our passengers, and America's airport personnel.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I suppose if it were an ideal world, I would prefer not 
to have staffing caps and would like to think I could trust an agency 
to manage the staffing.

                              {time}  2130

  There is nothing about TSA that gives me that confidence. I have 
dealt with endless agencies over the years. I have never dealt with one 
more frustrating to deal with in all my years of public service than 
TSA.
  There was maybe no option other than top-down development in the 
agency at the beginning, but it was chaotic. It was hiring people 
without any thought. It was not managing contracts. It was wasting 
money all over the place. Today, there is no reason to continue that 
top-down management. It does not work.
  I am impressed by the new director from what he says. Maybe the 
agency can change; but if we say, have your own way, those pressures 
will disappear. There are times when we have agencies when they are not 
working, we have got to force them to make some decisions. They clearly 
mismanaged personnel, misallocated personnel all over the country. 
Incredibly bureaucratic, top down, people at the bottom cannot make 
decisions, cannot hire people. I do not think they can train people, 
maybe a little bit.
  So I understand why my colleagues are frustrated. If I thought that 
giving them more people would solve their problem in a fashion, then I 
might be more sympathetic, if not repealing the ceiling or adjusting 
it; but I have no confidence that they would handle and manage 
additional people. I think we have to force them to make those 
judgments, to reallocate those sources.
  Speaking a hypothetical, I have no trust that simply adding people to 
them are going to relieve lines in certain airports. The reality is 
lifting the cap in this bill does nothing about the staffing and 
capping limits for this summer. So I think we have no option but 
keeping this cap until this agency is restructured, we get some real 
bottom up management, with good people in place at the local level.
  Let me just conclude, again, by saying I have never seen an agency so 
mismanaged from the beginning and totally wasting resources in my life 
that I think having a cap is the only responsible thing to do; and I 
think we have to maintain it, and keep their feet to the fire.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  I hope we can put aside the unnecessary and overblown hyperbole that 
has at times crept into this discussion such as Moscow-style 
bureaucracy; TSA is a joke. TSA is not a joke. This agency, its 
personnel are engaged in the very serious business of maintaining 
security at our Nation's airports, for air travelers, for the airline 
business in America. They have done an extraordinary job under 
extremely difficult circumstances, tight timelines, unavailability of 
space, equipment that was not forthcoming, equipment that was not ready 
to do the task that was set before them; and I think rather than 
disparage this agency and these personnel who came in with a very high 
degree of spirit to do the right job for America, we ought to commend 
the individual workers for making the effort and continue our focus on 
redirecting the management and setting performance standards. 
Performance standards would be far better than an arbitrary limit on 
the number of personnel.
  I have enormous respect for the gentleman from Kentucky. We have 
worked together on so many issues over many, many years; and I do not 
think that he came in and just picked an arbitrary number just to show 
that he is in charge. Out of great frustration, out of very serious 
concern for getting the right number, as my colleague from Minnesota 
said, they picked a number and said get down to this level; but that is 
not the right way to achieve the best out of this agency.
  I agree that at the outset, after enactment of the Air Traffic 
Security Act, that the agency went in and did many things. A new agency 
was created, did many things at the same time. They rushed in, they 
hired many more people than we know in hindsight to be necessary for 
the job; but remember, they did not know electronic detection screening 
equipment would be available. They had a deadline to meet within a 
year. We all agreed in this body that that was a timeline we were not 
going to budge from; we were going to insist that this deadline be met; 
that if they could not get the EDS equipment in place, they would have 
to do hand screening, they would have to do screening with canines; 
that there were going to be huge time requirements and personnel; they 
would need more people, and they did not know how many were going to be 
required at various airports.
  So they put people in place. They met the goal that we set forth in 
the authorization law, and then they went about the task of right-
sizing. Right-sizing does not necessarily mean down-sizing, and 
removing the cap does not necessarily mean adding more personnel, but 
just arbitrarily imposing a cap is not going to achieve the goal of 
better management of standard-based management of this agency. I think 
under Admiral Loy and his successor as head of TSA, Admiral Stone, that 
the process is underway of decentralizing the decisionmaking on 
locating personnel.

[[Page 12943]]

  For example, in the Minneapolis/St. Paul airport area responsibility, 
the Federal security director has right-sized that facility by shifting 
personnel to among the various airports under his jurisdiction. In 
Duluth, an area that I know very well, the Federal security director 
has several airports in northern Minnesota under his jurisdiction. He 
has moved TSA personnel from those airports that were overstaffed and 
put them to airports where they were understaffed. They have moved to 
put in place part-time personnel where that fits.
  There has to be much more of this kind of decentralization of 
decisionmaking on allocation of personnel.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Oberstar was allowed to proceed for 1 
additional minute.)
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, so the answer is right-sizing, not 
necessarily down-sizing arbitrarily.
  This year we are seeing a rebound in air travel. There is going to be 
a 6.8 percent, 7-plus percent increase in air travelers. That will mean 
an increase in demand for screeners. To put an arbitrary cap on 
screeners at a time when air traffic is growing, when the airlines are 
beginning to rebound, I think is not responsible.
  I would hope that the gentleman's amendment would be supported and 
that we allow a process; and our committee, under the leadership of the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), has been vigorous in this pursuit of 
oversight on this agency and are keeping their noses to the grindstone 
through our oversight process. Insisting on right-sizing and 
decentralization of decisionmaking for allocation of personnel is a far 
better way to go than just say here is an arbitrary cap that will 
result in arbitrary results.
  Mr. TURNER of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  I want to thank the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) for his 
leadership on this very critical issue, and I am glad to see that we 
have good people on all sides of this issue tonight.
  I joined with the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) in offering 
this amendment. I do agree with the ranking member that when this 
screening cap was put in place more than a year ago, we were looking at 
a TSA that was a bureaucracy out of control. It had hired more than 
60,000 screeners, and it was still growing. There was no clear strategy 
or budget plan. It was unknown how much technology would help in moving 
people and baggage through screening checkpoints. So at that time, the 
cap made a lot of sense, and it certainly sent a very strong message to 
the Department.
  Today, however, we have a very different situation. TSA has met, to a 
large extent, demanding congressional requirements and has its 
leadership and budget team in place. As a testament to the public's 
trust in air safety, air traffic has increased dramatically. Yet we 
have the same screener cap in place, and it is impeding the ability of 
the Department to manage a growing passenger load.
  Many Americans are all too familiar with the long security lines at 
airports. Many of us travel and see those long lines. I see them 
regularly at Reagan airport. Many see it at Dulles. I also see them at 
the Houston airport.
  What is less obvious than the long lines is the damage that screener 
understaffing is doing to aviation security. I have had a chance to 
talk to some of the airline screeners in Houston who are afraid to 
openly acknowledge the way their operations are run. When the lines get 
too long, they simply push people through. That kind of conduct does 
not build confidence in airport security and certainly is demoralizing 
to those who work so diligently to protect the public at our airports.
  The General Accounting Office has reported that staffing shortfalls 
have prevented the TSA from checking or sending checked baggage through 
electronic screening, and we have heard from screeners over and over 
again that passenger lines get longer, and the pressure that I 
mentioned is on them to move the passengers through faster. According 
to many media accounts, even though TSA regulations require four 
screeners per checkpoint, staffing shortfalls have, in some cases, 
reduced that to two.
  In legislation that I joined the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Markey) in introducing recently, we would require TSA to conduct a 
comprehensive study of its staffing needs so that Congress could 
provide the appropriate resources. Determining the right mix of full-
time and part-time screeners and developing a model to measure the 
staffing needs at every airport is long overdue.
  I understand TSA will have such a study completed shortly. If this 
study reveals the need for more screeners, we should not tie the 
Department's hands with an arbitrary cap; and keep in mind, if we do 
not lift this cap, it is likely to remain in place for at least the 
next 15 months.
  By eliminating the cap now, we are one step closer to making sure 
that the changes that need to be made in our airports can happen 
quickly when they are needed.
  I urge my colleagues to join with us in supporting this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending 
that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) 
will be postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.

                              {time}  2145

  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


                       maritime and land security

       For necessary expenses of the Transportation Security 
     Administration related to maritime and land transportation 
     security grants and services pursuant to the Aviation and 
     Transportation Security Act (Public Law 107-71), $65,000,000, 
     to remain available until September 30, 2006.
       In addition, from fees authorized by section 520 of Public 
     Law 108-90, up to $67,000,000 is available until expended: 
     Provided, That in fiscal year 2005, other funds under this 
     heading may be used for initial administrative costs of such 
     credentialing activities.


                              intelligence

       For necessary expenses for intelligence activities pursuant 
     to the Aviation and Transportation Security Act (Public Law 
     107-71), $14,000,000.


                        research and development

       For necessary expenses for research and development related 
     to transportation security, $174,000,000, to remain available 
     until expended.


                             administration

       For necessary expenses for administrative activities of the 
     Transportation Security Administration to carry out the 
     Aviation and Transportation Security Act (Public Law 107-71), 
     $524,852,000, to remain available until September 30, 2006.

                       United States Coast Guard


                           operating expenses

       For necessary expenses for the operation and maintenance of 
     the Coast Guard not otherwise provided for; purchase or lease 
     of not to exceed 25 passenger motor vehicles for replacement 
     only; payments pursuant to section 156 of Public Law 97-377 
     (42 U.S.C. 402 note) and section 229(b) of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 429(b)); and recreation and welfare; 
     $5,171,220,000, of which $1,204,000,000 shall be for defense-
     related activities; of which $24,500,000 shall be derived 
     from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund to carry out the 
     purposes of section 1012(a)(5) of the Oil Pollution Act of 
     1990; and of which not to exceed $3,000 shall be for official 
     reception and representation expenses: Provided, That none of 
     the funds appropriated by this or any other Act shall be 
     available for administrative expenses in connection with 
     shipping commissioners in the United States: Provided 
     further, That none of the funds provided by this Act shall be 
     available for expenses incurred for yacht documentation under 
     section 12109 of title 46, United States Code, except to the 
     extent fees are collected from yacht owners and credited to 
     this appropriation: Provided further, That notwithstanding 
     section 1116(c) of title 10, United States Code, amounts made 
     available under this heading may be used to make payments 
     into the Department of Defense Medicare-Eligible Retiree 
     Health Care Fund for fiscal year 2005 under section 1116(a) 
     of such title.

[[Page 12944]]




                environmental compliance and restoration

       For necessary expenses to carry out the Coast Guard's 
     environmental compliance and restoration functions under 
     chapter 19 of title 14, United States Code, $17,000,000, to 
     remain available until expended.


                            reserve training

       For necessary expenses of the Coast Guard Reserve, as 
     authorized by law; operations and maintenance of the reserve 
     program; personnel and training costs; and equipment and 
     services; $113,000,000.


              acquisition, construction, and improvements

                    (including rescission of funds)

       For necessary expenses of acquisition, construction, 
     renovation, and improvement of aids to navigation, shore 
     facilities, vessels, and aircraft, including equipment 
     related thereto; and maintenance, rehabilitation, lease and 
     operation of facilities and equipment, as authorized by law, 
     $936,550,000, of which $20,000,000 shall be derived from the 
     Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund to carry out the purposes of 
     section 1012(a)(5) of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990; of which 
     $19,750,000 shall be available until September 30, 2009, to 
     acquire, repair, renovate, or improve vessels, small boats, 
     and related equipment; of which $1,800,000 shall be available 
     until September 30, 2009, to increase aviation capability; of 
     which $138,000,000 shall be available until September 30, 
     2007, for other equipment; of which $5,000,000 shall be 
     available until September 30, 2007, for shore facilities and 
     aids to navigation of which $73,000,000 shall be available 
     until September 30, 2006, for personnel compensation and 
     benefits and related costs; and of which $679,000,000 shall 
     be available until September 30, 2009, for the Integrated 
     Deepwater Systems program: Provided, That the Secretary of 
     Homeland Security shall submit to the Congress, in 
     conjunction with the President's fiscal year 2006 budget, a 
     new Deepwater baseline that identifies revised acquisition 
     timelines for each asset contained in the Deepwater program; 
     a timeline and detailed justification for each new asset that 
     is determined to be necessary to fulfill homeland and 
     national security functions or multi-agency procurements as 
     identified by the Joint Requirements Council; a detailed 
     description of the revised mission requirements and their 
     corresponding impact on the Deepwater program's acquisition 
     timeline; and funding levels for each asset, whether new or 
     continuing: Provided further, That the Secretary shall 
     annually submit to the Congress, at the time that the 
     President's budget is submitted under section 1105(a) of 
     title 31, a future-years capital investment plan for the 
     Coast Guard that identifies for each capital budget line 
     item--
       (1) the proposed appropriation included in that budget;
       (2) the total estimated cost of completion;
       (3) projected funding levels for each fiscal year for the 
     next five fiscal years or until project completion, whichever 
     is earlier;
       (4) an estimated completion date at the projected funding 
     levels; and
       (5) changes, if any, in the total estimated cost of 
     completion or estimated completion date from previous future-
     years capital investment plans submitted to the Congress:

     Provided further, That the Secretary shall ensure that 
     amounts specified in the future-years capital investment plan 
     are consistent to the maximum extent practicable with 
     proposed appropriations necessary to support the programs, 
     projects, and activities of the Coast Guard in the 
     President's budget as submitted under section 1105(a) of 
     title 31 for that fiscal year: Provided further, That any 
     inconsistencies between the capital investment plan and 
     proposed appropriations shall be identified and justified. In 
     addition, of the funds appropriated under this heading in 
     Public Law 108-90 and Public Law 108-7, $33,000,000 are 
     rescinded.


                Amendment No. 11 Offered by Mr. Simmons

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

       Amendment No. 11 offered by Mr. Simmons:
       In title II, under the heading ``United States Coast 
     Guard_acquisition, construction, and improvements'', after 
     the first dollar amount insert ``(increased by 
     $18,500,000)''.
       In title IV, under the heading ``Science and 
     Technology_research, development, acquisition and 
     operations'', after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced by 
     $18,500,000)''.

  Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment because we have an 
obligation to preserve the Coast Guard's research and development 
dollars, especially as its mission has expanded to meet the challenges 
of the post-September 11 period.
  The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, of which I am a 
member, authorized $18.5 million for research and development 
activities for fiscal year 2005. This is the fiscal year 2004 enacted 
level and the level identified by the Coast Guard for its need. Both 
the House and the Senate Coast Guard authorization bills for fiscal 
year 2005 authorized this level of funding.
  Unfortunately, the bill before us today to fund the Department of 
Homeland Security does not explicitly protect a single dollar for the 
Coast Guard's R&D activities. Instead, as I understand the legislation, 
H.R. 4567 transfers these dollars to the Department of Homeland 
Security's Science and Technology Directorate.
  I remind my colleagues that when we voted to create the Department of 
Homeland Security we mandated that all authorities, functions and 
capabilities of the Coast Guard be maintained intact under the 
authority of the service and that the Coast Guard be maintained as a 
distinct entity within the Department.
  I have serious concerns about asking the Coast Guard to compete with 
the other science and technology demands of the Department of Homeland 
Security. Furthermore, the Coast Guard has the experience and knows 
best how to use its R&D funding to support its core missions. We should 
not transfer that authority to a new entity.
  My amendment to preserve the Coast Guard's R&D funding within the 
Coast Guard is consistent with current law and honors the commitment of 
this body to transfer the Coast Guard intact.
  I would ask the chairman to work with me on this issue in conference.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I 
appreciate the gentleman bringing this issue forward, and it is an 
important issue. But the Science and Tech Directorate of Homeland 
Security has assured us and the Coast Guard that all elements of the 
Coast Guard's R&D program will remain under the direct management of 
the Coast Guard.
  I recognize the gentleman's concerns. We will work with him on this 
subject if the authorization bill retains R&D funding within the Coast 
Guard for fiscal year 2005.
  Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.
  I thank the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) for his comments, 
but I rise today in strong support of the Simmons-LoBiondo amendment, 
and I want to commend the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Simmons) for 
his leadership on this particular issue.
  The intent of this amendment is pretty clear, that the transfer of 
the Coast Guard research and development money which was placed under 
the control of Science and Technology Directorate should go back to the 
Coast Guard where it belongs.
  Earlier this week the Department of Homeland Security's Under 
Secretary for Science and Technology made a speech to the Brookings 
Institute in which he said that he would have oversight responsibility 
for the Coast Guard's research and development center. I strongly 
believe that this coupled with the funding transfer is in violation of 
section 888 of the Homeland Security Act.
  Section 888 clearly states that all authorities, functions and 
capabilities of the Coast Guard must be maintained intact under the 
authority of the service. It further mandates that the Coast Guard has 
to be maintained as a distinct entity within the Department of Homeland 
Security. Any transfer of funding and oversight responsibility such as 
the one proposed and included in this bill not only violates these 
provisions but jeopardizes the integrity and the functional 
capabilities of the service.
  When we were debating the Homeland Security Act and talking about the 
Coast Guard being included, it was only after assurances and guarantees 
that the Coast Guard would in fact be kept intact that we agreed that 
we would sign off on the transfer. While I do not think any disagree 
that the Coast Guard's primary mission is homeland security, it is not 
their only mission. They are responsible for all the initiatives that 
they had been working on prior to September 11, search and rescue, 
illegal drug interdiction, fishery law enforcement and environmental 
concerns. If these homeland security research and development dollars 
are left to the discretion

[[Page 12945]]

of Homeland Security, we have no assurance these other programs will 
receive a single dollar.
  As chairman of the Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime 
Transportation, I take a great deal of interest in protecting the 
ability of the Coast Guard to continue to administer their own research 
and development funding.
  For several decades the Service R&D Center has led efforts to develop 
new technologies in support of all its critical missions, not just 
maritime security.
  Mr. Chairman, I think this is an extremely important issue. I want to 
thank the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) for his continued 
understanding of how critically important this is, but I once again 
want to remind all of my colleagues that the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Young), chairman of the full committee, myself as chairman of the 
subcommittee, and the ranking members of both the full committee and 
the subcommittee were in complete agreement only after we received 
assurance that these R&D dollars would be kept intact with the Coast 
Guard with all of their other missions.
  I respectfully request that this amendment be favorably considered.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the 
Simmons amendment. I thank my friend from Connecticut for bringing this 
important amendment to the floor.
  This amendment will maintain the integrity of the Coast Guard as a 
distinct entity within the Department of Homeland Security.
  Section 888 of the Homeland Security Act states that the Coast Guard 
shall be maintained intact with all of the service's authorities, 
functions, and capabilities.
  The Coast Guard has submitted a plan for its research, development, 
test and evaluation activities for fiscal year 2005 which will 
concentrate on the development of strategies and resources aimed to 
improve the service's ability to perform its traditional missions.
  The Coast Guard's traditional missions include search and rescue, 
drug and migrant interdiction, marine environmental protection, ice 
operations and aids to navigation.
  It is imperative that we maintain the Coast Guard's ability to 
perform these important traditional missions in addition to the 
service's homeland security mission.
  I am concerned that the transfer of research and development funds to 
the Department will be the first step down a slippery slope that will 
forever change the Coast Guard's abilities to balance its resources and 
personnel to carry out its many and varied missions.
  We must protect the multi-mission nature of the Coast Guard.
  We should provide funding for Coast Guard research, development, test 
and evaluation directly to the service in the same manner that we 
provide all other Coast Guard funds.
  This is what the law demands and this is the right thing to do.
  I urge my fellow members to support the Simmons amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Simmons).
  The amendment was rejected.
  Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Chairman, it was my intention to withdraw the 
amendment based on the assurances that I received from the 
distinguished chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The amendment cannot be withdrawn. The amendment was 
defeated.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


                         alteration of bridges

       For necessary expenses for alteration or removal of 
     obstructive bridges, $16,400,000, to remain available until 
     expended.


                              retired pay

       For retired pay, including the payment of obligations 
     otherwise chargeable to lapsed appropriations for this 
     purpose, payments under the Retired Serviceman's Family 
     Protection and Survivor Benefits Plans, payment for career 
     status bonuses under the National Defense Authorization Act, 
     and payments for medical care of retired personnel and their 
     dependents under chapter 55 of title 10, United States Code, 
     $1,085,460,000.

                      United States Secret Service


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the United States Secret Service, 
     including purchase of not to exceed 610 vehicles for police-
     type use, which shall be for replacement only, and hire of 
     passenger motor vehicles; purchase of American-made 
     motorcycles; hire of aircraft; services of expert witnesses 
     at such rates as may be determined by the Director; rental of 
     buildings in the District of Columbia, and fencing, lighting, 
     guard booths, and other facilities on private or other 
     property not in Government ownership or control, as may be 
     necessary to perform protective functions; payment of per 
     diem or subsistence allowances to employees where a 
     protective assignment during the actual day or days of the 
     visit of a protectee requires an employee to work 16 hours 
     per day or to remain overnight at his or her post of duty; 
     conduct of and participation in firearms matches; 
     presentation of awards; travel of Secret Service employees on 
     protective missions without regard to the limitations on such 
     expenditures in this or any other Act if approval is obtained 
     in advance from the Committees on Appropriations of the 
     Senate and the House of Representatives; research and 
     development; grants to conduct behavioral research in support 
     of protective research and operations; and payment in advance 
     for commercial accommodations as may be necessary to perform 
     protective functions; $1,179,125,000, of which not to exceed 
     $30,000 shall be for official reception and representation 
     expenses; of which not to exceed $100,000 shall be to provide 
     technical assistance and equipment to foreign law enforcement 
     organizations in counterfeit investigations; of which 
     $2,100,000 shall be for forensic and related support of 
     investigations of missing and exploited children; and of 
     which $5,000,000 shall be a grant for activities related to 
     the investigations of exploited children and shall remain 
     available until expended: Provided, That up to $18,000,000 
     provided for protective travel shall remain available until 
     September 30, 2006: Provided further, That not less than 
     $10,000,000 for the costs of planning, preparing for, and 
     conducting security operations for National Special Security 
     Events shall be available until September 30, 2006: Provided 
     further, That the United States Secret Service is authorized 
     to obligate funds in anticipation of reimbursements from 
     agencies and entities, as defined in section 105 of title 5, 
     United States Code, receiving training sponsored by the James 
     J. Rowley Training Center, except that total obligations at 
     the end of the fiscal year shall not exceed total budgetary 
     resources available under this heading at the end of the 
     fiscal year.


     acquisition, construction, improvements, and related expenses

       For necessary expenses for acquisition, construction, 
     repair, alteration, and improvement of facilities, 
     $3,633,000, to remain available until expended.

                  TITLE III--PREPAREDNESS AND RECOVERY

  Office for State and Local Government Coordination and Preparedness


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses for the Office for State and Local 
     Government Coordination and Preparedness, as authorized by 
     sections 430 and 801 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 
     U.S.C. 238 and 361), $41,432,000: Provided, That not to 
     exceed $3,000 shall be for official reception and 
     representation expenses.


                        state and local programs

       For grants, contracts, cooperative agreements, and other 
     activities, including grants to State and local governments 
     for terrorism prevention activities, notwithstanding any 
     other provision of law, $3,423,900,000, which shall be 
     allocated as follows:
       (1) $1,250,000,000 for formula-based grants and 
     $500,000,000 for law enforcement terrorism prevention grants 
     pursuant to section 1014 of the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 (42 
     U.S.C. 3714): Provided, That the application for grants shall 
     be made available to States within 45 days after enactment of 
     this Act; that States shall submit applications within 30 
     days after the grant announcement; and that the Office for 
     State and Local Government Coordination and Preparedness 
     shall act within 15 days after receipt of an application: 
     Provided further, That each State shall obligate not less 
     than 80 percent of the total amount of the grant to local 
     governments within 60 days after the grant award;
       (2) $1,000,000,000 for discretionary grants for use in 
     high-threat, high-density urban areas and for rail and 
     transit security, as determined by the Secretary of Homeland 
     Security: Provided, That not less than 80 percent of any 
     grant to a State shall be made available by the State to 
     local governments within 60 days after their receipt of the 
     funds: Provided further, That section 1014(c)(3) of the USA 
     PATRIOT Act of 2001 (42 U.S.C. 3714(c)(3)) shall not apply to 
     these grants: Provided further, That of the funds provided, 
     not less than $100,000,000 shall be used for rail and transit 
     security grants;
       (3) $170,000,000 for emergency management performance 
     grants pursuant to section 1014 of the USA PATRIOT Act of 
     2001 (42 U.S.C. 3714), as authorized by the National Flood 
     Insurance Act of 1968 and 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 Reductions Act of 1977 (42 
     U.S.C. 7701 et seq.), and Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978 
     (5 U.S.C. App): Provided, That total administrative costs 
     shall not exceed 3 percent of the total appropriation; and
       (4) $125,000,000 for port security grants, which shall be 
     distributed under the same

[[Page 12946]]

     terms and conditions as provided for under Public Law 107-
     117: Provided, That section 1014(c)(3) of the USA PATRIOT Act 
     of 2001 (42 U.S.C. 3714(c)(3)) shall not apply to these 
     grants:

     Provided, That except for port security grants under 
     paragraph (4) of this heading, none of the funds appropriated 
     under this heading shall be used for construction or 
     renovation of facilities: Provided further, That funds 
     appropriated for law enforcement terrorism prevention grants 
     under paragraph (1) and discretionary grants under paragraph 
     (2) of this heading shall be available for operational costs, 
     to include personnel overtime and overtime associated with 
     Office for State and Local Government Coordination and 
     Preparedness certified training, as needed: Provided further, 
     That grantees shall provide reports on their use of funds, as 
     deemed necessary by the Secretary of Homeland Security: 
     Provided further, That the Office for State and Local 
     Government Coordination and Preparedness shall complete the 
     development of mission essential tasks by July 31, 2004; the 
     fiscal year 2005 State grant guidance shall include 
     instructions for the completion of State baseline 
     assessments; a Federal response capabilities inventory shall 
     be completed by March 15, 2005; and the Office for State and 
     Local Government Coordination and Preparedness shall provide 
     quarterly reports to the Committees on Appropriations of the 
     Senate and the House of Representatives on the implementation 
     of Homeland Security Presidential Directive-8, beginning 
     October 1, 2004.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order that the words 
``notwithstanding any other provision of law'' under the heading 
``State and Local Programs'' violates clause 2 of rule XXI of the rules 
of the House of Representatives prohibiting legislation on 
appropriations bills.
  This provision would make over $3.4 billion available for State and 
local grants in a way that could contradict statutes within the 
jurisdiction of the Committee on Energy and Commerce and other 
committees. The reason that we passed those statutes, obviously, is to 
ensure that money would be spent in a certain way.
  In short, this language clearly constitutes legislation on an 
appropriations bill in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI of the rules 
of the House because it changes current law.
  I therefore insist on my point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point of 
order by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Fossella)?
  If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
  The Chair finds that the language cited explicitly supersedes 
existing law. The language therefore constitutes legislation in 
violation of clause 2 of rule XXI.
  The point of order is sustained. That portion of the paragraph is 
stricken from the bill.


                Amendment No. 16 Offered by Mr. Sweeney

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

       Amendment No. 16 offered by Mr. Sweeney:
       In title III, under the heading ``Office for State and 
     Local Government Coordination and Preparedness_State and 
     local programs'', before the semicolon at the end of 
     paragraph (1) insert ``: Provided further, That the amount of 
     any grant to a State in excess of any statutorily required 
     minimum amount shall be made on the basis of an assessment of 
     the risk of terrorism with respect to threat, vulnerability, 
     and consequences''.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman may state his point of order.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against 
the amendment because it proposes to change existing law 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 by imposing additional duties.''
  I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any 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 language imparting 
direction. 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. 3 Offered by Mr. Sweeney

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

       Amendment No. 3 offered by Mr. Sweeney:
       In title III, under the heading ``Office for State and 
     Local Government Coordination and Preparedness_State and 
     local programs'', after the second dollar amount insert 
     ``(reduced by $450,000,000)''
       In title III, under the heading ``Office for State and 
     Local Government Coordination and Preparedness_State and 
     local programs'', after the fourth dollar amount insert 
     ``(increased by $450,000,000)''.

  Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I had hoped to introduce two amendments 
tonight that I think go to the core of what is our fundamentally 
greatest challenge as it relates to protecting the homeland, and that 
is to provide a proper structure within which the Secretary of the 
Department of Homeland Security and the Federal Government can properly 
and appropriately respond to the threats and risks that are presented 
out there unbiased, focused on the idea that the resources we have have 
to be directed to the places that are of greatest threat and at 
greatest risk.
  The first amendment that I attempted to offer would have changed the 
formula, a formula that is pre-September 11, a formula that provides 
funding to jurisdictions regardless of the risk and the threat that it 
faces. I will quote one of my colleagues, one of the great members of 
the committee. The gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp) said this bill, 
this funding proposition is not about cost sharing with local and State 
governments because we cannot meet all of those needs. I agree with 
him. We cannot meet all of those needs.
  But this is about meeting the legitimate, precise and efficient needs 
of this Nation to protect its citizens. Our enemies, al Qaeda, the 
terrorist network, have something in common with us: They have finite 
resources, as do we. But one of the advantages that they have had is 
they are specifically targeted and are targeting their efforts to 
maximize the impact on the American people and the threat they present 
to us.
  Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I propose this amendment in which we will 
transfer back to the President's budget number $446 million to the high 
threat fund that was established in the fiscal year 2003 supplemental.

                              {time}  2200

  The reason we need to do that is because we are actually slipping 
over the last couple of years in terms of the funds that we are sending 
out to meet the needs in the communities that are our greatest threat.
  I will point to a couple of things. The national average per capita 
is $7.59; and, yet, jurisdictions like California, Texas, New York, 
Florida, and Illinois all are below $6, all in the $5 range in terms of 
what funding they are receiving through the formulation.
  Now, we cannot vote on that particular part of activity in this 
amendment, but we can do something about it to give the Department 
itself the kind of flexibility and the Secretary the kind of 
flexibility he would need over the 2005 budget cycle to best protect 
the people of this Nation, and the Department is asking us to do this.
  I will point to the statement of administration policy just released 
earlier today, and I will quote from it: ``The administration believes 
that the programs funded through the Department of Homeland Security 
should be better targeted toward terrorism preparedness. The bill does 
not provide the request to double funding for the risk-based Urban Area 
Security Initiative, UASI, program, but instead provides funding above 
the requested level for the basic State and local formula grant 
program.''
  Mr. Chairman, there is a lot of work that needs to be done in the 
next couple of years, certainly in the next year. I think we ought to 
give Tom Ridge and the Department what they need, what they have 
requested, what they

[[Page 12947]]

need in the coming year in order to best ensure that this Nation is 
indeed protected. The net result of what we have established here in 
Congress over the last 3 years is a reduction.
  For example, I know the gentleman from New York (Mr. Fossella) was on 
the floor earlier and talked about the needs of New York City. Let me 
say that New York City spends a billion dollars a year on security in 
counterterrorism intelligence; and, yes, they have received some money, 
$300 million to New York State, I think, in 2003; but do you know what 
they received last year, Mr. Chairman? $50 million, a 70 percent 
reduction from the year before.
  When James Comey came from the U.S. Attorney's office to talk about 
Jose Padilla the other day, it did not seem to me there was a 73 
percent reduction in New York City. It seemed to me they are in the 
bull's eye, as are other jurisdictions; and we need to make sure that 
the Secretary and the Department have the appropriate tools to do their 
job.
  The President has asked us to do this. It is enacted in the 
President's budget. You can look on page 147 of that budget. You can 
read their statement. Secretary Ridge to the 9/11 commission and 
repeatedly to the Senate and to the House has asked for that kind of 
flexibility. We ought to be giving him that kind of flexibility. This 
Congress ought not to be micromanaging the Department of Homeland 
Security. I think most of us agree on that, but we ought to be 
providing them the proper tools and resources with which they can do 
their job. That is what this amendment proposes. It gives them what 
they have asked for in their budget, and I ask my fellow Members to 
support that.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition.
  Mr. Chairman, in this bill we attempted to be fair to everyone. We do 
not have all the money in the world. If we did, we could do perhaps 
what New York wants; but we do not, and we have got a whole country to 
deal with. There are two basic funds of money that we are talking 
about. One is the so-called formula funding grant program, and the 
other is specifically for the high-density, high-threat urban area 
fund. Two funds. The first one the formula grant program, 40 percent of 
that money goes to all the States; and everyone gets .75 percent, less 
than 1 percent of a fund that this year is $760 million total.
  But 60 percent of even the formula grant program goes to States that 
are most populated, and I did some research. The money that went in 
that fund, in this year's bill, is $1.15 billion. Of the money that 
goes to New York State, in 2004 New York City got over half of the 
State money, in addition to the urban grant fund.
  Now, fair is fair; and I want to be fair about this. New York City is 
a target. Everyone admits that. Other large urban areas are targets. 
Everyone admits that, and we want to help prepare. We want to do all 
that we can to be sure that New York City and the other large cities 
have all the monies that we can afford to pay for the Federal portion 
of what the local fire departments and the police departments and the 
EMT units and all do routinely. A portion of what they do is the 
counterterrorism effort that we are paying them for. Most of what they 
do, of course, are city and local and State duties.
  But there is a limit to what we can do. Now, what this amendment 
does, Mr. Chairman, is take monies out of the formula grants that goes 
to Kansas, Kentucky and Florida and the other States and puts $450 
million out of that account into the urban area's account. We already 
did a lot of that in the bill. We have already reduced the formula 
grants, already $450 million below last year's level. And the urban 
area grants in the bill are $280 million above last year's level. We 
have already robbed Peter to pay Paul, and now Paul wants more at the 
expense of Peter.
  We have got to be sure that the rest of the country is protected as 
well. Just because you are not a large urban area does not mean that 
you are not at risk from terrorist attack. Hundreds of U.S. 
agricultural documents have been found in the al Qaeda caves in 
Afghanistan and other places. It has been reported that a significant 
part of al Qaeda's training manual is devoted to agricultural 
terrorism, a frightening fact when you recall the reported terrorist 
interest in crop dusters.
  No community is immune from terrorism. We were reminded of that on 9/
11 when Maine played a major part in the staging of the attack on New 
York City, little unpopulated Maine. We do not want to ignore Maine 
again.
  In 1984, followers of Bhagwan Shree poisoned salad bars in 10 
restaurants in The Dalles in Oregon, population 12,000, the largest 
germ warfare attack in history.
  The terrorists that bombed the World Trade Center in 1993 trained in 
rural Pennsylvania, 30 miles from Three Mile Island in the months prior 
to that attack. Timothy McVeigh, who destroyed the Murrah Federal 
building in Oklahoma City, planned his attack and purchased the 
materials in Herrington, Kansas, population 2,500. In January 2000, 
Yousef Karoun was arrested in Blaine, Washington, population 3,600, 
after authorities determined he was on the FBI's lookout list and found 
evidence of nitroglycerin on his vehicle. United Airlines Flight 93 
crashed into Shanksville, Pennsylvania, population 245, after being 
hijacked. Local fire departments quickly responded. In the fall of 
2001, two people linked to an international terrorist group were 
arrested in Beecher Falls, Vermont, population 238, after attempting to 
cross the border.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Rogers of Kentucky was allowed to proceed 
for 1 additional minute.)
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. In September 2002 a suspected terrorist cell 
was broken up in Lackawanna, New York, a city south of Buffalo, 
population 20,000. Five convictions. And on and on and on.
  Mr. Chairman, we have treated the urban areas in this bill better 
than we did in the current year, and we cut the formula funding for the 
rest of the country by a huge amount in this bill. We think we have 
already treated the urban areas fairly. If we had more money, we could 
treat them even better; but with what we have, we think we have treated 
them fairly. I would urge Members to reject this amendment.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. SABO. I just want to make sure where we are in the bill. Let me 
describe the problem. I think the last number read was the number on 
the bottom of page 22. The gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) had 
an amendment that would have come after that but before the top of page 
23; but I think, in fact, the current amendment is amending the number 
on the top of page 23.
  The CHAIRMAN. The portion of the bill currently open to amendment is 
the paragraph that spans pages 22 and 25, and it will remain so.
  Mr. SABO. After this amendment?
  The CHAIRMAN. After this amendment.
  Mr. SABO. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the 
Sweeney amendment.
  On September 11, 2001, in my district and in the adjoining 
communities, hundreds and hundreds of innocent Americans were murdered. 
I made it my vow at that time never to allow that to happen again, do 
all that I possibly could to prevent that from happening again. We can 
have all the pages in this bill, all the money. The reality is it is 
only going to work if the money is going where it is needed. It is not 
a question of being fair. This is not some egalitarian movement here. 
This is to send the money to the areas of the country that need it the 
most. No area needs it more than New York City and New York State.
  New York City was attacked in 1993. There were subsequent attacks 
thwarted in the Lincoln Tunnel, the Holland

[[Page 12948]]

Tunnel, Federal buildings in New York, the Brooklyn Bridge; and, of 
course, there were the terrible attacks of September 11, 2001. The New 
York City Police Department alone, and this only encompasses 8 million 
of the 18 million people in the State, New York City alone spends 
almost $500 million in the NYPD. When you add the fire department and 
the OEM, it comes to almost $1 billion a year. Yet we are nowhere near 
being compensated for that. I am not saying this out of any parochial 
interest because I do not actually represent any area in New York City, 
but I live close enough to it to see the terrible damage that was done.
  Mr. Chairman, right now we have hearings and investigations going on 
asking how could 9/11 have happened; why were we not better prepared. 
In many instances, it is unfair to look back in hindsight and say, 
well, this was wrong and that was wrong. But if it happens again, we 
have no excuse because we have been told what is going to happen. We 
know where it is going to happen. And I would ask those who oppose this 
amendment to say, what will they say if there is another attack and 
there is another 9/11 commission and asking why did you allow money to 
be spread all over the country rather than concentrate it on the areas 
that need it the most?
  That is the issue before us tonight. It is not a question of so-
called fairness. It is a question of the money being properly spent. If 
you are a police chief or you are a police commissioner and you are in 
a town or a village or a city, it is not your job to spread the police 
all over equitably. It is to assign them where they are needed the 
most, into the high-crime areas, the areas where the most danger is. 
The most danger right now, and this is not something that we ask for in 
New York, but by every account, New York is the prime target. That is 
where the money should be going. Instead, there is to me a dramatic 
shortfall in the money.
  No, we cannot solve everything. We cannot give all the money that is 
needed, but it makes no sense at all to be moving back and to have that 
disparity grow larger and larger each year. We again will have to 
account to history if something happens again. We are here tonight. We 
can talk about, again, the various titles, the various sections, and 
the various allotments; but the gut question is, are we going to base 
this on a threat analysis? We have an Air Force which can only protect 
so many cities. Depending on the size, which are the cities most likely 
to be attacked? We do not send planes everywhere in the country. We put 
them over the cities where there is the highest threat. That is the way 
we have to allocate this money. It is not impossible to figure out. 
Give the Secretary of Homeland Security that discretion.
  I realize because the amendment was ruled out of order that we cannot 
do all that should be done, but certainly the amendment of the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney) today to just put back in the 
money the President has asked for, we certainly on this side of the 
aisle should be those leading the charge supporting what the President 
of the United States wants to do to defend the country against 
terrorists coming to our land to destroy our people.
  What I am saying in the interest of justice and to, certainly, people 
on this side of the aisle, stand with the President of the United 
States in the war against terrorism and remember that history will be 
our judge. If this amendment is voted down, we will have failed the 
test of history.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I rise 
today as a strong cosponsor of this crucial amendment. I want to thank 
my colleagues, Representatives Sweeney, Maloney, Fossella, King and the 
rest of the delegation for their support and leadership on this issue.
  Mr. Chairman, high-threat areas have been at a disadvantage when it 
comes to securing Federal homeland security funds for nearly 3 years 
now. As a result, the Urban Areas Security Initiative was created to 
address the specific needs of these areas. But with insufficient funds 
and an increase in the number of cities eligible for these grants, even 
that program has fallen short of the mark.

                              {time}  2215

  The issue of how best to allocate homeland security dollars has been 
debated within the administration, within the Department of Homeland 
Security, and in at least five committees in this Congress, and many of 
us have engaged in these debates and believe the time has come for 
action. And I certainly respect the chairman's hard work on this issue, 
and we were in the committee together when he said that he is demanding 
from the Department of Homeland Security some specific guidelines as to 
this formula. By increasing funding for the Urban Area Security 
Initiative, this amendment is consistent with the President's budget 
proposal.
  Quite frankly, it amazes me that we have gone this long allocating 
such a large portion of homeland security funds based on everything but 
the threat of a terrorist attack to a particular area or region. It is 
no secret that my home State of New York, where the threat is well 
established and widely acknowledged, receives less money per person 
than 49 other States. Frankly this defies logic. So I want to be very 
clear. None of us are proposing to eliminate funds for any region or 
area of the country. What we are proposing to do is to ensure that 
those cities that are facing the greatest threat from terrorist attack 
have access to the resources they need to face these threats head on. 
We just simply cannot continue to wait, wait for the Department of 
Homeland Security to come up with a better formula, wait for another 
committee to come to a conclusion. We cannot wait. We cannot ignore the 
very real and urgent threats that loom over so many of our high risk 
areas.
  I will not repeat, Mr. Chairman, the numbers that the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Sweeney) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. King) 
presented to this group. We know the numbers. We have met with the New 
York City Police Department. We understand what they are spending each 
day, each month, each year to protect this city and to protect the 
surrounding environment. This is so very important. It is important to 
all of us. It is important to us as New Yorkers, it is important to us 
as Americans. And I just want to urge my colleagues to do the right 
thing, to support this amendment, and I appreciate the chairman's 
willingness to cooperate and to respond to us.


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair announces to the Members that if Members rise 
simultaneously, the Chair recognize, as first priority, members of the 
committee.
  For what purpose does the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp) rise?
  Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I rise, as a member of the subcommittee, to 
speak in opposition to the amendment but with the highest respect for 
the unity from the New York and New Jersey delegations. It certainly 
transcends party, and I love New York. The older I get, the more I love 
it. And I especially love the way that they all pulled together after 
September 11 and continue to stick together on important national 
priorities such as this.
  But I just want to make a couple of points. We had well over 50 
hearings at the subcommittee, we have had in the last year and 5 
months. Many of these are highly classified or even at the top secret 
level. And while I am not going to talk about anything that is talked 
about, we have to assume, we have to assume, that terrorists plotting a 
future attack may very well commit that attack on several fronts 
simultaneously and certainly not just in an urban setting.
  For instance, in the foothills of east Tennessee after September 11 
people felt relatively safe and secure even within days of the attack 
because they did not live in a highly populated area. We must assume 
that the terrorists in the future will want every American, regardless 
of where they live, to be afraid and to live in fear because that is 
their weapon is fear.

[[Page 12949]]

  These grants under the formula are heavily weighted towards 
population. But they are not heavily weighted towards infrastructure 
targets. And I will give another example. On the west side of the State 
I live in, Tennessee, Memphis is there, and Memphis qualifies for some 
of these grants under high density. But I have got to tell the Members 
that the nuclear weapons are in my district in east Tennessee, but the 
most populated area is over there but not around the nuclear weapons 
plant. Frankly, we do not want the nuclear weapons plant to be in the 
heart of all the people, but it is a target, and so are our nuclear 
plants and our dams and the infrastructure that is there.
  So I think we have to have a balanced approach. I really love it that 
my colleagues are willing to fight for their people. I really believe 
that they are doing the right thing. But I think we had better be 
careful as a subcommittee that we do not get carried away or even send 
the signal inadvertently to the terrorists that most of the money is 
going to go into the big cities and the highly populated areas. They 
need to know that we are covering all of our bases and all of our 
infrastructure and that we expect them to hit us on multiple fronts 
simultaneously in the future and that we are spending the money in a 
comprehensive way around the country and that we are not putting almost 
all of our eggs in a few baskets, and that their method before, which 
was primarily to use airplanes as weapons of mass destruction, is 
probably not the kind of attack they are going to launch in the future. 
It will be different, and it may be with biological or chemical agents. 
And I have got to tell the Members those first responders in those 
communities had better be ready as well. And that is what we are trying 
to do is make sure that the whole country is covered.
  I know the chairman and I are from a more rural area, but please do 
not believe for a second that we do not want to make sure that all of 
the highly populated areas are covered, not just satisfactorily but 
well. And we are going to work with them on this and I think we have 
done a reasonably good job. And I know they are coming down here 
tonight to defend the people that they love and we love. But this whole 
country cares about New York City and New Jersey and all the people 
that perished, and we are all going to stand together to make sure that 
we are covered.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WAMP. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's 
statement very much, and he is exactly correct. We love New York City. 
I cannot wait to go there for the convention in a few weeks.
  But let me just say this: In the High Density Urban Area Grant 
Program out of which New York will receive a good sum of money, we are 
almost at the President's recommended level. We are at $1.175 billion, 
which is almost twice what it is now. We have almost doubled the money 
in that account.
  In addition to that, the State of New York--and New York City will 
get roughly half of the money that goes to New York State. That kitty 
is $750 million. It only leaves $500 million for everybody else. Give 
me a break.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  First and foremost, New Jerseyans would like to thank the gentleman 
from Kentucky (Chairman Rogers) for his tireless work crafting this 
bill. In an environment of overwhelming national security needs, he has 
achieved, I think, a very fair and balanced bill which will give the 
agencies now under the purview of the Department of Homeland Security 
the resources they need to keep our communities and Nation safer.
  However, Mr. Chairman, this evening I rise in support of the 
gentleman from New York's (Mr. Sweeney) amendment to this bill. New 
Yorkers and New Jerseyans are joined at the hip in this regard. My 
constituents in New Jersey and those in the New York Metropolitan Area 
know better than most how vulnerable an open and a free society can be. 
We have put a very human face on the homeland security issue. Seven 
hundred New Jerseyans went into Lower Manhattan on that morning never 
to return home, and thousands of New Yorkers did as well.
  The Sweeney amendment seeks to increase the High Density Urban Area 
Security Initiative from the $1 billion to $1.5 billion. By seeking 
increased funding of the Urban Area Security Initiative, we recognize, 
with the passage of this amendment, the unique threat faced by our most 
densely populated areas with significant critical infrastructure, with 
national significance.
  Each year 212 million vehicles traverse our tunnels, bridges, and 
ferries. Our three regional airports are some of the busiest in the 
country. Nearly 60 percent of all containerized cargo handled by North 
Atlantic ports goes through the Port of New York and New Jersey, and a 
vast majority of cargo flows through our docks. Our rail tunnels under 
the Hudson serve our entire East Coast in the Nation, but particularly 
East Coast rail system, passenger and freight. They are urban security 
risks that are a critical mass and deserve extra protections. Our area 
both in New York and New Jersey has some of the largest oil refineries 
in the Nation and provides for oil for the East Coast and other parts 
of the country.
  This amendment correctly recognizes that we must refocus our efforts 
on protecting our most vulnerable and likely targets, which are largely 
urban. The first responder teams who have faced the enormous task of 
securing these large population centers and their surrounding areas 
need our support and these extra resources this amendment can provide.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I 
join everyone else in congratulating the New York/New Jersey delegation 
on their enthusiasm and their vigor. This Congress has responded. It 
has promised New York in a rather dramatic fashion post-9/11. But let 
us be clear about what we are doing today. We are very substantially 
reducing the funding for local responders, fire, police, emergency 
personnel all over the country. We are doing that before this amendment 
and dramatically more if this amendment is adopted. The basic formula 
grant in 2004 was $1.690 billion. Under this bill it is $1.250 billion, 
a drop of $440 million. This amendment would reduce it by another $446 
million. The Urban Area Security Initiative, $721 million last year, $1 
billion, under this bill, already an increase of $279 million plus 
another $446 million under this amendment for more than a doubling of 
this program, while the other program would be virtually cut in half, 
that deals with the balance of the country, most of the rural and 
moderate size communities in this country and many fairly large size 
communities.
  Another thing that sort of strikes me in all this discussion, I hear 
about the initial grants in proportion of grantees that happened later 
on and that some terrible thing happened because the numbers increased. 
I recall that first grant by the agency. I asked them a question: What 
were the criteria they used to distribute these funds? I waited and 
waited and waited for an answer. I talked to a high up official, and 
they said, We will see you in a week, and I would wait another month or 
two. I am still waiting. We finally did have a briefing before the 
second round of grants were awarded, at which point we had some 
criteria. But this is no great science. I wish we had this total 
understanding where threats were in this country. Clearly large urban 
areas like New York, like the District of Columbia, are threats. But so 
are many other parts of this country. And in many parts of the country, 
the need for technical assistance, for training, for specialized 
equipment, it is probably more substantial than it is even in some of 
our larger urbanized areas. And these formula funds do not flow out 
willy-nilly sort of around the country. We have to develop a State plan 
and a regional plan to get these funds.

[[Page 12950]]



                              {time}  2230

  So it is not a dab here and a dab there. But States have to work at 
it; local communities have to work at it. They have to have regional 
approaches. They have to use these funds where they make sense to deal 
and respond to real projected threats.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I wish we had all the money we needed. The fact is 
the base bill in total has some reduction in funding for local 
responders. The basic formula grant would be further reduced in a 
significant fashion by this amendment, while the urban security 
initiative, which is already receiving an increase, would have a 
substantial increase.
  I do not think that is fair. I think we need to be fair to the 
totality of our country. In my judgment, the base bill, if anything, is 
skewed too much in changing money away from the basic formula grant. So 
I would urge defeat of this amendment.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the subcommittee for the hard 
work and the challenges that he has. This is truly a difficult, 
difficult bill. The great problem that he has is his resources are 
finite. He has to choose wisely. But I think that is what this debate 
is about.
  Our subcommittee had a lot to do with shepherding the original $20 
billion to New York City to rebuild Lower Manhattan after this attack, 
and I know that the people of New York are deeply grateful to the 
Congress and to the President for keeping the commitments that were 
made to them. That city is thriving again. It is doing well.
  I live in Syracuse, New York. The chairman of the full committee 
mentioned that there are a lot of New Yorkers here. My community will 
not benefit from this. I live 300 miles from New York City. In fact, I 
suspect that someone from my community could argue that by taking these 
funds away from Syracuse, I am not being fair to my home community. But 
as someone pointed out earlier, it is not really about fairness; it is 
about taking finite resources and applying them where they will have 
the most effect.
  I believe, based on the activities, and I am not an expert on 
terrorism by any stretch, but I believe that when they attacked the 
United States and they attacked New York and Washington, D.C., they 
thought they could defeat us. I really believe that. They thought we 
would crumble. We did not. In fact, we came back stronger and hit them 
harder than they ever imagined it would be.
  They will never defeat us. What they will try to do is get symbolic 
victories. Symbolism is important to them. They have little else. But 
they will strike, I believe, at centers of media, of financial, of 
American power, of American culture; and that is where we should place 
our bet.
  Certainly, we need to support the communities around the country, and 
we do. I remind my colleagues, we provide three-quarters of a billion 
dollars to fire agencies all across the country in a competitive grant 
process to help them to prepare not only for homeland security but for 
the event of disaster and emergency within those communities.
  These funds are antiterrorism funds. We need to put them where they 
will have the most effect. The chairman mentioned that the people who 
attacked New York City in 1993 trained just 30 miles from Three Mile 
Island. But when they were trained, when they thought they were ready, 
they attacked New York City, not the nuclear plant. That is not to say 
they would not; but they have limited resources, and we have to fight 
them on the grounds where they need to be fought.
  Lastly, New York City, as I understand the figures that I have from 
the mayor of New York, provided by my colleague, the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Sweeney), who brought this amendment, and I thank him for 
doing that, he has provided great leadership on this, and he also is an 
upstate New Yorker. In the old days, New York was upstate versus 
downstate. That is not the case now. One thing this disaster brought to 
us was unity in our State. The numbers we have say that New York City 
received $375 million in 2004 in formula funds and $90 million in high-
risk funds. That is not enough.
  I urge strong support for this amendment.
  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I just rise in strong opposition to this amendment. 
While everyone fights for money, and that is good, that is natural, it 
is what we would expect, the fact of the matter is these dollars have 
to be distributed across this country.
  The gentleman talked about threat. Well, the way the dollars are 
given out through the committee, threat is the third highest priority. 
It is population, it is presence of vulnerability of critical 
infrastructure and threat; three times more emphasis put on population 
than on threat.
  When you talk about defining threat, you tell me about what 
destroying our food supply in this country would mean: agri-terrorism. 
You talk about destroying the infrastructure that we have in this 
country outside of the major urban areas. When we start talking about 
the places of high threat, I think there is no way to calculate the 
number of places that can be destroyed.
  We cannot write off the rest of the country. This bill already 
recognizes a balance between the urban areas and the rural areas. This 
bill gives the urban areas over $1.2 billion, directed to urban areas, 
$280 million more than last year; and now they want to take more away 
from everybody else in this country.
  Every State has a plan in place. We have a lot of community entities, 
counties, in the State of Iowa that are trying to comply with those 
plans today; and they need the resources as much as any other place 
does.
  If we are just talking about who has got the most people, that is one 
thing. When we talk about analyzing how people can respond to a threat 
throughout this country, that is another thing. Everybody in this House 
has approximately the same number of people, and we all love them as 
much as the next guy does. I want to protect my people as much as 
anyone in New York or New Jersey, but I think it is wrong to have all 
of these dollars go to one area out of my people's protection. It is 
simply wrong.
  The gentleman talked earlier about we have got to do what the 
President said. He said we should have this many more dollars as far as 
urban areas. Well, let us just follow that.
  If we follow the President's request, we would have no money in this 
bill for rail security; we would have cut firefighter grants by $245 
million; we would have doubled airline ticket taxes; there would be $43 
million less for air cargo security. You might be interested, if you 
are from New York, we would have no money for metropolitan response 
teams, for which the committee gave $50 million. There would be $50 
million less for radiological detection devices at our seaports and $29 
million less for baggage screening at our airports. In fact, if we 
followed the President's request, there would be $500 million less in 
this bill to go to your protection.
  I think it is a balanced bill as it is; and like the chairman said, 
is there ever enough anywhere? Well, maybe not. Will one more dollar do 
it in one place rather than another? I do not know. No one knows that. 
But the fact of the matter is, there are real threats in rural America; 
there are real threats in urban America.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LATHAM. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his 
statement.
  Now, there is $900 million in the high-threat, high-density urban 
area grant program. There is also $100 million in the rail and transit 
security. That would go to the big cities, would it not?
  Mr. LATHAM. Yes, it would.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. And is there not $125 million for port 
security? The last time I checked the ports were in large cities, were 
they not?

[[Page 12951]]


  Mr. LATHAM. The gentleman is correct.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Then we restored the $50 million for the 
metropolitan medical response system. Metropolitan means large city, 
does it not?
  Mr. LATHAM. That is correct.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. So when you add all of those moneys together, 
this bill is chock full of money for the big cities; is that not 
correct?
  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, obviously the chairman 
is correct.
  The fact of the matter is, I honestly believe there is not enough 
money for the formula grants. As we are pursuing this amendment, I have 
another amendment where we will transfer $275 million back into the 
formula grants, because I think it is so important that the entire 
country be protected, and not just certain areas who cannot define 
threat and are only basing their premise on how many people live in one 
area.
  Mr. KIRK. Mr. Chairman, I rise to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise not as a New Yorker, but as a Midwesterner and 
as someone with 16 years' experience in the intelligence community; and 
I rise to reluctantly support this amendment because it stands for the 
principle that our homeland defense dollars should be allocated against 
the threat and not allocated by State.
  Our intelligence against al Qaeda should guide where we deploy these 
defenses. In point of fact, many States have never been mentioned by al 
Qaeda or any other major terrorist organizations, but other targets are 
always mentioned: New York City, the Seattle Space Needle, the Sears 
Tower, nuclear reactors in the United States, the largest airports, 
and, of course, the White House, the Capitol and the Pentagon.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KIRK. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, do they mention Columbus, Ohio?
  Mr. KIRK. Reclaiming my time, they did not, but that was not the 
point of the attack. The point of the attack, as I will go into, is 
always returning to the same targets, as it has in Kenya, as it has in 
Sudan, as it has in Tanzania.
  Once the U.S. Marines and Army Special Forces overran the al Qaeda 
offices in Afghanistan at Tarnak Farms, we got a clear picture of what 
the terrorists target. We all know that Osama bin Laden struck the 
World Trade Center in 1993 and then struck it again in 2001.
  As one political party holds its convention in New York City in 2004, 
we know it is a target again. We cannot let homeland defense dollars be 
spent where there is no perceivable threat. We do not have enough 
funding to fortify the whole country; therefore we must be guided by 
the intelligence.
  If the intelligence showed that al Qaeda consistently targets Wyoming 
or Mississippi, then that is where the funding should be directed. But 
it does not show that. It shows that the targets are places 
consistently mentioned by Osama bin Laden and his lieutenants which are 
known to him in Afghanistan and Pakistan. These targets, over and over 
again, are New York, Washington, Chicago, Seattle, and other key sites 
regularly mentioned by al Qaeda.
  If we use the funding in this bill to fortify the wrong parts of this 
Nation, then we will be weak where we should have been strong. If we 
fortify the right places of our country, then we will blunt their 
attack, and we will protect the American people.
  I believe the intelligence should guide this funding, and I urge 
support of the amendment.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield 
further, I think we are all in agreement on the idea that the moneys 
eventually should go based on threat and risk assessment. We are all 
headed in that direction. I am trying to push the Department, certainly 
by the end of this year, to establish minimum essential requirements 
for every community so that everyone, based on a graduated size of the 
community, would have requirements to be prepared, based on the threat 
that faces that particular community.
  That is a really complex undertaking. But it is being undertaken. 
Hopefully, the 2005 moneys we are appropriating will be spent based on 
that plan. It is not quite in place yet. That way, we would all be 
satisfied, rural, big city, medium-sized city, what have you. If you 
are a city of 5,000 people, there is not much preparation perhaps you 
need, unless you are near a nuclear power plant or a big dam close by 
or what have you, which can be modified in that fashion. If you are a 
large city, a New York, a Washington, a Seattle, obviously you are 
going to get lots of money. But we are all headed toward the same 
direction.
  I do not want us to get sidetracked, as we seem to be doing with this 
debate, pitting region against region. That is not right. We are all 
one country.
  Mr. KIRK. Reclaiming my time, I worry that that process will be too 
slow, and that Osama bin Laden does not see this country as big State 
versus small State; Osama bin Laden does not see this country as urban 
versus rural. He knows of a few big targets. From his cave looking at 
the TV pictures, he has identified those targets; and we need to let 
our funding be guided to defending those targets so we can blunt the 
attack.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. If the gentleman will yield further, there 
are other threats besides Osama bin Laden. As I earlier said, and 
perhaps the gentleman was not here at the time, there are all sorts of 
groups out there that have already caused harm, in such places as The 
Dalles, Oregon, population 12,000.

                              {time}  2245

  Timothy McVeigh, who bought his materials in Harrington, Kansas, 
population 2,500. So there are all sorts of threats out there in cities 
of all sizes.
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Sweeney amendment and 
in appreciation to the New York and New Jersey delegations and many 
from Chicago and other areas that are supporting this important 
amendment.
  Mayor Bloomberg is watching this debate, and his office just sent me 
a note and asked me to clarify on the floor today that New York City 
got $90 million last year out of the $3 billion given out for homeland 
security to State and local governments; $35 million in high-threat 
money, and $53 million from the State grant program, bringing the total 
to $90 million out of $3 billion for New York City. His office asked me 
to note to this body that last year New York City spent well over $1 
billion on homeland security, and I really am urging my colleagues to 
do the right thing for the security of our Nation and support the 
Sweeney amendment.
  It has been 2\1/2\ years since 9/11, and we have heard numerous 
reports, intelligence reports, as my colleague, the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Kirk) mentioned, and I support his comments completely; 
and numerous warnings about terrorist plans for more strikes on 
America. Alert after alert, Code Orange after Code Orange, we hear that 
the terrorists have their sights on high-impact targets. In other 
words, the terrorists continue to want to strike centers of power and 
population, just as they did on 9/11. Their goal is to kill as many as 
possible, send as big a message as possible, and disrupt American 
institutions as much as possible.
  Mr. Chairman, despite that knowledge, our homeland security funding 
since 9/11 has been, in large part, misguided. We continue to push 
limited resources through a bad formula that sends a disproportionate 
amount of money to prairies and pastures rather than population 
centers. We cannot wait out the game being played with that formula, 
because the terrorists do not plan on waiting for us to be ready.
  Mr. Chairman, the Sweeney amendment will bring one measure of 
immediate assistance to the cities and communities that are squarely in 
the terrorists' bull's eye. All we are asking is that we do what 
President Bush wants. After 2 years of misguided homeland security 
budgets, the President finally

[[Page 12952]]

called for a doubling of the Urban Area Security Initiative funds in 
his budget proposal. Sending more assistance to the communities most at 
risk is the best way to get the money where the threat is, right now.
  New York is terrorist target number 1. Everyone says that. And I 
repeat, we have spent over $1 billion out of our own pocket for 
security, but we have gotten a mere fraction of that back from the 
Federal Government. There is no reason that New Yorkers should have to 
watch New York City close down over six firehouses. We have fewer 
police and fire today than we had on 9/11. The radios that did not work 
on 9/11 still do not work. The HAZMAT suits destroyed on 9/11 have not 
been replaced. Yet, there are press reports across this country about 
many communities getting money, and they even say to the press we do 
not know what to do with it. We should not be sending more gas masks to 
certain areas than there are even police officers, sending more 
homeland assistance to low-threat communities than they know what to do 
with while our high-threat communities struggle to keep their heads 
above water. It is not fair, it is not smart, and it certainly is not 
secure.
  At the very least, this amendment sends the message to the American 
people that we do, in fact, understand the need to base assistance on 
where the threat is and, more importantly, it finally sends more 
assistance to the communities that desperately need it. The Sweeney 
amendment does exactly what the President's budget requested.
  So I request my colleagues to join us in supporting this.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. MALONEY. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, briefly, since the gentlewoman 
says the Mayor is listening and says he only got $90 million in 2003, 
the figures that I have are different.
  Mrs. MALONEY. In 2004.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. The city in 2003 received $256 plus million, 
and I will get back with the gentlewoman on 2004 in a minute.
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, a point of 
clarification. The numbers that I cited came from the Mayor of the City 
of New York. His office literally called up, they are watching the 
debate, and said, please clarify, New York City got $90 million out of 
the $3 billion.
  Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to my good friend, the gentleman 
from New York's (Mr. Sweeney) amendment. This is not easy to do, 
because the tragedy that New Yorkers and so many from the surrounding 
area felt on 9/11 was our Nation's tragedy and touched every person in 
every community in America.
  But our Nation's urban areas are not the only areas at risk in the 
United States today. We cannot disregard the many what-ifs facing first 
responders and others working to secure our rural areas.
  What if a catastrophe occurs on a barge carrying fertilizers or other 
dangerous chemicals through the Upper Mississippi River or its many 
tributaries? What if a truck carrying a payload of toxic materials is 
hijacked on the thousands of miles of our Nation's rural highways? What 
if terrorists seek to operate training grounds with the purpose of 
planning terrorist attacks in our rural areas?
  Clearly, there is an obvious need to equip our Nation's cities with 
adequate resources to prevent and respond to emergency situations, but 
it is also not responsible to suggest that urban areas are the sole 
targets of those individuals who wish to do us harm.
  Mr. Chairman, homeland security efforts in our urban areas are funded 
more than adequately in the underlying legislation, and I, for one, 
cannot in good conscience tell my neighbors in Cape Girardeau, Missouri 
or my constituents in Rolla or West Plains, or even those who live near 
prairies and pastures, that protection of their lives is any less 
important than those who live in New York City, Los Angeles, or 
Chicago.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the Sweeney amendment.
  Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment and, as has been 
stated repeatedly here and warrants repetition, is why this is the 
right thing, what we know and why this is right.
  What we know is clear and obvious. What we know is that a terrorist 
seeks an area to destroy not just innocent people, but the morale of an 
entire Nation. And while it may be a couple of years ago, September 11 
is alive and well here in this country.
  In Staten Island and Brooklyn alone, almost 300 innocent people lost 
their life, lost their life. The terrorists knew that. They still do. 
It was not unique. In 1989 they attempted to blow up the Trade Center. 
They have conspired to blow up the Holland Tunnel, the Lincoln Tunnel, 
the George Washington Bridge, and the United Nations as well. It is 
still real.
  What is right is to send the money to where it is needed. If after 
September 11 we united as we did as a Nation, and we are grateful to 
the Congress and the President for coming through for New York City and 
New York State, if after September 11 we decided to go after the 
terrorists where they were, where the threat was, and Secretary 
Rumsfeld deployed the 101st Airborne to Switzerland, we would have 
laughed him out of Washington. Or, if he said, let us put an aircraft 
carrier in the Great Salt Lake, because we are going to protect the 
homeland; one home, not 50, one home, we would have laughed him out. If 
he said, let us get the Air Force deployed and launch a strike against 
Antarctica, we would have laughed him out.
  So this notion that we have to send money everywhere for the sake of 
sending money everywhere really compromises the second component of 
what this committee is all about: our homeland, all of us together, and 
security. Let us not send money somewhere so we can say we cut the 
check.
  The point is that it is not just New York City, it is not just the 
city residents, and it is not just the residents of New Jersey. It is 
the residents of Chicago, it is the residents of Los Angeles, it is the 
residents of Houston, Texas, and it is the millions of people who go to 
those cities: your families, our friends, our fellow Americans and, 
yes, people from around the world who come to these cities, New York, 
for example, who expect a level of security. We want them to visit for 
a few days and go home peacefully, spending money in the meantime, but 
let them come and enjoy it.
  The fact is clear, I say to my colleagues. The right thing to do is 
to recognize that the City of New York, on a daily basis, incurs 
millions of dollars of expense to protect not just the residents of New 
York City, the people who work there every day and the millions of 
people who come. We need to reengineer this formula. We need to 
reengineer and do what is right, not just for the urban areas, but send 
the money where it is needed the most where the terrorists are looking 
towards, and they are looking towards New York again. Let us not look 
back in a year or two as my colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
King) said earlier and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney) and 
others have said so eloquently, let us not look back in a few years and 
say, well, we should have done something better. We have the 
opportunity tonight to do just that. I urge my colleagues to support 
the amendment.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, this debate seems to be occurring almost in a vacuum, 
because it seems to ignore the fact that we are at war. There was a 
very serious war launched upon us by the Jihadists, the Islamists, 
whenever you want to call them. They want to kill as many Americans as 
possible. Where you get the biggest bang for the buck is in an urban 
area, because you can kill a lot of people in a small area. If a plane 
crashes on a farm, maybe you kill a person or two, but not too many 
more.

[[Page 12953]]

  We are not responding properly. We are not taking it seriously 
enough. We ought to be spending billions and billions of dollars to 
properly protect all of the threatened areas of this country, all of 
our cities, all of our nuclear power plants, all of our chemical 
plants. We ought to do a threat assessment on the whole country. We 
ought to repeal some of the tax cuts and spend the money to defend 
ourselves and take it as seriously as we did in 1942, but we are not 
doing that.
  And since we are not doing that, we have to prioritize the money that 
we do have, the grossly inadequate amounts of money; maybe more than 
last year, but the grossly inadequate amounts of money to protect 
ourselves against our enemies. We have to prioritize them where the 
real threats are. There should not be a grant on the basis of 
population.
  In 1942, when Admiral Nimitz had to decide where to send the fleet, 
he did not look at where the population was on the West Coast or in 
Midway or in Hawaii; he said, where is the Japanese fleet likely to 
attack, and that is where you spend the money and send the aircraft 
carriers.
  We are probably going to be attacked again. Thousands of people may 
die, and our job is with the money that is made available to spend it 
in the way most likely to minimize the casualties in this country.
  That is what this amendment seeks to do. Is it fair? No, it is not 
fair. It would be fair if we spent a few billion dollars more to defend 
our people. That would be more fair.

                              {time}  2300

  But we do not have that money. It is a different debate. We should 
spend the money based on the threat, and the threat we know, as the 
gentleman from Illinois said before, we know where the enemy, where 
Osama bin Laden and his friends and confederates, we know what they are 
looking at. They are looking at our major urban areas. They are looking 
at the Space Needle in Seattle, the Sears Tower in Chicago and so 
forth.
  Yes, the bill that the committee propounded in some respects is 
better than the inadequate proposal that the President made, and I 
commend the committee for it; but this amendment makes it better yet.
  The fact of the matter is, we passed a tax bill earlier today that 
gives great breaks for tobacco farmers. It has a tobacco buyout in it. 
I did not hear anybody from New York saying, my God, we should not do 
that. Nobody in New York benefits. Nobody in New York benefits from the 
wheat subsidy. We do not complain about that because we do not have any 
wheat farmers in New York. We should not benefit from the wheat 
subsidy.
  The money that is appropriated by this Congress ought to go where the 
need is for the purpose for which it is appropriated. The money that is 
appropriated to defend us in a war ought to go where it is going to be 
maximally efficient in its use in protecting Americans from enemy 
attack. That is what this amendment does. That is why it ought to be 
adopted. Everything else is irrelevant.
  Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I first want to compliment the chairman of the 
subcommittee for the bill he has put together. This is a very difficult 
and challenging process. This bill is perhaps, if not the most 
important, certainly one of the most important pieces of legislation 
that we will consider all year for the safety and security of our 
Nation and the people of our communities and our families. The chairman 
has worked extremely hard to do that.
  I do rise in support of the Sweeney amendment because I think this 
bill can be better. Mr. Chairman, we face a threat from a cunning enemy 
bent on interrupting and destroying our very way of life in this 
country.
  The past has shown, and intelligence continues to suggest, that 
terrorists have targeted our Nation's highly populated areas, our seats 
of power, and our symbols of military and economic might. Now, I 
represent a district in New Jersey. I do not represent New York, but I 
represent thousands and thousands of New Jersey citizens who work and 
play and live in some way or another in New York. They travel into New 
York City. I lost 81 constituents the day of 9/11 in the World Trade 
Center.
  The fact is that in a more densely populated area you are going to be 
a bigger target for those who are seeking to do us harm. Now, the 
current funding proportions set in place to allocate first responder 
grant funding is inadequate. It places our Nation and our vulnerable 
urban areas under greater risk. It is vitally important that we address 
our Nation's homeland security requirements where they are needed most, 
highly populated and symbolically significant areas of our country, 
symbolically significant areas of our country.
  Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FERGUSON. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman reminded me of two important 
points that I do not think have been stressed here, and I very briefly 
want to state them.
  One, it has been a misnomer by a number of Members who have come to 
the floor today pointing out that there is critical infrastructure 
throughout this Nation that needs to have security dollars addressed 
and directed towards it. This fund, the UASI fund, the high-threat fund 
includes all critical infrastructure.
  Point number two is that this is not about any region. This is not 
about New York. This is about the whole Nation. As my friend, the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Fossella), said earlier, this is about one 
family, not 50.
  Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from New York, and I 
appreciate his work on the amendment, and I obviously support the 
amendment.
  Already, many of our States and districts, including mine in New 
Jersey, have received millions of dollars in important first responder 
grants. These grants are important for keeping America and our 
communities safe and strong and free. The distinct and immediate need 
for separate funds to be dedicated to high-threat urban areas was first 
recognized during the appropriations process in 2002 with the 
establishment of the Urban Area Security Initiative.
  It is time now that we further our commitment to addressing the needs 
of our high-risk areas by transferring $450 million to the Urban Area 
Security Initiative from the formula base grant funding pool. This 
request, as has been said, matches President Bush's request for the 
UASI and represents a pragmatic approach to funding homeland security 
needs.
  Mr. Chairman, the terrorist attacks on September 11 left a terrible 
and lasting mark not only in my district in New Jersey but on our 
entire Nation. We have to heed the lessons of that day to do our best 
to secure our Nation's most vulnerable and highly populated areas. 
Common sense dictates that we must direct money where the threat is 
felt the most.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment put forward 
by my friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney). For the 
record, although I am proud to be a New Jerseyan, I would point out my 
district is about 80 miles away from New York City. It is really not 
part of the New York City metropolitan region; but I do not think that 
is the issue here, because this amendment is not about the New York 
City metropolitan region or Chicago or Seattle or Los Angeles. It is 
about the national interest.
  It is indisputably true that there is not a village or a hamlet or a 
town in America that is immune from a terrorist attack. It is 
indisputably true that the terrorists may choose to strike a rather 
small, obscure place simply to prove a point, that they can, and to 
spread the fear that is there.
  To address that problem, it is important to have some resources for 
every part of the country; and the chairman

[[Page 12954]]

has put together a bill which very wisely does that. And I commend him 
for it, and I support him for it. But we cannot really legislate based 
on ``what if.'' We have to legislate based on ``what is.'' And the 
public record of the intelligence reports, not disclosing anything that 
is not on that public record, clearly indicates, as the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Kirk) said, a pattern by the Islamic racialists to focus 
their efforts on targets that would be known by a person who is on the 
street in Beirut because they want to make a point that they are 
striking the infidels. So they strike a symbol so that when it appears 
on international television, their horror and twisted victory can be 
understood by the audience to which they are playing.
  It is not a coincidence that on September 11 the symbols that were 
struck and the symbols that were targeted would be symbols that would 
be known throughout the so-called Arab street. That was the purpose.
  The public record of intelligence clearly can lead us to the 
conclusion that high-visibility, well-perceived targets are the most 
likely places for this kind of terror to strike. It is the national 
interest to prioritize the spending of money in these ways, not a 
parochial interest for people from large cities or from particular 
large cities.
  Very often we have supplemental appropriations bills come to the 
floor of this House, and they deal with wild fires in California, or 
they deal with floods in the rural Midwest, or they deal with natural 
catastrophes that happen throughout the country. It is our tradition 
and it is to our honor that we stand up and nearly to a man or to a 
woman vote to support that aid because our neighbors need it, and they 
need it more than we do.
  I have rarely in my time here heard a Member say that they will not 
support flood relief aid or hurricane relief aid for part of the 
country because that part of the country is getting too much. Instead, 
there is an acknowledgment that when one of our areas has a time of 
greater need, each of us rises to the occasion and vindicates the 
national interest in that way.
  The bill that is before us does not ignore the needs of rural 
America. It does not ignore the needs of the less populated areas of 
the country. I do believe that the decision the bill makes 
disproportionately funds those needs, however. And I do think the right 
allocation is to reflect the best judgment of the intelligence 
community and to adopt the amendment that the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Sweeney) has put forth.
  The fundamental answer, I agree with the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Nadler), is that we have not given enough resources for this problem 
overall. But we can not legislate based on what if. We have to 
legislate based on what is. And what is is the credible judgment of the 
intelligence community that high-population, high-target areas are the 
most vulnerable and most likely places for us to be assaulted. We 
should adopt the Sweeney amendment and reflect that good judgement.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I reside in the State of California. We are a bunch of 
pigs when it comes to money. California and New York City, a bunch of 
pigs when it comes to money.
  Why? Well, let me give you a couple of examples. California, San 
Diego, where I live, population, one in eight Americans lives in the 
State of California. We have a nuclear facility just outside San Diego. 
We have got one of the most expansive borders to cover. We have 
aircraft carriers in the port along with nuclear ships in San Diego.

                              {time}  2310

  We have a multitude of military bases. We have one of the largest 
biotech facilities in which we use radioactive materials, even though 
it is not very strong, but we have got to bury it. It could be used for 
a dirty bomb, and I personally feel the biggest threat we have is New 
York City and Boston before November. Al Qaeda tends to do what they 
have been successful at, and when Spain capitulated I think that put 
all of us at more of a risk.
  Mr. Chairman, sometimes some of the delegation in New York have been 
so liberal, so willing to cut defense, so willing to cut intelligence, 
so willing to bash a President that provided billions of dollars in a 
rebuilding of New York. The same President that is going to kill or 
capture the very people that they are fighting to get extra money for 
before they kill them and their children. I think that is wrong.
  Part of me wants to take every dime away that we have given to New 
York, but that would be wrong and I will not do that. I will not even 
try to do that because it would be wrong because my colleagues have got 
millions of people there that depend on it.
  But my colleagues know that recently we had an Ohio shopping center 
that was going to be bombed. We had a facility in Los Angeles. Would it 
be the San Francisco Golden Gate that was threatened?
  The reason I got up to speak is that there is not enough money in the 
whole world. The advantage of a terrorist is that they can pick an 
infinite number of targets, whether it is in St. Louis, whether it is 
in the snake pit in Oklahoma during a ball game or whatever.
  The balance that we should do is what the committee has chosen to do 
and look to provide local police and first responders the best that 
they can do, to react regardless of where the terrorists do hit us.
  My biggest threat and biggest fear, can my colleagues imagine what 
smallpox would do in two cities? In 2 weeks we would lose millions of 
people, and can we respond to that? That is why I think that this 
important and balanced bill needs to point out not gobs of money for 
one. I think New York should get a little, probably more than other 
people because it is a threat. I think Boston, with the upcoming 
Democratic Convention, should be protected, but I think it should be 
balanced out around because no one knows what those threats are.
  If I was al Qaeda, I would guarantee my colleagues I would find a 
target that we are not protecting. There is no way we can protect them 
all, and I think the best thing we can do is provide a little more for 
those areas that are threatened, not a lot like some of us are asking 
for, but to spread it out so with much as we can we can protect those 
sites because I guarantee my colleagues, it may be just a shopping 
senter in Oshkosh or somewhere else.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  All one has to do is look at today's newspapers, look at what the 9/
11 Commission has found, and we can clearly see that al Qaeda is 
looking to strike where they can make the worst hit and that is in the 
urban areas. I do not mean to denigrate the good work that has been 
done on this bill. There are a lot of people who have done a lot of 
good work, and it is very, very hard, and the point has been made that 
we are not funding homeland security to the extent that we should.
  But the American people know the difference between what is necessary 
and where the threat is, and the difference between that and pork, and 
quite frankly, we should not be using this bill to spread the wealth 
around, this pork, so each of us can go back to our districts and say 
we produced a little bit for our constituents. We should put the money 
where the threat is.
  I really have to vehemently disagree with the idea that States with 
virtually no threat of a terrorist attack are getting as much as $20 
more per capita than New York gets. That is illogical, it is unfair and 
it makes no sense whatsoever.
  I rise in strong support of this amendment. This allocates more money 
for the Urban Security Initiative which would send more preparedness 
dollars to high threat areas. It makes sense. Doing so would better 
prepare first responders where terrorists are most likely to attack.
  Our colleagues have mentioned that we know that the terrorists want 
the biggest bang. We know that New York City and Washington have 
already been hit. One does not have to be a rocket scientist to 
understand that this is where the biggest threat is.

[[Page 12955]]

  New York obviously has taken the brunt of terrorist attacks, yet we 
get shortchanged on preparedness dollars while States that have little 
or no risk are raking in millions. Again, that does not seem fair, and 
it does not seem right.
  Hundreds of New York's fire fighters and police officers died 
responding to the World Trade Center attacks. The September 11 
Commission has highlighted a number of areas where New York's first 
responders needed more resources to respond to a large scale attack 
that occurred. We can rectify the problems that our heroic fire 
fighters and police experienced on September 11 if we have the proper 
resources. Currently, our first responders are underfunded and 
overworked, as New York continues to remain in a heightened state.
  New York remains a prime target, and scarce resources are being 
diverted to areas that are not really at risk of terrorist attack. We 
owe it to our firemen and police in New York who will be tasked with 
responding to a future attack, we owe it to them and the residents of 
New York to do all we can to prevent and prepare if another 9/11 should 
happen again.
  Now, I understand that all of our colleagues must return home and 
talk to their constituents about homeland security. I certainly 
understand that every American is just a little on edge. I understand 
because when I go home and talk to my constituents they fear that 
although many terrorist plots have been thwarted over the years, one 
may eventually be successful, but I want to once again repeat, we are 
not talking about hypothetical threats in New York. The threat is very 
real.
  So I am asking my colleagues to step back. Please do not make this 
about funneling money into your State. As we all mentioned before, we 
are all Americans but not all of us have had our local economies 
destroyed, our cities bombed and our neighbors murdered. I am asking my 
colleagues to put the money where it is needed most but also where it 
would do the most good.
  We are an institution representing the entire Nation. We are in 
charge of making tough decisions about how best to use our scarce 
Federal tax dollars. Putting more money into the high threat account 
should not be one of the tough decisions. It is the logical one. It is 
the right one, and I want to repeat, it makes no sense that States with 
virtually no threat of a terrorist attack are getting as much as $20 
per person more than New York gets.
  So I strongly support the Sweeney amendment. Again, it is fair, it is 
right. We are one Nation. We need to put the money where the threat is. 
Please support the amendment.
  Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, this has been an outstanding debate. It is a vital 
question for our country to decide.
  As chairman of the Select Committee on Homeland Security, I cannot 
help but notice that the September 11 Commission in its findings, 
issued as part of the final round of its public hearings, has just 
released details from interviews with 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh 
Mohammed and Ramzi bin al-Shibh, a key coordinator of the 9/11 plot, 
indicating that these al Qaeda terrorists had, in addition to the plans 
that they actually executed, a more elaborate plot to use 10 airplanes 
to strike large cities on both American coasts, to hit the tallest 
buildings in California and Washington State.
  I also know, as does my colleague the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Turner), ranking member on the Select Committee on Homeland Security, 
as a result of our routine briefings from the Terrorist Threat 
Integration Center, that there is no question that such planning 
continues.
  If we spread our homeland security dollars about the country in a 
diffuse and diluted fashion, we may not live to regret it.

                              {time}  2320

  It is vitally important that we recognize that our urban areas are 
threatened. At the same time, suburban and rural areas of this country 
are also threatened. They have chemical plans, pipelines, military 
bases, energy infrastructure, agricultural fields, transportation 
corridors, including rivers, barges and so on.
  Risk which matches threat against vulnerability applies equally to 
urban and rural infrastructures and populations. Regrettably, the bill 
that is before us does not give us an opportunity to vindicate what we 
know is good policy, and that is to substitute for political formulas 
an allocation of first responder moneys based upon risk. The gentleman 
from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) said it is very important for us to move 
there, and I could not agree more.
  With this amendment, we have something of a bittersweet opportunity 
because the amendment would transfer .45 billion dollars from a formula 
that admittedly is a political formula, not based on risk, to 50 of the 
most-threatened urban areas in the country and 30 of the most-
threatened transit areas to be determined by the Department of Homeland 
Security, also a political formula. But at least this political formula 
is based in part on the actual terrorist threat and therefore putting 
the amount of money into this program that was requested by President 
Bush and by the Department of Homeland Security and taking it out of a 
pot that is allocated strictly according to population and strictly 
according to political formulas is a modest improvement.
  The high-threat urban areas program, however, which this amendment 
would transfer money into, distributes funding only to those cities 
deemed high risk, meaning that Federal moneys are unavailable to 23 
States without cities covered by this formula. It also means that 30 
percent of total terrorism preparedness funds are off limits to 23 
States. That is an imperfect result.
  Mr. Chairman, terrorists have limited resources and focused energies. 
Congress should allocate first responder funding in a similar manner 
with money directed toward the places most at risk. The current process 
in place to allocate first responder grant funding is inadequate. It 
places our Nation under greater vulnerability.
  Cities that apply for high-threat grants are given scores according 
to three factors: Population, vulnerability and threat. As I said, 
since this money is coming out of a pot, 60 percent of which is going 
according to population anyway, it is a modest improvement to send that 
money which was going to go to high population urban areas in the first 
place according to a formula that takes threat into account. That is 
marginally better.
  Mr. Chairman, while this amendment is not an ideal vehicle for 
resolving these issues, it will at least allocate more of the funds in 
the bill according to threat. Sixty percent of the formula grants from 
which the .45 billion dollars would be taken are already allocated 
strictly according to population.
  The gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) said it best, we should move 
to a threat allocation of homeland security dollars. In the meanwhile, 
the Sweeney amendment is a small step in that direction, and I urge my 
colleagues to support it.
  Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Sweeney amendment. We have 
essentially, as we try to figure out the way to do this, made or 
compounded three fundamental areas in allocating resources. First, I 
think there is consensus among a lot of law enforcement organizations 
across the country that have not allocated enough money, we need to do 
more.
  Secondly, when we first began this process, we did it entirely based 
on population and we had the unusual circumstance that States like 
Wyoming got much more per capita than States like New York, and we in 
Congress and this subcommittee acted to respond to that challenge by 
creating a new high-threat, high-density program.
  It was not Congress that then screwed that up, it was the Department 
of Homeland Security who took that program and expanded it and expanded 
it and expanded it to more and more cities. We had the unusual and 
almost

[[Page 12956]]

surreal experience of having cities lobbying to be considered high 
density, high threat to the point now that we have some cities on that 
list of 50 that do not even have minor league baseball teams.
  Perhaps this is not the vehicle, but I know the bill of the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Cox) that is moving its way through the House 
seeks to take that list and limit it more closely to true high-threat, 
high-density areas.
  A third mistake that Homeland Security has made, and the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Cox) just referred to it, is we have this bizarre 
formula that takes high-threat money and allocates it first by 
population by a factor of nine, and then infrastructure by a factor of 
six, and finally threat by a factor of three. Even when we in Congress 
say let us allocate money based on threat, we are getting it wrong. I 
understand the gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney) wanted to address 
that in this bill. It was struck down on a point of order, but we need 
to figure out a way to fix that problem because even when we are 
getting money out the door theoretically addressed toward threat, 
Department of Homeland Security says it is not getting there because of 
the formulas that they are setting.
  I would say, not to reiterate what others have said, is that frankly 
Members can make the argument that every place in the country is a 
potential threat. Hypothetical threat is something we can all describe. 
For some cities, though, it is not hypothetical. It is real. For some 
cities, there are actual threats.
  What I would ask is there any homeland security expert, anyone who 
has said on the record the way we are allocating funds in this bill 
makes sense? I can tell Members the people who do not, people like the 
police commissioner of New York, people like the 9/11 Commission, 
people like Secretary Ridge, who himself has now said there is no doubt 
in his mind that the way we are allocating money is simply wrong and 
needs to be redirected. This is the man who came to that position after 
months and months on the job, and I am glad he did.
  When we talk to intelligence officials and Department of Defense 
officials about how they do their job, they allocate resources based on 
real threats, they do not do it based on hypothetical threats.
  I would say it is true that the Sweeney amendment does not do 
everything, and I would also reiterate what so many of the opponents of 
this amendment have said that I agree with, and that is that this 
should not be regional fight. This should not be factions inside of 
factions fighting over this fund.
  I have no intention on the agriculture bill to come to this floor and 
demand that New York City get a piece of that pie. It simply would not 
be appropriate, and I do not believe it is good policy. In this case, 
though, when we have real threats to places like New York, I believe 
the funding should be allocated.
  Just to give an idea what a real threat is, I just cite for the 
Record the story of Iyman Faris, a guy who comes to New York, sits by 
the Brooklyn Bridge, eats lunch at a Pakistani restaurant by City Hall, 
and then reports back to his handlers it is too hot.
  What did he mean by it is too hot? He observed at all four stanchions 
of the Brooklyn Bridge an NYPD cruiser that is there all day, all night 
at extraordinary expense to the people of the City of New York. And 
they decided not to do the operation, which was a plan to blow up the 
Brooklyn Bridge. That is not hypothetical. It is an actual threat.
  I do not think it is unreasonable that a greater portion of the money 
coming out of this bill goes towards places that have to deal with 
those threats.
  Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. I want to 
congratulate the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) and the ranking 
member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo), for crafting what I 
think is exactly the right approach.
  Their bill recognizes that all of America needs to be protected at 
least a little bit, and those areas of the country with the greater 
risk get the lion's share of the money, something like 60 percent. The 
bill that we had through the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure was 70 percent, and that is exactly the right thing to 
do.

                              {time}  2330

  Terrorism can be the cause behind a chemical release in Texas, a 
hijacking in New York, a bombing in Wyoming, or the destruction of a 
lock on the Mississippi River.
  In 1994, Mr. Chairman, I was elected to this Congress with three 
other freshmen from Ohio, Mr. Ney, Mr. Chabot and Mr. Cremeans, who is 
sadly now passed away. There was a headline that said we were the four 
French guys from Ohio. If you are from a French lineage, you remember 
the Maginot Line where the French very seriously hardened the Maginot 
Line and said, Nazi Germany, you can't get us because we're hiding 
behind the Maginot Line. Do you know what the Nazis did? They marched 
around the Maginot Line.
  The gentleman from Kentucky's bill recognizes that New York, 
California, Washington, D.C. all have to be hardened because they are 
the subject of chatter that the terrorists want to strike to cause the 
biggest splash on our friends and allies in the media, CNN and 
everywhere else; but the gentleman from Kentucky also recognizes that 
the people that live in Mr. Latham's Iowa, in Pennsylvania, in other 
parts of the country need to be protected as well. Everybody that 
testified before our committee says we have to recognize everybody 
needs to be minimally prepared so that if we have a terrorist attack, 
we are ready to go. The gentleman from Kentucky has accomplished that 
vision and I congratulate him.
  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LaTOURETTE. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.
  Mr. LATHAM. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  First of all, I would like to say that the gentleman from New York 
said that dollars going to protect my citizens in my State, their 
safety, their well-being, is pork. I take great offense to that. It is 
not pork to have people who are safe in their homes. I do not care 
where they live in this country.
  I will also say that when we talk about this formula, talk about 
threat, the fact of the matter is there are some very, very large 
threats or potential threats in rural areas, whether you talk about 
nuclear energy plants, whatever. But just because they do not have 
people living immediately around them, they are not going to be 
eligible for any of the funds at all.
  I would also like to address one quick point talking about 
intelligence. The fact of the matter is there were hundreds of U.S. 
agriculture documents that were found in al Qaeda caves and also a 
large part of the al Qaeda training manual is devoted to agri-
terrorism. If you do not like to eat in New York, apparently, let us 
just forget about the rest of the country.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  I notice that two members of the full committee are waiting, or at 
least one other member besides me, waiting to speak. We happen to have 
been brought up a few miles from each other in the State of 
Pennsylvania so I am not sure whether that just means we are both 
staying until the end.
  This debate has been a wonderful debate. It has also brought back 
nightmares of the debates that I think many of us have taken part in 
that sound like school aid distribution formula fights that we have 
fought through in our State legislatures all the time. But in all those 
instances, the one thing that has been available would be a 
distribution of how much money was going to go to each of the districts 
or each of the States versus what was being proposed, a distribution 
that would show what was going to be going to each of the States under 
those circumstances. In this case that is very difficult.
  What the chairman has done has been to move $450 million roughly out 
of the

[[Page 12957]]

basic formula grant and put it into the urban area initiative or into 
the combination of other formulas. There is a basic formula grant and 
then there is a series of others which include transit grants, 
emergency management performance grants, and urban area initiatives. I 
am not sure whether either any one of those properly takes into account 
where we may have an enormous dam and a reservoir or whether it takes 
into account where we have very high-risk possible chemical plants or 
nuclear power plants. I am just not sure about that. I do not know 
particularly enough about this.
  But I know the chairman, and now I understand why he said in full 
committee that we do not know what the distribution is going to be next 
year. All we could see was what it had been in the fiscal year 2004 and 
what it would be like if you moved the $450 million out of that formula 
and distributed it proportionately as it was in 2004 into those other 
categories and then give it back to the same States in that 
proportionate distribution, into those other States.
  During the course of this debate, I have sat with that formula, with 
that chart that we had in full committee and done a few calculations. 
What shows up is that the States which have one congressional district, 
we all know exactly who they are, there are seven of them, they are 
ending up in the new formula even as it has been changed by the 
chairman in the work that the chairman and his staff have done, very 
careful and hard work, that what shows up is that those States end up 
with about $20 million per congressional district, a little bit under 
$20 million. About 18, actually, on average. The highest is $17.9 
million and the lowest is $16.3 million.
  Then there is also a disproportionate amount of money that goes to 
States which have only two congressional districts. My colleagues know 
exactly who those are, too. There are five of those. They are getting 
between $9 million and $10 million per congressional district there. 
That is what that formula looks like. If you total up all 12 States, 
coming to 17 congressional districts, the formula as it would be so 
calculated comes out to be about $220 million that is going into those 
States.
  The same formula shows that Ohio, one State that has 18 congressional 
districts, is going to get less than half as much money. One State is 
going to get less than half as much money. My colleagues can compare 
what Ohio looks like versus what those other 12 States look like that 
are getting more than twice as much money in total than the State of 
Ohio. Oddly enough, that calculation also shows that the States, and 
this, I think, may surprise, that the States that get the least per 
capita, the least per population, are Michigan and North Carolina of 
all things.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Olver) has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Olver was allowed to proceed for 1 
additional minute.)
  Mr. OLVER. The problem is that we do not know exactly how much will 
be distributed, and we cannot know because all of these categories are 
not purely by a distribution, and there is still an inequity because no 
State should be getting that much more than some other States, and the 
inequities that show up here are bad; but I do not think that we can be 
at all certain that moving another $450 million is not going to tip the 
scales beyond what most of us would then think was going to be fair.
  This is a case where what the chairman and the ranking member have 
been doing is moving in a right direction, it needs to be moved more; 
but I have not yet seen the formula that would show that what is going 
to come out of the result of this amendment being proposed would 
actually be better and whether we may have tipped beyond where it needs 
to go to be reasonably fair to everyone. So I think we ought to allow 
the chairman and the ranking member to continue to improve these 
formulas.
  Mr. SHERWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words. I rise against the amendment. My district is 150 miles from New 
York City. I grew up at 16 years old driving trucks across the George 
Washington Bridge. I understand what the infrastructure is to the East, 
and I understand also a little bit about the threat. But this formula 
has been pretty carefully worked out on population and threat. If you 
are going to take $450 million away from the rest of the country and 
give it to metropolitan New York, how are you going to do that? You 
would have to take $35 million away from California. You would have to 
take $4 million away from the District of Columbia. I think that this 
is probably one of the high-threat areas. You would have to take $15 
million away from Illinois. I think Chicago is probably a pretty high-
threat area. You would have to take $14.75 away from my home State of 
Pennsylvania. On and on and on and on.

                              {time}  2340

  This thing has been worked out. I admire the pluck of my friends from 
New York to try to get the money for what they think they need it but 
the whole country needs the money. The sheet that shows us where the 
$450 million will come from will be on the table.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  I think the debate has given the impression to my colleagues that 
this is an isolated regional question. But I think the reason why the 
Sweeney amendment has legs and maybe might run across the finish line 
is because it does comport with good sense and reasonableness, and, 
frankly, I think the amendment really addresses what most Members would 
understand as the very defining question of terrorism. Terrorism is 
threat, is where we are most threatened but it is also where it may 
ultimately impact the individuals who may be subjected to terrorism.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I think it is important to note that as I 
understand the formula in the amendment, it would allow those cities 
that can be determined to have the greater threat or areas to be able 
to apply for those dollars and to receive them based upon that threat 
analysis.
  Might I simply share with my colleagues that the President's budget 
request requested nearly \1/2\ of $1 billion more for the high threat 
urban areas than the bill currently funds. In addition, I think it is 
worthy of noting that the authorizing committee for the Department of 
Homeland Security, a committee of which I am a member, who happens to 
have authored in a bipartisan manner H.R. 3266, the Faster and Smarter 
Funding for First Responders Act of 2003, followed the threat analysis 
because we found in hearings that that was the most sophisticated but 
the most balanced way of addressing security in the Nation.
  In an article in the Houston Chronicle on April 9, 2003, Houston 
finds itself as number seven on the vulnerability list. There may be 
other cities. We happen to be the home of many refineries. Other cities 
may have other unique and special needs. Seattle was a city on the list 
because it had been subjected to a terrorist attack around the turn of 
the century. If we reflect on where we have heard threats in the last 2 
years since 2001, we would note that there were incidences in Los 
Angeles, there is constant chatter and incidences here in Washington, 
DC, and certainly as noted by my colleagues from New York, there are 
incidences there. There may be others. But obviously a terrorist 
desires to not only destroy but to intimidate, and symbols give them a 
greater leverage of intimidation. The symbols in New York, the oil 
industry in Houston, the symbols in Los Angeles and other cities 
similarly situated.
  Last November Secretary Ridge said he is willing to base as much as 
half of the grant money DHS distributes to State and local governments 
on a formula that includes threat analysis. In testimony before the 
House Committee on Appropriations, a statement was made: ``We at the 
Department believe that more of the overall funds available to State 
and local governments need to be distributed using the risks

[[Page 12958]]

or consequence based formula of population density, presence, and 
vulnerability of critical infrastructure of national significance and 
credible threats.'' That leads us to believe that larger cities are the 
most vulnerable as it relates to terrorism.
  So I would simply suggest that this is not a question of 
reasonableness and isolationism and pointing to one area over another. 
This is a comprehensive understanding that we are one America and that 
when we secure large cities, it is securing rural and villages and 
smaller cities and other places that may not be the recipient of as 
large a share of these funds.
  Documentation suggests that threat analysis is important, and one of 
the major issues when we begin to discuss the issues of Department of 
Homeland Security is whether or not we have done an entire assessment 
of the needs of this country. I do not believe we have yet completed 
that task to assess the threat all over the country, but what the 
intelligence shows us is that these major cities with major symbols are 
extremely vulnerable. I would hope that my colleagues would look warmly 
on this amendment and responsibly because frankly I believe that if we 
ignore intelligence that we are seeking to improve, then we ignore the 
purpose of homeland security, to secure the homeland where the threat 
is. The threat is in large cities. Houston happens to be one. This is 
not a regional question. This is an American question.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the distinguished chairman of the 
subcommittee.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding to me.
  I just want to point out to the gentlewoman from Texas that under 
this amendment the State of Texas would lose $23.5 million.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, this debate has been 
dominated by one side, and I think we need to have everyone have a 
chance to air their feelings here.
  We are arguing over $450 million and who is going to get the bulk of 
that money. Four hundred and fifty million dollars is not going to 
protect New York City from another attack. If Members want to put the 
money into where it is going to do the best good, then put it into our 
intelligence system because that is where they are going to understand 
where the next threat is coming from. When we understand where the 
threat comes from, then we can deal with it. If we want to put the 
money into a capability, we need that kind of a capability to respond 
to the kind of threat that we saw on September 11.
  Perhaps if we had done back in the 1990s more in this body and not 
cut the legs off our intelligence community when we stopped the CIA 
from using those sources that, in fact, were considered to be tied in 
with corruption, we would have been better able to understand where the 
emerging threats were coming from.
  Mr. Chairman, I think it is unfortunate that we say that this money 
going to cities will protect them. I was in the Trade Center the day 
after the disaster occurred and I was down at ground zero. Did I see 
all of New York's people there? Yes. But I saw urban search and rescue 
teams from Delaware, from New Jersey, from Pennsylvania. I saw them 
there from Michigan. I saw them there from Georgia. Twenty-two urban 
search and rescue teams came from all over America to assist New York 
because New York could not handle it.
  The fact is, Mr. Chairman, as a Nation if we are going to deal with 
threats, we must deal with them from a national perspective, not based 
on one city or one particular urban area.
  Mr. Chairman, on January 28, 1975, I was the assistant fire chief in 
a town of 5,000 people. On that night we had the largest incident in 
America. Two ships collided, killed 29 people, and burned out of 
control for 3 days, $100 million of property damage. According to this 
standard, that will never happen in a small area. It will only happen 
in a big city. For us to try to argue over how we can split up $450 
million, and my district borders Philadelphia, by only giving it to the 
inner-city urban areas I think is wrong.
  I think the chairman has done a good job with the ranking member, and 
I support the chairman's mark and oppose the amendment.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, this debate could go on a long 
time. I ask unanimous consent that all debate end after 10 minutes, 
that the time be controlled by the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo) 
and this gentleman.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, those are decisions that are at a higher pay 
level than mine, and I have to object.
  The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.

                              {time}  2350

  Mr. TURNER of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I will be brief. I want to say I think we have all seen 
the pitfalls tonight of these formula-based funding formulas that 
divide this House along regional, urban, and rural lines.
  I want to mention something that the gentleman from Kentucky 
(Chairman Rogers) mentioned early in this debate, and that is that 
there is a better way to do this, and it is contained in legislation 
that the gentleman from California (Chairman Cox) and I have 
cosponsored that came out of the Select Committee on Homeland Security 
unanimously, that went through the Committee on Energy and Commerce, 
the Committee on Transportation and the Committee on the Judiciary. It 
also is reaffirmed by the language the gentleman from Kentucky 
(Chairman Rogers) placed in this bill. And that is to say that we ought 
to have one grant fund that is distributed to establish and to fund 
what we call the essential capabilities that every State, every 
community, and every region needs to prepare and defend against a 
terrorist attack.
  That process of establishing essential capabilities would end the 
debate we are having tonight. The essential capabilities would be 
determined based on the threat and vulnerability information that this 
Congress already has required in the Homeland Security Act that the 
Homeland Security Department prepared.
  If we did that, we would have a road map. Tonight we are flying by 
the seat of our pants. We do not know what the real needs are to defend 
this country.
  The establishment of essential capabilities would give us that road 
map, we would know how much progress we would make, we would know what 
the measures, the metrics, the standards are we are trying to achieve, 
and it would end the kind of debate we are having to have tonight.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge Members when that bill hopefully comes to the 
floor that we adopt it, that we agree unanimously that the right way to 
defend America is to be sure that we develop essential capabilities for 
every community in America based on the real threats and 
vulnerabilities that this Nation faces.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I have before me dueling charts about this amendment. 
If you believe this chart that the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Sweeney) has put out, my State is disadvantaged by the bill before us. 
If you believe this chart that the distinguished subcommittee chairman 
of the appropriations subcommittee has put out, my State is 
disadvantaged by the amendment of the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Sweeney).
  Now, both of the gentleman's charts are honorable. So this is a 
question literally that is a 50/50 question, and they are both right.
  The debate that we have had tonight is one of those debates that 
reminds me of the Founding Fathers' debate when we were putting our 
Constitution together, because you had the rural States that thought 
everything should be done on a State basis, the little States; and then 
you had the urban States that thought everything should be done on a 
population basis. The result was the Great Compromise, where the House 
of Representatives is based

[[Page 12959]]

on population and the Senate is based on each State gets two votes.
  Now, earlier tonight one of the members of my committee, the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Fossella), rose and made a point of order 
on part of this bill that had a funding formula that was legislating on 
an appropriations bill for about $3.4 billion, and that point of order 
was sustained.
  As the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner) has pointed out and the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) has pointed out, the chairman and 
the ranking member of the Select Committee on Homeland Security, their 
committee and the committee that I chair, the Committee on Energy and 
Commerce, have reported a first responder bill that is waiting to come 
to the floor.
  So the vote on this is really a coin flip. But in this case, I think 
we should go with the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from 
Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), and oppose the Sweeney amendment, knowing that 
between now and conference with the other body, we are going to have to 
come up with a formula similar to the one that our Founding Fathers did 
with the Great Compromise between the big States and the little States, 
where we have a pool of money that is based on one man-one vote, and 
then we have another pool that is based on need with some sort of a 
grant application process. I am going to work on that from the 
authorization level, and I know many others are willing to.
  So I think this is really one of those debates where both sides are 
going to win, because the ultimate result is going to be a formula that 
is different than the current formula. But for this vote tonight, I 
urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment offered by my good friend, the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney).
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, while I objected to a time limit a short time ago, let 
me suggest that if only those Members that had something unique and new 
to say chose to speak, we might be able to vote fairly soon.
  Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I think that the gentleman from Kentucky (Chairman 
Rogers) has struck a pretty darn good balance in this bill.
  I oppose the amendment. I am originally from New York, and one of the 
things that I learned is when New York City gets involved, the rest of 
the State at that time suffers. According to the chart by the gentleman 
from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), Florida would lose $18.7 million. We cannot 
afford to lose that because of all the ports that we have, because of 
the water supply, certainly because of our agricultural interests.
  Let me share with you that I represent a district that also has a 
nuclear power plant. If you do not think that those former New Yorkers 
who live near that power plant or who want their water supply protected 
do not deserve the same protection as New Yorkers, I am sorry, that is 
not what those of us who come from rural areas got elected to 
represent.
  I think that the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) has struck a 
great balance here. Obviously, this is something that will be 
conferenced, and I would urge a ``no'' vote against my good friend and 
current New Yorker from a former New Yorker, the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Sweeney).
  Mr. ROTHMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I am from the Garden State of New Jersey, from which 
most of the people who came to rescue the people in the burning towers 
came, from the place where the victims of 9/11 were transported to 
Liberty Island, to be triaged and cared for, where we have four nuclear 
power plants, chemical plants, two tunnels to New York City, several 
bridges to New York City, et cetera.
  I would like to commend the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from 
Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), for making extraordinary progress from where we 
were before this bill was written; and I acknowledge his good faith and 
sincere effort in moving in the right direction. And I know that it is 
very difficult to balance the equities and the interests of all 
concerned.
  However, it is 3 years, Mr. Chairman, since 9/11, 3 years, when every 
State in the Union has gotten some money for their homeland security. 
The question is, whether now, 3 years later, we have waited long enough 
for the largest portion of moneys that go out on this homeland security 
bill, whether they are given to those areas that are most at risk and 
that are most targeted by the terrorists.
  How many years do we have to wait before we get to 100 percent? We 
are at 90 percent with this bill, 92 percent. Do you think the 
terrorists are going to wait several years before they arrive at the 
likely places where they have said they are going to hit and which are 
underfunded by the present bill?
  Finally, let me comment on my distinguished subcommittee chairman's 
chart, which we had the good fortune of discussing at the Committee on 
Appropriations markup. I believe that nothing has changed in the 
finding, and please correct me. The distinguished subcommittee 
chairman's chart that shows the amount of money per State that a State 
would lose if this amendment were approved does not tell, with respect, 
the full story.

                              {time}  0000

  It says we are where everyone would begin when the risk assessments 
would then take place. So, for example, under the distinguished 
subcommittee chairman's list, the particular dollar figure for your 
State does not tell you what your State will get after the risk 
assessment occurs.
  Now, if you have a State that has a lot of targets, you have nothing 
to worry about, because the same folks in this administration who have 
made the judgments about the nature and the level of the risk will be 
deciding, with the same criteria, on these extra funds.
  I guess if you do not have any significant risks compared to the 
other States and regions, then you will suffer a loss. But with respect 
to the gentleman from Kentucky (Chairman Rogers)'s list, it does not 
tell you what you are going to end up with after the risk assessment.
  Again, I want to congratulate the subcommittee chairman and all of 
those who worked so hard to move this bill as far as it has come, but 
it needs to go further. We have waited long enough, and the terrorists 
are not going to wait 2 or 3 years before we get to 100 percent.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to oppose the 
amendments offered by my colleagues from New York.
  The amendments that they have offered would significantly increase 
the likelihood a terrorist incident occurring outside of a major 
metropolitan area will have disastrous effects.
  This funding is not solely intended for security to prevent a terror 
attack, but also for preparedness, in case an event happens.
  Terrorism can happen anywhere. That is why we must be prepared 
everywhere.
  Allocating these funds solely on the risk of terror is just robbing 
Peter to pay Paul. Large cities and metropolitan areas will be safe and 
prepared, but nobody else will.
  We have heard a parade of members that would benefit from a risk of 
terrorism only allocation. If this allocation basis is adopted, and a 
terrorist attacks your community, what will you tell them, I'm sorry we 
weren't prepared, but it's okay, because a few big cities are?
  Providing for a State minimum allocation is the only way to ensure 
that every community is prepared.
  I urge all of my colleagues to think very carefully before supporting 
these amendments, and to think about what such an allocation would mean 
if they do not represent a large metropolitan area or have significant 
critical infrastructure. Most members of this body do not, and 
therefore most members' districts will not be prepared under this 
scheme.
  The Transportation Committee has put forward a proposal that does not 
require this false choice, between providing for national preparedness 
and providing preparedness for a select few.
  When this proposal is considered during the normal legislative 
process, I urge my colleagues to support this alternative, which 
prepares everyone for terror attacks.
  Oppose these amendments that leave most communities unprepared for 
terror attacks.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney).

[[Page 12960]]

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


        Sequential Votes Postponed in the Committee of the Whole

  The CHAIRMAN. 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 No. 17 offered by Mr. 
DeFazio of Oregon, and Amendment No. 3 offered by Mr. Sweeney of New 
York.
  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for the second electronic 
vote.


                Amendment No. 17 Offered by Mr. DeFazio

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on Amendment No. 17 offered by the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) 
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. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 180, 
noes 228, not voting 25, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 265]

                               AYES--180

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Becerra
     Bell
     Berkley
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carson (OK)
     Case
     Chandler
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gonzalez
     Green (TX)
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hayworth
     Herseth
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley (OR)
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lynch
     Majette
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Skelton
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner (TX)
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Wilson (NM)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NOES--228

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burr
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carson (IN)
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole
     Collins
     Cox
     Cramer
     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
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kilpatrick
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Olver
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Saxton
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--25

     Ballenger
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Clay
     DeMint
     Dicks
     Dooley (CA)
     Gephardt
     Gordon
     Goss
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Isakson
     Johnson, Sam
     Lipinski
     Murtha
     Neal (MA)
     Nethercutt
     Pickering
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Stark
     Tauzin
     Waxman
     Young (AK)


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised that there are 2 
minutes remaining in this vote.

                              {time}  0025

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


                 Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Sweeney

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney) 
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. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 171, 
noes 237, not voting 25, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 266]

                               AYES--171

     Ackerman
     Akin
     Andrews
     Baca
     Becerra
     Bell
     Berkley
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bonilla
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown, Corrine
     Burgess
     Calvert
     Cantor
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carter
     Chabot
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cox
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Tom
     Delahunt
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dingell
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Flake
     Foley
     Ford
     Fossella
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Greenwood
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harris
     Hinchey
     Hoeffel
     Holt
     Honda
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hyde
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jones (OH)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kilpatrick
     King (NY)
     Kirk
     Kline
     Kolbe
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Lee
     Lewis (GA)
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     McCarthy (MO)

[[Page 12961]]


     McCarthy (NY)
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reynolds
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Sherman
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Solis
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Walsh
     Watson
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wynn

                               NOES--237

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Allen
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burns
     Burr
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Camp
     Cannon
     Capito
     Capps
     Cardoza
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Case
     Castle
     Chandler
     Chocola
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cole
     Collins
     Cramer
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Doggett
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Forbes
     Franks (AZ)
     Frost
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth
     Hill
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hooley (OR)
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inslee
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kildee
     Kind
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Knollenberg
     Kucinich
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Majette
     Manzullo
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pastor
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Ross
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Shaw
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Turner (OH)
     Turner (TX)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden (OR)
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watt
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wu
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--25

     Ballenger
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Clay
     DeMint
     Dicks
     Dooley (CA)
     Gephardt
     Gordon
     Goss
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Isakson
     Johnson, Sam
     Lipinski
     Murtha
     Neal (MA)
     Nethercutt
     Pickering
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Stark
     Tauzin
     Waxman
     Young (AK)


                      Announcement by the Chairman

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

                              {time}  0033

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


                          personal explanation

  Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, personal reasons prevent me from being 
present for legislative business scheduled for today, Thursday, June 
17, 2004. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on ordering the 
previous question (rollcall No. 256); ``no'' on H. Res. 681, a rule 
providing for consideration of H.R. 4520 (rollcall No. 257); ``aye'' on 
the motion offered by Mr. Rangel to recommit the bill H.R. 4520 
(rollcall No. 258); ``no'' on final passage of H.R. 4520 (rollcall No. 
259); ``aye'' on approving the Journal (rollcall No. 260); ``aye'' on 
the amendment to H.R. 4568 offered by Mr. Hinchey (rollcall No. 261); 
``aye'' on the amendment to H.R. 4568 offered by Mr. Sanders (rollcall 
No. 262); ``aye'' on the amendment to H.R. 4568 offered by Mr. Holt 
(rollcall No. 263); and ``aye'' on final passage of H.R. 4568 (rollcall 
No. 264).
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do 
now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Garrett of New Jersey) having assumed the chair, Mr. Gillmor, Chairman 
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, had 
come to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________